I guess this is hindsight, but I think you may have gone too far in giving them a reccomendation. I would have given them a project status, evaluated the current state of the system, and perhaps shown where the system is not up to the specifications. But I would have completely left it up to them to make their own decisions as to whether or not to stop work.

>Hi everyone!
>
>I was recently hired to make an evaluation on the status of a software project to help my client determine whether he should go into damage-control mode or not.
>
>The contractor who did the design of the project is also acting as project manager and has hired several people (including himself) to develop the system.
>
>After spending two weeks looking at things from every possible angle, I have recommended that the project be aborted as it is. I based my opinion on what I consider to be an inapropriate hardware platform, choice of a legacy language that's not appropriate for a NEW application, project manager's lack of management, and the fact that the only part of the application (20% of it) that has been developed lacks a number of very basic features, has a very large number of bugs, and has taken an inordinate amount of time to complete.
>
>A few days ago I sat in a meeting with the consultant and my client and after the consultant asked for another opportunity to sit down with everybody (including the client) to try to get the project back on track, my client agreed, but stated that since I'm more qualified than himself, the decision to continue or not would be mine.
>
>There is a huge amount of money at stake here, some has been already paid to the contractors, and half has been billed but not paid.
>
>Now, if I say that the project is to be abandoned entirely, my client will probably not want to pay the balance that he owes. The best possible outcome under this scenario is that everyone walks licking their wounds. The worst case would be lawsuits.
>
>What do you people think would be my exposure in this case?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Alex