John A Salat Architects

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[*** *** will be seeking legal restitution.]
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com San DiegoViewridge Ave Suite 200San Diego, CA www.sandiego.Revdex.com.orgPhone: (858)496-Fax: (858) 496-Email: [email protected] Web:RE: ID *** at project site of* *** *** *** ***Synopsis: The project stopped at a phase
with no final awarded bidder as the claims andallegations from our client are inaccurate and inconsistent as shown by our carefullydocumented records attached and as outlined below.The first inconsistency pertains to the written contract which was prepared on October 13thand signed, paid and started on October 15th, not September 7th as stated by the client,(See attached “SignedContract.pdf”).Another inconsistency is that we did not receive a written request from our client regardingsubmittal of the final plan check drawingsThe plan that was submittal ready wasabandoned because all of our energy and focus shifted based on the client's new writtendirectionThe client made this choice following receipt the bids which exceeded the projectbudget, thus resulting in the need for a plan redesignThis decision to change course wasmade by the client, not our firm.With no additional funds for this project, the project came to a haltThe contractor gave theclient four options for cost cutting, while also we explored costs reduction measures toprovide a way to move the project forwardThe client refused to authorize us to proceed,or commission us for future architectural reengineering services and we gave the client fouroptions within our contract give them free choice.I acknowledge that my client is unhappy as they do not have final revised plans fitting tomeet their new reduced budgetHowever our contract clearly outlined the client isaccountable for their construction budget and also responsible for Change Orders costsshould redesign occur from the construction bid overrunsThe battle to cut scope and cost,resulted in a required redesign, thus giving the client little satisfaction because the optionsmeant the client had to expend additional funds.The remaining inconsistences are detailed per the responses below| Page1) The Client Stated: You were paid $14,for architecturalservices; however, you have not submitted the project's plans to theCity of Irvine for permit.Architects Response:Since the beginning of the project in October 2014, the project has had constant designchanges based upon the client’s requests, up to April 2, We submitted the planstwice to the Irvine Peer Group Plan Checkers and also submitted to the City of Irvine latelast yearThe final plan check corrections that came back January were minor andwhere able to correct these items with a quick turnaround on January 13, 2015.These plans were not resubmitted for final plan check to agencies due to the following:a) First, the same month we complete the in-house plan check corrections (January),the final bids came in almost 50% above the client’s budget(This is noted in thecontractor’s log, as well as from clients email dated January 28, asking forredesign)The January plans that would have been resubmitted to agency now require majordesign changes to align with the budget(Revision Delta #represents thecomplete/final plan check corrections referenced from our planwell zipfilehttp://***.com/download/Latest.Set.zip )On January 28, 2015, the clientrequested both the contractor and our firm to cut construction costs from $153,930down to $80,We worked diligently with the contractor to reduce the constructioncosts, our firm and my engineering consultants provided many design options tolower the construction budget with the intended result of aiding my client in their finaldecisionDuring this time the Contractor provided four price schemes in which myclient’s slow response was nearly a two month periodDue to a series of the resultingconfusion from the four changes in the Scope of Work, along with increasing effort onhis time, the contractor found it necessary to withdraw from further involvement in theproject as per March 25, (See attached “ContractorsWithdrawal.pdf”).We continually worked diligently to give the client an opportunity to make his finaldecisionThe client finally committed in design by reaching to a conclusion on April 2,However, this new design modification now involves 70% change from ourJanuary submittal setUpon becoming clear on what the client wanted as of April 2,our firm prepared a Change Order for approvalBecause of the larger scope change,our policy is to rely on a more formal approvalTo this day my client has not signedto authorize us to moving forward with his new scheme.b) The second reason the plans were not submitted to the city is that even though wetechnically completed all the plan check corrections from the January drawing set, theCity of Irvine would not defer one of the plan check items from their listThis plancheck item is a Planning Department matter involving a historical issue exclusivelybetween the City of Irvine and the Developer| PageWe were not the originator (Architect of Record) for the existing site, campus and onsiteand off-site structure(s) that fall on this parcel of land; As such, legally we cannotresolve issues that have origin belonging to the DeveloperOur office has noinvolvement to any chronology or history with progress improvements whatsoeverfrom matters prior to our engagement the other building addressesOur contractcovers T.Iinterior work as just one tenant space- not campus wideAlthough my firmwas