Brower Mechanical, Inc.

Review: Installer failed to install proper line size in my houses hvac system per manufactures specifications, contract looks altered

Hello [redacted],

I sent this e-mail to you last Monday and did not get a response from your company. I'm sure your very busy this time of year so I'm resending it in hopes of an amicable solution to my problem. Please respond by Tuesday August 6th, if no response than I will assume you have no interest in our problem and will pursue other options.

My wife and I had used your company to service our original A/C unit and had been treated fairly in our opinion. So naturally when our unit expired we had your company bid the job. We were shopping for a 16 seer 4 ton split unit with a heat pump. Your bid was competitive for that unit at $6883 so we went with your company. The install went well but it took 3 days for house to cool down,we were assured that was normal because of the amount of heat that was in the attic. Well turns out a valve was installed backwards. Then we find out that the copper capillaries tubes were installed touching each other naturally they vibrated long enough to wear holes in them so I paid your company again to repair it. The unit really never worked great just OK at times and I never realized any energy saving on our electric bill and at times it seemed worse then the old unit. So fast forward to now I`m on vacation at home and the A/C just wont keep up with the heat so I go on Goodman manufacturing website and start doing research on troubleshooting your A/C unit. The symptom was unit not keeping up on warm days yes to this, the chart took me to possible solutions, line set diameter. So I contacted Goodman mfg and the supplied me with install guide and parameters for this unit, which by the way is not 16 seer, suction line parameters mandate 1 1/8 inch diameter. The line set diameter on my unit is 7/8 of a inch for the suction line. I have attached a couple of documents one is the brochure of the unit I thought I purchased and used that for my comparison shopping and the other is the contract for what was actually installed, the last document is line size parameters per Goodman mfg. I'm looking at repair invoices in excess of $1600 there is probably more than that. Also as I inspect the contract I notice that the New properly sized refrigerant lines box was checked and then changed. I wonder if we would have caught that at time of installation if could have avoided all these issues with my unit. At the end of the day I don't believe anyone acted maliciously but mistakes were made and I think it is unfair for me to have to pay repair bills for something improperly installed. Your prompt response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

[redacted] & [redacted]

XXX-XXX-XXXX

Desired Settlement: Cash settlement so I can replace/ repair unit

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response

I just left a message on their phone asking for the Goodman information 8/30/13

Final Business Response

The client entered in to a contract with Brower Mechanical, Inc. (BMI), 8/1/07, to replace a heat pump split system which included an air handler, coil and condenser in the amount of $6,883.00. The ratings on the contract for the equipment were 15SEER/13EER. The equipment was sold with a 1 year labor and material warranty by the contractor, and a 1 year labor warranty and 10 years parts warranty offered by the manufacturer. BMI installed the system on 8/3/07. In the process of installing the system, a BMI technician damaged the TXV valve. The TXV was repaired as a no-charge repair to the client.

5/15/09-BMI was called out for no cooling and discovered a hardstart kit had been mis-wired. It was corrected by BMI. The service technician determined there was no damage to any components as a result of the mis-wiring. This was a no charge repair to the client.

5/16/09-BMI was called out for no cooling and discovered the TXV valve had failed. This was a no-charge call to the client.

8/11/09-The TXV valve was replaced by BMI. This was a no charge repair to the client.

7/1/10-BMI was called out for low cooling. BMI's technician added refrigerant. The service call charge was waived, however the client was invoiced for the refrigerant at a cost of $192. Unable to identify the leak source, a follow-up "leak check" appointment was scheduled with the client for 7/7/10

7/7/10-BMI performed a leak check and determined the TXV and capillary tubes both were leaking refrigerant. The client was not invoiced for the service call.

7/8/10-BMI replaced the TXV valve and made repairs to the capillary tubes and an electrical contactor. The parts were covered under the manufacturer's warranty. The client was not charged for parts or the repair to the capillary tubes. The client was charged for the labor to install the new TXV and an electrical contactor as well as the refrigerant which the manufacturer does not cover under their warranty. The cost to the client was $400.

9/20/12-BMI was called out for no cooling. BMI determined the reversing valve was defective. The parts were under warranty, however, the labor, misc. materials and refrigerant where chargeable. The total charges to the client would be $1,016. The client agreed to have BMI make the repairs.

9/25/12-BMI made the repairs as determined from the 9/20/12 inspection. The cost to the client was $1,016.

BMI has not provided any service subsequent to 9/25/12.

