Precision Contracting Services

Last I spoke with [redacted] (12/22/15) I advised him to pay the invoice short ($1500) and that I would talk to the owner to resolve this matter after I received the payment That him paying everything but the $would show good faith especially since the bill was due upon complete To date the balance due minus the $is $5,and payable immediately [redacted] agreed to this but instead has not done so rather he filed a complaint with the Revdex.com for reasons I don't understand Thank you, [redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

Last I spoke with [redacted] (12/22/15)  I advised him to pay the invoice short ($1500) and that I would talk to the owner to resolve this matter after I received the payment.  That him paying everything but the $1500 would show good faith especially since the bill was due upon...

complete.  To date the balance due minus the $1500 is  $5,017.25 and payable immediately.  [redacted] agreed to this but instead has not done so rather he filed a complaint with the Revdex.com for reasons I don't understand.  Thank you,[redacted]

Review: I had signed a contract with PCS to have my building renovated. A list of my desired changes along with a walkthrough of the building was given. I was assured any of my concerns along the way would be addressed in a professional manor and pricing would be fair for any additional work. No specific completion date was in the contract but I was assured the work could be completed in two weeks. I stated I was expecting a month but sooner would be better, naturally.

After 1 month of the building being renovated the temperature began to drop below 0 degrees and the furnace had not been installed. This was a problem since it was my responsibility to remove the old one, which had already been removed a week prior. When contacted about the lack of completion and concern of temps and the furnace I was eventually told I should have the furnace connected myself, even though it was their responsibility. After I had the furnace connected the flooring could be installed since they needed the heat for proper installation.

After 2 months it was agreed the project would end without the front entrance of the building being replaced due to the temperatures and need for the building to actually be used for business.

When the bill was presented there was a charge that was credited for the entrance but only at half of what I thought we had originally spoke about. Since nothing was itemized on the contract the bill was submitted to their A/R and passed onto me without an agreement as to the proper price to be credited.

I had issues throughout the whole remodeling of my office building but bit my tongue because I know I was not explicit in the contract. Things like: new electrical being run through conduit instead of inside the wall, beer bottles being left in the office after work, I had to clean the building for painting after the drywall work had been done, which was in the contract for them to have done. Not to say it was all bad; there were a couple of smaller things that were done that were added and a couple of things that were done simpler with the contracted work, which at the time seemed to offset each other.

In the end I was glad to have the work completed but feel I paid for premium work and received cut rate work. Now there is to be a credit on the bill it seems the credit is at a cut rate price.Desired Settlement: I would like to see the credit back to my bill be an additional $1,500. I believe that would reflect the total of what was discussed for the replacement of the front entrance of my building.

Business

Response:

Last I spoke with [redacted] (12/22/15) I advised him to pay the invoice short ($1500) and that I would talk to the owner to resolve this matter after I received the payment. That him paying everything but the $1500 would show good faith especially since the bill was due upon complete. To date the balance due minus the $1500 is $5,017.25 and payable immediately. [redacted] agreed to this but instead has not done so rather he filed a complaint with the Revdex.com for reasons I don't understand. Thank you,[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: PCS took more than six weeks to complete the demolition job that they promised would be complete in a week. It still is not complete, even after we asked them numerous times to finish the job, and I have had to finish it myself, including removing fixtures and dragging toilets to the dumpster. During the demolition, their subcontractors broke off a sprinkler head. When I noticed that it was fixed with duct tape, I asked them via email to make a more permanent repair. They did not. They replied that they assumed they'd be getting the contract for the construction, and therefore didn't feel like they had to do the whole thing. As a result, the sprinkler head failed several weeks later, flooding not only our unit, but the unit adjacent to ours, which resulted in significant damage and cleanup costs. There were additional other issues, including a ladder which we purchased and which PCS subcontractors took from the site. One even put in writing for us that he had seen it. The GC was verbally abusive throughout our attempts to resolve this situation, even swearing at my wife and I while we were on a conference call with him. [redacted] promised to handle the problem personally and simply never got back to us, even after promising to make it right (and to do things like refunding the charge for the ladder).Desired Settlement: The contract specified (in addition to a large markup) that they reserved the right to keep another $3000 for management. Given how poorly this was managed, we would like the $3000 refunded, as well as payment to our neighbors, who kindly agreed to clean their new carpeting rather than replace all of it, and $1200 in costs to complete their unfinished work. An apology to myself for having to haul toilets to the dumpster, and for swearing at my pregnant wife would be great, too.

Business

Response:

COMPLAINT:

PCS took more than 6 weeks to

complete the demolition job that they promised would be complete in a week.

RESPONSE:

The work commenced on January 27, 2014 and was completed

on February 4, 2014(QuickBooks time

reports and an invoice from Staffworks

for temporary help used in the demo are available to support this if needed).

COMPLAINT:

It still is not

complete, even after we asked them numerous times to finish the job, and I have

had to finish it myself, including removing fixtures

RESPONSE:

The demo work, as specified in the contract signed by the

complainant, was completed on February 4th with the exception of the

removal of some conduit that was left hanging from the ceiling that PCS

intended to remove when construction began.

