SkyReach Construction

Document Attached***
Please see attached documents. I've attached our response and some scope reference material. Thank you.

The following is the Response to the issues on the *** DBPR case the ***'s refer to in their complaint. Written by my project manager (slightly edited):

1. Doc *** Actual is an inventory of everything we have completed at their house to date. This was sent to *** a few months back, and we sat down with him to review it. He went through it and the only items he argued were a) that we didn't do a level 5 finish skim coat on all the new drywall, b) that the pool house shelter wasn't done, and c) the doors weren't resolved.

Their demand letter stated we have been paid $95,000 and they wanted $50,000 back. Based upon the completed inventory you will find this to be an absolutely ridiculous demand and not at all in reality. I am intimately familiar with their scope of work, and I can tell you with no doubt that if we were to go room by room and line by line, you would be hard pressed to find items in this scope that haven't been completed. Anything short of pushing back on their demand is not an option.

2. The pool house: so far as I know, the status is that things are held up with engineering and permitting process. My understanding is that if we clear those hurdles we can complete that aspect of the project. We are willing to so long as they will let us complete it. (They has refused to let Project Managers and workers on site at various times.)

3. The doors: The interior doors have long been a point of contention. From the beginning, we have never laid out in detail what door, what material or where to get the doors from. The only discussions had about them are that a) they didn't want a hollow cheap door, and b) they wanted a 5 panel door. When we discussed a 5 panel door (and how to do their door casing) I showed them actual pictures from a project I completed in Indianapolis. They liked what they saw. The supplier I used for those doors up there does not have locations or ship to this area. So, I looked for another supplier. My first stop was Mid South Lumber in Panama City. I specked out door and got pricing, but had communication issues with them in placing the order. I also realized a detail on those doors (a piece of molding) that I thought wasn't in line from a design aspect that we were doing at their house. I then looked at Southeastern Sash and got pricing from them. The pricing was quite a bit higher. In the interim, we had someone going up to Indianapolis to get some furniture and move it down there. I saw that as an opportunity to procure the doors that I had originally showed them, and move them down here ourselves. So, that's what we did. Once the doors were here, there were complications with the install (mostly error by our worker) and the ***'s decided they were not happy with the doors, thought they were "cheap pieces of ***" and accused of trying to pull a fast one - which isn't the case at all. My position is that the doors of adequate quality and some of the best doors I had installed in any of my previous projects. They refused them, and we took them off site. The ***'s then went back to Southeastern sash and had them price out a door of their choice. The prices for just the material came in at nearly 5x what we paid for the doors we delivered, and 5x what is in allocated for doors in any of the working scopes that have been presented. It is of my opinion right now that what they expect is to get $15,000 worth of doors for the $3,000 that we have in the scope, and that we are just supposed to eat the difference. Obviously, we feel that is just wrong in so many ways. If they are willing to pay the cost of what the actual doors are that they want, then we are willing to work with that and install them. If they aren't, then doors should just be removed from the scope altogether.

3. Additional

The *** are "going after us". The biggest offense they have committed is that I worked with their insurance company in filling in the gaps of their original scope and got those issues settled with their carrier; thus getting them tens of thousands of dollars in additional funds without having to use a public adjuster. One of the biggest pieces of that was for their windows. Doc "*** Supplement" is what was sent to their carrier and approved by their carrier. It is also the amount that was on our contract. So essentially, our contract was to complete the scope of work in this document - including the windows. At this juncture of the project, the scope was still an evolving process and it was communicated with the carrier that the window portion of the scope was "light" in funds and needed additional revisions. Doc "*** supplement (window revisions) was a more accurate assessment of what the job would run once I priced out windows from several manufacturers. I worked with several suppliers, and procured multiple quotes that would meet the ***'s needs in terms of quality, code and aesthetics. Because of the unique type of window they had in their enclosed patio, this took a fair amount of time and energy. I was able to come up with and present several options. Sometime down the road, *** became impatient with the build back process and decided to look to have someone else do the windows. In the end, she literally took the quotes I had provided her, shared them with a different contractor and had them do the install. The contractor actually installed one of the exact windows that I had quoted out. (I later found out that that contractor had never installed those windows before. So, it is safe to presume that they only installed these windows as a result of my quote and the leg work I had done.) It is my position, that windows were already in our scope of work and a part of our contract. By arbitrarily giving them to another company, I believe that they breached our contract and that we are entitled to damages. I also believe that the contractor using my quotes and information, and installing one of the products that I presented; and installing the job, that they committed tortious interference and that we are entitled to damages.

This was not the only occurrence of this. The *** also hired one of our subs to additional work on the property that was outside of our original scope. Tile was laid outside on the front porch and siding was installed on the house. We feel that the *** were way out of bounds in hiring our sub out from under us to perform additional tasks. I don't know what the legal term for this is nor what the remedy would be.

In short, the *** may have grievances that need to be resolved. But nowhere near the realm of the demand they sent AND, they are nowhere near innocent in committing acts during this process that are both wrong in principle and wrong legally.

Location Involved: (Same as above)

Consumer's Original Complaint (WITH SKYREACH CONSTRUCTION'S RESPONSE TO EACH ITEM IN BOLD, UNDERLINED AND ITALIC):
We have an illegal(will not pass inspection building in our backyard)-WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ENGINEER AARON *** (WHO THE *** INDICATED THAY LIKE) AND THE CITY OF LYNN HAVEN TO PULL PERMIT. THEY ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THEY WANTED WAS SMALLER AND DIDN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT, shoddy drywall - UNTRUE. WE USE STANDARD 5/8" ON THEIR CEILINGS AND 1/2" ON WALLS, tile - I BELIEVE THEY CLAIM A TILE IS CHIPPED, and painting - EVERYTHING WAS PAINTED AS PER THEIR SCOPE, and no interior doors - THEY REFUSED THE DOORS WE ORDERED. THE DOORS WERE AS PER THEIR SCOPE. .paid for these 5/19
We hired SkyReach construction after our home was destroyed by Hurricane Michael. We are now left with shoddy work throughout our home. This includes painting, tile work, drywall. We also paid for interior doors on May 24,2019. We still do not have interior doors nor have they been ordered. We also have an illegal shade pavillion building in our backyard that they never pulled a permit on and it will not pass inspection because of the shoddy work done. Also, we have breech of contract since materials were swapped out in the rebuilding of our home that were not agreed upon. We have filed a Florida Statute 489 and Florida Statute 558 to which, Anthony ***, the owner of SkyReach has not responded to.- THEY HAVE FILED AND WE HAVE RESPONDED. We also have DBPR involved and he has been issued citations.- DBPR HAS CLOSED THE CASE. THEY ISSUED AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. THAT IS ALL. Given that our area is in a State of Emergency, this is a serious offense. Thank you for your time.

As to the rebuttal, SkyReach Construction, LLC has nothing further to add.