NLS Construction Ltd. - v. -, 2013 SKPC 5

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2013 SKPC 005 Date: January 4, 2013 File: 39-11 Location: Moose Jaw _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: NLS Construction Ltd. - and - Darrell Darcy Kirkby and Randi Dawn Kirkby D. Chow For the Plaintiff R. Fielding For the Defendants _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT D. KOVATCH , J _____________________________________________________________________________ I. BACKGROUND

[ 1 ] The Defendants acted as their own general contractors in the design and construction of a new home in Moose Jaw. They contracted with the Plaintiff to do the concrete and framing of the house. In addition to the house there was a large shop and a large garage. In late November 2009, the Plaintiff poured the basement floor. The garage and shop floors still needed to be done. The Defendant terminated the contract. The Plaintiff issued an invoice for work that he had done on the project.

The Defendant retained another contractor to conclude the work on the shop and basement during the winter, at a considerably extra cost. The Defendant refused to pay the balance owing on the Plaintiff’s invoice, on the basis that the Plaintiff’s work wasn’t done in a good and workmanlike fashion and the Defendant incurred extra cost and damages having to hire another contractor to conclude the work during the winter. The Plaintiff commenced this action for the balance owing on their invoice. The Defendant counter-claimed for damages because the Plaintiff did not do the work in a good and workmanlike fashion. II.

THE EVIDENCE a. Kevin Arnold [ 2 ] The first and primary witness for the Plaintiff was Mr. Kevin Arnold, a Director in the Plaintiff company. He testified that he is 45 years of age and has been involved in the construction of homes for approximately 25 years. He estimated that he has built 60 to 70 homes, and would build ten homes during 2012. [ 3 ] He testified that in 2008, a friend of his referred the Defendant, Mr. Darrell Kirkby, to him. They had some meetings and exchanged preliminary information.

On June 9, 2009, he provided a verbal quote for the concrete foundation and basement work, plus the framing of the house, garage and workshop. His verbal quote was for a total of $87,000.00. He indicated that he stated, or it was implied, that GST would be extra. This was disputed by the Defendant(s). On September 24, 2009, the Plaintiff provided a formal written quote to this effect. This was done at the Defendant’s request, so that the Defendant could arrange financing. The written quote is for the same $87,000.00 figure, plus GST. The written quote was entered as Exhibit P1.

The Plaintiff testified that the Defendant simply accepted the written quote, and they operated on that basis. The Plaintiff described this home as a very complicated house, with approximately 18 corners. He said a number of the corners were angled corners. It also had a number of other additions and special features. [ 4 ] The Plaintiff acts as a general contractor on a number of other projects. He was not the general contractor on this project. In fact, the Defendant was his own general contractor. The Plaintiff described the Defendant’s proposed construction

schedule as “very ambitious”. He described it this way because of the special and complicating features of the Defendant’s home, and the very busy construction year that 2009 was, which made organization of the various sub-trades very difficult.

He added that it was even more difficult for a one-time owner/general contractor, as the Defendant was, to make arrangements with the various sub-trades, as he did not have an established working relationship with the various sub-trades. [ 5 ] When asked if he promised a completion date for his work, the Plaintiff advised that he could not and would not do that, as he was not the general contractor, and was not in charge of the various sub-trades. There were things that he could not do on the job, until work by another sub-trade had been completed.

Without being able to arrange the other sub-trades and knowing their completion date, there was no way that he could provide a completion date for the project. [ 6 ] The Plaintiff testified that it should normally require about five months for him to do all of the work on this project. He advised that the Defendant’s lot wasn’t surveyed and “pinned” until July 8 th . As a result, it was only after that date that excavation of the basement could begin, and he could begin his work on the project. He advised that his work on the project began at that time, and proceeded in a timely and orderly fashion.

By late September they had reached the lock-up stage, which was right on schedule. [ 7 ] He advised that thereafter there was a considerable hold-up with respect to the basement floor for the house. The Defendant wanted in-floor heating in the basement floor. This required laying pipe, rebar, and insulation on the floor, before the concrete was poured. He testified that there was a considerable hold-up or wait for the plumber to conclude his work, so that work on the basement floor could continue.

