FINNEGAN DEVELOPMENT INC

"A satisfied clients is our single most important goal. Unfortunately, it is difficult to achieve this goal on every project. Poor communication, misunderstanding & an ambiguous/changing scope contributed to a bad ending here. At construction completion, a punch-list was created & completed. For the most part, I was not aware of the specific claims mentioned in this report. I will try to address each briefly: We were hired to remodel existing space in 30 days, prior to owner move-in. Architectural plans were prepared, but only for a subsequent (Phase II) addition(s). What started as a minor remodel quickly changed to a more substantial project. We were not able to make our 30-day deadline, but did work around the clock & on weekends to get close to requested completion date. The scope of our work included KI cabinet refacing, minor BA remodeling, raising L/R ceiling (trey ceiling), replacing trims/doors, painting & sanding all existing Hardwood floors, minimal drywall, tile & wall covering. Minor Plumbing, Mechanical/HVAC & Electric work was required in the coarse of remodeling. However, Plumbing, Electric & HVAC services & systems were not in my contract & were to be addressed in phase II Additions. More specifically, I am not sure any of the specific claims made were even requested; much less contracted for.... * MECHANICAL: HVAC scope consisted of equipment PM/cleaning/report, installing new finished registers, tank-less HWH, Hood for cook-top & temporary relocating Washer-Dryer to back side of the wall where it had been located. Because a new laundry room was to be built upon permit issuance, no new water, vent, drain lines were run to temp location (it will no longer be a laundry room). A report was supplied noting repairs required. In addition to terminated lines, several registers were found inoperable & all requiring proper balancing. However, this HVAC work was to part of phase II work. The furnace was very hard to access for our work as well, but the plan was to replace it with another unit in newly constructed area. It was to be disassembled & removed when roof opened for new garage addition. At the time, my HVAC sub thought he would be working on Phase II & took extra care to assure it would be accessible & relatively easy to remove. Removing attic equipment prior to raising ceiling would have been much easier for all involved, but could not be done until plan for new equipment was implemented (or it would have been a long, cold winter). * ELECTRIC: The existing electric to this home is very old cloth wire (original to home) & modified poorly through years. A new 200A Service/breaker box was planned for Phase II. Our initial scope was to add a few outlets & add/replace 12 light fixtures in KI & L/R. Due to age & condition of wire (discovered during demo), our scope increased to running new conduit/wire to all 10 can lights in L/R & several lights in KI. A few additional outlets were also added & several fixtures replaced w/new fixture only. All properly wired to new circuits & any Junction boxes used were properly covered. It is very likely that any new Electrician will find the same issues w/existing wire we did not replace. However, my scope of rough electric was limited to KI & L/R. In summary, we only performed work that was requested & contracted for. I would agree that that are many remaining problems with Electric, HVAC & likely plumbing as well. I hope they all are addressed in phase II & wish only the best for this future work."

"All problems started when work was completed & payment became due. After several empty promises to make payments for work performed, complaintant refused to pay a $10,000 + balance due for a new contract. I don’t know how to respond to their specific complaint, other than to say it is untrue for an unbiased opinion and feedback; one should talk to the architect engineers of record (both members). 1. Steam shower built improperly: Untrue. Water membrane and tile were installed per manufacturer’s recommendations. A poor tile choice at shower base/rim was made by client and should not have been installed. I agreed to re-install base at no charge, pending and escrow account was set up to ensure my payment for unrelated contract work performed. 2. Deck did not pass inspection: Not true. After initial inspection, there were 6 corrections requested by City of Chicago Inspector. All but 1 were made, re-inspected and approved. The final correction was outside of my contracted scope and required an Engineers report and drawing. I facilitated her work required with the Engineer of record and provided very reasonable pricing for the new work. She refused to sign my change order and did not pay engineer for his contracted work with her. 3. Contractor had $12.000 overcharge: Untrue. There were never any duplicate charges or overcharges. Contract scope was clearly detailed and accepted. AS mentioned, Engineer of Record has requested additional work to be performed, based on newly found conditions. However, any/all new work was properly presented and approved prior to work commencing. 4. There is water seepage in basement: Basement slab is original slab and waterproofing slab and walls was not part of my contracted plans/scope. Installation of Drain tiles and crack sealing would be required to eliminate any water seepage issues. This, of course would come at a cost. 5. Roof drain connected improperly: Roof drain connection inlet was/is existing. It was re-routed w same piping, but connected to same inlet by a licensed plumber. Any leaking/problems could easily be corrected under warranty. However, no warranty claim was made. 6. Roof leaking issue: As member mentions, the roofer was hired directly by her. She insists on blaming my HVAC sub, as he did cut a hole in roof for supply lines. However, it is the roofer’s job to then ensure a waterproofed seal with roofing material and flashing. I have invested much time and money to pinpoint this problem. My HVAX sub and equipment specialist both went through extensive equipment testing to ensure this was not a problem/source of water. My employees and I spend significant time evaluating system at no charge. The source of the problem was discovered after much diagnostic work. It was discovered that the masonry parapet walls had spalling brick and deteriorated joints. Water was penetrating this brick wall and traveling below roof layer to concrete panel roof. This information was communicated. A quote to repair damaged brick was also provided. Client/member chose to ignore real issue and somehow connect with an HVAX system that was installed prior to her roofing contractors work. 7. Resolution: Re-imbursement for refused repairs: These were never refused. At this point, lien will not be removed until sum paid. Litigation will commence soon and give a clear indication of who has not fulfilled their contractual obligation. Jim Finnegan, President"