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 ref