Landmark Engineering Ltd

See attached PDF letterRE: Response to Complaint by [redacted] [redacted] regarding Engineering Services provided for proposed residence in Loveland, Colorado Mr [redacted] , This letter is for clarification and response to the complaint made by [redacted] In September of 2015, Ms [redacted] came to us with a preliminary set of Architectural Plans We provided a fee proposal and anticipated time line for the site At that time the scheduling was a little more lax as we were not quite as busy We finally received final plans from the Architect in February of We checked with our design engineers and they thought we would be able to get to it in a week or two and we put it in the queue to be doneThe house plan was a forced walk-outThis means the subdivision grading plan was not designed for a walk-outAs shown on the Architect's plans, it was, required to have the walk-out below grade This required a plan for the below grade patio to drain We recommended it be a gravity drain based on grade and not a pump system which can fail when the power goes out in a thunder stormOver the time period represented by Ms [redacted] ; we were able to get her project going but, did not get to it as soon as expected since it took longer to complete some of the projects ahead of it in our queueWhen we started working on the project we noticed the final plans had some differences that we had not anticipatedWe mentioned this to Ms [redacted] but said we would honor our original agreementIn addition, the site soils allowed for two different types of foundations to be usedWe discussed this and began the design for an over-dig, fill replacement, and spread footing type designDuring the course of the design, there were several items we noted and had questions on (i.ethe requirement for very large rough-hewn timber columns)We were directed to make the design so that the most economical option could be chosenThis required extra research on our part to determine the economics.Revdex.com [redacted] Complaint Project No [redacted] May 17, Mr [redacted] , Ms [redacted] husband, made numerous phones calls to discuss the foundation types and optionsAfter discussion, I recommended the caisson designMr [redacted] decided to go with the spread footing design After we had been working on the foundation plans, Mr [redacted] called and decided he wanted to change to a caisson designHe was informed that would add an additional fee of approximately $1,He gave a verbal okay for us to proceed We worked through the changes to get to a caisson design Mr [redacted] then called and left a phone message to change back to the spread footing design We then converted back to where we had been on the foundation plan and completed the foundation designAdditionally, Ms [redacted] and Mr [redacted] indicated that they are trying to be their own General ContractorThey did not know how to proceed and made numerous calls, and sent emails, regarding the process of obtaining permitsWe assisted them with recommendations and discussions regarding the requirements for building permitsWe have a line item in our agreement that states "consultation will be billed on an hourly basis"We did invoice for this time, as it took away from the time we would have been able to spend on the completion of other projectsThis project did take longer than anticipated due to several factorsWe did not start on it when anticipated due to completion of other projects in the queue ahead of this one; A difference in the preliminary plans and final plans that was not anticipated and added to the complexity; and Changes requested to be made, and then requests to change back to the original designIn addition, during the design process MrH [redacted] was called out of the office for several days for a family medical emergency; which was beyond his control and, usually, is understood by clientsRegarding the comment about the site plan being wrong, it was not wrongThe original data on the site plan was based on assumed Global Positioning System elevations which were later converted to the same datum as the original construction plans for the subdivision Revdex.com [redacted] Complaint Project No [redacted] May 17, Regarding the comment that MrH [redacted] indicated that he is too busy to meet with them; the actual comment was that the schedule was booked solid for over two weeks out which would be the earliest we would be available In the meantime, we expect to be paid for the services providedWe believe we were subjected to some sort of "bait and switch" on the design since there was five (5) months or more from the time we provided a fee based on the Preliminary Plans and when we were provided the Final PlansWe were not privy to the conversations between the clients and the Architects but feel they had to be, or should have been aware, of the changesWe proceeded to provide assistance and information far beyond what is for the services we provide on similar projects We find it hard to believe that the clients would think all the extra time involved in phone calls, reviewing information, making requested changes, and changing back would have been included in the base feeWe have already written off fees above what was invoiced due to the changes involved and extra unanticipated research and design The contract allows for consultation and the clients agreed to the redesign from footings to caissons which we did not complete before being requested to change back to the original design We did not bill the complete fee quoted for the change since we did not compete it but, did invoice for the time involved to make the changesAdditionally, the contract allows for overages of up to 20% without written consentThe clients did sign the contractTherefore, we believe we have been more than fair and have decided to give our clients the benefit of the doubt that the issues were caused by lack of experience in the process and were not intentional but, the fees invoiced are firmIf you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our officeSincerely, LANDMARK ENGINEERING, LTDRodney f (H***, P.EDirector of Engineering

