Arcorp Structures, LLC

- 9/20/–Submittal was sent with conceptual design of what was proposed verbally by client to Arcorp - 9/21/– Formal Stair submittal to client - Client communication began 9/21/regarding stair layout - Client called 9/21/asking to switch the layout of stairTHE SAME DAY, our project manager corrected the layout via a sketchSubmitted to client- 9/– Client came back to Arcorp to provide an alternate sketch as to what THEY felt would workThis was unprovoked and was a proposed by the client - 9/– Arcorp project manger resubmitted the sketch to the client of what his proposed layout would look like with questions that needed responses from the client such as the surrounding construction (i.e– pipes in the way, etc.) - 9/-Client submitted another sketch that shows a 3rd alternate stair design - 9/– Arcorp Project Manager submitted the client suggested stair layoutSubmitted for review and advise - 9/– Client provides response on the 9/submittal - 9/– Conversation between Project Manager and client took place to discuss new design - 9/thru 10/– Client was unavailable -on Vacation - 10/5- Design discussion between client and Arcorp still ongoing with client input on new stair design – discussion with landing space, etcwere active and fluid - 10/– Despite our suggestions, maintaining fluidity of conversations between Arcorp and client, the client gave us an ultimatum as to the length of time as we had originally estimated this to take approximately weeks from date of initial contract signatureNOTE – This was from date of the beginning of commencement of shop drawings, and NOT the signature of contract - 10/– Arcorp submitted the dialogue as to what transpired between client and Arcorp conversations to remind them of what the process consisted of - 10/– Engineering Calculations with 3rd and final submittal were submitted to client for submittal to the village - 10/– Request for payment for the engineering cost was submitted to client for paymentPer Agreement, we were entitled to engineering compensation of $2,This was on an “IF NEEDED BASIS”The client confirmed it was needed, and therefore we retained an Illinois Licensed Structural EngineerHis fee was paid by Arcorp independent of receiving compensation from clientThis was a requirement for the village we are working in (Reference Check # VV331) to R.D.E& Associated - 11/– Village of Downers Grove provided their response to Arcorp regarding the changes that needed to be made to the drawings illustrated by Arcorp - 11/– Arcorp replied with update as to timeline for resubmittal with consideration of Villages comments - 11/– Arcorp prepared an updated submittal to the client with added comments and revised engineering comments as requested by the village - 12/– Village of Downers Grove provided updated comments that required Arcorp to update drawings, yet againThis information was new, and never provided as a requirement to Arcorp - 12/– Arcorp Project manager submitted response to client stating that we are NOT architects and the responses by the village required the totality of the project submittal to be sent via a licensed architect as the comments received were unrelated to the steel stairs - 12/– Arcorp suggested to apply for a provisional permit not withstanding the other items that the village was requesting - 12/– The client requested another change in design as he met with his electrician and his electrician requested a shift in the landing location in relation to the electrical line overhead - 12/– Arcorp requested 12/that this reduction could happen and to advise and discuss with the city project manager of such consequences to redesign - 12/– client responded with frustration which clearly derives from the issues described above which ARE NOT in relation to Arcorp’s design, etc- 12/– Conversation took place on a conference call between Arcorp and client to outlay the issues we have had and as to why they were NOT entitled to their refund- 1/11/– Notice regarding Revdex.com despute arose - 1/16/– Client requested that Arcorp submit drawings again, incorporating village comments- 1/17/– Arcorp submitted drawings for village review It is clear that the client is frustrated as we areOur $5,retainer included $2,for engineering fees + the labor and footwork to prepare the submittals since SeptemberAS noted above, we have invested over 100-man hours to this which is out of pocket for us at this timeOn 12/conference call, we also suggested that we remove our self from the fabrication and erection of the project given the clients frustration as the relationship was tarnished given their inexperience with villages and submittals, and we would simply provide drawings as we have in the past with various adjoining municipalitiesPlease note – this is a common area of concern in our industry as with any design/build projectsWe will NOT refund any monies given the issues depicted above Sincerely,

