Central Contractors Corporation

Letter of COMPLAINT regarding Donald T. Logsdon, License Number 2705 045373A Class A Licensed Contractor (?Contractor?) Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) 1. Timothy and Betsy Argauer, 1813 Midlothian Court, Vienna, Virginia 22182 (?Customer?) paid Contractor $94,209 to date, and Contractor only completed an estimated $37,000 worth of labor and materials before abandoning the job (please see attached estimates of work completed to date). The total contract value was $138,500 (not including change orders). Contractor began work on 17 August 2012, initiated framing in mid-October 2012, but halted work on 20 November 2012, and left the addition partially framed, exposed to the elements, without sufficient protection (tarps). After 3 months of neglect by the contractor, the Customer had to hire another contractor to finish ?closing in? the addition. 2. A structural engineer certified that Contractor left the structure in an unsafe and unstable condition while family occupied the residence, during which no work was performed, leaving the Customer and their five children at risk. Customer had to rectify the condition at their own additional expense. 3. After Customer already paid a total of $74,209, Contractor requested an advance payment of an additional $20,000, purportedly for the purchase of windows, and threatening that failure to pay such advance would result in the project being delayed. The contract had no provision for such payment, and Customer has since learned that the cost to Contractor of the windows in question would have been no more than $6,000. Customer paid the requested advance of $20,000 on November 2nd, 2012] (check no. 1863). This payment was made in good faith, and constituted half of the agreed-upon next scheduled payment of $40,000.00, which per the contract was not due from Customer until completion of roof shingles. That next milestone, roof shingles, had yet to be started, and the promised delivery of the windows (4 - 6 weeks from deposit of the aforesaid advance payment check) never materialized. Check was deposited 2 November, but to date, 25 April, Contractor never provided receipts, expected date of delivery for the windows, or explanation of where the windows or monies are, including a request made by Customer in a certified return receipt letter. Instead, Contractor has made the excuse that the windows would not be brought onsite as they could get damaged. The name of the supposed window distributor, provided verbally to Customer on 28 December, 2012 as ?ABC Manassas,? has no record of the windows ever being ordered by Contractor. 4. On 3 September 2012, Contractor demanded and received payment of $5,200.00 for a change order to extend the addition from 16? to 18?, two feet beyond the County-approved drawings. Contractor began construction; including pouring the slab and rough-in framing, and worked for three months prior to abandoning the project. The contractor informed the County of the changes, yet claimed it was the Customer?s job to obtain updated permits from the County. However, the permit was in the contractor?s name. It may go without saying that Contractor should not have begun construction until the updated permits were obtained by Contractor from the County. 5. The framing, which was initially described by Contractor to be a three-week job, was never completed. With the on-coming winter, Customer expressed concern in writing that the addition be closed in as soon as possible, suggesting reasonable dates for doing so, but Contractor did not address this issue. The Customer had to rely on their own resources to install a tarp to protect what was already constructed. This had to be done to prevent permanent damage to the framing, which includes particle board sheathing, TJI joists, and plywood, which are not designed to endure repeated exposure to rain and snow. 6. Furthermore, the construction has not been done in an orderly or safe manner as dictated by industry norms and standards. For example, the attached ledger plate that supports the 1st story joist has only 14 of the necessary 44 through-bolts installed as specified in the permit drawings. Despite this serious deficiency, Contractor continued to build the first floor and roof. Also, the roof ridge beam consisting of three 18? 1 3/4?x 18? LVLs was inadequately supported with bracing from both ends. Furthermore, the roof was put on prior to completion of the sheathing. There is also a question of whether proper materials were used for various parts of the project as specified in the drawings. This includes whether the sill plates installed on the slab were actually pressure treated as required by code. 7. Contractor removed equipment from the property on 28 December 2012, with the exception of 2 old wheelbarrows, scaffolding, a broom, and a sledge hammer. 8. Contract did not contain a scheduled time to complete, or even a range of time in which work would be complete. When asked in writing to provide definitive dates the Contractor did not address the issue but stated that ?are (sic) full intent is to compleat (sic) this project in a timily(sic) manner under the terms of the contract we both agreed too(sic).? There are no terms in the contract which state an estimated time to completion. However, the contract did state that ?Work is to be carried out in one continuous operation in a reasonable sequence of events and without interference.? This was not honored. 9. Contractor insisted on payments in advance for a number of change orders, some of which were not accepted, and 2 of which were paid in full before work was completed. Contractor halted work despite the fact that Customer made advance payments ahead of schedule in good faith. This is contrary to industry practices and what is stated in the contract. 10. Contractor executed work outside of the contract (building of a concrete block wall not specified in the plans but which Contractor insisted was necessary for completion) without first presenting Customer with a change order. Contractor then demanded payment after work was completed. Contractor was unreasonable in expecting immediate payment for this work, which is relatively de minimis ($921.09) compared to the advance payment made ahead of schedule at Contractor?s request for windows, as discussed previously ($20,000.00). Contractor had a duty to proceed, but instead used customer?s deferral (and not refusal) of paying for the concrete block wall as an excuse to halt work. 11. Contractor refused to return calls or respond to emails by Customer beginning 15 December and insisted on certified mail for a period of 1 month as the only means of communication, again delaying progress of the addition. Contractor resumed email conversation on 14 January. 12. Industry-standard safety precautions were not taken into consideration on site, to include marking off an area around an exposed (dug-out) main electrical feed to the house, and leaving 1 foot of water in an installed sump basin where Customer?s young children (2 year old and 4 year old) were potentially put at risk. Customer was forced to pump out the sump basin themselves. 13. The Contractor insisted and was paid for an unnecessary change order. This work was determined to be unnecessary after the contractor halted the project. Details are as follows: The Contractor informed the Customer that they needed to install a sump basin for the basement bathroom claiming that the grade to the main waste sanitary line was not deep enough. This claim was made just prior to pouring the slab. Furthermore, Contractor insisted and was paid this change order in advance. ($1,500.00). However, the sump basin was NOT necessary, as determined by a licensed professional plumber, who was able to remove it and connect to the main waste sanitary line. The sump basin parts cost the original contractor approximately $63 in materials based on estimates from Home Depot. The pump itself,estimated at $750.00 was never installed or delivered on site. 14. At the suggestion of Customer?s Professional Engineer, who is responsible for the structural design, Customer obtained from Fairfax County (FFC) copies of the FFC Building Reviewer?s comments and requests for additional information and certifications. This was required before FFC approved the original permit. One critical issue the County Reviewer identified was the need for the existing basement wall and foundation be certified by a professional engineer to be of ?adequate size and condition to carry new and existing loads.? Contractor, however, secured the services of his own Professional Engineer who stated erroneously that ?no additional roof loads are supported on the wall.? This documentation, which is in direct conflict with the permitted plans, was never presented to the Customer. It has been determined that this wall is indeed insufficient and modifications and rework were made to ensure its integrity. 15. Contractor did not put up any silt fence on site, although it is stated in the residential inspection certification that he did so. According to the engineer who certified the statement, the engineer saw the silt fence in the contractor?s pick-up truck when he inspected the footings and slab, and was told that it would be installed. Silt fence was put up by the Customer at the customers expense after the contractor halted work.