Tower Energy International LLC

"Sigma Exteriors bypassed its standard processes and procedures leading to the poor construction experience the member has accurately described regarding her project in 2008. Sigma Exteriors completed the project properly and according to our high standards promptly upon the decision to redo both performance and aesthetic components of the siding project. Like many homeowners, Sigma Exteriors was taken advantage of because of trust. The siding crew which was terminated during this project was brought to us by our main supplier at the time and is a relative of their management. This was the first and only project this crew worked on with Sigma Exteriors. Sigma's normal verification of detailed installation experience was bypassed because of the prompting and recommendations by our trusted relationship with the supplier and their promise and guarantee of the crew's experience, training, and attention to quality details and because we were presented with evidence of the crews training certifications for the products being installed of which we later learned were provided to them through sponsorship by the same supplier. Sigma was repeatedly lied to by the crew leader regarding daily and weekly timelines and details of project progression throughout the first phase of the project. Several of the problematic signals were not brought to the production manager's attention as supervisors and the homeowners were told that because the project was in-process the details in question would be fixed and completed properly prior to job finish. This is the same story the crew leader we later learned had been telling the homeowners in an attempt to shield everyone from reality. Sigma Exteriors immediately took action to remedy the scenario when the realities of the project were brought to the attention of the executive management team. The crew was immediately terminated, a project assessment was completed by senior management and an outside consultant created a punch list, and then prompt action was taken. The project was taken apart and re-installed to ensure all performance and aesthetic components would be completed to the highest professional standards. Sigma Exteriors business model methodology is derived from the "six sigma" model of standardized processes and procedures and focus on a commitment to constant and never ending improvements to eliminate errors and create efficiencies. The crew was terminated as well as the production supervisor overseeing this project and Sigma tightened the processes internally to firewall similar scenarios from occurring. Sigma Exteriors greatly regrets enabling the poor construction experience described by the member in 2008 and is committed to following our processes and procedures to ensure consistent and reliable results for all our projects and the best possible construction experience. Sincerely, Matt Snyder President"

"Various ventilation options were discussed with the customer both intake and exhaust. When the contract was drawn up the intake ventilation was overlooked by accident. It should be noted that the customer was not charged for the modifications to their intake ventilation in the original contract. The on-site project manager noted that the intake ventilation needed to be corrected and approached the customer on how they wanted to proceed. When the Project Manager understood the oversight in the contract Sigma offered to split the cost of the Intake Ventilation Modifications. While we are sorry that there was an initial oversight in the original contact our system of checks ensured that the customer was not left with a substandard roof installation."

"As the customer was growing impatient, we had a representative from our supplier drive over 200mi to pick up the door from the manufacturer. This was done in order to install the door on a Saturday per the customer’s request. The customer was aware that the hardware ordered was not available at the time of installation and a temporary set would need to be installed for the time being. The project agreed upon, was of a “replacement door” project. This means that only the original door slab gets replaced. The original framing from the 1928 home stays in place and is usually chosen by a homeowner with a specific budget in mind. As the customer stated, it is stated in the contract that there may be damage to the existing walls, interior casing and door frame. When removing and reusing the interior casing, there is no possible way to remove the casing , without causing some damage. The wall in no way or manner was “ripped off”. The areas around the interior casing were scored with a razor knife before removal. As this house was built in 1928, there were several thick layers of paint and drywall that had been installed over the plaster walls. There naturally was some chipping of plaster and paint. When the production department received the complaint on Monday morning, we had someone come out that very day, and inspect the issues voiced by the customer. Even though the slight damage had been discussed prior to installation, Sigma made the 2-3 trips necessary to completely fix the customer’s issues. This was far above and beyond what had been agreed to contractually. The storm door was a homeowner supplied door that the installers were unfamiliar with and therefore, had problems with the closer mechanism of this particular brand of door. Since the time of this complaint, this customer has purchased another remodeling project with Sigma. Sigma always has and will continue to provide an exceptional customer service experience."

"WE INITIALLY RESPONDED TO A SERVICE CALL IN OCTOBER 2006 AND PERFORMED REPAIRS AT A CHIMNEY. THE CUSTOMER WAS SATISFIED AND WAS CHARGED AT $150.00 BECAUSE OUR ESTIMATOR PERFORMED THE REPAIRS ON-SITE HIMSELF. ON SUNDAY, 8/17/07, AT 8:25 AM, WE RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE CUSTOMER THAT THEY HAD NEW LEAKS AT A PORCH. OUR OFFICE CALLED THE CUSTOMER RIGHT AWAY AND SCHEDULED A SERVICE PERSON TO PERFORM A REPAIR IMMEDIATELY. THE SERVICEMAN PERFORMED TEMPORARY REPAIRS, BUT DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH MATERIALS TO COMPLETE THE REPAIR. WE RETURNED THE FOLLOWING WEEK AND COMPLETED THE REPAIR. ALSO, WE PERFORMED ADDITIONAL FREE REPAIRS (REPAIRED THREE SHINGLES ON A DIFFERENT SECTION) WHERE THE INITIAL INSTALLATION OF THE ROOF WAS FAILING TO TRY TO HELP THE CUSTOMER. THE ROOF IS NOT VERY OLD, BUT THE INITIAL INSTALLATION WAS NOT PERFORMED PROPERLY OR WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO PERFORM REPAIRS. WE RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE CUSTOMER ON 9/11/2007 THAT A LEAK WAS STILL THERE. WE SENT THE SERVICEMAN OUT TO PERFORM REPAIRS THAT DAY, BUT THE ROOF WAS TOO WET TO FIX. THESE REPAIRS WERE NOT IN THE AREA THE CUSTOMER PAID FOR. THE CUSTOMER WAS DISGRUNTLED AND DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH. WE THEN GOT A NOTE THEY WERE TAKING THEIR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE. WE DID NOT CALL TO FOLLOW-UP BECAUSE THEY ASKED US NOT TO. FACTUALLY, THE CUSTOMER HAD AN IMPROPER ORIGINAL INSTALLATION OR THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. THE CUSTOMER SAID THEY FOUND A LEAK AT THE DORMER. WE NEVER SERVICED THE DORMER."