not responsible for forensic work in gathering historical data, we went beyondour scope to open dialog with the Developer with the intent to move this project alongmost rapidly.During that time when the Developer was still gathering information, the City PlanningDepartment placed the project on hold as a leveraging chip until the Developer maderesolution on justifying their tabulations for square footages and parking ratios for thetwo other building addressesThe City Plan Checker made it clear to us that theywould reject our plans and consider our submittal incomplete unless we provided theevidence needed from Developer’s research (See Attached page file“City.Holdup.pdf”), Coincidently, the final resolution between Developer and theCity was within close timing of my client making their final design decision on April 2,as mentioned in “Item a” in paragraph above.Our signed contract, bottom 3rd page of item “Contract Time” states: “Impact toschedules beyond the architect’s control from third party” releases us from these delays.In conclusion, my above response outlines and identifies that the delay was due to thirdparties, which are outside control and scope of the architectural contract.2) The Client Stated: Submitted an invoice ($3,408) to your client forwork that you had already been paid to complete;Architects Response:With cash flow, we worked sequentially consist with the signed contractHowever, the70% changes on March 30, created out-of-sequence design changes, resulting inthe additional cost of $3,Note that we had already completed 100% of Phase and98% for Phase 7, assuming we were to utilize the January drawingsHowever, the client’snew design requirements generated a C.O(See supplied Change Order dated April 6,“C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf)This C.Ois in line with the signed contract for “Out ofsequence” work from client previous approved drawings of last yearSuch a ChangeOrder is considered a standard industry practice.The Change Order for $3,encompasses both architectural and engineering disciplineswhich would require revisionsThe electrical is most impacted as that would involve recalcof T-lighting using a new proposed lighting layout of different fixtures plus powerchanges with adjusted electrical load calcs, etc.,…Our office formality is to provide clarity to our clients on expectations and understanding ofwhat this major change impacts before we resubmitIt is not just the architect that needsto be aware of the proposed construction, but requires the architect to interface with allparties-- working with traditional multi-department Plan checkers within the city and countygovernment of Irvine, the owner of the building, the Developer Project Manager, the fouruniquely the (4) Independent Peer Group Plan Checkers for all disciplines (required| Pagethrough the Developer)With each submittal, the process begins and reinvents all overagain, interfacing will all of the above parties.In conclusion, this is a fair charge for this large scope changeThese 70% changesrequire hours of interfacing with all my engineers and agenciesThe attachment of“C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf) breaks down the detailed cost for architectural andengineering discipline in further detail.3) The Client Stated: Were unable to effectively communicate with theDeveloper to complete the project's plans;Architects Response:As addressed above from Item 2b, we went to great lengths to expand our communicationfar beyond expectationsThe Developer agreed to act as the overseer of the meetingswith CityDespite being clear on roles, responsibilities and expectations, it appears myclient feels that we did not push strong enough between both agencies to get the parcelissues resolved between the Developer and CityYet, even though this is a 3rd party issueoutside the scope of work, we stayed focused on resolution by making every attempt, Ittook independent calls, a conference call and writing many strong letters“Urgent/Hardship” of language to Developer to have the two parties communicate on theissues at handThis is demonstrated by my unsurmountable hours of time as indicatedvia the emails exhibited in the attached file “City.Holdup.pdf”In recapping, the Planning Department item is not in our scope of workThe Citymandated us to make sure the data got included on our drawings that we would later signand stamp for city recordsThis means we must rely on accurate information from theDeveloper to meet the request of the City.My obligation is to review the uniformity between both parties, and question the missingpieces so that tabulations would correctly match prior to placing the information on mysheets for our final submittalThe slow response from the Developer, for which there isnow final resolution, was unforeseen.Resolution between the two parties was in direct correlation to our volumes ofcommunication efforts, clearly demonstrated in our attachment file “City.Holdup.pdf”5) The Client Stated: Sent your client a Release of All Claims, datedApril 23, 2015, relieving you as the "Architect of Record" and of allliability or responsibility for the drawings that were prepared by you orthe construction of the project.Architects Response:When my client made the decision not to give us a greenlight to move forward and that wecould not come to any resolution after our March 30th letter, (Attached “Response toClient 3-30-15.pdf), this became the point when I offered them the offer to exit ourrelationshipThis would release the drawings in their hands, thus removing us as the| PageArchitect of RecordThey agreed with email response “yes” (See attached“Yes.No.Termination.pdf) so I provided them the termination letter with two options.(See Attached "A" Termination Option.pdf and B Termination Option.pdf”) Thenshortly thereafter, they claimed they never asked for a termination of the contract(Seeconflicting attachments “Yes.No.Termination.pdf” letters from their office)They askedmore questions about the termination options, so I created a cover letter explaining theindustry standards, (see attached file “Cover Termination.pdf”).End of document to responding to client’s allegations.*** A***Attachments:• A response to the allegations;• A copy of the drawings you did for the project;• Any correspondence between you and your client;• A copy of the executed written contract with additional information supporting the complaint:Please verify a total inventory of attachments provided with this emailas outlined belowAttached file”SignedContract.pdf”Attached file “Response to Client 3-30-15.pdf”Attached file “C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf”Attached file “Yes.No.Termination.pdf”Attached file “City.Holdup.pdf”Attached file “Cover Termination.pdf”Attached file “ContractorsWithdrawal.pdf”)Attached file “A TerminationOption.pdf”Attached file “B TerminationOption.pdf”“Hyperlinks” Drawings available at: http://***.com/download/Latest.Set.zip

Revdex.com San Diego4747 Viewridge Ave Suite 200San Diego, CA 92123 www.sandiego.Revdex.com.orgPhone: (858)496-2131 Fax: (858) 496-2141 Email: [email protected] Web:RE: ID [redacted] at project site of[redacted]Synopsis: The project stopped at a phase with no final awarded...

bidder as the claims andallegations from our client are inaccurate and inconsistent as shown by our carefullydocumented records attached and as outlined below.The first inconsistency pertains to the written contract which was prepared on October 13thand signed, paid and started on October 15th, not September 7th as stated by the client,(See attached “SignedContract.pdf”).Another inconsistency is that we did not receive a written request from our client regardingsubmittal of the final plan check drawings. The plan that was submittal ready wasabandoned because all of our energy and focus shifted based on the client's new writtendirection. The client made this choice following receipt the bids which exceeded the projectbudget, thus resulting in the need for a plan redesign. This decision to change course wasmade by the client, not our firm.With no additional funds for this project, the project came to a halt. The contractor gave theclient four options for cost cutting, while also we explored costs reduction measures toprovide a way to move the project forward. The client refused to authorize us to proceed,or commission us for future architectural reengineering services and we gave the client fouroptions within our contract give them free choice.I acknowledge that my client is unhappy as they do not have final revised plans fitting tomeet their new reduced budget. However our contract clearly outlined the client isaccountable for their construction budget and also responsible for Change Orders costsshould redesign occur from the construction bid overruns. The battle to cut scope and cost,resulted in a required redesign, thus giving the client little satisfaction because the optionsmeant the client had to expend additional funds.The remaining inconsistences are detailed per the responses below.2 | Page1) The Client Stated: You were paid $14,748.17 for architecturalservices; however, you have not submitted the project's plans to theCity of Irvine for permit.Architects Response:Since the beginning of the project in October 2014, the project has had constant designchanges based upon the client’s requests, up to April 2, 2015. We submitted the planstwice to the Irvine Peer Group Plan Checkers and also submitted to the City of Irvine latelast year. The final plan check corrections that came back January were minor andwhere able to correct these items with a quick turnaround on January 13, 2015.These plans were not resubmitted for final plan check to agencies due to the following:a) First, the same month we complete the in-house plan check corrections (January),the final bids came in almost 50% above the client’s budget. (This is noted in thecontractor’s log, as well as from clients email dated January 28, 2015 asking forredesign)The January 13 plans that would have been resubmitted to agency now require majordesign changes to align with the budget. (Revision Delta #1 represents thecomplete/final plan check corrections referenced from our planwell zipfilehttp://[redacted].com/download/Latest.Set.zip ). On January 28, 2015, the clientrequested both the contractor and our firm to cut construction costs from $153,930down to $80,000. We worked diligently with the contractor to reduce the constructioncosts, our firm and my engineering consultants provided many design options tolower the construction budget with the intended result of aiding my client in their finaldecision. During this time the Contractor provided four price schemes in which myclient’s slow response was nearly a two month period. Due to a series of the resultingconfusion from the four changes in the Scope of Work, along with increasing effort onhis time, the contractor found it necessary to withdraw from further involvement in theproject as per March 25, 2015. (See attached “ContractorsWithdrawal.pdf”).We continually worked diligently to give the client an opportunity to make his finaldecision. The client finally committed in design by reaching to a conclusion on April 2,2015. However, this new design modification now involves 70% change from ourJanuary submittal set. Upon becoming clear on what the client wanted as of April 2,our firm prepared a Change Order for approval. Because of the larger scope change,our policy is to rely on a more formal approval. To this day my client has not signedto authorize us to moving forward with his new scheme.b) The second reason the plans were not submitted to the city is that even though wetechnically completed all the plan check corrections from the January drawing set, theCity of Irvine would not defer one of the plan check items from their list. This plancheck item is a Planning Department matter involving a historical issue exclusivelybetween the City of Irvine and the Developer.3 | PageWe were not the originator (Architect of Record) for the existing site, campus and onsiteand off-site structure(s) that fall on this parcel of land; As such, legally we cannotresolve issues that have origin belonging to the Developer. Our office has noinvolvement to any chronology or history with progress improvements whatsoeverfrom matters prior to our engagement the other building addresses. Our contractcovers T.I. interior work as just one tenant space- not campus wide. Although my firmwas not responsible for forensic work in gathering historical data, we went beyondour scope to open dialog with the Developer with the intent to move this project alongmost rapidly.During that time when the Developer was still gathering information, the City PlanningDepartment placed the project on hold as a leveraging chip until the Developer maderesolution on justifying their tabulations for square footages and parking ratios for thetwo other building addresses. The City Plan Checker made it clear to us that theywould reject our plans and consider our submittal incomplete unless we provided theevidence needed from Developer’s research (See Attached 55 page file“City.Holdup.pdf”), Coincidently, the final resolution between Developer and theCity was within close timing of my client making their final design decision on April 2,2015 as mentioned in “Item a” in paragraph above.Our signed contract, bottom 3rd page of item “Contract Time” states: “Impact toschedules beyond the architect’s control from third party” releases us from these delays.In conclusion, my above response outlines and identifies that the delay was due to thirdparties, which are outside control and scope of the architectural contract.2) The Client Stated: Submitted an invoice ($3,408) to your client forwork that you had already been paid to complete;Architects Response:With cash flow, we worked sequentially consist with the signed contract. However, the70% changes on March 30, 2015 created out-of-sequence design changes, resulting inthe additional cost of $3,408. Note that we had already completed 100% of Phase 6 and98% for Phase 7, assuming we were to utilize the January drawings. However, the client’snew design requirements generated a C.O. (See supplied Change Order dated April 6,“C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf). This C.O. is in line with the signed contract for “Out ofsequence” work from client previous approved drawings of last year. Such a ChangeOrder is considered a standard industry practice.The Change Order for $3,408 encompasses both architectural and engineering disciplineswhich would require revisions. The electrical is most impacted as that would involve recalcof T-24 lighting using a new proposed lighting layout of different fixtures plus powerchanges with adjusted electrical load calcs, etc.,…Our office formality is to provide clarity to our clients on expectations and understanding ofwhat this major change impacts before we resubmit. It is not just the architect that needsto be aware of the proposed construction, but requires the architect to interface with allparties-- working with traditional multi-department Plan checkers within the city and countygovernment of Irvine, the owner of the building, the Developer Project Manager, the fouruniquely the (4) Independent Peer Group Plan Checkers for all disciplines (required4 | Pagethrough the Developer). With each submittal, the process begins and reinvents all overagain, interfacing will all of the above parties.In conclusion, this is a fair charge for this large scope change. These 70% changesrequire hours of interfacing with all my engineers and agencies. The attachment of“C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf) breaks down the detailed cost for architectural andengineering discipline in further detail.3) The Client Stated: Were unable to effectively communicate with theDeveloper to complete the project's plans;Architects Response:As addressed above from Item 2b, we went to great lengths to expand our communicationfar beyond expectations. The Developer agreed to act as the overseer of the meetingswith City. Despite being clear on roles, responsibilities and expectations, it appears myclient feels that we did not push strong enough between both agencies to get the parcelissues resolved between the Developer and City. Yet, even though this is a 3rd party issueoutside the scope of work, we stayed focused on resolution by making every attempt, Ittook independent calls, a conference call and writing many strong letters“Urgent/Hardship” of language to Developer to have the two parties communicate on theissues at hand. This is demonstrated by my unsurmountable hours of time as indicatedvia the 60 emails exhibited in the attached file “City.Holdup.pdf”In recapping, the Planning Department item is not in our scope of work. The Citymandated us to make sure the data got included on our drawings that we would later signand stamp for city records. This means we must rely on accurate information from theDeveloper to meet the request of the City.My obligation is to review the uniformity between both parties, and question the missingpieces so that tabulations would correctly match prior to placing the information on mysheets for our final submittal. The slow response from the Developer, for which there isnow final resolution, was unforeseen.Resolution between the two parties was in direct correlation to our volumes ofcommunication efforts, clearly demonstrated in our attachment file “City.Holdup.pdf”5) The Client Stated: Sent your client a Release of All Claims, datedApril 23, 2015, relieving you as the "Architect of Record" and of allliability or responsibility for the drawings that were prepared by you orthe construction of the project.Architects Response:When my client made the decision not to give us a greenlight to move forward and that wecould not come to any resolution after our March 30th letter, (Attached “Response toClient 3-30-15.pdf), this became the point when I offered them the offer to exit ourrelationship. This would release the drawings in their hands, thus removing us as the5 | PageArchitect of Record. They agreed with email response “yes” (See attached“Yes.No.Termination.pdf) so I provided them the termination letter with two options.(See Attached "A" Termination Option.pdf and B Termination Option.pdf”) Thenshortly thereafter, they claimed they never asked for a termination of the contract. (Seeconflicting attachments “Yes.No.Termination.pdf” letters from their office). They askedmore questions about the termination options, so I created a cover letter explaining theindustry standards, (see attached file “Cover Termination.pdf”).End of document to responding to client’s allegations.[redacted] A. [redacted]Attachments:• A response to the allegations;• A copy of the drawings you did for the project;• Any correspondence between you and your client;• A copy of the executed written contract with additional information supporting the complaint:Please verify a total inventory of attachments provided with this emailas outlined belowAttached file”SignedContract.pdf”Attached file “Response to Client 3-30-15.pdf”Attached file “C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf”Attached file “Yes.No.Termination.pdf”Attached file “City.Holdup.pdf”Attached file “Cover Termination.pdf”Attached file “ContractorsWithdrawal.pdf”)Attached file “A TerminationOption.pdf”Attached file “B TerminationOption.pdf”“Hyperlinks” Drawings available at: http://[redacted].com/download/Latest.Set.zip

Review: On September 7th 2014 [redacted] was contracted to do architectural work ,the context of work performed was Architectural, for Tenant Improvements on our building. [redacted] was paid up to Invoice #6 of #8, Starting in October of 2014. As of April 27th 2015 Mr. [redacted] has not provided us the permits as obligated. The agreement was that [redacted] would be submitting the entire plans for permits; we would then pull permits as necessary as we progressed with construction. As of Today - May 28th 2015 we still do not have the permits and [redacted] is now refusing to move forward unless we pay more money (Outside our original contract) Mr. [redacted] has been paid in excess of $14,748.17 We have put a hold on the 2 last payments due to the fact that he is refusing to submit our plans as agreed and since he has been paid almost entirely, is essentially using this as a bargaining tool to extract more more money.Desired Settlement: We require that Mr. [redacted] either submit the plans for permits with the City as agreed on and fulfill his contractual agreement. Or refund us the total amount paid in invoices for his breach of contract.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com San Diego4747 Viewridge Ave Suite 200San Diego, CA 92123 www.sandiego.Revdex.com.orgPhone: (858)496-2131 Fax: (858) 496-2141 Email: [email protected] Web:RE: ID [redacted] at project site of[redacted]Synopsis: The project stopped at a phase with no final awarded bidder as the claims andallegations from our client are inaccurate and inconsistent as shown by our carefullydocumented records attached and as outlined below.The first inconsistency pertains to the written contract which was prepared on October 13thand signed, paid and started on October 15th, not September 7th as stated by the client,(See attached “SignedContract.pdf”).Another inconsistency is that we did not receive a written request from our client regardingsubmittal of the final plan check drawings. The plan that was submittal ready wasabandoned because all of our energy and focus shifted based on the client's new writtendirection. The client made this choice following receipt the bids which exceeded the projectbudget, thus resulting in the need for a plan redesign. This decision to change course wasmade by the client, not our firm.With no additional funds for this project, the project came to a halt. The contractor gave theclient four options for cost cutting, while also we explored costs reduction measures toprovide a way to move the project forward. The client refused to authorize us to proceed,or commission us for future architectural reengineering services and we gave the client fouroptions within our contract give them free choice.I acknowledge that my client is unhappy as they do not have final revised plans fitting tomeet their new reduced budget. However our contract clearly outlined the client isaccountable for their construction budget and also responsible for Change Orders costsshould redesign occur from the construction bid overruns. The battle to cut scope and cost,resulted in a required redesign, thus giving the client little satisfaction because the optionsmeant the client had to expend additional funds.The remaining inconsistences are detailed per the responses below.2 | Page1) The Client Stated: You were paid $14,748.17 for architecturalservices; however, you have not submitted the project's plans to theCity of Irvine for permit.Architects Response:Since the beginning of the project in October 2014, the project has had constant designchanges based upon the client’s requests, up to April 2, 2015. We submitted the planstwice to the Irvine Peer Group Plan Checkers and also submitted to the City of Irvine latelast year. The final plan check corrections that came back January were minor andwhere able to correct these items with a quick turnaround on January 13, 2015.These plans were not resubmitted for final plan check to agencies due to the following:a) First, the same month we complete the in-house plan check corrections (January),the final bids came in almost 50% above the client’s budget. (This is noted in thecontractor’s log, as well as from clients email dated January 28, 2015 asking forredesign)The January 13 plans that would have been resubmitted to agency now require majordesign changes to align with the budget. (Revision Delta #1 represents thecomplete/final plan check corrections referenced from our planwell zipfilehttp://[redacted].com/download/Latest.Set.zip ). On January 28, 2015, the clientrequested both the contractor and our firm to cut construction costs from $153,930down to $80,000. We worked diligently with the contractor to reduce the constructioncosts, our firm and my engineering consultants provided many design options tolower the construction budget with the intended result of aiding my client in their finaldecision. During this time the Contractor provided four price schemes in which myclient’s slow response was nearly a two month period. Due to a series of the resultingconfusion from the four changes in the Scope of Work, along with increasing effort onhis time, the contractor found it necessary to withdraw from further involvement in theproject as per March 25, 2015. (See attached “ContractorsWithdrawal.pdf”).We continually worked diligently to give the client an opportunity to make his finaldecision. The client finally committed in design by reaching to a conclusion on April 2,2015. However, this new design modification now involves 70% change from ourJanuary submittal set. Upon becoming clear on what the client wanted as of April 2,our firm prepared a Change Order for approval. Because of the larger scope change,our policy is to rely on a more formal approval. To this day my client has not signedto authorize us to moving forward with his new scheme.b) The second reason the plans were not submitted to the city is that even though wetechnically completed all the plan check corrections from the January drawing set, theCity of Irvine would not defer one of the plan check items from their list. This plancheck item is a Planning Department matter involving a historical issue exclusivelybetween the City of Irvine and the Developer.3 | PageWe were not the originator (Architect of Record) for the existing site, campus and onsiteand off-site structure(s) that fall on this parcel of land; As such, legally we cannotresolve issues that have origin belonging to the Developer. Our office has noinvolvement to any chronology or history with progress improvements whatsoeverfrom matters prior to our engagement the other building addresses. Our contractcovers T.I. interior work as just one tenant space- not campus wide. Although my firmwas not responsible for forensic work in gathering historical data, we went beyondour scope to open dialog with the Developer with the intent to move this project alongmost rapidly.During that time when the Developer was still gathering information, the City PlanningDepartment placed the project on hold as a leveraging chip until the Developer maderesolution on justifying their tabulations for square footages and parking ratios for thetwo other building addresses. The City Plan Checker made it clear to us that theywould reject our plans and consider our submittal incomplete unless we provided theevidence needed from Developer’s research (See Attached 55 page file“City.Holdup.pdf”), Coincidently, the final resolution between Developer and theCity was within close timing of my client making their final design decision on April 2,2015 as mentioned in “Item a” in paragraph above.Our signed contract, bottom 3rd page of item “Contract Time” states: “Impact toschedules beyond the architect’s control from third party” releases us from these delays.In conclusion, my above response outlines and identifies that the delay was due to thirdparties, which are outside control and scope of the architectural contract.2) The Client Stated: Submitted an invoice ($3,408) to your client forwork that you had already been paid to complete;Architects Response:With cash flow, we worked sequentially consist with the signed contract. However, the70% changes on March 30, 2015 created out-of-sequence design changes, resulting inthe additional cost of $3,408. Note that we had already completed 100% of Phase 6 and98% for Phase 7, assuming we were to utilize the January drawings. However, the client’snew design requirements generated a C.O. (See supplied Change Order dated April 6,“C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf). This C.O. is in line with the signed contract for “Out ofsequence” work from client previous approved drawings of last year. Such a ChangeOrder is considered a standard industry practice.The Change Order for $3,408 encompasses both architectural and engineering disciplineswhich would require revisions. The electrical is most impacted as that would involve recalcof T-24 lighting using a new proposed lighting layout of different fixtures plus powerchanges with adjusted electrical load calcs, etc.,…Our office formality is to provide clarity to our clients on expectations and understanding ofwhat this major change impacts before we resubmit. It is not just the architect that needsto be aware of the proposed construction, but requires the architect to interface with allparties-- working with traditional multi-department Plan checkers within the city and countygovernment of Irvine, the owner of the building, the Developer Project Manager, the fouruniquely the (4) Independent Peer Group Plan Checkers for all disciplines (required4 | Pagethrough the Developer). With each submittal, the process begins and reinvents all overagain, interfacing will all of the above parties.In conclusion, this is a fair charge for this large scope change. These 70% changesrequire hours of interfacing with all my engineers and agencies. The attachment of“C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf) breaks down the detailed cost for architectural andengineering discipline in further detail.3) The Client Stated: Were unable to effectively communicate with theDeveloper to complete the project's plans;Architects Response:As addressed above from Item 2b, we went to great lengths to expand our communicationfar beyond expectations. The Developer agreed to act as the overseer of the meetingswith City. Despite being clear on roles, responsibilities and expectations, it appears myclient feels that we did not push strong enough between both agencies to get the parcelissues resolved between the Developer and City. Yet, even though this is a 3rd party issueoutside the scope of work, we stayed focused on resolution by making every attempt, Ittook independent calls, a conference call and writing many strong letters“Urgent/Hardship” of language to Developer to have the two parties communicate on theissues at hand. This is demonstrated by my unsurmountable hours of time as indicatedvia the 60 emails exhibited in the attached file “City.Holdup.pdf”In recapping, the Planning Department item is not in our scope of work. The Citymandated us to make sure the data got included on our drawings that we would later signand stamp for city records. This means we must rely on accurate information from theDeveloper to meet the request of the City.My obligation is to review the uniformity between both parties, and question the missingpieces so that tabulations would correctly match prior to placing the information on mysheets for our final submittal. The slow response from the Developer, for which there isnow final resolution, was unforeseen.Resolution between the two parties was in direct correlation to our volumes ofcommunication efforts, clearly demonstrated in our attachment file “City.Holdup.pdf”5) The Client Stated: Sent your client a Release of All Claims, datedApril 23, 2015, relieving you as the "Architect of Record" and of allliability or responsibility for the drawings that were prepared by you orthe construction of the project.Architects Response:When my client made the decision not to give us a greenlight to move forward and that wecould not come to any resolution after our March 30th letter, (Attached “Response toClient 3-30-15.pdf), this became the point when I offered them the offer to exit ourrelationship. This would release the drawings in their hands, thus removing us as the5 | PageArchitect of Record. They agreed with email response “yes” (See attached“Yes.No.Termination.pdf) so I provided them the termination letter with two options.(See Attached "A" Termination Option.pdf and B Termination Option.pdf”) Thenshortly thereafter, they claimed they never asked for a termination of the contract. (Seeconflicting attachments “Yes.No.Termination.pdf” letters from their office). They askedmore questions about the termination options, so I created a cover letter explaining theindustry standards, (see attached file “Cover Termination.pdf”).End of document to responding to client’s allegations.[redacted] A. [redacted]Attachments:• A response to the allegations;• A copy of the drawings you did for the project;• Any correspondence between you and your client;• A copy of the executed written contract with additional information supporting the complaint:Please verify a total inventory of attachments provided with this emailas outlined belowAttached file”SignedContract.pdf”Attached file “Response to Client 3-30-15.pdf”Attached file “C.O.1of.4shtscombined.pdf”Attached file “Yes.No.Termination.pdf”Attached file “City.Holdup.pdf”Attached file “Cover Termination.pdf”Attached file “ContractorsWithdrawal.pdf”)Attached file “A TerminationOption.pdf”Attached file “B TerminationOption.pdf”“Hyperlinks” Drawings available at: http://[redacted].com/download/Latest.Set.zip

Consumer

Response:

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.

[[redacted] will be seeking legal restitution.]

Regards,