# Subcontracting for a National Provider



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

I have seen a lot of ill will on these blogs towards National Providers. My impression is that some of it is earned and some is just misunderstanding on the part of the poster. I am hoping to hear from everyone about a positive experience with a National and/or what could they do to win you over and make you excited about working for one.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

No good input, just need to subscribe.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Why do we need nationals?


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Good question. It isn't that you need nationals but the clients with multiple sites need nationals to aggregate the service. They do not have the resources to go out to the market and secure snow services for dozens or hundreds of sites. Nor do they have the resources or expertise to oversee the work. They look to a national to facilitate that for them.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)




----------



## Sawboy (Dec 18, 2005)




----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> Good question. It isn't that you need nationals but the clients with multiple sites need nationals to aggregate the service. They do not have the resources to go out to the market and secure snow services for dozens or hundreds of sites. Nor do they have the resources or expertise to oversee the work. They look to a national to facilitate that for them.


Question, How does a vendor oversee the site. Last I new the Contractor provided the man power, Equipment, Materials and liability's. What does the Vendor do when the contractor packs up with no notice for non payment. Do you want to be the guy they call??? Don't tell me you would not have questions to why the other guy quit.

Clients hire you (contractor) as a professional service and should not need anybody to oversee there performance. It's your liability's if the parking lot is safe.

What resources do you need? You could just go to Homeadvisor and hire a guy that has been FBI checked, checked for leans, Credit checked and reviews from clients that contractors that have done this type of work for.


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

I think this can be a good and helpful discussion if we allow it to be...I give him credit for coming here and asking what can be done, on the nationals end, to win you over and potentially, work for them

that being said, let's keep the conversation decent and on point and offer your suggestions

thanks, all


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> Question, How does a vendor oversee the site. Last I new the Contractor provided the man power, Equipment, Materials and liability's. What does the Vendor do when the contractor packs up with no notice for non payment. Do you want to be the guy they call??? Don't tell me you would not have questions to why the other guy quit.
> 
> Clients hire you (contractor) as a professional service and should not need anybody to oversee there performance. It's your liability's if the parking lot is safe.
> 
> What resources do you need? You could just go to Homeadvisor and hire a guy that has been FBI checked, checked for leans, Credit checked and reviews from clients that contractors that have done this type of work for.


I am not sure I understand all of your points because it is hard to follow but I will say this:
No company with multiple sites is going to send out a blank check for snow removal. There must be some controls in place - regardless of the proficiency of the subcontractors performing the work. These large companies just don't have the resources to place these controls in place. It obviously creates a problem if a sub walks off the job for non payment. Why does this happen?
What you suggest about a company going to Homeadvisor and hiring a guy just isn't feasible in a portfolio situation. They don't have the resources to do this.
Do you have personal experience with one of these nationals?


----------



## JMHConstruction (Aug 22, 2011)

AllanGBM said:


> I am not sure I understand all of your points because it is hard to follow but I will say this:
> No company with multiple sites is going to send out a blank check for snow removal. There must be some controls in place - regardless of the proficiency of the subcontractors performing the work. These large companies just don't have the resources to place these controls in place. It obviously creates a problem if a sub walks off the job for non payment. Why does this happen?
> What you suggest about a company going to Homeadvisor and hiring a guy just isn't feasible in a portfolio situation. They don't have the resources to do this.
> Do you have personal experience with one of these nationals?


Depending on the contract the business and contractor sign they are essentially writing a blank check that mother nature can only control. The company could decide on a seasonal contract and know exactly what they are going to pay for the season. As a national they can't just not pay for a service the contractor provided just because it snowed too much and his rate is more than the national wants to pay.


----------



## dieselss (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry but I just smell a troll fishing


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

We do a couple jobs through a nsp and have had good luck so far but it does make me a little nervous. I don't understand when you say these companies don't have the resources to do this. They have store managers don't they? If that manager doesn't know if the lot needs more salt or was not plowed correctly needs the grass cut or mulching done then that person should not be there. Each location is different, one might get more snow or need the lawn cut later into the season and this where I don't feel it's right for someone 600 miles away to be dictating this work.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

:terribletowel:I think I will close this one out on my own. Someone is trying with a big spoon to stir the sauce. Sounds to me by your responses that you don't need our advice. Nsp's are great and should make you very successful. I would definitely not pass on any opportunity to do biz with a NSP. This is the future, Hook up with one as soon as possible. Good Luck. Thumbs Up


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

JMHConstruction said:


> Depending on the contract the business and contractor sign they are essentially writing a blank check that mother nature can only control. The company could decide on a seasonal contract and know exactly what they are going to pay for the season. As a national they can't just not pay for a service the contractor provided just because it snowed too much and his rate is more than the national wants to pay.


I am sure you know that there are many times when given no limits snow costs can be a run away train. That said if you sign a contract with a NSP and you hold up your end of the bargain you should get paid each and every time.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

dieselss said:


> Sorry but I just smell a troll fishing


If your referring to me - what would be the point in me doing that. I am asking the site what would they like to see to fix the situation. What would I be trolling for? With all due respect your comment doesn't even make sense.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> :terribletowel:I think I will close this one out on my own. Someone is trying with a big spoon to stir the sauce. Sounds to me by your responses that you don't need our advice. Nsp's are great and should make you very successful. I would definitely not pass on any opportunity to do biz with a NSP. This is the future, Hook up with one as soon as possible. Good Luck. Thumbs Up


Sorry you feel this way. Apparently you have gotten burned before and I was hoping to hear about some of that because I don't feel like the current status is good for the business. In no way did I post to "stir the pot". Although you were being sarcastic, the future will include NSP's because that's what the client base is asking for.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

LapeerLandscape said:


> We do a couple jobs through a nsp and have had good luck so far but it does make me a little nervous. I don't understand when you say these companies don't have the resources to do this. They have store managers don't they? If that manager doesn't know if the lot needs more salt or was not plowed correctly needs the grass cut or mulching done then that person should not be there. Each location is different, one might get more snow or need the lawn cut later into the season and this where I don't feel it's right for someone 600 miles away to be dictating this work.


Thanks for your comments. Let me give you an example of what I mean by limited resources. There are 2 areas. Let's say you had a quick oil change business with 200 locations spread out over 11 states. If you were to go directly to the market to look for direct contractors it would be a huge project. You would want 3 bids per site - 200 bids. You would get about 50% response so you would need to reach out to 400 companies. This would be done once per year and would require a lot of work. Probably not worth it for a company that understands the oil change business and NOT the snow business. The second area is the over-site. Yes you have store managers. They know nothing about snow removal. They cannot hold the contractor accountable. Maybe you want them to concentrate on running the business and not on managing contractors. Overall your cost for taking on all of this "in-house" might amount to 20% of your total snow spend. Maybe you decide you would rather pay an NSP a 15% mark up to do it instead. 
I also don't think it is right to manage snow from 600 miles away. That is the kind of thing I was asking about when I posted this question.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> Sorry you feel this way. Apparently you have gotten burned before and I was hoping to hear about some of that because I don't feel like the current status is good for the business. In no way did I post to "stir the pot". Although you were being sarcastic, the future will include NSP's because that's what the client base is asking for.


Do a search on NSP's make sure you got a couple days. There is more post threads on NSP's than you can count. No I didn't get burned, I stopped plowing and boycotted the lot till the manager paid me in full and signed on with me. Frankly this is a sore subject and old news.

The only way to stop them is to not help them. Have you searched lawsuits and the BBB on these NSP's. You did not have to start a new post for the info you are looking for. And yes NSP's are real, This does not mean there here to stay. This behavior is why we have to have unions and davis baker act. The dishonest like Nsps,


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> Thanks for your comments. Let me give you an example of what I mean by limited resources. There are 2 areas. Let's say you had a quick oil change business with 200 locations spread out over 11 states. If you were to go directly to the market to look for direct contractors it would be a huge project. You would want 3 bids per site - 200 bids. You would get about 50% response so you would need to reach out to 400 companies. This would be done once per year and would require a lot of work. Probably not worth it for a company that understands the oil change business and NOT the snow business. The second area is the over-site. Yes you have store managers. They know nothing about snow removal. They cannot hold the contractor accountable. Maybe you want them to concentrate on running the business and not on managing contractors. Overall your cost for taking on all of this "in-house" might amount to 20% of your total snow spend. Maybe you decide you would rather pay an NSP a 15% mark up to do it instead.
> I also don't think it is right to manage snow from 600 miles away. That is the kind of thing I was asking about when I posted this question.


You got a good sales pitch like a vendor, I personally think you have nothing to sell to these fellas here.


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

FredG said:


> :terribletowel:I think I will close this one out on my own. Someone is trying with a big spoon to stir the sauce. Sounds to me by your responses that you don't need our advice. Nsp's are great and should make you very successful. I would definitely not pass on any opportunity to do biz with a NSP. This is the future, Hook up with one as soon as possible. Good Luck. Thumbs Up


I think that they know they have gotten a bad rap over the years and now they are trying to find a way to m


AllanGBM said:


> Thanks for your comments. Let me give you an example of what I mean by limited resources. There are 2 areas. Let's say you had a quick oil change business with 200 locations spread out over 11 states. If you were to go directly to the market to look for direct contractors it would be a huge project. You would want 3 bids per site - 200 bids. You would get about 50% response so you would need to reach out to 400 companies. This would be done once per year and would require a lot of work. Probably not worth it for a company that understands the oil change business and NOT the snow business. The second area is the over-site. Yes you have store managers. They know nothing about snow removal. They cannot hold the contractor accountable. Maybe you want them to concentrate on running the business and not on managing contractors. Overall your cost for taking on all of this "in-house" might amount to 20% of your total snow spend. Maybe you decide you would rather pay an NSP a 15% mark up to do it instead.
> I also don't think it is right to manage snow from 600 miles away. That is the kind of thing I was asking about when I posted this question.


I would think the store manager could hold the contractor much more accountable then someone 600 miles away don't you? Keeping the facility in shape is the managers job. If you want to pay a NSP an extra 15% to do that job that's fine but you should know that when we go through a NSP we get an extra 25 to 40 % because of all the extra paper work and bs we have to go through. So how much did you save?


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> I am sure you know that there are many times when given no limits snow costs can be a run away train. That said if you sign a contract with a NSP and you hold up your end of the bargain you should get paid each and every time.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

LapeerLandscape said:


> I think that they know they have gotten a bad rap over the years and now they are trying to find a way to m.


If your doing dishonest biz the word will get around. If they want to do the right thing and do honest biz the word will get around also.


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

FredG said:


> If your doing dishonest biz the word will get around. If they want to do the right thing and do honest biz the word will get around also.


him coming here and asking the membership how, to me, is a step in the right direction and...being honest. don't you think?


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> him coming here and asking the membership how, to me, is a step in the right direction and...being honest. don't you think?


IIIIIIF..... it is an honest member that wants opinions... then yes... if this is the classic troller type that we have ousted and beaten on until you shut the thread down numerous times again and again, then no.

But you have to understand things from our side, it has happened to many times to just let your guard down and be all friends and hugs...

I have sat here and watched the thread without anything nice to say, so I have not said anything at all... i know surprising... but I am giving it a chance, just need to see where it goes personally before I start in with anything I have to input...


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

There is no such thing as a run away train. A client can take seasonal or per event. Seasonal if I get 25 trips for my area i'm good to go. Per event only mother nature no's that answer.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

And don't get me wrong, I understand the need for a National... don't like it, but understand it. That is called delegating. Bigger corp delegates to a smaller corp, that corp delegates to a smaller yet corp and so on and so on till it gets down to the little guys... typically someone in there makes it bad for the last guy... just saying...


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

I'm all for honest opinions for him as he is the one asking what can be done to make it better and "win you guys over" to "potentially" do work for Nationals...we all know that it just won't happen for some, however, give the guy your thoughts and opinions on what they should do to make it better for the sub-contractor. posting popcorn smileys, hating on the guy, etc. isn't going to do that is all I'm saying...so yes, I see both sides as I always try to do


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> him coming here and asking the membership how, to me, is a step in the right direction and...being honest. don't you think?


