ProtoFab, Inc.

After Paying $12,220. to company as agreed upon, and wanting to move model to a test site, ProtoFab's President [redacted], refused to release it.After Paying $12,220. to company as agreed upon, and wanting to move model to a test site, ProtoFab's President [redacted], refused to release it.He stated that I owed him more money.Unfortunately we never did complete a written document. I provided written guidelines and Shop works Specifications, that was allegedly compatible with there computer system, which was in proper component specification and drawings.[redacted] said that he was too busy to be involved in this project and assigned his father [redacted] to undertake it.We had many meetings where discussions concerning design and design alternatives and strengths were brought up. At no point I was ever billed for any services. They did not build test model to specifications delivered and the model was too weak and they bent the shaft, They wanted to test the wind device at speeds of forty miles per hour plus. We told them it should be in the 5,10, 15 20 MPH range. They built the device too weak and wanted more money too strengthen it which I paid.[redacted], on his own, then installed five bearings on this shaft which caused many problems causing it to bend.Company initially was involved in the project but then soured and became desirous of only getting money. So now I have paid $12,200.00 as agreed upon, no product for it, and lost the opportunity to install my test model wind turbine at a site to determine its performance. They have my funds, and my product and won't release it since January 2014. Now it doesn't matter even if I had the device as there is no place to install it at.Desired SettlementRefund of $12,200.00Business Response This developmental project had minimal guidelines and parameters. Proto Fab developed proto-type drawings of an initial test unit. The original quotation provided was an estimate based on initial conversations, but there were no documented scope of work or design characteristics or parameters. As the project developed from the initial constructed design into to preliminary testing, we had informed [redacted] that we had gone over the original estimate of $10,000.00, and that I, as was willing to support some of these expenses to keep the project moving forward. [redacted] had been presented with an overview spreadsheet of the expenses incurred as the project continued. The constructed project did not produce the expected wind speed and torque values that [redacted] had estimated the unit would produce. These calculations were provided by an outside firm. Once this was determined by the provided data during our testing, [redacted]'s focus immediately turned to how we as the constructor had done everything incorrectly and without approval. We had reviewed all details in several meetings prior to this change in the project. I have asked [redacted] to negotiate a fair and equitable mediation to the past due balance, with no response on his part. This was originally a very receptive collaboration of his design and input, until it did not produce his estimated production numbers. At that point all issues became 100% my fault and my actions were without direction or approval of which is completely inaccurate.Desired Resolution: Fair and equitable mediation of outstanding balance of $12596.64. Proto Fab willingly supported the advancement of this project, until which time [redacted] determined that the unit was not capable of meeting his expected calculations, and this was all the responsibilities of Proto Fab.Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)I do not know what [redacted] is trying to do. I had a mechanical engineer employed to create the design to my specifications including parts design. There was a definitive design parameters delivered to them in a computer designed format that they were able to input into their system in shopworks format.The test model did have adequate tip speed ratio TSR performance after we removed three unnecessary bearings that we never authorized. We were also able to increase the TSR by 42% and produce another alternative energy through PV methodology. I fully accepted the performance results and were pleased with them. When adding the classified design alternative the 42% increase of TSR yielded a startling 2.4 TSR. This is more then adequate to produce desired results when paired with a proper low speed wind generator. Which we would have to import unfortunately from [redacted] has been irrational in his statements of facts and never once advised of cost specifications, change orders, billed and practiced proper business procedures. The unfortunate results were that I did not have a formal contract with him and went with his statements of cost in stage pricing. He initially endorsed and proposed to present the ideas to the Ford Corporation for a Green Energy Tour to be conducted by them. The test site is no longer a viable option as too much time has passed and the project is at a standstill. He has my money, my device and has caused me irreparable financial harm. I would like to bring a suit but the cost of said action is more that the value of the claim.ProtoFab should be held responsible for my economic loss, which is far greater then the $12,200.00 requested.DO NOT CONDUCT BUSINESS WITH THIS FIRM OR THIS INDIVIDUAL UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOLID CLAD CONTRACT AND A GODD IN HOUSE ATTORNEY.Final Business Response As stated in the previous response. Proto Fab Inc. has constructed a proto-type test model of the wind generating device that was outlined in the customers conceptual details. There was no engineering documents generated or provided at anytime of this project. Proto Fab employed best practice techniques in the design and proto-type construction of this test model. [redacted] was notified in written documentation at (2) design review meetings that we were incurring costs over and above the original budgetary estimates. When the test unit did not produce the anticipated calculations, [redacted] began to focus all efforts on making this failure the fault of Proto Fab, construction, design, and craftsmanship. WE have documentation in photos and video of an operational proto-type generation device working properly based off of the conceptual details. As previously stated, in an effort to reconcile this financial discrepancy, Proto Fab is willing to offer a settlement of 1/2 the outstanding balance for services performed. There is a working device, that meets the parameters of the conceptual details. There are no engineering parameters or calculations to determine that the model does or does not meet specifications. There have never been professional specifications supplied to form this determination.