Your honest thoughts and opinions on this scenario is appreciated.
Thanks in advance for going through the long texts.
————
The Scenario:
In an interior project setting where you are the main-consultant (in a new unfamiliar town you are working for the first time) and a sub-consultant is hired by you & agreed to be answerable only to you.
The client is to act as pay master and approach you only for all project matters.
The client who hired you did so because they are impressed by previous projects you’ve designed and delivered to other clients in other towns.
You are a very pedantic & detail oriented professional - thorough in your work ethics and standards of quality.
The sub-consultant is from the town and selected by you from several you’ve reviewed - and it’s the first time to work with them. (since you are in a new town)
You find out through your interaction that the client is the type to be easily pleased and doesn't care about details; as long as the work looks good on the surface - they are happy.
You also find out later that the client and the sub-consultant have known each other in the distant past through another unclear to you context.
————
A dispute arises between you and the sub-consultant towards the end of the project:
The sub-consultant claims that they’ve completed a work they are hired to do and wish to be paid their final 10% payment.
On your review inspection of the last 10% of the works, you find that the works are visually rushed/ not complete as to the agreed quality and detail desired (a contract and specification/ design document exists and three of us have a copy).
You proceed to demonstrate and inform the sub-consultant that their work requires rectification first, then that it will undergo another review inspection, of which - if result is positive - they will be paid their final 10% of payment.
The sub-consultant upon learning this refuses to engage further and demands payment with repeat insistence that the work is fine and detail appropriately complete - despite the evidence pointed out to them earlier.
Upon your refusal to entertain further payment claims of the last 10% to the sub-consultant until they do their due diligence, the sub-consultant decides to approach the client directly (without your knowledge) and complains about you and your strict standards, and proceed to lie to client that the work is complete.
The client, being an easier, more forgiving going person than you, proceed to pay the sub-consultant the last 10% without your knowledge or consideration. The client genuinely thought the work is complete as well - as it visually looked fine to them when the sub-consultant showed it in your absence.
The sub-consultant thereafter leaves site and never seen again nor responds to further communications.
You are left feeling speechless to the events that transpired, and with works that is not to your usual quality standards - but with a somewhat chill accepting client.
————
How would you as the main-consultant react (or do) in this situation? and what actions would you take on the matter - considering it’s a new unfamiliar town?
Should the main-consultant be flexible and let this one situation pass, or?
"The client, being an easier, more forgiving going person than you, proceed to pay the sub-consultant the last 10% without your knowledge or consideration. The client genuinely thought the work is complete as well - as it visually looked fine to them when the sub-consultant showed it in your absence."
"You are a very pedantic & detail oriented…"
I've found that working with perfectionists can be a PIIA but if the client is happy then that's the main thing.