Wall and Associates, LLC

[redacted] terminated contract months after website was launched and working without a single complaint from website commercial customers, solely due to our unwillingness to continue making changes to completed and working website The website that we built and launched is still being used As stated in #of the complaint, the overall engagement lasted longer than initially planned, so it it not clear why we were continuously engaged on the project and the final product of that engagement is still being used as live website if contract was not honored by us from the beginning, as stated in the complaint> > [redacted] continuously changed and redefined scope of work for the duration of the project> > Initial build of the website was delivered on time, prolonged engagement was directly related to modifications requested by [redacted] > > As #of the complaint does not state the other "either", we cannot comment on this point of the complaint> > The client was indeed asked to review all work, including ongoing modifications All work and modifications were tested by us; as [redacted] kept making multiple revisions to the same website functionality and getting confused on how the website functionality was supposed to perform, this led to unsubstantiated accusations of faulty workmanship> > The contract made no representation of website technology being reliable for years into the future, as stated in the complaint Website was built in PHP which is a branch of current stable version of PHP programming language - version - with most recent release for PHP branch dated as [redacted] August 2014, right before the start of our engagement on this project This conforms to contract stipulation of using "latest stable version of PHP" We also used current stable release of MySQL database, specific version of MySQL database to be used on this website was not stated in the contract Neither version of PHP or MySQL that were used are being depreciated in the immediate future, as incorrectly implied in the complaint> > The website we built used code to ensure against SQL injections and there were no SQL injections on the website while we were engaged on the project Any attempts to connect security issues on [redacted] desktop home computer and search functionality on the website are unsubstantiated> > [redacted] refused to substantiate multiple change requests by references to original artwork, project technical specification or contract as basis for these changes and the reason the contract was terminated by [redacted] was due to our unwillingness to continue making changes to completed website without these changes being substantiated> > In addition to refuting original complaint, we would like to point out that [redacted] did not honor payment schedule as stipulated in the contract, missing payments linked to website launch [redacted] also made changes to live website after terminating contract with OSS We bear no responsibility for any issues on the live website as contract termination by [redacted] voids any warranty on the work we did We will not be providing any refunds

This is a follow up response from Off-Site Services to response from *** ***Per our earlier response, #”The contract made no representation of website technology being reliable for years into the future, as stated in the complaint.” This is a repeated misrepresentation being made by *** ***Per our earlier response, #“Website was built in PHP which is a branch of current stable version of PHP programming language - version - with most recent release for PHP branch dated as ** August 2014, right before the start of our engagement on this projectThis conforms to contract stipulation of using ‘latest stable version of PHP’“ Per our earlier response, #“The website we built used code to ensure against SQL injections and there were no SQL injections on the website while we were engaged on the projectAny attempts to connect security issues on *** ***’s desktop home computer and search functionality on the website are unsubstantiated.” Our initial response #were not specifically refuted by *** ***We provided an answer to the question of “temp user” in our Basecamp project management systemWe are not under contractual obligation to disclose full identity of our developersWe can also add and remove developers and clients from our Basecamp project management system solely based on our own discretionThere is not mention of “fast loading and speedy” CMS (content management system) in the contractThat is a misrepresentationDatabase import/export in the CMS is provided via industry standard component from makers of MySQL database software and has all the functionality that comes from manufacturerMaking an accusation that the import/export component does not follow standard industry practices implies that MySQL software does not follow standard industry practices, which is not an accurate representation of MySQL, the world's most popular open source databaseThe contract did not provide for any assistance with configuring desktop computers at any locations, whether by OSS or by 3rd party contracts at the expense of OSSAny issues with managing the website via CMS that are related to specific computer would fall outside the scope of the contractDuplication in the database tables and any other issues with data occur when software provided is used incorrectly or not in accordance with instructions providedAs part of multiple training sessions we stressed the importance of accurately preparing and managing data on the client side when working directly with a database via import/export CMS functionality*** generates standards-compliant code, characterizing it as malfunctioning is a misrepresentationOSS refused to make changes to *** as part of initial build, stating that this would be a modification (additional billable work)Characterizing this as a refusal to make a change is misleadingLicense transfer for *** can only take place after OSS is paid in fullAs stated in our original response, there were two missed payments linked to website launchThe contract stipulated these payment to be linked to date of site launch - " 'live', (online and functioning)" - without any other conditions or qualifiersAs anyone visiting watermark-*** can attest, the site is indeed online and functioning*** *** requested ongoing changes to site functionality during our entire engagement on this project, as stated in our initial response, point #If at any point in time any member of our team was less than professionally courteous toward *** ***, I would like to extend my full apology for those occurrencesPer our earlier response, we will not be providing any refunds

1. [redacted] terminated contract 3 months after website was launched and working without a single complaint from website commercial customers, solely due to our unwillingness to continue making changes to completed and working website.  The website that we built and launched is still being...

