ComplaintsforRemote Alaska Solutions Inc

• Initial Complaint

  05/24/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We met with *** in '23 seeking a contractor to build a foundation and shell for a new home. During our first meeting with ***** a cost estimate of $225-$250 per square foot finished was verbalized to us if RAS did the foundation and shell and we completed the remainder ourselves. With that number in mind we moved forward with paying a $15,000 retainer. In our retention agreement it was stated 1.) subcontracted services would be marked up by 8% overhead and 4% profit 2.) placing a retainer of $15,000 and working with RAS would yield a cost savings of 5-10 times the amount of the deposit due to their commitment to value engineering and cost saving 3.) a comprehensive schedule of values would be provided. We developed a house plan with ***** and his team, paying for drafting services as we proceeded. We paid for structural engineering to stamp the plans. These fees were outside of the $15,000 retainer as agreed upon in the retention agreement. The 95% plans we received were devoid of necessary dimensions and elevations. Once we requested those elevations and dimensions we were charged additional drafting fees. *** delivered a schedule of values totaling $135 per sqft for foundation, walls and roof. The *** revealed that *** subcontracts absolutely everything - including project management and the concrete work that they specialize in. *** then charges a 12% mark up on their own services. The *** also listed every line item as 'Rough Order of Magnitude' which means that cost *** vary wildly, with no upper limit, from what is estimated. At this point in negotiation the range should be much tighter than ROM. The cost estimate for the shell at $135 per sqft would put us significantly over the estimated $225-$250/sqft finished cost and out of our budget. There was no cost saving from 'value engineering'. In short their business practices are disingenuous, bordering on intentionally misleading. When we requested half of the deposit be returned no response was given.

  Business response

  08/01/2024

  Sir/*****

  Please see the two pages, one from Remote Alaska Solutions and one from ******* and *************************, that details the events and resolution.  We would like the complaint updated to at least resolved and verification sent back to us that this has been completed.

   

  Thank You,

  *******************

• Initial Complaint

  04/21/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My husband, ************** met with Remote Alaska Solutions (RAS) the end of December 2020 to work out details regarding hiring them as contractors to build an ICF house for us. (insulated concrete foam). They were to only pour the ********** were going to do the rest. At that meeting we went over our plans that we had sketched out. They said it wouldn't work to build house on hanger so we changed it to build the house along side the future hanger instead of on top of the hanger. We paid them $10,000 deposit, required as a retainer, went *********** up new plans. They then had us give those plans to ************************* to be drawn up. RAS then received the plans from ****** the beginning of May 2021. They were then going to get it in que to begin pricing. We then met around May 6, 2021. At that meeting they told us now that the drawings were done they would get quotes from all contractors. We asked what contractors because we planned to do the rest on our own. They said it was standard to get all electrical, plumbing, heating, roofing, etc quotes before the build. Again we stated we would be doing that work ourselves. We just wanted the pricing on the icf build. They had said in December it would be much cheaper to build the house on the side of the hanger so we listened to their advice being that they had made it sound like it would be around $100,000, not being out of our budget or a million$ house as **** later stated . ******* is who we met at this appointment. The 1st appointment in December was with ************* We waited on ******* for over a month for a final cost, a verbal cost was given & it was well over $250,000. Making it over double the initial cost. We had no choice but to pull out & they refuse to refund our deposit. Kevins words "The $10K deposit placed during the Retention Agreement covers the fees that RAS incurs during this pre-construction process." We met twice & construction was never started, nor even visited our property.

  Business response

  05/11/2022

  To Whom it May Concern:
  
  
  Remote Alaska Solutions (RAS) is a reputable design-build construction company with over 3 dozen successful design-build projects already completed.  We have dozens of letters of reference and recommendation from many clients.
  
  
  We have learned that several factors need to be present in order for a client's dreams to become a reality.  One of those critical factors is realistic expectations on the part of the client.
  
  
  In this particular case, it is clear, through the written communication that is attached to this response, that the expectations were in fact not realistic on the part of the Nylunds.
  
  
  On several occasions, RAS tried to reset the expectations of the Nylunds on what is feasible and what is possible within their budget constraints.  We made every effort to communicate truthfully and respectfully with them.
  
  
  Both parties signed a retention agreement that had a fixed price of $10,000 to manage and facilitate the design-build process which included drawings along with creating a budget for those specific drawings.  The retention agreement offered a credit towards the construction budget upon a successful consummation of a construction contract (to which the Nylunds did not follow through with).  RAS had a significant amount of time and resources devoted to the drawings, meetings, emails, and abnormal budget requests of the Nylunds.
  
  
  Further, the retention agreement that the Nylunds signed stipulated that any subcontractor (architects or draftsman) that were hired for the ****** project would be billed at actual cost plus a fixed markup of 10% due to RAS.  It is important to understand that the Nylunds unilatterally decided to NOT pay the 10% markup on RAS invoice 530 and therefore breached the contract (retention agreement) that they themselves signed.  RAS made the decision to not pursue that breach.
  
  
  One other fact that needs to be pointed out is the discrepancy in the written communication from the Nylunds.  In their email to RAS on 6-23-2021 (attached), they use the numbers of $150,000 and $200,000-215,000 to describe the chain of events from their perspective, however in their complaint to the BBB, they use the numbers of $100,000 and $250,000 respectively to flamboyantly describe the same chain of events. Why are the numbers now changing?  I can only assume that they are now exaggerating the numbers in an effort to make their case that much more compelling to the BBB, but in doing so they are perjuring their own written prior correspondence, which certainly does not lend itself well to fair and equitable transactions between two parties.
  
  
  In conclusion, RAS does not feel that we have done anything to breach the terms of the contract (retention agreement) that we signed with the Nylunds.  If this is not the viewpoint of the Nylunds, we respectfully ask them to provide any specific details that would prove otherwise.
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Seth

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