January 30, Project No [redacted] Revdex.com SCounty Road 5, Suite Fort Collins, CO RE: Response to Complaint by [redacted] [redacted] and [redacted] [redacted] regarding Engineering Fees for Services provided at a residence in Loveland, Colorado Mr [redacted] , This letter is for clarification and response to the complaint made by [redacted] and [redacted] Ms [redacted] and Mr [redacted] contracted for our services in the construction of their personal residenceTheir intent was to act as their own general contractorMr [redacted] signed our "Agreement for Limited Professional Services" One of the Terms and Conditions of this agreement states that: "Any invoice not challenged within days from invoice date shall be considered reviewed and accepted by the Client." The Invoice that Ms [redacted] speaks of in her complaint was dated 9/19/The subsequent invoices were 10/20/and 11/23/Mr [redacted] came to our office on 11/4/and we asked him what the status of payment wasHe was unaware that payments hadn't been made and they owed anything at that timeHe told us he would need to speak with Ms [redacted] to see what the delay wasWe emailed Ms [redacted] on 11/17/to follow up on our conversation with Mr [redacted] She responded that she would be going through their records that weekend and would get back to us the next week We sent another email on 11/22/asking for the payment statusShe responded on 11/stating that they had questions for Rod on these invoices and would be getting in touch with him that weekOn 12/8/Mr [redacted] requested a breakdown of the three Invoices We emailed this information to him the following dayWe followed up with a phone call the next week and he stated he never received them We sent them againMr [redacted] came in to speak to Rod H [redacted] on 12/19/At that point, I told him that I would credit $and remove the finance charges if they sent their check that weekOn December 30, 2016, we emailed a Statement of Account to Ms [redacted] stating that their account would need to be paid immediately to avoid collection costs She returned an email stating that a check was sent The check arrived with a letter explaining the variance of $ At that point, I sent Mr [redacted] an email stating that we would be returning their check as we disagree with the exclusions that they listed On January 5, 2017, we contacted our attorney to begin lien proceedings.Regarding Mr [redacted] and Ms [redacted] claims that they are trying to act as their own General Contractor to save money on this project; the residence is by no means a starter home and has many complexities involved in the designThe purpose of the site visit performed by Landmark was to provide direction to them and their framer Our onsite observation revealed that there were numerous items that had not been constructed, as per the plans, and revisions would need to be madeBased on the phone calls and office visits by Mr [redacted] ; it was apparent they did not understand the drawings We had another structural engineer in attendance at the site observation to assist with measurements and get a visual on the required revisionsWe do not let the client dictate personnel assigned to the job and this particular structural engineer was tasked with performing the calculations for the necessary revisionsAt that time, it was noted that there was one call-out on the plans that was omitted, due to a typographical errorThis was corrected and there was no charge to the project for this correction However, the numerous other areas that were not constructed, per the plans, required additional calculations, research of available materials, and preparation of a letter of the corrections necessary for the structure.The comment regarding the phone calls was explained to Mr [redacted] that the time represented the phone calls, office visits, and office time working on the project in response to the phone calls and preparation for the meetings It is not necessarily all time on the phone but is time related to the callsRegarding the statement that all other bill have been paid in full, is not quite correctLandmark has provided credits on past bills in an effort to work with the clients but, enough is enoughAt this time, a Lien has been filed on the propertyIf you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our officeSincerely, LANDMARK ENGINEERING, LTDRodney AH***, P.EDirector of Engineering

