Eco Minded Solutions

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response 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 ***, It is clear that despite your self-proclaimed role as “the guy to fix things,” you have failed to perform even a rudimentary level of due diligence, such as soliciting both sides of the story or reading any of the available correspondence (some of which you were copied on), which refutes nearly all of your claims The facts, as supported by a substantial amount of documentation/evidence, clearly prove our complaint that Eco Minded Soultions (EMS) has failed to deliver its contractual requirements • Issue #- The Contract states “This project shall be substantially completed (45) days from commencement unless the client makes substantive changes in the Scope of Work” (with no further qualifications or provisions)It is clear that there were no changes in the Scope of WorkDuring our meeting on October 12th, [redacted] led us to believe that construction would likely begin in late or early depending on the potential impacts of El NiñoThe incomplete initial design took more than a month, and the two subsequent revisions took an average of nine and a half weeks (and days respectively) Furthermore, any claims that we caused the delays because of our own 3rd party vendors are a farceWe identified material that we liked in our initial communications with you in October, and ultimately visited National Quarries on January 29, (days after signing the contract)We did not meet [redacted] Friticsh of KRC Rock (a supplier of yours) until February 26, (days after signing the contract)This meeting was in coordination with EMS and was attended by ***We took the steps of visiting National Quarries and reaching out to [redacted] (who previously ran the custom fabrication services at the quarry) due to the extended delays in the design processUpon expressing our concerns that material might not be available, EMS (***) recommended that we move forward with purchasing some of the material directly, which we did on June 23, (days after signing the contract)We also did not have a project engineer until we were told by EMS that nothing else could be done in terms of the design or providing any estimates or schedules for completion until engineering was completed (email sent from EMS on June 25, 2016, days after signing the contract)Not only did we use an engineer that was referred by EMS, but EMS also provided the initial coordination with said engineer (email sent Jun 22, 2016, days after signing the contract) Clearly, based on all of the circumstances and timelines outlined above, the incredible delays were not caused by our actions, nor were they an impediment to EMS’ ability to fulfill its contractual obligations• Issue # – The Contract calls for an initial design and two rounds of design revisionsThe initial design presented on November 20, blatantly omitted well over 50% of the contracted scope of workWe expressed this both during our in-person meeting on the 20th, and again in an email sent January 18, at 8:AM stating “ we were disappointed that the concept provided was incomplete (i.eit did not include any design work for the slope) In addition, we felt that many of the major concepts and ideas discussed in our initial meeting and provided in our spreadsheet were not reflectedThere were other key elements that were also mentioned, but it was indicated that they were excluded (ie: water storage).” This was discussed a third time at a subsequent meeting with EMS Principal [redacted] held on January 29, (which was also attended by [redacted] & [redacted] ) Additionally, the contract does not mention any requirement or limitation to the number of hours EMS will expend in order to fulfill its contractual obligationsTherefore, your continued attempts to justify contract completion based upon hours spent is irrelevant • Issue # - By hiring a licensed design build firm, the expectation was that any final designs could be built legally, a critical criteria that you failed to deliver uponAll three revisions included elements that were unbuildable due to flagrant code violationsAs such, it would have been illegal for us to build the designs provided by EMS and thus EMS cannot reasonably argue that it has fulfilled its obligationThis also clearly violates the fitness for a particular purpose of contract law Further EMS is negligent in its obligations and consequently is liable for the damages of such negligenceYou accused us of having “great difficulty listening to the advice of our designers until you could see the design changes on paper, which led to numerous unnecessary delays.” Given the degree of incompetence and ineptitude displayed by EMS over the course of this contract, we certainly were skeptical of information provided by your designersHowever, we take strong exception to this allegationA perfect example to illustrate this point: In order to address flaws that we found with the April design revision, we suggested an alternate layout with Pros/Cons/Questions as outlined in an email sent April 21, at 11:44PMWe did not receive any feedback on this idea until May 3, at 10:AM in an email where we were told the EMS team was not in favor of the changesWhile there was little to no explanation of their decision, what was provided was inconsistent with the information we proposedWe were then told that [redacted] would complete the drawing changes based upon the meeting we had at the EMS offices on April 19thWe promptly responded on May 4th at 11:AM requesting that no additional formal design revisions be completed until we could get on the same page We requested a phone call to discuss things further on the afternoon of May 5thPrior to the meeting, EMS