Chuck Miller Construction, Inc.

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:This is not even a written response from the businessI do not understand how sending a spreadsheet of the estimate and actual costs of the job is any solution to the issues identified in my complaintI believe this is an attempt to not answer or address the numerous known issues on this jobI would love nothing more than to see a resolution to all of this, which is why we continued for months after the estimated completion date to give Chuck Miller Construction the opportunity to finish and rectify the problems. Sincerely,*** * *** ***

Chuck Miller Construction Inc has removed all construction materials, debris and trash along with our sign from the *** and the adjacent neighbor's property This was completed on Saturday November 21, The *** certified letter dated November 2, which demanded that the
equipment and debris be removed by November 15, was not received by Chuck Miller Construction Incuntil November 11, The *** letter and follemails were addressed by phone and email.Chuck Miller - President

Revdex.com:
I appreciate the offer, however our attorney had previously sent a formal request to Chuck Miller Construction and as of 9-22-16 CMC agreed to participate. We will continue to attempt resolving this conflict with our attorneys help. 
I would like to reject the offer of Arbitration for complaint ID [redacted].
Sincerely,
[redacted] & [redacted]

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE INFORMATIONCustomer Information:[redacted]Daytime Phone: [redacted]Evening Phone: [redacted]E-mail: [redacted]The details of this matter are as follows:Complaint Involves:Product IssuesCustomer’s Statement of...

the Problem:CMC was contracted to build a second story addition on our home. The builder failed to complete thejob in a timely fashion going three months past the projected/scheduled date of completion.
In response to the [redacted]’s allegation that we failed to complete the job in a timely fashion, we donot dispute the fact that the job took three (3) months longer than originally projected.The [redacted]’s contact Chuck Miller Construction Inc. in May 2014 to discuss adding a 2nd floor totheir existing home. They had had a conceptual plan prepared by a draftsman. Chuck MillerConstruction Inc. forwarded the [redacted]’s a Design-Build Remodel Agreement on 08/04/2014 fortheir review. After not having heard from them, Chuck Miller Construction Inc followed up with the[redacted]’s on 02/10/2015 to see if they were still interested in proceeding.
Chuck Miller Construction Inc. provided the [redacted]’s with conceptual plans on 02/16/2015. Theywere provided with another copy of Design-Build Remodel Agreement on 02/17/2015. Preliminaryplans were provided on August 7, 2016. The Preliminary Estimate was provided on 08/24/2015. TheElectrical Plan was forwarded to them for their review on 10/16/2015. The [redacted]’s werepresented with “final” plans on November 7, 2015. They signed the Specifications on 11/17/2015.They signed the “final” plans on 12/03/2015.The [redacted]’s were given a Preliminary Schedule on November 28, 2015. That schedule showed aStart Date of 11/06/2015 and anticipated completion on April 7, 2016 – 153 days or 5 months.The Agreement with the [redacted]’s (Exhibit A) stated in Paragraph 6.1:6.1 Remodeler will proceed with the Work and obtain inspection(s) and approval(s) from theapplicable building authority in a commercially expeditious manner, unless delayed by theunforeseen unavailability of necessary labor or materials, restricted access to the worksite, delaysin communications with Owner, inclement weather, changes in the work, or causes beyondRemodeler's control.
Paragraph 6.2 further states6.2 While Remodeler will, at all times, conscientiously proceed with the work, the Schedule is anestimate of the time to complete the Project and is only for the benefit of Owner's generalplanning. The actual completion time is subject to the factors identified in Paragraph 6.7 of thisAgreement. Remodeler shall not be responsible for any financing costs incurred by Owner due todelays in the completion of construction.
Paragraph 6.7 states6.7 If Remodeler is delayed at any time in the progress of the Project by any act or neglect ofOwner or by any separate contractor employed by Owner, or by changes ordered in the Project, or by labor disputes, fire, unusual delay in transportation, adverse weather conditions not reasonablyanticipated, unavoidable casualties, or any causes beyond Remodeler's control, or a delayauthorized by Owner pending arbitration, then the Date for Substantial Completion shall beextended by Change Order for the period of such delay.
Causes beyond our control which contributed to the delay include but are not necessarily limited to thefollowing:Hidden Springs Town Design Review Board Approval 5 Calendar DaysCompletion of Structural Engineering Calculations 11 Calendar DaysDrywall Hang 7 Calendar Days
In addition to the above, the project has been delayed due to the unavailability of trade contractors. Ihave attached a copy of a report recently published by the National Association of Home BuildersHousing Market Index: Special Questions on Labor and Subcontractors’ Availability (Exhibit B)The builder failed to be on site to adequately oversee work done by subcontractors resulting in notonly delays but incorrect or incomplete work.
In response to the [redacted]’s allegation that I “failed to be on site to adequately oversee work doneby subcontractors resulting in incorrect or incomplete work,” Chuck Miller Construction Inc.’s office islocated 1.4 miles from the [redacted]’s or approximately 4 minutes away. (Exhibit C) While I mightnot have checked in with the [redacted]’s every time I visited the site, I personally visited andinspected the project at least once every day at the end of the day to inspect the work and insure thatthe project was secured for the evening. I was on site in 5 minutes or less when there was a questionor situation that needed my immediate attention. The trade contractors and suppliers were instructedto call me if they had any questions or encountered any problems.The builder included a storage area in the second floor addition but failed to have it framed in and itwas never completed. While under contract, multiple issues were brought to CMC including damagefrom construction to our existing home as well as several areas in the new construction that were notacceptable.
The attic storage area was added to the plans at the [redacted]’s request on 11/05/2015. As shownon the plans and specifically, Sht A-3.1 Section B, this attic storage area was to be an extension of thenew floor framing into the attic. The storage area consisted of an OSB floor open to the attic. Theplans were forwarded to the structural engineer on Tuesday December 10, 2015. As explained to the[redacted]’s, the structural engineer determined that the existing trusses would not support thecantilevered floor structure. The webs in the existing trusses would need to remain making the areavirtually unusable so we were unable to provide the storage as drawn. I have attached a copy of ShtA-3.1 (Exhibit D) and the structural engineer’s drawings and calculations for the trusses in question.(Exhibits E)
CMC failed to remedy these issues and was not advocating for us as the homeowner. Instead it is ourbelief that CMC was willfully attempting to pass off subpar work in an attempt to collect paymentregardless of the potential problems that would stem from the bad work.In response to the [redacted]’s allegation that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. was “willfully attemptingto pass off subpar work…,” all of the work was done in accordance with the applicable building codesand standards as referenced in the Codes and Standards section of the Outline Specifications of ourAgreement. The work was inspected and approved by the Ada County Development Services BuildingDivision inspectors (Exhibit F), as well as by our structural engineer. (Exhibit G) The plumbing andelectrical work were inspected and approved by inspectors from the Idaho Division of Building Safety.All of the work was completed in accordance with the Residential Construction Performance Guidelinesfor Professional Builders and Remodelers Fourth Edition published by the National Association of HomeBuilders.
