DisputeSoft’s Nick Ferrara, Josh Siegel and other experts conducted extensive analyses of the project’s documentation and systems, including analyses of process documents, architectural documents, testing documents, source code, defect reports, and software development and testing tools used during the project, including IBM Rational and Microsoft Team Foundation Server. Our analyses included determining the extent to which TCS adhered to its established software development processes, comparing the as-planned architecture of the system to the as-built architecture, and evaluating testing data contained in multiple testing systems and documents.
Managing Partner Jeff Parmet concluded that TCS had failed to develop PTMS using an “n-tier” architecture in accordance with its RFP response and design documents; that TCS deviated from its established software development processes; and that TCS misrepresented the extent to which unit and system testing had been completed during the project. Mr. Parmet proffered these opinions at deposition and in both expert and rebuttal reports. Just prior to trial, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which TCS agreed to pay $26 million in damages to the County of Orange.