used.  As stated in #8 of the complaint, the overall engagement lasted longer than initially planned, so it it not clear why we were continuously engaged on the project and the final product of that engagement is still being used as live website if contract was not honored by us from the beginning, as stated in the complaint. > > 2. [redacted] continuously changed and redefined scope of work for the duration of the project. > > 3. Initial build of the website was delivered on time, prolonged engagement was directly related to modifications requested by [redacted]. > > 4. As #4 of the complaint does not state the other "either", we cannot comment on this point of the complaint. > > 5. The client was indeed asked to review all work, including ongoing modifications.  All work and modifications were tested by us; as [redacted] kept making multiple revisions to the same website functionality and getting confused on how the website functionality was supposed to perform, this led to unsubstantiated accusations of faulty workmanship. > > 6. The contract made no representation of website technology being reliable for 10 years into the future, as stated in the complaint.  Website was built in PHP 5.3 which is a branch of current stable version of PHP programming language - version 5 - with most recent release for PHP 5.3 branch dated as ** August 2014, right before the start of our engagement on this project.  This conforms to contract stipulation of using "latest stable version of PHP".   We also used current stable release of MySQL database, specific version of MySQL database to be used on this website was not stated in the contract.  Neither version of PHP or MySQL that were used are being depreciated in the immediate future, as incorrectly implied in the complaint. > > 7.  The website we built used code to ensure against SQL injections and there were no SQL injections on the website while we were engaged on the project.  Any attempts to connect security issues on [redacted] desktop home computer and search functionality on the website are unsubstantiated. > > 8. [redacted] refused to substantiate multiple change requests by references to original artwork, project technical specification or contract as basis for these changes and the reason the contract was terminated by [redacted] was due to our unwillingness to continue making changes to completed website without these changes being substantiated. > > In addition to refuting original complaint, we would like to point out that [redacted] did not honor payment schedule as stipulated in the contract, missing 2 payments linked to website launch.  [redacted] also made changes to live website after terminating contract with OSS.  We bear no responsibility for any issues on the live website as contract termination by [redacted] voids any warranty on the work we did.  We will not be providing any refunds.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:INTRODUCTION[redacted]
was launched with sub-par
standards, malfunctioning
back-end, CMS, major
issues with database and MYSQL
queries and function calls as well as [redacted]. The was
launched with multiple remaining
issues on the front-end. Functionality is still malfunctioning to this day. I have a list of over 40 remaining issues that were submitted to
Off-Site Services before we terminated agreement.May of
these dated back months before site launch.We were guaranteed
contractually and again in writing prior to site launch that all
back-end ([redacted]) functionality and and front end visuals and function would be
checked by OSS and
guaranteed to be working
seamlessly on all devices and browsers mentioned contractually. Despite
many complaints about their
lack of quality assurance these problems continued until
we terminated AGREEMENT due to BREACH OF CONTRACT. That there was a breach
on several levels can be proved by [redacted], Inc.We are not using the website back-end CMS, MYSQL / EXCEL or CSV
import / export in capacity required.by contract. It is still
malfunctioning on too many serious levels.We can not update the site without problems. Not having a new
website - in the 2 months promised time frame has caused Lynn
Creative's and [redacted] Client serious harm. We need to have a
website for Clients client to view in order for Clients client to do business.The back-end functionality that was provided that did meet
contract requirements. - Used Depreciated PHP LibraryThe entire application
was written using an old PHP library which was marked as depreciated
as of PHP 5.5. Warnings to this effect have been put out by the PHP
team since 2011 way before Off-Site Services began work on
site. That leaves our site obsolete even
before site is launched. We have to rewrite all of that
functionality for our site to
be 
future friendly -next 10 years. AS
STATED IN CONTRACT.- Left [redacted] in risk to SQL INJECTION security exploits.On overview audit – it
seems very
few precautions were taken
to mitigate SQL injection attacks on an excessive amount of (out-dated) MYSQL
QUERIES. We
did have several
instances of security breaches during development and after
site launch that unearthed potential loopholes. Throughout
the project, discussions of site-security were mentioned. We were
given false assurances of security which leaves us today with a vulnerable
website. Off-Site
Services refuses to answer who - TEMP USER was in their BASECAMP
PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUITE. Since all Project Team Members are listed
by name this is odd. When this was mentioned to them - they removed
TEMP USER. I can prove it was there.- We
have an excessive amount of PUBLIC SITE database calls in our FRONT-END
SEARCH. In one discovered case: ~5000
SQL queries on a single keystroke is a recipe for crippling the
server. This
was discovered way before
site
launch and termination
of Off-Site Service services for BREACH. This was
not remedied despite many complaints about sluggishness on both
front and back-end.- THE
CMS and
FRONT-END search is slow
and sluggish. THE
CMS still
remains buggy and there
are serious software malfunctions.Contract
calls for fast loading and speedy.- We
asked for full product data import and export including
related product files–
user friendly. ¼ of the way through the project – when we asked
about it – we got an answer “[redacted].We
made this very clear at the begiinning that being able to do full
product import / export and related product data was the crux of client
requirements. It
is there in the contract and specs. [redacted]  had several conversations with OSS Project Manager before signing
contract. This was why we hired them. Their prices seemed reasonable
to meet all of our requirements. [redacted] has documentation to prove this.Full
product data import / export including product relationships was
finally provided – but implementation
is fraught with issues and id=s still seriously malfunctioning.
No STANDARD INDUSTRY PROCEDURES  OR PRACTICES  were taken to mitigate problems on client import / export either in
the CMS or via MYSQL / EXCEL – leaving the database extremely vulnerable to corruption.- Client
can not use import / export on more than one office computer. We were
told by OSS that solving problems with their software on clients
network was not their core capacity. When we offered to send in
experts at their expense they balked. That finally got them going, And after 4 months client
was able
to get it to somewhat work on ASSEMBLIES table on
one client computer – however
there remain major problems due to software malfunction not client error. Duplication
in the database tables - OSS
created this issue as a work around to fix user friendliness issues - this
implementation has all through the project and is still continuing to
cause major issues. CK
Editor is malfunctioning. OSS
refused to fix it. A lot of time wasted in conversations  trying to
get them to fix. Instead of doing their own checking and quality
assurrance – I had to provide multiple excessive videos, images and
written explanations of obvious issues. There is no Official
license that I can see for [redacted] or [redacted]. Official License was
promised.Changes
were made to critical site
functionality without consulting Client Project Manager. Off-Site
Services Project Manager was rude and not forthcoming with
information when Client Project Manager asked or when Client Project
Manager made requests.[redacted] did
not make multiple change requests to original artwork. Several
changes were made to compensate for Off-Site Services lack of compliance to contract obligations and roject
specs, sub-standard un user friendly implementations and back-end malfunction. .Artwork changes were minor as is usual in
any project. Warnings in contract stated that not all layouts were completed
and that if OSS needed any more layouts - along those lines, they
should ask prior to beginning work. Front-end work came to [redacted] malfunctioning.  I have
screen shots stemming from project start to back this up. Front-end
errors were so obvious, it was clear inadequate testing was done
before work was submitted to [redacted]. This caused Lynn
Creative excessive work to do Off-Site Services job and severe
ongoing financial loss. Despite multiple notices and complaints to
Off-Site Services during the project for them to do Quality
Assurance before submitting both front and back-end work – this was
not done.We have plenty of written, visual and video-taped evidence to back
this statement up.[redacted] made no major changes to website after launch. Only to change passwords upon termination of OSS services
due to BREACH OF CONTRACT. Only to back-up database and files with
Off-Site Services  full knowledge and consent. Only to make a minor text change
in order to protect Watermark Designs reputation.[redacted] has database and file backups going back to site
launch. So all of my statements can be verified. [redacted] has
video, image and text files to back up all statements herein.We did not meet last payment schedule due to continually
malfunctioning website back-end and front-end.  We finally decided to exercise
our options under BREACH in contract terms and have another party
remedy malfunctions and bring the site up to standards. Contract
states Off-Site Services in case of their breach – they will pay
any overages.I have in addition a list of many other issues submitted to OSS before termination. They did not act in good faith. I will say that an attempt was made by OSS to remedy several front-end issues before we declared breach. That seemed to be the honorable attempt by one OSS employee.Unfortunately, I can not say that about what makes this website tick! To bring the site up to standards and remedy malfunctions will cost us in excess of 20,000.00
Sincerely,
[redacted]