Superior Solutions By Design, Inc

May 20. 2016Dear [redacted]:This office has been retained by Superior Solutions ByDesign, Inc. ("SSBDI") to respond to your letter dated May 13, 2016 and to respond to the complaint lodged by [redacted], on behalf of or related to [redacted]. Accordingly, please direct all...

further communications to the undersigned. Below are SSBDI's responses to the issues raised in your letter.1. Liquidated Damages: [redacted]' representative, [redacted], at all times in 2016, had actual knowledge of the progress of SSBDI's work on the Property. In fact, Mr. Tony B[redacted], who was the Supervisor of the SSBDT work at the Propcrty, spoke with [redacted] on practically a daily basis to answer [redacted]'s questions about the work on the Property. Mr. B[redacted] told [redacted] in detail about the various construction issues (and problems) that existed with the Property, However, at no time did [redacted] raise an issue with Mr, B[redacted] about the $200.00 per day penalty under the Contract between [redacted] (the "[redacted]"). Nor did [redacted] state to Mr. B[redacted] that SSBDl was in default of the Contract or that SSBDI owed the [redacted] "liquidated damages" or penalties of $200.00 per day after January 15, 2016.SSBDI could not anticipate the delays caused by intervening agents over whom they had no control. Specifically, SSBDI could not have anticipated that the plumbing and electrical contractors would take as long as they did to complete their work on the Property. In addition, the ultimate cause of delays were: (a) the Department of Permitting. Inspections and Enforcement of Prince George's County (the "Prince George's County linspectors"); and (b) the utility companies, [redacted] and [redacted].The Prince George's County Inspectors did not issue a "Passed Inspection" sticker for the electrical work at the Propcrty until April 19, 2016. However, this sticker only indicated that the "cut-in" (i.e. the connection to the electrical power grid) could take place. The "cut-in" could only be accomplished by [redacted], as [redacted] is the only entity with authority to install an electrical meter at and electrical service to the Property. It is the role and responsibility of the Prince George's County Inspectors office to notify [redacted] that the building inspection relating to a residential property (such as the Property in this case) has "passed inspection" and then [redacted] makes arrangements for the installation of the electrical meter and connection to the power grid. SSBDI never had control or involvement in this process, and it would be unfair -- and without any basis in process -- to allege that SSBDl should be held accountable for [redacted]'s delays in connecting the electrical meter.In addition, it was not until approximately the same time (the second week of April 2016) that [redacted] issued a final "Approval Tag" for the "Gas Close-In." Without that approval tag, the final inspection by the Prince George's County Inspectors could not take place. The [redacted] "Approval Tag" dated April 6, 2016, was preliminary, not a final, tag. The final Approval Tag was not issued until the following week and is at the Property. Nevertheless, SSBDl obtained the final approval from [redacted] for the operation of the plumbing. HVAC, water heater, new gas lines and new water lines installed per the Contract, but it was not until mid-April 2016, due to delays in installation of those systems by the subcontractors and inspections by [redacted].Finally, because [redacted] terminated the Contract by his email to SSBDI on May 6, 2016, SSBDI could take no further action with respect to the Contract. Under any legal theory. SSBDI could not be responsible for "liquidated damages" after May 6, 2016. It is also evident that final "delivery" of the Property could not be made until [redacted] installed the electrical service, which of course only [redacted] has the authority to do. (The fact that it has rained most days since before May 1, 2016 is significant because neither [redacted] nor its subcontractors will do electrical installation work if the ground or promises of properties are wet or if it is raining.)In summary, all of the delays caused by circumstances outside of SSBDI's control caused the delays in the completion of the work at the Property. Any trier of fact (such as a judge, jury or arbitrator) would be receptive to considering evidence regarding the intervention of delays caused by others outside the control of SSBDI, and accordingly, the "liquidated damages" provision Inay be either reduced significantly (to the time period from April 20, 2016 to May 6, 2016) or eliminated altogether (due to [redacted]' unilateral termination of the Contract before [redacted] installed the electrical meter and electrical service to the Property).2. The rear foundation wall project: The work that [redacted] alleges he had to have done by another contractor in the rear foundation of the Property was separate and distinct from the work that was included in the Contract between SSBDI and [redacted]. It is completely inaccurate (and indeed false) for [redacted] to claim that SSBDI's work on the rear of the Property had to be "re-done" or that it "caused" him to have to pay $4.500.00 to "repair."The truth is that the work done by SSBDl was in conformance with the Contract modification dated January 9, 2016. The problems a[redacted]gedly addressed by Hernandez Contracting [redacted] were on the side of the rear of the Property away from the area in the rear of the Property on which SSBDI performed its "foundation repair." Mr. B[redacted] will testify, as necessary, that SSBDI only performed work under the Contract modification as specified by [redacted], and that the problems worked on by Hernandez Construction [redacted] had nothing to do with the services performed by SSBDI. In short, SSBDI never entered into a contract with [redacted]' company to provide services in the area of the foundation in the rear of the Property where work was performed by [redacted] (the contractor [redacted] hired to do the completely different work than that entailed by the Contract with SSBDI).3. Disputed Amount: [redacted] conveniently failed to mention in his letter to Revdex.com that his company is withholding over $13,000.00 of the last payment due to SSBDI under the Contract. For the reasons stated above, SSBD strongly believes that the inherent problems with [redacted]' Property (making renovation much more difficult than he had described or that even he anticipated), as well as slower than cxpected progress made by third-party subcontractors and slowness in the Building lnspectors' inspections of the various phases of work at the Property caused the delays. The delays of which [redacted] complains were most certainly not due to anything that SSBDI did or failcd to do.SSBDI has every intention of asserting all of its defenses in arbitration in this matter, because the Contract is subject to arbitration. Inot litigation. [redacted] needs to refer to paragraph l6 of the Contract which he drafted, which clearly requires arbitration: "Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. . ."In summary, [redacted]' unsubstantiated allegations -- with which SSBDI does not agree -- will have to be adjudicated by arbitration as required by the Contract, T therefore urge the Revdex.com not to get involved with, or make any public statements about, what is obviously a cornplex business dispute. between two private parties, [redacted] and SSBDl.Thank you for the opportunity to address the misleading and false statements contained in [redacted]' complaint to the Revdex.com.Sincerely,S. Ricardo N