I have already commented on this in a previous forum thread. I only need to say is that if if is only the format that they would like to change, then count yourself lucky. If it is the content or the actual thrust of your finding then you have a case for "opting" out for the project and basically exposing this sort of unprofessional behaviour through legal channels. Regardless of the contract, if the Client is attempting to alter your work in a more fundamental way it is legally considered a breach of the client-contractor relationship and there are grounds for a legal challenge. A serious breach of the relationship is an attempt to pervert the course of the process (i.e., an EIS for example) and that is a criminal offence on the part of the Client and/or the contractor if they concede.

I also agree with Greg. I've sometimes been asked to reformat my report when it has been part of a larger, multi-disciplinary study, and it has to conform with the format of other reports which collectively make up the EIS. If the required format was not given to me by the project manager before completing the first draft of my report, but a change to the report format is required subsequently, then I make those changes and charge extra for my time (at an hourly rate). As far as I recall, I've not had a problem in a client accepting extra charges for doing this.

If, on the other hand, a client/reviewer wants you to adopt another format for no obvious reason other than personal preference, then it is up to you to decide whether or not you accept that request. It is annoying and time-wasting having to do these things, but you should always weigh up the risk of these things happening and factor them in fee proposals if neccessary. That's often easier said than done because we all try to put in competitive quotes.

Deryk, if you did not have an agreement with the client or departmental officer beforehand, either verbally or as a written contract, that your report could be modified, then you do not have to accept the changes. You would still have to respond to comments, which doesn't necessarily mean accepting them, but when the comments extend to a reformat or rewrite, I would say - it's not part of our agreement and it's not going to happen unless I say so.Of course I might agree to undertake such changes for an additional payment for my time, at my hourly rate for variations.

Four of the draft reports I have recently submitted to two separate clients for different projects have been returned to me not only with comments on my findings, but changes to the report layout and formatting. I don’t object to the comments on the findings, or clarification of a comment I have made. Those I expect. What I do object to is changes (and not just suggested changes but expected/demanded) to my report layout and language. These I would argue are what make my reports mine. Whilst the "corrections" to formatting may seem petty (e.g. changing numbers to bullets, paragraphs from aligned left to justified, font from Gil Sans MT to Arial, altering heading sizes) I wonder in the end who’s report I’m really producing?? Is this acceptable. Yes it may seem trivial (though it is also time consuming) but if we as consultants are being engaged to give our unbiased, independent scientific opinion, should not our reports be in our format, not those of our clients? Modifying our styles to be consistent with those promoted by (for instance) government agencies could be perceived as just another in house (biased??) report produced by either “a gun for hire” or contractor. I would argue that similar, uniform looking reports are not presenting the independent image we as consultants should be promoting.

In one instance involving a government department basically my entire report was rewritten by the reviewing project manager and I was expected to accept her changes. Now the changes did not alter the report outcomes or findings, but in the end I would argue it wasn’t my report but one produced by that particular representative of that government department. No amount of arguing would change the clients mind and in the end it was just easier and less of a headache to “accept all”. If this was a one of instance I wouldn’t object but it’s becoming a regular occurrence.

What do people think? Is this a trivial matter or a cause for concern?