provided a moof what they interpreted as our idea (email sent May 5, at 2:09PM), and it was evident that their evaluation was in no way what was described in our April 21stemailWe then provided EMS our own moof the design on May 5th at 9:PMThere was no further communication until an email from EMS (sent May 24th at 3:24PM) indicated the plan had gone into estimatingAt 3:46PM, we asked about the status of our suggestions and reiterated our concern that we should not move forward with formal revisions until we were on the same page relative to those changesA response was received from EMS on May 25th at 11:29AM stating: “When we discussed moving the BBQ etc [redacted] sent over her sketch for moving the BBQ and the PergolaOnce I saw it, my initial misgivings, and those of the team, were allayed and thought it was very do-able.” As illustrated, it was in fact the EMS design team that had trouble seeing design changes until they were on paper, and it was EMS that pushed to complete paper revisions, resulting in numerous unnecessary delays Yet the most offensive factual inaccuracy in your response was the notion that we obstructed any communication with the City of Carlsbad, and would “find a contractor who would forge ahead without City approval”We were clear during our very first meeting with [redacted] on October 12, that we expected all work to conform to any applicable city code and that we wanted everything done “by the book” (i.epulling permits, etc.)His agreement to this culminated in our design agreement being signed that dayWe have consistently operated in that manner, exemplified by the fact that the only permits on file for our property have been pulled since we purchased the home in 2010, which can be validated with the City of CarlsbadThis was the most significant driver in our decision to spend several thousands of dollars hiring a LATC licensed landscape architectural firm who is also a licensed (C-and B) contractorWe continued to communicate this expectation throughout the life of the project, yet it was clearly an area in which you failed to deliverOn at least two occasions we reiterated this requirement in written communication to EMSOn April 11, on 1:PM PDT, we were provided an Excel file ( [redacted] Preliminary Estimate.xls) where EMS states “Please note: permits are excluded”On April 15, at 1:PM PDT, our response was as follows: “Expect all work to be performed to code including any required permits”EMS failed to respond, and on June 10, at 12:PM provided a revised document ( [redacted] Preliminary Estimate Revised 6-7-16.xls) with the same exact statement of exclusion (i.e“Please note: permits are excluded”)On June 13, at 10:AM, we provided the same aforementioned response Regarding your accusation of revisionist history associated with communication with the City of Carlsbad, the facts clearly point to EMS as the guilty partyEMS’s initial visit to the City took place after an in-person meeting in your office held on Tuesday April 19, (reference email sent April 18, at 9:PM for an agenda to the meeting), and subsequent email correspondence (sent April 21, at11:PM) where we asked about set back requirements and other code issues that EMS was unable to answerThe first mention of any conversation between EMS and the City was during a call [redacted] requested on May 16, at 1:PMHe informed us that he spoke with a city planner who insisted that our HOA would not allow much of what was in the current version of our landscape designGiven that we do not have an HOA, this feedback was not credibleFurther, during the conversation we provided via email (at 1:PM) the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) concerning slope maintenance (under Article IV), which were recorded on December 29, 1987, specifically allowing the majority of the work in questionThe first credible information conveyed by EMS was not communicated until August 4th when [redacted] informed us (both via email and in person) the city code was the issueShe then pointed us to the relevant sections of said code (chapter titled Hillside Development Regulations along with the Hillside Development and Design Guidelines, implemented in 1998) As a licensed landscape architect, it would be reasonable for us to assume that you would be familiar with the requirements for the Professional Standards of Care of a landscape architectAs that is clearly not the case, let us refer you to section Rules of Professional Conduct paragraph (b)(1) of the LATC website (http://www.latc.ca.gov/laws_regs/pa_all.shtml#2649.): “In designing a project, a landscape architect shall have knowledge of all applicable building laws, codes, and regulationsA landscape architect may obtain the advice of other professionals (e.g., attorneys, engineers, and other qualified persons) as to the intent and meaning of such laws, codes, and regulations and shall not knowingly design a project in violation of such laws, codes, and regulations.” That said, did EMS design a project without knowledge of the applicable building laws, codes and regulations? Or did you knowingly design a project in violation of those same laws, codes and regulations? In either case, that is clearly in violation of the aforementioned Standards of Care Similarly, any reasonable independent landscape architect (expert) would agree that addressing our questions and concerns with timely responses is a requirement of the Professional Standards of Care of a landscape architectYet, throughout the life of our project we did not receive direct feedback or responses to any of the detailed comments and questions that was sent for each of the submitted designsThese were only partially addressed through the revision of the design (which as previously