… keeps “suggesting” “editorial” changes to your report that would make a fundamental difference in the conclusions/recommendations of your report?
Without going into too much detail here - we have a client who wants very much to avoid mitigation of certain environmental impacts. We have tried to make clear, repeatedly, that given the current situation there is no way that mitigation can be avoided, but that with appropriate planning an acceptable compromise could be reached that would not cost that much money, relatively speaking.
The prime consultant for the client (we are sub-consultants) has been strenuously trying, at the request of the client, to get us to modify the wording of our report so that it appears more work has already been completed than has actually been done, in the name of not spending any more money at all.
There is a state agency responsible for reviewing all the reports, and they will know right away (once they read the description of work completed) that this additional work was not done. My company has a good relationship with the reviewers at this agency, and we do not want them to think we have become one of the hacks in this field (sadly, there are plenty) who say what the client wants in exchange for a quick buck.
How do you handle situations like this, short of resorting to lawyers? Any tips are greatly appreciated.
I work in the same field as you, and know that you absolutely cannot change the text to reflect what the client wants. The liability would all be yours, and you don’t want to deal with that if anybody ever gets sick from the contaminated site.
Has the Client specifically told you what to do? If not, I would probably ignore it. Hints can often be ignored without repercussion (note: I’m a grunt, not a project manager. I don’t do sales.). If the Client is specifically saying to change text to reflect an untruth, you will have to stand strong and refuse. You don’t want to get a reputation for trying to pull something on your regulators. They’ll make your life miserable forever.
Well, thankfully we are dealing with cultural resources and not something that would have a bearing on health issues. We have also had clients less pushy about such “requests” - we’ve looked at it as more of an opportunity to educate the client about the steps that are required, and we’ve been able to resolve those matters without too much difficulty.
In this case, the prime consultant for the client has been telling us exactly what they want changed in the text - “say this this way, remove these paragraphs altogether…” - and they are adamant. It’s pretty ballsy, IMHO, and remarkably short-sighted, given that this mucking around with the reports stands to cost their client a lot more money in terms of delays when the state agency kicks back the report.
I have been trying to handle this via email as much as possible so that there is a written record of my communications. In fact I sent another email this morning saying we won’t modify our report… and it triggered a pissed-off voice mail about 2 minutes later. Gonna be another long day ahead. sigh
Is there any way you can record or save your voice messages? Maybe to your computer’s hard drive? It would be nice to have a record of al communications.
sunfish, I’ve been in that situation myself. State agencies have a remarkable ability to see through the BS that us consultants like to put into reports, and no amount of smoke and mirrors will convince them that they should issue an NFR when the requisite amount of work hasn’t been done.
If you truly feel that you can’t modify the text to meet what the client wants, and there’s no more ‘give’ room in the verbage, then IMHO you need to tell the client flat-out (again) that you do not feel comfortable wording the report in the way they want and let the chips fall where they may. Hopefully this won’t result in the loss of business or anything from this client, but I’ve learned that sometimes it’s worth the loss of one client to avoid being put into a sketchy situation.
I’ve done a bit of environmental assessment work from the lawyer side. Assuming that there are lawyers working on the assessment and doing the presentation to the agency, you should want to get them involved. If they’re professional, they should want the impacts properly assessed so that inconsistencies in your small area does not cause a problem for the whole project from going through.
Of course, they could just want to bury things just as much as the client, but they may be an ally in convincing the client of the risks of changing the report.
In any event, I would be sure to stick to your guns. In the long run, it will be much more important to keep credibility with the reviewing agency than it is to avoid pissing off a particular client. My experience was that folks in the field had a pretty good idea of which consultants had solid conclusions and which were full of crap. Don’t get into the latter category.
I think it is a good idea to keep building up your e-mail documentation. Also, file memos are good as well. In doing so, you’re building up a record where your client won’t be able to challenge you as it will all be discoverable in litigation.
Good luck.
[hijack]It was fun meeting you on Friday night. Sorry you couldn’t come to more of the NYC Dopefest events. I hope to see you at upcoming gatherings. [/hijack]
I hadn’t intended this thread to be a source of moral support, but it is. Thanks.
We’ve probably lost this client for future work already, given some of the comments the prime consultant made to another sub. At this point, it would be fine by me; no need to go looking for grief and aggravation, which is pretty much all we’ve had with this client. I’m just thankful they paid our final invoice before starting this round of foolishness, otherwise I have no doubt they would be refusing to pay until we complied.
mhendo, the voice mails are coming in on my cell phone, since I’m working out of the office at the moment; I have no idea how I could save those. In any event, it’s more the tone of voice than the actual wording, so I don’t know how much they might help down the road.
billdo, unfortunately the worst problems have arisen SINCE the client’s attorney became involved. In principle, I understand what the attorney intends - he doesn’t want anything on paper that will commit his client to further specific actions. It’s not the first time we’ve been faced with this sort of situation, and won’t be the last. However - unlike past situations, this attorney doesn’t appear at all saavy to the state agency requirements and how they need to be addressed, nor will he listen to our advice. I don’t know what his normal area of expertise is, but this sure isn’t it.
