Millennium Engineering, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # ***.
Saving the Well: Millennium was hired as my wife and I had purchased our new forever home which came with an approved plan for a new septic system for new constructionAs we bought the property to renovate rather than build new, we needed an engineer to design a plan for our renovation project which included designing around the existing drinking wellBoth of these criteria (renovation plan and saving the well) were reviewed on the site walk-through and were detailed in the initial email.At the end of the design process no option was ever presented to us which allowed for the well to be saved. We were told that the design had to meet the “Maximum Feasible Compliance Standard” and *** *** clearly stated at our meeting that the well could not be saved and had us move forward in choosing a new well location. *** told us the benefits of the new design and that we could increase from a four bedroom plan to a five, however, my wife and I were never interested in increasing resale on the house, as we intend to live there forever. Shortly after receiving a copy of the plan we reviewed it with our site contractor, *** ***. I informed him that Millennium told us that the well could not be saved but Bill was quick to say that he thought the well could be and wanted to check with the Board of Health. *** contacted us to confirm that the well could in fact be saved and explained to us how this could be doneThis was the first time we had any option to save the well and I emailed *** on 5/10/with ***’s advice*** replied back to the email on 5/11/where it was clear by his response, it was the first time the idea of a “repair” type design was considered and wanted to talk about the pros and cons.Environmental Planning: I reached out to *** to inform him that I had met with the Conservation Agent and due to the delays would be completing an RDA for work on the foundationIn the same phone conversation, *** had the idea to put the Septic items on my RDA application and eliminate the need for a Notice of Intent (NOI)He quickly hung up with me, called the Conservation Agent, and called me back to say that the agent agreed. He said that he could email me a PDF of the plan to include in my application indicating it would take no time at all to create. As stated previously, Millennium missed this deadline to get me the plan forcing me to create my own plan for timely submission. The ease of creating this plan was expressed in an email form *** on June 17th, where it was stated “Sorry for the delay in getting this to youI will create the plan now and PDF it to you in a few minutes.” In addition to the charges for the work, our questions is that if the RDA was always a viable option why then, as professionals, would Millennium recommend the time consuming and expensive path of the NOI in the first place?We are glad to hear that you have turned your position of completing the design and submitting it to the town rather than holding it hostage and for that we thank you.We hired Millennium Engineering for expert guidance and to aid us in making informed decisions in our septic system workYou advertise cost-effective engineering solutions and charge a premium and yet your aforementioned advisements were ultimately untrue which led us to more costs and spending more timeWe signed your contract with the understanding that everything we needed from engineering and surveying would be included in the cost. We would like to inform you that we have additionally reached out to the Attorney General’s Office in hopes to assist us in resolving this matterYou can expect a phone call from them if you haven’t received one already.Sincerely, *** & *** ***

Millennium Engineering was hired by the property owner, *** ***, on 3/21/to design a new septic system for the property located at *** *** *** *** ** *** ***The original quote was for the “Preparation of the Existing Conditions Plan”, “Septic System Design”, and “Construction
Inspection & As-Built Certification” for $4,“Environmental Permitting” for $was also required due to proximity to wetlands so the contract total was for $5,This did not include any construction layout, redesigning, and specifically excluded anything not expressly included in the estimate descriptionIn the initial email communication with the owner of the property the owner requested that the existing well be savedDuring the design process the owner was informed that the state code for designing septic systems requires us to design under a standard they call “Maximum Feasible Compliance” (MFC)MFC states that no waivers or variances to the state design code shall be requested or granted, unless no other option which fully meets the code requirements is availableThey were also informed that fully meeting the code requirements and providing a backup reserve area would meet the state’s New Construction standard which would allow them in the future to expand the number of bedrooms within the existing dwellingHaving this as an option would leave them flexibility in the use of their home as well as potential increased marketing options and value in the property in the future if/when the decide to sellHaving heard these options and our advice they chose to move forward with the project meeting the new construction standardsWe completed the project, submitted the plans and applications to the town for review, and before the health department could issue a decision the owner contacted us saying they changed their mindsThey now wanted to save the well and go forward as a septic repair and not under the new construction standardsWe informed them that the plans had already been completed and we could revise the plans to meet their request however there was an additional fee of $600-$for the time involved in doing so, which they agreed toAfter we made multiple phone calls to the property owner and the town’s conservation commission agent, the agent agreed that a smaller permit application known as a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) would be enoughWe completed the plan for this type of application, made the required copies, and delivered them to the town hallWe only charged the owner $for the time involved in completing the RDA plan which was $less than the quote for the larger NOI plan/permitThe board of health also required that the engineer stake out the septic system before construction could startWe charged them $for this service as it was not part of the original quoted services.Due to the time of year and our current work load the final survey inspections of the septic installation were only recently completeDrafting of the plan was also recently completed and will be delivered to the board of health at the town hall as agreed upon.So to summarize: Quoted: Design & NOI ($5,800) + Redesign ($600-$800) = $6,to $6,Invoiced: Design & RDA ($5,512) + Redesign ($800) + Construction Layout ($324.50) = $6,636.50We are currently $over the high end total of all quoted services and that's including construction layout services which was not part of the original quoteThe owner feels he was given bad advice and refuses to pay his outstanding invoice even though his options were explained and we took no action one way or the other without his permissionTo date we have only received partial payment on his account and there is an outstanding balance of over $1,Millennium has also offered to reduce the invoice by $to settle the account however the owner has indicated that this is not acceptable and he is not paying the full amount remainingAlthough Millennium Engineering will deliver the As-Built plans to the town hall as agreed upon we have not agreed to drop the outstanding balance due on the account and may choose to take further action against the owners if payment is not received within a reasonable time period