In the complaint, the client indicates he purchased a 16 SEER system. As mentioned above, the equipment he purchased was 15 SEER as indicated in the contract documents. At the time the equipment was purchased, the AHRI number was XXXXXXX. AHRI is an acronym for the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. This is a third party association that certifies efficiency of equipment submitted by the manufacturer.

In the complaint, the client indicates that in the installations instructions there is a requirement that a 1-1/8" suction line must be used. The lineset size did not contribute to the issues the client was having with the system relative to the TXV valve and the reversing valve. Manufacturers will specify "preferred" sizes for linesets for their equipment, however, they also recognize that in the real world of retro-fit projects the preferred line set is not always achievable for various reasons. The major heating and air conditioning manufacturers have created tables that are commonly called capacity loss tables or long lineset loss tables. These tables give percentages of efficiency losses based on smaller lineset diameters and extended lengths. In the case of this client, it appears the efficiency loss was 1% as a result of decreasing the lineset from 1-1/8" x 3/8" to a 7/8" x 3/8". The 1% loss is insignificant when compared to operating losses that occur at 100F ambient exterior air. At 100F, a 15 SEER system will perform similar to a 13 or a 12SEER system.

The issues the client encountered are mechanical in nature. With the advent of 410A refrigerant systems operating a high pressure, the HVAC industry has encountered challenges with TXV valves. The reversing valve is also a mechanical valve and although the frequency of failures is substantially less than TXV's, they still can fail.

Although the lines can be understandably blurred for a homeowner as to who is responsible for what portions of any HVAC project, there are clear distinctions. BMI is the installing contractor and Goodman is the manufacturer. BMI installs what Goodman manufacturers. In this case, the client is only being charged for repairing the manufacturer's mechanical parts and then only for the labor and materials not covered by the manufacturer's warranty.

There are three courses the client could have taken regarding the repairs other than having BMI make the repairs. First, he could have purchased an extended labor warranty which was available to him when he purchased the system. Secondly, he could have contacted Goodman directly to seek a possible remedy. The third option would have been to contact another Goodman certified warranty provider and get another bid to make the repairs.

As it relates to the client's desire for a cash settlement from BMI, BMI is not the party he should be addressing. He should be contacting Goodman directly. Goodman designed and manufactured the components that failed and Goodman is the party that provides for the extended warranty on parts. The component failures cannot be linked directly or indirectly to the 7/8" x 3/8" lineset.

Energy Home Performance Manager

Brower Mechanical, Inc

[redacted]@browermechanical.com

Review: First of all I don't have enough space on here to put the full complaint, I tried so to get to most resent. We got a hot water heater installed threw bower. It was fine untill our power went out one day and never came back on (this was in march). So I looked in the manual to see if the instructions had anything to say about what went wrong and they said a temp probe or a CPU board. Then looked inside were the hot water heater is and seen that the installer dropped soder from above the unit on to the wires below exposing them. Then looked around and seen that it was not getting fresh or combustion air from outside basically suffocating. So I called bower about it and they sent there warrenty manger and he took pics then he says its hooked up fine and argues about every time I talk with him. So I talk to the Vice President and finally got the hot water representive to come and look at it and he would and couldn't touch it cause it was completely wrong and dangerous to do so. They have the exhaust vent going under our window witch could put carbon dioxide into our home. Still can not get a person to do anything from this company.

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation)

Would like to meet with them and have proff of everything they promised and lied about then settle. Like I said I didn't have nearly enough room on here to put everything.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response

Contact Name and Title: [redacted]

Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX

Contact Email: [redacted]@browermechanical.com

Brower Mechanical, Inc. (BMI) entered in to a contract with the client on July 30, 2011, to perform certain energy efficient improvements to her home located in Meridian, CA. She chose BMI because BMI is a CHF and PG&E approved building performance contractor. CHF was the lender who was responsible for lending and disbursing ARRA funds for home energy efficiency programs. In this case, the client was approved for a loan at zero percent for fifteen years. PG&E approved building performance contractors can offer their clients a rebate through PG&E based on the improvements and total energy savings based on a software program called EnergyPro. In this case, the client received a rebate from PG&E for $3,500.

The original scope of work changed with the most dramatic change being the elimination of new windows from the scope of work. The reason for the elimination of the windows was due to a condition of CHF. For homes older than 45 years from the program date, CHF required the contractor, in this case BMI, to submit an application to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for approval to change out the existing windows. CEC's approval is based on standards and requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.F. 470f) et al. BMI received a letter from the CEC, December 9, 2011, essentially denying the windows based on their assessment of the structure. The structure dates back to the early 1900's.

All of the scope of work changes were approved by the client through e-mails with BMI's salesperson. This was due in part, because the client had been injured in an automobile accident. She sustained a broken neck and was hospitalized for a period during BMI's work. In the client's absence, the client's boyfriend acted as the project representative.

The project had multiple inspections, HERS, Sutter County Building Department and Build It Green. The client has made multiple claims that BMI improperly installed equipment with the most vocal being a water heater. The water heater is an AO Smith residential natural gas 96% high efficiency unit. The client has alleged the water heater is a "used" commercial product. BMI disagrees with the client's allegations and has provided supporting evidence to her. The "improperly installed" claim was made sometime after the water heater became inoperable. BMI does not know the exact time period when the water heater became inoperable. When a BMI representative went out to investigate the issue at the request of the client, what was discovered was the water heater had been taken apart by the client's boyfriend in an attempt to repair the water heater. The water heater had a labor (1 year) and materials (6 years) warranty when installed. For reasons unknown, the client did not contact BMI or the water heater manufacturer at the time of the initial failure forgoing standard free warranty service. The client's boyfriend alleges the water heater was installed incorrectly and that solder from the piping installation to the water heater had caused the failure. Had that been the case, the manufacturer would have made the repairs and invoiced BMI for the repair charges making the client whole with no out of pocket expenses. BMI disagrees with the client's boyfriend's assessment of the causes for the failure. The client's boyfriend is neither trained in water heater repairs nor possesses the proper testing equipment to properly diagnose issues with sophisticated water heaters such as the product BMI installed in the home. Sutter County building inspection department inspected the water heater and had not noted any corrections were required. To seek a resolution with the client, BMI suggested the client's boyfriend re-assemble the water heater and that collectively, the parties would try to get the water heater repaired under warranty and BMI would take care of the warranty labor charges if they were assessed. The warranty labor component had expired and likely would have been covered had BMI or the water heater manufacturer been notified promptly of the issue. The client's boyfriend agreed to have the water heater re-assembled in two weeks. That did not occur and it was months later before he finally completed the task. The manufacturer's warranty provider (an AO Smith contracted independent plumber) inspected the water heater. He related to the BMI representative that the client's boyfriend wanted an electric water heater instead of the existing natural gas water heater. The plumber indicated, without going in to detail, he was not interested in making the repairs stating he "would own the water heater" and that he was not interested in that. He reiterated we would be a lot better off just changing out the water heater than fixing the existing natural gas water heater based on the boyfriend's comments. The plumber did not mention any installation issues to BMI contrary to claims made by the client. Given the situation, BMI notified the client that BMI would agree to change out the water heater with a 40 gallon electric water heater. The client insists that BMI have the plumber who inspected the water heater install the new electric water heater. BMI insist they must install the new water heater because a 220v electrical circuit must also be installed with the new water heater. BMI is prepared to install the electric water heater and electrical circuit. The client has made repeated claims of not having hot water, but in fact, the client's boyfriend has installed a 40 gallon electric water heater temporarily next to the existing water heater.

BMI has paid a swimming pool invoice for services provided by [redacted] of Yuba City which was not related to a warranty issue with the pool sweep. BMI agreed to pay any labor charges that may be assessed by the warranty provider not covered relative to the warranty repairs. The Bi-County charges were unrelated to warranty work and included removing a rock out of the gears of the sweep and to repair modifications made to the sweep by the client's boyfriend. The client's pool equipment is warranted for three years, labor and materials. The client alleges BMI improperly installed the pool sweep which was not substantiated by [redacted]

Relative to a breakdown in costs, BMI has prepared and delivered a summary of costs to the client. This is an unusual request coming over a year after BMI completed the work. BMI normally quotes energy performance projects as a lump sum. This is done because building performance work is very connective with multiple disciplines and steps required to meet utility rebate program requirements. Additionally, utility rebate projects must be performed under the direction of the approved utility building performance contractor which is no small hurdle to become. Non-approved contractor generally lack the understanding of the connectiveness of improvements, building science training, installation methods which have standards well above the code minimums or possess the necessary testing equipment, modeling software and can not offer their clients the utility rebates.

Regarding energy savings, the client has made representations relative to her energy use. BMI does not warrant or guarantee energy savings. Energy saving factors are created through EnergyPro software, a product of EnergySoft. EnergyPro is the only approved modeling software approved by the CEC in California. PG&E requires each home requesting a utility rebate for a building performance project be modeled in EnergyPro. BMI does not have insight to the algorithms used (i.e. how many people are modeled in the home, etc) when the software is calculating the data collected from the whole house assessment conducted by BMI. EnergySoft vigorously protects the algorithm protocols because of a specific calculation known as TDV. The EnergyPro modeling is reviewed by Build It Green (BIG), the rebate administrator for PG&E. Once the modeling is reviewed by BIG, approval is granted to begin the project. Energy use is a function of an individuals' desired level of comfort which would be virtually impossible to model. There is little doubt the structure is now more energy efficient with floor insulation, air sealing, better ducting system, more efficient air conditioning and an energy efficient pool pump.

In closing, BMI has asked the client to call by telephone which she has not. BMI is prepared to install a new 40 gallon electric water and an electrical circuit to service the water heater at BMI's expense. BMI has provided the client with a cost breakdown as she has requested. As it relates to refunds, BMI has previously sent the client a check for $3,217.00 reflecting the credits for the changes in the scope of work. These funds could have been applied to her CHF loan with no penalties. BMI believes the client is not e

Final Business Response

The client entered in to a lump sum contract with [redacted] Mechanical, Inc. (BMI). A lump sum contract does not provide a breakdown, but will describe a scope of work and materials. In attempting to respond to the client's request, BMI provided a breakdown by improvement with the caveat that we would not provide a labor and material breakdown. When this condition was made to the client, she did not contest, so the presumption is, the condition was acceptable. The client now wants to challenge each and every component which BMI conditioned we would not respond to when we agreed to provide the breakdown.

With regard to the "R" value of the ducting, there is documentation that BMI agreed to upgrade the ducting from R-6 to R-8. BMI's material list indicates R-8 was ordered for the project. If R-6 was mistakenly installed than a reimbursement to the client would be in order. BMI needs to confirm the R-value of the installed ducting.

If BMI vented the bath exhaust fan in to the attic and not to the exterior than that should be corrected and BMI would agree to make the correction at BMI's expense.

As it relates to air sealing, air sealing foam does not provide a deterrent to rodent intrusions in to a structure. The foam is intended to reduce unconditioned air infiltration in to a home. We can not address in what context the discussion of rodent proofing occurred relative to the air sealing between the client and BMI's sales person, but if BMI's salesperson made the statement it was incorrect. The client would not have been eligible for CHF financing or PG&E rebates without air sealing however.

BMI installed a high efficiency water heater as part of the scope of work. It apparently failed in March 2013. The client did not notify BMI or exercise the manufacturer's warranty service when the heater failed, rather the client's boyfriend elected to disassemble the water heater presumably to attempt to make the repairs. His actions voided the warranty on the heater. I suggested to the boyfriend to re-assemble the water heater within two weeks and I would try to get the manufacturer to make the needed repairs. The manufacturer provides for a 1 year labor warranty and 6 year material warranty. The boyfriend took at least four months to re-assemble the heater and in the meantime installed an electric water heater on the exterior of the home. Once re-assembled, BMI contacted the manufacturer, who in turn, contacted their warranty provider for that area. Their warranty provider is an independent licensed plumber. The plumber contacted me by telephone after his inspection which was performed in the presence of the client's boyfriend. Paraphrasing, he indicated we would be better off just giving the client an electric water given the boyfriend's comments that he would never be happy with the gas heater. He also indicated that he did not want to make the needed repairs because then he would own the water heater and that did not interest him. We did not receive a written report from the plumber of the deficiencies in our installations so we can not address the client's comments other than it is possible the client's boyfriend did not re-assemble the water in the same manner as it was originally installed. We do have a photograph of the disassembled water heater taken on March 27, 2013. The client has attempted to provide us a copy of the plumber's findings electronically but we were unable to open the attachment. Given the history of the water heater, BMI offered to replace the existing water heater with a residential grade 40 gallon electric water heater and a 220v electrical circuit to service the water at BMI's expense. The client rejected the offer demanding that the water heater be installed by the plumber who inspected the failed water heater. BMI declined the client's demand. This existing water heater was inspected by the Sutter County building inspection department. No noted corrections were required.

As part of the revised scope of work, BMI installed a Pentair variable speed pool pump, controller and a three wheel pool sweep. The pool sweep is matched up with the pool pump and operates under lower water flows than the typical sweep. The client was unhappy with the effectiveness of the pool sweep and requested a new sweep. BMI responded by delivering and installing a four wheel version of Pentair's low flow pool sweep. I installed the second following the enclosed written instructions. The client called BMI indicating the pool sweep was not working. BMI contacted Pentair given the pool equipment is covered for labor and materials for three years. Pentair referred BMI to Bi-County Pool Service, Yuba City as their warranty service provider for the area. BMI contacted BI-County with instructions to correct and invoice BMI for any deficiencies that may have been part of BMI's installations. Bi-County discovered upon their inspection a rock in the sweep and that the sweep had been modified by the client's boyfriend. Bi-county repaired the sweep and programmed the controller for the client. The result was Bi-County invoiced the client for $95 for non-warranty repairs. They did not invoice BMI, not finding deficiencies in the installation. As a concession to the client, BMI paid the invoice. This has been communicated to the client on several occasions, BMI removes and disposes of equipment and material BMI is replacing unless specifically requested otherwise by the client. BMI should have removed the sweep motors.

According to the client, the main driver for contacting BMI was to change out the existing single pane windows. The client found BMI's name on the CHF website. CHF is an organization that provided zero percent energy efficient loans utilizing ARRA funds. BMI is both a CHF and PG&E approved building performance contractor and could provide clients with zero percent financing and utility rebates. There is one caveat when using CHF financing and that is any changes to the exterior of the structure must be reviewed by the staff at the California Energy Commission (CEC). BMI received a letter from the CEC conditionally denying the window replacement using CHF funds based on the "historical" aspects of the architecture. We have provided the client with a copy of the CEC letter. The client alleges BMI lied to the CEC regarding the windows. The process BMI must use to submit a request to CEC is know as a SHPO application. BMI must take a picture of the windows and elevations as part of the SHPO application submission. Unless there are requests for clarifications of the photographs or the application by the CEC they make their findings. One of the alternatives the CEC suggested was to remediate the existing windows. This is generally cost prohibitive and does not offer great energy savings due to the glazing still being single pane. There is an appeal process at the CEC, however, BMI can not recall why it was not utilized. There is not a reason BMI would not want to sell and install windows nor can we understand the allegation by the client BMI lied to the CEC.

Regarding the electricians, BMI did engage at least two electricians to provide bids to change out the existing [redacted] and tube electrical wiring in the attic to romex wiring which then would allow us to insulate the attic. Given reasons that are undocumented, both electricians declined to provide BMI with bids.

Regarding the check BMI issued to the client for $3,217.00 a breakdown was given to the client at that time. In an e-mail to the client on March 5, 2012, the BMI sales person provided alternatives in the change of scope. The client responded within 45 minutes the same day approving an alternative scope resulting in the credit.

Regarding signing documents, there was a sunset provision on CHF funding. The client may have been faced with the potential of losing funding, but the choice to sign the loan documents is the client's, and only the client's prerogative to sign.

Energy savings is computed by a software program required to be used to calculate energy savings by both CHF and PG&E. There is a minimum energy savings required to obtain CHF financing as well as PG&E rebates. The client received both the financing and utility rebates based on the software calculations. The software cannot calculate desired comfort of the inhabitants. Given the work BMI preformed it is difficult to argue the structure is less energy efficient.

We have been directly communicating with the client through e-mail. We have delivered our offer to the client. We will furnish a residential grade 40 gallon electric water heater, which they have said they want to pick up at our supplier's location. The client must sign a release agreement which we have provided her. She has not replied. We are not offering any refunds or contributions subject to the issue of the R-value of the installed

Final Consumer Response

The company has satisfied my request and I would like to close this complaint.

Thank you

[redacted]!

Review: I'm writing this to express our extreme frustration with the way we have been treated as clients of Brower. We solicited Brower Mechanical through the [redacted] program with good reviews. We had a pleasant enough experience with [redacted] apart from the one time an appointment was missed. We decided to buy and start the project. I set up a time with [redacted] for someone to perform a pre-work walkthrough on 4/1 at noon. Work was to start on 4/2. My wife took off of work, picked up our 5 month old daughter and went home to wait. No one showed up. She called the company and they told her nothing had been scheduled and [redacted], the manager, would come out instead at 2:15. [redacted] did show up until 2:40 only to tell us the project as currently planned could not go forward. Immediately, [redacted] said the downstairs needed an extra air return vent and the upstairs needed a whole new unit and the 3 days of work turned into 4. He blamed the misinformation on [redacted] and said the extensive energy analysis that we paid for and the written work up with photos hadn't been shared with anyone who knows anything about actual installation until that day. [redacted] gave us options and expected immediate answers. He said Brower would do a good job and the paperwork would just have to catch up. He said work would be done on the downstairs until they figured out the upstairs! We told [redacted] that was not happening until we had a revised proposal with solid figures.[redacted] came that Saturday to apologize and give us some alternatives and were told we would have numbers Monday morning. [redacted] left me a message on Monday afternoon saying it would be first thing Tuesday morning. Nothing came Tuesday morning. I left a message for [redacted] that afternoon inquiring about the new numbers. I never heard anything back. Late Wednesday evening, I get an email that looked like it took about 10 minutes to throw together. It contained alternative options that were at $5,000-$10,000 more than what we were originally signed onto in the contract along with 7 days of work.Desired Settlement: We would like a refund of the initial energy analysis that took place at the very beginning of the process. Additional compensation for lost wages due to time off of work to meet for meetings, skipped lunches to try to clear up this matter and for reimbursement of child care money that was paid but not used to take our child out of daycare early, as we had to pay for a full day.

Business

Response:

The purpose of this response is to address the claimant, [redacted], claims against Brower Mechanical, Inc. (BMI). Mr. [redacted] entered in to a contract with BMI January 30, 2014. The contracted work was intended for his primary address at [redacted]. The work was to include installing separate heating and air conditioning systems for the downstairs and upstairs, remove and replace ducting in the attic and install cellulose insulation in the attic. BMI’s sales consultant was [redacted]. The client was paying for this work through an energy loan program called [redacted].

Mr. [redacted] made the loan through [redacted] September 4, 2013, notified [redacted], who in turn, notified BMI of the intent to proceed. [redacted] approved the [redacted] loan March 28th, 2014. Mr. [redacted]’s account of April 2, 2014 is accurate. I made the pre-site inspection and determined the downstairs system would not be an issue with the exception of adding an additional return air duct which would be installed a BMI’s sole expense. The upstairs system was an issue as proposed however. The mini-split system as proposed would have not met the client’s needs, as well as been physically difficult if not impossible to install in a professional manner. Given this discovery, I proposed a meeting with the [redacted]’s at their convenience to discuss alternatives. They selected Saturday, April 5. I sat down with the [redacted]’s and explained several options to address the upstairs system. At that time, I made a commitment to the [redacted]’s that we would insulate the attic knee walls at our cost as a concession for the changes in the scope of work. Insulating knee walls reduces heat loads which would reduce the need for air conditioning. I told Mr. [redacted] I would have pricing Monday for the options. One of the options did entail more time to price as the equipment is being newly released and determining pricing and availability where issues we were having difficulty obtaining through the distributor. I sent the proposed options to Mr. [redacted] Wednesday evening. In summary, one option would have kept the price as originally proposed. The most expensive proposed option was $5,492.71. We can provide to the Revdex.com the e-mail and proposal sent to Mr. [redacted] under separate cover if requested by Revdex.com. Regarding Mr. [redacted]’s claim I demanded an immediate decision, there is no basis in fact in the claim. Mr. [redacted]’s response was to contact [redacted], a principal of BMI, by e-mail. Mr. [redacted] indicated he had selected the most expensive option and BMI would have to honor

the original price. Subsequent to that e-mail Mr. [redacted] has made several attempts to contact Mr. [redacted]. There was an agreed upon time Mr. [redacted] designated to have a telephone conversation with Mr. [redacted] which Mr. [redacted] was not able to make. Since that time, Mr. [redacted] has attempted to contact Mr. [redacted] by e-mail and telephonically with no response from Mr. [redacted].

Relative to the cash demands from Mr. [redacted] noted in the Revdex.com complaint, we offer the following. First, Mr. [redacted] has not made a direct demand to BMI. With regard to the energy analysis, Mr. [redacted] has been provided a valid and detailed copy of energy analysis of his home. The report has provided Mr. [redacted] information which will and may already have provided him better information to improve the energy efficiency of his home. With regard to $1,500 amount, we simply do not understand how the amount was calculated, and therefore cannot respond.

In closing, we acknowledge our sales consultant made mistakes and we have apologized to the [redacted]’s. We offered as a concession to install additional insulation at the knee walls and return air ducting to improve the energy efficiency and building performance as part of our work. We were, and have been willing to install the project but without a discussion with Mr. [redacted] it is not possible.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: