Not everyone, though, wishes to engage in restoration work.

Those who decide not to say it is because they enjoy a regular schedule and regular, steady income, which is what carpet cleaning, for the most part, provides.

Where’s the paycheck?

Then there is the “paycheck” aspect of restoration work.

Carpet cleaning generally means you get paid in cash, check or credit card when the job is completed. At the end of the day, you have earned and collected a good sum of money.

Restoration work is a different ballgame.

Many restoration projects are insurance-related, which means the payday that can be 30 (if you are lucky and the adjuster is your uncle or godfather), 60 (a nice surprise to get a check that fast), 90 (getting more typical), or 180 days or more after the restoration project is completed.

If you don’t have the credit or cash to float the money needed in your business until the paycheck comes in, you are in trouble.

But because of the need for this type of service and the resulting bigger paycheck (when it comes), cleaners work hard to make their efforts pay off in the restoration industry.

At the same time, it seems there are many obstacles too difficult to overcome. Hard-working individuals in our industry are suffering and many have closed their doors because of this.

There are many cases where a job was scoped and accepted by all parties, only to end up with the restoration company receiving a notice that certain things weren’t covered or that the insurance company doesn’t typically “pay for that.”

The money expected for the project is reduced, sometimes whittled or chopped down so much it would have been better financially for the restoration company to take the day off and throw a company-wide picnic.

The good guys

It has to be noted that there are many good, hard-working individuals in the insurance industry. These are people who realize a restoration company has to earn a profit.

These are people who have empathy for the insured, whether it is a single homeowner or multi-million-dollar commercial location.

These are people who can make working in the restoration industry a pleasant experience.

The job is scoped, performed and paid for — seems simple, but it doesn’t happen often enough.

The experts

The adjuster that makes this industry refreshing is the type who recognizes and respects you as the expert. After all, there aren’t many adjusters that have worked on an actual water loss or spent the day in full personal protection equipment.

They may have some book or classroom training, but it’s not the same as actually taking that knowledge and putting it to work in the field.

As in most industries, there are ample training opportunities available to enable you to gain knowledge and to become an expert.

For the restoration industries, you have a slate of educational opportunities, from simple two-day basic water or fire restoration seminars to week-long educational events, including mold remediation training, to choose from.

Some training involves so much hands-on opportunities that, when the training is completed, the student and future remediator comes away with a tremendous amount of working knowledge.

After putting this to work in the company, skills are increased and a true expert remediator is born.

But then an adjuster comes along and tries to tell you how to do your job, perhaps dictating procedure that goes contrary to industry-recognized documents, such as the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC) S500 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration or the S520 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation.

As one restoration professional in Florida related, the problem can be illustrated this way: An adjuster walks into a flooded home and points at an air scrubber and says, “Sorry, but we don’t pay for supplemental air conditioning.”

That may be an extreme case, but it’s true and illustrates that the restoration industry needs to be able to do its work — not saying it can’t or shouldn’t be policed, as any industry should be subject to scrutiny.

Of course, there are restoration companies in business today not qualified to perform restoration work. That’s no secret, and you’d find unqualified companies in any trade, whether it is plumbing, electrical, roofing, etc.

The point is that with proper education and good work ethics, everyone should be allowed to do their work properly. The bad companies are not going to succeed and will eventually be weeded out and the qualified companies will thrive.

Preferred contractors

Those that aren’t privileged to be a “preferred contractor” are generally against this type of business practice.

Of course, the insured has the right to choose the restoration company of his or her choice. But we all know how difficult it can be for someone not well-versed in insurance specifics to go against the recommendation of the adjuster.

A movement in Colorado recently may have a nationwide impact on this.

House Bill 1104, specifically eliminating the required use of preferred vendors in the state, recently passed the State Senate and was signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter.

Consumers in Colorado can now choose their own restoration professional in the event of a water, fire or similar loss, with no pressure from the insurance industry.

Colorado insurance companies may provide a list of qualified vendors if the homeowner requests one.

