H.K. Construction Corp.

The contract signed on 6/14/included the scope of work of a deck renovation, railing replacement, elastomeric coatings, replacing rotten members, and replacing a CMU structural column and gussets.The original work was completed according to contract The subsequent work relating to re-doing the coating was covered under our warranty work for the initial construction contract The deck was redone and is complete.The existing work to be done is a cosmetic repair due to rain when the elastomeric coating was applied With due diligence our subcontractor tried to return several times to correct the coating but was delayed by rain or other circumstances.Due to this we at HK tried to look for another sub-contractor to redo the coating, unfortunately we have not been able to secure a licensed, reputable contractor qualified to apply this type of coating that is available and willing to do the job.We have offered to bring back our original sub-contractor, but our client is reluctant We do understand the length of time elapsed is frustrating to our clients, but in no means have we made excuses or put them at the bottom of our customer list Our clients are always at the forefront of our thoughts and we try our best to make sure our projects are completed with excellence and with client satisfaction in mind.We are willing to complete the minor cosmetic corrections with our previous sub-contractor as no other contractor is available at this time

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is reluctantly satisfactory to me.       The contract signed 6/14/2013 is as described by HK Construction. What they fail to include is:      1. Our deck is approximately 12'X50', is three stories up, made of [redacted] wood with waterproof coating and serves as a roof to two floors below.      2. Upon stripping the original waterproof coating on our deck, rotted areas of [redacted] were discovered. HK Constr repaired these areas with [redacted] thinner (but largest available on the market) than our original [redacted].      3. To avoid dips between the difference in size of the old [redacted] with the new [redacted] and to eliminate cupping of water that [redacted] creates, HK Constr suggested 1/4" plywood be laid on top of the [redacted] and then the waterproof coating applied.      4. Trusting their experience, we agreed.      5. The 1/4" plywood proved to be inadequate and a "spongy", "weak" feeling underfoot at most seams was created.      6. HK Constr agreed this wasn't the best decision and offered three choices to fix this problem.      7. We chose one of their choices and signed an addendum to the original contract and paid an additional $5,330 for the fix. This was executed and paid for in 9/2014 (over 1 year from the original 120-day contract).      8. 3/4" plywood was used and was acceptable as the fix. The subcontractor, however, did poorly with the finish waterproof coating--some imperfections caused by rain but most caused by poor workmanship. This was in 11/2014.      9. Since 11/2014, it has been a nightmare of patiently waiting and waiting and hearing excuses the subcontractor wasn't cooperating with HK and that HK was seeking a new subcontractor and couldn't find one willing to do the job.      10. Finally after waiting 8 additional months after the 3/4" plywood was installed (and over 2 years from the initial signing of the 120-day contract), we contacted the Revdex.com.      11. All we want and have ever wanted is our deck completed and the walk-through on the other work completed. How long is a customer supposed to wait. Our patience finally ran out. I hope the future doesn't mirror the past and that HK completes their work without further delay. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

The contract signed on 6/14/2013 included the scope of work of a deck renovation, railing replacement, elastomeric coatings, replacing rotten members, and replacing a CMU structural column and gussets.The original work was completed according to contract.   The subsequent work relating to...

re-doing the coating was covered under our warranty work for the initial construction contract.  The deck was redone and is complete.The existing work to be done is a cosmetic repair due to rain when the elastomeric coating was applied.  With due diligence our subcontractor tried to return several times to correct the coating but was delayed by rain or other circumstances.Due to this we at HK tried to look for another sub-contractor to redo the coating, unfortunately we have not been able to secure a licensed, reputable contractor qualified to apply this type of coating that is available and willing to do the job.We have offered to bring back our original sub-contractor, but our client is reluctant.  We do understand the length of time elapsed is frustrating to our clients, but in no means have we made excuses or put them at the bottom of our customer list.  Our clients are always at the forefront of our thoughts and we try our best to make sure our projects are completed with excellence and with client satisfaction in mind.We are willing to complete the minor cosmetic corrections with our previous sub-contractor as no other contractor is available at this time.