Priority Construction Management, LLC

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 11, 2015/08/20) */ ***Document Attached [redacted] The homeowners complaint is filled with gross inaccuraciesAttached is the Homeowner/Contractor agreement dated 11/10/and fully signed by all parties on 11/11/The homeowner says he got the permit in two days The building permit was issued on 2/2/See attachedOur agreement specifically states we can not start work until the permit is receivedThe first draw for the bank payout was inspected by a third party consultant and submitted for payment on 3/3/See attachedIt was signed by the homeowner on that dateThe amount of completed work was $16,So within days of starting the project $16,was completedThe fact that he says we did not start until weeks later is grossly falseThere was never an absolute completion date set.It was assumed the project would probably go about months however we found numerous problems during the course of the project including both fire and water damage and this necessitated doing additional work to correct the problemsThe project was done withing a framework of a 203K FHA loan and the project was compliant with the program and was not in defaultThe 203K program allows months to do the work and then allows monthly extensions if work is proceeding satisfactorilyThe homeowner moved in July 1st which was less than months after we started the project and the final punch list was completed within days of thatSee final draw attached that was prepared on Aug 5th by the FHA consultant after all the work was complete.There was nothing that was lied about to the homeowner and there is no evidence of thatThe homeowner asked us not to put in new water service and we followed his instructions and were able to pass the inspections per his instructionsThere is no evidence of smoking or drinking and this was never brought up by the homeowner during the course of the projectAlso he mentions his home but it was actually a gutted flat and was not be classified as an actual home we were working in and he did not reside there until the work was complete.The tub had dirt and it was easily cleanedThere was no severe damage as mentioned in his letter.The only item ever missing was a ladder the homeowner left in the garageIt was used by a subcontractor and returned the next day to where he found itIt is not unusual to use ladders on a construction job and the homeowner was warned about leaving personal possessions at a property while we were doing work there since this was a gut rehab and we had many workers thereAll pluming lines were installed by a professional licensed contractor and they were tested and inspected properly by the City of ChicagoThe homeowner hired someone to putin countertops and they admitted they pulled out the dishwasher and this caused the leak.The homeowner filed numerous complaints within a day or two of the leak before anything could even be investigated to see who caused the damage in an attempt to force us to pay him for the damage to the floorsThis was worked out a few days later and the homeowner promised to remove the complaint which he never didThere is no evidence of any correct bookkeeping at our company and these are outrageous liesDuring the project we prepared numerous change orders and these were sent to the homeowner for reviewAt no time was it ever intentioned that anything was ever final until we both agreed that everything was correctThe change orders were quite complicated and required a lot of workThere were actually mistakes on both sides by the homeowner who wanted more credit than he deserved and charges for incorrect things on our part but they were never intended to be final until everyone agreed they looked rightTo say there was any impropriety with our bookkeeping and accounting practices is outrageousse attached change orders that were referenced by the homeownerThe homeowner says that I did not read his e-mails but he would shoot off sometimes dozens of e-mails in one daythe scope of the project was determined form the outsetthe materials were chosen in the beginning of the projectI was never obligated to sit at a desk answering his e-mails continuously throughout the day and would typically spend sufficient time every day to manage his project and respond to his questionsWe also had on site staff to help him with questions so communication was never an issue.Bringing up irrelevant things is so off the wall it is hard to commentWe typically manage or more projects a year of this size and the conversations with homeowners are always on point and relevant to the tasks at handThe homeowner complains that moulding were not removed to do drywallIt was never intended as part of the scope of the project that all mouldings were to be removed as many areas had 1/in drywall installedThe project was inspected and signed off as complete by the FHA consultant without this needing to be doneThe homeowner's complaint is full of outrageous liesThere is no factual basis to any of it and he placed this compliant in the hope of getting us to pay for damage that was not our fault whatsoeverPriority Construction Management has been in business over yearsThe manager is the past president of the Chicago Chapter of the local affiliation of the National Affiliate of the Home Builders AssociationThe company completes dozens of similar size projects for both individual homeowners and financial institutions and has never received a complaint prior to thisThe entire complaint is broadly and a fabrication by the homeowner to extract money for something that was not the company's faultThe entire complaint should be rejected as without merit and the company's rating should be restored to how it was before the complaintOne additional item is the project is 100% complete as certified by the FHA consultant and the contractor has not been paid the 10% retention and the final draw payment because the homeowner has been out of town and does not have the time to sign the final paperworkThank you

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 11, 2015/08/20) */
[redacted]Document Attached[redacted]
The homeowners complaint is filled with gross inaccuracies. Attached is the Homeowner/Contractor agreement dated 11/10/14 and fully signed by all parties on 11/11/14. The homeowner says he got the permit in two days....

