Contractor failed to complete the project per the design, and delivered substandard results in almost every aspect of the project. The quality of workmanship was deficient throughout the project. The delays in scheduling and execution unnecessarily prolonged the project and subjected us to considerable inconveniences. Lack of attention to detail and planning in ordering supplies and materials also contributed to these delays. We feel we have been cheated and significantly overcharged for a job for which the contractor paid a minimal amount of attention, rushed to complete near the end, and left our front yard in a state worse than when we started. Whenever we raised a concern, it was either brushed off, ignored, dismissed, denied or met with an offer to improve the situation in exchange for more money. Contractor's constant efforts to charge more for what we contracted eventually wore us down to stop raising concerns and settle for inferior workmanship. Contractor's unethical business practices included upselling at every opportunity, hinting that addressing a concern would trigger a $150 change fee clause, or state that a feature was “not within budget.” Contractor's lopsided payment schedule, designed completely in his favor, gave us no leverage to ensure job satisfaction with a final payment of only $1000 (4% of the total job). The ultimate indicator of the quality of the overall job is that we have received zero compliments since completion. The most prevalent question we get is to ask who did the job, so they can make sure they steer clear of your company for any future jobs. Our goal in working with this contractor was to improve our property. The end result has been to degrade it. Quality: Design – the initial design, for which we paid $1,000.00, left some items as TBD, to include the plant selection. There was no discussion of providing stabilized decomposed granite (DG) or any mention of compacting it. The presence of unstabilized or uncompacted DG, particularly near the sloping areas around drains or adjacent to walkways and driveways will certainly result in significant DG erosion after rainfall events. Contractor did not discuss leaving large areas out of the plan for decomposed granite, like the area between the garage and the left side of the entry walk. This is a significant misrepresentation of the design. Lighting – No lighting was installed on the left side of the garage due to failure to adequately consider it in the initial design. The fact that there was not an outlet on the left side of the garage caused the contractor to concentrate all the lighting on the right side of the garage, leaving the left side in darkness and the overall front yard lighting in an awkward imbalance. Resources: Failed to properly estimate (or deliver) the required amount of materials to complete the job. The contract called for approx. 7 yards of decomposed granite. Contractor measured the yard twice, yet the amount of decomposed granite covering most areas of the new design are less than one half inch deep. On the left side of the driveway, only a trivial attempt was made to cover the weedblock with DG, with many visible bare spots resulting from a lack of DG. Another contractor who came to review the work stated it would be amazing if there were more than 4 yards of DG at this site. Installation: - Laying of irrigation pipes – no trench was dug for the main irrigation supply lines and most of the irrigation lines are visible throughout the yard. - Drain installation: as noted above, the DG around the sloping areas around the drains is not stabilized or compacted, which will lead to significant DG erosion and drain blockage after rainfall. One drain in the area between the garage and left of the entryway was installed with a flat drain atop a pipe that extended 2-3 inches above the surface. This was corrected after an unrelated flooding incident (a valve failed to shutoff, flooding the area); however this is another illustration of faulty installation practices. - Water Feature – Although the contract called for a 660 gallon-per-hour (gph) pump, Contractor initially delivered a 190 gph pump. When we mentioned the underwhelming effect of the pump to one of the workers, he suggested we go out and buy a bigger pump. When we mentioned this to the Contractor, he stated that he had contacted the manufacturer and could offer us an “upgraded” pump. After this development, we checked the existing pump to discover that the installed pump was 190 gph vice the contracted 660 gph. When asked why he installed a 190 gph pump, he claimed that he didn’t know that was the size of the pump installed. A 660 gph pump was installed on 8/20. For a price of $2400, the only word we can use to describe this water feature is “underwhelming.” I asked a local supplier for a quote with the same specs you mentioned in the contract (but did not ask about the pump capacity). They came back with a quote for a 30’x30’ basin, 24’ basalt column, drilling, and 950 gph pump for $1300. Contractor charged $2400. With less than 2 hrs to install, we figure the contractor overcharged us by $1000. - Plants: Shorted 6 plants out of 23 x 5 gal and 82 x 1 gallon plant budget. Many of the plants recommended by contractor have either been eaten by wildlife or died. We relied on his professional opinion for proper recommendations and advice for the type of plants selected. - Leaks o Leak #1 – workers walked off the job on a Friday during the course of irrigation system installation with an open circuit, resulting in the front yard flooding for several hours until a passing neighbor alerted us. I shut off the irrigation at the street. Despite emailing the contractor and texting him, we got no response until, without notice, he sent a worker to respond 24 hrs later. o Leak #2. Near job completion, we informed contractor there was another leak to the right side of the entryway. he noted the leak during the punch list installation, but instead of classifying it as a leak, he said it was “runoff”. After we persisted in the complaint that there was a leak, he dispatched a crew to investigate it. While they responded to an unrelated issue with a valve that failed to shutoff and repositioned an improperly installed drain on the left side of the entryway, they left without repairing the leak on the right side of the entryway. He still insisted that the leak we reported was due to the flooding on the left side of the entryway. With his refusal to heed to our complaint, we hired another contractor to repair the leak on the right side of the entryway. o Leak#3. Another new leak appeared in the front yard area shortly after completion. I chose to have it repaired by another contractor as I no longer trusted his company to properly perform the work. o Irrigation system wiring issues: All irrigation circuits and the controller were working fine before work commenced. When the contractor's crew started work on the system, problems soon followed. The contractor pointed out that the controller had a blown fuse, and we ultimately replaced the controller and three solenoids. In an example of price gouging, the contractor offered to replace the controller for $840. I replaced the controller for $80 with an $80 rebate. In another instance, the contractor replaced a solenoid for free, a service which he claimed was a $100 value. The solenoids retail for $8.99 at Home Depot. Ultimately, he finally admitted that the wiring in circuit #8 had been mis-wired after I repeatedly suggested to him that the cause of solenoid failures and the controller’s blown fuse could be due to faulty wiring. o Failure to properly install new landscaping on left side of driveway: As the project dragged on beyond the promised 4 weeks, contractor made the most miniscule attempt to treat the surface on the left side of the driveway. The area was barely scraped at all. Contractor failed to scrape the area where the PortaPotty had been placed. The amount of DG applied was just a thin veneer, leaving many bare spots above the weedblock. My wife specifically told him that she wanted everything removed from