Being honest? Maybe, Personally I think there is enough material already on this site to get the info he is looking for. No need to start a new thread on a sore subject with most members.

I bet dollars to donuts this post don't make the night. BYTW I was responding to lapeers threads. I was not calling the OP dishonest just NSP's.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> I'm all for honest opinions for him as he is the one asking what can be done to make it better and "win you guys over" to "potentially" do work for Nationals...we all know that it just won't happen for some, however, give the guy your thoughts and opinions on what they should do to make it better for the sub-contractor. posting popcorn smileys, hating on the guy, etc. isn't going to do that is all I'm saying...so yes, I see both sides as I always try to do


So as I said, that I had nothing nice to say currently, so I did not say anything at all, (which I believe is MJD 101) but the popcorn smiley is my way of saying that people are listening to what he is saying and now that is wrong here?

It is tough to be "nice" about an issue that has plagued the industry over the years and made many of us get out of an industry that they enjoy due to not being able to work for these nationals. They squash the small guy and do not have any feelings about it.


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

Just to add any info shared should be facts from your own experience and not hear say or something that so and so said.


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

gotcha...an there's no reason it shouldn't make it through the night as every can be decent and civil and post their thoughts and opinions, etc. or just not post to it. again, I think this is a good thing as everyone on here always bashes the NSP's so why not give opinions on how/what to do to make it worthwhile to sub for them


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

LapeerLandscape said:


> Just to add any info shared should be facts from your own experience and not hear say or something that so and so said.


totally agree :clapping:


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

Philbilly2 said:


> So as I said, that I had nothing nice to say currently, so I did not say anything at all, (which I believe is MJD 101) but the popcorn smiley is my way of saying that people are listening to what he is saying and now that is wrong here?
> 
> It is tough to be "nice" about an issue that has plagued the industry over the years and made many of us get out of an industry that they enjoy due to not being able to work for these nationals. They squash the small guy and do not have any feelings about it.


It's kinda like popcorn while watching a movie type of symbol.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> gotcha...an there's no reason it shouldn't make it through the night as every can be decent and civil and post their thoughts and opinions, etc. or just not post to it. again, I think this is a good thing as everyone on here always bashes the NSP's so why not give opinions on how/what to do to make it worthwhile to sub for them


Just for old time sake....  :laugh::laugh:


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> gotcha...an there's no reason it shouldn't make it through the night as every can be decent and civil and post their thoughts and opinions, etc. or just not post to it. again, I think this is a good thing as everyone on here always bashes the NSP's so why not give opinions on how/what to do to make it worthwhile to sub for them


Okay when I can invoice in 30 and payed in 37 I'm cool. If I got to finance the NSP for 90 days I'm not cool.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

FredG said:


> Okay when I can invoice in 30 and payed in 37 I'm cool. If I got to finance the NSP for 90 days I'm not cool.


To elaborate on what Fred says here...I don't have a problem with 90 days... as long as the terms agreed upon in the contract are 90 days... not 30.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> You got a good sales pitch like a vendor, I personally think you have nothing to sell to these fellas here.


You are right. I have nothing to sell them. Didn't come here to sell them. Came here for some information.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> There is no such thing as a run away train. A client can take seasonal or per event. Seasonal if I get 25 trips for my area i'm good to go. Per event only mother nature no's that answer.


They can take seasonal or per event in your market. There are many markets where no one at all will offer a seasonal and there are markets where each and every snow vendor bills hourly.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Philbilly2 said:


> To elaborate on what Fred says here...I don't have a problem with 90 days... as long as the terms agreed upon in the contract are 90 days... not 30.


We all have our company rules and our own believes. You going to have to have a good reason for me to wait 90 days. I can't think of any right now. This is not clean biz to me. I like to work on my own dime. Not have to use a line of credit because I can't get paid.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> They can take seasonal or per event in your market. There are many markets where no one at all will offer a seasonal and there are markets where each and every snow vendor bills hourly.


Allan -- who is this they... ? Are you speaking of Nationals as a whole or are you looking at working for one national and speaking of Fred's area? Or was the "they" a question?


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

FredG said:


> We all have our company rules and our own believes. You going to have to have a good reason for me to wait 90 days. I can't think of any right now. This is not clean biz to me. I like to work on my own dime. Not have to use a line of credit because I can't get paid.


Although I agree 100% and I am in the same finical mindset... I do work for a factory that they pay at 90 days from invoice on that months run.. your a day late on your invoice, it is 120 days till check shows up. Those are the terms... if you can self finance and add that plus the juice into your price... who wins.. you do. You just became the bank!! LOL Thumbs Up


----------



## dieselss (Jan 3, 2008)

I think he IS a national. Probably burned to many bridges and needs to find out how to fix it. IMO of course


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> They can take seasonal or per event in your market. There are many markets where no one at all will offer a seasonal and there are markets where each and every snow vendor bills hourly.


Really, And what area do you service. I'm not dedicating any loaders etc. plus mobilization for no hourly rate. Most contracts equipment has to stay on site. Not happening, Period.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> gotcha...an there's no reason it shouldn't make it through the night as every can be decent and civil and post their thoughts and opinions, etc. or just not post to it. again, I think this is a good thing as everyone on here always bashes the NSP's so why not give opinions on how/what to do to make it worthwhile to sub for them


Michael I appreciate your efforts. 
The truth is that I have been a snow contractor for 40 years. I sat on the SIMA Board and have written articles for Snow Business Magazine. I'm not just some Troll. I recently joined a Facility Management firm who wants to offer snow services to their client base. Creating an agreement to attract quality subs is in the best interest of my company. Believe me I see both sides of the issue. I worked for NSP's for years and didn't have any of these problems. I thought Plowsite would be a good resource to get some ideas to fix some of this - not because I am trying to "sell" any of you anything, but because it is just good business to have good business partners. Almost all of you guys have made this site anything but a resource. Nice work. I've been called names, asked why I started the thread, and told that all you had to do was hate on me long enough the moderator would remove the thread. I'm not going anywhere. If anyone has anything constructive to say I am still listening.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

dieselss said:


> I think he IS a national. Probably burned to many bridges and needs to find out how to fix it. IMO of course


I'm thinking similar thoughts, Trying to be cool to see where it goes.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Allan want some real experience issues to work on...

Pay...
If the terms are 30, 60, 90 and the contractor agrees to those terms, then pay them on the agreed terms. Don't drag them out.

These apps...
Some of the best guys in the snow plowing industry cannot figure out these apps that you have to use... yet alone don't have a smart phone. I understand we are in a world of technology, but there needs to be some other way to report for the guys that cannot figure out the apps.

And the one that is my biggest reason that I have a tough time dealing with Nationals... I can't look you in the eye and shake your hand when I meet you to get a read on if I am going to get stiffed or not. 
You can tell a lot about the character of a man by the look in his eye as you shake his hand...

Which to the above, makes it harder for me to show up on your door step when I don't get paid...


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Philbilly2 said:


> Allan want some real experience issues to work on...
> 
> Pay...
> If the terms are 30, 60, 90 and the contractor agrees to those terms, then pay them on the agreed terms. Don't drag them out.
> ...


Phil, Thanks for the suggestions. 
I agree and I think pay is probably the biggest thing. Shorter terms would be a big plus and everyone should get paid on time. This business is hard enough without worrying about having the money to pay your employees, subs and suppliers.

I also would rather shake your hand and meet face to face. I try and do this with each sub I hire because I also want to get a read on them. It's really also about respect isn't it.

The technology is a big thing. The clients want service verification. How do we do that. These days a smart phone is as essential as a shovel.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> Phil, Thanks for the suggestions.
> I agree and I think pay is probably the biggest thing. Shorter terms would be a big plus and everyone should get paid on time. This business is hard enough without worrying about having the money to pay your employees, subs and suppliers.
> 
> I also would rather shake your hand and meet face to face. I try and do this with each sub I hire because I also want to get a read on them. It's really also about respect isn't it.
> ...


That is the tough part with the ease of just requiring someone to use their smart phone which seems so easy to most now, it a real turn off to the older generations that are some of the best snow fighting personal out there... those guys have been making the impossible happen since we were all in the family room window watching the plow truck go by drooling on the glass...

how did we do it before we had smart phones... someone had get off the couch to go outside and look...


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Well, So you are working for a vendor, Why did you just not state this in your opening post. If you want good Contractors, Pay on time, Do not have a 16 page contract and you should be fine. Also you are not answering some direct questions.

If our advice or comments are worthless and we made such on mess of the site why are you wasting our time. You need to offer up what your company is doing and how your contractors are treated. Did you honestly think we did not know you were a vendor from your opening post.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> Michael I appreciate your efforts.
> The truth is that I have been a snow contractor for 40 years. I sat on the SIMA Board and have written articles for Snow Business Magazine. I'm not just some Troll. I recently joined a Facility Management firm who wants to offer snow services to their client base. Creating an agreement to attract quality subs is in the best interest of my company. Believe me I see both sides of the issue. I worked for NSP's for years and didn't have any of these problems. I thought Plowsite would be a good resource to get some ideas to fix some of this - not because I am trying to "sell" any of you anything, but because it is just good business to have good business partners. Almost all of you guys have made this site anything but a resource. Nice work. I've been called names, asked why I started the thread, and told that all you had to do was hate on me long enough the moderator would remove the thread. I'm not going anywhere. If anyone has anything constructive to say I am still listening.


Please don't take this the wrong way as I have stated in the above, I have tried to just sit in the side and remain completely objective. BUT... you are trying to break into a pretty tight group of guys on this site...

I believe that if you would have started off with the above information, your presence would have been much more welcome as we know the true direction of your presence... the open ended statements make it hard to read you and not knowing you yet, puts everyone on the defense...

In the guys that did run you threw the ringer's defense... You come on here on your first day as a member and start posting in the exact same manor that many of the outfits have came to this site, started a new name just to fish for contractors that are desperate to find work for their equipment. We have seen it time and time again, and many on here are sick of it.

This site is a great resource, you just have to watch what and how it is said as these guys on here will run you threw the mud if they think there is any foul play happening.

Ever heard of the the saying...

"You mess with one your going to have to fight the whole trailer park"

Think of it like that...


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Philbilly2 said:


> That is the tough part with the ease of just requiring someone to use their smart phone which seems so easy to most now, it a real turn off to the older generations that are some of the best snow fighting personal out there... those guys have been making the impossible happen since we were all in the family room window watching the plow truck go by drooling on the glass...
> 
> how did we do it before we had smart phones... someone had get off the couch to go outside and look...


Reminds me of a story about when chain saws were invented and all of the old tree guys who were used to axes resisted. I get it though. It's not for everyone but times change and expectations sometimes follow technology.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

FredG said:


> Well, So you are working for a vendor, Why did you just not state this in your opening post. Did you honestly think we did not know you were a vendor from your opening post.


LOL... 1st thing I did when he posted this AM was web search...

I am guessing you are with General Building Maintenance??? Allan am I right or not?


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Philbilly2 said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way as I have stated in the above, I have tried to just sit in the side and remain completely objective. BUT... you are trying to break into a pretty tight group of guys on this site...
> 
> I believe that if you would have started off with the above information, your presence would have been much more welcome as we know the true direction of your presence... the open ended statements make it hard to read you and not knowing you yet, puts everyone on the defense...
> 
> ...


But here's the thing Phil. I never messed with anyone. That was your impression. I just asked a question. There was no deception about it. No where did it say tell your life story to earn the right to pose a question to us. In fact it seems like I was being baited into an argument from the start.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> But here's the thing Phil. I never messed with anyone. That was your impression.
> 
> In fact it seems like I was being baited into an argument from the start.


You are 100% correct sir. You did not, and it was the impression...

I wish there was a way that I could pull up every thread for you that started off the exact same way to show you that this is not a new thing for this site... typically it goes the other direction and Mike shuts it down. Your remaining calm and staying with it and continuing to ask questions is what got us to where we are now... you will get the information that you need now that everyone knows you are not what we are just trained threw the years to expect.

And yes, you were being baited... that is what happens on this site to get the true info out in the open.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> Well, So you are working for a vendor, Why did you just not state this in your opening post. If you want good Contractors, Pay on time, Do not have a 16 page contract and you should be fine. Also you are not answering some direct questions.
> 
> If our advice or comments are worthless and we made such on mess of the site why are you wasting our time. You need to offer up what your company is doing and how your contractors are treated. Did you honestly think we did not know you were a vendor from your opening post.


Made no effort to hide anything. What direct question did I not answer?


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Philbilly2 said:


> LOL... 1st thing I did when he posted this AM was web search...
> 
> I am guessing you are with General Building Maintenance??? Allan am I right or not?


You are right.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> You are right.


See what I mean... "whole trailer park"

and I gaurentee I was not the only one... we look out for each other here...


----------



## dieselss (Jan 3, 2008)

AllanGBM said:


> Made no effort to hide anything. What direct question did I not answer?


 . nor were you honest FROM THE START. I smelled dung from your first post and I was right. Honesty is the best way to get answers, and it took three pages for you to cone clean.......why?


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> Made no effort to hide anything. What direct question did I not answer?


What's this hourly thing, I can't dedicate equipment by no hour.


----------



## JMHConstruction (Aug 22, 2011)

To me he sounded like he worked for a national from the start. After reading his first post I assumed the M stood for management. I feel like he's at least trying. Just giving him experiences good or bad doesn't mean he's going make you personally work for him.

To be honest, like it or not, nationals are not going away. To a business with many chains throughout the country, to have one company that handles all your needs for every location is something they will always want. I have never personally worked for a national company, but that is mainly because of the bad reputation they have. I also don't like not being able to meet you in person, when you're across the country from me it's too easy for me to get screwed. Payment is a big issue also. Some of these guys have been screwed out of A LOT of money. Depending on the company, if they don't get paid for a winter season they could go out of business. In the world of technology, like you say, you should be able to direct deposit what is owed within days of getting paperwork.

Another thing, guys don't like losing money to a middle man. If you're going to make 15% off the top, then make 15% off the top of what a real business needs to make to survive for the winter, not some BS number you think is appropriate that only some guy who's barely a business anyway thinks is okay. I know a few retail managers who at the store level HATE the national companies, because they hire idiots who do a half ass job.

I think, if you're doing this for the right reasons, you can help the business. There has been another guy on here recently basically asking the same questions. If the NSPs are realizing it's going in the wrong direction and they have a bad reputation amongst contractors, maybe things can change. It will be hard getting serious guys to be the guinea pigs though.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Now that everything is out in the open you can get some real responses. And what state are you in.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

dieselss said:


> . nor were you honest FROM THE START. I smelled dung from your first post and I was right. Honesty is the best way to get answers, and it took three pages for you to cone clean.......why?


You guys are exhausting. Come clean about WHAT. Never tried to hide anything - never thought I had to. In fact I assumed by the context of my question that everyone was smart enough to figure out where I was coming from. Stupid me for giving you all too much credit. If you thought you could smell dung from the start why didn't you just ASK me. You all are so smug its hilarious. And then you claim the behavior is in an effort to somehow circle the wagons. Let me tell you it's just plain rude behavior. I am done with this. Thank you to the one or two people who actually tried to share some information. The rest of you can now sit around and high five each other because you outed the big bad NSP who came here to deceive you and take advantage of the industry. You are too smart for me! Your little internet clique is in tact. Good luck to you. This has been a colossal waste of time.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> You guys are exhausting. Come clean about WHAT.  Never tried to hide anything - never thought I had to. In fact I assumed by the context of my question that everyone was smart enough to figure out where I was coming from. Stupid me for giving you all too much credit. If you thought you could smell dung from the start why didn't you just ASK me. You all are so smug its hilarious. And then you claim the behavior is in an effort to somehow circle the wagons. Let me tell you it's just plain rude behavior. I am done with this. Thank you to the one or two people who actually tried to share some information. The rest of you can now sit around and high five each other because you outed the big bad NSP who came here to deceive you and take advantage of the industry. You are too smart for me! Your little internet clique is in tact. Good luck to you. This has been a colossal waste of time.


Well... I guess I might as well... 

Now come on... that is funny...


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

these guys are very protective of each other and the site so telling them this isn't a resource and attacking them (whether provoked or not) isn't going to win them over or change their minds...that being said, I can close this or we can move forward, be decent towards one another and give facts regarding what you want/expect in being a sub to better the process and industry as a whole.

as a few mentioned, the nationals aren't going anywhere so what do we say we start fresh from here?


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> these guys are very protective of each other and the site so telling them this isn't a resource and attacking them (whether provoked or not) isn't going to win them over or change their minds...that being said, I can close this or we can move forward, be decent towards one another and give facts regarding what you want/expect in being a sub to better the process and industry as a whole.
> 
> as a few mentioned, the nationals aren't going anywhere so what do we say we start fresh from here?


Personally, I hope you stick around Allan... this the the furthest I have ever seen a National thread make it... I think once all the BS and name calling is done with, you might be on to something.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Think of it like the first day on a new job... :laugh:


----------



## dieselss (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi I'm ----- from this company. I've read about some negative reviews you guys have about nationals. I am starting up a maintenance company and would like some info as to why...... . Holy cow batman how hard was that? Why couldn't you state your intentions from th start as I asked? Why should WE guess as to who you are, where your from and your TRUE intentions? You claim 40 years, you should know what it's like to be burned and taken advantage of. We were wanting some answers but think skin national can't take it.


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

As I said, move on so we can have a discussion and maybe it can clear some things up instead of you guys always complaining about Nationals...so, AGAIN, enough with the finger pointing, name calling, complaining whose fault it is etc., etc.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> You guys are exhausting. *This is true*
> 
> Come clean about WHAT. Never tried to hide anything - never thought I had to. In fact I assumed by the context of my question that everyone was smart enough to figure out where I was coming from. *We did...*
> 
> ...


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> I am not sure I understand all of your points because it is hard to follow but I will say this:
> No company with multiple sites is going to send out a blank check for snow removal. There must be some controls in place - regardless of the proficiency of the subcontractors performing the work. These large companies just don't have the resources to place these controls in place. It obviously creates a problem if a sub walks off the job for non payment. Why does this happen?
> What you suggest about a company going to Homeadvisor and hiring a guy just isn't feasible in a portfolio situation. They don't have the resources to do this.
> Do you have personal experience with one of these nationals?


Gotta run, but this is just flat out horse hockey.

I'll try to reply more in depth later on.

I just can't comprehend that you think every store manager is such an idiot that they can't handle contracting snow and ice management services.

I can tell you this, we used to do about a dozen Walgreen's. The managers loved our work. The district manager loved our work. They went national, the managers were ticked and the level of service dropped. Their lots are never as clear and their landscapes are just about as crappy as Rite Aids now, and those are dumps.


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

Mark Oomkes said:


> Gotta run, but this is just flat out horse hockey.
> 
> I'll try to reply more in depth later on.
> 
> ...


Mark you are exactly right but this means nothing to the higher ups in the company. What they want to see is paper work as they sit around their big desk. The paper would read something like this (you will recieve the highest level of service possible) but those are just words on a piece of paper. It sure does look good on paper and thats all that matters to the bean counters..


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

LoL, I was wrong,  The Post did make the night.


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

Interesting thread. I can appreciate Allan's question. It's a basic question. What I don't understand is that he doesn't already seem to know the basic answers. He has enough experience based on his time in the industry.

What I can't appreciate Allan is your frustration, and how you chose to respond to the group. You don't see the opportunity, or have learned something in what you may be considering negative responses. These are their concerns. Look beyond their delivery and focus on what their problem is, and what you can do to solve it and win them over so they are excited about working for you. This is your question, right? Also understand not everyone here will be your cup of tea, or will be be a viable potential service provider for you.

If you really need it more spelled out, you need to;
*Have a vetting process
*Form a relationship with your service provider
*Create a fair contract, with fair term and conditions
*Create an easy and friendly service verification process


Don't;
*Treat your service providers with distance or disrespect
*Have an egregious, overly broad one sided, unfair indemnification clause
*Have thin skin

To get upset and claim "almost all of you guys" make this site a poor resource is a bunch of bull...you just fail to see the value. You got emotional and snarky with the group. You still have an opportunity here as long as you can keep your emotions in check and not take yourself so seriously. If you can't win people over you will struggle in your new venture.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Philbilly2 said:


> IIIIIIF..... it is an honest member that wants opinions... then yes... if this is the classic troller type that we have ousted and beaten on until you shut the thread down numerous times again and again, then no.


http://gbmweb.com/


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> gotcha...an there's no reason it shouldn't make it through the night as every can be decent and civil and post their thoughts and opinions, etc. or just not post to it. again, I think this is a good thing as everyone on here always bashes the NSP's so why not give opinions on how/what to do to make it worthwhile to sub for them


Especially since I wasn't on. lololololololol


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> They can take seasonal or per event in your market. There are many markets where no one at all will offer a seasonal and there are markets where each and every snow vendor bills hourly.


I heard this time and again yesterday, and it came from someone far more knowledgeable than the inventor of snow: Whether you say you can or you can't, you're right.

Hourly is for the inexperienced plow jockey, who doesn't know how to bid or estimate. Hourly is a great way to screw the customer, because I can send my newest, slowest jockey to do their lot. And there is no incentive to work faster, smarter, better.

Yes, there are customers who want hourly, and the inexperienced plow jockey can have them. I'm bidding it high enough with a 1 hour minimum that I won't get the work. If I want the work, I am going to do my best to educate the customer on why they're wrong and why they don't want hourly.

You say hiring a hundred different contractors is inefficient and an open checkbook. Hourly is an open checkbook as well. You contradicted yourself.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Mark Oomkes said:


> http://gbmweb.com/


Hey... no popcorn guys... LOL


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> Phil, Thanks for the suggestions.
> I agree and I think pay is probably the biggest thing. Shorter terms would be a big plus and everyone should get paid on time. This business is hard enough without worrying about having the money to pay your employees, subs and suppliers.
> 
> I also would rather shake your hand and meet face to face. I try and do this with each sub I hire because I also want to get a read on them. It's really also about respect isn't it.
> ...


Who wants service verification? The client or the NSP? Or are NSP's ghosting services and they are the ones causing the problems?

This has only been an issue in the recent past. My company has been around over 80 years, we haven't stayed around by not performing services that we bill for.

Want service verification? How about this simple answer: when the store manager\tenants\whoever doesn't call, the service was performed.

Guess I'm old fashioned, I do the work I am contracted to do and I expect to get paid for it in the agreed upon time frame. I will accept responsibility and liability if it is my fault, but I am not going to if the customer doesn't allow me to do my job as I see fit.

I know there's crooks out there, on all sides, contractors, clients AND NSP's.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Philbilly2 said:


> Hey... no popcorn guys... LOL


Sorry, hadn't gotten that far yet.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

TCLA said:


> Interesting thread. I can appreciate Allan's question. It's a basic question. What I don't understand is that he doesn't already seem to know the basic answers. He has enough experience based on his time in the industry.
> 
> What I can't appreciate Allan is your frustration, and how you chose to respond to the group. You don't see the opportunity, or have learned something in what you may be considering negative responses. These are their concerns. Look beyond their delivery and focus on what their problem is, and what you can do to solve it and win them over so they are excited about working for you. This is your question, right? Also understand not everyone here will be your cup of tea, or will be be a viable potential service provider for you.
> 
> ...


:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:Thumbs UpThumbs UpThumbs UpThumbs UpThumbs Up


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Philbilly2 said:


> LOL... 1st thing I did when he posted this AM was web search...
> 
> I am guessing you are with General Building Maintenance??? Allan am I right or not?


Maybe I should read the whole thread before replying.

But my memory sucks, so I would forget what I was going to say.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> I am not sure I understand all of your points because it is hard to follow but I will say this:
> No company with multiple sites is going to send out a blank check for snow removal.


Who said they do?



AllanGBM said:


> There must be some controls in place - regardless of the proficiency of the subcontractors performing the work.


And??? These are called specifications or scope of work. Been around for years.



AllanGBM said:


> These large companies just don't have the resources to place these controls in place.


