Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

All Phase Restoration

Additional Locations

Phone: (970) 686-6000 Fax: (970) 622-2057 View Additional Phone Numbers 7355 Greenridge Rd Ste C, Windsor, CO 80550

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.


All Phase Restoration is a full service disaster restoration company specializing in water and sewage extraction, mold mitigation, smoke and fire remediation, reconstruction and carpet cleaning.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that All Phase Restoration meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

2 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 0 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 1
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 1
Total Closed Complaints 2

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

10 Customer Reviews on All Phase Restoration
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 8
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 2
Total Customer Reviews 10

Additional Information

BBB file opened: September 01, 2005 Business started: 02/01/2001 in CO Business incorporated 03/01/2003 in CO
Type of Entity

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

Business Management
Mr. Robert Mauck, Managing Partner Mr. Jeff Mauck, Managing Partner
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Robert Mauck, Managing Partner
Business Category

Fire & Water Damage Restoration Water Damage Restoration Janitor Service Mold & Mildew Remediation Upholstery Rug Cleaners Upholstery & Carpet Cleaning Remodelers

Method(s) of Payment
Cash, check or credit card

Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Summary

All Phase Restoration has received 0 out of 5 stars based on 0 Customer Reviews and a BBB Rating of A+.

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

Additional Locations

  • 3773 Monarch St Unit A

    Frederick, CO 80516 (303) 682-0246

  • 7355 Greenridge Rd Ste C

    Windsor, CO 80550 (970) 686-6000 (970) 213-1900


BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

1/20/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: This started with the hail storm in June 2014, that destroyed the east side of **** *******, and my roof. I first contacted All Phase Restoration in June to have my roof evaluated for hail damage, they were real quick to get out to my home and assess the damage, at that time I was told by the guy inspecting the roof, "they would make my deductable, "go away", I did not ask for this he just through it out there. Then I contacted the guy, ****, and when he finally got back with me, weeks later, told me he was busy and would pass this off to **** ******* and *** ****. Again i sent emails to both men and left messages on their cell phones and it took weeks, again to return my call. Finally the repair was scheduled for October. Then to make matters even worse, in November when I was cleaning out my rain gutters not only did I find dried leaves, but I also found burnt ciggarete butts, to me, the home owner, I consider this a HUGE, fire hazard. My main issue is I was billed for the roof in November and now in January I get another bill for the permit fee. The roof was finally replaced in October and the permit was obtained in November. Now I dont know much about construction and permits, but, I thought you needed to obtain a permit prior to the work being done. Also, the original invoice was a one line invoice and did not spellout what it was for, or maybe I would have noticed there was no permit fee. I did notice I never seen a permit on my home, like I seen on all of my neighbors.

Desired Settlement: I **** pay the new invoice for the permit fee of $127.68, but I think with all the false promises and poor customer service they should pick up the permit fee.

Business Response: ******

I regret to hear that you are unsatisfied with portions of the process with All Phase.  I do appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback.  As a Company, we utilize feedback regularly to improve our process and services, so we appreciate the opportunity to improve.  I would like to address several key points in your feedback, and **** take them in the order in which you stated them:

1) I am surprised to read the comment about your deductible.  As a Company, we train regularly about this very topic and it is an expressed policy that we do not waive deductibles for roofing projects for a variety of reasons.  In a catastrophic event such as what hit **** Colliins, literally dozens of non-local contractors arrive to try to seize upon the event.  They utilize a variety of tactics including door to door salesman, canvasers, mass mailing, etc (also tactics All Phase does not utilize, we do not come to your property unless we are invited) in which these promises are made..  Perception is reality, so I take you at your word that it happened and have already discussed the matter with the individual you mentioned.  If there is something that I can do that would further alleviate your concern over this issue, I am ****ing to listen.

2) It does appear that there was a three week delay (June 30th to August 20th) between the time your property was initially inspected by ****, until contact was made with you again by ****.  I agree with you that this is not acceptable.  From August 20th for****, our electronic records of email and mobile phone show that communication was regular between yourself, ****, and *** through the completion of the project at which point you sent an email thanking **** and *** as the new roof looked amazing and requesting the certificate for the Class IV shingle install, which was sent to you the same day.

3) Finding cigarette butts in your gutter is also unacceptable.  All Phase does go through a vetting process with its sub-contractors prior to use, and they all sign a contract with our Company that outlines a series of basic requirements and service level expectations.  It is specifically written within our contract that smoking is not allowed at our Customer's property.  Thank you for making us aware of this issue, we **** be addressing it with the sub-contractor immediately.

4) The permit was obtained as required.  As you can imagine, the City of **** ******* experienced a massive surge in permit applications, and was not able to add additional resources to deal with the massive increase in volume.  This lead to significant, 3 to 5 week delays, in the issuance of the actual permit.  The City of **** *******, therefore implemented a policy with local contractors via what is called a Trust Account.  If a local contractor with a Trust Account applied for a permit with money to pay for it in their Trust Account, the City would allow the contractor to proceed with work prior to processing the application and issuing the permit.  This allowed work to be performed prior to the winter months due to the long delay at the City.  We applied for your permit prior to starting work under our Trust Account with the City.  The permit was issued approximately 5 weeks later on November 3rd.

