Ayotte's Construction

Description of Work: We hired Bernard Ayotte to build our home for us this is what he did not do. We had to get an engineer to come inspect the house and this is the findings. The primary purpose of the inspection and this report is to document and evaluate work performed by Ayotte’s Construction LLC relative to the accepted proposal for that work. The gliding door in the kitchen was installed by others following departure of the contractor from the project. the contractor did not install this door, and apparently ordered a door that was too large for the opening that was constructed, and the opening had to be re-framed by others to accommodate the door. Mrs. Smith reported that the opening was framed for a 6’ wide door, and an 8’ wide door was ordered. The kitchen exterior passage door opening was framed, but the door was not provided or installed by the Contractor The window above the kitchen sink had been installed at the time of the inspection. the window unit was provided by the contractor, but not installed by the contractor The Contractor did not install steps from the front right laundry room to the kitchen area The back wall of the living room, at second floor level, was not framed by the contractor, and framing in this area was completed by the Smith’s. Door and window openings were framed in the living room/dining room area, but door and window units were not installed. Door and window openings were framed in the first floor bedroom, and the doors and windows were provided, but door and window units were not installed. No interior stairs were installed by the contractor, either to the second floor or to the basement. The second bedrooms were framed with window openings, and windows were provided but not installed. The second floor bathroom partitions were framed up to an 8’ height, but this was not sufficient to separate the top of this partition from the vaulted, sloping ceilings. The owners had to install supplemental framing to allow for separation between the heated living space and the unheated roof framing. No provision was made by the Contractor for support of the second floor overhang beyond the kitchen exterior wall at the second floor front bedroom. The owner has installed a concrete footing, pier, and steel post, which as installed provides only marginal support . Fascia was not installed on all of the eaves and rakes.The left half of the roof was not shingled by the Contractor, nor did the Contractor provide shingles for this area. This portion of the roof was shingled by the Smith’s. The following items were found to have been constructed or installed to a lower level of workmanship than should be expected of a qualified contractor, or were otherwise not constructed in accordance with the construction drawings: The roof trusses above the garage/laundry area are not installed in a workmanlike manner. Two trusses near the exterior wall have no provision for bottom chord bearing. Other trusses have top chords scabbed on to upper level framing .The windows were not properly spaced in the left side wall of the living room. Two windows are shown on the drawings to be spaced symmetrically relative to the chimney foundation. The back window opening is below the front edge of the second floor bedroom floor and wall, and it should have been placed to fit with uniform spacing between the side of the chimney and the front wall of the second floor bedroom Based on observations made of the unfinished walls of the interior, the windows were not flashed to current standards, and will be prone to leakage. The ceiling for the first floor bedroom was constructed with a horizontal surface while the drawings call for a sloping cathedral ceiling. The slope of the roof framing above the stairwell does not match the slope of the roof framing over the upper level roof system to which it connects. The stairwell roof is of a lower slope than the upper level roof. The right side exterior elevation (sheet 2) shows a uniform slope for the two roof sections. The main section ceiling is currently strapped as a cathedral ceiling, plans shows horizontal ceilings on the second floor. Where visible, wall sheathing was not installed in a workmanlike manner Open gaps and exposed edges of subfloor sheathing are evident along the back wall of the living room area. The posts supporting the first floor support beam are poorly spaced and of casual construction, consisting of nominal 2x lumber nailed into a “T”section, and a log. Visible slopes in the first floor were observed in the living room and the bathroom . These observations suggest that the top of the foundation was not checked for level at the time of construction. Had it been, the sill plates could have been shimmed to eliminate this condition. The front right laundry room is shown on the construction drawings as a one-car garage. the Contractor framed the overhead door opening and provided an overhead door (that was not installed), even though the owner’s had requested that the wall be framed for a passage door. When the Contractor left the site, the overhead door opening had not been framed in, and later had to be framed in by others with a passage door provided by the Smith’s. The construction drawings show a sunken living room, with the living room floor being 2’-6” lower than the adjacent dining room and kitchen floors. First floor framing consists of 14” deep manufactured wood trusses fabricated from 2”x4” nominal lumber members connected with metal plate fasteners. Trusses span from left to right, with a center support beam extending from front to back of the main section, at approximate center. A concrete foundation wall below the living room/dining room divides the basement area into two sections, with trusses bearing on this center dividing wall. The trusses spanning the first floor below the dining room and master bedroom do not appear to have sufficient bearing at the center dividing wall for proper support. Truss system shop drawings were not available for review in the preparation of this report. Typically these trusses require 3 ½” of bearing at each end, and sometimes require 5½” of bearing at each end. Truss bearing at the center dividing wall was measured at less than 1 ½” (photos 30-33). The house framing is not square with the foundation. The framing extends beyond the foundation by up to 2 ½” The incomplete work items listed in section 3.3 are in our opinion features that should have been completed under the described work items of the accepted proposal. The deficiencies listed are examples of poor workmanship and project planning. The inadequately supported roof trusses above the laundry room and the first floor trusses with insufficient bearing need to be re-framed or reinforced soon to ensure dependable service. The roof above the laundry room should be kept clear of significant snow accumulations until repairs have been made. One possible solution is to frame bearing walls below the affected trusses, both in the basement and laundry room. The first floor support posts in the basement need to be replaced with more substantial posts, equally spaced as necessary below the support beam, and properly anchored to the beam and to the basement floor. The external support post at the front left corner of the building should be removed and reconstructed such that the foundation extends to below the depth of anticipated frost penetration into the soil (6’-7’), and a more substantial post should be installed from the foundation to the floor framing above. Other noted conditions, while not having an immediate impact on the structure, are examples of less than average quality, and will likely make completion of he project more difficult and more expensive, and may have an impact on the future value of the home

Description of Work: Was under written contract, hired him to build my house through a construction loan I obtained. Was very slow in building the house, they would work half days, some days not even show up. This contractor was paid on time, each time. During this time a Frivolous law suit was brought on me by my girlfriends x common law husband all my bank accounts were frozen and they threatened to sue Bernard also. At that point Bernard took the money he had been paid and left Immediately he had finished half the roofing he took the rest of the shingles with him, and all the materials that was bought to finish out the house. The company Bernard had purchased the doors and windows from delivered them, there was one missing window, front door, and one eight foot patio door (wrong size). During the suit procedings my construction loan was unfrozen and I was told by my lawyer that Bernard wanted some money and he would be back to finish the job. I trusted that he would so I paid him $17000.00 more. After that he would not even answer his phone, would not return my phone calls. He left my house half roofed, one outside wall missing, wrong and missing doors, window, no stairs. This house was also built wrong one of the main beams was placed right on top of a window, roof was wrong and ceilings were wrong he placed blame on the company who built the rafters. One outside wall is bowed along with numbous other stuff. I took pictures of all if any one is interested. The total sum of the contract was $100,000.00 the total sum that was paid to Bernard was $97000.00. That left me $3000.00 to buy the materials that Bernard took with him when he left. When I finally got ahold of him he said he would not come back because he was not paid in full! I have been strugling to get my home finished sense, I had to hire another person to do alittle at a time to fix or work around the mess that was left.