Kavalski Gardenworks

We write this to respond to this inaccurate negative review.

We always strive to have a constructive and friendly working relationship with clients. We have been in this field of work for more than twenty years, and have worked with hundreds of clients in the Bay Area.

We have never received any similar complaint about the quality or professionalism of our work. In fact, many clients have made a point of telling us they appreciate our friendly, transparent, organized, timely and flexible approach to working with them.

If the reviewer had stuck to stating uncomfortable feelings, there would be little for us to say.

However, this review makes a number of false statements which require a response.

This project did get progressively more uncomfortable for us. In general, the reviewer, who seemed friendly and reasonable at first, began to act in an increasingly rude, provocative and hostile manner as the project went on.

The reviewer never attempted to meet with us or communicate to us in any manner about any of the negative statements made in this review.

Because the reviewer has made inaccurate claims about the quality of our work and our professionalism, I am compelled to respond in detail, with specific facts and examples, in order to set the record straight. We do not seek to get new clients from the internet, but rather rely on referrals from former satisfied clients. Nonetheless we cannot permit this inaccurate review to go unanswered.

Here is the story from our point of view.

Scheduling : Her claim that we contributed in any manner to project delay is false. We provided all requested services in a timely fashion, including a site visit to answer an important question in person the same day it was raised.

After we submitted a design plan the reviewer liked, the reviewer chose to hire another installer to do the first portions of the installation project, installing flagstone, irrigation and lighting. It took this installer close to five weeks to finish his portion of the project, some of it due to weather delay. This was not a problem for us, as we were able to accommodate our portion of the installation right after the other installer finished. We were informed that he had finished on January 21. We started on Monday January 28. We finished on the morning of Friday January 31 and, dodging the rains, came back on the following Tuesday February 5 to finish some follow-up items. There was no project delay due to us.

Communications: There is no delay attributable to communication by me. I was always available by phone. The bulk of the communication in this project was by email, and there were well over 200 email exchanges. My email response time was typically within one day of receiving an email, often same day. I emailed frequently to give information or request project updates on the work of the prior contractor, who needed to finish before we started. I initiated all in-person meetings.

Tone of Communications: We keep all client communications professional in tone. As I read back over my emails in this project, they are patient, professional and substantive. This is despite the fact that the client soon started a practice of sending frequent rude emails, sometimes containing baseless accusations and negative lecturing.

Budget: This is false. We completed our design work under budget and our installation at the agreed contract price. We also provided some additional work without charge, as described below.

At no time was I given any information about the total budget for the project. I do not know the terms of the contracts with the other two installers.

We first entered into a design contract for conceptual layout plans. I am not a landscape architect, but a landscape designer and a licensed landscape contractor.
As I explain to people I work with, and as stated in my design-only contracts, there are limitations on the level of detail and specification I can provide to be used by other installers. This is a state law licensing issue.

At the reviewer’s request I drew the shape and size of the new deck, the layout of flagstone and planting areas, a plan for the outdoor lighting and a planting plan. The design contract had a mutually agreed cap and our total billing was under that cap amount approximately 75% of the cap.

Without charging for my time, I arranged with another client to take the reviewer and her spouse to see one of our completed projects so they could understand what our method of flagstone installation looked like when complete. I was concerned to show them what they could expect from us so that we could be sure it was what they wanted. They told me they really liked the flagstone work and definitely wanted something similar.

At the end of that process, after I sent a fifth or sixth revised layout plan on December 9, the email response was:

“ Jim, this looks amazing!! We both love it. The fire pit area feels enclosed and cozy, and the dining table area feels open. It’s perfect!! We feel great about moving forward with this.”

The reviewer asked me to give them an installation estimate. I gave them an initial fixed price installation estimate. The reviewer asked me to divide up the total project cost by project component. I did that.

On December 14, they wrote
“…we don’t intend to use another landscaper for installation, and we want to avoid any additional delays in completing the project— so we feel comfortable signing a contract with you.”

However, three days later, on December 17, they told me that they had hired another installer to start immediately on the flagstone, lighting and irrigation supply install, to be done first.

They asked if I would contract with them for other portions of the work, planting, setting PE tubing irrigation lines to the plants, and building a large redwood raised bed. I agreed and sent them a draft contract with a specific task list. They signed the contract.

