First we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Angie's List for being afforded the opportunity to respond to your posting. My business partner Ramon and I have spent the last twenty (20) years building our company. It has been and remains our life's work. We have sought to ensure that we provide top-notch customer service and go the extra mile for our customers, and it grieves us extremely to read the allegations you have made against us, which we believe are not accurate. In your online comments you cite the Consumer Review Fairness Act ("CRFA") as the basis for your claims of 'illegal contract provisions' that 'explain' why we do not have bad reviews posted on-line, suggesting that your contract with RayMac (the "Contract") prohibits customers from posting a negative review if they are not satisfied with our service. The provisions you cite, reads, in relevant part, as follows: "The Parties, you and your husband and RayMac will cooperate in avoiding and informally resolving their disputes. The Parties agree not to disparage each other to third parties or publicly (including via social media or online forums such as Angie's List, Yelp, and similar review websites). Warranty procedures first apply to any unresolved warranty claims. Any warranty claim that thereafter remains unresolved and any other claim or dispute of any kind or nature between the Parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach of it, must be resolved by binding arbitration and the rules and procedures of the arbitrator. The arbitrator's award is final and may be enforced in a court having jurisdiction and venue. If the Parties do not voluntary agree on the arbitrator, Construction Arbitration Associates, Ltd. will be the arbitrator. Any questions regarding the interpretation of this arbitration provision or the arbitrability of a dispute under it shall be decided by the arbitrator, unless specifically required by law to be decided by a court, and that decision shall be binding on the Parties. The fee to initiate arbitration will be shared evenly by the Parties, but the arbitrator may allocate filing fees and arbitration costs in the award." These provisions were added last year to our roughly twenty (20) year old base contract proposal document. The provisions were added by the lawyer who assisted us with updating our contract proposal documents. When meeting with him, we mentioned how hard we had worked to build and maintain our near flawless reputation across all referral platforms. He suggested adding the arbitration clause prompting arbitration should there be any disagreements during a project and also added the above noted cooperation and non-disparagement clause. Our understanding of the combination of the clauses was, and remains, that the parties agreed to discuss issues they may have with one another in good faith and if resolution could not be reached, let a neutral and objective arbitrator decide the issue(s), instead of going straight to a protracted war of words or expansive and expensive litigation. We viewed the process as conducive to efficient and fair resolution of disputes and likely to dissuade knee-jerk false statements about the parties from being broadcast. I want to take this opportunity to emphasize and that our excellent reputation and lack of negative reviews over the long history of our company is not a function of RayMac or its representatives attempting to gag or hush negative reviews. The provisions you cite, as stated, are entirely new to us as of last year. We are reviewing now how we might edit the subject provisions such that we will never again be accused of violating the CRFA and make it clear that we do not object to honest good faith reviews. For starters we have removed the portions of our contract proposals which might be read argue that customers cannot publish reviews of RayMac. Again, the provisions you cite had only recently been to proposed contracts. Regarding the CRFA, we understand that it does not apply to contracts that are freely negotiated, as yours was. Your Contract was not a boiler plate contract but instead an agreement that you had every opportunity to negotiate. As is the procedure with all of our clients, we sent the draft contract to you for review two (2) days before signing. You opted not to make any changes, confirming with your signature your acceptance and approval of the Contract. This is not to say that the subject Contract provisions could not be improved upon (and we are doing that now), I just want to point out that your characterization of the subject provisions as being "illegal" is not accurate in our opinion. It warrants pointing out that had you followed the dispute resolution provisions of the Contract document you signed, which includes the clauses you now object to, you would have attempted to work out your concerns with us in good faith and, if not successful, you would have aired your grievances to an objective neutral/arbitrator and then that arbitrator would have made a decision based upon the facts and the party who did not prevail would have, per Paragraph 20 of your Contract, had to pay the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of arbitration of the prevailing party. To allay any concerns you have about whether RayMac would take any issue with you submitting your issues with RayMac to arbitration and then publishing the results far and wide, RayMac hereby confirms and commits to you that we do not and would not have any objection to you doing so. We invite you to attempt to work out this dispute with us in good faith and if we cannot work it out, arbitrate your grievances per the terms of your Contact. We believe this is fair, as it is what we agreed to under the Contract. Now, a few words about the project and our performance. The project was permitted through Forsyth County and as we progressed we passed all inspections and obtained a Certificate of Completion from the County. On more than a few occasions, you characterized the results of our work as 'perfect' and further stated that you 'loved it'. We addressed a number of specific concerns about different items that would be regarded as non-issues to building inspectors or arbitrators, just to ensure you were pleased. We are happy to do this. Several of these issues were beyond even what we viewed