I recently had the luck of implementing a system expansion for a SCADA system. During startup the client realised a number of design limitations and performance issues on his current system. Unfortunately for us, the system vendor is the same one who supplied the previous system and wanted all issues resolved as part of the "total deal".

Is it common in the controls industry that defect liaibility is perpetual?

What defines liaibility? According to written specifications or "reasonable user" expectation?
Typically many jobs include a fixed cost and a daily site rate. But any defect found after acceptance is always part of the fixed cost. So the plane ticket, hotel, car rental all becomes part of support costs.

Everything else I buy for myself seems to come with a fixed period warranty - my car, apartment, computer, any flaw discovered a year later is just my bad luck.

What's system acceptance? Is acceptance limited to those in the acceptance report checklist?
After a few years can one claim one did not witness those features not in the checklist? I'm sure the guys were doing their best under the time constraints back then anyway

 

Be sure that it depends on whether you want to keep the customer as a customer - once answered the topic of support comes clear.

However it should be made clear that scope creep and additions are to be made at a cost before hand or try to incorporate the additional costs in
future jobs. Thats common pratice.

Make no mistake that ANY customer wil try and get it all and for nothing - they're always right you know! If you have a good relationship getting paid for the extra work shouldnt be a problem.

I always look at any job/project as a relationship - works well

Cheers from: Jeremy Pollard, CET The Caring Canuckian!
http://www.tsuonline.com

Control Design www.controldesign.com
Manufacturing Automation www.automationmag.com

PLCopen North America - [email protected]
http://www.PLCopen.org

3 Red Pine Court, RR# 2 Shanty Bay, Ontario L0L 2L0
705.739.7155 Cell # 705.725.3579

 

You are not very clear as to what your part in this project is. If you are a third party (subcontractor to the "system vendor"), then your problem seems to be with the "system vendor", not the end customer. From your description, the "system vendor" and the end customer seem to have come to some form of mutually agreeable arrangement. If you feel hard done by, then you need to take this up with whomever your contract is with.

Your analogies of "car, apartment, computer" are not relevant. Those sorts of items are mass produced and sold on a "take it or leave it" basis to large numbers of customers. SCADA installations have a more limited market, and the
supplier and customer negotiate with each other on a more equal basis.

 

It probably is, if it's not addressed in the contract and the customer has more money for lawyers than you do. Small firms need to be very explicit. It helps if you can get them to recognize what can realistically be provided. Of course, some are utterly unconcerned with _your_ problems. Then it helps to communicate that putting you out of business does not facilitate support. Maybe like "There are only two people here who care deeply about your problem. And one of them is thinking of becoming a professional gardener."

Regards
cww

 

I am no corporate lawyer, and it would probably take one to answer this question adequately.

I believe your only recourse in a dispute like this is a lawsuit, but signed acceptance documents support your case that the customer acknowledged that receipt of services agreed upon.