They requested that I hand over the most recent layout plan to the new installer who was starting the next day. I did so.

Disrespectful to other contractors: This is false.

I did meet and speak directly with the deck builder on one occasion to discuss at what height the lowest step of the deck should be set. I also met with the other installer on his first day of work. I was friendly and respectful to both people both times.

I noticed and emailed the reviewer about some issues with the work of the other two installers. I did not involve the other installers in these communications.
I did this because I thought it was important. As a homeowner, I would have wanted someone to alert me to these issues so I could fix them and end up with a well-installed project. I did not attempt to force solutions on the client and she chose not to get these fixed effectively.

The deck builder did not set any posts to support the bottom step of the deck, or pour a concrete pad to act as support. Instead he placed stacks of concrete pavers under the step joists directly on the soil as the sole support for the bottom step. I told the clients that I thought that was a problem because the step might sag over time, and I thought that might not be up to code. I don’t build decks and I am not an authority on deck construction standards. I also provided them an estimate to fix it from a deck builder I used at my house.

The other installer’s flagstone work was generally fine. However, in one spot he made a particularly unfortunate decision. He set a four foot wide portion of the flagstone sitting on densely packed loose material in direct contact with the shingles on one of the walls of the house, several inches above the foundation. I think it is safe to say that it could be problematic to run the landscape up the wall of a house, especially a wood shingle house. In my view this created a real potential for a rot and water intrusion problem in a wall of the house, which I consider serious.
The following shows the tone of my communications with the reviewer about problems in the work of other contractors:

"I am compelled to tell you about one aspect of the stone work in the back yard that really should be fixed as soon as possible. The stone in the corner past your basement door is set right up to the shingles, without leaving any space for water to drain. This will rot the shingles and could well spread into the wall studs.

The general standard is that no soil or mulch should touch wood portions of a house. Typically the landscape should end 4-6 inches below the bottom of the shingles.

The fix there could be simply moving the installation 4 inches away from the shingles, and making sure there is space below the shingles for water to flow along the foundation below the wood. They could set another timber to keep the loose material below the stones back from the house. If necessary, the stone can be cut by using a diamond blade on a standard circular saw.

If you would like me to come by and show you the problem and discuss possible solutions, please let me know."

That installer also installed the antisiphon irrigation valves in the site below grade, lower than good practice suggests for consistent valve performance, so the valves can reliably open and close as they should. The standard is 12 inches above the highest point in the site.

When we arrived, the valves were not opening and closing properly, but getting stuck in the open position. We worked with them and they seemed to operating properly when we left the site. I notified the reviewer of this situation. This work was not included in our contract, but because we were running lines to the plants that we were planting, we wanted to leave the site with a functioning system. So we just did it.

That installer also installed outdoor lighting without screwing the wire caps on so that the least tug on a wire would cause the wire to come free and lighting not to work. Because we had to move the lighting to clean out unwanted plants and other materials, do soil preparation and add compost to the site, we redid connections properly when we re-mounted the lighting in the site. We also did not charge for that work.

Plan scale: This is a misleading attempt to try to make us look unprofessional.

Asked to arrive the next day at the site with the plan, I did. I brought small size 8.5 x 11 copies of the layout plan, a size that was convenient to handle. Anyone who has installed a landscape, especially in the wet season, knows that it is more convenient to have a small plan you can fold up and put in your pocket, rather than a large floppy 18 x 24 version. Because this plan was not to scale, having been reduced to regular paper size, I had carefully labeled all of the relevant dimensions on the plan for the other installer. This made plan scale irrelevant.

The plan states on its face:
“ALL DIMENSIONS APPROXIMATE” and
“This plan is intended to give a general idea of the location of structures and objects. This plan is not a precise layout. Any contractor or installer using this plan must make their own measurements and judgments about size and placement.”

I met with the contractor and the reviewer, showed the written dimensions, stressed that the other installer should check all my measurements and make his own decisions about how to lay out the site according to the plan’s concepts, and answered what questions I could.

I was available for consultation. Neither the contractor nor the reviewer asked me any further questions during that phase of the project.

