COMPLAINT TO BAUER ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION 09/03/21
On July 28, 2020 I made a big mistake by authorizing Bauer Roofing & Construction (BRC) also known as Bauer Contracting all of Corinth, TX to remediate damages to my home, workshop (WS) and toolshed (TS). Damages were due to hail and wind involving (7) trades resulting in a loss claim with my Insurance Co. The trades include: roofing, gutters, window screens, vinyl siding, metal fascia, metal door and an electric lantern.
I paid them the agreed amount of $14,564.23 (50%) on 12/18/20 the day work started which was five months in waiting. The General Contract Agreement Scope of Work includes compliance to the Insurance Estimate and all the deliverables within Donald Metivier’s (owner) Mission Statement, Statement of Work (SOW) and Materials Specification (MS).
The core of this complaint is the bad workmanship received in the primary and subsequent rework of the deliverables in (5) of the trades and the very bad time management of the project. The electric lantern and vinyl siding deliverables are acceptable.
The delivery of materials were initially rejected by the owner due to a major noncompliance. The second delivery of materials was also noncompliant but with a remedy performed later in the day.
Workshop (WS):
Unacceptable workmanship includes: roofing, face nailing the metal fascia, the drip edge and the walk thru metal door. Also, the drip edge is not to specification. The exterior wall of the WS was damaged. A written remediation plan was required prior to any work to the house and TS. Levi Haddix (site supervisor) provided this but failed to comply. Also, the owner requested that an alternate roofing subcontractor be assigned to the house & TS. This was denied by Levi Haddix stating “this is the only roofing subcontractor BRC has”. A lie!
Due to very bad workmanship, a large portion of the roof shingles were removed and replaced (R & R), the metal fascia was reworked twice, and a compromised solution to the damaged wall was agreed upon. The drip edge remains unacceptable. The metal door remains a work in progress (WIP) for over (13) months. Over (5) doors have been delivered with unacceptable results such as: no window, incorrect hand, dents, more dents, too short, runs & sags in the paint and bad hinge alignment (door won’t close correctly). Also, the door sets don’t mate correctly.
Unacceptable workmanship includes: roofing, chimney flashing, metal fascia technique not the same as before resulting in gross warpage and the drip edge. Also, the drip edge is not to specification. A large portion of the roof was R&R due to a repeated defective technique as done on the WS. They failed to learn from their mistake on the WS. The chimney flashing leaks creating damage to the roof decking, insulation and the interior of the home (ceiling sheet rock, texture, paint) and personal property (original oil painting). Six attempts to install and rework the flashing has caused damaged to the roof (worn away the aggregate). The flashing leaks when it rains hard. Also, there is another leak in the garage i.e. down the wall and onto the floor. The metal fascia remains noncompliant. The gutters are now acceptable after (3) reworks. Window screens are now compliant after (1) rework.
Time Management:
Much emphasis by the owner has been placed on BRC to get this job done. After 13+ months it remains WIP. The owner of BRC, Darren Smith, has stated to the owner while on his only onsite visit to stay away from the BRC office or he will call the cops. Also, at that time he instructed his employees to cancel the contract. Mr. Smith lacks a proactive stance to the problems of this project. His lack of problem solving flows down into his employee base.
It took Phillip Gonzalez 3 ½ weeks to search for a color match for the gutters without success. It took the owner 35 minutes to do it @ ABC their supplier. It has taken Nathan Brann, Project Director 13+ months to run this project into the ditch with little hope of completion. The owner provides BRC an explicit monthly time line of availability to host BRC. BRC has abused the owners time tremendously. There have been many “no shows”. There has been well over (20) emails to BRC requesting “where is my door”?
Lack of Ethics:
The Levi Haddix’s written remedial plan under WS has been voided by Mr. Brann. Mr. Brann has stated Levi is not an officer of BRC hence, it is not applicable. The content of the owners SOW and MS is explicit. Yet, the owner has had to manage the subcontractors which is against the requirements in the SOW. Phillip Gonzalez and Levi Haddix have failed to supervise their subcontractors. The problems of the metal fascia and the roofing workmanship are prime examples of BRC’s failure to supervise.
BRC is a NTRCA Member. However, BRC has violated several code of ethics of the NTRCA. The owner has not received any follow up from the NTRCA. This project is far from completion. Yet, BRC wants the final payment. BRC contacted the owners Insurance Co. and declared they have completed the project and requested final payment to be released to the owner. The Insurance Co. did that w/o the owners authorization. The owner has reversed the payment. BRC are masters of SPIN.
What does the owner want:
To complete the project in compliance to the SOW and MS ASAP. Repair and make new the thousands of dollars of damage caused by the leaks.
