All the customer’s managers including the CEO sided with X, as they concluded that bending the company X to their will was more trouble than an individual. And anyway, I would be paid for the extra work.
I absolutely don't understand why this is the problem. Something came-up (not because of you) and you will get paid for solving it.
If you don't have time (other plans) or you just don't want to do that (good example: request is stupid and you know it will cause more trouble in the future) you can just tell that to your customer (or bump-up rate for this extra work).
How value base pricing would solve the above issue?
I had a similar reaction. Something doesn’t add up about the anecdote. His customer decided it was in their own best interest to pay his hourly rate to solve the problem. Partner X decided the same. What’s the problem?
It’s quite the leap from there to an accusation of unethical behavior. I’d wager he had incomplete information or there’s much more to that story.
Edit: For example, Partner X might have said to the CEO, “I understand you’re frustrated with the outcome, but it does meet spec and we advised you Z was missing from the spec you provided. You decided to keep Z out of scope. We’re happy to add Z now, and we’re also happy if the author adds Z. Your choice.”
He reasoned in terms of days needed to fix the problem, and concluded that therefore X would be cheaper. But maybe the change management in the contract made it more expensive. So even if he needed more work on it, he was still the cheaper option and/or easier instead of a change request.
This is a problem from the perspective of the customer. Company X delivered a substandard product based on a fix bid. The customer then had to turn around and pay 10 weeks of hourly fees to this guy to finish it.
Presumably, if magic of value pricing was realized X would be incentivized to finish it.
Pretty unprofessional on X's part I'd say, so I understand why the OP nearly lost it.
I think that just highlights the downside of fixed bids, value based or not, that the author ignores. You come out ahead and are incentivized to finish early, but are deincentivized to do any additional work if you go past your costs plus margin
The customer found someone to do the work and was willing to pay for it. If he had his customer's interests at heart, his objection should have ended the moment the customer made a decision. No need to "lose it".
I absolutely don't understand why this is the problem. Something came-up (not because of you) and you will get paid for solving it.
If you don't have time (other plans) or you just don't want to do that (good example: request is stupid and you know it will cause more trouble in the future) you can just tell that to your customer (or bump-up rate for this extra work).
How value base pricing would solve the above issue?