He also advised that the project was well along and the Defendant was still indecisive about whether the plumbing or the rebar should be laid first. It took until late November, until the Defendant had the work done in the basement, so that the basement floor of the house could be poured. On November 24 th , the Plaintiff poured the basement floor. [ 8 ] The Plaintiff testified that he invoiced the Defendant for the $87,000.00 for the contract. (The Defendant had originally made a deposit of $10,000.00).

On December 4, 2009, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a further $60,000.00, bringing total payment to $70,000.00. The Plaintiff testified that at this time, the Defendant made a number of comments to the effect that he didn’t have the balance of the money, and that his financing of the project was in some crisis. However, the Defendant made no comment whatsoever to the effect that he was not satisfied with the Plaintiff’s work, or that it was not of good workmanlike quality. [ 9 ] By letter, dated January 15, 2010, Exhibit P5, the Defendant advised that they were terminating the Plaintiff’s services. The

[ 9 ] By letter, dated January 15, 2010, Exhibit P5, the Defendant advised that they were terminating the Plaintiff’s services. The letter states that they were terminating his services “Due to lack of communication, commitment, promised timing, and construction errors that need to be corrected in the framing, concrete on our new construction home,...” The letter further states: We will assume the cost of re-doing and re-finishing the work that has been started along with having to take on the cost of locating our floor drain that was poured over in the basement, Monday, November 23, 2009.

Also, reminding you the project started July 8, 2009, with completion date you gave us of September 8, 2009, has grossly passed. [ 10 ] Lastly, the letter advised that the Defendants felt that their total payment of $70,000.00 was adequate compensation for the Plaintiff’s work. [ 11 ] The Plaintiff testified that this letter was the first that he heard of the problem with the floor drain.

When it became apparent that the Defendant would not make payment of the outstanding invoice, the Plaintiff registered a lien against the Defendant’s home, which then led to the commencement of this action. [ 12 ] Counsel for the Defendant cross-examined the Plaintiff regarding his initial quote. Counsel suggested that the Plaintiff merely quoted $87,000.00, and made no mention of GST. The Plaintiff indicated he couldn’t recall the conversation, but believed that GST was mentioned. [ 13 ] Counsel also cross-examined regarding the floor drain. The Plaintiff admitted that the floor drain had been poured over.

He testified however, that this was the fault or the responsibility of the Defendant. Firstly, he said that it was the Defendant’s responsibility to box in the drain and raise the outlet pipe to the level of the finished concrete. Then the cement would be poured around the pipe and finished. He testified that the Defendant had laid the insulation and rebar overtop of the floor drain, and all of the concrete was poured. [ 14 ] There was cross-examination regarding time lines.

The Plaintiff reiterated his position that he was held up by the plumber, and could not pour the floor until the plumber had completed his work. There was also cross-examination regarding some studs that had twisted, and a short wall in the basement that had not been framed. He said these were relatively minor matters that would easily be corrected. b. Rodney Welch [ 15 ] The Plaintiff also called Rodney Welch, who was the framer on the project. He testified as to the work that he did framing the house, and that this work was done in a good and timely fashion. c.

Jason Scott [ 16 ] The Plaintiff also called, Jason Scott. He is the concrete finisher that poured the basement floor. He testified that the rebar, insulation and piping were all laid when he poured the floor. He recalled no problems with that. He testified that the rebar need not be exactly spaced. To the best of his recollection the placement of the rebar was more than adequate and was perfectly normal. As a result, he poured the concrete as he was directed to do. d. Mrs. Randi Kirkby [ 17 ] The Defendant’s first witness was Mrs. Randi Kirkby.

She testified that it took the Plaintiff longer than it should have to complete his work. She advised that arrangements had been made for Spray Jones Insulation to be installed on September 21, 2009. This had to be delayed because the Plaintiff’s work had not been completed. She also testified that in early January 2010, she made a number of telephone calls to the Plaintiff attempting to arrange for a heater to be delivered to the house. This heater was required so that work on the concrete floor in the shop and garage could proceed. She testified that the Plaintiff was very slow in getting back to her. e.

Darrell Kirkby

[ 18 ] The major witness for the Defendants was the Defendant, Darrell Kirkby. He testified that he is employed as a millwright at the Mosaic Potash Mine. He and his wife did considerable work in designing this home, and he acted as the general contractor for the home. He indicated that the original strategy was to complete this home and become debt-free. They were first approved and accepted for a $280,000.00 construction mortgage. He said they had to make it work for $280,000.00. He indicated that the mortgage could be advanced in three draws.

When the first draw was late, this had somewhat of a snowball effect. [ 19 ] He testified that he was originally quoted $56,000.00 for concrete and $24,000.00 for framing, for a total cost of $80,000.00. He testified that the Plaintiff made no mention of GST. As a result, Mr. Kirkby assumed that GST was included in the $80,000.00 quoted price. He testified that he requested a formal written quote several weeks earlier, however, he only received that formal written quote, Exhibit P1, on September 28 th . At this time he couldn’t just terminate the Plaintiff’s services.

He said he wasn’t happy with it, but went with it. He testified that the work was considerably slower than scheduled. As a result, Spray Jones had to be delayed and couldn’t complete their work on September 21 st as originally scheduled. They did complete their work on October 26 th . [ 20 ] He indicated that he was aware of the Plaintiff complaining that the plumbers had not completed their work, which delayed the Plaintiff. [ 21 ] The Defendant said that the Plaintiff was in part responsible for the delay.

He indicated that he, the Defendant, was responsible for laying the insulation and rebar overtop of the insulation. The plumber was then to lay the heat pipes. Then the basement floor could be poured. The Defendant testified that for a weekend, apparently in late October or early November, he and the Plaintiff agreed that they would work together to install the insulation and rebar. This was to be done over the weekend, as the plumbers were scheduled to come first thing Monday morning to lay the heating pipe. The Defendant testified that the Plaintiff did not show up or do any work on the weekend.

The Plaintiff did show up and complete the insulation and rebar work on Monday morning. However, first thing Monday morning the plumbers did attend and when they could not immediately proceed to lay the heat pipe, they left. It took some time for them to return. Later in the month of November, everything was completed and on November 23 or 24 th , the Plaintiff poured the basement floor. The Defendant acknowledged that under the terms of the original contract, it was not the Plaintiff’s responsibility to lay the insulation or rebar.

He indicated however, that “Both of them had an interest” in speeding up and concluding the project. As a result, the Plaintiff agreed to assist on the weekend in laying the insulation and rebar, but failed to live up to that commitment. [ 22 ] The Defendant testified that he was concerned that it was taking way too long to finish this job. The delay was affecting scheduling and financing. Bills were not getting paid. He indicated that on December 3 rd he wanted to pay the Plaintiff completely, and simply move on.

However, he only had $60,000.00 to pay to the Plaintiff. [ 23 ] Between December 3 rd and January 15 th , the Defendant ascertained that a stud wall had been missed in the basement. There was also a problem regarding some “eyebrow windows” that had not been properly framed, and some studs that had warped. He claimed that some of the rebar was not properly spaced. These and the problems with the heater caused he and his spouse to terminate the services of the Plaintiff, as a result of which, Exhibit P5 was sent on January 15 th .

The Defendant testified that his financing was held up and he was being pressed by the bank to complete the house. As a result, he decided to use Spray Jones Insulation in the shop and garage, as opposed to fibreglass insulation. This came at an additional cost of $14,711.94. In addition, he retained another concrete contractor to redo a certain amount of the Plaintiff’s work and to conclude the garage and shop floors during the winter months. This, together with the additional heating costs for construction during the winter months, added $20,000.00 in additional expense.

As a result, the Defendant not only denied that any additional amount was owing on the contract, but counter-claimed for damages. [ 24 ] Under cross-examination, the Defendant testified regarding the floor drain. He said that this was a matter of shared responsibility between he and the Plaintiff.

He agreed that he had not boxed in the floor drain, but testified that the Plaintiff knew, or should have known, that he couldn’t complete the floor without a floor drain and thus should not have poured the floor over the floor drain outlet. [ 25 ] The Defendant was extensively cross-examined regarding the costing and financing of the project. At one point he stated that he didn’t underestimate the cost of the project, the problems arose because of larger costs. He agreed that the original mortgage was for $280,000.00. However, he later recalculated costs to $386,000.00 and remortgaged the house for $337,000.00.

Later still, he remortgaged the property for $414,720.00. He became reluctant to answer Mr. Chow’s questions on these points, arguing that financing of this project was not an issue in this lawsuit. [ 26 ] He was also extensively cross-examined regarding the scheduling of the work. He insisted that the Plaintiff indicated he would require 90 days to conclude his work to the lock-up stage. He later admitted however, that the lot was not pinned until July 8 th , and then the basement was excavated on July 11 th . [ 27 ] The Defendant kept a fairly detailed journal of transactions. He was confronted by Mr.

Chow regarding a number of notes in this journal. Of particular importance is a notation dated October 29, 2009, wherein the Defendant inquired when insulation will be delivered. He says, “NLS would like to pour on Friday”.

[ 28 ] The Defendant agreed that in late October, he had still not determined what should go down first, the rebar or the heating lines. There is an October 26 th note to the effect that he contacted the plumber to find out what to do first, pipes or rebar. There is also a note that on October 26, 2009, Blaine (the plumber) doing rough in. “It happens when it happens.” There is also a notation November 17 th “Rebar first?” There is then a notation that on November 18 th the rebar is installed.

There is a further notation that the plumber tested the lines on November 23 rd , and the concrete was then poured on November 24 th , as per re-schedule. There is also a November 23 rd notation that he doesn’t know when the shop floors will be poured. “It’s up to Blaine”. e. Brett Wieterman [ 29 ] The Defendant also called Mr. Brett Wieterman. He is the concrete finisher that the Defendant hired to conclude the project. He did the concrete floors in the shop and garage. He used heaters to remove the frost. He poured four piles. This was an extra.

He lifted the styrofoam insulation and rebar, and corrected the spacing on some rebar, and relaid it. He re-screeded the gravel to ensure that it was even. III. ISSUES 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to add GST to the original quoted price? 2. Whether the Plaintiff’s work was done in a good and workmanlike fashion. This includes the issue of whether the Plaintiff’s work was done in a timely fashion, and whom is responsible for any delay in the construction of the basement floor. 3. Whether the Plaintiff is responsible in some measure for covering over the floor drain. 4.

Whether other work was done by the Plaintiff on the house and basement that was not of a good and workmanlike quality. 5. Whether the Plaintiff must bear some portion of the additional costs related to construction of the garage and shop during the winter months. IV. ANALYSIS 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to add GST to the original quoted price? [ 30 ] In my view, the Defendant’s argument that the quoted price included GST, is completely without foundation. In every store I have ever been in, the price of the goods does not include the GST.

Whenever I have received a quote, the price is quoted, and then the GST is added. By operation of the Excise Tax Act , business persons are required to charge, collect and remit the GST, based upon the price of the goods and services. I can conceive of no reason why a business person would want to take responsibility for the GST by stating it as part of his price. In my view, businessmen, quite properly effectively state: “This is my price.

In addition I am required to charge, collect and remit the GST.” As a result, in the event that the Plaintiff did not specifically mention GST in his original verbal quote, I would imply a term of the contract that GST was to be added. [ 31 ] In addition however, in September 2009, when the Plaintiff advanced his formal written quote, GST was clearly mentioned.

The Defendant indicated that he wasn’t happy with this, but couldn’t discontinue the Plaintiff’s services at this time. I disagree. In my view, if he and the Plaintiff had a disagreement regarding the contract price, he had a better basis to discontinue the Plaintiff’s services then, than the one he advanced in January. In my view, as of September, when he received the formal written quote, the Defendant accepted that GST would be added, and continued to use the Plaintiff’s services. He cannot now attempt to avoid payment of the additional GST. 2.

Whether the Plaintiff ’s work was done in a good and workmanlike fashion. This includes the issue of whether the Plaintiff ’s work was done in a timely fashion, and whom is responsible for any delay in the construction of the basement floor. [ 32 ] I begin by noting that in the case of Maisonneuve v. Burley , 2001 SKQB 407 , at para. 26 , Madam Justice Dawson stated as follows: ...

A contract to perform any work, in the absence of any stipulation as to the manner in which it is to be carried out, implies a condition that the work shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner, and the workmen employed on the work must be possessed of the ordinary amount of skill possessed by those exercising the particular trade.... [ 33 ] She added, at para. 27: Where a contract, either expressly or by implication, contains a particular standard for the work to be done, an owner is not entitled to insist on work of a higher quality.

For example, an owner who contracts for the construction of a bush road is not entitled to insist on a standard of construction applicable to a provincial highway. [ 34 ] I am prepared to conclude that in order for work to be done in a good and workmanlike fashion, it must also be done in a reasonably timely fashion. Work that greatly exceeds the agreed upon and specified time lines, will not be done in a good and workmanlike fashion. With this backdrop, I look at Exhibit P5, the Defendant’s termination letter. It identifies a number of complaints. Among them are a lack of communication and commitment.

In my view, communication and commitment are not necessarily part of doing work in a lack of good and workmanlike fashion, and in this case cannot justify termination of the contract. One of the key items addressed is failing to meet the promised timing. On this point, I begin by noting that there is no independent professional evidence that the Plaintiff’s work was not done in a timely fashion. There are only the Defendant’s statements to this effect. But in my view, for a number of reasons, these statements lack credibility and cannot be accepted by the Court.

Firstly, the Defendant admitted that he was given a 90 day estimate as to the time required for the Plaintiff’s work, and from this the Defendant concludes that September 8, 2009, was the completion date. In Exhibit P5, the Defendant states the completion date was September 8 th and says the project started on July 8 th . The Defendant admitted that the lot was not pinned until July 8 th , and that excavation occurred immediately after that.

Clearly, as the general contractor, the Defendant was required to have the project completely staked or pinned, and then excavation would proceed according to that staking and pinning. Using the Plaintiff’s 90 day estimate and starting at July 8 th the Plaintiff’s estimated completion date would then be October the 8 th . [ 35 ] In addition, I specifically mentioned above the cross-examination on the Defendant’s notes made during the months of October and November 2009.

These notes clearly establish that the plumber and that the Defendant’s own work had not progressed to a sufficient point to allow the Plaintiff to pour the basement floor. According to the Defendant’s own notes, the lines were tested on November 23 rd and the day after, the Plaintiff poured the cement floor. As a result, I am required to conclude that the Plaintiff was not responsible for the delay in pouring the concrete floor. The Defendant and his plumber were responsible for that delay. As soon as their work was sufficiently completed, the Plaintiff poured the concrete floor.

This was done in a very reasonable and timely fashion, and not in breach. [ 36 ] As a result, I would conclude that the Defendant and his plumber were responsible for any delay in pouring the basement floor. The Plaintiff’s work was done in a reasonable and timely fashion, and there is no breach by him in this area. 3. Whether the Plaintiff is responsible in some measure for covering over the floor drain. [ 37 ] I have determined that the Plaintiff must be responsible for 50% of the cost of exposing the floor drain. I will deal with this as part of the next issue. 4.

Whether other work was done by the Plaintiff on the house and basement that was not of a good and workmanlike

4. Whether other work was done by the Plaintiff on the house and basement that was not of a good and workmanlike quality. [ 38 ] There were a couple of relatively minor problems that the Plaintiff admitted to. Firstly, it was admitted that a few studs had warped, and would have to be replaced prior to the drywall being affixed to the stud walls. In addition, it was admitted that a short wall in the basement had not been framed. These are minor matters that could not allow the Defendant to terminate the Plaintiff’s services.

I am prepared to allow the Defendant $500.00 damages to remedy these deficiencies. [ 39 ] Secondly, there is the issue of the floor drain that was covered over by concrete. The Defendant stated that this was a matter of shared responsibility. I accept that. While the Defendant was required to box in the floor drain, the Plaintiff should have realized that the floor drain was not properly exposed and dealt with this, as opposed to covering it over.

I am prepared to apportion liability for this at 50/50. [ 40 ] Once again, I am certain this is a relatively minor matter that would not allow the Defendant to terminate the Plaintiff’s services. Rather, it is remedial in damages. I was not given any specific damage figure for this. However, I am prepared to conclude that the total cost of repair of this would be $2,000.00. With modern instruments and technology, and the blueprints, an individual can, with relative certainty, locate where the end of the floor drain pipe would be.

A contractor would then have to jackhammer out the concrete around the end of the pipe and raise the outlet to the height of the finished concrete. New concrete would have to be poured around the pipe. I am satisfied that all of this could be done for the sum of $2,000.00. Further, that the Plaintiff’s 50% share of this cost would be $1,000.00. 5. Whether the Plaintiff must bear some portion of the additional costs related to construction of the garage and shop during the winter months. [ 41 ] In a word, the answer to this question is “no”.

As mentioned above, the Defendant was primarily responsible for the work not being concluded during the summer/fall construction period. He designed the home and was the general contractor. His time-line

schedule was ambitious, to say the least. Under the best of circumstances, he may not have been able to conclude the project prior to winter freeze up. Given the delay that he and his plumber were responsible for, certainly construction was not concluded prior to freeze up.

Because the Defendant was primarily responsible for this delay, he cannot hold the Plaintiff responsible for additional construction costs during the winter months. [ 42 ] Just as importantly however, I cannot conclude that there was any necessity to conclude construction of the garage and shop floors during the winter months, and thus, cannot conclude that these additional costs should ever have been incurred by the Defendant. What was the rush that required the Defendant to conclude construction of the garage and shop floors during the winter months?

I begin by noting that a number of pictures were put in evidence. These pictures indicate that the house is still not completed. The Defendant is not in business. He did not require the garage and shop floors to be completed for his business, or to earn an income from business. He testified that he is regularly employed as a millwright at the Mosaic Potash Mine.

As a result, I really question why the Defendant would not have waited three months from January to April and then had the shop and garage floors poured, using spring and summer construction practices. [ 43 ] In my view, there was no reason or requirement that the Defendant proceed in the fashion that he did. I conclude that the Defendant decided, wrongly in my view, that the Plaintiff was responsible for the delay in completion. The Defendant then decided that he could and would proceed to conclude construction during the winter months and the charge the Plaintiff for all of the additional costs.

In my view he was not entitled to do this, and I am not prepared to allow him damages for the additional winter construction costs. V. CONCLUSION [ 44 ] In argument, Mr. Fielding, counsel for the Defendant, agreed that the basic contract price was $80,000.00, and there were agreed upon extras of $7,000.00, bringing the total contract price to $87,000.00. In addition, the GST on this sum was $4,350.00, bringing the total price to $91,350.00. In this action, the Plaintiff claimed further extras totaling $5,666.00. The Defendant disputed the whole amount of these extras. Some of these extras are legitimate charges.

For example, the pump truck for the pouring of the basement floor and heater. However, I am satisfied that a number of minor items would never have been charged for, had the Defendant paid the invoice in a timely fashion. As a result, I am prepared to allow an additional $2,600.00 for extras, bringing the total contract price to $93,900.00. GST on these extras would come to $130.00, bringing the total allowable price to the Plaintiff to $94,080.00. [ 45 ] From this must be deducted $6,000.00, being the value of work that the Plaintiff had yet to perform at the time of termination of his services.

In addition, the Defendant is allowed damages of $500.00 and $1,000.00 related to construction of the wall in the basement and the floor drain. This results in a reduction of $7,500.00 plus GST of $375.00, for a total reduction of $7,875.00. The total amount to be paid by the Defendant was $86,205.00. The Defendant has already paid $70,000.00., leaving a balance of $16,205.00. My

calculations are attached at Appendix “A”. [ 46 ] The Plaintiff will have judgment for $16,205.00. In addition the Plaintiff will have costs that I fix in the amount of $500.00. The Plaintiff shall have Judgment under the Pre-Judgment Interest Act on $16,205.00 from January 31, 2010, to today’s date. [ 47 ] Dated at the City of Moose Jaw, in the Province of Saskatchewan this 4th day of January, A. D. 2013. ______________________ D. J.

KOVATCH, J APPENDIX “A ’ Original Contract $ 80,000.00 Extras $ 7,000.00 Total Contract $ 87,000.00 GST on $87,000.00 $ 4,350.00 TOTAL including GST $ 91,350.00 Additional Awarded Costs $ 2,600.00 GST on Additional Awarded Costs $ 130.00 TOTAL including Additional Awarded Costs $ 94,080.00 Deductions for unfinished work -$ 6,000.00 Deduction for awards re wall and floor drain -$ 1,500.00 GST on Deductions -$ 375.00 Total amount of Contract owed to Plaintiff $ 86,205.00 Balance already paid by Defendant -$ 70,000.00 Amount awarded to Plaintiff $ 16,205.00