Pacs, Inc.

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.
Re: Complaint # [redacted]To: [redacted]Dr. N[redacted] and I had a long and detailed phone conversation just prior to me hiring him. He knew exactly what we were trying to accomplish. The material he supplied was largely irrelevant for that purpose and much of it was outdated. Why would I want to pay big money for outdated information?I have to speculate that he may have farmed this work out to an intern or inexperienced helper in an effort to save money. It is obvious to me that the results of his work were much more important to me than they were to him.We will not be taking Dr. N[redacted] up on his offer for additional services for an additional fee. We've already spent the grant money we had (and then some), and we have nothing to show for it. The only honorable thing he could do, at this point, is to refund our money, so we can start fresh elsewhere.Sincerely,[redacted] [redacted]

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.Counter-Response to Pacs Lab's Response to our Complaint# [redacted] To: [redacted] of Revdex.com PittsburgDr. N[redacted]'s dear concern for the time he spent working on the project, and his total disregard of the quality of the product he supplied to us is a clear indication that his interests are his only concern.Dr. N[redacted] and I had a very long phone conversation before I agreed to hire him. He knew exactly what we were looking for in a market survey. What he gave us contained mostly irrelevant and grossly outdated information that was useless to us. He later sent us a Power Point show, which was created by someone else, and was also useless to us.Our project is now dead in the water thanks to this man. There is no way we could, or would, have a continued relationship with him. I highly recommend that people do not pay this man for any services until after they have received an acceptable product. The only honorable thing he could do is return our money so that we can start fresh elsewhere.Sincerely,[redacted]  
Regards,
[redacted]

Response to Client Revdex.com Complaint Product/Service: Activated Carbon Market Survey Report Purchase Date: 2/15/2016 Revdex.com ID: [redacted] Revdex.com:Simply put, this project started off poorly because the client did not accurately and precisely specify what was needed or expected. I offered to provide what they needed under a proper work specification with a new working agreement. This PACS offer is still in effect today. There is no return of money for a PACS job that was well done. PACS provided a survey of activated carbon uses. This is what PACS understood the project specification to be. I recommend that the client seek a new PACS working agreement to get this project on track.I am President and Senior Scientist for PACS Activated Carbon Services. PACS has served 3000+ clients during its 33 years of business, PACS is recognized at the "go to" firm for activated carbon services. PACS has never had a Revdex.com compliant. This false claim is a first of its kind.PACS provided what we thought the client requested. We provided commercial uses for activated carbon. The client, apparently, was going to manufacture activated carbon from wood. The client had a kiln manufacturer provide advice on the activated carbon manufacturing process. I provided what I was asked to provide plus extra work beyond the initial project, i.e. uses for activated carbons from wood feedstocks.When the client expressed dissatisfaction with my product I tried very hard to placate him. I provided him with an EPA grant program they could possibly explore that used wood from demolished buildings to make activated carbon. In addition, I provided them a useful PowerPoint presentation, which they immediately dismissed. All of these extra efforts took my time for which I did not charge them.At some point, I had to tell the client that any further work on the project would require them to execute a new working agreement with PACS. They never entertained this PACS offer, nor have they investigated its details.The "take home" lesson from this Revdex.com case is the importance of clear and precise project specification by the client for their service providers. The client is most responsible for providing PACS with the proper project specifications. Changing project specifications after the project is complete is not a good business practice by the client.Respectfully,Henry N[redacted], PhD/MBA

My name is Henry *. N[redacted], PhD/MBA, president and senior scientist for PACS Activated Carbon Services (PACS). PACS is very dedicated to satisfying client needs by providing activated carbon services for three decades. PACS has some 3,000 clients related to activated carbons. Many clients do repeat...

business with PACS.I personally made a good faith effort on the client's job order and provided the Activated Carbon Market Survey Report. It was promptly delivered after a verbal discussion about product delivery and a few telephone calls I initiated to see what they wanted. I was never given a copy of the proposal said to be submitted to [redacted] for the funding. PACS policy is that new clients pay in advance for services. Following three weeks of work and prompt delivery of the product, Activated Carbon Market Survey Report, the client expressed unhappiness with the product and requested I refund their money. I had several conversations with the client group and made several recommendations to them to permit the work to go forward, and provided an additional Power Point document on activated carbon markets and sourcing. These efforts were my attempt to satisfy the client after the project was completed. This additional work by PACS was undertaken voluntarily and without compensation and was not charged to the client.After exhausting my additional pro bono work for the client, I informed them the agreed to project was completed and additional work would require a new work order agreement with PACS providing a discount on regular client services. They did not entertain my offer to continue the work under a new agreement. The client group only wanted their money returned. I cannot comply with their request because of the time and efforts spent on the product, Activated Carbon Market Survey Report, and extra work I have already provided for this client. Personally, I believe the root cause of the problem is not the PACS product delivered, but poor validation and specification of the Maine Technology Institute in the funding agreement and the expected results.In conclusion, PACS will not refund money it rightfully earned from the client. PACS would consider a new work order under a new working agreement.Respectfully,Henry N[redacted], PhD/MBA