Being asked to do work outside of scope of original contract

[tommyrot]

Recently I've been asked to do work which in my view is outside the scope of my original contract -- ie, it doesn't come under the definition of the 'service' that I was asked to provide (though is vaguely related).

I have a limited competency is this new work, but am by no means expert, and indeed have never claimed to be.

Frankly, I don't want to do it.

Where do I stand contractually speaking? I feel that I would be within my rights to simply tell them I'm not going to do it. On the other hand, I don't want to jeopardise outstanding payments from the agency involved.

Advice, please.

[Sockpuppet]

What are you currently doing and what have they asked you to do.

It all depends on how the contract is worded.

[tommyrot]

What are you currently doing and what have they asked you to do.

It all depends on how the contract is worded.

The "service" I was contracted to provide is, in the contract, "CBT [Computer-based Training] Expertise". CBT is otherwise known as e-Learning these days.

What I'm now being asked to do is write student workbooks for instructor-delivered classroom training.

[Lockhouse]

My reply would be "Show me the money"

[Lola]

If I was contracted to do “A” and the asked to do “O” or even |OWA I would want more money.

[Sockpuppet]

The "service" I was contracted to provide is, in the contract, "CBT [Computer-based Training] Expertise". CBT is otherwise known as e-Learning these days.

What I'm now being asked to do is write student workbooks for instructor-delivered classroom training.

I'd say you'd have to do it. Writing a book is still providing your expertise.

[tommyrot]

I'd say you'd have to do it. Writing a book is still providing your expertise.

So if I was contracted to provide, say, Java programming expertise, and then got switched to project management, you're saying that's okay because it's still provided "expertise"? Even if I've not done project management before, and have had no training in it, and such a role was never discusssed prior to signing the contract?

In this particular case, I have no 'expertise' in writing, and never claimed to have had. So right now, the client is receiving no expertise from me -- I'm just having a (reluctant) stab at it until the issue is resolved.

[Spacecadet]

I'm not a massive expert on training but from what I've seen training manuals etc come with the course as standard. If i paid for training and no training literature was provided I'd feel cheated.

[tommyrot]

I'm not a massive expert on training but from what I've seen training manuals etc come with the course as standard. If i paid for training and no training literature was provided I'd feel cheated.

*If* you'd paid for classroom-based training, I'd agree with you.

However, what the client has actually paid for in this instance is e-Learning, or Computer-based Training. The idea is that students will -- in their own time -- access multimedia training materials via the Internet and learn about the subject matter at hand via an interactive experience on their PCs.

Although the end result is the same (ie, people acquire new skills or knowledge), classroom-based training is as different from e-Learning as, say, real football is from a football game on the pc. The skillsets required to deliver each are often mutually exclusive, in fact.

[weemster]

Depends how you feel about the staying with the contract (sometimes best not to rock the boat if the contract is convenient and enjoyable). Depending on your situation either do the additional work (without any fuss - maybe from home) or tell the client that it isn't in the scope of the original agreement and agree a price.