How much to charge for "on the side" Contract work

[PricklyPete]

A friend of mine approached me about doing some ASP.NET programming on the side for his company (marketing company) that has their own web based programming staff, but they do strictly PHP, but do not want to lose a customer who is insisting on ASP.NET.

I am interested in doing it for the extra cash (right before Christmas and possible home purchase), but I am unsure how much I should be charging. I have not determined the full breadth of the project, but from what I have gleaned, it seems like 40-60 hrs of work.

I make a decent amount at my current job, but I really no longer program (system architect), so I don't know if it is really fair to base what I would charge them on what I make at my job.

Any input regarding this from people who have had similar experience would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Descartes]

Well, I've seen rates anywhere from $40/hr to $200/hr. The rate charged is usually proportional to the experience of the team/individual.

 

[torpid]

What kind of web site can you possibly do in 40-60 hours without it being a total hack job? The answer is... one that any .net chump could do. Therefore... charge very little.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: torpid
What kind of web site can you possibly do in 40-60 hours without it being a total hack job? The answer is... one that any .net chump could do. Therefore... charge very little.

This is a fairly straightforward marketing website (not a serious web application). I will only be responsible for some of the backend programming. They will be doing all graphics, content, and 90% of the user interface (client side). Basically, I will just be writing some content management tools, which I already have code to reuse (from personal dev work I've done in the past). It may end up taking more than 40-60 hours...but I'm not talking 40-60 "I'm at work hours". I'm talking about 40-60 serious work hours (and like a normal dumb programmer, I'm leaving out serious testing hours). And again...that was just a rough estimate. I have not laid out all the pieces they are wanting me to do.

But thanks for the less than informative answer.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Well, I've seen rates anywhere from $40/hr to $200/hr. The rate charged is usually proportional to the experience of the team/individual.

I have had over 7 years experience in web application programming and application design.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: torpid
What kind of web site can you possibly do in 40-60 hours without it being a total hack job? The answer is... one that any .net chump could do. Therefore... charge very little.

This is a fairly straightforward marketing website (not a serious web application). I will only be responsible for some of the backend programming. They will be doing all graphics, content, and 90% of the user interface (client side). Basically, I will just be writing some content management tools, which I already have code to reuse (from personal dev work I've done in the past). It may end up taking more than 40-60 hours...but I'm not talking 40-60 "I'm at work hours". I'm talking about 40-60 serious work hours (and like a normal dumb programmer, I'm leaving out serious testing hours). And again...that was just a rough estimate. I have not layed out all the pieces they are wanting me to do.

But thanks for the less than informative answer.

No kidding. I'm thinking he just hasn't worked on many sites, because many are pushed out in well under that amount of time.

You might want to consider open-source content management systems. This will free you from having to implement the same nonsense that's been done a million times (even if you did it in your own existing framework), and you get the support of thousands of modules to accomplish what's needed. Take a look at DotNetNuke, for example. It has a huge community following, and you save a lot of time.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: Descartes
Well, I've seen rates anywhere from $40/hr to $200/hr. The rate charged is usually proportional to the experience of the team/individual.

I have had over 7 years experience in web application programming and application design.

Well, then you should be able to decide the rate 🙂 Going on number of years alone isn't helpful, because someone can get more valuable experience in a few years that others get in a decade. If this is in your area of proven expertise, then I'd command a rate commensurate with that. In my area, $50 is low, $150 is high, and $75 is just about right 😀

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: torpid
What kind of web site can you possibly do in 40-60 hours without it being a total hack job? The answer is... one that any .net chump could do. Therefore... charge very little.

This is a fairly straightforward marketing website (not a serious web application). I will only be responsible for some of the backend programming. They will be doing all graphics, content, and 90% of the user interface (client side). Basically, I will just be writing some content management tools, which I already have code to reuse (from personal dev work I've done in the past). It may end up taking more than 40-60 hours...but I'm not talking 40-60 "I'm at work hours". I'm talking about 40-60 serious work hours (and like a normal dumb programmer, I'm leaving out serious testing hours). And again...that was just a rough estimate. I have not layed out all the pieces they are wanting me to do.

But thanks for the less than informative answer.