shown, were far from timely)This was explained by EMS in an email sent June 25, at 11:49AM, where [redacted] wrote that our comments and concerns, “ play a minor role to the major concern of identifying and quantifying the overall scope of this project.” The following exchange, perfectly exemplifies this lack of communication after the final design revision was presented on June 7, June 10, 12:PM (email) – Electronic files provided three days later for review/comment (due to EMS email server issues)June 13, 10:AM (email) – We provided our feedback on this design revision, including a specific request asking when we could get a responseJune 15, 1:PM (phone) – [redacted] called EMS ( [redacted] ) to confirm that EMS had received our feedback and to again request a timeline on when we would get a response (answer was a couple of days)June 22, 10:AM – Email requesting status on response to our comments/feedback, and informing EMS of items we purchased from [redacted] .June 22, 10:AM – Email from EMS indicating that they were waiting on an invoice from the engineer and that he (***) would touch base later in the day or the following day.June 22, 3:PM – Email from EMS with invoice for [redacted] Design comments/feedback not addressed.June 23, 2:PM – Email from [redacted] with questions on engineering process and follow up request for status on design comments/feedback.June 25, 11:AM – Email from EMS stating that our comments/feedback/questions “ play a minor role to the major concern of identifying and quantifying the overall scope of this projectRest assured, they will be addressed.”June 27, 10:AM – Email from [redacted] expressing concern about the lack of response to our feedback/comments/questions along with frustration over the extended design delays.June 28, (Various) – Emails exchanged regarding engineering, concerns over design comments/feedback and design delays not addressed.June 30, 4:PM – Email from EMS confirming engineering meeting on the 5th, concerns over design comments/feedback and design delays not addressed.July 7, 10:PM – Email to EMS regarding engineeringJuly 8, 7:AM – Email from EMS confirming request from the 7th and indicating that an additional meeting/conversation between HTK and EMS was required Concerns over design comments/feedback and design delays not addressed.July 25, 4:PM – Email to EMS again requesting status of our project, namely a response to our design comments/feedback and design delaysJuly 26, 10:AM – Email from EMS (***) requesting an in person meeting with us and principal [redacted] *** Various communication (back and forth) to coordinate meeting timeJuly 29, (Meeting @ EMS) – Meeting primarily addressed path forward for design delays Detailed response on design comments/feedback not receivedAugust 3, 3:PM – Email from [redacted] providing a path forward and indicating that new point of contact [redacted] will review in detail our comments/feedback/questionsVarious back and forth logistical emails also exchanged.August 4, 12:PM – Email from EMS informing us of meeting with the City of Carlsbad which made some of our questions/concerns/feedback OBEBy August 4, 2016, days had passed since we provided detailed comments/feedback/questions to EMS regarding the June design revision, and had yet to receive a responseThis is just one of many similar examples demonstrating the communication by EMS was neither timely nor detailedFurther, it was wholly inconsistent w/ the Professional Standards of Care for a Landscape Architect As far as reimbursements are concerned, the request to refund [redacted] costs is directly attributable to EMS’ failure to perform the Contract and failure to perform in accordance with the Professional Standards of Care for a Landscape Architect as outlined aboveAdditionally, this cost was a direct result of EMS’ insistence that nothing else could be done until the engineering was completedWe expressed our concern (email dated June 27, 2016) with proceeding with engineering prior to finalizing the design, which was reiterated by the engineerIn short, had EMS completed the contract as scheduled, known or researched applicable building/landscape codes, and provided a design that was buildable, these costs would not have been incurredSimilarly, with regards to the French door; had EMS been a competent design-build company, known what could and could not be built, or checked with the city promptly after signing the contract, we wouldn’t have purchased the door We have attempted to be fair and reasonable by omitting other damages caused by EMS, namely the interest on more than $350k in loans that we took to pay for our projectHowever, that inclination is waning the longer this drags out and the longer it takes EMS to take one iota of responsibility for its lack of performanceWhile we appreciate your incessant reminders pointing us to arbitration, fortunately state and federal law provides us with many other alternativesThose include, but are not limited to: contacting your contractor and landscape architecture licensing boards, applicable bond companies, working with the Revdex.com, professional associations (CLCA, APLD, ASLA), helping educate potential future customers of EMS by providing thorough and factual reviews (such as this) on websites such as ***, ***, [redacted] , [redacted] ***, etc., along with small claims litigation for which the San Diego Superior Court advice line has indicated that judges typically will allow small claims to proceed even when there is an arbitration clause due to the high cost to all parties to pursue arbitration (compared to small claims)We are certainly willing to continue pursuing all of these alternatives in order to resolve this issue Regards, [redacted] & [redacted]