TL Technician/ Installation Issues
- Calver Brewer
New Wave Capital WO: 273256 TechLink Services (techlinksvc.net)
Cabling Type: Technician decided to use outdoor rated/ direct burial cabling throughout the interior of the building. It is a code violation not to splice and switch to Riser cabling beyond 50 ft. on the interior.
Direct Burial Cable ran through multiple hallways for all cameras on site.Cable Routing/ Pathways: The technician never should have quoted that much exposed cabling in the hallways and stairwells. It was not brought to our attention that this was the technician's plan during the site survey phase, or we would have raised immediate concern.
Electrical Mounting Boxes: The TL technician incorrectly installed the electrical mounting boxes, leaving an open knockout susceptible to water-damage on every exterior camera. That is not how these cameras/ EMB’s were designed and will almost certainly result in damaged cameras. One of the cameras had the knockout removed and installed upside down, essentially creating a bowl for water to accumulate around the termination.
Requested Change Orders: On the first day of the install, the client was late in arriving on site to let the technicians in. TL immediately requested a change order for the time, which put the client on the defensive. Then the technician did a terrible job on the install, which should negate any extra charges requested.
Results:
Client relationship with SCW is damaged and SCW PM has not been able to get in touch with him. There were initial discussions with the client about other sites they would like to have SCW install complete projects for. That is no longer the case due to the poor quality of the install.
There have been multiple trips coordinated back out to site to correct the issues at the instruction of the SCW PM. TL requested that they cover the labor for those trips and SCW cover the cost of the wire-mold used to correct the technician's mistakes. The day of the return trip, the TL PM requested additional costs because the tech didn’t purchase the correct size wire-mold for the direct burial cable used inside the hallways.
For the electrical box mounts, the technician threw away the knockouts that they routed the cable through. SCW provided TL a link from Amazon to a threaded weatherproof connector that can be used with our electrical box mounts. TL tech didn’t have the weatherproof connectors in time for the return trip, so the cameras (especially the upside down one) are exposed to water-damage for multiple weeks.
Epic City Horse Farm WO: 269862 TechLink Services (techlinksvc.net)
Installation Closeout Attempt: Techlink PM’s informed SCW that the installation was nearing completion and raised no concerns around rack and component installation. Minimal photos of the install were posted at that time. The client reached out to SCW PM with a long, long list of concerns and photos to accompany them.
Epic City- Punch List/ Concerns- 1/26
Refer to the punch list link for the status of the installation that the TL technician and PM deemed completed.
Scheduling/ Client Communication: After the concerns with the install were brought to SCW’s attention by the client and SCW/TL PM’s met to review, a return trip was scheduled 2 weeks later.
On the scheduled date the technicians were supposed to return to begin the punch-list, they didn’t show, and nothing was communicated to the client until 5 minutes prior to the scheduled time.
The client had 8 workers on site ready to help the techs with possible cabling that needed to be replaced.
Nothing was communicated to SCW until the client reached out 45 minutes past the scheduled time to ask why no one had shown up.
Mess in Equipment Staging Area/ Lost Equipment:
The client gave the technicians a dedicated room to stage their equipment and materials in. It was left a mess with food containers and SCW/ Client Equipment.
The technicians were responsible for removing (16) cameras on site and replacing them with SCW cameras. They lost one of the cameras that the site had planned on utilizing elsewhere. They have not returned to site at this point to locate it.
There is (1) SCW Wattbox that the technicians can’t locate at this point.
Change Order Requests: At the time of the TL PM’s attempt to begin closing out the install, they brought up requests for a large change order to be passed onto the client.
This job had client-supplied cabling in place for all 100 cameras. The TL technicians were responsible for terminating that cable and installing the cameras.
All cameras that they spent this time troubleshooting were brought online by the clients separate low voltage contractors and SCW Support through bench-testing and re-terminating. Bench-testing and terminations are included in the TL scope of work.
Original Technician Quit: After the technician was scheduled to begin punch-list and needed to reschedule, didn’t notify site they wouldn’t be there until 5 mins prior to scheduled arrival time. Rescheduled for Friday 2/17 and refused to do items on punch-list. Walked off site without telling the POC and now we have to find a new tech to fix the poor install.
As of Monday 2/20, “accepted” by tech, but not scheduled.
TL was able to find another technician they were confident could perform the work on the punch-list but that didn’t work out either due to car trouble.
Scheduled for 2/27 with the 3rd technician.
Results:
Client relationship is extremely strained due to issues with poor communication around scheduling and subpar workmanship by the TL technicians.
The client, SCW PM, SCW Tech Support, and the client's low voltage contractor have all performed tasks that were included in the agreed upon TL scope of work.
POC has entertained the idea of having someone else finish the work.
New technician has 2 days to complete the punch-list.
SCW AE/AM going to have a difficult time maintaining the relationship/ winning repeat business for this client.
William Hixson- Navy Base in Bremerton, WA WO: 266719 TechLink Services (techlinksvc.net)
Client brought to SCW’s attention missing and uneven wire-mold that tried to be passed off as complete.
Results:
This site was a test run for (5) additional locations for this same client. The poor workmanship is damaging the chances of SCW and TL winning that work.
Pogoda- Canton/ Joy WO: 275654 TechLink Services (techlinksvc.net)
PTZ Relocation Change Order: The technician that completed the work installed the PTZ on site directly behind the wireless antenna, obstructing its view. The client voiced their concerns about the field of view and since they signed the Location Approval Form, they were on the hook for relocating the camera.
The change order was quoted at $950 to move this camera from the roof behind the wireless antenna to the corner of the wall, less than 3 feet away.
The technician's plan was to add a wooden block to a mounted segment of conduit, using indoor-rated cabling outside of conduit with no caulk or silicone.
National Conference of State Legislatures WO: 275182 TechLink Services (techlinksvc.net)
Electrical Mounting Boxes- EMB’s weren’t installed on almost every camera, including exterior cameras and PTZ’s. SCW was not notified of this until the install was “in-review.”
No plan to return unused EMB’s until it was brought up by SCW PM.
TL PM said it was “requested by POC” but that was never brought to SCW PM’s attention until after the job was attempted to be closed out and billed.
Results: Install was placed “in-review” and SCW was never notified of the leftover equipment.
Cameras will need to be removed if troubleshooting needs to be done.
Anchors/ Fasteners wear down with each uninstall/re-install.
Clients' walls or ceilings have wider, more unmanageable holes.
Not how they were designed, susceptible to water-damage. Especially outdoor cams.
If there is any equipment sent to site that doesn’t get installed, SCW must approve first, and TL is responsible for sending back.
Service?
Should SCW have to pay for service on cameras that weren’t installed correctly?
The service itself will undoubtedly take longer to have to uninstall/re-install cameras instead of removing them from the EMB. Should SCW pay extra for that extra time?
Warranty Issues for the cameras themselves?
Upper East TN Human Development Agency- Harmony WO: 275344 TechLink Services (techlinksvc.net)
Electrical Mounting Boxes: Electrical mounting boxes weren’t installed on indoor cameras and SCW was not notified.
Water-Line Renewal- Delaware WO: 274910 TechLink Services (techlinksvc.net)
Electrical Mounting Boxes- EMB’s weren’t installed on almost every camera, including exterior cameras. SCW was not notified.
Upper East TN Human Development Agency- Site Surveys
Network Survey/ Remote Viewing: We have performed (25) site surveys for different locations for this client.
Upon the completion of the first site (Camp Creek), SCW PM was notified by SCW support that there was no available network connection.
After SCW inquired about the network connection issues at Camp Creek, we were notified that almost every site out of the (25) had the same issue.
SCW was not notified about the network for (25) site surveys.
Results:
SCW informed the POC that there was not available network connection at (14) sites.
Had the POC been planning on viewing all these systems remotely through our SCW Viewstation/ SCW Go software, we wouldn’t have been able to tell him that wasn’t possible until installs had been approved and completed.
South Chehalis Storage WO: 249598 TechLink Services (techlinksvc.net)
Uninstalled Equipment: Technician didn’t install electrical box mounts or Ubiquiti surge protectors during the initial install.
SCW was not notified until the client reached out about unused equipment on site.
There have been multiple return trips to site to address issues with equipment.
Cameras have been exposed to water-damage since June 2022.
Results: SCW has had to reship the equipment that wasn’t installed on the original install.
Technician plans on installing surge protection.
Technician plans on installing 4/7 electrical box mounts.
Cameras/ Antennas constantly dropping offline.
Service?
Should SCW have to pay for service on cameras that weren’t installed correctly?
The service itself will undoubtedly take longer to have to uninstall/re-install cameras instead of removing them from the EMB. Should SCW pay extra for that extra time?
Warranty Issues for the cameras themselves?