The building permit was issued on 2/2/15. See attached. Our agreement specifically states we can not start work until the permit is received. The first draw for the bank payout was inspected by a third party consultant and submitted for payment on 3/3/15. See attached. It was signed by the homeowner on that date. The amount of completed work was $16,072.50. So within 27 days of starting the project $16,072.50 was completed. The fact that he says we did not start until 10 weeks later is grossly false. There was never an absolute completion date set.It was assumed the project would probably go about 4 months however we found numerous problems during the course of the project including both fire and water damage and this necessitated doing additional work to correct the problems. The project was done withing a framework of a 203K FHA loan and the project was compliant with the program and was not in default. The 203K program allows 6 months to do the work and then allows monthly extensions if work is proceeding satisfactorily. The homeowner moved in July 1st which was less than 5 months after we started the project and the final punch list was completed within 30 days of that. See final draw attached that was prepared on Aug 5th by the FHA consultant after all the work was complete.There was nothing that was lied about to the homeowner and there is no evidence of that. The homeowner asked us not to put in new water service and we followed his instructions and were able to pass the inspections per his instructions. There is no evidence of smoking or drinking and this was never brought up by the homeowner during the course of the project. Also he mentions his home but it was actually a gutted 3 flat and was not be classified as an actual home we were working in and he did not reside there until the work was complete.The tub had dirt and it was easily cleaned. There was no severe damage as mentioned in his letter.The only item ever missing was a ladder the homeowner left in the garage. It was used by a subcontractor and returned the next day to where he found it. It is not unusual to use ladders on a construction job and the homeowner was warned about leaving personal possessions at a property while we were doing work there since this was a gut rehab and we had many workers there. All pluming lines were installed by a professional licensed contractor and they were tested and inspected properly by the City of Chicago. The homeowner hired someone to putin countertops and they admitted they pulled out the dishwasher and this caused the leak.The homeowner filed numerous complaints within a day or two of the leak before anything could even be investigated to see who caused the damage in an attempt to force us to pay him for the damage to the floors. This was worked out a few days later and the homeowner promised to remove the complaint which he never did. There is no evidence of any correct bookkeeping at our company and these are outrageous lies. During the project we prepared numerous change orders and these were sent to the homeowner for review. At no time was it ever intentioned that anything was ever final until we both agreed that everything was correct. The change orders were quite complicated and required a lot of work. There were actually mistakes on both sides by the homeowner who wanted more credit than he deserved and charges for incorrect things on our part but they were never intended to be final until everyone agreed they looked right. To say there was any impropriety with our bookkeeping and accounting practices is outrageous. se attached change orders that were referenced by the homeowner. The homeowner says that I did not read his e-mails but he would shoot off sometimes dozens of e-mails in one day. the scope of the project was determined form the outset. the materials were chosen in the beginning of the project. I was never obligated to sit at a desk answering his e-mails continuously throughout the day and would typically spend sufficient time every day to manage his project and respond to his questions. We also had on site staff to help him with questions so communication was never an issue.Bringing up irrelevant things is so off the wall it is hard to comment. We typically manage 20 or more projects a year of this size and the conversations with homeowners are always on point and relevant to the tasks at hand. The homeowner complains that moulding were not removed to do drywall. It was never intended as part of the scope of the project that all mouldings were to be removed as many areas had 1/4 in drywall installed. The project was inspected and signed off as complete by the FHA consultant without this needing to be done. The homeowner's complaint is full of outrageous lies. There is no factual basis to any of it and he placed this false compliant in the hope of getting us to pay for damage that was not our fault whatsoever. Priority Construction Management has been in business over 3 years. The manager is the past president of the Chicago Chapter of the local affiliation of the National Affiliate of the Home Builders Association. The company completes dozens of similar size projects for both individual homeowners and financial institutions and has never received a complaint prior to this. The entire complaint is broadly false and a fabrication by the homeowner to extract money for something that was not the company's fault. The entire complaint should be rejected as without merit and the company's rating should be restored to how it was before the complaint. One additional item is the project is 100% complete as certified by the FHA consultant and the contractor has not been paid the 10% retention and the final draw payment because the homeowner has been out of town and does not have the time to sign the final paperwork. Thank you