Supporters of this bill are encouraging other restoration professionals throughout the U.S. to lobby for similar legislation.

Risky business

Another problem with adjusters or insurance professionals dictating to you how to do your work is liability.

Who is to blame if, down the road, the work you performed is questioned and maybe even ends up in a lawsuit?

If you performed the work, and agreed to how it should be done, you are going to get the blame.

With the training and documentation available today, it is an easy thing to make known to the insurance company that, as a professional restorer, you must follow standard working procedure.

Of course, if you deviate from that standard and complete the job anyway, the insurance company is pleased because it probably saved money.

Problems down the road will find you abandoned to your fate.

How many adjusters would sign a form stating they agree and take responsibility for restoration work performed outside the scope of an accepted standard?

None. They want you to take the risk.

Everyone suffers

Many of you have experienced this: You arrive at a loss and begin emergency services, only to find yourself haggling with the adjuster on the price of restoration services.

You know there are certain steps and procedures you should follow, but the money isn’t going to be there to pay for it.

The job goes from bad to worse as the work is held up because the insurance company is “doing its job.”

A simple water loss turns into a mold remediation project.

You don’t earn the money you need to make a profit and the insured is also hassled and becomes tired, eventually settling for far less than was fair.

This creates an attitude that is like a domino effect. You become weary, tired and bitter.

Plan your own solution

As you can see from the various sidebars and examples that follow in this article, many of you have some of the same challenges.

You can also read about some potential solutions. Learning from the mistakes of others is key.

In the meantime, think about what you can do to make your relationship with the insurance industry better.

Many problems are due to lack of communication.

Many problems occur because too much communication was verbal, and not written.

From the insured to the restorer to the adjuster, and more, good communication is vital.

And documentation is important. Everything you think needs to be done on the job should be put into writing.

Citing industry standards of care is only going to protect you more.

Can you unite?

Today’s world of electronic media makes it easy to network with your peers.

You can have an impact on the problems facing the restoration industry today.

Discuss these with others. Find your way to industry bulletin boards such as the one at www.cleanfax.com and, as a professional group of restorers, toss ideas back and forth.

Single voices are like gentle drops of rain in a pond.

Combined voices can be like a thunderstorm.  

Editor's note: The following are some examples culled from an e-mail invitation for some restoration "horror stories". The purpose is for you to have the opportunity to see some of the problems prevalent in the industry. 

Learn from the mistakes of others
By Phil McLaughlin

I was recently retained as a consultant by a well-intentioned general contractor, based in a major U.S. city and specializing in commercial renovations.

Having had a claim in his own home and intrigued by the price charged by the local contractor, he decided to diversify into the water damage restoration/structural drying.

He ordered more than $300,000 in assorted drying equipment, including a large trailer-mounted desiccant dehumidifier.
One of his first jobs was to tackle substantial water damage in a high-end residential home.

Mistake No. 1
Having made a substantial investment in rental and assorted restoration equipment, the contractor and his partner decided to meet the crew at the house in order to assist with the project.

The insured’s rental property job was referred to her by one of the largest agents in the area (the policyholder was out of town).

They both pulled up to the loss in their brand new Mercedes vehicles.

Agents, tenants, adjusters and everybody got to hear about their expensive new cars. Sooner or later someone was going to wonder if he (she) was paying for those cars.

Mistake No. 2
Since the insured lived out of town, they met with the tenant who signed the insured’s name on the authorization form.

Since the tenant described the house as an “unlivable disaster,” the insured (who never saw the loss, and never signed a document agreeing to pay for the work) instructed the restorer to do whatever emergency service was required to mitigate the damage.

The contractor proceeded, as per the insured’s request, to make her happy. No ballpark or reserve price (e.g., “not to exceed …”) was ever quoted.

Mistake No. 3
The bill for approximately two days’ work, labor, debris removal and rental equipment came to approximately $12,000.

Much of the debris were the tenant’s contents which, while unrestorable, required coverage by the tenant’s policy, but such coverage did not exist.

The contractors, who were not yet my clients, billed the tenant’s contents debris removal to the landlord’s insurance company.

