Hage Electric & Construction Inc

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:
Mr***'s response ignores the central issue *** Electric's bid and scope of work explicitly states that "Service will have [3]-amp breakers and [1]-amp breaker" It also required installation of "2-transformer vaults with pads [1]-for future use." Instead of the amps specified (3xplus 1x200), *** installed amps (6xplus 1x200) The change orders *** referred to increased DG Rollins' cost and therefore could not and do not explain any reduction to the originally contracted service
Sincerely,*** ***

Garry [redacted] Electric & Construction, Inc.
December 22, 2015 Response to BBD Complaint ID: [redacted] ([redacted])
Respectfully, the central issue is that [redacted] Electric built the electrical system it wasdirected to build by the general contractor. It is Mr. [redacted] who mischaracterizes the issue toreach his desired result. Again:
(1). Mr. [redacted]’s company [redacted] (“[redacted]”) hired Design Structures LLC(“Design Structures”) to construct its commercial project. Design Structures hired [redacted] Electric.Mr. [redacted]’s concerns should be directed to Design Structures.(2). [redacted] changed the project significantly AND signed off on the changes. Perhaps[redacted] should not have signed off on changes to Design Structure’s contract if there was nota clear understanding on Mr. [redacted]’s part. [redacted] Electric can only proceed as directed by itscustomer, Design Structures, which [redacted] Electric did as documented by the signed change ordersto the subcontract.(3). [redacted] argument that it paid more and got less is simply false. [redacted] Electric didnot simply decide to build a different project. [redacted] Electric built the project its customer DesignStructures directed it to build, which yes, cost more because [redacted] got more in the form oflabor, materials and equipment. There is a great deal of information [redacted] now ignoresbecause it is inconsistent with the simple view Mr. [redacted] wishes to present.
It is regrettable that [redacted] is having problems, but all of the information to date onlyproves that [redacted] received the functioning, code-compliant system that Design Structurescontracted [redacted] Electric to build.

Garry [redacted] Electric & Construction, Inc.Response to BBD Complaint ID: [redacted] ([redacted])
[redacted] Electric & Construction Inc. (“[redacted] Electric”) has enjoyed a good reputation as an electricalcontractor in our community for over 18 years by acting with integrity and standing behind itswork....

Our company is trusted by some of the region’s leading general contractors to work on largepublic and private commercial projects through out the state of Oregon.
The Complainant is a commercial business company. This is not the first time we have receiveda complaint from this particular company for the same job. As stated previously in other forums,if the Complainant identifies a problem that is [redacted] Electric’s responsibility, [redacted] Electric willrespond appropriately. After reviewing information provided by Complainant, a recent site visitto review the work, and consulting with the local code authority, [redacted] Electric continues to standbehind the quality of its work.
Regrettably, complainant’s Revdex.com Complaint contains a number of false statements or false impliedstatements, which we feel are necessary to correct. Those corrections include:1. Complainant did not hire [redacted] Electric. Complainant hired a general contractor who in turnhired [redacted] Electric. There are contract documents – Complainant has them.
2. [redacted] Electric built the system Complainant’s general contractor requested [redacted] Electricto build through normal contract and change order procedures. Again, [redacted] Electric canonly build what it is asked to build as established by the contract documents. Complainant hasbeen provided this contract documentation on at least two occasions. [redacted] Electric understandsthat Complainant signed off on all of the general contractor’s change orders that reflected what[redacted] Electric was directed to build.
3. [redacted] Electric’s work was indeed completed “in accordance with applicable buildingcodes.” [redacted] Electric’s work was inspected and approved by the local code authority. This is amatter of public record that anyone is free to go look up. The permit number is 565-14-001807-ELEC.
It is true, as the Revdex.com complaint states, that Complainant hired another electrician to modify [redacted]Electric’s work. Complainant is free to do for whatever reason it deems appropriate. [redacted] Electricdenies that such work by a follow on electrician was necessary due to any non-performance of[redacted] Electric. While [redacted] Electric declines to respond more specifically due to other legal threatsmade by Complainant, it is safe to say that [redacted] Electric is not responsible for other contractor’swork or the owner’s misuse of an electrical system.