Encompass Engineering & Surveying

It appears that the primary issue of the complaint was the client's misunderstanding of what the feasibility study and pre-application meeting (i.e. Task 01) would include. I tried to explain this on multiple occasions both via email and through telephone conversation and it never met her expectations. I advised her that without the necessary engineering for the submittal, we could not reasonably complete our design and the project would likely experience delays through the review process. Meaning, we should present a level of detail at the submittal that the city could provide definitive responses to. Chad A also tried to resolve it with her and even offered to attend the pre-submittal meeting at no charge, which she rejected.What was detailed in our signed agreement (copy attached) and what transpired clearly reflects our completion of a feasibility study with respect to Task 01. A copy of the City of Kirkland's short plat application checklist is also attached for reference and it clearly states that a pre-submittal meeting is mandatory (not a "pre-application meeting") and also outlines the requirements of the submittal. No engineering was included under Task 01, but it is clearly required for plan submittal and I've highlighted specific references on the attached application.Further, the client never expressed any frustration or dissatisfaction of services until she refused to proceed with the required engineering and was seemingly now demanding a fixed fee price for our services. At no time was the client refused an estimate for the cost of work, but rather she essentially made demands to itemize the components of Task 03 once the work was necessary.All work to date was in accordance with the terms of the signed agreement and within the provided cost estimates. It is regrettable that the client elected to choose this course of action rather than proceed with the necessary work, but at no time was Encompass fraudulent in their actions or the information relayed. Thanks,
Wayne N
Land Use Planner

At this point I'm not sure how to proceed. I asked my 'Mr. N' to respond to each question and those responses are listed below. It is our continual stance that we did nothing wrong and that *** cannot and will not be satisfied despite evidence that supports our stance. Her complaints have absolutely NO basis and we have submitted proof of that on multiple occasions. Mr. N clearly shows below that we have been asked and we answered the SAME QUESTIONS previously. We were completely transparent in our communications with ***, our contract spelled out the tasks and we, as always, acted in the best interests of our client. At some point this has to end, I can't afford to continue to dedicate company resources to repeat what's already been stated. I wish Ms. Wen were yet another satisfied client but I don't think anything we can say will allow for that.

- Do you recognize and admit that the "pre-application meeting" and "pre-submittal" meeting" are two different ways that people often use to refer to the exactly same thing? Yes, and that is exactly why we specified a "pre-application meeting" in Task 01, which was feasibility only. This is further evidence by the fact that the agreement also differentiates between a "conceptual layout" in Task 01 and the "Preliminary Short Plat" in Task 03. Further, Task 03 clearly states, "All meetings and coordination with the Client and applicable jurisdiction(s) shall be included," which would include, but not be limited to, the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, whereas Task 01 specifies, "One pre-application meeting with City staff and one site visit will be included."
Task 01 is a feasibility or information gathering exercise and it was performed exactly as intended and represented. The mandatory pre-submittal meeting is a required component of the preliminary short plat application, which is clearly covered under Task 03.
- Did you communicate to me after your walk-in trip that the city told you they still require the pre-application meeting and did you say that you will be preparing to submit the request for that meeting? Yes, and it was stated in context for your authorization to proceed with Task 03, as the terms of the agreement provided.
- Did you tell me that for the pre-application meeting, you need to perform two subtasks from Task3 from the contract? Yes, and this has never been disputed. The information gathered at the pre-application meeting was for feasibility purposes only. In order to adequately proceed with the design of the preliminary short plat, and for the city to provide detailed responses to the key issues (e.g. stormwater design, frontage improvement and access requirements), it was recommended that we proceed with Task 03. To submit the same conceptual site plan as was submitted at the pre-application meeting would mean that we would likely receive the same information back from the city, which would ultimately likely require additional design revisions during the review process and thereby causing unnecessary delay and expense.
- Is it true or false that the work from Task3 from the contract are NOT required for the pre-application meeting? (even though they may certainly be helpful) The city's preliminary short plat checklist is clear what is required to be included on a preliminary short plat. The city may elect to accept a lesser standard for pre-submittal purposes, but we believe that it would be to the overall detriment of the project.
- Is it reasonable or not for a consumer to know how much they will pay for a task before the work starts? The estimated expense of each task is clearly stated in the signed agreement.
- Did you refuse to tell me how much those subtasks from Task03 will cost after I asked a couple of times? And instead of telling me how much they would cost so we can move forward with my project, did you then tell me "if you are not satisfied with our work, then you can ask us to stop". As stated above, the estimated cost for each task is clearly stated in the agreement and you were referred back to it. Also, just to be clear, here is the content my email to you in its entirety. This was sent on August 14th at 5:46 pm and you instructed us to stop work via email the following morning, August 15th, at 9:14 am.
Hi ***,
I don't believe the contract is misleading and I've spent a lot of personal time responding to your multiple requests that was not accounted for in the scope of work. There is a significant difference between a conceptual layout for feasibility and preliminary short plat maps and engineering for submittal. I've made every effort to keep your project in line with the estimated budget and I will continue to do so. I've also explained the process and contract to you on over the phone, via email and have cited the contract itself, so I'm not sure how else to respond to your continued concerns and requests. If you are not satisfied with our progress and/or work, we can stop work at your request, but it's not feasible for either of us to continue this way.Please advise how you would like to proceed.- After I authorized you to stop the work, did you then tell me the pre-application meeting is completed claiming the walk-in trip is the pre-application meeting. Let me ask you, since you said those subtasks from Task03 were needed for pre-application meeting, none of those work were done because you won't tell me how much they cost, how come suddenly "the pre-application meeting was completed"? Again, for clarity, here is the content of my email in its entirety:
Hi ***,The pre-application meeting was held August 3rd with representatives of both Public Works and Planning and I provided you with a summary via email that same afternoon. If you still have questions related to the feasibility of the short plat, I'm happy to do additional work and provide you with a more detailed summary. Please keep in mind that all tasks are billed on time & materials basis and the fees are estimated, which is expressly stated in the signed agreement. In other words, we can continue with additional feasibility work and it will be billed accordingly. My recommendation is to proceed with Task 03, as the more information we have for the pre-submittal meeting, the better the city will be able to respond to our questions and comments. It will also reduce the number of corrections necessary and the overall review time frame.Please let me know how you would like to proceed.- Did you or not go on to say those subtasks that you said were needed were for the "pre-submittal" meeting" to try make me think that the pre-application meeting and the pre-submittal meeting are two different things.
I believe you're continuing to mischaracterize or misconstrue my statements and the full text of the referenced emails clearly demonstrates this. The project was on time and on budget and so I'm at a complete loss for how you came to the conclusion that you were somehow being deceived. What is most alarming is how your apparent frustration and accusations have so quickly escalated, particularly in your last statements to the Revdex.com. We welcome any third party review of your complaint and stand by our performance of services, as well as our efforts to provide for reasonable resolution.