World Construction Inc

Overview of Customer Feedback for World Construction, Inc: Initially, World Construction Inc fixed broken items at their own expense. This review should be a warning about what you can expect from them. The $250,000+ must have been worth it. However, I have good reason to believe WC will use this review in a lawsuit against me. I look forward to that day in court. Problems began when they subcontracted the electricians. The electricians' work was spot-on and essential — they probably saved us from an investigation and lawsuit by the local county's health department. WC's error was a "final straw." This was the project's reason for termination, with all the work done preceding its reveal. WC refused to pay the electricians, leaving them with no other options than to file a lien against the project. WC still owes ~$2,000, and WC insists there are no problems. WC has also not fulfilled their warranty agreement. They promised a warranty on their work, which is why $250,000+ was spent. Instead, WC has denied all the requests I sent them after the project was completed. It was such poor implementation. In addition, my wife and I retained ~$5,000 from their final draw once this was made known. WC owes ~$2,000, and they owe another $2,000 if you consider the size of the electrical lien. It did not have to come to this. World Construction, Inc. Info: World Construction Inc. was contracted to implement an extensive remodel project for local homes in a $250,000+ transaction. Legal professionals had to intervene by the end of November to bring the project to completion before the holidays and your surgery. The following review captures the essence of WC's work. World Construction, Inc. - 3/5 How would you rate? SCHEDULE: Originally, the construction job was to be done by July 2025. Actual: December 2025. It was completed five months after the original completion date. The company wasted four months on permits.incare of their properties and pets. They also conducted themselves professionally. Beer cans were left behind by the crews, a danger to pets and property. WC had insufficient storage for materials at their offices or onsite. No porta-potty was provided for most of the project. MANAGEMENT: The main PM was renovating his own home. Three assistant PMs did not maintain a consistent work plan. They had to repeat themselves every week, like they had not met with the client before. The owners created conflict when they had not ordered materials. The owners went into the project without a clear plan. When it came to that point, they paid the electricians almost $5,000 and claimed the work was not finished. WC wants more than $2,000 to be paid before the review can be removed. SOURCING: I was in charge of the diverse sourcing of flooring, tile, fixtures, and lighting. Their employee did some of the work but had no experience. He caused errors, and the products he sourced had to be reordered. Materials arrived uninspected, mixing the orders. WC left three orders outside of the project rooms, stating the project was delayed. Many orders were placed incorrectly. WC had insufficient storage room for most of the project and little onsite. WC refused to pay the electricians. What looked to be excellent at the project start turned bad. WC has refused to do the work for free, citing multiple reasons. WC has refused to take responsibility for the work. WC wants more than $2,000 to be paid before the review can be removed. SITE CONDITIONS: There was no porta-potty for the majority of the project. This denial of service raises health and safety concerns. The electricians and HVAC staff urinated on the project property. A neighbor was shocked at the service.employees failed to protect the property during the project, leaving construction materials in the front yard. The county's health department had to be contacted to expedite the permitting. QUALITY: The master bedroom was not framed at right angles. Doors are not centered in the rough openings. A lot of the tile is similarly not centered. We hope that the roof and structure are sound. At $250,000+, no one should have to pay for nuance. Hire legal counsel for your company. WC wants more than $2,000 to be paid before the review can be removed.