[13hours]

I don't think working fixed price quote would have given you a different outcome though? The team produced bad quality product, fixed cost or agile won't change that.

Selecting the team to build the product on price is often a bad idea, and that's all fixed cost gives you above agile (the ability to select on price).

[eterm]

A fixed cost makes it easier to turn and around not pay (in whole or part) if the product is really not up to the standard specified. It's harder to do that if the cost is not fixed but overrunning and the response is "well we just need more time".

Also fwiw, the team wasn't selected on price.

[marcus_holmes]

In my experience it's easier and less risky doing it the agile way. You give them a 2-week sprint target. If they fail to hit that, then:

a. You don't pay them. b. They're probably going to miss every other target.

If you paid the agile shop for everything they did no matter how crap, and withheld payment from the waterfall shop because quality control, then that's got nothing to do with agile vs waterfall, it's got to do with your QC.

[jsprogrammer]

Not pay? Heh. For work performed? OK...

That is why my contracts require payment up front.

[SapphireSun]

Sounds like they should have negotiated for a base rate with bonus pay out on meeting QC targets. For heavens sake people, align your incentives!

[codeisawesome]

Everyone, on both sides of this river, they need to grow up.

[st3v3r]

To be fair, they're talking about subpar, unacceptable work.

[Can_Not]

Or it could be solid, perfect work that meets the best possible interpretation of the contract, but the client failed to communicate what they actually wanted and perceive it as subpar and unacceptable.