The complainant demanded that PCS do additional work not included in the

demo scope of work, including leveling the floor (which was included in the

scope for the Contract for Construction never signed). PCS removed an additional layer of VCT tile

flooring that was under the first layer and had been undetected at no extra

charge to the complainant. Complainant

also demanded that PCS remove the mortar from the tile floors in the washroom

which was not included in the demo scope of work.

COMPLAINT:

…and dragging toilets to the dumpster

RESPONSE:

PCS crew members did neglect to remove the toilets to the

dumpster. The dumpster was removed at

the complainant’s request on February 10th.

COMPLAINT:

During the demolition their

subcontractors broke off a sprinkler head.

When I noticed it was fixed with duct tape, I asked them via email to

make a more permanent repair. They did not.

RESPONSE:

One sprinkler head was broken by PCS employees in the

process of moving a lift. PCS

immediately called Noble Fire Protection and requested an emergency service

call to repair the sprinkler head, which Noble did that same day. (See attached response from Noble Fire

Protection).

COMPLAINT:

They replied that they assumed

they’d be getting the contract for construction, and therefore didn’t feel like

they had to do the whole thing

RESPONSE:

PCS acknowledges that some conduit had been left hanging

from the ceiling due to the fact that we had been lead to believe that we would

imminently be completing the construction.

However, the scope of work for the demo as agreed to by the complainant

was otherwise complete by February 4th.

COMPLAINT:

As a result, the

sprinkler head failed several weeks later, flooding not only our unit, but the

unit adjacent to ours, which resulted in significant damage and cleanup costs.

RESPONSE:

The sprinkler head in question was approximately 30’

north of the one broken by PCS and had been broken for some time as evidenced

by the tattered state of the duct tape that someone had used to repair it. If it did fail and cause flooding it was not and is not now the responsibility

of PCS.

COMPLAINT:

There were

additional other issues, including a ladder which we purchased and which PCS

subcontractors took from the site. One even put in writing for us that he had

seen it.

RESPONSE:

The ladder in question was

a generic version of a Little Giant ladder that was apparently still wrapped in

plastic and unused. When the complainant

originally made this complaint to PCS, he did not allege that PCS had taken the

ladder but rather he told PCS that “his new ladder had been replaced with an

old ladder (of this type) with drywall cement all over it”. PCS does not use this type of ladder as we

have found them to be unreliable. We

have numerous ladders available to our crews, all of which are clearly marked

as property of PCS. All of the crew

members who were present on the site were asked whether they had unwrapped and

used this ladder and all have said they did not. As to someone having said that “he had seen

it”, that is entirely possible since it was out in the open at the job site

and, incidentally, subject to theft by anyone entering the unsecured

premises. Nonetheless, PCS’s owner, [redacted], had verbally agreed to replace the ladder and we will refund this

amount to the client.

COMPLAINT:

The GC was

verbally abusive throughout our attempts to resolve this situation, even swearing

at my wife and I while we were on a conference call with him.

RESPONSE:

The GC received all calls

on his cell phone from the complainant who did not tell him that he was on a

conference call with the complainant’s wife.

In the course of the call, expressing frustration over the complainant’s

continuous demands that the scope of work be increased or changed, that

materials be used that the GC knew were not code compliant and were not

specified, and the complainant’s continued demand for a scope of work without

providing any budget numbers at all throughout the course of the project, the GC admits to referring to the accusations

that he had promised to do the work at a specific price before preparing the

estimate, had intentionally caused delays in construction (even though a

building permit had still not been obtained by the complainant) as

[redacted]. Again, he did not even know

the complainant’s wife was listening in on the conversation.

COMPLAINT:

[redacted] promised to handle the problem personally and simply never got back to us, even

after promising to make it right (and to do things like refunding the charge

for the ladder).

RESPONSE:

[redacted], was in continual contact with

the architect, sales person and the project manager to resolve the issues with this project. He did respond to the complainant via

telephone and email on the best way to resolve this matter for all parties involved.

Desired Settlement:

The contract specified (in addition to a large markup) that they reserved the

right to keep another $3000 for management. Given how poorly this was managed,

we would like the $3000 refunded, as well as payment to our neighbors, who

kindly agreed to clean their new carpeting rather than replace all of it, and

$1200 in costs to complete their unfinished work. An apology to myself for

having to haul toilets to the dumpster, and for swearing at my pregnant wife

would be great, too.

RESPONSE:

The complainant signed a contract (accepting the standard

markup present in any contract for work, by the way) agreeing to the management

fee and that $7,600 would be refunded should PCS not be awarded the contract

for construction. The GC spent numerous

hours dealing with the complainant’s changes, inquiries and complaints over the

period of November 14, 2013 through the date when the complainant terminated

the relationship (March 6, 2014) after becoming angry that their desired scope

could not be completed for the amount of money they wished to spend, and beyond,

including several weeks after the contracted demo work was complete. Dealings with the complainant included

numerous conversations and walk-throughs with the architect, Tom Vavra, who agreed

with PCS’s determinations about issues with the complainant’s scope and

material requests.

Business

Response:

June 9, 2014

I arranged to meet with PCS to discuss and plan a major renovation to a house that I am in the process of purchasing.The appointment was for 12.00 noon on 03/21/14. This required coordination with 2 realtors, the current home owner and myself. The appointment was confirmed by e mail from PCS. I called PCS and received no reply. We waited for 2 hours. No one showed up.