Tamarack Grove Engineering, PLLC.

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. Regards, [redacted]

To whom it may concern,This rebuttal is in no-way intended to change Mrs. [redacted]'s opinion of Tamarack Grove-Engineering, PLLC.(TGE),  but to highlight the facts of the transaction between TGE and Ms. [redacted] regarding structuralengineering drawings provided for the [redacted] Residence/cabin located in Garden Valley, Idaho as knownby us.
In some areas of Idaho, Garden Valley being one, no official plan review is required for residentialbuilding structures, however, Ms. [redacted]'s builder contacted us to provide an upgraded set of structuralengineering plans for a residential house, brought to current to Idaho building code, after being deniedby the [redacted]'s Home Owner's Association. The original set created in 2003 needed to be updated to thecurrent building code before proceeding. The instructions the builder gave was t hat the structure wouldbe extended two (2} feet on one side of the house and add a garage to the plans. He asked us toreplicate the old drawings and provide new calculations while incorporating this change. Beyond that,there were no further instructions from him, and further communication between TGE and the builderceased.
In our experience, it is customary business practice for a builder to coordinate with an architect, whothen works close ly with a structural engineer to provide a set of plans for t he cl ient to approve and signprior to breaking ground. This standard practice was not fo llowed. There was minimal in itial contactbetween Ms. [redacted]'s architect and TGE due to the architect disclosi ng that she was no longer willing towork with Ms. [redacted].
Our preliminary review set of plans sent to Ms. [redacted] were approved and also approved by the HOA. However, Ms. [redacted] began to make changes after the fact. When asked numerous times by t he leadengineer for Ms. [redacted] to point out what was not to her liking, she would not respond and accused ourengineer of being unprofessional because he could not identify the trouble spots. Eventually, she statedthat she was not happy with the porch (which t he builder changed an interior non-load bearing wall,and window placement - all of which are outside the scope of structural engineering drawings. It is ouropinion that Ms. [redacted] was attempting to have TGE make aesthetic changes to her plans, which isclearly outside t he scope of structural engineering drawings. This would typically have been addressedwith Ms. [redacted]'s architect, but she no longer had one available to her to work with.
Ms. [redacted] accused TGE engineers of not communicating with her in a timely manner, saying that shewas being ignored. Instead, it is our distinct recoll ection, and our email record will prove should it needto, that she was invited severa l times to talk with our lead engineer on this project. We clearly explainedto her that we needed several things from her or her builder in order for our work to progress. She, asthe only remaining communicator on this project with us, chose to not respond in a timely manner.
Ms. [redacted] called TGE numerous times over the course of the project, talking to our employees in anaggressive and condescending manner, threatening non-payment, and accusing our staff of acting in anunprofessional manner when, in fact, she was treated with the utmost civility and politeness, as istypical of TGE employees.
The initial set of plans delivered to the [redacted]s was, indeed, one week late. The original scope of workcould have been completed easily in one week's time, however, after Ms. [redacted]'s delay incommunication with us and changes made to the original plans, our time line also changed. TGEprovided, one week late, structural plans for the house and the garage, in addition to a site layout planbothof which were not in the original plans outlined by the builder. We provided Ms. [redacted] the first setof drawings at no charge due to lateness per our original agreement made prior to any changes.
Ms. [redacted] requested that a set of plans be delivered to Garden Valley. TGE does not deliver plans.Instead, we ship them at a reimbursable charge to the client per our standard written and signedagreement, and/or provide a digital copy at no charge. We provided a digital copy.
Ms. [redacted] has stated over and over that she did not receive a final product, which is simply not true. Inactuality, Ms. [redacted] received more than what was agreed to. Additionally, Ms. [redacted] requested asecond set of physical plans which we printed at our expense. These drawings remain upon a shelf atTGE. We do not expect that we will be reimbursed for this additional expense to us. We are grateful thatthe [redacted]'s paid for the other professional services they received from TGE even after threatening in amost disagreeable manner, non-payment.
It is our opinion that we went over and above to provide the [redacted]s a professional service. Our contract,invoicing, and email records are available for review by any interested parties.
Tamarack Grove Engineering, PLLC, has built a reputation based upon honesty and integrity along withthe highest standard of professionalism among its hundreds of clientele, many being repeat and regularcustomers, throughout the United States and Canada, who may be contacted for reference.
Respectfully submitted,Brian S[redacted]

Regarding [redacted] complaints, it is unfortunately an issue of no matter how hard our office tried to make him happy, he was always going to find a way to be disgruntle.  As stated in his letter, we did first make contact with [redacted] in July of last year.  A very good friend of...