Mistake No. 4
The tenant never approved payment of this work as both he and the contractors assumed it would be covered by the landlord’s policy.

Always find out who is paying for what and insist that those in authority “sign off” on the agreed work and its estimated price.

Mistake No. 5
The charge for the entire debris removal was combined into a single, lump-sum price, as opposed to charging an hourly rate or a rate based on the cost per yard of debris.

The tenant’s contents were combined with the landlord’s sheetrock, insulation and delaminated glue-down carpet into one price.

When two or more people have vested interests in the bottom line, and the bottom line has two or more separate totals, you must treat them as two separate jobs, each with its own accountability, estimations and billing.

Mistake No. 6
During the initial damage assessment, no “before” or “after” photos were taken to show the extent of the damage, or the end result of the restoration work.

Once a job is done and everything is restored, it is very difficult to produce evidence that each stage of the job was necessary.

Photographs and video recordings are strong, irrefutable evidence.

Mistake No. 7
Removal of building materials requires a contracting license in the name of the restoration company. In this case, such did not exist.

The new restoration contractor assumed that since he was referred by the agent, the insurance company would pay his bill for “emergency service.”

He never inquired about the deductible amount which always should be collected at time of service. The deductible was $10,000.

Mistake No. 8
Since the insured had never personally seen the loss or the labor and equipment involved, and had not received an approximate “ballpark” price, she never dreamed that the project would cost $12,000.

Mistake No. 9
To add insult to injury, an estimating software program was used that is not recognized by most insurance companies.

The estimate was further exacerbated by the contractor who charged unit cost for some work and time and materials for other services. This gave the insured the opinion that he was “double dipping.”

Mistake No. 10
The equipment rental charges were questioned as moisture readings were never taken. Nor was thermal imaging used to justify job scope, before and after.

Lessons learned

So here we have an honest, hard-working restoration contractor with a $300,000 investment in equipment and with the best of intentions to please the insured and obtain future referrals, now being called a “thug” by the insured, who does not want to pay the bill.

I am now trying to negotiate the claim with the insured and agent.

The contractor filed a mechanic’s lien to protect his company’s interest.

The insured’s position is: “I’ll see you in court.”

How do you think the judge will find us two years from now with the insured, tenant and agent testifying against us?

After running one of the largest restoration companies in the New York Metro area for more than 30 years, I have “been there, done that” on more than one occasion — the only good thing that came out of it was a priceless education.

It all comes down to …
There is no reason to “reinvent the wheel.”

Everyone who is successful in this business has walked in your shoes at one time or the other. Mistakes, however, can be very costly.

Had this job gone well, the single agent involved would have been in a position to refer more than $200,000 in business, over a year, to my client.

That’s $2 million during the 10 years.

As they say in the business, “You’re only as good as your last loss.”

So what’s the solution? Education, education, education!

Phil McLaughlin, C.R. #045, is president of Philip J. McLaughlin & Associates, a Tampa-based marketing and business development consulting firm for cleaning and restoration industries nationwide. He can be reached at (516) 263-9326 or through www.TheRestorationConsultant.com.

The perfect restoration job
By Bill Begal

This story does not include a homeowner or insurance company; rather, it involves our federal government.

To make it more interesting, my company received the coveted 2007 Phoenix award for “Innovation in Restoration.”

June 2006 had historically heavy rainfall in the greater Washington, D.C., area.

One of the buildings affected from heavy rain was the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Begal Enterprises Inc. was contacted at approximately 12:05 a.m. on June 26 and was asked to respond to assess the damage to the building and to create a plan to mitigate and prevent further damage.

Within an hour, Begal personnel made their way downtown, carefully navigating the streets of the nation’s capital which were flooded with up to three feet of water.

Personnel walked the basement of the building, of which almost 100,000 square feet were affected. Standing water was as high as 2.5 feet in some places, and water was still coming into the structure.

Thermal imaging cameras showed that water was wicking up the drywall. The cove base glue was so saturated that it began to curl off the walls.