as reasonable and in each case the labor and materials utilized to address these issues were paid for by us and not charged to you to ensure your satisfaction. As we progressed through the project you, without cause, made every one of your progress payments due under the Contract late. As the project drew to a close, your demeanor changed, going so far as locking us out of the job site job once you had everything done that you wanted; you then began to claim you were not happy and intended to withhold a portion of the final payment due under the Contract. You arbitrarily short-paid the final invoice, even after we offered you discounts and credits that were not due in an effort address your late stated concerns. Contrast this to your conduct just before you locked us out, i.e., you told nearly every member of our company that you loved the work and felt like it turned out exactly as you had hoped. It is curious that with your allegations of a so-called hostile environment, bad workmanship and terrible service that you did not kick us off the job site earlier. In twenty (20) years of business we have never had to take legal action to retrieve funds from a client, so sending a letter from an attorney was a first-time experience for us. In hindsight we are not surprised that you immediately picked a personal fight with the attorney and began publishing inaccurate and false statements about our company and its employees. Ironically this experience has reminded me of what a phenomenal staff we have at RayMac and how proud I am to be a part of this company. At the end of the project our employees endured numerous late night emails in which you berated their performance, without justification. Your project manager was onsite every day; available if you needed to discuss anything. Yet you never spoke to the project manager or myself directly about your concerns so that we could attempt to address them, as we would do and have always done with any customer. Instead you berated those who were not in the best position address your stated concerns. Given the things that you have said and to protect the company I love and the great employees that we have, I had to write this response, and I again ask that you state your grievances to an objective neutral party, i.e. proceed to arbitration per your Contract. Upon doing so I fully expect we would be vindicated, but if we are not, then we would owe you for all reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of arbitration. I will conclude by attempting to address your other specific allegations. You allege: The first incident that alarmed us happened when one of RayMac's subcontractors punctured our HVAC vent. Raymac did not want to put replace the vent and you could not believe we were even having discussion about it. Not accurate - A rivet had popped out of one of the seams in your ductwork. We repaired it with HVAC metal screws, aluminum foil tape on the exterior and then covered it with mastic to bring it up to current energy code. It was fixed to a higher level than it was prior to popping the rivet. You allege: Then we had painters who did a rather poor job, there were spots on the ceiling where we could still see drywall, the door had unpainted sides, unpainted part on the bottom, unpainted spots around the handle, they painted over chipped surface without patching and smoothing it first. Not accurate - You made these complaints before final touch up was completed. You did not listen to the explanation then, which was consistent with you generally not indicating any desire to understand the construction process. You allege: The painters cleaned their tools and dumped the water with paint on our lawn which made me very upset (we try to have organic backyard, we do not even use commercial weed killers as we have a toddler and a dog). Not Accurate - Latex paint is not regarded as toxic. Its water based. If you had expressed specific needs we could have made accommodations. You allege: When we pointed out the painters' poor job quality (to our project manager) he told us we should not send him emails complaining about the painting quality! Not accurate - He said that you do not need to send a two page email at midnight getting yourself stressed out. He was on the jobsite at 7:30 every morning and was glad to discuss any issue you had in person each morning but you were nowhere to be seen. You allege: During the project Raymac ruined part of our lawn by walking multiple times thru the same area multiple times a day for two months. Not accurate - Access to the job site was made by passing through an area between two [Member Information Removed] trees in which, it being winter at the time the project began, there was no grass to cross over. At no time did you ask us to use a different path to access the job site. You allege: RayMac moved an existing electric outlet (they removed it without our knowledge or consent), we had it custom installed specially for our new freezer. Not accurate - You never told us that you wanted to keep it or that it should not be moved. The outlet was moved to a code compliant height. We can only work with the information we are given. We replaced/relocated it for free. You allege: We did not have good communication with Raymac , Not accurate - Up to four (4) managers or team members are available at all time to answer calls or texts; your project manager was there every day. You allege: They threatened to stop the work if we do not pay in full even though they owed us over $1600 at that point. Not accurate - Our agreement outlines how credits will be given. You just choose to make your own set of rules and ignore the Contract you agreed to. You allege: At the end of the project we had a dispute about credits for the parts that were not done Not accurate - Our credits match our estimate which is based off a standard Georgia "Means" construction pricing guide. We would be happy to discuss your concerns and, if it were determined you were owed any credit, apply those credits accordingly. You allege: We did not agree with their credits applied. They tried to apply additional fees for stone and labor that was never provided. Not accurate - You asked for additional stone and again, after the work was completed, refused to pay the additional cost, of which you had been advised.