Horse hockey. Someone came up with the "great" idea of selling to these large companies management services. Before NSP's, they did handle it in-house.

Let me ask you this, how much money does and NSP save a large company? Has anyone ever figured it out? Can it be quantified?



AllanGBM said:


> It obviously creates a problem if a sub walks off the job for non payment.


I'm a bit curious at your terminology after being in the biz for 40 years. A snow contractor does not "sub" for a customer, they are the contractor. If the contractor hires another contractor to perform walks or salting, that is a subcontractor.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> You would want 3 bids per site - 200 bids.


Actually, 600 bids.



AllanGBM said:


> You would get about 50% response so you would need to reach out to 400 companies.


Where do you get this number?



AllanGBM said:


> This would be done once per year and would require a lot of work.


Why? Why not multi-year contracts? And if a contractor does a good job and prices are reasonable, why do you have to rebid?

There is an answer, this scenario creates the "problem" of lots of paperwork and the need for someone to perform all this paperwork.

The solution? A management company\national service provider.

Which makes no sense, the same work is getting done, in house or by a management company. The big difference is another layer of bureaucracy and everyone knows what happens with bureaucracies, they are continue to grow and grow and grow, to justify their existence.

How can we do that? Demand that every service is recorded in almost real time by the contractor. Ooooh, more paperwork or technology but we are "saving" the customer money by doing his work for him.



AllanGBM said:


> Yes you have store managers. They know nothing about snow removal. They cannot hold the contractor accountable.


They can't tell if the parking lot has been plowed? If that's the case, they shouldn't be managing people OR changing oil.

Why can't they hold the contractor accountable? They're the ones that are going to make the complaint if the lot isn't plowed, which negates your previous argument that they know nothing about snow removal. If they don't know anything about it, they have no room to complain if the job wasn't done properly or at all.

You just contradicted your argument again.



AllanGBM said:


> Maybe you want them to concentrate on running the business and not on managing contractors.


And if they hire a decent contractor at a reasonable price they won't have to manage anyone. If they hire any idiot with a plow who will do it for $25 a push, you get what you pay for. That's the customer's fault, not the contractor.

If you can keep yourself from getting emotional, we can keep up the conversation.


----------



## John_DeereGreen (Jan 2, 2011)

Looks like Mark's got this one under control, just by applying a bit of common sense.

Hiring low bid for jobs is perfectly fine. However, the bidder needs to be correctly vetted to ensure they will comply with the scope and specs.


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

I still don't see how they are saving money. We charge more if it's a NSP just for the extra bs, can you take pics, we need this paper work filled out and so on. All they are doing is creating there self a job and trying to justify it.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

One other point regarding technology and verifying services. 

Honest contractors stay in business because they are honest. Generally, they have their poop in a group and price accordingly to what their costs and profits are. 

The problems arise when NSP's promise the customer the world in saving them money so they beat the prices down that they will pay and demand that of the actual people performing the work. Which results in lower quality and not so honest contractors performing the work and when they figure out they are losing their butt they try to make up for it by ghosting services. 

So again, the problems start with the NSP's. In more ways than one. 

The last thing that is needed is some idiot in an office 100-1000 miles away from me, telling me what I can charge for a parking lot so he can make the margins he promised his customer. And many times, that idiot hasn't ever been in a plow truck. Not saying this is the case with you Allan, but it is and has been for many a NSP. 

Then you get into the regionality of pricing, how work is performed, service expectations, etc. 

I can pontificate more, but until Allan comes back, it's wasting Michael's monitor ink.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

LapeerLandscape said:


> I still don't see how they are saving money. We charge more if it's a NSP just for the extra bs, can you take pics, we need this paper work filled out and so on. All they are doing is creating there self a job and trying to justify it.


What???????????????????

All those requirements should be included in your bottom dollar pricing. That stuff should be free because you have the pleasure of working for them.


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

I'd say we leave this be for awhile and if Allan wants to respond to some of the points, questions, etc. then he is more than welcome to.

thanks, all :waving:


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

Mark Oomkes said:


> What???????????????????
> 
> All those requirements should be included in your bottom dollar pricing. That stuff should be free because you have the pleasure of working for them.


They don't get it, they save the company 15% but they dont tell the company that the contractor is charging an extra 25% to do their paper work.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> I'd say we leave this be for awhile and if Allan wants to respond to some of the points, questions, etc. then he is more than welcome to.
> 
> thanks, all :waving:


Can I post the popcorn guy now then???


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Michael J. Donovan said:


> I'd say we leave this be for awhile and if Allan wants to respond to some of the points, questions, etc. then he is more than welcome to.
> 
> thanks, all :waving:


Thumbs UpThumbs Up


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

*deep breath* Sorry for my comments. I felt I was getting attacked for no reason. 
My name is Allan. I am VP for a Facility Management firm that is historically a janitorial firm but wants to offer it's clients snow removal. They hired me to do this. Business as usual regarding NSP vs. Subs is a dead end. I know ALL of the ins and outs. I am really looking for opinions on a creative way to break the mold. I am sure some of you have thought about it before. My comments regarding pricing, service verification, site managers reflect the opinions of the portfolio chains and not my own. This type of work isn't for everyone HOWever if someone can figure it out is represents an opportunity. It will not be if you add 45% for paperwork or aggravation factor. IF you were to see yourself partnering with an NSP how would it look - beyond the obvious?


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mark Oomkes said:


> Who said they do?
> 
> And??? These are called specifications or scope of work. Been around for years.
> 
> ...


Mark in the past they did handle it in house but that seems to have changed. I am sure there are lots of reasons for that. I really don't know how to quantify what an NSP would save a company. I know you can't measure it all in dollars. Many of these companies just simply can't/don't want to handle this project alone any longer. Sorry for the confusing terminology regarding subs. I know what a sub is. I think I was trying to answer too many questions in a short period of time.


----------



## kimber750 (Sep 19, 2011)

A traveling company rep for each region you plan on providing service for. This person would also be dedicated to the contractors in their region. These reps should know the layout of the accounts,, they should lay eyes on it. And if it all possible these reps should have some type of experience in snow removal.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

I can't go back and respond to each post. If there is a point you want to discuss or have me clarify can you please just post it? I don't think I have contradicted myself and I am happy to explain.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

LapeerLandscape said:


> They don't get it, they save the company 15% but they dont tell the company that the contractor is charging an extra 25% to do their paper work.


No I get it. If you add 25% to your cost and the NSP adds their cut than the bid becomes non-competitive. This is why I am raising this question.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

kimber750 said:


> A traveling company rep for each region you plan on providing service for. This person would also be dedicated to the contractors in their region. These reps should know the layout of the accounts,, they should lay eyes on it. And if it all possible these reps should have some type of experience in snow removal.


I like the idea if you have enough volume in the market to justify the added expense and it can be funded. Another idea is to pay the local vendor a bit more to perform this function for you.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mark Oomkes said:


> Who wants service verification? The client or the NSP? Or are NSP's ghosting services and they are the ones causing the problems?
> 
> This has only been an issue in the recent past. My company has been around over 80 years, we haven't stayed around by not performing services that we bill for.
> 
> ...


mark I agree with all of this. In fact one of the biggest surprises when I saw how the large portfolio management/owners operated was how much the want verification outside of looking at the lot. In fact they seems to use the lack of verification to reduce payments. This creates a problem for both the NSP and the sub.


----------



## kimber750 (Sep 19, 2011)

AllanGBM said:


> I like the idea if you have enough volume in the market to justify the added expense and it can be funded. Another idea is to pay the local vendor a bit more to perform this function for you.


I just don't like having to deal with a different person every time an issue arises. This applies to more than just snow removal for me but makes thing go much smoother if I don't have a different person each time I call about the same problem.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

LapeerLandscape said:


> I still don't see how they are saving money. We charge more if it's a NSP just for the extra bs, can you take pics, we need this paper work filled out and so on. All they are doing is creating there self a job and trying to justify it.


This is not a small point in the discussion. If you compare the cost of you doing the work vs. them hiring an NSP who hires you to do the work there is no savings. But don't forget that the process of managing all of this for some companies who have hundreds of locations is huge. They factor this cost into the equation.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

kimber750 said:


> I just don't like having to deal with a different person every time an issue arises. This applies to more than just snow removal for me but makes thing go much smoother if I don't have a different person each time I call about the same problem.


Interestingly enough this is also the complaint of companies with multiple sites and one of the main reasons they seek out an NSP. I recently met with a client who has only 17 sites and when it snow he was totally overwhelmed with contact because he had 17 different vendors. This is a growing business and it was clear to him his system wasn't scalable.


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> I can't go back and respond to each post. If there is a point you want to discuss or have me clarify can you please just post it? I don't think I have contradicted myself and I am happy to explain.


Two recommendations for your contract...state that you will pay your contractor whether or not you get paid, and don't make someone sign an unfair indemnification clause.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

TCLA said:


> Two recommendations for your contract...state that you will pay your contractor whether or not you get paid, and don't make someone sign an unfair indemnification clause.


2 points. Shouldn't there be some kind of sharing of loss when non payment happens? Especially if the reason for non-payment lies with the contractor. Also what do you see as being a fair indemnification clause?


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> Interestingly enough this is also the complaint of companies with multiple sites and one of the main reasons they seek out an NSP. I recently met with a client who has only 17 sites and when it snow he was totally overwhelmed with contact because he had 17 different vendors. This is a growing business and it was clear to him his system wasn't scalable.


Ya and when the client see's the :terribletowel:the NSP sent him his thoughts may change, Maybe he will take some responsibility and not be so overwhelmed.


----------



## kimber750 (Sep 19, 2011)

AllanGBM said:


> 2 points. Shouldn't there be some kind of sharing of loss when non payment happens? _*ONLY*_ if the reason for non-payment lies with the contractor. Also what do you see as being a fair indemnification clause?


Fixed it for you.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

kimber750 said:


> Fixed it for you.


second part?


----------



## Sawboy (Dec 18, 2005)

AllanGBM said:


> 2 points. Shouldn't there be some kind of sharing of loss when non payment happens? Especially if the reason for non-payment lies with the contractor. Also what do you see as being a fair indemnification clause?


Not a chance. That's absurd. We did the work, pay us! That's like calling the electric company and saying "I know you delivered the electricity all month, but my boss didn't pay me, so I'm not paying you".



kimber750 said:


> Fixed it for you.


Indeed!


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Sawboy said:


> Not a chance. That's absurd. We did the work, pay us! That's like calling the electric company and saying "I know you delivered the electricity all month, but my boss didn't pay me, so I'm not paying you".
> 
> Indeed!


so its absurd that if you as the sub drops the ball and it causes non payment you shouldn't also take the hit?


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> 2 points. Shouldn't there be some kind of sharing of loss when non payment happens? Especially if the reason for non-payment lies with the contractor. Also what do you see as being a fair indemnification clause?


As long as the contractor performed as per the agreement, whether or not you get paid doesn't really matter. You owe the contractor his payment. No sharing of loss when non payment happens...that is unless the contractor fails or is derelict in his performance.

As far as indemnification...hold your contractor responsible for only what is in his control. Forget about "any and all" verbiage, other overly broad verbiage, and don't make him wave subrogation.


----------



## Sawboy (Dec 18, 2005)

Re-read your quote......that's not what you suggested. 

You'll see that I agreed with the statement Kimber made.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

TCLA said:


> As long as the contractor performed as per the agreement, whether or not you get paid doesn't really matter. You owe the contractor his payment. No sharing of loss when non payment happens...that is unless the contractor fails or is derelict in his performance.
> 
> As far as indemnification...hold your contractor responsible for only what is in his control. Forget about "any and all" verbiage, other overly broad verbiage, and don't make him wave subrogation.


I don't like broad indemnity either. Risk should be spread according to who has control.


----------



## kimber750 (Sep 19, 2011)

AllanGBM said:


> second part?


Sorry but I don't have an opinion on this since it has not been an issue for me, yet.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Sawboy said:


> Re-read your quote......that's not what you suggested.
> 
> You'll see that I agreed with the statement Kimber made.


I agree with his statement also


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

How about you make the contracts readable for all and not just liar (lawyer) that wrote it or maybe you could sign the contractors contract.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

LapeerLandscape said:


> How about you make the contracts readable for all and not just liar (lawyer) that wrote it or maybe you could sign the contractors contract.


I actually like this idea. I would consider incorporating the contractors contract into a subcontractors agreement if we can agree on the terms of the contract. I have found most to be fair. My concern would be does it hit most of the important aspects of the agreement but that can be addressed.


----------



## Maclawnco (Nov 21, 2002)

TCLA said:


> As long as the contractor performed as per the agreement, whether or not you get paid doesn't really matter. You owe the contractor his payment. No sharing of loss when non payment happens...that is unless the contractor fails or is derelict in his performance.
> 
> As far as indemnification...hold your contractor responsible for only what is in his control. Forget about "any and all" verbiage, other overly broad verbiage, and don't make him wave subrogation.


Jim speaks the truth. I 2nd this.

We do alot of work for NSPs. It works for us for now but its not where I want to be long term. Take the idiots who manage Home Depot (sorry Jim). They pay 10k for the year and want priority service. You cant have it both ways. Either pay nothing and get terrible service. Or pay great and get your salad tossed while the guys are there. But make a conscious choice on your value proposition and stick to it.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Maclawnco said:


> Jim speaks the truth. I 2nd this.
> 
> We do alot of work for NSPs. It works for us for now but its not where I want to be long term. Take the idiots who manage Home Depot (sorry Jim). They pay 10k for the year and want priority service. You cant have it both ways. Either pay nothing and get terrible service. Or pay great and get your salad tossed while the guys are there. But make a conscious choice on your value proposition and stick to it.


The price should certainly match the expectation. In the $10k HD case who dropped the ball?


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> I actually like this idea. I would consider incorporating the contractors contract into a subcontractors agreement if we can agree on the terms of the contract. I have found most to be fair. My concern would be does it hit most of the important aspects of the agreement but that can be addressed.


It really just doesn't have to read like the obamacare bill. I have always said if it takes me longer to read and understand the contract then it takes me to plow the lot it's going in the basket.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> The price should certainly match the expectation. In the $10k HD case who dropped the ball?


In regards to price, who is really taking the risk?


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mark Oomkes said:


> In regards to price, who is really taking the risk?


I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.


----------



## Maclawnco (Nov 21, 2002)

AllanGBM said:


> The price should certainly match the expectation. In the $10k HD case who dropped the ball?


They came to us with the price. We already had a wheel loader in the shopping Plaza so an Extra 1.5 hours plowing was no issue. But they had to know that with a price per acre about a third the going rate, they likely wouldn't take first priority normally.

What's that saying? You can have Fast, Good, or cheap. Choose 2.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Maclawnco said:


> They came to us with the price. We already had a wheel loader in the shopping Plaza so an Extra 1.5 hours plowing was no issue. But they had to know that with a price per acre about a third the going rate, they likely wouldn't take first priority normally.
> 
> What's that saying? You can have Fast, Good, or cheap. Choose 2.


Did you make it clear to them that for that price they would likely not take first priority?


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.


NSP's want low prices because they make some BS statement to the client that they can save them money. Correct?

So oot of the 3 parties (property owner, NSP, contractor) who has the most risk and should be properly compensated?


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> *deep breath* Sorry for my comments. I felt I was getting attacked for no reason.
> My name is Allan. I am VP for a Facility Management firm that is historically a janitorial firm but wants to offer it's clients snow removal. They hired me to do this.


Thanks for coming back to this again Allan... you are proving that you have tougher skin than most of the NSP's on the 2nd day!

The fact that you did not just walk away just gave you more credit here you will understand. Thumbs Up


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

Mark Oomkes said:


> NSP's want low prices because they make some BS statement to the client that they can save them money. Correct?
> 
> So oot of the 3 parties (property owner, NSP, contractor) who has the most risk and should be properly compensated?


The old saying is **** goes down hill.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

LapeerLandscape said:


> The old saying is **** goes down hill.


I wish, somehow, the **** always ends up on my desk.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mark Oomkes said:


> NSP's want low prices because they make some BS statement to the client that they can save them money. Correct?
> 
> So oot of the 3 parties (property owner, NSP, contractor) who has the most risk and should be properly compensated?


You know I can't answer for all NSP's. I assume that they are in business to grow and prosper and to do that you need to have sustainable business practices. I will not say "correct" to NSP's wanted low prices because they made some promise to a client because this makes no sense to me. THIS NSP wants a price from you that is competitive enough to tack on a small margin and still win the work. You have a responsibility to make sure the price you give to me allows you to meet the scope and requirements. Yes you make a smaller margin working for an NSP. I would look at this as the cost of acquiring the contract. For some companies in many cases this is work that they would never have access to and would be happy to win the work.
As far as who has the risk it is all 3. The bulk of the risk should be shouldered by the company actually performing the work as long as no barriers outside of the scope have been put onto them. So if they are negligent in any way they should assume the risk. Anything else should be an act of nature. I know this sounds good in argument but I also know that everyone gets dragged in. The risk level goes up tremendously when a job is priced too low. For everyone whether they realize it or not.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> The risk level goes up tremendously when a job is priced too low. For everyone whether they realize it or not.


Precisely my point.

And that has been the biggest problem with NSP's in the past. They do promise cost savings and adding a layer of bureaucracy and a bunch of BS paperwork, pictures, check-in times, blah, blah, blah, adds more to their cost of doing the job but the NSP's want lower costs. That's one of your biggest obstacles.



AllanGBM said:


> For some companies in many cases this is work that they would never have access to and would be happy to win the work.


There's a reason for that, and it might be a really good one. Maybe they shouldn't have access to it. Sure, they're happy. Just look here on PS, every year, there's a half dozen guys with basically zero experience that want to land the local WallyWorld or Home Cheapo or whatever. They have no business bidding that work because they don't even know how to price it.



AllanGBM said:


> You know I can't answer for all NSP's. I assume that they are in business to grow and prosper and to do that you need to have sustainable business practices.


I was asking generally, as that is the premise behind just about any new business venture especially this one, saving someone else money....and hassle.



AllanGBM said:


> I will not say "correct" to NSP's wanted low prices because they made some promise to a client because this makes no sense to me.


No sense to you, but that is what USM, Ferrendino, etc have done.



AllanGBM said:


> Yes you make a smaller margin working for an NSP.


Why would I want to?

How about the NSP makes a smaller margin because I am the one supplying labor, equipment and materials to service the customer. That's where I was going with my question. The NSP has no skin in the game when it really comes down to it. The property owner and the contractor are the only 2 who can really lose something.....tenants\slip & falls\lost production or for the contractor, their business because they had to price so competitively that they can't cover their costs. Assuming they have any business performing the work in the first place.



AllanGBM said:


> So if they are negligent in any way they should assume the risk.


Absolutely.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mark Oomkes said:


> Precisely my point.
> 
> And that has been the biggest problem with NSP's in the past. They do promise cost savings and adding a layer of bureaucracy and a bunch of BS paperwork, pictures, check-in times, blah, blah, blah, adds more to their cost of doing the job but the NSP's want lower costs. That's one of your biggest obstacles.
> 
> ...


The requirements for paperwork, pictures, check in's blah blah blah almost always comes from the client and not the NSP. They do this because they have been burned by snow contractors in the past so they have lost trust. Sad state of affairs.
The fact is that NSP's make much smaller margins than the actual contractor. The skin in the game is that they are building a business and also have things at stake. I understand your feelings towards NSP's but because of your overall view you see evil everywhere even where it is not. The value of the NSP in general may not be from your side but the side of the client. The NSP provides them with a service as an aggregator. The function is more than to jump in and grab margin. In fact I don't think the client is looking to spend LESS money but to outsource some of the functions. If a small contractor agrees to take on work at too low of a price and has a bad experience whose fault is that?


----------



## JMHConstruction (Aug 22, 2011)

In my opinion, the option for a property owner to have a NSP take care of finding, paying, dealing with, etc., contractors for all their needs (lawn care, snow removal, cleaning, and whatever else) under one roof makes since to me. What I don't understand is why does the contractor have to take a paycut, especially when all the fault is pointed at him. You are providing a premium service to the property or business owner, why not charge for it. Let the contractor make his usual pay, and then tack on a small percentage for the NSP to make money.


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> If a small contractor agrees to take on work at too low of a price and has a bad experience whose fault is that?


I would say best case scenario is 55/45. 55% fault to the procurer, 45% fault to the contractor.

Bad case scenario 95/5...95% fault to the procurer, 5% fault the contractor. Worse case 99/1.

As someone who has hired hundreds of sub contractors/service providers over decades for thousands of sites, I have to take responsibility for who I hire/choose to partner with/do business with...there's no question about it. How can I possibly wash my hands of them when it was my responsibility to begin with? I put them in the position.

When I hire a dud...shame on me. I'm the one who put him in a position to tarnish the company, upset the client, got us into trouble...or worse hurt us. When I hire a stud...give me credit.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

I am referring more from the perspective of the contractor. I really don't understand someone when they say I accepted the work at one-third of the normal value and then I had problems with the contract and blames it on someone else.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

JMHConstruction said:


> In my opinion, the option for a property owner to have a NSP take care of finding, paying, dealing with, etc., contractors for all their needs (lawn care, snow removal, cleaning, and whatever else) under one roof makes since to me. What I don't understand is why does the contractor have to take a paycut, especially when all the fault is pointed at him. You are providing a premium service to the property or business owner, why not charge for it. Let the contractor make his usual pay, and then tack on a small percentage for the NSP to make money.


I agree this would be the best scenario


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> I am referring more from the perspective of the contractor. I really don't understand someone when they say I accepted the work at one-third of the normal value and then I had problems with the contract and blames it on someone else.


But you, as the procurer, should know the job can't be performed to specs\SOW at that price and have no business hiring him.

That is what TCLA is saying.


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

If they get 6 quotes and 5 of them are from 90 to 110 dollars and someone comes in at 65 it should be red flag.


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> I am referring more from the perspective of the contractor. I really don't understand someone when they say I accepted the work at one-third of the normal value and then I had problems with the contract and blames it on someone else.


Still your fault. Don't take offense, but I would expect you to be far more savvy, informed and experienced than to chose someone who doesn't understand their own market pricing, doesn't have the experience, credentials, personnel and equipment to do the work successfully.

Sometimes it was easy. Other times...and I'll admit it.....there have been times I was desperate in getting service providers way outside of our self performing areas. I had to hit a lot of home-runs and triples to get things covered. I also hit into my share of pop-outs and double plays.

BTW...Mr. O was one of duds I hired several years ago. He's just trying to get back in grace by saying nice things about me.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

TCLA said:


> BTW...Mr. O was one of duds I hired several years ago. He's just trying to get back in grace by saying nice things about me.


:terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel::terribletowel:


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

TCLA said:


> Still your fault. Don't take offense, but I would expect you to be far more savvy, informed and experienced than to chose someone who doesn't understand their own market pricing, doesn't have the experience, credentials, personnel and equipment to do the work successfully.
> 
> Sometimes it was easy. Other times...and I'll admit it.....there have been times I was desperate in getting service providers way outside of our self performing areas. I had to hit a lot of home-runs and triples to get things covered. I also hit into my share of pop-outs and double plays.
> 
> BTW...Mr. O was one of duds I hired several years ago. He's just trying to get back in grace by saying nice things about me.


Let me clarify my point. If I bid a job too low and I win that job and then I go out and find someone who is willing to do that work at a very low price and everything goes to s*** then we are both to blame. I completely agree. What I am referencing is when someone agrees to do work at one-third of what the cost is and then things go to s*** and he blames the other guy and says the other guy is a jerk who doesn't know what he's doing.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

TCLA said:


> Still your fault. Don't take offense, but I would expect you to be far more savvy, informed and experienced than to chose someone who doesn't understand their own market pricing, doesn't have the experience, credentials, personnel and equipment to do the work successfully.
> 
> Sometimes it was easy. Other times...and I'll admit it.....there have been times I was desperate in getting service providers way outside of our self performing areas. I had to hit a lot of home-runs and triples to get things covered. I also hit into my share of pop-outs and double plays.
> 
> BTW...Mr. O was one of duds I hired several years ago. He's just trying to get back in grace by saying nice things about me.


