Buchanan Contracting

This firm represents ***, **, as landlord, under its
Febru 19, Deed of Lease with *** ***, ***, as Tenant (the “lease”)I
understand from my client that you are claiming that you should not be
responsible for certain costs associated with the
build-out of the leased
spaceIt is also my understanding that, in a letter to my client dated May 21,
2014, you requested that my client allow you to hire your own contractor to
finish all remaining Tenant Improvements
Please be advised, this letter shall serve as notice to you
that Landlord does not approve your request to hire a different contractor to
build-out the leased spacePer the terms of the Lease, the parties agreed that
preparation of architectural drawings and engineering plans, and the construction
of all Tenant Improvement would be made by architects, engineers and
contractors designated by Landlord in Landlord’s sole direction
It appears that the basis for your claims and requests stem
from the fact that, prior to lease execution and prior to final architectural
plan approval, Buchanan Contracting LLC (hereinafter, the “Contractor”)
provided you a preliminary budget, dated February 8, 2014, for the anticipated
scope of work as it was understood at that time
Initial architectural plans appear to have been approved by
Tenant, in an email from *** *** to *** *** (hereinafter, the Architect”)
dated March 4, Yet, it is my understanding that even after the Architect’s
submission of architectural plans to the Town of ***, you requested several
change orders to the architectural plans, some of which are still being worked
out by the Contractor and the ArchitectAnd, in emails between *** ***
and *** ***, Environ mental Compliance Inspectors and Utility Inspector for
the Town, between March 19, and March 28, 2014, it was concluded that the
Town would require a grease interceptor for Tenant’s intended use of the space
Pursuant to Department of Agriculture code requirements and as a result of
Tenant’s layout of the leased space, this interceptor could not be maintained
above grade
The February 8, preliminary budget obviously could not
have taken into account the subsequent changes you requested to the
architectural plans, or changes that would later be required by the Town of
*** and the *** *** ** ***Despite this, you appear to be of the
opinion that there should be no changed to the cost of completing the Tenant
improvements, or that Landlord should bear such costs
Please be advised that, per the terms of the Work Agreement,
*** as Exhibit B or the Lease, Tenant Improvements including all costs “required
for operation of the Tenant’s business within the Premises”, other than the
cost of the Base building Improvements to be provided by LandlordThese Tenant
Improvements included any costs required by applicable governmental authorities,
and any change order requested by Tenant, subject to approval by LandlordExhibit
B also states that the cost of the Tenant Improvements shall be paid by the
Tenant, at Tenant’s sole cost and expense
This has been a very unfortunate beginning to what was
intended to be a long term business relationshipMy client shall continue to
work with the Contractor in order to provide you with a commercially reasonable
cost for the build-out of Tenant Improvement within the Leased premisesAs a
gesture of good will, my client is willing to waive its right to collect the Construction
Supervisory Fee described in Exhibit D, Article II, Section of the Lease
However, my client expects you to honor the terms of the
LeaseTo that end, Landlord requests that Tenant schedule a meeting with the
Architect, Contractor, and a representative of Landlord, within five (5)
business days of Tenant’s receipt of this letter, in order to confirm all
requested changed to the architectural plans, and the final scope of Contractor’s
work
Very truly yours,
*** ** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
This letter does not explain why we are being over charged for items, and why we are being charged for items that we do not need. We have a meeting scheduled with the landlord, contractor and architect tomorrow 6/9/14 we wanted to respond to this email before the 7 days had passed. We will let you what the results are after the meeting.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: We found a location in [redacted] for our ice cream shop. We met the landlord agent there with several contractors to give us a bid. The agent mentioned that we could also use their contractor we invited the contractor to give us a bid. He gave us a bid that we felt was to high. The contractor told us that he could give us a better bid once the architect finished the drawings this was just a estimate and he would rather bid high. We kept interviewing contractors to bid the job. The landlords agent, the landlord & our agent insisted that we use the landlords contractor because the landlord was worried that we weren't going to hire a professional and that using another contractor would cause a delay in delivering our store late spring 2014. We reluctantly agreed to use their contractor but not until we had his revised bid. After receiving his bid of $19,500.00 which we still thought was high we agreed to move forward & sign the lease for fear that the store wouldn't open late spring if we didn't move forward. The architect submitted plans got permit and the contractor started to work. Monday May 5th the contractor sent us another bid increasing the bid. Saying that we had requested additional items and the items are required by the county. I email him back saying that we did not & that we are upset that he's trying to increase a bid after he had already given us his final bid. I also told him that if these are requirements of the county he's the contractor he should have known this & they are included in the bid of $19,500.00. They went ahead and installed the grease trap without my permission. Now they are saying because we refuse to pay for additional items that we are requesting they are getting legal involved. I emailed them back telling them to deliver us the vanilla shell that the lease states that they are to deliver us & we will hire another contractor to build out our store. I need to know if they can sue me for the $30,060.00 they are increasing bid to & if I can hire another contratorDesired Settlement: The contractor to build out store per code per plans per occupancy permit for the $19,500.00 that was agreed upon before we signed the lease and deliver the store June 2014.