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 11, 2015/08/20) */
[redacted]Document Attached[redacted]
The homeowners complaint is filled with gross inaccuracies. Attached is the Homeowner/Contractor agreement dated 11/10/14 and fully signed by all parties on 11/11/14. The homeowner says he got the permit in two...

days. The building permit was issued on 2/2/15. See attached. Our agreement specifically states we can not start work until the permit is received. The first draw for the bank payout was inspected by a third party consultant and submitted for payment on 3/3/15. See attached. It was signed by the homeowner on that date. The amount of completed work was $16,072.50. So within 27 days of starting the project $16,072.50 was completed. The fact that he says we did not start until 10 weeks later is grossly false. There was never an absolute completion date set.It was assumed the project would probably go about 4 months however we found numerous problems during the course of the project including both fire and water damage and this necessitated doing additional work to correct the problems. The project was done withing a framework of a 203K FHA loan and the project was compliant with the program and was not in default. The 203K program allows 6 months to do the work and then allows monthly extensions if work is proceeding satisfactorily. The homeowner moved in July 1st which was less than 5 months after we started the project and the final punch list was completed within 30 days of that. See final draw attached that was prepared on Aug 5th by the FHA consultant after all the work was complete.There was nothing that was lied about to the homeowner and there is no evidence of that. The homeowner asked us not to put in new water service and we followed his instructions and were able to pass the inspections per his instructions. There is no evidence of smoking or drinking and this was never brought up by the homeowner during the course of the project. Also he mentions his home but it was actually a gutted 3 flat and was not be classified as an actual home we were working in and he did not reside there until the work was complete.The tub had dirt and it was easily cleaned. There was no severe damage as mentioned in his letter.The only item ever missing was a ladder the homeowner left in the garage. It was used by a subcontractor and returned the next day to where he found it. It is not unusual to use ladders on a construction job and the homeowner was warned about leaving personal possessions at a property while we were doing work there since this was a gut rehab and we had many workers there. All pluming lines were installed by a professional licensed contractor and they were tested and inspected properly by the City of Chicago. The homeowner hired someone to putin countertops and they admitted they pulled out the dishwasher and this caused the leak.The homeowner filed numerous complaints within a day or two of the leak before anything could even be investigated to see who caused the damage in an attempt to force us to pay him for the damage to the floors. This was worked out a few days later and the homeowner promised to remove the complaint which he never did. There is no evidence of any correct bookkeeping at our company and these are outrageous lies. During the project we prepared numerous change orders and these were sent to the homeowner for review. At no time was it ever intentioned that anything was ever final until we both agreed that everything was correct. The change orders were quite complicated and required a lot of work. There were actually mistakes on both sides by the homeowner who wanted more credit than he deserved and charges for incorrect things on our part but they were never intended to be final until everyone agreed they looked right. To say there was any impropriety with our bookkeeping and accounting practices is outrageous. se attached change orders that were referenced by the homeowner. The homeowner says that I did not read his e-mails but he would shoot off sometimes dozens of e-mails in one day. the scope of the project was determined form the outset. the materials were chosen in the beginning of the project. I was never obligated to sit at a desk answering his e-mails continuously throughout the day and would typically spend sufficient time every day to manage his project and respond to his questions. We also had on site staff to help him with questions so communication was never an issue.Bringing up irrelevant things is so off the wall it is hard to comment. We typically manage 20 or more projects a year of this size and the conversations with homeowners are always on point and relevant to the tasks at hand. The homeowner complains that moulding were not removed to do drywall. It was never intended as part of the scope of the project that all mouldings were to be removed as many areas had 1/4 in drywall installed. The project was inspected and signed off as complete by the FHA consultant without this needing to be done. The homeowner's complaint is full of outrageous lies. There is no factual basis to any of it and he placed this false compliant in the hope of getting us to pay for damage that was not our fault whatsoever. Priority Construction Management has been in business over 3 years. The manager is the past president of the Chicago Chapter of the local affiliation of the National Affiliate of the Home Builders Association. The company completes dozens of similar size projects for both individual homeowners and financial institutions and has never received a complaint prior to this. The entire complaint is broadly false and a fabrication by the homeowner to extract money for something that was not the company's fault. The entire complaint should be rejected as without merit and the company's rating should be restored to how it was before the complaint. One additional item is the project is 100% complete as certified by the FHA consultant and the contractor has not been paid the 10% retention and the final draw payment because the homeowner has been out of town and does not have the time to sign the final paperwork. Thank you