No kidding. I'm thinking he just hasn't worked on many sites, because many are pushed out in well under that amount of time.

You might want to consider open-source content management systems. This will free you from having to implement the same nonsense that's been done a million times (even if you did it in your own existing framework), and you get the support of thousands of modules to accomplish what's needed. Take a look at DotNetNuke, for example. It has a huge community following, and you save a lot of time.

Thanks a lot. I will definitely have to take a look at DotNetNuke and see if it will fit what they are asking for. At this point my understanding of the project is still very preliminary...I've based all of my guestimates on what my friend has told me. His bossess are just wanting to know what I charge and I don't want to throw a rediculous number out there...but I don't want to undercut myself either.

 

[rsd]

Also from the asp.net site, check out the starter kits here.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: Descartes
Well, I've seen rates anywhere from $40/hr to $200/hr. The rate charged is usually proportional to the experience of the team/individual.

I have had over 7 years experience in web application programming and application design.

Well, then you should be able to decide the rate 🙂 Going on number of years alone isn't helpful, because someone can get more valuable experience in a few years that others get in a decade. If this is in your area of proven expertise, then I'd command a rate commensurate with that. In my area, $50 is low, $150 is high, and $75 is just about right 😀

Thanks. I will keep all of that in mind. I hear ya on the number of years thing, it was just the only quick measure I could throw out.

 

[DT4K]

Rates obviously vary. Do you have any idea what the standards are for your area?
You could call some places and see how much they charge for web development.

It seems to me like a lot of independent contractors charge roughly twice the rate you would expect to get paid in a full-time salaried position with benefits. You have to charge more to make up for the lack of benefits and the higher taxes being self-employed.

So if the average web developer gets paid 50k, that's $25/hr, so charge $50/hr.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: torpid
What kind of web site can you possibly do in 40-60 hours without it being a total hack job? The answer is... one that any .net chump could do. Therefore... charge very little.

This is a fairly straightforward marketing website (not a serious web application). I will only be responsible for some of the backend programming. They will be doing all graphics, content, and 90% of the user interface (client side). Basically, I will just be writing some content management tools, which I already have code to reuse (from personal dev work I've done in the past). It may end up taking more than 40-60 hours...but I'm not talking 40-60 "I'm at work hours". I'm talking about 40-60 serious work hours (and like a normal dumb programmer, I'm leaving out serious testing hours). And again...that was just a rough estimate. I have not layed out all the pieces they are wanting me to do.

But thanks for the less than informative answer.

No kidding. I'm thinking he just hasn't worked on many sites, because many are pushed out in well under that amount of time.

You might want to consider open-source content management systems. This will free you from having to implement the same nonsense that's been done a million times (even if you did it in your own existing framework), and you get the support of thousands of modules to accomplish what's needed. Take a look at DotNetNuke, for example. It has a huge community following, and you save a lot of time.

Quite the contrary. I work in this exact field. I doubt anyone here knows significantly more about ASP.net than I do. If you make entire web sites with complicated functionality in under 40-60 hours, most likely you are working on hack jobs as I define them.

My answer was as informative as the question, which defined no parameters, complexity, etc. I was merely guessing that the site is extremely simple based on the 40-60 hour estimate, and therefore not much should be charged. If you charge $200/hr for a web site that has an email feedback form and that's it, you're grossly overcharging and most likely will not get the job. Doesn't matter how much experience you have, because people who suck and do a crappy job will do it for less. I would charge based on the work, with only small variance for the quality of work.

7 years of total experience, how much was in .net?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: torpid
Quite the contrary. I work in this exact field. I doubt anyone here knows significantly more about ASP.net than I do. If you make entire web sites with complicated functionality in under 40-60 hours, most likely you are working on hack jobs as I define them.

My answer was as informative as the question, which defined no parameters, complexity, etc. I was merely guessing that the site is extremely simple based on the 40-60 hour estimate, and therefore not much should be charged. If you charge $200/hr for a web site that has an email feedback form and that's it, you're grossly overcharging and most likely will not get the job. Doesn't matter how much experience you have, because people who suck and do a crappy job will do it for less. I would charge based on the work, with only small variance for the quality of work.

7 years of total experience, how much was in .net?