Business

Response:

This firm represents [redacted], **, as landlord, under its

Febru 19, 2014 Deed of Lease with [redacted], [redacted], as Tenant (the “lease”). I

understand from my client that you are claiming that you should not be

responsible for certain costs associated with the build-out of the leased

space. It is also my understanding that, in a letter to my client dated May 21,

2014, you requested that my client allow you to hire your own contractor to

finish all remaining Tenant Improvements.

Please be advised, this letter shall serve as notice to you

that Landlord does not approve your request to hire a different contractor to

build-out the leased space. Per the terms of the Lease, the parties agreed that

preparation of architectural drawings and engineering plans, and the construction

of all Tenant Improvement would be made by architects, engineers and

contractors designated by Landlord in Landlord’s sole direction.

It appears that the basis for your claims and requests stem

from the fact that, prior to lease execution and prior to final architectural

plan approval, Buchanan Contracting LLC (hereinafter, the “Contractor”)

provided you a preliminary budget, dated February 8, 2014, for the anticipated

scope of work as it was understood at that time.

Initial architectural plans appear to have been approved by

Tenant, in an email from [redacted] to [redacted] (hereinafter, the Architect”)

dated March 4, 2014. Yet, it is my understanding that even after the Architect’s

submission of architectural plans to the Town of [redacted], you requested several

change orders to the architectural plans, some of which are still being worked

out by the Contractor and the Architect. And, in emails between [redacted]

and [redacted], Environ mental Compliance Inspectors and Utility Inspector for

the Town, between March 19, 2014 and March 28, 2014, it was concluded that the

Town would require a grease interceptor for Tenant’s intended use of the space.

Pursuant to Department of Agriculture code requirements and as a result of

Tenant’s layout of the leased space, this interceptor could not be maintained

above grade.

The February 8, 2014 preliminary budget obviously could not

have taken into account the subsequent changes you requested to the

architectural plans, or changes that would later be required by the Town of

[redacted] and the [redacted]. Despite this, you appear to be of the

opinion that there should be no changed to the cost of completing the Tenant

improvements, or that Landlord should bear such costs.

Please be advised that, per the terms of the Work Agreement,

[redacted] as Exhibit B or the Lease, Tenant Improvements including all costs “required

for operation of the Tenant’s business within the Premises”, other than the

cost of the Base building Improvements to be provided by Landlord. These Tenant

Improvements included any costs required by applicable governmental authorities,

and any change order requested by Tenant, subject to approval by Landlord. Exhibit

B also states that the cost of the Tenant Improvements shall be paid by the

Tenant, at Tenant’s sole cost and expense.

This has been a very unfortunate beginning to what was

intended to be a long term business relationship. My client shall continue to

work with the Contractor in order to provide you with a commercially reasonable

cost for the build-out of Tenant Improvement within the Leased premises. As a

gesture of good will, my client is willing to waive its right to collect the Construction

Supervisory Fee described in Exhibit D, Article II, Section 2.08 of the Lease.

However, my client expects you to honor the terms of the

Lease. To that end, Landlord requests that Tenant schedule a meeting with the

Architect, Contractor, and a representative of Landlord, within five (5)

business days of Tenant’s receipt of this letter, in order to confirm all

requested changed to the architectural plans, and the final scope of Contractor’s

work.

Very truly yours,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

This letter does not explain why we are being over charged for items, and why we are being charged for items that we do not need. We have a meeting scheduled with the landlord, contractor and architect tomorrow 6/9/14 we wanted to respond to this email before the 7 days had passed. We will let you what the results are after the meeting.

Regards,