A letter from the Client to the Engineer. File this under, "I told you so."

A little background:
Client hires Mr. Engineer to design an advanced onsite wastewater treatment system for her property.  The system will serve three homes.

Mr. Engineer decides that he will not show Eliminite on the plans and opts to only show the "Big Guys" onsite wastewater system on the plans. 

During the process of obtaining cost proposals for the treatment system, several contractors suggest  Client look into Eliminite as an option because they prefer Eliminite advanced onsite treatment systems to those manufactured by the "Big Guys."

Eliminite provided a  price to  Clients contractor and offers to help have the system re-permitted if Client decides to work with us. 

Client decides to use Eliminite and authorizes re-permitting.  Re-permitting takes a few days.

The Smackdown
The system is installed and, apparently, Mr. Engineer, noticing the construction activity on the property asks Client if he should come out and certify the installation.  Client sends Mr. Engineer the following letter:

Mr. Engineer,

They are just finishing putting in the Eliminite system this week. In response to your inquiry, we went with this system because it was $10,000 less than the other system. They are a Montana company & have been very professional with us. They should be included in the options you give people also.

Thanks,

Mrs. Client

That's a fairly strong rebuke and I doubt Client will be recommending Mr. Engineer for future work.

The Problem
In general, larger firms prefer to specify systems that cost more because their fees are based on a percentage of the overall cost. So a system that costs $10,000 more, represents an additional $2000 to $2500 in the engineers pocket for doing nothing.

Clients, whether public or private, must be aware of this practice of deliberately designing with more expensive components for no reason other than that they cost more.  A case in point is a Montana firm that is designing a public onsite wastewater treatment system and is only designing with the "Big Guys" on their plans.  They refuse to even call us back even though they have already been smacked down by other clients that they pulled these shenanigans with.  

The bottom line is, because we are able to provide better systems for less money, they make less.  In fact, the installed cost of one of our systems was less than the cost of their engineering services, and they did not even design the system.

This firm just lost a big public job that they did the preliminary engineering report for.  The clients decided not to use them on the design and construction phases.  The firm that won the award is a competent, ethical group that has worked with Eliminite on several projects.  Their approach is to allow several manufacturers to present a design for review and the best system wins the job.

Eliminite almost always wins the fair bids.  The only ones we do not win, are the ones that are rigged from the beginning.   This ultimately ends up costing the client a lot more money initially, more money for operation and maintenance and, after the "Big Guys" system has been installed and is not meeting permit requirements, more money because the engineers are forced to "de-certify" the non-compliant system.

Want to know more?  Give me a call.