I'll put 10k e-dollars on Descartes over this little punk.

torpid, if you are such an ASP.Net expert, then why in the hell would it take you a week and a half of solid full-time work to put together a "extremely simple" web app?

Sounds like you are the one who is grossly overcharging by taking your good sweet time to deliver.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: torpid
What kind of web site can you possibly do in 40-60 hours without it being a total hack job? The answer is... one that any .net chump could do. Therefore... charge very little.

This is a fairly straightforward marketing website (not a serious web application). I will only be responsible for some of the backend programming. They will be doing all graphics, content, and 90% of the user interface (client side). Basically, I will just be writing some content management tools, which I already have code to reuse (from personal dev work I've done in the past). It may end up taking more than 40-60 hours...but I'm not talking 40-60 "I'm at work hours". I'm talking about 40-60 serious work hours (and like a normal dumb programmer, I'm leaving out serious testing hours). And again...that was just a rough estimate. I have not layed out all the pieces they are wanting me to do.

But thanks for the less than informative answer.

No kidding. I'm thinking he just hasn't worked on many sites, because many are pushed out in well under that amount of time.

You might want to consider open-source content management systems. This will free you from having to implement the same nonsense that's been done a million times (even if you did it in your own existing framework), and you get the support of thousands of modules to accomplish what's needed. Take a look at DotNetNuke, for example. It has a huge community following, and you save a lot of time.

Quite the contrary. I work in this exact field. I doubt anyone here knows significantly more about ASP.net than I do. If you make entire web sites with complicated functionality in under 40-60 hours, most likely you are working on hack jobs as I define them.

My answer was as informative as the question, which defined no parameters, complexity, etc. I was merely guessing that the site is extremely simple based on the 40-60 hour estimate, and therefore not much should be charged. If you charge $200/hr for a web site that has an email feedback form and that's it, you're grossly overcharging and most likely will not get the job. Doesn't matter how much experience you have, because people who suck and do a crappy job will do it for less. I would charge based on the work, with only small variance for the quality of work.

7 years of total experience, how much was in .net?

No offense, but there's simply no way. I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest and compare credentials, but there is only an exceptionally small chance that you're more versed in .NET than I, and if that's the case we most likely know of each other offline.

Also, your response was more hyperbolic than informative, imo.

That said, I agree on the complexity aspect. I, like you, derived my perception of the complexity from his estimate. If he initially felt it was something ~40-60 hour project, then it follows that the complexity is minimal.

I couldn't disagree with what seems to be a "charged based on the anticipated quality" philosophy, but I'm not going to get into it.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Descartes
No offense, but there's simply no way. I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest and compare credentials, but there is only an exceptionally small chance that you're more versed in .NET than I, and if that's the case we most likely know of each other offline.

Awww, come on. I was just about to pull out the lawnchair and grab a beer.:beer:

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: DT4K
I'll put 10k e-dollars on Descartes over this little punk.

torpid, if you are such an ASP.Net expert, then why in the hell would it take you a week and a half of solid full-time work to put together a "extremely simple" web app?

Sounds like you are the one who is grossly overcharging by taking your good sweet time to deliver.

Well, considering he did not originally state that all the graphics, user interface, and content is already done, I took the leap of faith that he is doing the whole web site from scratch, and that it has at least some amount of business logic in it since it needed to have any sort of server side programming at all. 40 hours for such a web site is hardly too much. If you have ever actually worked on a "real" application, you would know why this is true. I personally wouldn't deliver a half-assed product with weak exception handling that hadn't been stress tested, UI tested, and put into some form of source control (which would be at an external site, obviously). Let's not forget the time it takes to set up security, do any configuration tweaks, etc.

If you want to do all of that in significantly less than 40 hours, more power to you.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: Descartes
No offense, but there's simply no way. I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest and compare credentials, but there is only an exceptionally small chance that you're more versed in .NET than I, and if that's the case we most likely know of each other offline.

Awww, come on. I was just about to pull out the lawnchair and grab a beer.:beer:

Hey, you don't need an excuse to pull out the lawnchair and grab a beer 😀:beer:

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: torpid
What kind of web site can you possibly do in 40-60 hours without it being a total hack job? The answer is... one that any .net chump could do. Therefore... charge very little.