mine, referred him to our office to help him structurally engineer and prepare permit drawings for the City of Boise.  It was for a rear deck remodel expansion they were doing.   He signed our contract that was submitted to him that clearly stated our services were due within 30 days of receipt.  We worked on his project, he submitted to the City and they came back with a list of additional items and additional services that they wanted on this project.   His address was located in an area the City deemed ‘Wildland Urban Interface Area’ so it changed the course of design intent completely.  Our office was unfamiliar with this request from the City, as we had never heard of it before related to fire protection, not structural engineering, and [redacted] was unaware of it as well.  In response to this request from the City, the redesign took some additional time and we addressed stuff that the City of Boise was requesting, all above and beyond what our scope of work was pertaining to structural engineering.  All of this was explained to [redacted] during the course of the events.  In the end, [redacted] and his wife were frustrating that the process was taking longer and they felt that our office should of known about the WUIA issue that was again, a fire protection issue, not structural.  I personally called [redacted] and tried my very best to walk him through the reasoning’s. Our initial fees to [redacted] were $950.00.  With all of the requests from the City of Boise that caused additional scope of work on our end, our office was into his job approximately $3,000.00.  I personally felt bad for [redacted] because of the City’s requests, so we performed all of the additional work and ate the balance.  We submitted the final updated set to [redacted] in November after all of the City of Boise requests were met and a lot of back and forth.  We started in August and finally finished in November, but again I explained all of the additional timelines that were caused in part by the City, and some due to our work load.  I communicated this to [redacted] several times in phone calls and personally apologized for how long the process was taking.  Our office invoiced [redacted] in the fall of 2014 and he never paid his bill.  We followed up and he continually commented on that he had his invoice and would pay it.  In short, we finally received payment from [redacted] in early May only because an issue came up on site from a City inspector and geotech engineer that needed our blessing, so I said that we would not respond until we received full payment. On all sets of plans you try your very best as a design professional to get it 100% correctly, but there is no ‘perfect’ set of construction documents that exist.  On all projects there are clarifications, requests for information, etc.  [redacted] second contractor, never made it a point to pick up the phone and give our office a call to review or discuss the issues.  When [redacted] had his contractor come down to our office to pay, it was only then when these issues were notified to our office.   [redacted]s tried having his contractor come down and write a check out for ½ of the cost, which I refused and told his contractor that my issue is not with him, but with [redacted] since he was not paying his bill.  After [redacted] contractor went back out to our parking lot and sat for 10 minutes in his truck, he came back in with a check made out for the full 100% of the invoice.  I am not sure what that was about, but eventually we got paid. In closing, through the entire process, I kept in contact with [redacted] and tried my very best to keep him abreast of the project.  I find it disheartening that the first contractor [redacted] hired is no longer on the project, and that the issues that the second contractor had brought up with [redacted] on our drawings, were not made evident until March/April of this year, only to [redacted] (not our office), almost 6-7 months after we first invoiced [redacted].  So even then, our invoice was well past due before what [redacted] calls the ‘inconsistencies’ were noted.  I have apologized in previous conversations to [redacted] for how the process went down, but it was from issues out of our control from the City of Boise, and our office was never contacted to sit down and go over the owner’s issues within the drawings.   How can we review these or go over them if we were never contacted.  All we had asked for was our initial scope of work invoice to be paid.  This unfortunately took forever to get.  I certainly wish [redacted] and his wife the best of luck on their project, but I feel this is an issue of an owner not really fully understanding the process of permitting drawings and then how a project works with collaboration and communication all in an effort to have a well-coordinated project.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:  I think we had the expectation that this firms mistakes would be corrected the first time it was brought to the firms attention in May.  After repeated phone calls and emails, it took this firm two months to make the corrections/mistakes on their drawings and they only did this when my husband threatened not to pay them.  To start name calling the client as "high maintenance" is redirecting the issue from factual to emotional.  We have months of emails and documentation from this firm either stating that there were no mistakes, asking us the client to show them all the mistakes without first reviewing their work and again simply not making any changes/corrections until again my husband threatened not to pay them.  I continue to be surprised at this firm's unprofessionalism.  Instead of apologizing, asking what they could do to correct their negligence, even mailing the printed drawings to us, this firm continues to be unresponsive.  This is the first company we have ever worked with that has been so non-responsive and the first time in 40 years of working with firms that we have ever filed a complaint with the Revdex.com.  
Tamarak Engineering has showed their true nature of their company relying on name calling and condemning the client who has through all of this, respected the initial contract and paid in full.
Sincerely,
 
[redacted]

[redacted],
 
Thank you for your letter, I apologize, I have been traveling.  Regarding this claim, Mrs. [redacted] was unfortunately a very high maintenance client.   Our office had very good conversations with her husband along the way and all was good on that front.  I...

am very sorry to see this post.  We took what their Architect gave us, who by the way refused to work with them anymore, and developed our structural sheets.  There was some back and forth, but we had called their contractor to clarify some items and walk through some of the issues that Ms. [redacted] had brought to our attention.  Their contractor was delayed in responding to us so we did not respond as fast as Ms. [redacted] wanted us to.  We did have conversations with their contractor finally and walked over the phone what needed to be done prior to the final drawings being fixed.  In the end, we did our part, we fixed the final drawings and we delivered what we set out to do to meet the [redacted] expectations.  They got a completed set of plans.  We did print off hardcopies of the drawings and engineering per Mr. [redacted] request, he was going to pick them up here in our office, but that has not happened yet.  Our office was paid in full for our services rendered.  Onward and upward.
 
Brian ** S[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.
Regards,
[redacted]