BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARD
In the Matter of the Arbitration between:
AMI & CHRIS TEIGEN, Complaint No: 97677-101
And ARBITRATION AWARD
JEB & JACKIE WIRFS INC., dba
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This complaint was timely filed in accordance with ORS 701.143. All items determined are within
the scope of ORS Chapter 701 and require licensing with the Board. Complainant alleges that
respondent breached their settlement agreement by failing to perform all work as agreed. A
settlement agreement was entered by the parties at an on-site investigation conducted by a Board
investigator/mediator on July 12, 2006. Complainants subsequently filed a Statement of Damages
form seeking monetary damages in the amount of $14,555.16 to complete work complainants
allege respondent failed to perform.
Pursuant to its authority under ORS 701.148(1), and subject to the provisions of ORS 701.148(4),
the CCB, on December 15, 2006, referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, as
required under ORS 701.149, for binding arbitration, in accordance with OAR Chapter 812,
Division 10. A Notice of Arbitration Hearing, along with a copy of OAR Chapter 812 Division 10,
was served on the parties. David Marcus was appointed as the Arbitrator and a telephone
prehearing conference was conducted on February 13, 2007. Complainants’ counsel, Nick E.
Rauch appeared for complainants and Jeb Wirfs and counsel, Stephen Eichelberger, appeared for
respondent. During the prehearing conference, the parties agreed to participate in a settlement
conference, with Arbitrator Vance Bybee serving as mediator. The settlement conference was
conducted on March 19, 2007, but a settlement was not reached. A second prehearing conference
was conducted on April 4, 2007, as complainants filed notice of intent to assert additional damages
under the settlement agreement, to which respondent objected as an attempt to add new items of
complaint that were not timely filed with the CCB.
The hearing was held on April 26, 2007 in Salem, Oregon. Complainants Ami and Chris Teigen
appeared in person with their attorney, Mr. Rauch. Respondent’s principals, Jeb and Jackie Wirfs,
appeared with their attorney, Stephen Eichelberger. Complainants both testified at the hearing.
Also testifying for complainants were: contractor Darren Renken; Tim Wolden, structural engineer;
Teigen and Jeb & Jackie Wirfs Inc., CCB complaint no. 97677-101 Page 1 of 5
and, Bill Bryant, drywall contractor. Testifying for respondent were: Jeb Wirfs; Jill Pardovich,
vice president of Centennial Floors, Inc.; Bill Peterman, president, Oregon Drywall Systems, Inc.;
contractor Brett Stewart; contactor Brandon Hoffman; and, contractor Turk Stevens. Having duly
heard the proofs and allegations of the parties, and having considered the entire record, consisting
of Exhibits 1 through 135, complainants’ Exhibits C1 through C6, respondent’s Exhibits R1
through R9 and a digital recording of the arbitration hearing, I, the undersigned Arbitrator, enter the
This case arises from a contract between the parties for construction of a new home located at 788
S. 72nd Street in Springfield, Oregon. The home was completed in February 2005 and
complainants occupied the home on March 25, 2005. Complainants advised respondent of a
number of punch list items they felt needed to be address several times during the first year of
occupancy. Because of respondent’s failure to respond to, complainants filed this complaint on
March 17, 2006. The CCB scheduled an onsite meeting and, on July 12, 2006, the parties met at
the home with CCB investigator/mediator Nick Newman. At that time, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement, designated as a substituted contract, which called for the respondent to
perform the following as full resolution of the complaint:
a) Repair driveway and garage entry to have minimal slope and proper drainage to
include a full grate in front of garage,
b) Repair all drywall cracks and deficiencies in home as identified by claimant’s
c) Replace tub surround in master bathroom with tile,
d) Dig out around three posts in the front of the home.
The settlement agreement called for respondent to complete all of the above work items by August
Respondent completed item a) of the settlement agreement in a timely and satisfactory manner.
Complainants allege, however, that respondent failed to complete items b), c) and d) above and
breached the settlement agreement. For its part, respondent alleges that complainants impeded its
performance of work, in breach of the agreement.
A threshold issue raised prior to the arbitration, regarding the scope of item b) above and the
alleged related damages complainants could seek, was resolved, for the most part, at the outset of
the hearing. Complainants failed to timely file an amended statement of damages as required under
OAR 812-010-0110(4) and (5), and they elected to withdraw, without prejudice, their claim that the
settlement agreement at b) extends to all causes, including structural defects, relating to the drywall
problems in the home. Accordingly, complainants withdrew, without prejudice, complaint items 9
and 10 on their statement of damages. Each of the remaining items of the complaint are addressed
Items 1 & 2: Tile and setting material and installation labor
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $2,585.16 to replace the tub surround with Jerusalem
Stone. Respondent argues this item of the complaint should be dismissed because complainants
Teigen and Jeb & Jackie Wirfs Inc., CCB complaint no. 97677-101 Page 2 of 5
impeded its performance of work by failing to select the tile they wished to have installed until
after the period for respondent’s performance under the settlement agreement had expired. Indeed,
Mrs. Teigen testified that she did not advise respondent of her choice of tile until August 17 or 18,
2006. Mr. Wirfs testified that once he was advised of Mrs. Teigen’s choice, he respondent that he
would install the tile if complainants paid respondent the difference between the cost for
complainants’ choice and the cost of tile to match the existing tile in the home. The parties could
not agree and no work was performed by respondent. I find that complainants were not entitled to
the tile of their choice under the settlement agreement. It is quite apparent that the tub surround
complainants received a bid for is quite extravagant. I am also not persuaded that respondent is
entitled to dismissal of this item of the complaint. I find that respondent was obligated to provide a
tile tub surround under the agreement. Mr. Stewart’s testimony regarding the cost to complete this
work was the most reliable evidence of the reasonable cost. I award $200.00 for the cost of
matching tile, $600.00 for labor and $200.00 for hardi-board backer, which respondent was unable
to confirm was previously installed. Complainants are awarded $1,000.00 for this item of the
Item 3: Dig out around three posts in the front of the home
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $560.00 for this item of the complaint. Respondent
acknowledges that it did not perform this work. However, respondent presented credible testimony
from three witnesses that Mr. Teigen advised respondent’s crew not to worry about the posts as he
was planning to install a retaining wall, which would resolve the issue. Notwithstanding Mr.