This is a fairly straightforward marketing website (not a serious web application). I will only be responsible for some of the backend programming. They will be doing all graphics, content, and 90% of the user interface (client side). Basically, I will just be writing some content management tools, which I already have code to reuse (from personal dev work I've done in the past). It may end up taking more than 40-60 hours...but I'm not talking 40-60 "I'm at work hours". I'm talking about 40-60 serious work hours (and like a normal dumb programmer, I'm leaving out serious testing hours). And again...that was just a rough estimate. I have not layed out all the pieces they are wanting me to do.

But thanks for the less than informative answer.

No kidding. I'm thinking he just hasn't worked on many sites, because many are pushed out in well under that amount of time.

You might want to consider open-source content management systems. This will free you from having to implement the same nonsense that's been done a million times (even if you did it in your own existing framework), and you get the support of thousands of modules to accomplish what's needed. Take a look at DotNetNuke, for example. It has a huge community following, and you save a lot of time.

Quite the contrary. I work in this exact field. I doubt anyone here knows significantly more about ASP.net than I do. If you make entire web sites with complicated functionality in under 40-60 hours, most likely you are working on hack jobs as I define them.

My answer was as informative as the question, which defined no parameters, complexity, etc. I was merely guessing that the site is extremely simple based on the 40-60 hour estimate, and therefore not much should be charged. If you charge $200/hr for a web site that has an email feedback form and that's it, you're grossly overcharging and most likely will not get the job. Doesn't matter how much experience you have, because people who suck and do a crappy job will do it for less. I would charge based on the work, with only small variance for the quality of work.

7 years of total experience, how much was in .net?

No offense, but there's simply no way. I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest and compare credentials, but there is only an exceptionally small chance that you're more versed in .NET than I, and if that's the case we most likely know of each other offline.

Also, your response was more hyperbolic than informative, imo.

That said, I agree on the complexity aspect. I, like you, derived my perception of the complexity from his estimate. If he initially felt it was something ~40-60 hour project, then it follows that the complexity is minimal.

I couldn't disagree with what seems to be a "charged based on the anticipated quality" philosophy, but I'm not going to get into it.

I didn't say I know significantly more than you, I said I doubt that YOU know significantly more than ME. I don't know anything about you... maybe you work at microsoft or similar. I was just banking on the odds, based somewhat on the fact that you assumed my original post (which you seem to now be somewhat agreeing with) was outrageous.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: DT4K
I'll put 10k e-dollars on Descartes over this little punk.

torpid, if you are such an ASP.Net expert, then why in the hell would it take you a week and a half of solid full-time work to put together a "extremely simple" web app?

Sounds like you are the one who is grossly overcharging by taking your good sweet time to deliver.

Well, considering he did not originally state that all the graphics, user interface, and content is already done, I took the leap of faith that he is doing the whole web site from scratch, and that it has at least some amount of business logic in it since it needed to have any sort of server side programming at all. 40 hours for such a web site is hardly too much. If you have ever actually worked on a "real" application, you would know why this is true. I personally wouldn't deliver a half-assed product with weak exception handling that hadn't been stress tested, UI tested, and put into some form of source control (which would be at an external site, obviously). Let's not forget the time it takes to set up security, do any configuration tweaks, etc.

If you want to do all of that in significantly less than 40 hours, more power to you.

I agree with some of your sentiments under the guise of utopian development philosophy, but in many cases your recommendations would lead to a failure to get the bid on a project. Let's drop the argument whether the estimate was appropriate, because as you indicated, we simply haven't enough information. The primary argument was that of a perceived impossibility, on your part, of delivering anything of quality with such a time allowance. I'm saying that is patently false, and most consultants (a role which he will be assuming during the project) know this.

Also, if you tell me that you can't provide the very basic elements of any project in that amount of time, then I have to question your methods. None of the things you have mentioned should be done from scratch, and there are tools abound that help expedite the process of unit testing (UI included), source control, exception handling, etc.; these are not features, but simply components of any solid development project.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: DT4K
I'll put 10k e-dollars on Descartes over this little punk.

torpid, if you are such an ASP.Net expert, then why in the hell would it take you a week and a half of solid full-time work to put together a "extremely simple" web app?

