Lightning Tool & Manufacturing Inc.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received, your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Revdex.com,
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID *** and have determined that this does not resolve my complaintFor your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
It has been fun reading over the regurgitated play by play that Lightning tool has submitted*** ***, when I asked " Are you sure the design is enough, I would rather change it now, than once in tooling" said "it's fine." I asked *** *** when it was obvious the product was a failure, " what needed to change with the design" he answered "it's to thick" None of that has to do with what I'm asking compensation forAgain, it is only for the re-contour and re-texturing work to fix Lightning Tools contractors work on the rear of the panelsNever, in any design, were there, but smooth flowing radiusesThis is backed by all samples supplied by Lightning Tool prior to the last sampleWhat I'm left with is a sharp transition that is not to any file I supplied, nor agreed toFor this to be fixed, first it will need to be removed and replaced with new material, then re machined to file specifications and re-texturedLastly, I seek compensation for the additional samples I paid for, once Lightning Tool realized, as designed, and the material that was quoted for, would not workThat is the extent of what I'm asking forSamples in material that the tooling were not designed or quoted for and the exterior shape not to what the files showWe can go back and forth with "he said she said" but the end product tells all.
Regards,
*** ***

In response to Mr*** ***
of JT Grips comments for money to bring tooling back to proper condition, there
has been no establishment of what was incorrect. JT Grips was asked to provide the information
as to what was incorrect. The off shore
tool source which we contracted said that if they were provided with the
information on what was made incorrectly that they would repair / rework to the
customers satisfaction at their facility in China prior to shipping tools. JT Grips responded by sending an email that
stated parts were acceptable so tool shop in China released the tools. Tools were shipped directly to address
provided by ***
*** of JT Grips visited our
facility on January 15th, and stated he was not happy with the
texture. I told him we would investigate
it and address it accordingly. Per the
file which *** was shown in August 2015, the texture matched except in area
where *** was told China could not perform the laser stipple. This was all communicated to *** in an email
dated 8-10-where he was also informed that the rougher, laser texture, should
he choose that, would have to be done domestically after tool was delivered
from China. I told *** in an email on
9-02-that the best we could have them do is try and go deeper. I also informed *** that I received a phone
quote for domestic addition of laser stipple, and that cost would be an
additional $5,000. I suggested that
since the offshore texture was already included in tool price that it would be
best to go with off shore texture to save time and money and see how it looks
when it gets here. Updated tooling
quotes were provided on 9-02-which specified MTtexture in pockets
and MTon rest of part
Despite the fact that texture was
done to specifications shown to him from August our supplier corrected it to
meet ***’s desire. This work was done
at no charge and a picture of corrected texture was supplied to *** on January
27th, 2016. *** was shipped textured samples with
corrected texture to his business address.
*** had requested data files and
tooling files from us which we obliged him with. We sent him an email on Feb2, asking
for an approval to release tooling from China as he had still not provided a
written release. *** responded the same
day with this comment “I
release all liability of the China contractor and agree the tooling looks fine”
sent from his cell phone. Our Chinese
supplier had stated that if there were any issues with the tool they would take
care of it. Since *** did not provide
that information and stated it was good, they released the tooling for
shipment.
The following is a timeline of the project:
The original product
planned for sonic welding parts together as documented by email and with a
report from Branson, a third party that provides machine tools and design
considerations for sonic welding.
Branson had concluded that the product needed changes in order to
improve chances for success. Report from
Branson can be made available if needed for evidence of design concerns which
we were not responsible for. Report dated
7-14-from Branson which was requested by ***. *** sent report to us on 7-15-2015. Note that in Branson’s report they echoed our
concerns about the tight fit of internal components with the following excerpt
from their report:
“The Mount (Figure 2) includes grooves in its
sides which allow the Mount to slide within the Grip components, riding along
rectangular rails highlighted cyan in Figure These components require
a high tolerance fit (

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received, your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
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.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]The dollar amount ( $5,500) requested represents only the cost to. 1) Bring tooling back to whats indicated on files. Specifically The area last modified by off shore contractor which will need to be reworked and re-textured. 2) The overcharges due to Lighting Tool attempt to find any material ( after quoted material did not work) that would work with their tooling, resulting in multiple samples in different material not indicated in first quote. As stated before, the design that was sent to tooling was controlled by Lighting Tool. They accepted the job and assured me of their ability to create a manufactured product. Lighting tool insisted in taking over the engineering from my engineer to do the work. As noted before, I told them of my concern with their design and was told not to worry.  Only the two complaints given are of concern.
Regards,
[redacted]

I came to Lightning Tool and Manufacturing, seeking there experience in injection mold design for my prototype. They assured me of their knowledge and expertise in the field of molds, material and design. Doing my due diligence beforehand, I received quotes and discussed design from all tooling businesses in the area. All had concern with my prototype in it's currant configuration but I was fully aware ANY prototype will need to be redesigned for manufacturing. That was the advice I sought-after. Only after very little changes to the design,they were ready to proceed with tooling. So little was changed that I raised concerns regarding what I had previously been told were areas of concern. Industry and material standards dictate a Max wall of .115, when they insisted the design was good to go with 90% of the part over the .115 and a Max wall of +- .350. They assured me of the design and I paid for tooling in full. The results the molds produced are unusable. A total new design and tooling will need to happen to get a usable product. Not only am I out all tooling cost, their oversees contractor will not release any files or molds until I sign a release of liability and confirm all work is done correctly. So, I move forward without anything.