Great Lakes Builders Inc

Service Provider Response

We included the customer's comments and our responses below: Customer: Both Martin and my structural engineer stated they were working together to come up with a plan for fixing the foundation. My structural engineer stated he had been working with Martin for a while and trusted his work. Martin also seems like a very nice, understated, and thoughtful person. I therefore trusted him as well since my structural engineer was very trustworthy. Customer: The plan as told to me by Martin and the structural engineer was to set up trenches of concrete that would then be used as a foundation to raise the foundation. Great Lakes Builders' (GLB) Response: The original recommendation by the customer's Structural Engineer (SE) was to create a concrete footing for the shoring. During our precontract analysis, GLB determined that shoring directly on the existing foundation was a safer and more cost-effective method. This new method conformed to all of the SE's specifications for a sound structural remediation. GLB's new method was discussed with the SE and he approved it. He said it would be a more direct method and safer procedure. The SE explained this change to the customer in detail. Customer: I was told that this work could begin in the winter and the actual raising of the house would occur in the summer. GLB Response: Because this new method was used, GLB was able to proceed, unencumbered by weather. This was explained to the customer. Customer: This sounded like a big job but possibly overpriced at $25,000. I agreed to it anyway since my structural engineer trusted him. GLB Response: The original price was never $25,000. The customer, in fact paid $19,500. Customer: I then felt rushed into signing the contract so that he could start the following day. GLB Response: We experienced a winter thaw in February, which lasted one week. Every day was critical. GLB prides ourselves on our ability to complete complex projects in a timely, safe, thorough and cost effective manner. This was explained to the customer. Customer: It turns out that he just put jacks into the walls and raised the house on the third and fourth day he was there! GLB Response: We isolated the area of work to mitigate dust and debris, installed dust removal equipment, installed heavy duty shoring and jacking equipment, removed stone work from the foundation, fabricated steel setting plates (prior to our arrival) and installed the plates along with our additional jacking equipment directly under the rim beam. This prepared us for the jacking process on the third day. This was explained to the customer, who was present during much of the procedure. Customer: I hadn't even addressed the water issues that were causing the sinking in the first place! GLB Response: The water issue was never addressed by the SE in his report and was the full responsibility of the customer. GLB does not perform water abatement and it was not in our contract. The customer was fully aware of this and asked us to proceed. Customer: He in no way told me about the change in plans that saved him a lot of time and money and did not pass any of those savings onto me. GLB Response: During one of our initial meetings, the customer and GLB talked about the cost of the work, including the shoring method recommended by the SE and told him that the SE's method would exceed $30,000. As noted earlier, his final bill was $19,500. Customer: There was likely greater risk to my home in the way he did it. GLB Response: The fact is that GLB's method was safer and required less restoration. This was confirmed by the SE, who explained this fact to the customer. Customer: I obviously felt ripped off and felt that I was told the job would entail a lot of work over the course of a lot of time and instead it was done in total of 5 to 6 days. GLB Response: It is unfortunate that the customer did not appreciate the amount of effort, skill and professionalism that went into the successful completion of the project. Customer: It felt like a bait and switch. I discussed this with Martin and he agreed to discount some of the price but this was not nearly enough. GLB Response: This in no way was a "bait and switch". GLB fulfilled the full terms of our contract in a thoroughly professional manner. Customer: It also turns out that he didn't include anything about the structural engineering plans in the contract and did not discuss the changes with my engineer either. GLB Response: The changes to the SE's shoring recommendation was discussed thoroughly with the engineer and the engineer discussed it thoroughly with the customer, who agreed that it was a proper and safe change. The SE's original recommendation was never included in GLB's contract. Customer: After the project was completed, I noticed a new and large gap under one of the window sills where they were working. I asked Martin if he could fill this but he said to stuff it with insulation and that he would fix it when I get future work done with him (as if that is ever going to happen). GLB Response: The window restoration was expressly excluded in the contract as follows, "The scope of work includes structural work only. Restoration work to walls, doors and windows is excluded from the work". Yet GLB offered to fix it when weather permitted. In conclusion, upon completion of the structural work we conducted a walk-through with the customer. The customer communicated how pleased he was with the final results including the lack of any substantial cracking in the finishes which can occur if the jacking process is not performed in a very precise manner. We are perplexed and disappointed because now, months later, we receive this review!