In response to the [redacted]’s allegation that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. was “willfully attemptingto pass off subpar work in an attempt to collect payment regardless of the potential problems that would stem from the bad work,” our Agreement included a detailed Budget Estimate providing a lineitem by line item cost breakdown. Our monthly Payment Requests were formatted similar to theBudget Estimate. Payments were addressed in Paragraph 11.3 of our Agreement, and specifically, inthe following sub-paragraphs:
11.3.2 On or before the fifth day of each month, Remodeler will submit to Owner or Owner’s agenta Payment Request for the work performed and the materials delivered to the site or stored“offsite” at a location approved by Owner since the date of the preceding request for payment.11.3.3 Owner or Owner’s agent shall, within three (3) business days after receipt of Remodeler'sPayment Request, either authorize the Payment Request, or notify Remodeler in writing theamount that has been approved for payment and stating the reasons for withholding payment inwhole or part.11.5 If Owner fails to timely make any progress payment pursuant to the time limitations of thisAgreement, Remodeler may stop work until the dispute is resolved. Similarly, if Owner isunsatisfied with Remodeler's work, Owner may stop further payments until the dispute is resolved.The purpose of this section is to permit Owner to stop payments if Owner is unsatisfied with theprogress of construction, and similarly permit Remodeler to stop work if Remodeler is unsatisfiedwith Owner's payments, partial payments or withholding of payments. Should Owner elect to stoppayment because he is unsatisfied with Remodeler's work or should Remodeler elect to stop work,they shall immediately notify the other party in writing explaining the nature of their dispute.During the work/payment stoppage period, Remodeler and Owner shall diligently seek to resolvethe dispute so that work and payment can expeditiously resume. Unresolved disputes will behandled pursuant to Article 19, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. Regardless of whichparty is ultimately determined to have rightly or wrongly stopped work or stopped payment, eachparty waives any claim for damages or additional construction or financing costs, if any, directly orindirectly associated with the stoppage of the project during this dispute resolution period.
If the [redacted]’s were dissatisfied with the quality of the work, they had the opportunity each monthto withhold payment on any portion of the work which they felt was “subpar.” I have attached copiesof our monthly Payment Requests.
Finally, in response to the [redacted]’s allegation that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. was “willfullyattempting to pass off subpar work in an attempt to collect payment regardless of the potentialproblems that would stem from the bad work,” Chuck Miller Construction Inc. was contractuallyobligated under Paragraph 3.7.4 of our Agreement to correct all Work performed under the Agreementwhich proves to be defective in material or workmanship for a period of one year. It would not be inour best interest to attempt to pass of subpar work because of the potential problems that might ariseand which we would be obligated to correct in the future.
In response to [redacted]’s allegation regarding the damage to the existing roof shingles, Chuck MillerConstruction Inc. never denied repair was needed. This section of roof was used to access the secondfloor from the exterior of the building until July 7, 2016 when the exterior railing was installed. Infact, I contacted [redacted] of [redacted] Roofing, our roofing contractor, after the railings were installedand asked him to inspect that section of roofing. We were not permitted to make these repairsbecause we were directed by the [redacted]’s to not return to the project after Friday July 8, 2016.
The [redacted]’s allegation that there was no flashing installed under the new balcony that was addedby Chuck Miller Construction Inc. leaving raw lumber up against the roofline which if not fixed wouldhave led to water damage and rot this is simply not true. The exterior deck was constructedaccording to best practices. The deck was sloped to drain to the front of the building and covered withtorch down roofing. The intersection of the deck and interior walls of the balcony were flashed withmetal. The torch down roofing was then applied over the metal flashing. One the front edge of thedeck which is open to the roof, the metal flashing was extended onto the existing roofing and torchdown was applied over the flashing. Redwood sleepers were attached to the torch down roofing toprovide support for fastening the composite decking. Redwood was used because it is resistant to rot This is just one of many examples as we are still working on suspected HVAC problems and numerousothers!
Due to the ongoing problems and inability of the builder to stick to a schedule and complete the workin a timely fashion, we were forced to terminate the contract and hire another general contractor tofinish the remodel, costing us additional money and time.Currently, there are multiple sub-contractors that have not been paid that CMC was already paid forbut refuses to release payment to.Complaint Background:Product/Service: Second Story AdditionPurchase Date: 12/2/2015Problem Occurred: 2/19/2016Model:Account Number:Order Number:Talked to Company: 2/19/2016Talked to Company (2nd): 3/3/2016Talked to Company (3rd): 4/6/2016Name of Salesperson:Purchase Price: $180000.00Disputed Amount: $0.00Desired Settlement:Other (requires explanation)
At this point we have lost faith in CMCs ability to correctly repair any of the work that we have foundissues with. We have been forced to hire a replacement contractor. Chuck Miller Construction shouldimmediately pay all sub-contractors whose work he has been paid for.CMC should also refund the charges associated with management and oversight of the project, as wellas a portion of the project cost equivalent to the areas on the floor plan that were never built.In response to the [redacted]’s request that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. refund the chargesassociated with management and oversight of the project, Chuck Miller Construction Inc.’s mark-up ofthe costs associated with the [redacted]’s project totaled $29,449. These mark-ups were detailed inthe Budget Estimate as follows:General and Administrative Expenses Salaries & Benefits 7,011 5.00% of Cost Office Expense 3,856 2.75% of Cost Vehicle, Travel, Meeting Expense 3,506 2.50% of Cost Taxes 2,454 1.75% of Cost Insurance 2,104 1.50% of Cost Safety Expense 1,403 1.00% of Cost Professional Fees 2,104 1.50% of CostProfit 7,011 5.00% of Cost The General and Administrative Expenses were further described in Paragraph 3.7.10 of the Agreementand included• Salaries or other compensation of Remodeler's employees at the principal office, includingpayroll taxes, insurance, and employee benefits• General operating expenses or overhead of Remodeler's principal office, including but notlimited to rent, utilities, telephone, office supplies, postage, computer expenses, repairs andmaintenance; vehicle, travel and meeting expenses; taxes; insurance; safety expense; andprofessional fees, except as may be expressly included in Article 9.• Any part of Remodeler's capital expenses, including interest on that capital employed for theProject.• Costs in excess of the Budget Estimate, except as provided in Paragraph 7.4 and provided suchcosts are not the result of Changes in the Project as defined in Article 8.
The [redacted]’s were not charged for full-time supervision. Superintendent salaries and related costsare classified as Indirect Construction Costs, i.e. necessary costs of building that cannot be directly,easily, or economically attributed to a specific job. Indirect Construction Costs are recorded within the144 Series of accounts. IRS and GAAP generally require that a proportional share of indirectconstruction costs be allocated to each job. When included in the budget, the cost of a constructionsuperintendent, the Budget Estimate includes an Indirect Construction Cost category. Had their Budgetincluded Superintendent Salaries and related costs, the Budget Estimate would have included anIndirect Construction Cost Category and line items for Accounts 144-0211 Superintendent Salaries, 144-1820 Mileage Reimbursement, and 144-2013 Superintendent Cell Phone. See the attached blankBudget Estimate. (Exhibit I)
The Median Hourly Wage for a residential construction superintendent in Boise is $33.65. Payroll Taxesand Insurance add $7.93, bringing the cost to $41.58. The original schedule for the [redacted]’s projectanticipated 22 weeks or 880 hours. Had the budget for their project included a full-timesuperintendent, it would have added $45,372 to their budget (22 weeks x 40 hours per week = 880hours @ $41.58 / hour = $36,590 x 1.24 = $45,372) and the Budget for the project would have been$219,330. ($173,958 + $45,372 = $219,330).
Typically when we have multiple projects in progress, we budget for one superintendent for every 4 to 6projects depending on the distance between projects and the amount of time required to travelbetween projects. Had the budget for their project included a part-time superintendent, it would haveadded $9,074 to their budget. (22 weeks x 8 hours per week = 176 hours @ $41.58 / hour = $7,318 x1.24= $9,074) and the Budget for the project would have been $183,032. ($173,958 + $9,074 = $183,032)I was personally responsible for overseeing the construction. As noted previously, my office is located1.4 miles from the [redacted]’s or approximately 4 minutes away. While I did not check in with the[redacted]’s every time I visited the site, I personally visited and inspected the project at least onceevery day at the end of the day to inspect the work that had been done and insure that the project wassecured for the evening. I was on site in 5 minutes or less when there was a question or situation that needed my immediate attention. The trade contractors and suppliers were instructed to call me if theyhad any questions or encountered any problems.CMC should also refund …. a portion of the project cost equivalent to the areas on the floor plan thatwere never built.
I response the [redacted]’s request that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. refund a portion of the projectcost equivalent to the areas on the floor plan that were never built, it is assumed that they are referringto the attic storage areas which were previously addressed. As noted previously, the attic storage areawas added to the plans at the [redacted]’s request on 11/05/2015. The attic storage as drawnconsisted of an OSB floor open to the rest of the attic. A comparison of the Budget Estimate vs. thePreliminary Cost Estimate (Exhibit J) shows that the only change in the cost of Framing was the additionof $718 to Account 143-2102 – Framing Material which reflected updated unit prices on several itemsand was unrelated to the addition of the attic storage. It was assumed that the attic storage could beconstructed using surplus material and cut-offs from the rest of the construction. Consequently, there isnothing to be refunded.
Chuck Miller Construction should immediately pay all sub-contractors whose work he has been paidfor.Finally, in response to the [redacted]’s assertion that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. should immediatelypay all sub-contractors whose work he has been paid for, all monies received to date from the[redacted]’s have been paid out. The cost of several items, including stucco and drywall exceeded thebudgeted amount. As noted previously, costs in excess of the Budget Estimate are to be paid out of theGeneral and Administrative Expense. Any amounts due trade contractors over and above the BudgetEstimate will be paid when the [redacted]’s make their final payment to Chuck Miller Construction Inc.

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE INFORMATIONCustomer Information: [redacted] Daytime Phone: [redacted] Evening Phone: [redacted] E-mail: [redacted]The details of this matter are as follows: Complaint Involves: Product IssuesCustomer’s Statement of the Problem:
CMC was contracted to build a second story addition on our home. The builderfailed to complete the job in a timely fashion going three months past theprojected/scheduled date of completion.
In response to the [redacted]’s allegation that we failed to complete the job in atimely fashion, we do not dispute the fact that the job took three (3) monthslonger than originally projected.The job was never completed. We have had to hire an alternate contractor tofinish and repair work done on this job.The job was 98.02% complete when the [redacted]’s ordered us off the job andterminated our contract. Chuck Miller Construction was willing to complete the final2% along with any legitimate punch list items. The [redacted]’s CHOSE to hireanother contractor.
It should be noted that the alternate contractor whom they hired is not registered withthe Idaho Board of Contractors in violation of §54-5204 (1) of the Idaho Code. In fact,his registration was revoked by the Idaho Contractors Board on 11/13/2008. Mrs.[redacted] was made aware of this fact during construction when she inquired abouthiring this individual to replace Mark S[redacted].
The [redacted]’s contacted Chuck Miller Construction Inc. in May 2014 to discussadding a 2nd floor to their existing home. They had had a conceptual planprepared by a draftsman. Chuck Miller Construction Inc. forwarded the[redacted]’s a Design-Build Remodel Agreement on 08/04/2014 for their review.
After not having heard from them, Chuck Miller Construction Inc followed up withthe [redacted]’s on 02/10/2015 to see if they were still interested in proceeding. Chuck Miller Construction Inc. provided the [redacted]’s with conceptual plans on02/16/2015. They were provided with another copy of Design-Build RemodelAgreement on 02/17/2015. Preliminary plans were provided on August 7, 2016.The Preliminary Estimate was provided on 08/24/2015. The Electrical Plan wasforwarded to them for their review on 10/16/2015. The [redacted]’s werepresented with “final” plans on November 7, 2015. They signed the Specificationson 11/17/2015. They signed the “final” plans on 12/03/2015.
The final plans specified and budgeted framing being done by Remodels Pluswhen in fact at that time it was known that the proprietor, Mark S[redacted], wasdisabled due to a broken hip and unable to climb ladders, scaffolding etc.Knowing that Mark was unable to complete the demolition and framing, CMCfailed to update the estimate to reflect that another framing company ([redacted]) would be completing the demolition and framing under differentcontractual terms and rates. Nor that they would be operating unsupervisedduring Chucks trips to Las Vegas and Chicago during the framing stages.My trip to Chicago was Wednesday September 30, 2015 through Sunday October 4,2015 before construction started. My trip to Las Vegas was Saturday January 16, 2016through Friday January 22, 2016. During those five (5) work days, the only workscheduled was the framing and the only subcontractor on the project was [redacted]Construction. During that time, I was available by phone and spoke with [redacted] onWednesday morning January 20th, Thursday afternoon January 21st, and Friday morningJanuary 22nd. I have attached copies of my Sprint bills for those dates.
As consumers we had no way of knowing that Chuck Miller had used estimatesfrom a sub that was not available on the budget. This change in labor resulted in[redacted] invoicing $4,000 over the total budgeted allowance for framing whenhe had only completed the upstairs and not the stairwell and downstairs showerthat remained. Chuck Miller then claimed this was also an “unexpected priceincrease due to unforeseen changes in the availability of trade contractors” andthen used the bulk of our contingency to pay for the overages in framing from[redacted] as well as another $6044.34 in framing charges when the stairwelland shower were framed. So in summary, after all the time that CMC spent onpreparing this budget and not to exceed bid, the framing for this project that wascalled out to cost $18,115 ended up actually costing $28,432.78. This is not anunforeseen or unexpected price increase this is something closer to fraud. IFChuck Miller had done his due diligence, he would have received a written bidfrom [redacted] construction and updated the budget to reflect this prior tosigning final papers.The Budget Estimate was based on a bid from Mark S[redacted] dba Remodels Plus. Markwas diagnosed with a staph infection in his hip in early October 20015. Chuck MillerConstruction Inc. first contacted [redacted] Construction on October 12, 2015. Markunderwent emergency hip replacement surgery on October 18, 2015. Chuck MillerConstruction Inc., provided [redacted] with a set of plans, and requested a written bidand copies of his insurance certificates. The contract with the [redacted]’s was signed on 12/3/15. I was in regular contact with [redacted] requesting his bid for the project. Ifinally emailed [redacted] Chuck Miller Construction Inc.’s estimates for the project toon 12/21/2015. Copies of the email and estimates are attached. Mr. [redacted] agreed toperform the work for the amounts shown on the estimates. [redacted] Constructionleft the job on 02/16/2016 to start another project. On 02/22/2016 Mr. [redacted]submitted his “final” invoice to Chuck Miller Construction Inc. Mr. [redacted], after verballyagreeing to the budget, decided that he needed to be paid on a time and material basisresulting in as additional $4,273.75 in cost for the work performed and excluding thework still to be completed.I have attached copies of my Sprint bills for the periods September 18, 2015 throughJanuary 17, 2016 showing the numerous phone conversations with [redacted].It is also noted that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. invoiced [redacted] Construction Inc.$3,282.50 for labor and materials to correct and complete the work he was paid toperform.The [redacted]’s were 5 months. The Agreement with the [redacted]’s (Exhibit A) stated in Paragraph 6.1:6.1 Remodeler will proceed with the Work and obtain inspection(s) andapproval(s) from the applicable building authority in a commercially expeditiousmanner, unless delayed by the unforeseen unavailability of necessary labor ormaterials, restricted access to the worksite, delays in communications withOwner, inclement weather, changes in the work, or causes beyond Remodeler'scontrol.Paragraph 6.2 further states 6.2 While Remodeler will, at all times, conscientiously proceed with the work,the Schedule is an estimate of the time to complete the Project and is only for thebenefit of Owner's general planning. The actual completion time is subject to thefactors identified in Paragraph 6.7 of this Agreement. Remodeler shall not beresponsible for any financing costs incurred by Owner due to delays in thecompletion of construction.Paragraph 6.7 states 6.7 If Remodeler is delayed at any time in the progress of the Project by any actor neglect of Owner or by any separate contractor employed by Owner, or bychanges ordered in the Project, or by labor disputes, fire, unusual delay intransportation, adverse weather conditions not reasonably anticipated,unavoidable casualties, or any causes beyond Remodeler's control, or a delay authorized by Owner pending arbitration, then the Date for SubstantialCompletion shall be extended by Change Order for the period of such delay. Causes beyond our control which contributed to the delay include but are notnecessarily limited to the following: Hidden Springs Town Design Review Board Approval 5 Calendar DaysCompletion of Structural Engineering Calculations 11 Calendar Days Drywall Hang 7 Calendar DaysIn addition to the above, the project has been delayed due to the unavailability oftrade contractors. I have attached a copy of a report recently published by theNational Association of Home Builders Housing Market Index: Special Questionson Labor and Subcontractors’ Availability (Exhibit B)I believe that some of the dates are incorrect here, however it has little bearingon the actual complaint. It is still our position that the majority of delays on thisjob were due to lack of management and failure to adequately supervise workdone by subcontractors under CMC. Mark S[redacted] was represented as havingworked with Chuck Miller Construction regularly over two decades and wasimplicitly trusted to be the onsite foreman in Chucks absence.Mark turned out to be one of the more unreliable tradesmen in terms of honoringthe schedule. Routinely failing to show up as scheduled and regularlyunderestimating the amount of time he would need to complete work. When thestairwell was finally framed in late after the electrician had re-routed severalcircuits, Mark failed to frame the wiring into the stairwell walls. The net resultbeing the electrician had to come out an additional time to move the wiring yetagain into the now existing stairwell framing. Due to these issues and more weasked Chuck about replacing Mark S[redacted] and were told that Chuck had no oneelse that could do the work, that firing Mark would be in essence firing Chuck.Mark was on the job more than any other trade contractor. Consequently, his presenceor absence was most noticeable. Mark, like all of the other tradesmen who worked onthe job, is an independent contractor. Independent contractors and employees are notthe same, and it's important to understand the difference. An Independent Contractor:• Operates under a business name• Has his/her own employees• Maintains a separate business checking account• Advertises his/her business' services• Invoices for work completed• Has more than one client• Has own tools and sets own hours• Keeps business records As stated previously, Chuck Miller Construction Inc.’s extent of the right to direct andcontrol independent contractors is limited.Specifically regarding the electrical wiring Mrs. [redacted] is referring to, Mark S[redacted] isnot an Electrician and the wiring required more than just “framing the wiring into thestairwell walls.”I stand by my statement that I had no one else I could call who would do the work thatMark was doing. Mrs. [redacted] suggested that I contact [redacted], but I explainedthat it is a violation of State law §54-5215 (2) (a) to engage any other contractor who isrequired by this chapter to be registered as a contractor unless such other contractorfurnishes satisfactory proof to the contractor that he is duly registered under theprovisions of this chapter as required by §54-5204 (2);The builder failed to be on site to adequately oversee work done bysubcontractors resulting in not only delays but incorrect or incomplete work. In response to the [redacted]’s allegation that I “failed to be on site to adequatelyoversee work done by subcontractors resulting in incorrect or incomplete work,”Chuck Miller Construction Inc.’s office is located 1.4 miles from the [redacted]’sor approximately 4 minutes away. (Exhibit C) While I might not have checked inwith the [redacted]’s every time I visited the site, I personally visited andinspected the project at least once every day at the end of the day to inspect thework and insure that the project was secured for the evening. I was on site in 5minutes or less when there was a question or situation that needed myimmediate attention. The trade contractors and suppliers were instructed to call me if they had any questions or encountered any problems.The fact that Chuck lives and has an office 4min away is exactly why we were sofrustrated with the problems that resulted from him not being available. If he wason site every work day and available by phone for subcontractors then why didwe fail 3 framing inspections. On the third failure, I believe it was 4/5/16, theinspector showed up to the jobsite, Chuck was not on site, the inspector informedme that he had called Chuck with no answer and left him two voicemails. He alsoexplained to me that we still were not going to pass framing inspection. I myselftried calling Chuck and got no answer. At this point I decided to drive over to hisoffice and was surprised to find he was sitting in his office at his desk and had noexplanation to why he was not answering his phone. This is one of manyinstances that Chuck was not available.The inspection Mrs. [redacted] is referring to did occur on 04/05/16. The request forthat inspection was submitted on 04/04/16. A copy of the inspection request isattached. You will note that the request contains my cell phone number 571-0755 as thenumber to call if the inspector has any questions. The inspector, Bryan G[redacted] phonenumber is 573-3874. Contrary to Mrs. [redacted]’s statement regarding the inspector’s attempts to contact me, I did not receive any phone calls or voice messages from Mr.G[redacted]. I have attached a copy of my cell phone bill showing incoming and outgoingcalls on 04/05/16. You will note that there were no incoming calls from 573-3874 onthat day but that I did attempt to call Bryan at 5:17 PM.Prior to starting this project, we asked CMC is it reasonable for us to live in ourhome during this construction since my husband works from home and heassured us it would not be a problem. Due to his lack of management weendured constant interruptions from subcontractors with questions because theycouldn’t get ahold of Chuck and many times there were not adequate plans onthe jobsite. We even provided our own copies of the plans to workers in anattempt to keep work going. I did not expect Chuck to meet with us or “check in”with us daily, however parking your car in front of our home for 10min everymorning and evening is not managing the job. We also had an instance when outof town, that our neighbors came by to find the front door ajar and no one on site.Chuck was being paid to make sure that the work was being completed correctly,he himself should have been personally reviewing the work being done to ensurethat it was done per the plans and design agreement. Instead it was often myselfor my husband coming across incorrect or unacceptable work, such as:Specifically regarding the “constant interruptions from subcontractors with questionsbecause they couldn’t get ahold of Chuck and many times there were not adequate planson the jobsite,” the approved permit plans were on the job and Chuck Miller Constructionprovided additional sets to the trade contractors as needed. As stated, I was availableby phone when not on the job and all of the trade contractors had my phone numbers.While some of their employees might not have had my phone numbers, the [redacted]’sdid and could have simply directed the tradesmen to call me.Rather than refer tradesmen to me or contact me directly when there was a question,Mr. [redacted] CHOSE to communicate directly with the trade contractors in violation ofParagraph 4.9 and 5.5 of our Agreement:4.9 Owner shall forward all instructions to Remodeler. Owner shall not communicatedirectly with any workman, employees, agents or trade contractors of Remodeler,unless so directed by Remodeler.5.5 No contractual relationship shall exist between Owner and any trade contractoror supplier. Remodeler shall be responsible for the management of the tradecontractors in the performance of their Work. Owner shall communicate with thetrade contractors only through Remodeler.In fact, my subcontractors actually complained to me about Mr. [redacted]’s frequentphone calls and at least one eventually blocked his phone number. -during demolition too much of the roofing on the northside of our home wasremoved and had to be repaired,And it was repaired at no cost to the [redacted]’s.-storage space was never framed in and according to the framer CMC nevereven discussed this with them,The storage space was shown on the plans provided to [redacted] Construction and onthe approved permit plans which were on the jobsite. It was also discussed with Mr.[redacted] during the framing.-HVAC units being installed in skylight framing,The skylights had not been installed at the time the HVAC units were installed due tochanges in the skylights by the [redacted]’s which delayed their ordering and delivery. Iarrived on the jobsite as the HVAC contractor was installing the units and the conflictswere resolved.-incorrect lighting & fans installed,-flooring was installed in areas it shouldn’t have been and had to be removed,I believe the flooring Mrs. [redacted] is referring to was the cork flooring of whichapproximately 15 sq. ft. was installed in the tub/shower area of the Upstairs Bath. Mrs.[redacted] worked directly with the flooring contractor on material selections. I was notaware that the flooring in this area had been changed to tile. The error was correctedthe same day it was discovered and the [redacted]’s were not charged for the materialor the labor.-wiring wasn’t framed in properly and had to be redone resulting in delays andincurring more costs,Wiring is done by the electrician AFTER framing. I assume the wiring she is referring to isthe wiring in the stairway which was discussed previously. Chuck Miller Construction Inc.is unaware of any additional costs incurred by the [redacted]’s for this work.-tarping during demolition was inadequate and resulted in significant waterinfiltration-a $400 laundry room sink which had been called out to be reused in the project“disappeared” and no one bothered to tell us what had happened, uponquestioning CMC claims the sink was damaged during demo and hauled away,why no one bothered to tell us or show us? No replacement was offered The existing Elkay Asana Asana® Undermount Single Bowl Sink Model ELUH16LVLavatory with Overflows Utility Room sink was not installed by the original installeraccording to the manufacturer’s recommendations using mounting brackets and siliconecaulk. Refer to the attached manufacturer’s installation instructions. Instead, it wasepoxied to the bottom of the existing countertop and we were unable to remove itwithout damaging it. The plans and specifications called for the sink to be repurposedfor the sink in the new upstairs Utility Room. That same model sink was specified forthe new upstairs bath vanity. As noted in the attached Plumbing Fixture list, the cost ofthat sink was $276.10. Chuck Miller Construction Inc. provided an Elkay CrosstownUndermount Stainless Steel 13.5 in. Single Bowl Sink for the new upstairs Utility Room atno cost to the [redacted]’s.-existing bathroom sink was damaged and again no explanation given, no repairor replacement offeredChuck Miller Construction Inc. became aware of the damage to the sink after it occurred.We questioned all of the trade contractors working in the bath room and all deniedresponsibility. Chuck Miller Construction Inc. was ordered off of the job and our contractwas terminated before we could order and install a replacement sink.-allowing mosaic tile work to be installed and then leaving it without cleaning itproperly so that the grout settled into the surface which is impossible to removefrom crevices after 24hrs-numerous items that went missing from the jobsite including extension cords,lighting that was to be reused, and accessory kit from installed fan, supposedexcess materials were removed and disposed of only to later find out more of thesame materials were needed and ordered at additional cost.Chuck Miller Construction Inc. would appreciate it if the [redacted]’s would provide a listof the “numerous” items that when missing. Chuck Miller Construction Inc. is unawareof any additional costs incurred by the [redacted]’s.-despite our repeated complaints, subs would continue to wash out their bucketsinto our landscaping and rain diverters which has resulted in necessary repairs,Please provide additional information on the “necessary repairs”-despite having and paying for a port-a-potty on site our master bathroom (whichwas not part of the project) was used by workers and family member, trackingconstruction debris through our homeThis occurred once when Mark S[redacted] wife was on site. -Our landscaping and driveway were littered with construction debris includingstucco, nails, roof tacks and more that were not cleaned upI personally oversaw the final cleaning on the driveway and surrounding area on FridayJuly 8th.-Landscaping was damaged by subs including but not limited to plants beingtrampled, limbs being broken off a tree by a trailer, and bushes killed byscaffolding that was left in place for months due to work delays,Chuck Miller Construction Inc. is unaware of any bushes killed by scaffolding. The[redacted]’s were told that any damage to their landscaping would be repaired orreplaced upon completion of the work. Chuck Miller Construction Inc. was ordered offthe job and our contract terminated before we had an opportunity to do so.-despite numerous complaints, our gates were left open repeatedly allowing ourdogs to get loose and run the risk of being lost or hit by carsChuck Miller Construction Inc. repeatedly directed our trade contractors to be sure toclose the gates. If he was concerned and aware of the problem, perhaps Mr. [redacted]could have checked the gates before letting the dogs out.I could go on and on with examples of things that the general contractor shouldhave been taking care of. If Chuck was on site as much as he claims then thesethings would not have occurred.The builder included a storage area in the second floor addition but failed to haveit framed in and it was never completed. While under contract, multiple issueswere brought to CMC including damage from construction to our existing homeas well as several areas in the new construction that were not acceptable.The attic storage area was added to the plans at the [redacted]’s request on11/05/2015. As shown on the plans and specifically, Sht A-3.1 Section B, thisattic storage area was to be an extension of the new floor framing into the attic.The storage area consisted of an OSB floor open to the attic. The plans wereforwarded to the structural engineer on Tuesday December 10, 2015. Asexplained to the [redacted]’s, the structural engineer determined that the existingtrusses would not support the cantilevered floor structure. The webs in theexisting trusses would need to remain making the area virtually unusable so wewere unable to provide the storage as drawn. I have attached a copy of Sht A-3.1 (Exhibit D) and the structural engineer’s drawings and calculations for thetrusses in question. (Exhibits E) During the planning and design phases, CMC had proposed adding built instorage along the south wall of the addition. When the time came to review thefinal documents nothing was included about the storage area, so yes, we at thattime asked that he put them on the plan or in the design documents so that itwasn’t just a verbal agreement that this was to be included in the plan, (I will notethat he also had verbally assured us that the built in storage under the stairs wasincluded in the framing costs and later went back on that also). It wasn’t untilafter final design documents were signed that he asked his structural engineerabout doing this. Chuck should not have said the storage area could be includedif he had not done his due diligence. I believe that once again he overpromisedwhat he could deliver because he knew that I was questioning the cost of theproject vs the value and storage was important to us. Beyond that, it wasn’t untilFebruary, when the framers were close to completing framing the addition thatwe started questioning why the storage space was not framed in and, [redacted], informed us that CMC had not talked to him about any storage space. Atthat point Chuck said he still needed to get an answer from his engineer anddidn’t give us any final answer about the storage space until 5/28/16 (well beyondthe original completion date) after asking him repeatedly.CMC failed to remedy these issues and was not advocating for us as thehomeowner. Instead it is our belief that CMC was willfully attempting to pass offsubpar work in an attempt to collect payment regardless of the potentialproblems that would stem from the bad work.In response to the [redacted]’s allegation that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. was“willfully attempting to pass off subpar work...,” all of the work was done inaccordance with the applicable building codes and standards as referenced inthe Codes and Standards section of the Outline Specifications of our Agreement.The work was inspected and approved by the Ada County Development ServicesBuilding Division inspectors (Exhibit F), as well as by our structural engineer.(Exhibit G) The plumbing and electrical work were inspected and approved byinspectors from the Idaho Division of Building Safety. All of the work wascompleted in accordance with the Residential Construction PerformanceGuidelines for Professional Builders and Remodelers Fourth Edition published bythe National Association of Home Builders.We believe that Chuck Miller failed to have a permit pulled for the HVAC workcompleted by Western Heating. We also have been informed that neither AdaCounty or Idaho Division of Building Safety ever inspected the venting for thetankless water heater that was installed. The venting does not meet code and thewater heater is faulting due to the improper ventilation. In response to their allegation that neither Chuck Miller Construction Inc. nor WesternHeating and Air Conditioning Inc. applied for a mechanical permit to install the HVACsystem, Ada County Development Services Building Division and not the Idaho Divisionof Building Safety has jurisdiction over mechanical permits and inspections inunincorporated Ada County. Typically, the mechanical permit is issued to the builderwith the building permit. I have attached copies of the following documents:• Building Permit Application• Building Permit (2 pages)Our permit application included a copy of the Outline Specifications for the projectwhich clearly spelled out the HVAC Equipment being furnished and installed.You will note that the Building Permit includes a Mechanical Fee in addition to thePermit Fee. You will also note that the Permit Card included the following InspectionTypes• Gas Fuel Piping 1• Rough Mechanical• Final MechanicalI response to your allegation that neither Chuck Miller Construction Inc. nor WesternHeating and Air Conditioning Inc. ever asked Ada County Development Services toinspect the installation is totally without merit. I have attached copies of ourInspection Request Forms• Ada County Building Inspection Request 03/25/2016 – Gas Piping, EnergyCompliance• Ada County Building Inspection Request 03/16/2016 – Mechanical Rough,Framing• Ada County Building Inspection Request 04/05/2016 – Gas Piping, MechanicalRough, Framing, Energy Compliance• Ada County Building Inspection Request 07/12/2016 – Mechanical Final, FinalYou will note that mechanical inspections were requested on all of the attachedinspection requests.Specifically regarding the venting of the Rinnai tankless water heater, the venting wasinspected and approved and complies with the manufacturer’s specifications andinstallation instructions. Copies of the manufacturer’s installation instructions areattached. In response to the [redacted]’s allegation that Chuck Miller Construction Inc.was “willfully attempting to pass off subpar work in an attempt to collect paymentregardless of the potential problems that would stem from the bad work,” ourAgreement included a detailed Budget Estimate providing a line item by line itemcost breakdown. Our monthly Payment Requests were formatted similar to theBudget Estimate. Payments were addressed in Paragraph 11.3 of ourAgreement, and specifically, in the following sub-paragraphs:  11.3.2 On or before the fifth day of each month, Remodeler will submit to Owneror Owner’s agent a Payment Request for the work performed and the materialsdelivered to the site or stored “offsite” at a location approved by Owner since thedate of the preceding request for payment. 11.3.3 Owner or Owner’s agent shall, within three (3) business days after receiptof Remodeler's Payment Request, either authorize the Payment Request, ornotify Remodeler in writing the amount that has been approved for payment andstating the reasons for withholding payment in whole or part. 11.5 If Owner fails to timely make any progress payment pursuant to the timelimitations of this Agreement, Remodeler may stop work until the dispute isresolved. Similarly, if Owner is unsatisfied with Remodeler's work, Owner maystop further payments until the dispute is resolved. The purpose of this section isto permit Owner to stop payments if Owner is unsatisfied with the progress ofconstruction, and similarly permit Remodeler to stop work if Remodeler isunsatisfied with Owner's payments, partial payments or withholding of payments.Should Owner elect to stop payment because he is unsatisfied with Remodeler'swork or should Remodeler elect to stop work, they shall immediately notify theother party in writing explaining the nature of their dispute. During thework/payment stoppage period, Remodeler and Owner shall diligently seek toresolve the dispute so that work and payment can expeditiously resume.Unresolved disputes will be handled pursuant to Article 19, unless the partiesmutually agree otherwise. Regardless of which party is ultimately determined tohave rightly or wrongly stopped work or stopped payment, each party waives anyclaim for damages or additional construction or financing costs, if any, directly orindirectly associated with the stoppage of the project during this disputeresolution period. If the [redacted]’s were dissatisfied with the quality of the work, they had theopportunity each month to withhold payment on any portion of the work whichthey felt was “subpar.” I have attached copies of our monthly Payment Requests.As previously stated, we were continuously assured by CMC any time that wepointed out something not being done correctly or questioning the quality ofsomething that it wasn’t finished yet and that once it was done it would be good.If we withheld payment on things that we were questioning it also gave CMC theright to stop work, which is the last thing we needed given the delays that hadalready accumulated. In short, we were told it wasn’t worth holding up the projectas all these issues would be “circled back to” before the final walk thru as part ofthe punch list.I never told the [redacted]’s that “it wasn’t worth holding up the project.” The[redacted]’s order us off of the job and terminated our contract before we were giventhe opportunity to conduct our Pre-Occupancy Inspection and generate a punch list asprovided in Paragraph 11.8.2 of our Agreement. Even when CMC was provided a two week drop dead deadline items that hadrepeatedly been called out to “circle back to” were still left unaddressed.Work was still ongoing during the two weeks prior to the arbitrary deadline of July 8,2016 imposed by the [redacted]’s to have all work completed, obtain all necessaryapprovals and occupancy permits, and all punch list items on the residence completedand our company, crews, and subcontractors completely off the project. The schedulesfor the project always showed the Pre-Occupancy Inspection and Checklist following theFinal Inspection and Certificate of Occupancy. Finally, in response to the [redacted]’s allegation that Chuck Miller ConstructionInc. was “willfully attempting to pass off subpar work in an attempt to collectpayment regardless of the potential problems that would stem from the badwork,” Chuck Miller Construction Inc. was contractually obligated underParagraph 3.7.4 of our Agreement to correct all Work performed under theAgreement which proves to be defective in material or workmanship for a periodof one year. It would not be in our best interest to attempt to pass of subpar workbecause of the potential problems that might arise and which we would beobligated to correct in the future. In response to [redacted]’s allegation regarding the damage to the existing roofshingles, Chuck Miller Construction Inc. never denied repair was needed. Thissection of roof was used to access the second floor from the exterior of thebuilding until July 7, 2016 when the exterior railing was installed. In fact, Icontacted [redacted] of Quality Roofing, our roofing contractor, after the railingswere installed and asked him to inspect that section of roofing. We were notpermitted to make these repairs because we were directed by the [redacted]’s tonot return to the project after Friday July 8, 2016.This is untrue, we asked Chuck multiple times about the roofing being inspected.Initially he said, yes, he would have it inspected and any necessary repairsmade. After the balcony was constructed we asked again when the roofing wouldbe repaired and were then told by Chuck that he had the roofing looked at andwas told it was fine and in good condition and no repairs were necessary.Installing the railings had no bearing on repairing the roofing along the balcony.We had to have an end date at some point. Had we allowed CMC all the time heneeded to get his subcontractors to show up to do work, and then come back tore-do the work that inevitably would have been wrong, the project would neverhave ended.As stated in response to their original complaint, I never told the [redacted]’s that Ihad had the roofing looked at and was told it was fine and in good condition or that norepairs were necessary. The deck construction was completed on July 6, 2016.Installing the railings DID have a bearing on repairing the roofing along the balcony. Until the railings were installed, there was still the possibility of work and foot trafficon that portion of the roof. As noted previously, I called [redacted] of Quality Roofingon 07/07/16 at 9:29 AM to ask him to inspect the roofing. The [redacted]’s allegation that there was no flashing installed under the newbalcony that was added by Chuck Miller Construction Inc. leaving raw lumber upagainst the roofline which if not fixed would have led to water damage and rotthis is simply not true. The exterior deck was constructed according to bestpractices. The deck was sloped to drain to the front of the building and coveredwith torch down roofing. The intersection of the deck and interior walls of thebalcony were flashed with metal. The torch down roofing was then applied overthe metal flashing. One the front edge of the deck which is open to the roof, themetal flashing was extended onto the existing roofing and torch down wasapplied over the flashing. Redwood sleepers were attached to the torch downroofing to provide support for fastening the composite decking. Redwood wasused because it is resistant to rot [sic]See pictures in attatchment.Quoting [redacted], the replacement builder:“The portion of the deck that extends in front of the upper wall wasnot flashed. Water coming down from the entry roof along theupper wall was directed under the front deck boards. A kick-outflashing has been added at this point to divert water away and ontothe lower roof.“Quality roofing stopped by last week and agreed that this was theright procedure. In their defense, Quality said that when they didthe roofing, the deck was not finished and there was nothing toflash to, only a rafter tail was exposed at the time and that theyweren’t called back to finished it.” The deck construction was completed on July 6, 2016. I called [redacted] of [redacted]Roofing on 07/07/16 at 9:29 AM to ask him to inspect the roofing. I have attached acopy of the phone bill documenting this call.
As noted previously, [redacted] is not a registered contractor. His registration wasrevoked by the Idaho Contractors Board on 11/13/2008.This is just one of many examples as we are still working on suspected HVACproblems and numerous others! 
Due to the ongoing problems and inability of the builder to stick to a scheduleand complete the work in a timely fashion, we were forced to terminate thecontract and hire another general contractor to finish the remodel, costing usadditional money and time.
Currently, there are multiple sub-contractors that have not been paid that CMCwas already paid for but refuses to release payment to. Complaint Background: Product/Service: Second Story Addition Purchase Date: 12/2/2015 Problem Occurred: 2/19/2016 Model: Account Number: Order Number: Talked to Company: 2/19/2016 Talked to Company (2nd): 3/3/2016 Talked to Company (3rd): 4/6/2016 Name of Salesperson: Purchase Price: $180000.00 Disputed Amount: $0.00 Desired Settlement: Other (requires explanation)
 At this point we have lost faith in CMCs ability to correctly repair any of the workthat we have found issues with. We have been forced to hire a replacementcontractor. Chuck Miller Construction should immediately pay all sub-contractorswhose work he has been paid for.
CMC should also refund the charges associated with management and oversightof the project, as well as a portion of the project cost equivalent to the areas onthe floor plan that were never built.
 In response to the [redacted]’s request that Chuck Miller Construction Inc.refund the charges associated with management and oversight of the project,Chuck Miller Construction Inc.’s mark-up of the costs associated with the[redacted]’s project totaled $29,449. These mark-ups were detailed in the BudgetEstimate as follows: General and Administrative Expenses Salaries & Benefits 7,011 5.00% of Cost Office Expense 3,856 2.75% of Cost Vehicle, Travel, Meeting Expense 3,506 2.50% of Cost Taxes 2,454 1.75% of Cost  Insurance 2,104 1.50% of Cost Safety Expense 1,403 1.00% of Cost Professional Fees 2,104 1.50% of Cost Profit 7,011 5.00% of CostThe General and Administrative Expenses were further described in Paragraph3.7.10 of the Agreement and included• Salaries or other compensation of Remodeler's employees at the principaloffice, including payroll taxes, insurance, and employee benefit?ts• General operating expenses or overhead of Remodeler's principal office,including but not limited to rent, utilities, telephone, office supplies, postage,computer expenses, repairs and maintenance; vehicle, travel and meetingexpenses; taxes; insurance; safety expense; and professional fees, except asmay be expressly included in Article 9.• Any part of Remodeler's capital expenses, including interest on that capitalemployed for the Project.• Costs in excess of the Budget Estimate, except as provided in Paragraph 7.4and provided such costs are not the result of Changes in the Project as definedin Article 8.
The [redacted]’s were not charged for full-time supervision. Superintendentsalaries and related costs are classified as Indirect Construction Costs, i.e.necessary costs of building that cannot be directly, easily, or economicallyattributed to a specific job. Indirect Construction Costs are recorded within the144 Series of accounts. IRS and GAAP generally require that a proportionalshare of indirect construction costs be allocated to each job. When included inthe budget, the cost of a construction superintendent, the Budget Estimateincludes an Indirect Construction Cost category. Had their Budget includedSuperintendent Salaries and related costs, the Budget Estimate would haveincluded an Indirect Construction Cost Category and line items for Accounts 144-0211 Superintendent Salaries, 144- 1820 Mileage Reimbursement, and 144-2013 Superintendent Cell Phone. See the attached blank Budget Estimate.(Exhibit I)
The Median Hourly Wage for a residential construction superintendent in Boise is$33.65. Payroll Taxes and Insurance add $7.93, bringing the cost to $41.58. Theoriginal schedule for the [redacted]’s project anticipated 22 weeks or 880 hours.Had the budget for their project included a full-time superintendent, it would haveadded $45,372 to their budget (22 weeks x 40 hours per week = 880 hours @$41.58 / hour = $36,590 x 1.24 = $45,372) and the Budget for the project wouldhave been $219,330. ($173,958 + $45,372 = $219,330).
Typically when we have multiple projects in progress, we budget for onesuperintendent for every 4 to 6 projects depending on the distance betweenprojects and the amount of time required to travel between projects. Had the budget for their project included a part-time superintendent, it would have added$9,074 to their budget. (22 weeks x 8 hours per week = 176 hours @ $41.58 /hour = $7,318 x1.24 = $9,074) and the Budget for the project would have been$183,032. ($173,958 + $9,074 = $183,032)
I was personally responsible for overseeing the construction. As notedpreviously, my office is located 1.4 miles from the [redacted]’s or approximately 4minutes away. While I did not check in with the [redacted]’s every time I visitedthe site, I personally visited and inspected the project at least once every day atthe end of the day to inspect the work that had been done and insure that theproject was secured for the evening. I was on site in 5 minutes or less whenthere was a question or situation that needed my immediate attention. The tradecontractors and suppliers were instructed to call me if they had any questions orencountered any problems.
Lost productivity, redo’s, sending incorrect delivered materials back forreplacement, pilfered building supplies, etc. resultant from the lack of adequatesupervision (full-time or part-time) indicate that the lack of supervision was afalse economy.
Our contention is that even the cost of part time supervision would havemitigated the exhaustion of our ample contingency fund.CMC should also refund .... a portion of the project cost equivalent to the areason the floor plan that were never built.
I response the [redacted]’s request that Chuck Miller Construction Inc. refund aportion of the project cost equivalent to the areas on the floor plan that werenever built, it is assumed that they are referring to the attic storage areas whichwere previously addressed. As noted previously, the attic storage area wasadded to the plans at the [redacted]’s request on 11/05/2015. The attic storageas drawn consisted of an OSB floor open to the rest of the attic. A comparison ofthe Budget Estimate vs. the Preliminary Cost Estimate (Exhibit J) shows that theonly change in the cost of Framing was the addition of $718 to Account 143-2102– Framing Material which reflected updated unit prices on several items and wasunrelated to the addition of the attic storage. It was assumed that the atticstorage could be constructed using surplus material and cut-offs from the rest ofthe construction. Consequently, there is nothing to be refunded.The monetary cost of the framing supplies does not equate the value in utility norresale cost of the house that would have been realized by completing the atticstorage space. The above is a red herring.Chuck Miller Construction should immediately pay all sub-contractors whosework he has been paid for. 
Finally, in response to the [redacted]’s assertion that Chuck Miller ConstructionInc. should immediately pay all sub-contractors whose work he has been paidfor, all monies received to date from the [redacted]’s have been paid out. Thecost of several items, including stucco and drywall exceeded the budgetedamount. As noted previously, costs in excess of the Budget Estimate are to bepaid out of the General and Administrative Expense. Any amounts due tradecontractors over and above the Budget Estimate will be paid when the[redacted]’s make their final payment to Chuck Miller Construction Inc.
The rather generous contingency fund was allocated to cover such issues: thatmismanagement caused it to be squandered on framing due to an improperlynegotiated contract is not our responsibility. Costs above and beyond what thecontingency fund should reasonably have covered (and several charges againstthis fund were neither “reasonable” nor “unforeseeable”) are solely CMC’s tobear.
The “rather generous contingency fund” was actually at the low end of the 10% to 20%recommended for remodeling projects.Several costs associated with drywalling and stucco resulted from incompetentworkers being brought on site and subsequent contractors having to redo thesame work. The selection of vetted crews was one of the services for which wewere supposedly paying CMC for its expertise.
Chuck Miller Construction Inc. is unaware of additional costs to the [redacted]’s resulting“from incompetent workers being brought on site and subsequent contractors having toredo the same work.” With the exception of Timeless Tile, all of the subcontractorsemployed by Chuck Miller Construction Inc. were contractors who have worked for uspreviously. However, most trade contractors like the drywall contractors have multiplecrews and the crew which is assigned to your project depends on who is available whenthe project is ready.
We have reached out to CMC several times asking for transparency in what thecosts were and which contractors still need to be paid but CMC has not beenforthcoming is passing through the invoicing they’ve received.
The [redacted]’s, through their attorney, requested copies of receipts, payments, invoicesfor subcontractors, suppliers, materialmen etc. for the entire span of the project. The[redacted]’s have been provided with copies of all of our previous monthly paymentrequests and change orders. Our Design-Build Agreement with the [redacted]’s is a fixedprice contract. The amounts due and payable for each item were set forth in the BudgetEstimate dated 11/30/2015 and in each of the change orders. There is nothing in ourAgreement which gives the [redacted]’s the right to nor obligates Chuck MillerConstruction Inc. to provide the [redacted]’s copies of receipts, payments, invoices forsubcontractors, suppliers, materialmen etc. 
The [redacted]’s have been provided with a written disclosure statement pursuant toIdaho Code § 45-525(3) listing the names and contacting information of subcontractors,materialmen, and/or rental equipment suppliers which had a direct contractualrelationship with Chuck Miller Construction Inc. and supplied labor, materials, or rentalequipment of a value in excess of $500 in connection with the work performed on theirproject. The [redacted]’s have also been provided with a copy of a form with which theyrequest information concerning the balance owed by Chuck Miller Construction Inc. onsuppliers in connection with the construction of improvements on the their property.