Reply to Warren S. We contacted the owner in October for the initial scope of work meeting. Prior to submitting a proposal, we had our engineers visit with the owner on 3 different occasions. It is important to us to gather all the information before we submit a proposal. This was at no cost. November the owner accepted our custom design build job proposal for an additional roof attachment on an existing roof deck. The owner expressed his opinion on working without a permit from the city. Our company would not comply with his request. We did request from the city for a non-permit being the size of the job is less than 25% of the existing roof. Since there was structural work being built, the city requested plans submitted. December, we had our structural engineer design the plans. December 24th, we registered with the cities new online permit approval process and submitted the structural plans. Jan 3rd. the city requested a site map from which we submitted right away. Jan 16th the city then requested structural calculations, and all the plans in a digital format. Feb. 18th the plans were approved. The owner was emailed, text, and on-site meetings throughout the duration of process. In addition, the owner signed a proposal for a custom designed garage build job. The proposal was accepted, and a 10% deposit was requested but we only received a 5% deposit to start the planning process of the entire job. Feb., we had interviewed 6 different architects per the owners request for budget reasons. During the interview we had hired an architect to do only the zoning plan calculations for the setbacks for the site map. This was submitted to the city in person to see if the owner needed to fill out an application for a variance. We got approved without that extra costs. At the same time, we have submitted to a survey for TOPO being that the new garage build job was in a Flood Zone. On March 3rd we contacted the owner again and stated that we did not have to file for a variance, and we were in the process of researching the requirements to build in a flood zone. We also had hired an architect to start the plans on the garage and when we get the information for the flood requirements, that we would give that information to the architect to incorporate into the plans along with a flood certificate. Mar 3 we also told the owner materials were ordered for the attached roof addition and we would start right away. He said in an email that he was fine with all of that and was anxious to start. The roof addition was started Friday and finished Sunday morning. The roof was dried in. The structural roof addition was built per approved plans. After the additional roof was dried in there was no indication from the owner of any leaks. Prior to the commencing of the demo of the existing rood deck, the owner had indicated he had several water leaks for over a year. The removal of the existing roof deck was additional work. The decking had dry rot and the underlayment was damaged from the extensive water damage over the years. The owner requested we remove and replace with new before we start on the additional roof structure. Monday after we had built the roof addition, the owner decided to cancel all contracts. He decided to hire a labor ready company that was not licensed to take over the contract. He had the unlicensed contractor change the original approved plans on the roof addition, which is a violation of the permit planning department in the city. In addition, the owner had instructed to start the footing and foundation walls for the garage build job without submitting plans to the city. Soon after the city put a Stop Work Order on the project, I received this bad review. My company has done all the right steps according to the International Building Code Class A in the state of MO. We regret the owner's decisions and we have submitted all the documents, plans, permit, contact information to our legal department from which they have submitted to the owner. Regretfully. read more