Columbia Geotechnical

May 12th, 2020

We have hired Columbia Geotechnical on several different projects the past few years. Ruth has always been a responsive communicator, charged us a fair price and most importantly provided quality work. She has always taken the time to address the core needs of our projects. As a professional construction company, we appreciate her services. Identifying how to provide a stable base for any building is a critical and complicated process. We have worked with many geotechnical companies over the years, Columbia is our first choice.
May 30th, 2019

My wife and I retained Ruth Wilmoth through her firm Columbia Geotech from mid-2013 through mid-2017 to perform several different but all quite critical and challenging geotechnical projects for us in connection with the planning and permitting from beginning to end of our new home on the Underwood Bluff in compliance with the complex and detailed regulations implementing the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act. We were referred to Ms. Wilmoth by a professional colleague of my wife's brother, himself a geologist who recently retired after a long and distinguished career with an internationally acclaimed geological engineering firm.   We would not have been referred to Ms. Wilmoth in the first place had my brother-in-law not had complete confidence in his professional colleague and had that colleague not had complete confidence in Ms. Wilmoth.  Suffice it to say, our very high expectations of Ms. Wilmoth were not disappointed in any respect.My brother-in-law personally reviewed Ms. Wilmoth's initial geotechnical report for our site and confirmed our own conclusion that it was a "great report."   On the basis of this report, we closed our conditional sales agreement for our Bluff property with as much confidence as anyone could have in buying property on the edge of a 65-degree slope in an area known not only for its incredible scenic beauty but its landslides and rockfalls.  We also closed the purchase of our property with as much confidence as anyone could have when limited by NSA rules to augured soil tests no more than four feet deep prior to NSA review and approval (talk about Catch-22s!!) to determine whether our spectacular but challenging site -- although filled with crushed rock -- was compatible with the alternative technology septic system our OSS consultant had recommended.Did we require and request "supplemental" geotechnical reports from Ms. Wilmoth in the course of our four-year project?   Of course we did.  Did we pay Ms. Wilmoth "extra" for those "supplemental reports"?  Of course we did.  First, because that was our understanding from our discussions with Ms. Wilmoth from Day One.  Second, because as a retired attorney, I follow the same fundamental legal principles I preached to my clients and taught to my law school students for more than 30 years:  "The first three rules of contract law are, first, read the contract; second, read the contract; and, third, read the contract."  And, by following the first three rules of contract law, I knew that the contract my wife and I had signed with Ms. Wilmoth was express that we would pay extra fees and expenses for extra work. Did we require and request Ms. Wilmoth to perform special reviews or investigations of geotechnical issues which arose in the course of the clearing, grading, excavation and construction of our project?  Of course we did.  Did we pay Ms. Wilmoth "extra" for those special reviews and investigations?  Of course we did.  The winter and spring of 2017 were extraordinarily wet and our contract with our builder required special geotechnical inspections and remedial measures recommended by our geotechnical consultant to assure the stability of the soils beneath and around our foundations.  The spring of 2017 also revealed what neither the seller of our property nor the local county highway department had disclosed to us and neither we nor any of our consultants had discovered in the prior four years due to thick foliage on the face of the Underwood Bluff -- there was an undocumented and unrecorded stormwater drainage pipe extension from a highway culvert running under the northwest corner of our property!! Did we request Ms. Wilmoth to perform the inspections and recommend the remedial measures required by the contract we had so painstakingly negotiated with our builder?  Of course we did.  Did our builder and our civil engineer need to coordinate their schedules with that of Ms. Wilmoth for those purposes?  Of course they did.  Did we pay Ms. Wilmoth extra for the additional time required to perform those inspections and oversee those remedial measures?  Of course we did.Did we also request Ms. Wilmoth to recommend a set of precautions we should take to assess the potential geotechnical implications of the undisclosed, undocumented and unrecorded stormwater drainage pipe extension to the county highway culvert?  Of course we did.  Did we pay Ms. Wilmoth extra for the added time required for that extra work?  Of course we did.Did Ms. Wilmoth charge us precisely the hourly rate specified in our contract for all of the extra work requested and performed?  Of course she did.  Were the added time and expense Ms. Wilmoth charged us all documented and reasonable in relation to the work performed?  Of course they were.  So, my wife and I are most happy with Ms. Wilmoth.   We hired her to do her top-notch best to help us build our dream home and then paid her what she had earned by doing precisely that!!
Apr 28th, 2019