The water receded, mud and sediment were extracted and shoveled out, and then these areas were mopped and sanitized.

All furniture was blocked. Important documents, records and the irreplaceable EPA microfiche library were removed to dry areas for assessment.

Special containments were built to protect important documents that did not get wet but would be damaged by the rising humidity within the building.

By 10 p.m. that night, trailer-mounted desiccant dehumidifiers were onsite. Portable LGR dehumidifiers and air scrubbers were placed and energized.

Wednesday, June 28, began the full-scale restoration.  Two 12-hour shifts with 40 workers on each shift worked around the clock for the next 2.5 weeks.

All affected building materials were marked for removal. This amounted to more than 72 tons of debris.

A strict cleaning protocol was established. This included HEPA vacuuming and biocleaning, using specially manufactured tack and alcohol cloths.

Air scrubbers were used throughout the project and LGR dehumidifiers were left in place to control the humidity within the structure until the HVAC system could be cleaned.

Following the cleaning, a full battery of microbial clearance samples was taken by EPA hygienists. The results: 98 percent passed clearance criteria, 90 percent of those came back with zero organisms present.

Results of this caliber are unheard of on a project this large and intricate.

It is rare that full-scale remediation of this magnitude is performed — especially considering that this was the headquarters of the organization that monitors our industry and decides on appropriate actions and protocols. That is the real “bonus.”

As this is being written, nothing, not one cent, has been paid for this award-winning project, performed more than 11 months ago.

Government Services Administration (GSA)  maintains that they are satisfied with the work performed, they just need more time to review and caucus with their independent appraiser.

Additionally, they want information that was not a part of my contract.

The lesson learned is that a burn rate should have been figured and a draw paid weekly against that rate.

Bill Begal is president of Begal Enterprises, Inc., a fire and water restoration specialist company in the greater Washington, D.C., area. He can be reached at (301) 984-8566 or bbegal@begal.net.

Keep it in writing
By Craig Kersemeier

After many years of doing rest-oration and remediation projects, you try to forget the “bad” jobs and remember the good ones. However, the bad jobs allow you the opportunity to learn from your mistakes.

One job continually comes up with our crews today, as an example of many mistakes one can make.

Years ago, I used to go to all potential projects and “scope” them personally.

One particular job involved mold remediation in a crawl space of government housing on an Indian reservation about two hours from our main office.

Due to a scheduling conflict, I sent a project manager to look over the job, and I would help with the bid when he returned.

He sold the people involved on this new (at the time) technology of dry ice blasting. We prepared a bid at $30,000 and sent it off. Our contract was accepted and signed.

We scheduled the work, but the general contractor had a very aggressive schedule that we tried to accommodate.

Here is where the problems began.

The foreman for the company wanted longer hours and weekends. We told him additional charges would apply; he verbally agreed (problem No. 1).

He also wanted a coating applied after the remediation process. We said there would be an additional charge; he verbally agreed once again (problem No. 2).

We told the contractor that they should allow time after dry ice blasting and the final HEPA vacuuming process to let the air scrubbers work prior to air testing. The general contractor did not listen and tested immediately after we had just finished. As a result, the test failed and the entire crawl space had to be re-cleaned at our expense (problem No. 3).

In the estimate process, we never accounted for the project to go from two to four weeks and the additional travel expense of a job two hours away from our office — not to mention our dry ice supply (problem No. 4).

When the job was finally complete and we presented our invoice for the bid plus the additional services, they referred to our contract that states, “All additional work or change orders need to be signed” (problem No. 5).

We threatened to take them to court. However, they reminded us that we were on an Indian reservation and we would have to appear in their court system.

Since the additional expenses we were asking for would come directly from the tribe I would be appearing in front of, odds were stacked against us (problem No. 6).

These were expensive lessons to our company and ones that we refer back to quite often: Know your contract better than your client, know your total expenses in your estimate, and get the change orders signed.

