From owner-drosophila@net.bio.net Tue Aug 17 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU!jh6u From: jh6u@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jay Hirsh) Newsgroups: bionet.drosophila Subject: phosphoimager nightmare Message-ID: Date: 18 Aug 93 16:56:53 GMT Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 98 We thought we would pass on information regarding an unfortunate incident we've gotten ourselves into in trying to purchase a phosphoimager. We hope our experience will be a lesson to aid others in preventing this sort of occurrence. The story starts last year when we decided to purchase a phosphoimager. Our decision basically came down to two instruments, one about to be released instrument, and one established instrument from Molecular Dynamics. We had heard good things about the MD instrument, but from the other company we could get a workstation based gel reader thrown in for the price of an MD phosphoimager alone. The catch was that the new instrument wasn't available for an on site demo- we could try the instrument at the factory, but couldn't get one here to play with. So, one of us (SK) stopped by the factory, and spent an afternoon playing with both the phosphoimager and the sequence gel reader. He was fairly well impressed, although the instrument wasn't yet up to par on all fronts. We were assured that these deficiences would all be corrected by the time of shipment, and to protect us, they would provide a 30 day money back guarantee. In the words of a fax addressed to me from the product manager in May 1992, "If you or your Colleagues are not completely satisfied with the system once it is installed, we will issue a full refund." So, we went ahead with the purchase, with the company and a UVA purchasing agent signing onto a bid form which included the statement "Shall include a 30 day full money back return warranty". On arrival of the phosphoimager, we were unhappy with the instrument for a number of reasons. The field engineers were not able to get the instrument running off a PC that met the specifications they gave us. It's still connected to their PC, not ours. Although capability to run off a Mac is advertised, they were similarly not able to run all functions of the machine from a Mac. Additionally, the first imager shipped was defective in a number of other respects, and was replaced within two weeks of its installation. With a functional phosphoimager finally running, we proceded to run some tests with a 14C resolution/sensitivity standard provided by the manufacturer. Our tests show that the installed instrument was inferior to an MD instrument in our chemistry department in image quality, resolution, and sensitivity. In addition, scanning time is roughly 7 fold slower than on the MD. To be fair, our installed phosphoimager lacks the horizontal "flaring" apparent on the MD, and it will image chemiluminescence, which the MD won't. However, the chemiluminescent imaging is slower than film. The manufacturer's representatives tell me that they have data that contradicts ours, i.e., that their instrument is superior to the MD in the terms of sensitivity. However, we have not seen that data, and we can only procede on what we have seen directly. Within days of getting and testing the functional instrument we decided that we were sufficiently unhappy to request a full refund. Then the fun started. We were told by the manufacturers chief legal counsel that "full money back warranty" does not mean what we had supposed! It means, in his interpretation, a warranty to perform up to THEIR specifications, not to OUR satisfaction! He further told one of us (JH), in a phone conversation, that he wasn't concerned that we weren't happy with the instrument. His only concern was the signed contract. He did offer to take the instrument back, for a $40 K "restocking" fee to cover their expenses. Needless to say, we declined this offer. What ever happened to companies concerned with customer satisfaction? We are absolutely flabbergasted by this behavior, and can't understand why they are trying to stick us with a piece of equipment that we don't want! The complication with all this is that during the lengthy installation process, partial payment was made to the company. As things now stand, the company is sitting on a fair chunk of our money, and we have turned all his over to our own legal staff. A vendor complaint form has been filed against the company, which if successful, would prevent it from future sales to the state of Virginia. We have a phosphoimager that we would rather not have, and all this has wasted an enormous amount of time and energy. Some lessons from the above: 1) In making a large purchasing agreement, make sure that legal staff check over the detailed wording of the paperwork. Also, make sure that you get a copy of the final paperwork before it gets signed, just to make absolutely sure that it says what you expect it to say. 2) If there is a money back warranty, make sure that payment is not made until you are satisfied. In our case, it would have been possible to build in an inspection clause, such that payment wouldn't have been made until we signed off. 3) Never put any faith whatsoever in oral agreements made by company representatives. Everything must be in writing. Furthermore, don't put any faith in advertised claims of phosphoimagers or other instruments. Insist on a lengthy on-site trial period for adequate evaluation. We hope this recounting will prevent similar occurrences elsewhere. Jay Hirsh (jh6u@virginia.edu) Steve Kay (sak5y@virginia.edu) University of Virginia, Dept Biology .