Timeline for Is it ethical and do you bill hours when there is a severe lack of timely access from the client?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2020 at 23:37 | vote | accept | J.S.Orris | ||
| Sep 4, 2020 at 15:05 | comment | added | timbstoke | I think @Alex gave the right answer here. No, you can't bill for time you're not working, but when you're working remotely, you're spending time logging on, checking access, reviewing mails for any response as to why access isn't working, recalculating/rescheduling any tasks reliant on the access, and sending an update to the client noting that no progress has been made because required access isn't in place. All that is billable, and making it visible to the client that you're still checking in every day but are at a standstill because you're missing critical access can be very effective. | |
| Sep 4, 2020 at 7:34 | comment | added | hocikto | "easily switch context to another activity" - I beg to differ. Sometimes you break from the context because client was calling and then you want to get back on the task but you had so much information loaded in your brain that is now partially or completelly lost because of changing focus. | |
| Sep 2, 2020 at 14:59 | comment | added | user3067860 | @Squ1rr3lz I meant when you billed for that time on a federal contract. Our new folks may be "waiting for access" but we generally find lots of other work for them to do. But if you don't have anything that you can do (research, etc.) without access, then you don't have anything to bill for. | |
| Sep 2, 2020 at 14:49 | comment | added | J.S.Orris | @user3067860 I have been given specific tasks to be completed. I'm an expert in my field and no research is necessary. The only thing that I would need to overview and I guess in other research is their data models and data needed to complete my tasks. In which I STILL don't have access. | |
| Sep 2, 2020 at 14:47 | comment | added | user3067860 | @Squ1rr3lz Were you not expected to be "at work" and theoretically working on something for the contract (even if only research, background study, attending meetings) during that time? | |
| Sep 2, 2020 at 3:46 | comment | added | Alex | I agree with this overall, but want to highlight that "time spent verifying the access is broken" may be more substantial than initially apparent. Are you emailing the client to inquire about delays? Adjusting project estimates to account for inability to log in? You should not bill all day Tuesday because no one replied to your Monday email, but any time devoted to this client should be treated as billable, unless you have an agreement otherwise. Don't feel like you have to do free work just to follow-up! :) | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 17:39 | comment | added | Strader | As @TymoteuszPaul said, you cannot bill for time you had a chance of doing something else. Waiting on remote access to be provided is not billable time unless it is ah-hoc and it should be provided in a short while. For example: getting a phone call from a IT department and waiting on the line with the tech for the access is billable, getting an email saying that access should be available on a particular day and time, only the valdiation is billable in case access isn't there | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 14:56 | comment | added | Aida Paul | @Squ1rr3lz Now you know better! :D | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 14:56 | comment | added | J.S.Orris | You are correct. I am awaiting on a previous client to renew a contract; meeting this Friday regarding it. I generally do get a down payment. However, I usually only do this if I feel risk is high (usually startups). This particular client is an established SaaS company so didn't feel a 25%-50% down payment was necessary. | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 14:53 | comment | added | Aida Paul | @Squ1rr3lz Minimums, getting downpaymens up front and always having more than 1 client are about the most important 101 contracting lessons. | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 14:51 | comment | added | J.S.Orris | I completely agree with a "minimum" clause. First thing I thought of after experiencing this. | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 14:47 | comment | added | Aida Paul | @Squ1rr3lz May want to go back to the FED contracts then, sounds like a gravy train to me! | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 14:47 | history | edited | Aida Paul | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| Sep 1, 2020 at 14:47 | comment | added | J.S.Orris | The reason I ask this is bc when I was on FED contracts awaiting interim clearances, I was told to bill this time. | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 14:42 | history | answered | Aida Paul | CC BY-SA 4.0 |