Sounds like you are the one who is grossly overcharging by taking your good sweet time to deliver.

Well, considering he did not originally state that all the graphics, user interface, and content is already done, I took the leap of faith that he is doing the whole web site from scratch, and that it has at least some amount of business logic in it since it needed to have any sort of server side programming at all. 40 hours for such a web site is hardly too much. If you have ever actually worked on a "real" application, you would know why this is true. I personally wouldn't deliver a half-assed product with weak exception handling that hadn't been stress tested, UI tested, and put into some form of source control (which would be at an external site, obviously). Let's not forget the time it takes to set up security, do any configuration tweaks, etc.

If you want to do all of that in significantly less than 40 hours, more power to you.

I've been working on "real" production critical applications, used in the manufacturing of a medical device and subject to strict validation requirements mandated by the FDA for about 4 years now.

Complexity != size and scope

Besides, your first post didn't say anything about not being able to develop a very large, complex app. You stated that it wasn't possible to develop ANY website other than a "hack job" in 40-60 hours.

EDIT: It took me about 40 hours to take an existing proprietary Access based parts inventory and maintenance app and add automated SAP transaction processing and reconciliation reporting to it. The scope was fairly small, but it required very detailed knowledge of the SAP transactions involved and expertise with the SAP automation component that was used. So it wasn't a hack job, couldn't have been done by "any .Net chump", was thouroughly tested, and was done in 40 hours.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: DT4K
I'll put 10k e-dollars on Descartes over this little punk.

torpid, if you are such an ASP.Net expert, then why in the hell would it take you a week and a half of solid full-time work to put together a "extremely simple" web app?

Sounds like you are the one who is grossly overcharging by taking your good sweet time to deliver.

Well, considering he did not originally state that all the graphics, user interface, and content is already done, I took the leap of faith that he is doing the whole web site from scratch, and that it has at least some amount of business logic in it since it needed to have any sort of server side programming at all. 40 hours for such a web site is hardly too much. If you have ever actually worked on a "real" application, you would know why this is true. I personally wouldn't deliver a half-assed product with weak exception handling that hadn't been stress tested, UI tested, and put into some form of source control (which would be at an external site, obviously). Let's not forget the time it takes to set up security, do any configuration tweaks, etc.

If you want to do all of that in significantly less than 40 hours, more power to you.

I agree with some of your sentiments under the guise of utopian development philosophy, but in many cases your recommendations would lead to a failure to get the bid on a project. Let's drop the argument whether the estimate was appropriate, because as you indicated, we simply haven't enough information. The primary argument was that of a perceived impossibility, on your part, of delivering anything of quality with such a time allowance. I'm saying that is patently false, and most consultants (a role which he will be assuming during the project) know this.

Also, if you tell me that you can't provide the very basic elements of any project in that amount of time, then I have to question your methods. None of the things you have mentioned should be done from scratch, and there are tools abound that help expedite the process of unit testing (UI included), source control, exception handling, etc.; these are not features, but simply components of any solid development project.

UI testing is not the same thing as unit testing. I was implying only that a complete web site that requires only 40-60 hours by an experienced developer (which he seems to be) could also be done by a .net chump in that time. I think you and DT4K interpreted this to mean that the quality would be the same. That was not my intended point, sorry if it reads that way. The point instead is that any old .net chump will be able to get some form of such a web site up in 40-60 hours. Therefore he is competing with .net chumps, and it is a bad mistake to charge significantly more than them in my opinion, based on the given scenario (friend of a friend, one man job, quick look at the work required, etc.)

Of course you can provide the basic elements in that time. Isn't that what a hack job is?

 

[SP33Demon]

/me pulls out computer chair, sits near toilet to watch contest

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: torpid
Of course you can provide the basic elements in that time. Isn't that what a hack job is?

I guess I have a different definition. When you say hack job, I think of something quick and dirty, thrown together without much consideration for good design and proper programming standards, and without thorough testing. When you say "provide the basic elements", I think of something simple and streamlined that just gives you the functionality you need without the bells and whistles, but not neccessarily poorly coded or tested.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: torpid
What kind of web site can you possibly do in 40-60 hours without it being a total hack job? The answer is... one that any .net chump could do. Therefore... charge very little.