January 30, 2017 Project No*** Revdex.com SCounty Road 5, Suite Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Response to Complaint by *** *** and *** *** regarding Engineering Fees for
Services provided at a residence in Loveland, Colorado Mr*** ***, This letter is for clarification and response to the complaint made by *** *** and *** ***. Ms*** and Mr*** contracted for our services in the construction of their personal residenceTheir intent was to act as their own general contractorMr*** signed our "Agreement for Limited Professional Services" One of the Terms and Conditions of this agreement states that: "Any invoice not challenged within days from invoice date shall be considered reviewed and accepted by the Client." The Invoice that Ms*** speaks of in her complaint was dated 9/19/The subsequent invoices were 10/20/and 11/23/Mr*** came to our office on 11/4/and we asked him what the status of payment wasHe was unaware that payments hadn't been made and they owed anything at that timeHe told us he would need to speak with Ms*** to see what the delay wasWe emailed Ms*** on 11/17/to follow up on our conversation with Mr***She responded that she would be going through their records that weekend and would get back to us the next week We sent another email on 11/22/asking for the payment statusShe responded on 11/stating that they had questions for Rod on these invoices and would be getting in touch with him that week. On 12/8/Mr*** requested a breakdown of the three Invoices We emailed this information to him the following dayWe followed up with a phone call the next week and he stated he never received them We sent them againMr*** came in to speak to Rod H*** on 12/19/At that point, I told him that I would credit $and remove the finance charges if they sent their check that week. On December 30, 2016, we emailed a Statement of Account to Ms*** stating that their account would need to be paid immediately to avoid collection costs She returned an email stating that a check was sent The check arrived with a letter explaining the variance of $ At that point, I sent Mr*** an email stating that we would be returning their check as we disagree with the exclusions that they listed On January 5, 2017, we contacted our attorney to begin lien proceedings.Regarding Mr*** and Ms*** claims that they are trying to act as their own General Contractor to save money on this project; the residence is by no means a starter home and has many complexities involved in the designThe purpose of the site visit performed by Landmark was to provide direction to them and their framer Our onsite observation revealed that there were numerous items that had not been constructed, as per the plans, and revisions would need to be madeBased on the phone calls and office visits by Mr***; it was apparent they did not understand the drawings We had another structural engineer in attendance at the site observation to assist with measurements and get a visual on the required revisionsWe do not let the client dictate personnel assigned to the job and this particular structural engineer was tasked with performing the calculations for the necessary revisionsAt that time, it was noted that there was one call-out on the plans that was omitted, due to a typographical errorThis was corrected and there was no charge to the project for this correction However, the numerous other areas that were not constructed, per the plans, required additional calculations, research of available materials, and preparation of a letter of the corrections necessary for the structure.The comment regarding the phone calls was explained to Mr*** that the time represented the phone calls, office visits, and office time working on the project in response to the phone calls and preparation for the meetings It is not necessarily all time on the phone but is time related to the calls.Regarding the statement that all other bill have been paid in full, is not quite correctLandmark has provided credits on past bills in an effort to work with the clients but, enough is enoughAt this time, a Lien has been filed on the property. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, LANDMARK ENGINEERING, LTD. Rodney AH***, P.E. Director of Engineering

January 30, 2017 Project No. [redacted] Revdex.com 8020 S. County Road 5, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Response to  Complaint  by  [redacted]  and...

 [redacted]  regarding Engineering Fees for Services provided at a residence in Loveland, Colorado Mr. [redacted], This letter is for clarification and response to the complaint made by [redacted] and [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] contracted for our services in the construction of their personal residence. Their intent was to act as their own general contractor. Mr. [redacted] signed our "Agreement for Limited Professional Services".   One of the Terms and Conditions of this agreement states that: "Any invoice not challenged within 14 days from invoice date shall be considered reviewed and accepted by the Client." The Invoice that Ms. [redacted] speaks of in her complaint was dated 9/19/16. The subsequent invoices were 10/20/16 and 11/23/16. Mr. [redacted] came to our office on 11/4/16 and we asked him what the status of payment was. He was unaware that payments hadn't been made and they owed anything at that time. He told us he would need to speak with Ms. [redacted] to see what the delay was. We emailed Ms. [redacted] on 11/17/16 to follow up on our conversation with Mr. [redacted]. She responded that she would be going through their records that weekend and would get back to us the next week.  We sent another email on 11/22/17 asking for the payment status. She responded on 11/28 stating that they had questions for Rod on these invoices and would be getting in touch with him that week. On 12/8/16. Mr. [redacted] requested a breakdown of the three Invoices.   We emailed this information to him the following day. We followed up with a phone call the next week and he stated he never received them.  We sent them again. Mr. [redacted] came in to speak to Rod H[redacted] on 12/19/16. At that point, I told him that I would credit $120 and remove the finance charges if they sent their check that week. On December 30, 2016, we emailed a Statement of Account to Ms. [redacted] stating that their account would need to be paid immediately to avoid collection costs.  She returned an email stating that a check was sent.   The check arrived with a letter explaining the variance of $1030.51.  At that point, I sent Mr. [redacted] an email stating that we would be returning their check as we disagree with the exclusions that they listed.  On January 5, 2017, we contacted our attorney to begin lien proceedings.Regarding Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] claims that they are trying to act as their own General Contractor to save money on this project; the residence is by no means a starter home and has many complexities involved in the design. The purpose of the site visit performed by Landmark was to provide direction to them and their framer.  Our onsite observation revealed that there were numerous items that had not been constructed, as per the plans, and revisions would need to be made. Based on the phone calls and office visits by Mr. [redacted]; it was apparent they did not understand the drawings.   We had another structural engineer in attendance at the site observation to assist with measurements and get a visual on the required revisions. We do not let the client dictate personnel assigned to the job and this particular structural engineer was tasked with performing the calculations for the necessary revisions. At that time, it was noted that there was one call-out on the plans that was omitted, due to a typographical error. This was corrected and there was no charge to the project for this correction.  However, the numerous other areas that were not constructed, per the plans, required additional calculations, research of available materials, and preparation of a letter of the corrections necessary for the structure.The comment regarding the phone calls was explained to Mr. [redacted] that the time represented the phone calls, office visits, and office time working on the project in response to the phone calls and preparation for the meetings.  It is not necessarily all time on the phone but is time related to the calls.
Regarding the statement that all other bill have been paid in full, is not quite correct. Landmark has provided credits on past bills in an effort to work with the clients but, enough is enough. At this time, a Lien has been filed on the property. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, LANDMARK ENGINEERING, LTD. Rodney A. H[redacted], P.E. Director of Engineering

Revdex.com:
Rod H[redacted] of Landmark Engineering, took a meeting with us. The two parties negotiated and came up with a solution both could live with.
We anticipate that our interactions with Rod H[redacted] and Landmark Engineering will improve as we move forward toward completion of our project.
Thank you for your assistance.
[redacted]

After being ignored for 5 months, I finally took the hint and went to another engineering firm.

See attached PDF letterRE: Response  to  Complaint  by  [redacted]  [redacted]  regarding  Engineering Services provided for proposed residence in Loveland, Colorado Mr. [redacted], This letter is for clarification and response to the complaint...