CAUTION!! DO YOUR HOMEWORK! I contacted Ruth, the owner and I believe sole employee at this firm, after I found out I needed a Geotec for an addition to my house that I was planning to build. I had never heard of a geotec before and when I called Columbia Geotechnical of Vancouver, I made it clear this process was completely foreign to me. I should add I also called some larger firms and found out that they were very busy and booked out at least 3-4 weeks. When I called Columbia Geotechnical and Ruth said she was available within a few days, I asked her for an appointment. I explained I needed a geotec report for an addition to my house along with a separate shop, all located in Cowlitz Co. I was previously told by the Building Department, that all of the requirements needed for the report were listed on the Cowlitz Co. web site and I passed that information on to Ruth. She said she had done over 100 reports for them, one recent one just like mine, so she was familiar with what I needed and that she would be out in a few days. She quoted me $1500.00 over the phone based on the recent report that was just like mine. Ruth came out to visit the site and look over the project. At that time she informed me, after a bit of online research, I was in an old landslide area, but the project still seemed simple to her and it would most likely come in under her estimate. She finished the report but would not send it to the planner until payment was received. The cost came in exactly $1,500.00 as originally quoted, it was not under as she thought it would be. Upon payment, I was given a copy of the report and an additional electronic copy was sent to the Planning Department. A few days later, I received a letter stating the report was not accepted because it did not include the checklist, as per the requirement listed on the web site. The checklist is a requirement for all submissions and this is made very clear on their website. I forwarded Ruth the letter and about 5 days later she sent them the checklist as well as a few OTHER missing items she realized she had left off after reviewing the checklist. Several weeks later I received a letter that the report was still incomplete and my permit was on hold because it was missing the countys required information. I forwarded the letter which included the missing requirements to Ruth. She replied by email a couple of days later that she could provide this information for an additional $1,500.00. I was never informed there was even a chance that further information would be required or that a partial report was an option for her. I was not informed there was a chance my report would cost additional money. In fact, Ruth, an expert in her field, told me she had turned in 100 of these reports, mine was considered simple and it would most likely come in under her estimate. During a subsequent conversation with the Building Department, I was told the items that were missing from her original report are clearly required by code, listed on the website, and always provided by the geotechs. Ruths explanation or reason for her incomplete report was that she was unaware my property was in a steep landslide area, yet she is the one that told me she discovered I was in a landslide area on the first visit to the property during her research phase before we signed the contract?? After revisiting a few of the previously called firms, it was suggested by one of these firms, that I allow Ruth to finish the report phase rather than start over with a new firm from scratch and lose even more precious time and money. I told Ruth to go ahead with her final report and agreed to her additional $1,500.00 (100%) increase in cost. She told me she would have it done by the end of that week. Disappointed again, several unanswered calls and emails later, the report was turned in over 2 weeks later. Do your homework before hiring this company.
Feb 12th, 2016

Columbia Geotechnical of Vancouver WA:  CAUTION!! DO YOUR HOMEWORK! CAUTION!!Last summer I contacted Ruth, the owner and I believe sole employee at this firm, after I found out I needed a "Geotec" for an addition to my house that I was planning to build.  I had never heard of a geotec before and when I called Columbia Geotechnical of Vancouver, I made it clear this process was completely foreign to me.  I should add I also called some larger firms and found out that they were very busy and booked out at least 3-4 weeks.  When I called Columbia Geotechnical and Ruth said she was available within a few days, I asked her for an appointment.  I explained I needed a geotec report for an addition to my house along with a separate shop, all located in Cowlitz Co.  I was previously told by the Building Department, that all of the requirements needed for the report were listed on the Cowlitz Co. web site and I passed that information on to Ruth. She said she had done over 100 reports for them, one recent one "just like mine," so she was familiar with what I needed and that she would be out in a few days.  She quoted me $1500.00 over the phone based on the recent report that was just like mine.Ruth came out to visit the site and look over the project.  At that time she informed me, after a bit of online research, I was in an old landslide area, but the project still seemed simple to her and it would most likely come in under her estimate.  She finished the report but would not send it to the planner until payment was received.   The cost came in exactly $1,500.00 as originally quoted, it was not "under" as she thought it would be.Upon payment, I was given a copy of the report and an additional electronic copy was sent to the Planning Department.  A few days later, I received a letter stating the report was not accepted because it did not include the checklist, as per the requirement listed on the web site.  The checklist is a requirement for all submissions and this is made very clear on their website.  I forwarded Ruth the letter and about 5 days later she sent them the checklist as well as a few OTHER missing items she realized she had left off after reviewing the checklist.  She did not bill for the added time but complained that I withheld information about the requirements.  I reminded her that at our first meeting I told her many times that the report had to follow the requirements of the code that was listed on the county web site and that I was not familiar with the process.  To withhold information would mean that I understood what the reporting process included. Several weeks later I received a letter that the report was still incomplete and my permit was "on hold" because it was missing the county's required information (as posted on the website).  I forwarded the letter which included the missing requirements to Ruth.  She replied by email a couple of days later that she could provide this information for an additional $1,500.00.   Up to this point, I was under the impression Ruth had contracted to turn in a report that would allow me to move forward with my project for the agreed upon sum of $1,500.00.  I was never informed there was even a chance that further information would be required or that a partial report was an option for her.  I was not informed there was a chance my report would cost additional money.  In fact, Ruth, an expert in her field, told me she had turned in 100 of these reports, mine was considered simple and it would most likely come in under her estimate.  During a subsequent conversation with the Building Department, I was told the items that were missing from her original report are clearly required by code, listed on the website, and always provided by the geotechs.  Ruth's explanation or reason for her incomplete report was that she was unaware my property was in a steep landslide area, yet she is the one that told me she discovered I was in a landslide area on the first visit to the property during her "research phase" before we signed the contract??After revisiting a few of the previously called firms, it was suggested by one of these firms, that I allow Ruth to finish the report phase rather than start over with a new firm from scratch and lose even more precious time and money.  I told Ruth to go ahead with her final report and agreed to her additional $1,500.00 (100%) increase in cost.  She told me she would have it done by the end of that week.  Disappointed again, several unanswered calls and emails later, the report was turned in over 2 weeks later.  It didn't stop there.  I was charged an additional review fee of $372 by the County.  Ruth refused to deduct this amount from her bill that was a direct result of her incomplete report.There was no saving of time in this story.  The end result was a project that will now be pushed out to next spring.  Additional costs in review fees, 100% increase on the cost of the report.  Time spent waiting on reports with very
Jan 8th, 2016