And by the way why are you making your comment about my level of savvy and experience? My comment was based on someone else's post and a story that had happened to them. It had nothing to do with me or about who i would choose to hire. Much like you I would prefer to choose qualified people. Where did you get the idea I wouldn't?


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> And by the way why are you making your comment about my level of savvy and experience? My comment was based on someone else's post and a story that had happened to them. It had nothing to do with me or about who i would choose to hire. Much like you I would prefer to choose qualified people. Where did you get the idea I wouldn't?


Why so defensive? I prefixed my comment by saying don't take offense. I understand we are having a hypothetical discussion.

On the real front I am assuming you have a high level of savvy and experience or you wouldn't be in the position you're in. I would also assume you never wish to hire a dud. I suppose I could also be wrong about that. I don't know you from jack-in-the-box Allen. However I am taking you at face value, giving you credit and respect.


----------



## Maclawnco (Nov 21, 2002)

AllanGBM said:


> I am referring more from the perspective of the contractor. I really don't understand someone when they say I accepted the work at one-third of the normal value and then I had problems with the contract and blames it on someone else.


You missed my point. I didn't have problems nor did I blame anyone. We got great remarks for our service to them. But when the managemebt co called and wanted priority, I told them to enjoy the waiting.

All I'm saying is if you pay nothing, don't ride the subs for priority. Here's the phrase again - value proposition. You always get what you pay for.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

TCLA said:


> Why so defensive? I prefixed my comment by saying don't take offense. I understand we are having a hypothetical discussion.
> 
> On the real front I am assuming you have a high level of savvy and experience or you wouldn't be in the position you're in. I would also assume you never wish to hire a dud. I suppose I could also be wrong about that. I don't know you from jack-in-the-box Allen. However I am taking you at face value, giving you credit and respect.


I am defensive because of the way this thread has gone and the overall tone. I will keep moving forward though. I appreciate your comments.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

I am also curious about something else. As far as payment terms, how would you feel about your terms matching the terms of the main contract with the client? In other words you get paid when we get paid.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> I am defensive because of the way this thread has gone and the overall tone. I will keep moving forward though. I appreciate your comments.





TCLA said:


> Don't;
> *Have thin skin


You'd be a wise man to listen to TCLA. He knows his stuff and is a gentleman.

Even if I am a dud.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> I am also curious about something else. As far as payment terms, how would you feel about your terms matching the terms of the main contract with the client? In other words you get paid when we get paid.


Personally, no way.

30 days is standard and should be standard. I have one that is 45 days.

I am not a bank, I am a snow and ice manager. I don't need to finance someone who is larger than me.

How often do you get paid? Once every 45 or 60 or 90 days?

IMO, prices go up if you want me to be your bank.

None of my vendors regularly give me 45 or 60 or 90 days.


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> I am also curious about something else. As far as payment terms, how would you feel about your terms matching the terms of the main contract with the client? In other words you get paid when we get paid.


That's not out of the question. A lot of it will depend on the terms you agreed to and the amounts. Like Mark says, we are not lending institutions...we are hard working contractors who have steady bills to pay. And it's true your organization is larger than most contractors you will hire.

How about getting creative with your payments. Offer a discounted payment for quick or early pay. This is another technique to make for happy contractors.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

TCLA said:


> That's not out of the question. A lot of it will depend on the terms you agreed to and the amounts. Like Mark says, we are not lending institutions...we are hard working contractors who have steady bills to pay. And it's true your organization is larger than most contractors you will hire.
> 
> How about getting creative with your payments. Offer a discounted payment for quick or early pay. This is another technique to make for happy contractors.


Discounted or early payments: Are you saying to the client for early payment OR discounting payment to the sub for better payment terms?


----------



## John_DeereGreen (Jan 2, 2011)

AllanGBM said:


> I am also curious about something else. As far as payment terms, how would you feel about your terms matching the terms of the main contract with the client? In other words you get paid when we get paid.


This caught my eye enough to reply.

I would work on terms of being paid when the NSP is paid, based upon how they are paid. If you are paid net 60, I'll work net 60. If you're paid net 15, I better be paid net 15. As long as there are no disputes from the customer at the store level though, I expect to be paid. Using excuses such as "verification wasn't completed" or "you never logged in" don't fly. If the store had no complaints, then the bill needs to be paid.

No other terms or conditions to it, just that.


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> Discounted or early payments: Are you saying to the client for early payment _OR discounting payment to the sub for better payment terms?_


This...


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

TCLA said:


> This...


Something like: net 60 = 100%; net 45 = 95%; net 30 = 90%
????


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

John_DeereGreen said:


> This caught my eye enough to reply.
> 
> I would work on terms of being paid when the NSP is paid, based upon how they are paid. If you are paid net 60, I'll work net 60. If you're paid net 15, I better be paid net 15. As long as there are no disputes from the customer at the store level though, I expect to be paid. Using excuses such as "verification wasn't completed" or "you never logged in" don't fly. If the store had no complaints, then the bill needs to be paid.
> 
> No other terms or conditions to it, just that.


I agree with this. It is however important for the sub to meet those "verfication" requirements because those are the things that clients use as ammunition to withhold pay. I don't think it is fair for the NSP to use that as an excuse not to pay the sub if the client paid on time.


----------



## Defcon 5 (Mar 20, 2014)

Here's something to think about....Strippers are independent contractors and provide a service...you walk into a strip club and ask the girl for a lap dance...She quotes you a price...You agree or disagree...If you agree...You pay her even before the service was rendered....So, in essence strippers are smarter than any Plow jockey...They get paid before the service is even rendered....


If you are gonna do work for NSPs...You better spell payment terms out very clear..Also if you choose to do work for NSPs you better have cash on hand to cover you because they pay for the most part very slow....This is not rocket science fellas...Untill enough contractors say no to some of their BS this will continue to happen for ever....

You as a contractor can choose to work for them...But you have no right to ***** aboot how slow they pay...This was your choice...Nobody held a gun to your head and made you do it...


----------



## kimber750 (Sep 19, 2011)

AllanGBM said:


> I am also curious about something else. As far as payment terms, how would you feel about your terms matching the terms of the main contract with the client? In other words you get paid when we get paid.


If you set the contract ahead of time to those terms I agree, to a point. For instance what if main client doesn't pay? Does that mean contractor doesn't get paid? This is my biggest problem with NSP, they have no skin in the game, don't want any of the risk. IMO a contractor shouldn't bear the burden of a contract a NSP signed with a deadbeat client.

My main business is rental properties. What do you think my banks, insurance companies or anyone else that bills would say if I told them I would pay when the rent comes in?


----------



## Defcon 5 (Mar 20, 2014)

AllanGBM said:


> Something like: net 60 = 100%; net 45 = 95%; net 30 = 90%
> ????


I don't agree with this eather...Why would I take a pay cut to get my money for services I provided quicker than 45 days


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

Get creative Allan. Offer a multiple payment options to your contractors. If you're normally at 45 days, lets say offer 3% off their bill for assured 30 day payments. 5% off for bi-monthly payments. Get creative enough to set yourself apart for all the other NSP's. And I don't care how big you are, or how stuck in the ways your organization may be...any company can cut checks more than once a month. It really doesn't take that much effort. Up front and/or early money has more value than late money.

If you can gain 5% off of let's say $2M worth of agreed upon work by paying your subs early you just saved your organization $100,000.00

Not too shabby. Smelling a bonus in your future should not be out of the question.


----------



## JMHConstruction (Aug 22, 2011)

I couldn't imagine telling my employee, "sorry bud, I didn't get paid yet so your paycheck might not be for another 3 months." It's my problem I haven't been paid, I am the owner and I was the one who decided this was what I wanted to do for a living. Whether it's my fault or an employees, but I still have to pay him. Same with my subcontractors, I might make them fix their screw up out of their pocket, but they get paid for the work they provide. I don't understand why NSPs are even open if they're taking more work than they can handle financially. Pay your subs for the service they provided in my opinion net-30 or less, in my opinion, and eat the money until you get payment from the property owner or business. If NSPs can't afford to pay the subs, don't accept the job in the first place.


----------



## Defcon 5 (Mar 20, 2014)

TCLA said:


> Get creative Allan. Offer a multiple payment options to your contractors. If you're normally at 45 days, lets say offer 3% off their bill for assured 30 day payments. 5% off for bi-monthly payments. Get creative enough to set yourself apart for all the other NSP's. And I
> don't care how big you are, or how stuck in the
> ways your organization may be...any company can cut checks more than once a month. It
> really doesn't take that much effort. Up front
> ...


I hate to disagree with you because you buy me

a lot of Beer and I don't want that to end...

But..Most guys out there doing work for these people are doing no where near that kinda revenue..So their savings after paying the NSP vig would be minamal...Yes there are select few contractors that it would be benificial for..But the vast majority of these guys are living hand to mouth


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> Something like: net 60 = 100%; net 45 = 95%; net 30 = 90%
> ????


Sorry didn't see this. Too busy doing other stuff...

You're getting closer. How about net 45=100%, net 30=95%, net 15=90%


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

Defcon 5 said:


> I hate to disagree with you because you buy me
> 
> a lot of Beer and I don't want that to end...


Would you be willing to take a case of warm beer home with you at the end of each shift....or 5 cases of cold beer home with you once a week? It's possible you could be out of beer by Wednesday.

You can have a steady supply of daily beer, and it only takes a few minutes to make it cold.


----------



## JMHConstruction (Aug 22, 2011)

TCLA said:


> Would you be willing to take a case of warm beer home with you at the end of each shift....or 5 cases of cold beer home with you once a week? It's possible you could be out of beer by Wednesday.
> 
> You can have a steady supply of daily beer, and it only takes a few minutes to make it cold.


But think about how good that cold beer would taste on the way home on FridayThumbs Up:laugh:


----------



## Defcon 5 (Mar 20, 2014)

TCLA said:


> Would you be willing to take a case of warm beer home with you at the end of each shift....or 5 cases of cold beer home with you once a week? It's possible you could be out of beer by Wednesday.
> 
> You can have a steady supply of daily beer, and it only takes a few minutes to make it cold.


Jim...I understand totally what your saying...I also understand you have to be creative....I just don't agree paying a "Fee" to get money that was agreed upon quicker...I also understand that's beccome part of doing business with NSPs...

As for the Beer...I require 7 cases a week and we will discuss this in my upcoming contract negotiations...


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> I agree with this. It is however important for the sub to meet those "verfication" requirements because those are the things that clients use as ammunition to withhold pay. I don't think it is fair for the NSP to use that as an excuse not to pay the sub if the client paid on time.


I do. One thing that irks the crap out of me is when one of our subs doesn't turn in his paperwork on time. It holds up my process. I'll delay his pay if he delays his paperwork to me. I have no problem going as far as deducting his pay if he is chronically late with his paperwork.


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

Defcon 5 said:


> As for the Beer...I require 7 cases a week and we will discuss this in my upcoming contract negotiations...


Dislike, unlike, no like


----------



## John_DeereGreen (Jan 2, 2011)

AllanGBM said:


> Something like: net 60 = 100%; net 45 = 95%; net 30 = 90%
> ????


Net 30 as full pay, net 20 it drops, net 15 it drops.

Any more than net 30 the contractor should receive a finance charge. I don't get more than 30 days to pay my bills and unless it's an exceptions customer they shouldn't either.


----------



## ktfbgb (Jan 31, 2016)

AllanGBM said:


> I am also curious about something else. As far as payment terms, how would you feel about your terms matching the terms of the main contract with the client? In other words you get paid when we get paid.


Absolutely not unless it's early. But the terms are the terms. It doesn't matter if the NSP gets paid or not. The contract states the terms if it's net 30 then that's what it is reguardless if you are paid or not. My contracts all state what the terms are like net 30 or earlier. Earlier is good, not a day longer. One day past the terms on the contract and all service stops until paid in full.


