Sign in

Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling, LLC

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling, LLC? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling, LLC

Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling, LLC Reviews (2)

Kiefer-Randall's response to Mrs***'s follcomplaint is attachedIn response to Mrs***’s rejection to Kiefer-Randall’s response to her initial complaint (ID:***5), the following response is submitted: We take issue with Mrs***’s accusation of substandard work performed by Kiefer-RandallIt is categorically and now bordering on defamation of character and libelAs stated in our initial response, we have not attained our highly respected standings and reputation in our field by performing substandard work or taking advantage of our customersWe have professional awards and hundreds of overly satisfied customers that negate that accusation, as well as the respect of all of our local Code Enforcement agencies
It was, and is not, Kiefer-Randall’s intention to malign Mrs***’s character by portraying her as “mentally challenged.” We take issue with that accusation as well. The direct observations and interactions of the Kiefer-Randall staff, architect, sub-contractors, and Code Enforcement officers with Mrs***, coupled with her behavior and forgetfulness after the build started made it necessary to bring up the unfortunate, but true, affects of her memory to accurately paint the picture of what transpiredAgain, all of the individuals listed above, who are not under Kiefer-Randall employ, experienced the same thing with Mrs*** to some degree and can be contacted separately to verifyThis situation is unfortunate, but we hold no ill will towards Mrs*** regarding her conditionKiefer-Randall reiterates and stands by our initial responseWe would additionally like to point out that since the initial response, we were allowed access to Mrs***’s home and ensured that her contracted-for-only electrical work is in Code Compliancy and have received the final inspection paperwork.
Mrs*** also called another meeting with the architect since her initial complaint, which we have been made aware ofThe meeting was a re-hashing of the window “issue” she mentionedThe architect even pointed out to her that our work order that she signed and authorized for the windows was professionally detailed and clearly understandable, and if she had an issue with the work order, why did she authorize and sign it, then wait so long to make an issue out of it (weeks after windows were actually installed)Mrs*** answered that she didn’t read itWhether she actually believes this or not, we cannot say, but she read it in the presence of MrKiefer, then signed and dated it
Mrs***’s follow up statement contains many hearsay type statements and opinions that simply are not true nor accurately reflect her dealings with Kiefer-Randall She simply made her initial unfounded accusations more wordy. Again, we stand by our initial response and reputationAfter all of this back and forth, the bottom line of her complaint is that she wants some simple warranty work done- which we would have happily completed had she contacted us amicably and requested itBut instead, she chose to smear a good company’s nameOur resolution offer is this:
We will make the adjustments to the doors, as that is part of warranty work when putting on an entire addition after settling occurs
The leaks in her walls were addressed at a previous meetingCode Enforcement determined that the leak she experienced was not Kiefer-Randall’s fault or responsibility, but from a drainage problem she herself caused by the routing of her drainage pipesAs previously explained, we, at no cost to her, and out of good faith, installed a downspout for her and rerouted her drain pipes in a manner that shed the water away from her house, instead of channeling it directly next to the foundation, as Mrs*** had itAs Mrs*** mentions herself, the basement floor was cleaned up previouslyAgain, there are no 4” gaps and the insulation in the basement has already passed Code CompliancyAs with all of our customers, it is our sincerest desire to fully satisfy Mrs***. But unlike the overwhelming majority of our customers, Mrs*** continues to malign us with an untrue account of our companyWe stand ready and willing to take care of the warranty work mentioned above in item one, but fear that even after that, she will just not be satisfied and will continue on her mission to defame our good reputation because she is not getting what she feels falsely entitled to Kiefer-Randall is a customer-satisfaction driven enterpriseWe know our reputation relies on making our customers happy and dealing with them honestly and honorably. That is how we built this business and earned our reputationWe are professional and respect our customersIt would be very easy to succumb to Mrs***’s allegations to make this all go away But by performing the extra work she declared she paid for and didn’t get in her initial complaint (now re-worded in her response with a new “understanding”) she still didn’t acknowledge that she was wrong to begin with and that our account was accurateHer misunderstanding and allegations has taken this complaint this far, and if one really pays attention to her complaints, they actually re-affirm our position by her accounts of the clean-up, electrical work, and windows that she herself confirmed. We contracted for specific workThat specific work was completed in a professional manner, despite her treatment of my staff, and passed by all applicable Code agencies through the myriad of required inspectionsIt has taken more man-hours to review and respond to these accusations than it would to actually complete the issues she’s brought upWhy then, wouldn’t we simply acquiesce and save all of this headache and lost time? Because if we do not take a stand against a consumer who thinks complaining to the Revdex.com with accusations will *** undeserved rewards now, then that opens the door for anyone who wants a handout just because we are a business who cares about our customers and our reputationTo be succinct, we, as a small business in New York State, must take a stand for what little rights we actually have when making an honest livingIn this case, that right is to not have our company’s reputation besmirched by one angry person without bringing to light the shortcomings of that person that caused the very problem she is addressing

The first attachment is our response to [redacted]'s complaint titled "[redacted] Revdex.com response"
The second, third and fourth attachments are supporting documentation cited in the "[redacted] Revdex.com response," entitled: "[redacted] CofO" (Certificate of Occupancy"), "[redacted] Scope of Work," which is the detailed...

Scope of Work section of the contract authorized by Mrs. [redacted], and "[redacted] Building Permit," which lists all inspections needed for the issuance of the enclosed Certificate of Occupancy.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further clarification in this matter.
Thank you.
To:       Revdex.com
From:   Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling, LLC
            2000 Owego Rd.
            Vestal, NY 13850
Date:   November 10, 2014
Subj:    Response to Consumer Complaint of [redacted] J. [redacted]            [redacted]
 Summary: Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling LLC did in fact enter into a contract with Mrs. [redacted] on Jan. 9th, 2014 to construct a two story 12’x25’ addition on the back of her house at the address listed above. The provisions of that contract were met and officially completed on August 21st, 2014, as evidenced by the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Village of Endicott, NY (enclosed) which specifically states that their “inspection(s) has revealed no uncorrected deficiency or material violation of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code with respect to the work performed at such building(s) or structure(s) pursuant to the building permit number listed (BP2014-027, enclosed). Such construction work is found to be in substantial conformance with the (NYS certified architect’s) plans… on file with the Village of Endicott Code Enforcement Office in connection with the building permit.”
Many meetings were held with Mrs. [redacted] addressing most of the issues she noted. Every time a meeting was conducted concerning these issues, a Kiefer-Randall manager or officer of the company personally handled her concerns respectfully and professionally. She was not, nor were her requests ever disregarded. Multiple meetings were held with the architect (that Mrs. [redacted] contracted with separately from Kiefer-Randall for her plans) as well, who certified to Mrs. [redacted] on several occasions that Kiefer-Randall built (and was building) exactly to the specifications that she herself certified and paid for separately. Multiple inspections were completed by the Village of Endicott Code Enforcement office periodically along the way to ensure all work and material was indeed compliant with NYS Fire and Building Codes as well.
About 2 weeks into the build, everyone involved in her project that dealt with her personally started to notice how much she was forgetting things that were covered repeatedly, regarding the specifications and details of the build. Many meetings were called by her, which we agreed to and performed, only to find that we had covered all of the issues she was bringing up and previously understood and agreed to in earlier meetings. This can be corroborated by the architect, the foundation subcontractor, the electrical subcontractor, and Kiefer-Randall employees.
During these meetings, Mrs. [redacted] would become confused, then agitated and defensive when we would gently bring up the fact that we had covered all of the issues she was bringing up as new in previous meetings. She would usually then dismiss her forgetfulness by becoming rude and brusque and blame the senseless/redundant meeting(s) on all involved attempting to “take advantage of a crazy old lady.”
As the job progressed, she would have good days and bad days. Some days she treated the workers respectfully, other days she would be rude, arrogant, and condescending. She was disrespectful and insulting on many occasions to Kiefer-Randall’s Production Manager, to the point where conversations had to be abruptly halted by him leaving the premises (voluntarily) in order to avoid a pointless escalation and wasted time covering the same topics repeatedly.
During our last meeting, which she called again, she requested the presence of the Village of Endicott Code Enforcement Officers in order to witness her complaint. During that meeting, the two COE’s both told her that all work was done to Code and that there were no issues. We thought the matter was satisfied because Mrs. [redacted] confirmed that it was.
Kiefer-Randall holds no ill feelings towards Mrs. [redacted] although she was a tough customer to deal with. We understand that we are not health care professionals, but we respectfully feel, based on daily personal interaction with her over an 8 month period (from sales to completion) that she is unfortunately succumbing to the affects of old age regarding her memory, confusion, and demeanor. We are grieved that she feels this process was necessary, and would happily correct any issues for her, if indeed actual issues present. 
With regard to her listed complaints, the following itemizations are in response:
1st Issue. Mrs. [redacted] states: “The foundation had to be “re-done,” the floor was poured short, leaving a 4” gap on three sides, into which they stuffed Styrofoam, concrete puddles and splatters all over, and the floor already has a crack, right in the middle from wall to wall.”
Our response: During the build, when laying the first 2 or three courses of cement blocks, the foreman noticed that one wall was slightly out of plumb. He did his job and corrected the issue immediately by removing and relaying approximately 3 courses of block on the 12’ wall before the mortar even dried. The 4” “gap” on three sides is not the result of a mistake, and not a “gap” at all, but by design, in order to have insulation between the footer and floor. The Styrofoam between the floor and the walls is also by design as it is Code required foundation insulation from the slab to the footer mentioned above. This insulation was placed against the footer before the floor was poured, as is standard practice in order to pour the floor up to the insulation. This was specifically addressed (3x) and finally explained to her by the Code Enforcement officers in the meeting noted above as correct and prescribed by Code. “Concrete puddles and splatters” are part of working with concrete, especially when cutting through existing concrete foundations with a wet saw to provide an entryway. This was cleaned up voluntarily by my company even after Mrs. [redacted] told my employees and subcontractor that she didn’t even think there was a mess. As for the crack in the floor, we have no prior knowledge of this. If there is indeed a crack, it was explained to her that there are no guarantees that a concrete floor won’t crack. Again, the installation of the foundation was inspected by Code every step of the way (as noted by the inspection checklist on the enclosed permitting paperwork) and obviously passed.
 2nd Issue. Mrs. [redacted] states: “The electrical is inadequate and my requests totally disregarded.” 
Our response: An initial (“rough”) electrical inspection regarding the electrical work was conducted by [redacted], a NYS Certified electrical inspector, and at the time of this writing, the electrical inspector has yet to provide the final electrical inspection due to numerous attempts to gain access to the dwelling were not successful. Once Mrs. [redacted] answers her door and he gains entry, should he find any discrepancy in any electrical work done by our electrical subcontractors, they will take immediate corrective action to ensure Code compliancy as well.  The electrical estimate that Mrs. [redacted] attached from a competing electrical contractor is meaningless for the purposes here because what is quoted on that estimate was never a part of the contract between Mrs. [redacted] and Kiefer-Randall, as can be noted in the Electrical section (Pg 14) of the enclosed Scope of Work portion of the contract between Mrs. [redacted] and Kiefer-Randall.
[redacted]UPDATE[redacted], NYS electrical inspector has gained access to Mrs. [redacted]’s home and has found five minor issues that need addressing before he will issue the final Electrical Certificate of Compliancy. Our electrical subcontractor has been notified and is in the process of attempting to contact Mrs. [redacted] to gain access to the home and fix the compliancy issues only- NOT to perform additional work that was never part of our contract to begin with. Which, as supporting documentation enclosed will show, the electrical work was to be installed per the customer ([redacted]) approved architectural prints.
3rd Issue. Mrs. [redacted] states: “Despite my strongest objections they installed 2 windows, without giving me any choice i.e. [sic] location, style, rating or warranty.”
Our response: We built her addition exactly to her architect’s plans that she approved, as we’ve previously noted several times. After the two windows were purchased and installed, it wasn’t until a couple of weeks later that Mrs. [redacted] indicated that she did not like the size of them. It was already too late to return the windows, which she had already approved the size of by acceptance of the architect’s plans. She did not want to hear this. I told her I wanted her satisfied, but the company cannot afford to take a loss on her windows simply because she doesn’t like them after she approved them AND after so much time had passed after installing them. A lot of collateral work had been done around the windows by the time she made an issue of it, so I gave her a quote showing her what it would cost to replace the windows and all of the other work, which she declined to have done. This is one of the issues that were covered repeatedly by Kiefer-Randall employees, officers, AND her architect. Each time she said she understood and accepted the windows that she had previously approved. Which, incidentally, are Energy-Star rated for the Northeast region, have the proper glazing and R-Value, per Code, and, of course, are warranted from any defects.
4th Issue. Mrs. [redacted] states: “Doors: difficult to open/close- exterior doors cannot even be locked.”
Our response: Our Production Manger personally showed her several times how to properly secure her doors. She would close them “feather-gently” and the latch would not engage fully. She was instructed to put slight pressure on the door in order to ensure the weather seal would compress enough to both seal and secure the door.  
5th Issue. Mrs. [redacted] states: “They installed a wood floor instead of tile, as I wanted.”
Our response: Again, we installed what was on the architect’s plans and what was detailed in our enclosed itemized scope of work (Pg. 16, under floor covering- no tile is listed) approved by Mrs. [redacted].  We are not unreasonable- if the customer wanted a change, we would gladly make it- it is her home. But Mrs. [redacted], who was home every day watching my employees work, had every opportunity to voice her desires before installation. She did not voice this concern until long after the planned/approved floor was installed, then became agitated when presented with the above logic.
6th Issue. Mrs [redacted] states: “Railing gate opens/closes only on dry day.”
Our response: The gate was made of pressure treated wood, per Code, which functioned properly during wet and dry weather while we were there. We were never made aware of this issue, and it was clearly working properly in order to pass inspection, as it would have been a fire hazard to have a non-functioning point of egress. If Mrs. [redacted] would have informed us of this issue at any time, we would have happily come back to perform warranty work and rectify the problem- and we still will.
As for Mrs. [redacted]’s desired settlement:
Our response: The work is completed per NYS Building Codes as well as our detailed and itemized contract AND her own architect’s plans that she approved. The “gaps” are Code required to accommodate the required insulation that was explained to her by us and Code several times. The leak in her wall is due to a drainage issue not caused by us that was addressed and confirmed by Code Enforcement during the meeting that she called for them to attend. We, at our own expense, rerouted some of her existing drainage lines and even installed an extra downspout for her at no charge out of good faith.
We have earned a highly respected reputation in our area with all local Code Enforcement agencies and officers due to our meticulous work ethic and quality.  We are Member of the Southern Tier Home Builders and Remodelers Association, Member of the National Home Builders Association, back to back, two time winners and recipients of the Angie’s List Super Service Award, of whom we are members of and have the most and highest customer satisfaction ratings of any contractor in our area, and have made hundreds of customers extremely satisfied. We are insured over the minimum required by NYS and are bonded as well, even though there is no requirement to do so. We are consummate professionals and pride ourselves on customer service and quality of work, as our many customers and professional associates would attest to. These statements aren’t made out of arrogant pride, but to ensure the Revdex.com that we are not a “fly by night” contractor who takes advantage of their customers. Our reputation is our lively hood and we respect and value all of our customer’s concerns. 
Finally, again, we are sincerely grieved that Mrs. [redacted] has decided that this complaint was necessary, especially after the many meetings addressing most of these listed issues with her and others noted. During the sales process, she never seemed confused or difficult, so this decline is extra disappointing to our company. If there was an actual issue that we could address and/or correct that was not a misunderstanding on her part we gladly would, and stand ready and willing to happily do so. [redacted]Since the initial drafting of this response, as noted above, only 5 minor electrical Code compliancy issues were noted by the inspector and will be corrected immediately when Mrs. [redacted] allows the work to be scheduled with our electrician.

Check fields!

Write a review of Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling, LLC

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling, LLC Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Add contact information for Kiefer-Randall Construction & Remodeling, LLC

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated