Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Gilkar Design + Build LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Gilkar Design + Build LLC has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Gilkar Design + Build LLC

  5692 Colchester Rd Clifton, VA 20124-1332

• 

  Gilkar Design + Build LLC

  PO Box 943 Centreville, VA 20122-0943

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/21/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Hous address:***************************************************************** I hired an architectural firm to design plans for building a house on an existing slab. The firm visited the property, examined the current one-story structure, and advised me to have the slab evaluated to determine if it could support a two-story home. I followed their recommendation, and the slab was confirmed to be suitable for a second floor.The firm quoted me $12,000 for the plans$6,000 upfront and the remaining $6,000 upon completion. They are also licensed builders. After months of work, the firm submitted the plans to the County, but they were rejected. The County cited that the plans were based on outdated setback requirements, which are no longer acceptable under current zoning regulations.The firm failed to verify these basic requirements before beginning the design. As a result, they informed me that I would need to revise the plans and pay additional fees, including for grading plans and other changes. This process has now dragged on for over six months. I purchased this property in May 2024 and can no longer afford further delays.I reached out to the County myself to understand who was responsible. I was told clearly that the architectural firm should have known the current setback regulations before starting the design. Despite this, the firm has denied responsibility, refused to provide any refund, and insists their fees are non-refundableeven though the plans are now unusable.I feel I have paid $12,000 for a plan that cannot be built and is ultimately worthless. The firm refuses to resolve this in good faith. They are a large builder with a strong presence in the market, selling multi-million dollar homes, yet theyve left mean individual homeowner who took a second mortgage to fund thiswith nothing to show for my investment.I am requesting a fair resolution and compensation for the unusable plans I paid for. Please help.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/23/2025

  From: Gilkar Design+Build LLC
  To: Better Business Bureau
  Regarding Complaint by: ************************* Address: ************************************
  
  Dear Better Business Bureau,
  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by Ms. ***** regarding her project at the above-referenced address. At Gilkar Design+Build, we take every client concern seriously and strive to maintain transparency and professionalism in all aspects of our work. Below is a summary and clarification of the situation based on our records and correspondence.
  
  1. Project Background & Scope of Work
  Ms. ***** initially approached us in mid-2024, identifying herself as an experienced remodeler/developer with multiple prior projects. She expressed her intent to add a second story to an existing single-story dwelling while retaining the current exterior walls and slab. She also expressed a desire to avoid triggering a grading plan requirement by designing within the limits of the existing structure. Based on this directive, we entered into an agreement with her and began the design process. It is worth noting that the subject property was ultimately remodeled (not rebuilt) and has been on the market for sale for the past six months.
  
  2. Design & Permitting Process
  The contract, signed on June 28, 2024,outlined our scope of services as follows:
  a) To provide architectural and structural design and produce permit-ready construction documents for a new two-story home between ***** and ***** sq. ft. b) To submit plans to ************** for permit review and respond to any related comments. c) Clearly indicate that all payments are non-refundable.
  At the clients direction, we developed the plans utilizing the existing structural footprint and setbacks.We shared the plans with the client and she approved them.  After submission to **************, reviewers required updated setbacks and advised that additional modificationsincluding a potential grading planwould be necessary.
  Upon receiving this feedback, we offered to revise the plans and resubmit them. However, the client chose not to move forward and elected to cancel the original scope.
  
  3. Change in Project Direction
  Following cancellation of the second-story addition, Ms. ***** proceeded independently with a remodel of the existing structure. She later contacted us for a plumbing referral to reconnect a capped gas line, which further confirmed her departure from the original project scope. The remodeled property was listed on the market in February 2025. Roughly two months after which, Ms. ***** reached out requesting a full refund and has followed up several times with similar demands.
  
  4. Contractual and Professional Clarifications
  To address specific points in the complaint regarding the complaint:
  
  a) Setback Responsibility: While we strive to comply with all zoning and permitting requirements, in this case we followed the client's specific request to retain existing walls and avoid triggering additional site work. We did not guarantee that such a design would bypass all County requirementsnor could any design professional do so with certainty.

  b) Refund Policy: Our contract explicitly states that all payments are non-refundable. We offered to revise the plans in response to the Countys feedback, but the client chose not to proceed with that option.

  c) Civil and Geotechnical Scope: The contract excludes civil and geotechnical services and clearly states that coordination with those engineers would be the clients responsibility. This is standard in the industry.
  
  d) Timeline: From the time of the initial deposit to the delivery of completed construction documents, we performed the work within a reasonable and industry-standard timeframe. We are happy to provide exact documentation if requested.
  
  5. Our Position & Closing Remarks
  We respectfully maintain that Gilkar Design+Build fully met our contractual obligations. The project was designed according to the client's original vision and direction. We submitted the required documents and were prepared to revise them following County feedback.The client instead chose to discontinue the original scope and proceed with an entirely different vision for her project, which she completed before coming back to us requesting the refund.
  We understand that construction and permitting processesparticularly in ***************** be complex and at times frustrating. While we regret that the experience did not meet Ms. *****s expectations, we believe that we acted in good faith and in accordance with the terms of our agreement. Our goal has always been to support our clients' visions and help bring their projects to life. We remain committed to professionalism and fairness and would be happy to provide any further clarification that the BBB or the client may require.
  
  Sincerely,
  Gilkar Design+Build LLC
  Abdullah ********** President/Owner
  *****************************************************

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/28/2025

  Please see attached my response to the business. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/28/2025

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
  
   Complaint: 23342322
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  
  Regards,
  
  **** *****
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/04/2025

  Dear BBB,
  
  Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our position regarding this complaint.While weve aimed to keep our response concise and focused on the core facts,certain claims made by Ms. ***** require clarification, as they introduce misleading narratives that distract from the central issues.
  
  With that in mind, weve outlined our response in a clear, itemized format. We appreciate your patience with the length, as it was important to address all relevant points thoroughly.
  
  
  1. False Statements and Contradictions in ******************************************** homeowner with a second mortgage...
  Ms. ***** introduced herself as an experienced residential flipper. This is relevant contextthe property was remodeled and listed for sale. This was clearly a development investment, not a personal residence.
  
  ...early in the process, they instructed me to have the existing slab tested...
  At our site visit, she stated that she had already hired a structural engineer to inspect the foundationbefore we were ever engaged.
  
  This process has now dragged on for over six months...
  From her deposit on 7/15/2024 (which triggered the start of work) to plan submission on 10/4/2024, less than three months passed. This timeline included concept development and her own review/approval cycles.
  
  The firm refuses to resolve this in good faith.
  We offered to revise and resubmit the plans at no additional cost. She declined and changed the scope from a rebuild to a remodel. We were not given a chance to cure.
  
  She acknowledges our revision offer, yet claims we took no responsibilitythis is contradictory.
  
  She conflates first-round comments with non-approvable plans, which misrepresents how permitting works. Nearly all plans receive comments and require revisions.
  
  She now admits the design was buildable with a revisionconfirming it was not a dead-end as previously claimed.
  
  2. Why the Developer Canceled (relevant due to Ms. ******* tone of claims) 
  After receiving a copy of the submitted construction documents, Ms. ***** solicited construction bids, including one from us (documented).
  
  We were surprised when she canceled the project. It became clear that after reviewing construction costswhich should have been part of her initial feasibilityshe chose to pivot to a less costly remodel.
  This was a business decision aimed at a faster market return. Unfortunately, that strategy has not succeeded, as the property remains unsold.
  
  It is well worth mentioning that from the date she told us she has pulled the project (November 26th, 2024), unto the day she asked for a full refund (April 18th, 2025) it took her 144 days.  She asked for the refund from us well after she failed to secure a purchase contract for her remodeled for-sale house.
  
  While we truly sympathize with her investment challenges, Gilkar cannot be held liable simply because we are, in Ms. ****** own words, a large builder with a strong presence in the market, selling multi-million dollar homes.
  
  3. Our Scope Was Clear and Followed
  Our role was to design a housenot to guarantee County approval in first round of reviews for an addition over an existing structure with grandfathered setbacks.
  
  The only contractual deliverable was a set of construction documents for a ********** sq. ft. home that met minimum submission (not approval) requirements and subsequently responding to comments from the county.
  
  At her request, we avoided triggering a grading plan by retaining (most of) the existing footprint to simplify the process. The County ultimately did not accept this approach.
  
  The only correction issued was a zoning comment. There were no building review commentsthe part of permitting that fell within the core of our contractual responsibility.
  
  4. Zoning Review Was Not Our Responsibility
  Zoning verification (e.g., setbacks) is typically part of a feasibility study, which was not included in our scope. We were never contracted or asked to perform such a study.
  
  The final paragraph of our executed contract explicitly states:
  ...Any and all services not mentioned in the Scope section of this proposal shall be assumed excluded from scope of services. Such services may be offered through a separate proposal.
  A zoning study is not listed in our scope.
  
  Our contract includes the production of standard submittable Construction Documents and support in responding to County comments.
  
  Plans were prepared per Ms. ****** request to avoid a grading plan.
  
  When zoning comments were issued, we offered to revise the plans. We were never given that opportunity.
  
  5. The Plans Were Not RejectedThey Received Comments
  The County did not reject the application. It issued a zoning comments during first-round review.
  
  This was not an unresolvable matter but rather a normal and expected part of the permitting process.

  6. ******************* Us From Curing the Issue
  Upon receiving zoning comments, we promptly offered to revise the plans at no additional cost.
  
  We dispute any claim of faulty work. But even assuming her argument for discussions sake, she denied us the opportunity to address the issue.
  
  This violates the fundamental right to cure principle, which protects both clients and service providers by ensuring there is a chance to resolve issues before escalation.
  
  The zoning revision may have been inconvenient, but it did not justify a refund, nor did it indicate negligence. Again, we were not allowed to revise.
  
  7. Contractual Limitation on Liability and Notice Requirements
  Our contract contains a critical clause that limits a clients ability to bring negligence claims after the fact;which is precisely intended for instances like the current matter with Ms.Qotub:
  
  Gilkar Design+Build shall not be liable to the Client for: Any claims,damages, losses and expenses attributable to Gilkars negligence, unless the Client notifies Gilkar Design+Build in writing of such negligence within 14 days of the event giving rise to same and, if a defective condition or correction work is involved, promptly notifies Gilkar in writing to allow a response in reasonable time to inspect and observe such defect or corrective work.
  
  This clause exists to require timely written notice of any negligence:
  Ms. ***** never provided such notice, nor did she imply unsatisfactory contractual performance on our end within the 14-day period. As a matter of fact, from the date she told us she has pulled the project (November 26th, 2024), unto the day she asked for a full refund (April 18th, 2025) it took her 144 days.  During this period, she failed to raise ANY of the issues she now cites during the relevant timeframe.
  
  This clause exists also to grant the contractor a fair chance to respond:
  Even if an issue had arisen, she was contractually obligated to inform us and allow a reasonable opportunity to inspect and resolve it. She denied us that opportunity.
  
  Therefore, because **************** Did not submit written notice within 14 days,
  - Did not allow us to respond, and
  - Ultimately chose to change the project scope by her own decision,
  
  her claims are contractually barred.
  

  In Closing

  Our contract clearly outlines the scope of work, exclusions,and non-refundable fees. We are not responsible for delays or permitting challenges outside our scope. Her claim of professional negligence is both factually and contractually unsupported.
  
  Ms. ****** demands directly violate the terms she agreed to.Gilkar Design+Build acted in good faith, within our well-defined scope, and according to all professional standards. We stand by the quality of our work and firmly believe that a refund is not warranted.
  
  Sincerely,
  ********************************* Gilkar Design+Build LLC
  *****************************************************

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/13/2025

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
  
   Complaint: 23342322
  
  I am rejecting this response. Please see my attached explanation 
  
  
  Regards,
  
  **** *****