Bauer Roofing & Construction Reviews
COMPLAINT TO BAUER ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION 09/03/21
On July 28, 2020 I made a big mistake by authorizing Bauer Roofing & Construction (BRC) also known as Bauer Contracting all of Corinth, TX to remediate damages to my home, workshop (WS) and toolshed (TS). Damages were due to hail and wind involving (7) trades resulting in a loss claim with my Insurance Co. The trades include: roofing, gutters, window screens, vinyl siding, metal fascia, metal door and an electric lantern.
I paid them the agreed amount of $14,564.23 (50%) on 12/18/20 the day work started which was five months in waiting. The General Contract Agreement Scope of Work includes compliance to the Insurance Estimate and all the deliverables within Donald Metivier’s (owner) Mission Statement, Statement of Work (SOW) and Materials Specification (MS).
The core of this complaint is the bad workmanship received in the primary and subsequent rework of the deliverables in (5) of the trades and the very bad time management of the project. The electric lantern and vinyl siding deliverables are acceptable.
The delivery of materials were initially rejected by the owner due to a major noncompliance. The second delivery of materials was also noncompliant but with a remedy performed later in the day.
Workshop (WS):
Unacceptable workmanship includes: roofing, face nailing the metal fascia, the drip edge and the walk thru metal door. Also, the drip edge is not to specification. The exterior wall of the WS was damaged. A written remediation plan was required prior to any work to the house and TS. Levi Haddix (site supervisor) provided this but failed to comply. Also, the owner requested that an alternate roofing subcontractor be assigned to the house & TS. This was denied by Levi Haddix stating “this is the only roofing subcontractor BRC has”. A lie!
Due to very bad workmanship, a large portion of the roof shingles were removed and replaced (R & R), the metal fascia was reworked twice, and a compromised solution to the damaged wall was agreed upon. The drip edge remains unacceptable. The metal door remains a work in progress (WIP) for over (13) months. Over (5) doors have been delivered with unacceptable results such as: no window, incorrect hand, dents, more dents, too short, runs & sags in the paint and bad hinge alignment (door won’t close correctly). Also, the door sets don’t mate correctly.
Unacceptable workmanship includes: roofing, chimney flashing, metal fascia technique not the same as before resulting in gross warpage and the drip edge. Also, the drip edge is not to specification. A large portion of the roof was R&R due to a repeated defective technique as done on the WS. They failed to learn from their mistake on the WS. The chimney flashing leaks creating damage to the roof decking, insulation and the interior of the home (ceiling sheet rock, texture, paint) and personal property (original oil painting). Six attempts to install and rework the flashing has caused damaged to the roof (worn away the aggregate). The flashing leaks when it rains hard. Also, there is another leak in the garage i.e. down the wall and onto the floor. The metal fascia remains noncompliant. The gutters are now acceptable after (3) reworks. Window screens are now compliant after (1) rework.
Time Management:
Much emphasis by the owner has been placed on BRC to get this job done. After 13+ months it remains WIP. The owner of BRC, Darren Smith, has stated to the owner while on his only onsite visit to stay away from the BRC office or he will call the cops. Also, at that time he instructed his employees to cancel the contract. Mr. Smith lacks a proactive stance to the problems of this project. His lack of problem solving flows down into his employee base.
It took Phillip Gonzalez 3 ½ weeks to search for a color match for the gutters without success. It took the owner 35 minutes to do it @ ABC their supplier. It has taken Nathan Brann, Project Director 13+ months to run this project into the ditch with little hope of completion. The owner provides BRC an explicit monthly time line of availability to host BRC. BRC has abused the owners time tremendously. There have been many “no shows”. There has been well over (20) emails to BRC requesting “where is my door”?
Lack of Ethics:
The Levi Haddix’s written remedial plan under WS has been voided by Mr. Brann. Mr. Brann has stated Levi is not an officer of BRC hence, it is not applicable. The content of the owners SOW and MS is explicit. Yet, the owner has had to manage the subcontractors which is against the requirements in the SOW. Phillip Gonzalez and Levi Haddix have failed to supervise their subcontractors. The problems of the metal fascia and the roofing workmanship are prime examples of BRC’s failure to supervise.
BRC is a NTRCA Member. However, BRC has violated several code of ethics of the NTRCA. The owner has not received any follow up from the NTRCA. This project is far from completion. Yet, BRC wants the final payment. BRC contacted the owners Insurance Co. and declared they have completed the project and requested final payment to be released to the owner. The Insurance Co. did that w/o the owners authorization. The owner has reversed the payment. BRC are masters of SPIN.
What does the owner want:
To complete the project in compliance to the SOW and MS ASAP. Repair and make new the thousands of dollars of damage caused by the leaks.