LaForce, Inc.

We acknowledge receipt of Mr ***'s response to the Revdex.com on April 20th However, we do not agree with his statements about products and services provided As stated in our initial letter, LaForce will not honor any requests for refund on this project and therefore consider this matter closed

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Since were not getting anywhere here, I would like to thank Revdex.com for trying, but at this point you can close this case as I will proceed to file a new one with the FTC and the Attorney General.
Regards,
Jarek [redacted]

LaForce
was greatly disappointed to learn of the complaint filed by an individual with
the [redacted].  For over 60
years we have been a well-respected provider of commercial door, frame,
hardware, and security needs to hundreds of [redacted]s and thousands of
other...

customers throughout the Midwest. 
We don’t claim to be perfect, but we do take pride in always trying to
provide customers with the best possible solutions and service.  We feel we excel at working through
challenging issues with our customers, with the goal of reaching the best
possible equitable result.  We believe we
continually acted in good faith throughout the period in question to provide products
and services as requested and purchased. 
We strongly disagree with the negative claims made against LaForce about
the products and services provided to Munster Schools.  Several of the claims made in the complaint
letter are either based on incomplete information or simply not true.  Specifically:Prior to being awarded a purchase order, there were design meetings with [redacted] Maintenance and IT staff.  After a P.O. was issued, there were additional design meetings, and multiple site surveys completed with both Maintenance and IT personnel from the [redacted].  Scope of work was outlined in the acknowledged P.O. and was reinforced during a site survey walk through with [redacted] staff before any work commenced.  There were (5) EP-1502 two door controllers quoted and purchased on the original P.O. for the [redacted].  However, during the project scope walk through, the [redacted] made changes to which data closets should be used, changing an important element of the criteria used to determine whether a two door controller or single door controller would be better for each respective door opening being controlled.  Some data closets now only had one reader versus the two previously planned.  Therefore, in these situations an MR-51e single door controller was provided due to location of readers and corresponding data closets.  The cost of (2) MR-51e controllers is essentially the same as the cost of (1) EP-1502 controller.  The original quote called for (5) EP-1502 controllers.  Because of the changes initiated by the [redacted], (1) EP-1502 and (9) MR-51e controllers were provided.  The District ended up receiving the ability to control (11) doors for the price of (10) at the [redacted].  During the original site survey Laforce staff identified concerns to [redacted] staff about the poor condition and mechanical operation of the existing doors and hardware that were to receive the new access control hardware.  It was pointed out that the new access control hardware and electrified hardware would be susceptible to door openings not functioning properly after installation if the mechanical doors and hardware didn’t function properly.  [redacted] staff acknowledged the poor condition and commented that their budget didn’t allow for replacement of the suspect mechanical doors and hardware at this time.  LaForce agreed to do their best to work with the existing doors and hardware.  In the months that followed initial installation, the combination of seasonal temperature change, abuse from students, used sub-standard 3rd party hardware that was purchased by the owner and not supplied by LaForce, and the poor mechanical condition of the original doors and hardware caused several openings to fail intermittently.  These were all non-warranty related causes of the door opening failures.  However, LaForce tried it’s best to address each of these failures as they came up, by sending technicians to site to diagnose the problem, making adjustments to the doors and hardware, and gaining more consistent function of the openings.  We acknowledge that the response time to get a technician on site was not always within the time frame expectations of the customer, but most of the time it was.  LaForce also made the majority of these service calls to remedy non-warranty issues without charging the customer.  LaForce
does not accept any of the customer’s claims for a refund on this project, and
is still owed a balance for software updates supplied by LaForce and purchased
by the customer in order to provide additional functionality beyond the
original software purchased.