End User Has 'Lemon Of An Install' - Needs Advice

Wait, an integrator installed something, it never worked right, and now they want you to pay for a replacement system? That don't sound right.

The customer had some wide specifications. (Meaning, not specified down to the model numbers, etc.) The customer trusted the integrator to design, build and install the system. The integrator was chosen since they have done similar work for the customer prior to this install. The customer did not realize the integrator would refuse to support the product. (Even though the contract calls for 1 year of service from date of install.)

As an integrator, I can relate with this discussion, and particularly Rodney, Marty, and Timothy's thoughts above.

There's a manufacturer we've been dealing with for well over a decade. Their support in the past was outstanding, and we were well recognized (by them) as being able to support their systems on-site as well as any of their techs, often making extensive field repairs ourselves, with their blessing. We love their systems, so we've speced them (and continue to spec them) for almost all of our customers over they years, and on the whole, those customers have been very happy with the systems as well.

In particular, one major customer of ours has deployed over two dozen of these systems in the six years they've been with us, with plans to continue using them for future sites (including two currently under construction). However, some of the newer systems have been having some related peculiar issues, and manufacturer support has been spotty at best, generally blaming our installation of the systems or specific setup options that in some cases have been working flawlessly for 5+ years. Where in the past, they would work extensively with us to actually find resolutions to these problems that didn't involve massive overhauls of the installations, they've recently taken to simply saying, "Nope, not our problem, here's your machine back."

Fortunately for us, this customer is also very tech-savvy and we've kept him completely in the loop as to our attempts to support them, and the manufacturer's stonewalling and run-arounds. He sees and appreciates the lengths we go to, as well, and realizes that we're doing everything WE can (and sometimes more) to keep them running, while the manufacturer continues to shoot themselves in both proverbial feet.

The customer HAS made it clear himself to the manufacturer that he's not pleased with this, and WE'VE made it clear to them that the customer has requested we start looking into other platforms for their future sites - he loves the product, but we're all fed up with the continually declining support.

So in answer to Rodney and Marty, if the integrator is being up-front and they are having a LEGITIMATE issue with the manufacturer, then they should have no problem producing some sort of paper trail documenting that they're holding up their end of things. And ultimately, if they can't make the system work, they should have no issue either refuning the end user, or replacing the system with something that DOES work.

With all due respect to the End User, I don't think the people who post on this board are getting all the facts. The End User has stated up front he is being purposefully vauge with some details. Those details could be important. I have seen instances where a customer has asked for particular equipment, desiring a particular outcome, because he saw something at a show, or he talked to a manufacturer who promised the moon and the stars, when the equipment did not have a chance at a given site. It was never going to work.

Having said that, I am not defending the installer. All I am saying is that the possiblity exist that he was not being told all of the necessary facts when designing the system. He/she may not have designed the system. It may have been someone else. He may have had objections. I can absolutely say that the installer is, in my opinion, not certified to install the equipment. An end user is not legally required to have a certified installer, but they are asking for trouble if they don't ensure it.

I am joining the conversation late, but it feels to me that we are missing some facts here, and they are important facts. Why would an installer not return money (unless he has already spent it)? He has to know what the results are going to be unless he is a complete idiot or a thief (the do exist). All things being equal, this story does not make total sense. They have done work for you in the past. You like their work, but all of a sudden they can't find their rear end without a road map?. All of a sudden they are unreasonable? This does not feel right to me. Did they just get stupid overnight?

You say the relationship between the integrator and manufacturer is not your problem. It is now isn't it. Bids that are written and address only the equipment and do not concern themselves with training and certification are bids that are not well thought out or well written. My educated guess is that a Scope of Work document was never produced, by anyone. A Security Manager has a duty to his/her employer to hire a contractor that can produce the intended and desired results. That same integrator has a duty to tell you if the equipment you have asked for will not function in your environment. You don't have enough bandwidth, or your staff is not capable, so on and so forth. There are a multitude of reasons a given product is not suitable for a customer beyond his ability to "make it work". Your original statement is that your were trying to leverage existing infrastructure. Was that infrastructure ever capable of supporting the installation? What part are you playing in all of this?

Sorry, and with all due respect, I think you are leaving out some important facts.