Craig Kersemeier is president of K-tech Kleening Systems and his company serves most of Wisconsin with six offices: Rhinelander, Stevens Point, Sturgeon Bay, Fond du Lac, Appleton, and the corporate office in Weston. He can be reached at (800) 215-8324.

The ‘do-it-yourself’ syndrome
By Kevin Jones

My interesting restoration saga begins with a young lady relating that when Hurricane Isabel came through North Carolina, water backed up from a ditch behind her residence and began pouring into her home.

This was on Friday. She left and stayed with her parents and on Saturday they called her insurance agent.

On Sunday, an adjuster called and told her not to touch anything and that she would be over to look at the place in a day or so.

On Wednesday, the adjuster showed up. Of course, the carpet was still drenched and there was no sign of mold growth on top of the carpet — yet.

The adjuster looked around, determined the water did indeed come from the outside, and informed the young lady that she is not covered for this type of loss.

The adjuster promptly left.

The young lady and her father called a local carpet store which sent a crew over to pull out the wet carpet. When the gentleman arrived, he saw the mold problem and informed her that this is out of his league and refers her to me.

So that’s how I get involved.

While I talk to the young lady and her parents, she told me that she has multiple sclerosis and cannot live in these conditions and needs it cleaned up by a professional.

I took measurements. It’s a small two-bedroom duplex, so my bid came in around $6,500 for demolition and rebuild, clean and seal of the subfloor, pulling up the kitchen vinyl, moving and storing what savable furniture she had. It didn’t include re-installing the vinyl or the carpet.

A couple of days go by and I didn’t hear from her.

I was truly concerned because of her medical condition, so I called her to see if she’s had her concerns addressed. When she heard it’s me on the other end, she got very upset and says that I’m crazy for trying to charge her $6,500.

I told her that her argument is not with me, it’s with her insurance company. I informed her that I understand she’s upset, but that I’m just calling to see if she had everything handled.

She said, “Yes!” (very sarcastically), and what I learned is that, according to her, the insurance company told her to clean it up with chlorine bleach and put a couple of dehumidifiers and air movers in the house.

I didn’t say anything as she informed me how cheaply she saved her own home.

I often wonder how she’s doing or if she’s even still with us because she said she was “deathly allergic” to mold.

Kevin Jones is owner and operator of MSI Cleaning & Restoration Inc., Greenville, NC.

Getting paid
By George Bishop

The largest problem we have in the restoration industry is getting paid for our work.

We have put up with all kinds of payment difficulties, from adjusters and insurance companies taking 90, 120, or 180 days to get payment to us (if they did at all), to ignoring all our signed paperwork, and more.

In 2004, we decided to be proactive and fix this problem. In 2004, our restoration receivables over 30 days were at $130,000. Today, they are at $2,200.

We have solved this problem with a “credit card only” policy on all restoration jobs, unless the client is well-established with our company.

What this means is that if a new client calls us, they have to secure the job on a credit card before the truck leaves our business location.

No credit card = no work. Period.

The card has to be able to carry the balance of the estimate cost or a limit set by the homeowner.

We check to see if it will.

If it doesn’t, we don’t do the work.

If it is a large job, we run one-third at the start of the job, another one-third halfway through the job, and the final one-third on completion.

We will work with the adjuster or company by telling them if they pay us directly in 15 days, we will not run the card.

If it is a client in good standing, this does not apply.

If it is one of the “good” adjusters we work with and they tell us they will pay us direct within 30 days, it does not apply.

Most of our jobs range from $5,000 to $20,000. This plan keeps everything in check and accountable.

If we run the card, we work with the insurance company or adjuster and send all estimates and final invoices along with all copies of signed paperwork to them, directing the insurance company to make all payments to the homeowner.

One of the best features of this plan is you stay out of the middle of the fights between insurance companies and homeowners, as well as them trying to reduce your price.

The insurance companies and adjusters have brought this on themselves by not taking care of restoration companies that are saving them money.

Since we have started this plan I have lost three restoration jobs, and we perform a large amount with 21 employees.

George Bishop is president of Penobscot Cleaning Services Inc., Brewer, ME.