This letter is in response to a listing on your service for Post & Beam Design Build. In the listing he makes several incorrect statements to back up his unfavorable review of our company and we dispute the accuracy of his statements. The member states that our initial rough estimate of $50,000.00 to 75,000.00 was for the entire project. This is inaccurate. Our initial ballpark estimate was for only the Kitchen, Mudroom, Powder Room and Dining Room work based on being able to perform the project within the member’s stated scope of work, which included enclosing the existing side porch to create a space for the new kitchen. Our design costs to him were based on this same scope of work. He signed our Project Development Agreement on June 19, 2006 and soon after we started the design process. During our 1st site visit, after taking careful measurements, we found that the porch area was out of level, out of square, out of plumb and out of alignment with the existing porch roof. This created several problems with the kitchen design. Due to these conditions we then questioned if the foundation structure was settling, prompting us to question if it had a proper footing. After discussing our suspicions with the member, we made a second trip to the site to excavate the foundation in three locations. We found that the foundation did not have a footing at all, but was brick, block and mortar set on the existing soil about 24” below grade. Building code requires that a structure have a proper footing and that the base of the footing be a minimum of 32” below grade. The porch foundation was not code compliant. We then had to determine what we would need to do in order to bring the structure up to code in order to build the addition as the member has originally requested. None of this was included in our original design costs, or project budget. Further, it is clearly stated in our Project Development Agreement that: “If re-design is required we can modify the scope and specifications to meet a cost-value basis that is acceptable to the client – this segment could be multiple meetings over an extended period of time depending on the evolving design and budget requirements. This would be an additional cost and is not included in our estimate.” The member states that our preliminary budget was $161,708.00. Again, this is not accurate. Our preliminary budget was for $138,000.00 including the additional work that would be required to bring the existing porch up to code compliance. Additional cost options, such as putting in a new foundation and reframing the existing porch roof were listed as well as other options that were not part of the original scope of work for the Kitchen, Mudroom, Powder Room and Dining Room. All of these options are listed separately. This is to allow the member to see these additional costs, and so that the costs of what would be minimally required to meet his original scope of work would not be overstated. We do this as a service to our clients so they have better control over their budget. The member asserts he knew the total cost for materials in the project, but the dollars he states are for the allowance items he asked us to include in our costs (see attached spread sheet.) The member made no allowance for all the other materials necessary on the job, such as concrete, masonry, excavation equipment, framing, insulation, dumpsters, sheetrock, trim work, painting, rough in plumbing, rough in electrical, venting for fume hood, etc which are all necessary to complete the job. He incorrectly assumes that his balance of 90K is all for labor and profit. Job site overhead such as supervision, delivery costs, clean up and also office overhead such as insurance, office staff, billing, etc. does not seem to be relevant to the member, but are part of the operating costs for any company. Back out these costs and we are left with a net 10% profit. Additionally, he alludes to the fact that he saved $8,222.00 by contracting directly with Marvin Windows. However, he fails to acknowledge that we told him it would be cheaper for him to contract this out himself. He takes no account of the fact that he would be acting as his owner general contractor and the time it would consume for the scheduling and site supervision required. These are direct costs to the member (as they would be for Post & Beam Design Build) and not a direct savings. Again, if you back off our supervision costs and overhead you are left with a net profit of 10%. Lastly, he leads you to believe that we had cost overruns in design. This is true, but he fails to account for the structural issues related to his existing porch, which were unknown to us at time he signed the Project Development Agreement. If the project was as the member’s scope suggested, we would not have had any issues. However, considering the structural problem we uncovered, the time necessary to develop multiple solutions and accounting for the fact that we consulted with him prior to making a second site visit to confirm our suspicions, it is completely inappropriate to allude that he was overcharged. He gave us permission to do that additional work. We are a company that prides itself on our honesty and integrity. We have been honored by the Better Business Bureau for our exemplary business ethics, winning the 2010 Touch Award. We have also been honored by Remodeling Magazine with a Big 50 Award, honoring the top 50 remodeling companies in the nation. They only give these awarded to companies with and extremely high standard of service and integrity. The member has totally misrepresented his project. He was upset that he could not build the project the way he envisioned, for money he wanted to spend and took out is frustration on us. We patently do not deserve it.