This is a fairly straightforward marketing website (not a serious web application). I will only be responsible for some of the backend programming. They will be doing all graphics, content, and 90% of the user interface (client side). Basically, I will just be writing some content management tools, which I already have code to reuse (from personal dev work I've done in the past). It may end up taking more than 40-60 hours...but I'm not talking 40-60 "I'm at work hours". I'm talking about 40-60 serious work hours (and like a normal dumb programmer, I'm leaving out serious testing hours). And again...that was just a rough estimate. I have not layed out all the pieces they are wanting me to do.

But thanks for the less than informative answer.

No kidding. I'm thinking he just hasn't worked on many sites, because many are pushed out in well under that amount of time.

You might want to consider open-source content management systems. This will free you from having to implement the same nonsense that's been done a million times (even if you did it in your own existing framework), and you get the support of thousands of modules to accomplish what's needed. Take a look at DotNetNuke, for example. It has a huge community following, and you save a lot of time.

Quite the contrary. I work in this exact field. I doubt anyone here knows significantly more about ASP.net than I do. If you make entire web sites with complicated functionality in under 40-60 hours, most likely you are working on hack jobs as I define them.

My answer was as informative as the question, which defined no parameters, complexity, etc. I was merely guessing that the site is extremely simple based on the 40-60 hour estimate, and therefore not much should be charged. If you charge $200/hr for a web site that has an email feedback form and that's it, you're grossly overcharging and most likely will not get the job. Doesn't matter how much experience you have, because people who suck and do a crappy job will do it for less. I would charge based on the work, with only small variance for the quality of work.

7 years of total experience, how much was in .net?

If it takes you 40-60 hours to create a website that merely sends email feedback...then I question your abilities. My question was not regarding my estimating abilities or the scope of the site...it was merely how much I should charege since I have never really done this type of work on the side for a serious company.

.NET experience has been the last 3 years.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: DT4K
I'll put 10k e-dollars on Descartes over this little punk.

torpid, if you are such an ASP.Net expert, then why in the hell would it take you a week and a half of solid full-time work to put together a "extremely simple" web app?

Sounds like you are the one who is grossly overcharging by taking your good sweet time to deliver.

Well, considering he did not originally state that all the graphics, user interface, and content is already done, I took the leap of faith that he is doing the whole web site from scratch, and that it has at least some amount of business logic in it since it needed to have any sort of server side programming at all. 40 hours for such a web site is hardly too much. If you have ever actually worked on a "real" application, you would know why this is true. I personally wouldn't deliver a half-assed product with weak exception handling that hadn't been stress tested, UI tested, and put into some form of source control (which would be at an external site, obviously). Let's not forget the time it takes to set up security, do any configuration tweaks, etc.

If you want to do all of that in significantly less than 40 hours, more power to you.

I agree with some of your sentiments under the guise of utopian development philosophy, but in many cases your recommendations would lead to a failure to get the bid on a project. Let's drop the argument whether the estimate was appropriate, because as you indicated, we simply haven't enough information. The primary argument was that of a perceived impossibility, on your part, of delivering anything of quality with such a time allowance. I'm saying that is patently false, and most consultants (a role which he will be assuming during the project) know this.

Also, if you tell me that you can't provide the very basic elements of any project in that amount of time, then I have to question your methods. None of the things you have mentioned should be done from scratch, and there are tools abound that help expedite the process of unit testing (UI included), source control, exception handling, etc.; these are not features, but simply components of any solid development project.

UI testing is not the same thing as unit testing.

Are you talking about user acceptance testing, or UI testing? There is a large difference, because the latter can be automated whether ; indeed, as I said, I do automate it with my unit tests. My entire build process is automated. I'm not trying to patronize, so if you're not familiar with the requisite tools to do this, then drop me a PM and I'll give them to you.

I was implying only that a complete web site that requires only 40-60 hours by an experienced developer (which he seems to be) could also be done by a .net chump in that time.

Where did you get this idea? If there's something I can accomplish in 40-60 hours, then it simply doesn't follow that some neophyte can accomplish it in the same.

I'm losing my desire to argue. That's not liike me 🙂