Complaint Review: Taoti Enterprises

SUMMARY

Bilaal is a graduate student that took the semester off to start a small business. The business is a comprehensive online daybook for DC area events that are of a political, economic, or cultural nature. He drafted a detailed layout of the website and a small business plan. The next step involved finding a web developer that would insure a high quality product and would involve Bilaal throughout the development process.

Bilaal signs a contract with Taoti Enterprises on the promise of receiving a high quality product, regular involvement, flexible payment terms, and an unconditional guarantee. The contract is highly ambiguous and states only strict payment terms with nothing regarding guarantees, payment, or involvement.

Bilaal requests involvement through the early period of the design process. Mr Lightner indicates that involvement would yield excessive delays.

Bilaal backs down from requesting involvement, but excessive delays well beyond the spirit of the deadline result.

UNMET BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS
Mr Lightner makes open promises that he does not deliver on or detail in the contract. On areas regarding payment terms, locality and interaction of development team, the client's involvement, deadlines, and guarantees he has failed to follow through on his stated intentions.

The work completed is adequate because it has been done to the exact specifications laid out by Bilaal. There is nothing to suggest that Taoti provides consultation and "over-delivers" as indicated in its website and has, in fact, delivered the lowest expectations possible.

Examples:
Brent: "I appreciate the chance you're taking on us and really respect the decision you've made to spend significantly more money to get things done right the first time. I assure you we won't let you down!" (via email 6/25/04)

Stated in contract: "If you require a specific launch date or other sorts of deadlines we are happy to oblige given enough advance notice."

Bilaal: "Do you develop a schedule and set up deadlines? If so, should we allocate a specific time where I can come by regularly to check on progress and provide feedback?" (via email 7/6/04)

Brent: "I don't think deadlines are necessary because a lot of this stuff will simply depend on how many revisions it takes, etc. But if you feel timing becomes an issue, let me know and we can try to set some more solid deadlines." (via email 7/6/04)

Bilaal: "I'm not looking for anything too rigid with specific deadlines, simply the comfort of knowing that 'we're on schedule' for our intended target" (via email 7/6/04)

Bilaal: "...I want things to be handled with minimum ambiguities and open promises... maintaining an honest relationship where obligations are met with expectations..." (via email 8/18/04)

EXCESSIVE DELAYS
Initially a 6-8 week period was promised by Mr Lightner. After a few delays a timeline for October 8th (latest) was provided. Thereafter Mr Lightner states that the project will be finished "well before" a November deadline. A revised timeline provided at the end of October indicates an expected launch between Nov 30th and Dec 15th. After complaints the best that Taoti offers is a Thanksgiving deadline with a product that still needs to undergo a testing phase.

Examples:
Brent: Initial response to proposal: "Time-wise it's probably a 6-8 week project depending on how quickly you want to move. We can be pretty flexible on timing if need be." (via email 6/16/04)

Contract indicates:
"Tentative production schedule" which shows dates that "are NOT deadlines".
"Functional Site Launch" in 45 business days

POOR SERVICE
Mr Lightner offers Bilaal that he can be involved as little or as much as he wants. He then suggests that involvement would yield micromanagement and unnecessary delays. Altogether seven updates were provided within a four month period; among these one was actually substantial while the rest were a series of cryptic details with no context. Bilaal makes concessions on areas of payment and limited involvement in hopes of maintaining a positive relationship with Mr Lightner. On the other hand, Mr Lightner offers no significant concessions despite acknowledging mistakes.

Examples:
Bilaal: "I would like the development of this site to proceed in a participatory manner where I am directly involved in working with the team that is developing the code." (via project RFC email sent 6/14/04)

Brent: "In terms of participation, you can have as much or as little interaction as you want. You of course would be the one to approve everything we do (all the deliverables)." (via email 6/16/04)

Bilaal: "I would like to go over the nuts and bolts of the site...I would like to find out what your expectations are and what information I can provide to accommodate the developer while also serving my specific interests." (via email 8/17/04)

Brent: "...we don't really need anything from you right now...It's far more efficient to let them do their thing based on the scope of the work, and then go back and refine and tune as necessary... I don't want to discourage you from coming iin, but at the same time, I don't want to waste anyone's time or slow down the process for the sake of having a meeting." (via email 8/18/04)

Bilaal: "I've had some reservations about my lack of involvement...I chose your company for two reasons: you provided a detailed response after looking carefully over my proposal and you were a local company that I could work with on a continual basis. Right now I feel like I'm out of the loop and the latter benefit was only on a couple of occasions."

BAIT-AND-SWITCH DECEPTION
Mr Lightner's website makes grand promises of complete honesty and no hype. His homepage states an unconditional guarantee with a 100% refund if the client is unhappy for any reason. Within the site, the guarantee turns out to be valid only within the first phase of the project, after that period all work will be provided corresponding to the payment
phase. The reality is an even greater deviation. Mr Lightner will not provide all the work done up to the amount paid; he wants Bilaal to pay more.

Examples:
Taoti website states "unconditional guarantee", "total honesty", "never hype". Discrepancy exists within the website. (see website printouts)

Bilaal indicates reservations of working with an off-site team despite the cost benefits. Brent does not indicate that his developer is based off-site in Utah. (meeting 6/18/04)

Brent's Response to proposal (pre-contract): "We do offer a money back guarantee, so if you give us a shot and end up disagreeing, you get your money back and can take your business elsewhere with no financial loss and experience gained." (via email 6/16/04)

LOSS OF BUSINESS
Bilaal is funding this endeavor by chasing in his life insurance policy. He has placed considerable risk in this business and spent more in hopes that if done right properly, it will yield a greater chance of success. Already, Mr Lightner has $10,000 of Bilaal's money. In return, Bilaal has not received the work corresponding to the amount that has already been paid, despite promises in the company's guarantee policy. The loss of this money and time spent on this project will be a huge detriment to Bilaal's prospects of starting his own business.

BELLIGERANCE
Bilaal has emphasized the need to maintain honesty and has shown commitment to having a sound relationship with Mr Lightner in order to ensure a quality product. He has agreed to Mr Lightner's requests despite the fact that they go against what was initially promised to Bilaal. In return, Mr Lightner has not shown an effort to reciprocate despite admitting to several mistakes. When Bilaal first voiced dissatisfaction with the excessive delays, Mr Lightner was not understanding and at times even belligerent and pressuring. When the idea of bringing the case to court was offered, Mr Lightner indicated that Bilaal case, as compelling as it seems, would not hold and that his lawyer had a reason that Bilaal was looking for an excuse to break out of the arrangement.

Bilaal
Arlington, Virginia
U.S.A.