Spectrum Group Architects, PC

We are in receipt of the complaint from Mr. [redacted], in that he feels he is beingunfairly charged for services rendered. We have been more than generous, as well as fair, inour dealings with Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] was informed in our office, and notified inletters, as to our fees, and...

our hourly rates well in advance of offering professional services.On September 9, 2016, he came into our office, asking for Spectrum to draft up plans to gethim through a city building code review, for the purpose of securing a building permit. Igave him a ball-park fee estimate of $600-$800 just for drafting, but also explained that as anArchitect, standard of care is to do a preliminary code review. Mr. [redacted] was given acopy of our hourly Design Fees when he left our office, and we verbally agreed to notifyhim when our design fee had reached 6 hours.On September 27, 2016, I sent him a letter, of our preliminary code review (Letter datedSeptember 27, 2016 ''Letter to Owner" attached herewith). With this letter, I sent aninvoice for services rendered to perform this code review (Invoice [redacted] attachedherewith). That following week, I visited with Mr. [redacted] at BNI (Business NetworkInternational-a group we are both members in), whereas he asked me to proceed withdrafting the project, and to proceed with the work. I explained that I would not do thatlevel of work without a signed contract. It is dear after receiving this complaint, that Mr.[redacted] expected Spectrum to perform a significant amount of work without anycompensation; we got the feeling he might not even intend to pay our bill. We refused todo more than the code review until the contract had been signed and we had been paid forthe work already performedAs is standard, and explained to Mr. [redacted] in our office on September 9, 2016, abuilding code review is necessary before spending time and energy developing remodeledfloor plans. Building code issues could be such that the project would be economicallyinfeasible or not even possible, which turned out to be the case. Our findings revealed thathe will have an issue with the City of Billings regarding off-site and on-site parking, inaddition to basement egress issues from a dwelling unit below grade, which are life safetyissues per the building code.The city requires 2 parking spaces of off-street parking for each dwelling unit. Mr. [redacted]has not disclosed to the City building officials that he actually has three dwelling units onthe property (the building identified with the city as a 'garage', is in fact an apartmentdwelling.) The property has a variance for the two dwelling units, but there are actuallythree, and there is not a variance on record for the third dwelling unit. After he received ourletter explaining the code requirements for parking, and our fees to that point, Mr. [redacted]stated he was going to talk to the city on his own.On October 6th, 2016. I sent Mr. [redacted] a revised fee proposal, which included the timerequired to provide him a set of code compliant plans to the city ('1611_Revised Fees'attached herewith) This revised fee proposal included a discount in charges, as I intended tocharge out my time at a lower rate than what my usual hourly rate is. We included theDesign services contract again, for Mr. [redacted] to sign before we committed more timeand resources to his project.Three weeks later, Mr. [redacted] returned to our office, with a letter from the City of Billings,stating that he is in violation of parking for the property. Very similar to what Spectrum toldhim. He decided that he would talk with the city again, on his own. Mr. [redacted] than askedus about the bill we had sent to him (Invoice [redacted] attached herewith). We explainedthat although we did not charge for his initial visit to our office, or for the time spent todevelop a fee proposal, but that we would need to charge for the preliminary code review weperformed for his property to get the building permitAfter the game plan for the first property fell apart, Mr. [redacted] came back to our office andasked for additional help on a different property he was considering purchasing. At this pointhe had not paid our bill for our time invested in the first property. We pulled up Cadastralmaps on this second property, and my partner and I sat down for well over an hour with Mr.[redacted], reviewing city zoning and parking requirements, and building codes to help himunderstand the code requirements that would affect further development on this property.Mr. [redacted] was looking for a building he could add more rental space to, and asked for ourprofessional help in determining how large of an addition the property could handle.Although Spectrum provided professional assistance with design for this other property, wedid not charge Mr. [redacted] for this additional time and services. (Invoice [redacted]attached herewith)Our profession's standards of practice for small projects of an undefined scope of work is tocharge on a time and materials basis until a project can be defined, and then provide a quotefor se1-vice, which is still based on hours invested in the project. We have provided Mr.[redacted] valuable information that saved him considerable time and money. What we arecharging Mr. [redacted] is minuscule compared to what he could have spent if he hadproceeded with the work and discovered in the middle of construction or after purchasing thenew property that he could not do what he wanted and still be in compliance with thebuilding codes.WI e normally charge more for the services we provided Mr. [redacted], but because he was amember of BNI with us we discounted our services. We are within our rights to charge muchmore (as indicated on the attached Invoices), for our services rendered. His complaint is anattempt to get out of paying for services rendered. As we worked with Mr. [redacted] itseemed that he was always trying to cut comers and find ways of circumventing the buildingcode requirements. We should have realized that this business practice would also extend topaying his bills.Mr. [redacted] is also actively involved in a smear campaign seeking to damage the reputationof Spectrum. Our attomey is actively investigating the extent of his harmful actions and willbe filing a suit seeking appropriate compensation. We will also be including anyone in thissuit who has aided Mr. [redacted] in this effort in any manner.Sincerely, Kathleen L. A[redacted]Please see attached**