County comments
Contractor responds
I am writing in response to an article posted in the Dec. 27 West Hawaii Today. At the very end of the article, Mr. Dominic Yagong stated they also had many problems with the Hilo county AV system furnished and installed by a vender which happens to be my company (The Audio Visual Co.). To set the record straight, the entire AV system was designed by a very reputable AV consultant, not by my company. When we completed the installation and training, the AV consultant approved of our installation and commissioning of the entire AV system.
After moving into the county building, the AV system was being used constantly by the county for meetings. Because of the size and complexity of the AV system, the staff had a difficult time learning and using it the way it was designed by the consultant. There were also some problems, which is usually normal for a system of this size. However, we responded and corrected these problems in a timely manner. There were also some issues on the design of the system, which is the responsibility between the customer and the AV consultant.
Since the customer refused to work with the consultant, they wanted us to make changes to the system at our expense. We told them that we couldn’t make any changes without a change order and the direction of the AV consultant, since the county paid the consultant for the design of the AV system. We did tell the county we could make changes to the system after the one-year warranty, however, there would be applicable charges.
To state there were many problems is grossly false and detrimental to my company’s reputation. Again, we have furnished and installed the entire AV system within the budget and on time. The county has been using the system continuously for about two years. Mr. Yagong also states the county staff has been travelling from Kona to the Hilo county site to use the system.
If they are having so many problems at the Hilo site, how can Mr. Yagong say they are using the Hilo system?
Finally, Mr. Yagong’s statement, “it’s difficult to get the vendor to do things once it’s signed off and the money’s gone out” is true only if he is referring to changing the design of the AV system. Again, I want to reiterate we have taken care of warranty problems during the one-year warranty. Not once did we give the county a difficult time fixing any problems of the system during the warranty period. In fact, we supported the facility beyond the one year from occupancy at no charge.
Mr. Yagong’s statement about my company’s AV installation of the Hilo County Building is very false and slandering. If the general contractor built the county building according to the architect’s design, is it the general contractor’s fault or the architect’s fault if the customer doesn’t like the design?
I want this record set straight since I feel that we are falsely being accused of furnishing and installing a faulty system.
Thomas KM Lee
President
The Audio Visual Co.
Aiea, Oahu