I don't think the problem here was in using their time effectively. Or, at least, it wasn't the high-order bit. Looking at their task breakdown, there weren't outrageous items like "10 hours - change a button color." The times were a little higher than I'd expect for devs who do this all the time, but not egregiously so.
I think I overspent on this project, but I attribute it more to poor communication and poor management than the devs working too slowly.
"You don't fit our usual workflow so no further work will be done unless you pay us a retainer like the big guys do" is simply not a good faith position to take half way into a project.
They gave you just enough extra attention to hook you in at the start, then kept stringing you along for more cash, with a few token deductions to make it seem like it was all just very unfortunate. (Note: They would not have made those deductions if you hadn't called them on it.)
Then when it was clear there was no more money on the table they finally did the work - which, conveniently, left you with a positive impression.
They did not do the job you originally asked them to do. They did a job they decided they wanted to do - and charge for - because... why? They're not organised and professional enough to deliver what they were asked to?
It's a classic case of actions speaking louder than words.
Some questions to consider:
1. Would you have hired them if you knew they were going to cost nearly seven times more than your budget?
2. How much would a website redesign have cost if you'd asked for that in the first place?
3. Do you think that work would have been done in budget, or would it have exploded far beyond it too?
4. Would a different agency have acted in the same way and presented the same problems?
>> "You don't fit our usual workflow so no further work will be done unless you pay us a retainer like the big guys do" is simply not a good faith position to take half way into a project.
Good contract would have made this claim by the agency both immediately not material, a breach of contract - and in my opinion, may even be a type of fraud called bait-and-switch, which is illegal.
That's fair enough, I dont' think this is on the devs. At least not entirely, but I'd argue that a company that can't maintain budget and scope & is off by _that_ much on the first estimate is not very effective either & should be 'fired' as a company.
And then there is the sunk costs which are not so easily dimissible...
That being said, it is a nice and fresh website. And congratz on the success with the product! It's something I've been 'dreaming' of, find a nice niche product and make it well. No BS.
I don't think number of commits is a meaningful metric.
They billed two hours. It sounds like it's a one-line change, but getting it to play nice with CI is a little more complicated. It was very similar to this change, so two hours felt reasonable:
I think I overspent on this project, but I attribute it more to poor communication and poor management than the devs working too slowly.