----------



## Mistifier (Aug 21, 2016)

AllanGBM said:


> I am not sure I understand all of your points because it is hard to follow but I will say this:
> No company with multiple sites is going to send out a blank check for snow removal. There must be some controls in place - regardless of the proficiency of the subcontractors performing the work. These large companies just don't have the resources to place these controls in place. It obviously creates a problem if a sub walks off the job for non payment. Why does this happen?
> What you suggest about a company going to Homeadvisor and hiring a guy just isn't feasible in a portfolio situation. They don't have the resources to do this.
> Do you have personal experience with one of these nationals?


Allen, before we get into wheather ur upper/lower/no managment, how many other people work in ur company that u can name?
10 people? 
Now take your salary and multiply the people. (again, conservative)$40K
$40,000 X 10 people=$400,000
Investors???
Let me break this down barney style for you. Your company BANKS off subcontractors and then gets out of paying like both the Clinton's. 
The whole "dont have the resources" is the typical excuse that I think the blue collars have come to expect form the no valve added employees. "The resources" are the manangers. They are the ones responsible for thier stores, nothing has changed from the 50's and 60's. For the lame lies and treating the subs like mushrooms, ....nevrmind im sure u cant understand


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

Mistifier said:


> Allen, before we get into wheather ur upper/lower/no managment, how many other people work in ur company that u can name?
> 10 people?
> Now take your salary and multiply the people. (again, conservative)$40K
> $40,000 X 10 people=$400,000
> ...


We want a decent discussion so if you want to hurl insults as such, DON'T respond

thanks


----------



## Defcon 5 (Mar 20, 2014)

TCLA said:


> I do. One thing that irks the crap out of me is when one of our subs doesn't turn in his paperwork on time. It holds up my process. I'll delay his pay if he delays his paperwork to me. I have no problem going as far as deducting his pay if he is chronically late with his paperwork.


Oomkes..??????....:gunsfiring:


----------



## Mistifier (Aug 21, 2016)

I cant edit it b/c of 20min time limit. Can you delete it and ill post a revised post?


----------



## Maclawnco (Nov 21, 2002)

AllanGBM said:


> Something like: net 60 = 100%; net 45 = 95%; net 30 = 90%
> ????


10% discount for a 30 day advance. Is the assumption that plow guys can't understand finances? That's an APR of roughly 120%. Good on you if you can swing that; talk about adding value to your employer.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Contractors are already financing the job for the NSP, Why give up 10%.  :hammerhead:


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Maclawnco said:


> 10% discount for a 30 day advance. Is the assumption that plow guys can't understand finances? That's an APR of roughly 120%. Good on you if you can swing that; talk about adding value to your employer.


My post was a question back to Jim (I think it's Jim - TCLA) asking for clarification on a suggestion he had by offering an example. Notice the ???? The numbers were put in for illustration. I do appreciate the feedback though.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mistifier said:


> Allen, before we get into wheather ur upper/lower/no managment, how many other people work in ur company that u can name?
> 10 people?
> Now take your salary and multiply the people. (again, conservative)$40K
> $40,000 X 10 people=$400,000
> ...


What does "barney style"mean?! I think I like it but I need to know what it means to be sure.


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

FredG said:


> Contractors are already financing the job for the NSP, Why give up 10%.  :hammerhead:


You dont have to if you dont want to. We charge accordingly.


----------



## Aerospace Eng (Mar 3, 2015)

I have been reading this thread, but have remained quiet, not having much to add. However, I figured it might be informative to give my views as a disinterested (not uninterested) observer. I am an engineering consultant. While I don't plow professionally, and I don't contract for any snow business, I am also in a service industry so there are some parallels....

An NSP is the classic middleman (a statement of fact, not meant to be perjorative). The OP at some point gave the business rationale for a large client to go with an NSP...


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mistifier said:


> Allen, before we get into wheather ur upper/lower/no managment, how many other people work in ur company that u can name?
> 10 people?
> Now take your salary and multiply the people. (again, conservative)$40K
> $40,000 X 10 people=$400,000
> ...


I do want to address the last part of your comment where you criticize me for my statement that large companies do not have the resources to manage this work. Your argument here is not with the NSP's. They aren't making this determination. It is the *companies* who make this determination. The NSP isn't lying to you about this. Many companies want their site managers to do other things than hiring and managing contractors. They have tried it in the past and didn't like the way it turned out. And BTW it isn't just snow. It is landscape, janitorial, HVAC, building maintenance, etc. This also includes the entire RFP process and hiring process. They have decided to outsource and that is where the NSP comes into the picture.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Mark Oomkes said:


> Personally, no way.
> 
> 30 days is standard and should be standard. I have one that is 45 days.
> 
> ...


If you could add a percentage if they were to drag your pay out... you would do it right?

I agree with you guys on the pay things, but I cannot agree 100%. On the construction end, I have factory's that pay net 90 even net 120. When I bid the projects, I add the financing to the bid as I know I am going to be the bank for 3-4 months.

So, IF the monies are there to cover you financing the work, is there something wrong with that?


----------



## Aerospace Eng (Mar 3, 2015)

And then the 20 minute time limit for editing ran out while I was writing my essay :-( 

Since I don't plow snow professionally, I'm probably just exposing my ignorance, but, as a friend of mine likes to say, "God hates a coward."

An NSP is a middleman, who makes their $$ of of providing value BOTH to the property management company/owner/chain, the "client" AND to the snow removal contractor "vendor."

The OP layed out the value proposition for a client....
They don't have to vet vendors or try and decide who is qualified
They don't have to worry about a vendor flaking
They don't have to negotiate different contracts for each location
etc.

I have deliberately left out cost savings, although I think that is probably what determines which NSP the client hires.

I did not see the value proposition for a vendor. As a vendor, I see the potential values as
Not having to worry about marketing
Not having to worry about collections
Access to larger properties

As a vendor, I would be willing to give up some margin for this. How much would depend on how much work you were giving me.

The biggest issue I see in this and other threads is the "paid when paid" (PWP) problem. As a consultant, I do not accept PWP contracts, and if I subcontract work out to a lab, they get paid when they send the invoice, regardless of when I get paid. If a third party (i.e. insurance) is going to be paying my bills, then they sign a contract directly and I have a contract person. The person with whom I have a contract is the one responsible for paying me, regardless of whether they get paid. I am very reluctant to do business with someone who has no skin in the game, and that is what PWP results in.

It seems that on many threads about HOAs, etc., there is a disconnect between what people are willing to pay for and what they want. The location manager may want more (or sooner) snow removal than the contract calls for and may complain (particularly since they probably don't know anything about snow & ice removal which is why they hired the NSP in the first place). There is incentive for an NSP to not press for payment for a single location if the overall contract between the NSP and client is large enough. On a location worth $100K, and a 10% NSP markup, the NSP is giving up $10K, but forcing the vendor to give up $90K. If the vendor has done the work per the contract (and that is why pictures are taken, etc.) they should get paid regardless, and the NSP can make the decision as to whether they are willing to eat $100K to keep the client happy. 

If there is a problem with a location, the NSP should send someone to observe the vendor, and either correct the problems or get a different vendor. 

To keep misunderstandings from occurring, I would hope that there would be a pre-season meeting between the location manager, the NSP, and the vendor to make sure everyone is on the same page and go over the contract. The client is still being served as the individual location manager hasn't had to hash out the contract, select the vendor, etc.

In some sense, I am suggesting that NSPs act as an escrow agencies. They would obtain money from the client, and pay to the vendor when they complete the job per contract. 

In my consulting business, I typically get a retainer worth one month's revenue. I send an invoice every month, and it is paid in full. When the job is over, the retainer gets applied to the last invoice and either I refund the overage or my customer pays a small amount. If the customer pays slowly, the retainer goes up. If the customer pays quickly and in full, the retainer goes down or is eliminated. 

This could be applied either to the NSP/client relationship or to the NSP/vendor relationship.

I think that NSPs are not going to go away, as they do provide a service. The question is whether they can provide a value proposition to both their client and the vendor such that everyone is, if not happy, at least feels like they have a fair deal.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Philbilly2 said:


> If you could add a percentage if they were to drag your pay out... you would do it right?
> 
> I agree with you guys on the pay things, but I cannot agree 100%. On the construction end, I have factory's that pay net 90 even net 120. When I bid the projects, I add the financing to the bid as I know I am going to be the bank for 3-4 months.
> 
> So, IF the monies are there to cover you financing the work, is there something wrong with that?


No not really, If you can add enough juice and still be awarded the job.


----------



## LapeerLandscape (Dec 29, 2012)

Philbilly2 said:


> If you could add a percentage if they were to drag your pay out... you would do it right?
> 
> I agree with you guys on the pay things, but I cannot agree 100%. On the construction end, I have factory's that pay net 90 even net 120. When I bid the projects, I add the financing to the bid as I know I am going to be the bank for 3-4 months.
> 
> So, IF the monies are there to cover you financing the work, is there something wrong with that?


I agree, charge accordingly. We all know they pay slow. I think a lot of the frustration is the NSP's being dishonest in their own payment terms.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

LapeerLandscape said:


> I think a lot of the frustration is the NSP's being dishonest in their own payment terms.


This Thumbs UpThumbs UpThumbs UpThumbs Up


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

TCLA said:


> I do. One thing that irks the crap out of me is when one of our subs doesn't turn in his paperwork on time. It holds up my process. I'll delay his pay if he delays his paperwork to me. I have no problem going as far as deducting his pay if he is chronically late with his paperwork.


I know he's not talking aboot me, I always had mine in on time.

I would have no problem withholding pay if the sub didn't finish his job--the paperwork. (this is not for your reading consumption Jim)


----------



## Mistifier (Aug 21, 2016)

Barney style:






the purple dino explain things to kids.
You are correct that it is the company/customer who decides to cut lower management out. I am only pointing out that regardless who say the resources arent there... They are, andno matter how long the store manager has been out of the loop, he is still the best and cheapest resource. 
I was not saying your lying and apologize for being harsh (shouldve proof read) but was pointing to the "we didnt get the necessary information submitted/right time/right person/didnt use app/still hasn't posted so i can't write a check is all a lie.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Philbilly2 said:


> If you could add a percentage if they were to drag your pay out... you would do it right?
> 
> I agree with you guys on the pay things, but I cannot agree 100%. On the construction end, I have factory's that pay net 90 even net 120. When I bid the projects, I add the financing to the bid as I know I am going to be the bank for 3-4 months.
> 
> So, IF the monies are there to cover you financing the work, is there something wrong with that?


I was trying to find where to reply.

If the terms are Net 30, the NSP pays 100% at Net 30. IF the contractor agrees to a reduction in amount for early payment, I don't have a problem with that, it is his choice.

But in reality, there is no reason other than the property owner and NSP to make money off the contractor to stretch it out or take a cut if they pay early. It's really BS.

I know, I'm a bit more black and white on this issue than others, but if these folks don't have the cash flow to cover their normal and planned expenses every 30 days, do they have the money at all? Yes, many do. But the point is, why? They don't pay their employees every 30 days, much less 60 or 90? They don't pay their utility bills on their terms. This is just a matter of the customer dictating to a smaller entity when they will pay, and I think it's bovine excrement.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

TCLA said:


> That's not out of the question. A lot of it will depend on the terms you agreed to and the amounts. Like Mark says, we are not lending institutions...we are hard working contractors who have steady bills to pay. And it's true your organization is larger than most contractors you will hire.
> 
> How about getting creative with your payments. Offer a discounted payment for quick or early pay. This is another technique to make for happy contractors.


So question for you Jim, you correctly state we are not lending institutions.

Do actual lending institutions give you a reduced payment if you make your payment in 10 days instead of 30?

How many loans can you stretch out payments to 45, 60, or 90 days? If the banks know they can't make money that way, why should we?


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Aerospace Eng said:


> And then the 20 minute time limit for editing ran out while I was writing my essay :-(
> 
> Since I don't plow snow professionally, I'm probably just exposing my ignorance, but, as a friend of mine likes to say, "God hates a coward."
> 
> ...