[hijack] It was fun meeting you too. Next Dopefest I’ll try to make sure that a) I have aspirin on hand to get rid of the headache before the festivities, and b) someone else in the office is around to deal with stuff. [/hijack]
I’m probably suggesting the obvious, but isn’t it better that the agency say “yes, we’ll accept the minor mitigation measures you suggest,” than it say “no, we disagree with your conclusion that mitigation is not requred, and you have to use the complex mitigation measures we propose.” Have you discussed that possibility with the attorney?
I’ve done some environmental site assessment work over the last few years. Simply put, if you’re not comfortable with the changes, don’t make them. If the client insists, simply tell them, that in your best professional judgment, the situation is what it is.
After all, they can’t force you to change your conclusions that you have reached in your report.
What they can do, I suppose, is refuse to pay you. But any decent scope of service in a contract is written so as to define what deliverables you have to supply, not on what conclusions you are expected to reach.
I’ve had clients also who have “leaned” on us, but nothing as overt as you seem to be seeing. I (and my boss) have either been OK with any proposed changes, or politely refused to alter our conclusions/recommendations. Any client who pushes further is a client you don’t want to be working for.
Oh yes. He doesn’t care. Actually, the attorney’s concern is less about money and more about not giving any fodder to the people who oppose this project (another wrinkle). So between the attorney and the client, there is a very strong desire to minimize both our findings and our recommendations for mitigation.
We are thankfully well-covered in our contract (the fruit of previous painful lessons). You’ll be amused to learn that this client was actually highly insulted that we would not simply take his word as a respected businessman, rather than insisting on having a contract in place before work began. This “respected businessman” then tried to reject line items on our invoices that he didn’t think they were “necessary” until it was pointed out that he was contractually obligated to pay, whether he liked it or not. I have no doubt that if he could have twisted our arms by withholding payment, he would have.
Today, no phone calls. I hope this means they’ve finally accepted that we won’t budge. I am sooooo done with this project.
I’ve run across this problem, too. And lost clients over it as well. But better to lose a client than your reputation.
A thought, however. Since you’re a sub, sunfish, is there any way you can make your report to the prime, leaving it as it is, and then they can incorporate it into their report to the end client, changing whatever they want/feel is appropriate to appease the client (and they’re willing to compromise themselves on)? That way they’d be on the hook, client and liability-wise and your (firm’s) name would be out of it?
I used this method once as a junior consultant to the project manager (w/in the same company - NOT my present one). I felt what I submitted, I could stand by. If the higher-ups wanted to change it and put their name on it (not mine) well that was their decision. I know it may not be possible if the Prime is not in your field and wouldn’t be able to render an expert opinion. (In my case it also wasn’t a regulatory/government type of situation, just a proof-of-concept thing that the client was hot for, but the analysis didn’t support.)
Although in a completely different sphere, I encountered similar problems when operating a consulting company. To remove the question from the area of environmental consulting and put it into a more general arena, the question becomes, “How do you handle a consulting client attempting to direct your reported results to a conclusion your analysis does not support?”
Am I right?
When faced with considering this situation a few times (I’ll keep it generic, but mention that I was working as an oil & gas exploration consultant), I had to consider the potential loss of a bill-paying client.
I came to the conclusion: so be it.
And then I had to face the music. As it turned out, shooting the bad dogs in the foot was, in the long run, not at all bad for business.
Ultimately, I never really lost a client, although a couple of companies redirected their efforts - OK, so maybe that counts as losing a client or two.
But some recalcitrant clients with preconceived ideas about how it should work out did, in fact, appreciate getting my straight appraisal. In the end, reporting only what I was comfortable in supporting resulted in some people changing their minds and ridding the henhouse of the dogs.
wireless, I know what you’re saying. We’re still concerned though, because even if it’s the prime mis-representing our results to the state agency and the public - and there WILL be local public hearings regarding this project - we could still run into trouble. The prime will say that we had a chance to review and comment on the EIS (which we have, not that I expect they incorporated our suggestions), and that will be enough for some to damn us along with the prime and the developer. In a small specialty field with strong competition, a bad rep from a single project could cost us more than one unhappy client.
Ringo, you’re absolutely right. I am looking forward to not dealing with these people ever again - there’s just too much to worry about.
Lizard, I was trying to be polite… I have some stronger terms I could use, but this is IMHO after all.