Several days later, the reviewer wrote me multiple accusatory emails about the fact the plan I provided was not to scale because it had been reduced to 8.5 x 11 size paper. The reviewer was upset because there was some problem with the other installer’s work and apparently he wanted to blame the plan scale. I reminded the reviewer that I had labeled the dimensions, so there was no reason any installer needed to use the plan’s scale. The reviewer never responded in substance to that information. The reviewer never withdrew the accusation.

I asked what the problem was and if I could help, but the reviewer refused to provide any information.

I told the reviewer in writing that if the reviewer could explain how there was a problem that cost them money due to the plan scale, I would be willing to consider paying the cost. No response to my willingness to take responsibility if my plan had actually caused a real problem.

I can only conclude that there was no real connection between the plan scale and whatever problem the other installer ran into.

Contract Fulfillment: Contrary to the reviewer’s assertions, we completed all tasks that the reviewer agreed to in the contract and some extra tasks as well.

Section 3 of the contract contained a written task list specifying the work to be done under the contract. The language of that list is simple and clear. At no time did the reviewer or her spouse ever ask any question about the task list, or ask for further specificity until all tasks were complete and they decided they wanted extra work, but did not want to pay for it. Their solution was to assert that the extra work was part of the contract even though it was not in the written task list. It seems that when I wrote that we were not obligated to do the extra work not listed in the contract, I was being “combative.”

For example, the contract clearly states that we would “mulch all planting areas.” We did that. The reviewer then demanded that we were obligated to buy additional mulch and mulch other areas which were not planting areas. Even though the phrase “mulch all planting areas” is clear, the reviewer repeatedly asserted that one of the design plans had the words “mulched area” in another portion of the site, and that meant we were obligated to do it under the contract. That drawing was prepared prior to their decision to divide up the project and prior to the writing of our contract. The contract does not incorporate the drawing. I think the reviewer knows that the language “mulched area” was intended as a question about how to handle that area, as opposed to continuing the flagstone around the house. The same plan has a list of remaining questions in its notes “Where does paved area end at southwest corner?” That issue was not resolved at the time the reviewer decided to apportion the project between us and other installers. It disappeared as a question until the reviewer wanted to assert that it was in the contract.

We went ahead and did some of the demanded mulching work without additional charge, though we were not obligated to do so, as a good will gesture.

Another example is that the reviewer attempted to get us to agree to install additional expensive LED outdoor lighting for free, by listing it as work required prior to our final payment. Lighting installation was specifically excluded from our contract. I refused to do it for free, and offered to install the light on a time and materials basis.

In one of my last emails, I told the reviewer I found it “really irritating” that the reviewer continued to insist that work not covered by the contract was required for final payment under the contract.

Baseless accusations: Several times, the reviewer sent emails with baseless accusations, jumping to unsupported conclusions, ignoring things we already had explained, or judging the project prematurely.

In addition to the episode about plan scale described above, I received a negative email complaining about the difference between the size of the plants planted and the mature sizes indicated in the planting plan.

I always explain to people I work with that the plants are planted at a smaller size and that the plan shows mature size. The reason for this disparity is the plan needs to provide enough space for the mature size, so as to minimize care and pruning needs down the line.

In my experience, plants perform best when they can grow to maturity in the site rather than in a container. I think it would be safe to say that no responsible landscape installer plants mature size plants—and it would be a bad idea, because the plants would be adversely affected by too much time in containers.

People can make mistakes about this sort of thing. When I make mistakes, I see it as my job to take responsibility and apologize. The reviewer made no response once I explained again about the plant size issue. And no further complaint.

Another example of the reviewer's negativity concerns the 12 foot long raised bed the reviewer asked us to construct. When the bed was half-built, I got several very negative emails. Without asking any question, these emails assumed it was completed, described its apparent defects in detail and characterized it as not meeting the standards of the contract. I responded by asking the reviewer to please wait and judge the structure after it had been leveled, joined, trimmed and finished.

A photo of the finished bed is shown below.

In sum, this was a job we performed well. We handled all communications with other contractors respectfully. We handled rude, hostile and accusatory communications from the reviewer with patience and restraint. We were under budget on design and did not exceed our agreed installation contract price. We performed all work listed in the installation contract and some extra work for which we were not paid. We started our installation a week after we were notified that the other installer was finished, and completed our installation quickly. And, as the reviewer, admits, the finished site looks good. While it is unfortunate that the reviewer has bad feelings, these are not our responsibility.