Great post. Thank you. I really like the escrow idea. I agree that the PWP system doesn't make that much sense in most business situations. I do believe its existence here is in response to a very unique situation we find in snow removal in less predictable snow markets. A major snowfall, or repetitive snowfalls, in markets outside of the snowbelt where seasonal contracts are not the norm creates a financial challenge for property owners. It is a cash flow bubble that they do not budget for. Quite often they delay paying for the service. Because snow removal is such a huge financial bubble for snow removal contractors (covering labor, subs, materials) it creates a cash crisis for them as well. It seems popular here to blame the NSP's for everything and view them as cash heavy corporations but that isn't usually the case. They suffer cash flow issues from this scenario as well and I think PWP is a leveling factor. I agree that all vendors should be paid for their service in a timely manner. I really hate that snow pay gets pushed out to customary timeframes (30-60-90) because it really is a different type of business than most.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Mark Oomkes said:


> So question for you Jim, you correctly state we are not lending institutions.
> 
> Do actual lending institutions give you a reduced payment if you make your payment in 10 days instead of 30?
> 
> How many loans can you stretch out payments to 45, 60, or 90 days? If the banks know they can't make money that way, why should we?


 This was the rub for us, We got tangled up with a Co that was net 90.
yet, they pay the power and water bill monthly, I had to wait 90days.
I told them, i didn't care as my contract said, 30days.
I had to call them every month and ask, where is my money?
it was like having a 2nd job just chasing my money down.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mistifier said:


> Barney style:
> View attachment 166736
> the purple dino explain things to kids.
> You are correct that it is the company/customer who decides to cut lower management out. I am only pointing out that regardless who say the resources arent there... They are, andno matter how long the store manager has been out of the loop, he is still the best and cheapest resource.
> I was not saying your lying and apologize for being harsh (shouldve proof read) but was pointing to the "we didnt get the necessary information submitted/right time/right person/didnt use app/still hasn't posted so i can't write a check is all a lie.


Okay now I am disappointed. I was hoping Barney style was Barney Fife and not Barney the Dinosaur.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Contractors - biz people obligations are 30 days. If I go to the plant and I get 200tn of stone blacktop etc. they bill me in 30 days. Rock salt in this area I don't think anybody even has terms anymore. My son got the tavern the liquor, beer has 30 day terms. 

All these clients that want to pay in 90 - 120 days have to do a check run every 30 days to. Utility's, and there vendors are not waiting 90-120 days. Why should we have to. This is pretty simple in my mind. It's not a clean biz deal. Got dishonest all over it.


----------



## Aerospace Eng (Mar 3, 2015)

We're not talking about some mom and pop hardware store, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be hiring an NSP.

If the property owners/management company are not budgeting for some snowfall, then that is a management problem on their side. It something that an NSP should be helping them with....figuring out an average amount of times they will have to plow/salt, with one or two sigma error bounds and put that in their budget. 

Then get a retainer from the client for, say, two plowable events at whatever trigger is the norm. After the first event of the season, you can pay the vendors quickly, and send an invoice to the client to replenish the kitty. 

If they don't want to do that, then make it clear that they will be charged 2% per month late, or something similar. If you don't pay the vendors in a timely fashion, they are probably going to have to borrow money to pay their employees, etc. It's only fair that if an NSP is going to make them a bank against their will (or the client is going to make the NSP a bank) that the "bank" gets paid interest. If the interest the client or NSP has to pay is higher than on their line of credit at the bank they will pay the NSP or vendor quickly.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> Contractors - biz people obligations are 30 days. If I go to the plant and I get 200tn of stone blacktop etc. they bill me in 30 days. Rock salt in this area I don't think anybody even has terms anymore. My son got the tavern the liquor, beer has 30 day terms.
> 
> All these clients that want to pay in 90 - 120 days have to do a check run every 30 days to. Utility's, and there vendors are not waiting 90-120 days. Why should we have to. This is pretty simple in my mind. It's not a clean biz deal. Got dishonest all over it.


Fred I might have the wrong guy but aren't you the one on another post who told someone that you screwed HomeAdvisor out of their annual fee and still use their service?


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> Fred I might have the wrong guy but aren't you the one on another post who told someone that you screwed HomeAdvisor out of their annual fee and still use their service?


Ya I did, Why? I talked homeadvisor out of it just like everybody else does, They didn't suspend me and are glad to have my business. There's no one looking for me how about you??


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Allan, are you from the Baltimore area? 

Had a fairly good sized landscape\snow company there? 

If you're who I think you are, we met at a CLIP conference or 3 many years ago.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

FredG said:


> Ya I did, Why? I talked homeadvisor out of it just like everybody else does, They didn't suspend me and are glad to have my business. There's no one looking for me how about you??


Btw are you not the guy that tried to mislead everybody that you weren't a NSP?


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> Ya I did, Why? I talked homeadvisor out of it just like everybody else does, They didn't suspend me and are glad to have my business. There's no one looking for me how about you??


Sorry I thought when you said I refused to pay that you refused to pay and it wasn't a negotiation.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> Btw are you not the guy that tried to mislead everybody that you weren't a NSP?


Nope. Never tried to mislead anyone.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mark Oomkes said:


> Allan, are you from the Baltimore area?
> 
> Had a fairly good sized landscape\snow company there?
> 
> If you're who I think you are, we met at a CLIP conference or 3 many years ago.


Yes Mark. That is me. I thought your name was familiar. You have a good memory. The company in Baltimore wasn't mine though. I just worked there.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> Yes Mark. That is me. I thought your name was familiar. You have a good memory. The company in Baltimore wasn't mine though. I just worked there.


Gotcha, I do remember that now.

It took me a while, you didn't give many hints. No, my memory actually sucks. I couldn't remember your last name, had to go back and search some old emails.

Back in the good ole days of Stan, Rick, etc.

Good to see you around.


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mark Oomkes said:


> Gotcha, I do remember that now.
> 
> It took me a while, you didn't give many hints. No, my memory actually sucks. I couldn't remember your last name, had to go back and search some old emails.
> 
> ...


Wow thanks for reminding me about those guys. They were some good times. I am happy to be around.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

AllanGBM said:


> Yes Mark. That is me. I thought your name was familiar. You have a good memory. The company in Baltimore wasn't mine though. I just worked there.


So I'd ask you what you've been doing in the meantime...........but a little online stalking answers that question.

Not sure it's possible, but you have less hair than the last time I saw you. With good reason. lol


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Derailed....


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

Mark Oomkes said:


> So I'd ask you what you've been doing in the meantime...........but a little online stalking answers that question.
> 
> Not sure it's possible, but you have less hair than the last time I saw you. With good reason. lol


Too true.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Philbilly2 said:


> Derailed....
> 
> View attachment 166739


I like to know who I am dealing with.

Now I do.

On edit, it doesn't change any of my answers or statements, but I do know I am dealing with a professional.


----------



## Defcon 5 (Mar 20, 2014)

I give you credit Mark....You are smarter than the average. Yard Monkey...Nice job Magnum P.I....


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> Ya I did, Why? I talked homeadvisor out of it just like everybody else does, They didn't suspend me and are glad to have my business. There's no one looking for me how about you??


I do find it is interesting that you encouraged him to hide behind a prepaid credit card as opposed to a regular credit card or a debit card. I guess that's just in case someone comes looking for him but at least there's no one looking for you


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> Ya I did, Why? I talked homeadvisor out of it just like everybody else does, They didn't suspend me and are glad to have my business. There's no one looking for me how about you??


I guess it is just my misperception. The OP asked you if you just refuse to pay or you negotiate it? You said he can try to negotiate but you just refuse to pay. But if you say you talked them out of it I believe you.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Defcon 5 said:


> I give you credit Mark....You are smarter than the average. Yard Monkey...Nice job Magnum P.I....


OK, so I don't have the 'stache that he has, and I don't grow hair like Ryan, so you know I don't resemble him. After spending a too long of day with you, I would think you would know this.

It was my stellar memory of all things snow that helped me. Not like Jimmy who is a super stalker.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> I do find it is interesting that you encouraged him to hide behind a prepaid credit card as opposed to a regular credit card or a debit card. I guess that's just in case someone comes looking for him but at least there's no one looking for you


Well lets get one thing straight, I don't hide from nobody looking for me or not. Homeadvisor is a vendor kind of like you. The dishonest, They like to draw funds that are not entitled to them. Would you trust them if they mistakenly took $300.00 off your debt and returned no funds and gave you a credit?

My advice was to protect the young vet. Your just mad because everybody had your number from your opening post. Nice try tho.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

AllanGBM said:


> I guess it is just my misperception. The OP asked you if you just refuse to pay or you negotiate it? You said he can try to negotiate but you just refuse to pay. But if you say you talked them out of it I believe you.


I talked them out of more monies than the membership fee's. I don't care for vendors. You try to pluck me out of monies you get a double pluck in return. How do you like me now?


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Furthermore Mr Allan, The homeadvisor post is where you should of brought your comments. Sticking your spoon in where it don't belong. :hammerhead:


----------



## AllanGBM (Oct 5, 2016)

FredG said:


> Furthermore Mr Allan, The homeadvisor post is where you should of brought your comments. Sticking your spoon in where it don't belong. :hammerhead:


Don't be angry dude. I was just helping you out. I wouldn't want anybody to think you're a hypocrite. That's because I like you.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

I'm was not angry, That was the other day. Anybody that dealt with homeadvisor will back my statements up. I'm cool with you because of the other guys know your a professional. This does not mean any of my upper posts do not stand. Peace out.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

FredG said:


> I'm was not angry, That was the other day. Anybody that dealt with homeadvisor will back my statements up. I'm cool with you because of the other guys know your a professional. This does not mean any of my upper posts do not stand. Peace out.


Hey Fred...

ol boy Allen got your feathers a little russled?? :laughing::laughing::laugh:


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

AllanGBM said:


> Don't be angry dude. I was just helping you out. I wouldn't want anybody to think you're a hypocrite. That's because I like you.


I think Allen is getting the level of scarcasim that we operate at.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Philbilly2 said:


> Hey Fred...
> 
> ol boy Allen got your feathers a little russled?? :laughing::laughing::laugh:


LoL, That's a surprise no?


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

FredG said:


> LoL, That's a surprise no?


LOL!


----------



## Ramairfreak98ss (Aug 17, 2005)

FredG said:


> Do a search on NSP's make sure you got a couple days. There is more post threads on NSP's than you can count. No I didn't get burned, I stopped plowing and boycotted the lot till the manager paid me in full and signed on with me. Frankly this is a sore subject and old news.
> 
> The only way to stop them is to not help them. Have you searched lawsuits and the BBB on these NSP's. You did not have to start a new post for the info you are looking for. And yes NSP's are real, This does not mean there here to stay. This behavior is why we have to have unions and davis baker act. The dishonest like Nsps,


I saw NSP and had to click on this thread! ok i won't say anything negative...


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

Ramairfreak98ss said:


> I saw NSP and had to click on this thread! ok i won't say anything negative...


This is old news. Should of been discussing this back with Nixon and Watergate.


----------



## SandD Snowplowing (Oct 25, 2016)

i applaud Allen for opening the thread. I just joined and will probably be beaten down for making that first comment. I am from a NSP (now I'm really going to be beaten on....lol) but I found the communication, no matter how tough, sarcastic, or rude, very interesting. Thanks for the thread and all of the comments.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

SandD Snowplowing said:


> i applaud Allen for opening the thread. I just joined and will probably be beaten down for making that first comment. I am from a NSP (now I'm really going to be beaten on....lol) but I found the communication, no matter how tough, sarcastic, or rude, very interesting. Thanks for the thread and all of the comments.


Meh. Nobody will beat you down, You admitted that you are from a NSP, We just don't like anybody trying to pull the wool over our eye's. Threads from NSP's are usually shut down real quick. Out of respect for MJD we let this one run.


----------



## FredG (Oct 15, 2012)

FredG said:


> Meh. Nobody will beat you down, You admitted that you are from a NSP, We just don't like anybody trying to pull the wool over our eye's. Threads from NSP's are usually shut down real quick. Out of respect for MJD we let this one run.


Furthermore some of the tough guys never got to the post before MJD requested to let him run to see where it went. If you got good news for us Contractors knock yourself out! Any smoke or sales pitches will not do it. All tho we like banter. Just not smoke. Peace Out


----------