made by [redacted]. In September of 2015, Ms. [redacted] came to us with a preliminary set of Architectural Plans.  We provided a fee proposal and anticipated time line for the site.  At that time the scheduling was a little more lax as we were not quite as busy.  We finally received final  plans from the Architect in February of 2016. We checked with our design engineers and they thought we would be able to get to it in a week or two and we put it in the queue to be done. The house plan was a forced walk-out. This means the subdivision grading plan was not designed for a walk-out. As shown on the Architect's plans, it was, required to have the walk-out below grade.  This required a plan for the below grade patio to drain.  We recommended it be a gravity drain based on grade and not a pump system which can fail when the power goes out in a thunder storm. Over the time period represented by Ms. [redacted]; we were able to get her project going but, did not get to it as soon as expected since it took longer to complete some of the projects ahead of it in our queue. When  we  started  working  on  the  project we  noticed  the final  plans  had  some differences that we had not anticipated. We mentioned this to Ms. [redacted] but said we would honor our original agreement. In addition, the site soils allowed for two different types of foundations to be used. We discussed this and began the design for an over-dig, fill replacement, and spread footing type design. During the course of the design, there were several items we noted and had questions on (i.e. the requirement for very large rough-hewn timber columns). We were directed to make the design so that the most economical option could be chosen. This required extra research on our part to determine the economics.Revdex.com [redacted] Complaint Project No. [redacted] May 17, 2016 Mr. [redacted], Ms. [redacted] husband, made numerous phones calls to discuss the foundation types and options. After discussion, I recommended the caisson design. Mr. [redacted] decided to go with the spread footing design.  After we had been working on the foundation plans, Mr. [redacted] called and decided he wanted to change to a caisson design. He was informed that would add an additional fee of approximately $1,200. He gave a verbal okay for us to proceed.  We worked through the changes to get to a caisson design.  Mr. [redacted] then called and left a phone message to change back to the spread footing design.   We then converted back to where we had been on the foundation plan and completed the foundation design. Additionally, Ms. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] indicated that they are trying to be their own General Contractor. They did not know how to proceed and made numerous calls, and sent emails,  regarding the process of obtaining permits. We assisted them with recommendations and discussions regarding the requirements for building permits. We have a line item in our agreement that states "consultation will be billed on an hourly basis". We did invoice for this time, as it took away from the time we would have been able to spend on the completion of other projects. This project did take longer than anticipated due to several factors. We did not start on it when anticipated due to completion of other projects in the queue ahead of this one; A difference in the preliminary plans and final plans that was not anticipated and added to the complexity; and  Changes requested to be made, and then requests to change back to the original  design. In addition, during the design process Mr. H[redacted] was called out of the office for several days for a family medical emergency; which was beyond his control and, usually, is understood by clients. Regarding the comment about the site plan being wrong, it was not wrong. The original data on the site plan was based on assumed Global Positioning System elevations which were later converted to the same datum as the original construction plans for the subdivision.  Revdex.com [redacted] Complaint Project No. [redacted] May 17, 2016 Regarding the comment that Mr. H[redacted] indicated that he is too busy to meet with them; the actual comment was that the schedule was booked solid for over two weeks out which would be the earliest we would be available.  In the meantime, we expect to be paid for the services provided. We believe we were subjected to some sort of "bait and switch" on the design since there was five (5) months or more from the time we provided a fee based on the Preliminary Plans and when we were provided the Final Plans. We were not privy to the conversations between the clients and the Architects but feel they had to be, or should have been aware, of the changes. We proceeded to provide assistance and information far beyond what is normal for the services we provide on similar projects.  We find it hard to believe that the clients would think all the extra time involved in phone calls, reviewing information, making requested changes, and changing back would have been included in the base fee. We have already written off fees above what was invoiced due to the changes involved and extra unanticipated research and design.  The contract allows for consultation and the clients agreed to the redesign from footings to caissons which we did not complete before being requested to change back to the original design.   We did not bill the complete fee quoted for the change since we did not compete it but, did invoice for the time involved to make the changes. Additionally, the contract allows for overages of up to 20% without written consent. The clients did sign the contract. Therefore, we believe we have been more than fair and have decided to give our clients the benefit of the doubt that the issues were caused by lack of experience in the process and were not intentional but, the fees invoiced are firm. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, LANDMARK ENGINEERING, LTD. Rodney f (H[redacted], P.E. Director of Engineering

See attached PDF letter
RE: Response  to  Complaint  by  [redacted]  regarding  Engineering Services provided for proposed residence in Loveland, Colorado Mr. [redacted]...