Teigen’s denial, I find that complainants waived this item of the agreement and therefore dismiss
this item of the complaint.
Item 4: Tear down ceiling and shim ceiling to match
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $420.00 to tear out a portion of the ceiling in the
kitchen and replace it with to be even from wall to wall, and an additional $460.00 for similar work
around the bay window in the living room. Respondent argues that this work exceeds the scope of
the agreement, because the agreement calls for repairing drywall cracks and deficiencies, not for
removing and replacing drywall. While I acknowledge that the ceiling areas identified in this item
of the complaint were marked with blue tape and do require repair work, removal and replacement
of sections of drywall is beyond the terms of the settlement agreement. I also note that Mr. Renken
testified that removal and replacement was better than patching, but not a necessary measure. I
therefore dismiss this item of the complaint, and address the repair issue in item 8 of the complaint
Item 5: Take down and rehang blinds
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $140.00 to take down and rehang the blinds for the
drywall repair work to be completed. While that is work itemized on the bid from Renken, neither
party spoke to this item of the complaint and neither party questioned Mr. Renken about this item.
I find that taking down and rehanging blinds in at least some areas is a necessary and appropriate
measure, but I also find the bid amount sought to be overstated. I award complainants $75.00 for
this item of the complaint.
Teigen and Jeb & Jackie Wirfs Inc., CCB complaint no. 97677-101 Page 3 of 5
Item 6: Rehang two interior doors
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $280.00 for this work, which the repair contractor
noted in its bid “from settling.” There may be a legitimate issue regarding the doors, but they are
not included in the scope of the settlement agreement. I therefore dismiss this item of the
Item 7: Interior paint after drywall repairs
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $2,300.00 for the cost to repaint the interior of the
home once drywall repairs are completed. The evidence indicates that this bid includes repainting
the entire interior of the home. I find that complainants have not shown that completely repainting
the interior will be necessary after drywall repairs are completed. However, I also find that
respondent’s alternative bid at $680.00 is not reasonable for the anticipated finish that complainants
are entitled to expect. Specifically, the bid indicates that the touchup quality may be limited and
there is no acknowledgement that where appropriate, a full wall will be repainted. The bid also
indicates that any caulking is extra. I conclude that the reasonable cost for paint after drywall
repairs have been completed is $1,200.00 and award that amount for this item of the complaint.
Item 8: Drywall repair
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $6,000.00 for drywall repairs based on Bill Bryant’s
bid to “repair, rescrew, prime, retexture, mask and clean up ready for paint.” In his testimony, Mr.
Bryant acknowledged that he could not say that any demolition was needed. He also stated that his
bid was based on completing repairs and retexturing all walls and ceilings in the home.
Respondent argues, persuasively, that the scope and price of Bryant’s bid is excessive. Respondent
submitted an alternative bid from Oregon Drywall Systems Inc. in the amount of $1,200.00. Based
on the testimony of Mr. Peterman, I find that bid to be responsive and reliable. Accordingly, I
award complainants $1,200.00 for this item of the complaint.
Item 11: Footing repair
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $153.00 for repair to a footing. I find that
complainants have failed to show how this cost falls within the scope of the settlement agreement.
I therefore dismiss this item of the complaint.
Item 12: Drywall, remove and reinstall
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $300.00 to remove and replace sections of drywall.
This item of the complaint is based on a bid submitted by Mr. Teigen, himself a licensed
contractor. As with item 4 above, I am not persuaded by the evidence presented that any removal
of drywall is required under the terms of the settlement agreement. I therefore dismiss this item of
Item 13: Electrical work
Complainants seek damages in the amount of $500.00 to remove electrical fixtures (lights fixtures,
can trims, plate covers and wall speakers) before drywall repairs are performed and to re-install
fixtures once repairs are completed. This item of the complaint is based on a bid submitted by Mr.
Teigen and Jeb & Jackie Wirfs Inc., CCB complaint no. 97677-101 Page 4 of 5
Teigen, himself a licensed contractor. I note that removal and reinstallation of fixtures is not
specified in the drywall repair bid from Oregon Drywall Systems. I also note, however, that this
item of the complaint appears to be based on the assumption under the Bryant bid that all walls and
ceilings would be completely retextured. I find that effective repair will not require removal of all
electrical fixtures and therefore conclude that $500.00 is an excessive amount. I find that the
reasonable cost associated with removing and reinstalling electrical fixtures as needed and
appropriate is $150.00.
Complainants have established valid complaint items totaling $3,625.00. Pursuant to ORS
701.147(4)(a) and OAR 812-004-0250(2)(c), complainants are also entitled to recover their
complaint processing fee in the amount of $50.00. Based on these Findings, and in accordance
with ORS Chapters 701 and 36, and OAR Chapter 812 Division 10, I enter the following:
Respondent shall pay complainant $3,625.00, plus $50.00 in costs for complainant’s processing
Dated this 16th day of May, 2007
David Marcus, Arbitrator
Teigen and Jeb & Jackie Wirfs Inc., CCB complaint no. 97677-101 Page 5 of 5