Outsourcing Gone Bad (What Went Wrong I)

Outsourcing Gone Bad (What Went Wrong I)

If you haven’t already, register a username for yourself so you can discuss this topic in our Outsourcing Mistakes forum.

Perusing the Internet, I stumbled upon the following complaint about the RentACoder service. RentACoder is one of the safest places to outsource on the Internet, so when I run across something that disputes that fact, I get interested (especially since I know the integrity of RentACoder prevents it from making embarrassing mistakes).

Here’s the complaint in question. Let’s see what went wrong.

The Complaint

The Analysis

• The first red flag I see in this complaint is the worker’s admission that he had a full-time job. I have no way of verifying the worker’s status from this complaint, but I suspect the employer who hired him knew the worker’s availability status prior to hiring him. Had the employer discovered this information after hiring him, he probably would have referenced that in the same time-frame of the worker “taking on other jobs.” My apologies if this is incorrect.

  Nevertheless, take this as a lesson learned. In our book, we recommend that outsourcers interested in hiring someone for a large or lengthy project refrain from working with busy service providers. Building a suitable website isn’t a weekend project, and despite the provider being foolish enough to take on this type of work while working a full-time job, the employer should have had serious doubts about his ability to comply, and therefore, hired someone else.

• The second red flag I see is that the employer had to repeatedly correct the provider’s work after noticing the provider couldn’t perform faster. There are a couple of things here worth noting. One, the cost of the project isn’t mentioned. Two, RentACoder projects costing over $150 are subject to weekly status reports. Each status report should indicate a project’s progress or reach some milestone. I can’t imagine anyone building a website for less than $150, so for the sake of a sane analysis, let’s assume a) the contract paid more than that, and b) the project was, consequently, subject to weekly status reports. In this case, it was the employer’s responsibility to put the brakes on this project and haul it to arbitration for insufficient progress.
  
• The third red flag indicates the project labored on for almost three months after the worker supposedly stated the project would only take 15 days to complete. At first look, it appears the worker broke the contract by not fulfilling his promise to build the website within 15 days. And that certainly would have been the case had the employer not continued to work with him. But because the employer voluntarily worked with the provider past 15 days, the employer modified the implied 15-day contract to seemingly end when the website was finally finished. “When a project is finished” is not an appropriate deadline, and employers who want to enforce their rights must be careful not to breach existing contracts. Follow the rules, stick to your guns, and your chances of rightfully winning an arbitration case are increased.
• It’s extremely hard to tell from the complaint, but it almost sounds as if the employer in this case submitted his own flaw list of some sort. That’s not allowed. During arbitration, RentACoder distributes its own flaw list form to be completed and returned by both the employer and the worker. It’s impossible to “lose” a flaw list form because there’s always a copy of it on the arbitration page. So I’m not clear what the employer is describing here.

  If the employer is saying he lost of copy of the flaw list he downloaded and completed from RentACoder, he could have easily re-downloaded a fresh copy of the flaw list, completed it, and resubmitted it. You can see for yourself through this link, which describes RentACoder’s complete arbitration process.

• The employer goes on to say that he “certified the flaws on the report,” but no one except RentACoder can “certify” a flaw (or verify a flaw, if that’s what the employer is trying to convey). Employers and workers can’t verify flaws because they’re not 3rd parties. RentACoder is the 3rd party in an arbitration, so a lot in this complaint doesn’t seem to make much sense after this point. In any case, RentACoder deemed the employer to be in default, which seems to indicate the employer refused to comply with RentACoder’s request to perhaps, upload a legitimate flaw list? Respond within the required 3 – 5 days? Hard to tell, as the employer is not admitting his own mistakes here.

  RentACoder additionally awarded the project’s funds to the worker, which also indicates the worker submitted a website that wasn’t “significantly incomplete” as the employer claimed, but satisfactory to the RentACoder arbitrator for whatever amount was paid.

There are a lot of assumptions we could make about this situation, but we have to look at the facts. Unfortunately, the facts paint a rather irresponsible picture of this employer:

• 1.  The employer hired a worker already committed to a full-time job.
• 2. The employer noticed the provider couldn’t perform at an expected rate, yet continued to work with him.
• 3. The employer continued to work with the worker after a 15-day commitment.
• 4. The employer failed to comply with the rules of arbitration.

These activities exemplify what can go wrong with an outsourcing project. Take heed of the consequences so that you don’t make the same mistakes and suffer from the same results.