Fixed bid should mean fixed scope (fixed in STONE), with all change requests in writing and done on an hourly basis.

It's amazing the number of people who don't get this. Not every change order has to have a cost, but every change in scope should go through the process. It should be just painful enough that your clients don't request random changes, but easy enough that they use it. Changes in scope in and of themselves aren't bad as long as the other legs of the triangle change as well.

It should, but it almost never does.

The only spec that's is not subject to interpretation is the software itself. Otherwise it all boils down to relationship between the customer and the developer: personal trust, etc. And, of course, this creates immense place for psychological games, which mostly are lose-lose kind of game.

If the client's playing games, don't give them an inch. It will never end well if you do.

Sounds like this guy just doesn't want to waste time.

You have to be reasonable if you expect good relations with someone. The developer should provide a higher estimate that provides a buffer for the uncertainty involved. Get a written spec before signing the contract.

> Sounds like this guy just doesn't want to waste time.

:)

> You have to be reasonable if you expect good relations with someone. The developer should provide a higher estimate that provides a buffer for the uncertainty involved. Get a written spec before signing the contract.

Exactly. (Although if the client agrees to a certain project scope, I don't mind writing the spec for them to sign off on). The other side of it is, good clients should get more wiggle room, but you've got to have a strategy for avoiding horror stories.

The point is that even with simplest risk model, the padded estimate, the price for the risk, is lot larger than the work itself.

I am still quite can't imagine a rational customer agreeing to pay such premium. Perhaps this is my chance to make a fortune :)