[redacted], This letter is for clarification and response to the complaint made by [redacted]. In September of 2015, Ms. [redacted] came to us with a preliminary set of Architectural Plans.  We provided a fee proposal and anticipated time line for the site.  At that time the scheduling was a little more lax as we were not quite as busy.  We finally received final  plans from the Architect in February of 2016. We checked with our design engineers and they thought we would be able to get to it in a week or two and we put it in the queue to be done. The house plan was a forced walk-out. This means the subdivision grading plan was not designed for a walk-out. As shown on the Architect's plans, it was, required to have the walk-out below grade.  This required a plan for the below grade patio to drain.  We recommended it be a gravity drain based on grade and not a pump system which can fail when the power goes out in a thunder storm. Over the time period represented by Ms. [redacted]; we were able to get her project going but, did not get to it as soon as expected since it took longer to complete some of the projects ahead of it in our queue. When  we  started  working  on  the  project we  noticed  the final  plans  had  some differences that we had not anticipated. We mentioned this to Ms. [redacted] but said we would honor our original agreement. 
In addition, the site soils allowed for two different types of foundations to be used. We discussed this and began the design for an over-dig, fill replacement, and spread footing type design. During the course of the design, there were several items we noted and had questions on (i.e. the requirement for very large rough-hewn timber columns). We were directed to make the design so that the most economical option could be chosen. This required extra research on our part to determine the economics.Revdex.com [redacted] Complaint Project No. [redacted] May 17, 2016 Mr. [redacted], Ms. [redacted] husband, made numerous phones calls to discuss the foundation types and options. After discussion, I recommended the caisson design. Mr. [redacted] decided to go with the spread footing design.  After we had been working on the foundation plans, Mr. [redacted] called and decided he wanted to change to a caisson design. He was informed that would add an additional fee of approximately $1,200. He gave a verbal okay for us to proceed.  We worked through the changes to get to a caisson design.  Mr. [redacted] then called and left a phone message to change back to the spread footing design.   We then converted back to where we had been on the foundation plan and completed the foundation design. Additionally, Ms. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] indicated that they are trying to be their own General Contractor. They did not know how to proceed and made numerous calls, and sent emails,  regarding the process of obtaining permits. We assisted them with recommendations and discussions regarding the requirements for building permits. We have a line item in our agreement that states "consultation will be billed on an hourly basis". We did invoice for this time, as it took away from the time we would have been able to spend on the completion of other projects. This project did take longer than anticipated due to several factors. We did not start on it when anticipated due to completion of other projects in the queue ahead of this one; A difference in the preliminary plans and final plans that was not anticipated and added to the complexity; and  Changes requested to be made, and then requests to change back to the original  design. In addition, during the design process Mr. H[redacted] was called out of the office for several days for a family medical emergency; which was beyond his control and, usually, is understood by clients. 
Regarding the comment about the site plan being wrong, it was not wrong. The original data on the site plan was based on assumed Global Positioning System elevations which were later converted to the same datum as the original construction plans for the subdivision.  Revdex.com [redacted] Complaint Project No. [redacted] May 17, 2016 Regarding the comment that Mr. H[redacted] indicated that he is too busy to meet with them; the actual comment was that the schedule was booked solid for over two weeks out which would be the earliest we would be available.  In the meantime, we expect to be paid for the services provided. 
We believe we were subjected to some sort of "bait and switch" on the design since there was five (5) months or more from the time we provided a fee based on the Preliminary Plans and when we were provided the Final Plans. We were not privy to the conversations between the clients and the Architects but feel they had to be, or should have been aware, of the changes. We proceeded to provide assistance and information far beyond what is normal for the services we provide on similar projects.  We find it hard to believe that the clients would think all the extra time involved in phone calls, reviewing information, making requested changes, and changing back would have been included in the base fee. 
We have already written off fees above what was invoiced due to the changes involved and extra unanticipated research and design.  The contract allows for consultation and the clients agreed to the redesign from footings to caissons which we did not complete before being requested to change back to the original design.   We did not bill the complete fee quoted for the change since we did not compete it but, did invoice for the time involved to make the changes. Additionally, the contract allows for overages of up to 20% without written consent. The clients did sign the contract. Therefore, we believe we have been more than fair and have decided to give our clients the benefit of the doubt that the issues were caused by lack of experience in the process and were not intentional but, the fees invoiced are firm. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, LANDMARK ENGINEERING, LTD. Rodney f (H[redacted], P.E. Director of Engineering