Bhegani: Whiskey Creek engineering story ‘unequivocally false’

Firm says article got key facts wrong, and bridge review was supervised by a licensed Tennessee professional engineer

7:12 p.m. June 12, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Bhegani Engineering is pushing back against a Lynchburg Times story about its work at The Retreat at Whiskey Creek, saying the article got the key facts wrong.

The story was the inaugural installment of “The Lynchburg Times Investigates.” It questioned engineering work for Whiskey Creek, but did not include comments from two primary players in the ongoing dispute: Kassam A. Bhegani Jr., president and engineering manager of Bhegani Engineering LLC, and Chip Hayes, the builder behind Whiskey Creek.

The Observer spoke with both men on Friday. Those conversations clarified several claims made in the Times report.

Bhegani said the firm’s work for Whiskey Creek was not done by an unlicensed engineer. He said it was done under the authority of a licensed Tennessee professional engineer.

“The story is unequivocally false,” Bhegani said.

Bhegani said he has not claimed to be a licensed professional engineer. “I am not a Professional Engineer,” he said. “I am a certified Engineer Intern.”

That is the heart of the dispute.

Firm says licensed engineer was in charge

In a written statement, Bhegani Engineering said it is a legally registered trade name and a DBA of Independent Consulting International LLC.

The firm said its engineering work is done under the direct supervision of Jonathan Clark, licensed in Tennessee as both a professional engineer and a professional architect. The Observer confirmed Clark’s credentials are PE License No. 122640 and Architect License No. 106662.

Clark serves as the firm’s principal and designated engineer of record under active state board filings including Engineering Firm Registration No. 10463 and Architectural Firm Registration No. 5524.

Bhegani Engineering recently marked its sixth year in business. Kassam Bhegani and Shabir Bhegani were also recognized by The Nashville Black 40 Under 40 Awards in 2025.

Tennessee law allows engineering firms to do that work through a licensed professional who is in charge of it. Engineer interns may also perform engineering work under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer.

Bhegani said that is what happened with the Whiskey Creek work.

He also said the document at issue was a bridge review, not a final engineering submittal that had to be stamped and sealed.

“This was a review,” Bhegani said. “Stamp-and-seal is during the submittal phase. This is standard procedure.”

Hayes says studies have been offered to county

The broader dispute involves the tiny-home development itself, which has been before Moore County boards for years.

The project has been tangled in questions over roads, access, bridge use, emergency response, setbacks, floodplain issues, and whether the county has changed expectations after earlier approvals.

Hayes said the development hired Bhegani Engineering because the county had raised concerns about traffic and access. He offered the studies to the Planning & Zoning Board in August 2025.

“We hired a local firm out of Williamson County to do the bridge assessment and traffic study based on the needs the county was expressing,” Hayes said. “We’ve had those for, I believe, nearly a year, and nobody’s offered to look at them.”

“We’ve offered them up. Nobody’s looked at them.”

Hayes said he still trusts the firm’s work.

“We have full faith in their capability and the work they did,” he said. “We even had a licensed architect reviewing it to check things.”

Article followed short response window

Hayes also questioned how quickly the Times story was published.

According to Hayes, the Times’ Tabitha Evans Moore left him a message asking for comment at 11:41 a.m. Thursday, June 11. Bhegani said Moore emailed him at 12:16 p.m.

The article was posted shortly after 6 p.m. that same day.

Hayes said he did not know the answer to the license question when Moore contacted him. He called the engineering firm for clarification and said the firm told him it would respond to Moore the next morning.

By that evening, Hayes said, the story had already been published.

“By six o’clock [Thursday] night, the article was already posted,” Hayes said.

Hayes said the story hurt both Whiskey Creek and the engineering firm.

“I feel that the lack of research done regarding his license was haphazard,” he said.

Bhegani says complaint will be dropped

Bhegani Engineering also addressed an administrative file that the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance opened on Tuesday, June 9 – two days before the Times' article.

The firm described it as a routine inquiry tied to Bhegani’s license level and the firm’s trade name.

Bhegani said he spoke on Friday with the Department of Commerce and Insurance and the Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners.

The board will formally address the complaint in August. “This complaint will be dropped,” Bhegani said.

The firm said it is providing the state with its DBA and licensing records to resolve the issue. In its written statement, Bhegani Engineering said the claim that the work was done “unlicensed” is false and damaging to the business.

Focus shifts back to county review

Hayes said the county should have reviewed the engineering work months ago.

He said the traffic study found the 1075 Main St. entrance had better visibility than the bridge entrance at 975 Main St.; that information was presented in August 2025.

“We stated that we had performed a traffic assessment that we had, and we were happy to hand that over,” Hayes said.

“To this day, we have never heard anything regarding that,” he said.

For now, Bhegani Engineering says the record should be corrected. Bhegani is an engineer intern, not a professional engineer. The firm says its work was done under the supervision of a licensed Tennessee professional engineer. It also says its state filings support that setup. Bhegani said that a stamp and seal were not required at this stage of the review.

That changes the center of the story.

Put plainly, the issue appears to be less about a flawed document and more about how the work was described in public.