Other than "give them the bum's rush!" what do you do when a vendor is a PITA about SLAs for outages? Obviously there's not enough on the table to get lawyers involved, but it's aggravating when first they act like they lost your SLA request, then claim their logs don't match your logs in some significant way, then try to avoid returning calls to find out what got decided about disputes I guess hoping you'll give up, etc. It's lousy "game theory" if the vendor just wants to insist their logs are very different than the customer's (highly detailed logs), for example, short of bolting, which there might be other reasons to not want to do except as a last resort, like the cost would be a lot more than the SLAs in question. But where's the leverage? I hope this is operational enough for this list, if not feel free point me somewhere else. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Find a new vendor is certainly one solution. Regards, chad ________________________________ From: owner-nanog@merit.edu on behalf of Barry Shein Sent: Thu 2/8/2007 3:00 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Question about SLAs Other than "give them the bum's rush!" what do you do when a vendor is a PITA about SLAs for outages? Obviously there's not enough on the table to get lawyers involved, but it's aggravating when first they act like they lost your SLA request, then claim their logs don't match your logs in some significant way, then try to avoid returning calls to find out what got decided about disputes I guess hoping you'll give up, etc. It's lousy "game theory" if the vendor just wants to insist their logs are very different than the customer's (highly detailed logs), for example, short of bolting, which there might be other reasons to not want to do except as a last resort, like the cost would be a lot more than the SLAs in question. But where's the leverage? I hope this is operational enough for this list, if not feel free point me somewhere else. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:09:34 PST, Chad Skidmore said:
Find a new vendor is certainly one solution.
Your current vendor probably knows how much it would cost for you to move to another vendor (quite possibly to more significant digits than *you* know). They also know exactly how much they're making/losing on SLA issues, and what percent of the move cost you're willing to tolerate - there's probably very few of us that can get away with being righteous and principled and spending $100K on a move to a new vendor over a $980 SLA issue. And even those of us who *can* do that probably can't do it a second time anytime soon. Of course, YMMV - spending $25K to get out of a contract with somebody who's already shafted you for $12K of SLA rebates and shows no sign of stopping is probably justifiable by almost all of us.... But I think Barry was asking specifically about the vendor who nickels and dimes you precisely because they know it's not enough to make a business case for moving.
Agreed, any termination liability is something to consider. You also need to consider the impact to your business that the SLA violations is causing and how that might translate to dollars. Documentation is going to be key if the vendor is nickel and diming you. If you have solid documentation of a pattern of behavior that is contrary to the spirit (and hopefully letter) of your SLA the vendor is probably not going to push the termination liability. They may not refund for SLA violations but they also would probably not push the termination liability too far. SLA claims can turn into a game of chicken at times. If you honestly feel your position is solid, don't blink. Good luck, Chad -----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:29 PM To: Chad Skidmore Cc: Barry Shein; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Question about SLAs On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:09:34 PST, Chad Skidmore said:
Find a new vendor is certainly one solution.
Your current vendor probably knows how much it would cost for you to move to another vendor (quite possibly to more significant digits than *you* know). They also know exactly how much they're making/losing on SLA issues, and what percent of the move cost you're willing to tolerate - there's probably very few of us that can get away with being righteous and principled and spending $100K on a move to a new vendor over a $980 SLA issue. And even those of us who *can* do that probably can't do it a second time anytime soon. Of course, YMMV - spending $25K to get out of a contract with somebody who's already shafted you for $12K of SLA rebates and shows no sign of stopping is probably justifiable by almost all of us.... But I think Barry was asking specifically about the vendor who nickels and dimes you precisely because they know it's not enough to make a business case for moving.
I have a couple of suggestions: 1. Document, document, document. We use our internal ticketing system to document carrier issues, and actually have a "customer" created for each of our circuits, so that the history is readily available on a circuit-by-circuit basis. 2. Call trouble tickets in for everything, and record the ticket numbers. Follow up, get names, etc. All the stuff we know we should do, but often times forget to do in the heat of the moment. 3. Pay all of your bill except for the disputed portion. Include with every payment a "SLA CREDIT REQUEST" form that you complete, detailing the reasons why you feel you are owed a credit, including the ticket history, etc. Then, every month, include that documentation, and copies of all other correspondence you've sent... until it is resolved. 4. Don't hesitate to escalate your issues up the chain. A simple: "I'm getting no where with you and need to speed to someone more senior" sometimes works. I've also used, with varying degrees of success, "Let's get someone higher up than you on the phone, because I doubt you're paid enough to deal with the crap I'm about to dish out." 5. If they're reasonably close (and this has worked wonders for me!), gather up all your documentation, and take a day trip to their office. It is pretty hard to ignore you when you're sitting in their lobby. 6. If all else fails, sue them. We did this very successfully against MCI, got a TRO, then an injunction, and finally reached a settlement that included the credits we were due as well as a cash payment because of our grief and aggravation. Best of luck, --tlf
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 08:32:10AM -0500, Fox,Thomas wrote: ...
3. Pay all of your bill except for the disputed portion. ... ...
Along with all that good advice, this particular one may bite you back. Consult legal experts in the field. -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
On February 9, 2007 at 08:32 tfox@expertsmi.com (Fox,Thomas) wrote: All good stuff (you can find the note) but I'd like to point out:
3. Pay all of your bill except for the disputed portion. Include with every payment a "SLA CREDIT REQUEST" form that you complete, detailing the reasons why you feel you are owed a credit, including the ticket history, etc. Then, every month, include that documentation, and copies of all other correspondence you've sent... until it is resolved.
Read your contract carefully, it often disallows exactly this and allows them to apply payments as they see fit which means they can treat your account delinquent and proceed that way even if you believe you're due a credit. I also believe the law tends to agree with that, as a rule of thumb, you can't withhold a priori, except in specific cases like tenant law where an immediately dangerous condition persists due to landlord negligence, broken furnace in winter, etc. That is, it require more urgency than just "I think I'm due this". But, IANAL, and in practice it might of course force the issue since neither side is likely to sue anyhow unless a lot of money is involved. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
participants (5)
-
Barry Shein -
Chad Skidmore -
Fox,Thomas -
Joseph S D Yao -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu