Ashworth Homes

This project lasted for 27 months. The first inspection occurred on 11/20/14, and the last inspection occurred on 2/10/17 – approximately 1 year shorter than reported in the client’s review. The Client-provided plans we received at the start of the project contained multiple inconsistencies and were impossible to build in accordance with local building codes without numerous revisions. These revisions and the associated mobilization/de-mobilizations from the jobsite cost approximately 6 months of delay. The Client acknowledged these problems and pursued his architect and structural engineer for remedies. After start of construction: · The Client requested multiple upgrades to materials and house systems, costing both time and money to accomplish. These costs were reviewed and approved by the client. · The Client added a structural steel stair system which was not originally included in the plans or project budget. This required construction activities to mostly stop while the structural engineer and metal fabricator designed and built the stair system. This caused a 4-month delay and $50K add charge. This change was reviewed and approved by the client. · The Client decided to have a non-standard underground electrical service installed to the house. The non-standard service required an additional 4 months of engineering by the electrical utility and was 4 times the cost of the planned overhead service. This change was reviewed and approved by the client. · Near the end of the construction process, the Client decided to have the driveway relocated. Since the original location was shown on the permitted plans we received from the client, a subsequent permit application was required. This permit took months to receive and prohibited us from obtaining final building inspection until it was in-hand and the driveway construction could be complete. This change was reviewed and approved by the client. Although the Client’s payments were due on the 8th day of each month per contract, they were routinely received 30-90+ days late. To financially protect ourselves and our subcontractors, jobsite activities ceased several times until payments were current. Ultimately we were forced to place a mechanics lien on the property in order to protect our right to payment for the work we had performed. Regarding schedule: we acknowledge this project took far longer than it could have. However, we maintain that the cause of the extended schedule was due to (1) the inaccuracy of the building plans delivered by the client, and (2) numerous changes to the scope of work (e.g. plans and specifications) that the client made during the course of construction. Both of these issues were client-driven, and we had no control as the contractor to accelerate the schedule. Regarding cost: we acknowledge the final cost of the project was higher than anticipated prior to construction start. Similar to the schedule delays, the cost overruns were a result of client changes. Each of the changes to the project scope was generated by and/or communicated to and approved by the client. Despite the fact that we were materially damaged by this client’s numerous changes and lack of timely payment, we respect his perspective and opinion. However, the explanation above clearly shows the cost and schedule overruns were not a result of neglect or inability to perform.