Koa Architects LLC

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Koa Architects has distorted the facts in its response to this complaint and has simply failed in its contractual obligations for this project We began our relationship in late July and signed the contract on Sept10, We left the island Dec 12, after which no more work was done according to Koa's emails to usWhen I first wrote to KOA Architects in early asking that they provide a 'monthly billing' of the hours spent on my project they responded with an additional invoice When I wrote back to them for clarification, an incomplete response resultedI had been asking continuously for the 'monthly billing' that had never been provided up to this point and has not even yet been provided to this day Finally, I pressed them again for the 'monthly billing' and they came back with a simple accounting that indicated that all of our deposit had been usedI was shocked to see that all of our deposit had been used in such a short time so I requested a detailed accountingSubsequently, they sent the time sheets of the drafter vsthe architect seemingly in order to justify the depletion of the $10,deposit that I had placed with them which turned out were far different from their simple billing and indicated they had not actually used all of the deposit While much discussion can and has been produced between us there remains, in the first place, a fundamental flaw in KOA's written contractual obligations which were agreed to, in writing, at the time of giving the deposit of $10, I will refer to page two of the KOA contract wherein it states "Invoicing shall be made monthly in proportion to the work performed to date" The contract obliged KOA to provide 'monthly billings' for work done for the contract against the deposit This was never done and when asked to provide that they gave us a second invoice for $10, I was quite surprised to find that the first deposit was being claimed to have been exhausted as there had never been so much as a single billing produced It did not seem to me that enough work had been done to date to justify a second deposit As I stated earlier when I protested and asked for the accounting of hours spent, that should have been provided monthly, KOA in two separated correspondences, gave two substantially different accountings Had KOA provided monthly invoices as were agreed to I would have been better able to monitor their charges as I would be more familiar with the scope of the work done and I would have been more able to direct their work in the interest of efficient use of the deposited funds.Furthermore KOA has represented in their response to the Revdex.com that their work included their representations to various government agencies for [redacted] and [redacted] entitlements for my project From the beginning I made it clear to KOA that I would be doing the representations for [redacted] approvals myself or I would be securing the professional assistance of a land use planner While it is true that we asked Matthew to set up a meeting between the BLNR representative for the Island of Hawaii and us that never happened Regarding [redacted] regulations I believe that I also stated that I would do that In any event KOA said that they were familiar with [redacted] regulations and were quite able to design in respect of that as those regulations are commonly known and understood by professional architects KOA states in their response to the Revdex.com "Never in my decade of working on this island have I had a client that so obviously has no idea what **UA and [redacted] entitlements" I will comment that I am quite familiar with what **UA and [redacted] entitlements are and I am quite prepared to evidence that I have successfully submitted applications to the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) and the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) for three (3) Site Plan Approvals (SPA's) and one (1) Conservation District Use Permit (**UP) I have even appeared at a BLNR hearing in Honolulu to represent an application that I submitted and succeeded in that application The **UA that I successfully submitted was to combine and re-subdivide the properties on which we intend to build our home That resulted in a Conservation District Use Permit (**UP) I also submitted a [redacted] to the County of Hawaii myself KOA is wrong to state that I 'have no idea what a **UA and [redacted] are'! In fact, at the time of our original complaint, our house designs were just that, designs onlyKOA had not been given any instructions to complete the designs for submitting to any gov officesWe made it very clear to KOA that we wanted to do our own permitting and it was for that fact that we delayed in signing any contracts as we continually told them we didn't want them representing usKOA suggests in its response to the Revdex.com that I am a foreign national and that somehow justifies their irresponsible billing practices For the record I am a Canadian and my wife is an American I have over years of experience in business which included the owning and managing of a large manufacturing company which employed over people and sold its products around the world I am quite familiar with contract law, billing practices and reasonable expectations that flow from contracts As stated earlier KOA has not performed a billing obligation in their contract and that has directly resulted in the dispute that we are facing today Calling me inexperienced and a foreigner is not conductive to reaching any settlement in this matter!Respectfully submitted, [redacted]

*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** **
*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** * *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ***