-        9/20/17 –Submittal was sent with conceptual design of what was proposed verbally by client to Arcorp -        9/21/17 – Formal Stair submittal to client -        Client communication...

began 9/21/17 regarding stair layout -        Client called 9/21/17 asking to switch the layout of stair. THE SAME DAY, our project manager corrected the layout via a sketch. Submitted to client. -        9/26 – Client came back to Arcorp to provide an alternate sketch as to what THEY felt would work. This was unprovoked and was a proposed by the client -        9/26 – Arcorp project manger resubmitted the sketch to the client of what his proposed layout would look like with questions that needed responses from the client such as the surrounding construction (i.e. – pipes in the way, etc.) -        9/26 -Client submitted another sketch that shows a 3rd alternate stair design -        9/27 – Arcorp Project Manager submitted the client suggested stair layout. Submitted for review and advise -        9/29 – Client provides response on the 9/27 submittal -        9/29 – Conversation between Project Manager and client took place to discuss new design -        9/30 thru 10/4 – Client was unavailable -on Vacation -        10/5- Design discussion between client and Arcorp still ongoing with client input on new stair design – discussion with landing space, etc. were active and fluid -        10/6 – Despite our suggestions, maintaining fluidity of conversations between Arcorp and client, the client gave us an ultimatum as to the length of time as we had originally estimated this to take approximately 5 weeks from date of initial contract signature. NOTE – This was from date of the beginning of commencement of shop drawings, and NOT the signature of contract -        10/13 – Arcorp submitted the dialogue as to what transpired between client and Arcorp conversations to remind them of what the process consisted of -        10/16 – Engineering Calculations with 3rd and final submittal were submitted to client for submittal to the village -        10/16 – Request for payment for the engineering cost was submitted to client for payment. Per Agreement, we were entitled to engineering compensation of $2,500. This was on an “IF NEEDED BASIS”. The client confirmed it was needed, and therefore we retained an Illinois Licensed Structural Engineer. His fee was paid by Arcorp independent of receiving compensation from client. This was a requirement for the village we are working in (Reference Check # VV331) to R.D.E. & Associated -        11/7 – Village of Downers Grove provided their response to Arcorp regarding the changes that needed to be made to the drawings illustrated by Arcorp -        11/10 – Arcorp replied with update as to timeline for resubmittal with consideration of Villages comments -        11/13 – Arcorp prepared an updated submittal to the client with added comments and revised engineering comments as requested by the village -        12/4 – Village of Downers Grove provided updated comments that required Arcorp to update drawings, yet again. This information was new, and never provided as a requirement to Arcorp -        12/4 – Arcorp Project manager submitted response to client stating that we are NOT architects and the responses by the village required the totality of the project submittal to be sent via a licensed architect as the comments received were unrelated to the steel stairs -        12/5 – Arcorp suggested to apply for a provisional permit not withstanding the other items that the village was requesting -        12/5 – The client requested another change in design as he met with his electrician and his electrician requested a shift in the landing location in relation to the electrical line overhead -        12/5 – Arcorp requested 12/5 that this reduction could happen and to advise and discuss with the city project manager of such consequences to redesign -        12/14 – client responded with frustration which clearly derives from the issues described above which ARE NOT in relation to Arcorp’s design, etc. -        12/15 – Conversation took place on a conference call between Arcorp and client to outlay the issues we have had and as to why they were NOT entitled to their refund. -        1/11/18 – Notice regarding Revdex.com despute arose -        1/16/18 – Client requested that Arcorp submit drawings again, incorporating village comments. -        1/17/18 – Arcorp submitted drawings for village review   It is clear that the client is frustrated as we are. Our $5,000 retainer included $2,500 for engineering fees + the labor and footwork to prepare the submittals since September. AS noted above, we have invested over 100-man hours to this which is out of pocket for us at this time. On 12/15 conference call, we also suggested that we remove our self from the fabrication and erection of the project given the clients frustration as the relationship was tarnished given their inexperience with villages and submittals, and we would simply provide drawings as we have in the past with various adjoining municipalities. Please note – this is a common area of concern in our industry as with any design/build projects. We will NOT refund any monies given the issues depicted above.   Sincerely,