***Aloha,These emails automatically were stowed in my junk inbox because of the active unverified web links.I apologize for not responding to this ridiculous accusation from *** ***.In short, *** asked us for our AE fee proposal for two homes on two lots within the ** and the *** We provided this to him and he baited us along for several meetings and months until he told us that he only wanted to do one house on one parcel first phase This is the modified contract that he signed after several months of taking our time on site meetings and meetings in our Hilo office Subsequently about two months after signing the contract he told us to include back in the second home on the second parcel At this time of *** doubling our contracted scope, I sent a second invoice to him for the $10,retainer for the second home which he never paid In good faith, we continued to work on design and entitlements for the second home on the second parcel and produced several iterations of both homes on both parcels, despite never receiving the second retainer for the second home.All the while, Mr *** was in and out of communication, stopping and starting us on his project and it took the better part of months of our time on and off his project before we actually came close to billing out the initial single home’s contracted deposit This update we sent to Mr *** and he immediately called foul and said that we were lying about our time invested on his project at his behest.Never in my decade of working on this island have I had a client that so obviously has no idea what *** and *** entitlements and architectural design entails and costs of our time He is a foreign national and appears to be not well informed of American and Hawaiian contractual obligations I resigned from his project after several rounds of *** accusing me of stealing from him Our contract states that we will be paid up until such time as either party terminates our working agreement There will be no refund as we have, in fact, worked on two projects at ***’s behest and he only paid retainer for one.Much Mahalos,Matthew ** K***, ***, NCARBLicensed Architect HI CO NV*** *** ***

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Koa Architects has distorted the facts in its response to this complaint and has simply failed in its contractual obligations for this project.  We began our relationship in late July 2014 and signed the contract on Sept. 10, 2014. We left the island Dec 12, 2014 after which no more work was done according to Koa's emails to us. When I first wrote to KOA Architects in early 2015 asking that they provide a 'monthly billing' of the hours spent on my project they responded with an additional invoice.  When I wrote back to them for clarification, an incomplete response resulted. I had been asking continuously for the 'monthly billing' that had never been provided up to this point and has not even yet been provided to this day.  Finally, I pressed them again for the 'monthly billing' and they came back with a simple accounting that indicated that all of our deposit had been used. I was shocked to see that all of our deposit had been used in such a short time so I requested a detailed accounting. Subsequently, they sent the time sheets of the drafter vs. the architect seemingly in order to justify the depletion of the $10,000 deposit that I had placed with them which turned out were far different from their simple billing and indicated they had not actually used all of the deposit.  While much discussion can and has been produced between us there remains, in the first place, a fundamental flaw in KOA's written contractual obligations which were agreed to, in writing, at the time of giving the deposit of $10,000.  I will refer to page two of the KOA contract wherein it states "Invoicing shall be made monthly in proportion to the work performed to date".  The contract obliged KOA to provide 'monthly billings' for work done for the contract against the deposit.  This was never done and when asked to provide that they gave us a second invoice for $10,000.  I was quite surprised to find that the first deposit was being claimed to have been exhausted as there had never been so much as a single billing produced.   It did not seem to me that enough work had been done to date to justify a second deposit.  As I stated earlier when I protested and asked for the accounting of hours spent, that should have been provided monthly, KOA in two separated correspondences, gave two substantially different accountings.  Had KOA provided monthly invoices as were agreed to I would have been better able to monitor their charges as I would be more familiar with the scope of the work done and I would have been more able to direct their work in the interest of efficient use of the deposited funds.Furthermore KOA has represented in their response to the Revdex.com that their work included their representations to various government agencies for [redacted] and [redacted] entitlements for my project.  From the beginning I made it clear to KOA that I would be doing the representations for [redacted] approvals myself or I would be securing the professional assistance of a land use planner.  While it is true that we asked Matthew to set up a meeting between the BLNR representative for the Island of Hawaii and us that never happened.  Regarding [redacted] regulations I believe that I also stated that I would do that.  In any event KOA said that they were familiar with [redacted] regulations and were quite able to design in respect of that as those regulations are commonly known and understood by professional architects.  KOA states in their response to the Revdex.com "Never
in my decade of working on this island have I had a client that so
obviously has no idea what **UA and [redacted] entitlements".  I will comment that I am quite familiar with what **UA and [redacted] entitlements are and I am quite prepared to evidence that.  I have successfully submitted applications  to the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) and the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) for three (3) Site Plan Approvals (SPA's) and  one (1) Conservation District Use Permit (**UP).  I have even appeared at a BLNR hearing in Honolulu to represent an application that I submitted and succeeded in that application.  The **UA that I successfully submitted was to combine and re-subdivide the properties on which we intend to build our home.  That resulted in a Conservation District Use Permit (**UP).   I also submitted a [redacted] to the County of Hawaii myself.  KOA is wrong to state that I 'have no idea what a **UA and [redacted] are'!  In fact, at the time of our original complaint, our house designs were just that, designs only. KOA had not been given any instructions to complete the designs for submitting to any gov offices. We made it very clear to KOA that we wanted to do our own permitting and it was for that fact that we delayed in signing any contracts as we continually told them we didn't want them representing us. KOA suggests in its response to the Revdex.com that I am a foreign national and that somehow justifies their irresponsible billing practices.  For the record I am a Canadian and my wife is an American.  I have over 40 years of experience in business which included the owning and managing of a large manufacturing company which employed over 135 people and sold its products around the world.  I am quite familiar with contract law, billing practices and reasonable expectations that flow from contracts.  As stated earlier KOA has not performed a billing obligation in their contract and that has directly resulted in the dispute that we are facing today.  Calling me inexperienced and a foreigner is not conductive to reaching any settlement in this matter!Respectfully submitted,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Koa Architects has distorted the facts in its response to this complaint and has simply failed in its contractual obligations for this project.  We began our relationship in late July 2014 and signed the contract on Sept. 10, 2014. We left the island Dec 12, 2014 after which no more work was done according to Koa's emails to us. When I first wrote to KOA Architects in early 2015 asking that they provide a 'monthly billing' of the hours spent on my project they responded with an additional invoice.  When I wrote back to them for clarification, an incomplete response resulted. I had been asking continuously for the 'monthly billing' that had never been provided up to this point and has not even yet been provided to this day.  Finally, I pressed them again for the 'monthly billing' and they came back with a simple accounting that indicated that all of our deposit had been used. I was shocked to see that all of our deposit had been used in such a short time so I requested a detailed accounting. Subsequently, they sent the time sheets of the drafter vs. the architect seemingly in order to justify the depletion of the $10,000 deposit that I had placed with them which turned out were far different from their simple billing and indicated they had not actually used all of the deposit.  While much discussion can and has been produced between us there remains, in the first place, a fundamental flaw in KOA's written contractual obligations which were agreed to, in writing, at the time of giving the deposit of $10,000.  I will refer to page two of the KOA contract wherein it states "Invoicing shall be made monthly in proportion to the work performed to date".  The contract obliged KOA to provide 'monthly billings' for work done for the contract against the deposit.  This was never done and when asked to provide that they gave us a second invoice for $10,000.  I was quite surprised to find that the first deposit was being claimed to have been exhausted as there had never been so much as a single billing produced.   It did not seem to me that enough work had been done to date to justify a second deposit.  As I stated earlier when I protested and asked for the accounting of hours spent, that should have been provided monthly, KOA in two separated correspondences, gave two substantially different accountings.  Had KOA provided monthly invoices as were agreed to I would have been better able to monitor their charges as I would be more familiar with the scope of the work done and I would have been more able to direct their work in the interest of efficient use of the deposited funds.Furthermore KOA has represented in their response to the Revdex.com that their work included their representations to various government agencies for [redacted] and [redacted] entitlements for my project.  From the beginning I made it clear to KOA that I would be doing the representations for [redacted] approvals myself or I would be securing the professional assistance of a land use planner.  While it is true that we asked Matthew to set up a meeting between the BLNR representative for the Island of Hawaii and us that never happened.  Regarding [redacted] regulations I believe that I also stated that I would do that.  In any event KOA said that they were familiar with [redacted] regulations and were quite able to design in respect of that as those regulations are commonly known and understood by professional architects.  KOA states in their response to the Revdex.com "Never
in my decade of working on this island have I had a client that so
obviously has no idea what **UA and [redacted] entitlements".  I will comment that I am quite familiar with what **UA and [redacted] entitlements are and I am quite prepared to evidence that.  I have successfully submitted applications  to the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) and the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) for three (3) Site Plan Approvals (SPA's) and  one (1) Conservation District Use Permit (**UP).  I have even appeared at a BLNR hearing in Honolulu to represent an application that I submitted and succeeded in that application.  The **UA that I successfully submitted was to combine and re-subdivide the properties on which we intend to build our home.  That resulted in a Conservation District Use Permit (**UP).   I also submitted a [redacted] to the County of Hawaii myself.  KOA is wrong to state that I 'have no idea what a **UA and [redacted] are'!  In fact, at the time of our original complaint, our house designs were just that, designs only. KOA had not been given any instructions to complete the designs for submitting to any gov offices. We made it very clear to KOA that we wanted to do our own permitting and it was for that fact that we delayed in signing any contracts as we continually told them we didn't want them representing us. KOA suggests in its response to the Revdex.com that I am a foreign national and that somehow justifies their irresponsible billing practices.  For the record I am a Canadian and my wife is an American.  I have over 40 years of experience in business which included the owning and managing of a large manufacturing company which employed over 135 people and sold its products around the world.  I am quite familiar with contract law, billing practices and reasonable expectations that flow from contracts.  As stated earlier KOA has not performed a billing obligation in their contract and that has directly resulted in the dispute that we are facing today.  Calling me inexperienced and a foreigner is not conductive to reaching any settlement in this matter!Respectfully submitted,[redacted]