5) We did not include billing for your permit at the time of completing work for two reasons that you should have been educated on up front, but apparently was not, something I **** also be addressing within our Roofing Division.  First, we did not bill at the time of completion because we did not know the cost of the permit.  The cost of the permit is not know until the date of issue by the City.  So in this case, we did not know that cost of the permit until November 3rd, when the permit was actually issued.  Second, we do not bill for the permit until your insurance carrier **** pay for it.  Your carrier has certain expectations prior to approving payment for the permit: 1) They require the know cost, as we do, which is not established until the permit is issued; 2) They require the inspection be performed by the issuing entity and passed, prior to payment.  In this particular case, the inspection for the permit was performed and passed by the City on December 11th.  I do agree with you, that the invoicing for the permit should have occurred closer to the December 11th date rather than January, and that you should have been educated about this up front.  As above, if there is something that I can do to alleviate your frustration over this issue, I am more than ****ing to listen.

My Regards

*** ******
All Phase Restoration

Consumer Response: Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:Technically I am not rejecting your response. I would like to say I never asked for the deductable to "go away", I did not even think this was an option, so it should have never been said, but pleaes know I did not in any way insinuate for this to be offered.  I hope in the future your billing is more detailed, maybe on the invoice you could add a line "future billing for permit fee to follow", then its not a surprise months later.


****** *********

7/22/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: All Phase Restoration was hired to remediate flood damage to my home in ********, Colorado - I now have almost $15,000 in mold remediation costs. After the flooding that occurred in Sep 2013 along the Front Range, All Phase Restoration was hired to provide remediate flood damage in my home in ********, CO. Their technicians arrived on 4 Oct and executed the work which AP Restoration recommended be performed based on their initial assessment of the home (AP Restoration invoice ******** / Technician: **** ******). On the recommendation of the property management company, a mold test was performed by **** ********* in Dec 2013 and the results were extremely high, particularly in the lower level of the home where AP Restoration had performed the work. The report from **** ********* includes photo documentation showing flood related mud debris that was left behind in the basement. I contacted AP Restoration after I received the mold inspection report, and was directed to speak to Mr. **** ******. Eventually I was placed in contact with Mr. *** ******, the Chief Operating Officer of AP Restoration's Windsor, CO office. We initially spoke in late Jan and early Feb, and there was a break of weeks where I did not hear back from AP Restoration. It was not until I emailed Mr. ****** on 13 Mar with a request to waive the fees for the work performed as well as to reimburse the costs of the mold remediation protocols required that our communication seemed in earnest. Our most significant conversation was a telephone conference between myself, Mr. *** ******, Mr. **** ******, and Mr. *** ******* (**** *********) on 7 APR 2014 where we discussed the ***eline of events, the work performed, and the mold test results. Mr ******'s position is AP Restoration performed the work they had recommended, that if it was insufficient it was my fault for agreeing to there recommendation, and that they were not liable and wanted me to "digest the information". My position is that they were hired for expertise in flood recovery and mitigating the effects of disaster events, AP Restoration's recommendations and work performed did not adequately restore the home to a condition that would prevent the mold growth that was found by **** *********, and that at a minimum should waive the outstanding costs related to the invoice and work performed. If there were isolated patches of mold,I could understand how that could occur. But Mr. ******* stated that it was one of the highest mold counts he had seen in his career, which indicates to me that the service provided by AP Restoration was not adequate. I specifically mentioned this point during the telephone conversation and asked Mr. ******* to correct me if I was misinterpreting the report, and he indicated that I had an accurate understanding of the reports findings. In addition to the request for waiver of the outstanding invoice and compensation for the mold remediation protocol and follow-on testing, I asked to see AP Restoration's service warranty. After a month of requests, AP Restoration finally provided a blank warranty when I directly emailed Mr. ****** and provided a deadline. The warranty provided was blank, and Mr. ****** has not indicated that he intends to warrant the work performed. I am asking the Better Business Bureau to provide an outside, independent review of the situation and for assistance in resolving in this matter. Thank you. ******* ** **** ********************* ***** ************

Desired Settlement: I am requesting from AP Restoration: 1) A waiver of all fees from invoice ********. 2) Compensation for costs of the mold remediation protocol, the initial mold testing, and the follow-on mold testing. This cost is estimated at $15,000.

Consumer Response: Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

In the attached scope of work, All Phase Restoration (APR) includes the following specific line items:
-  Clean with pressure/chemical spray - very heavy (Page 3, line 15, line 17 / Page 4, line 19, line 21 / Page 5, line 23 / Page 6, line 12)
-  Apply plant-based anti-microbial agent (Page 3, line 16, line 18 / Page 4, line 20, line 22 / Page 5, line 24 / Page 6, line 14)

1)  In All Phase Restoration's response, it states that it was not hired to "remediate flood damage" and only perform a structural dry out.  This is not consist with the work that was included on the approved scope of work and in the final invoice.  I would ask that the BBB help to identify how 6 separate cleanings w/ pressure/chemical spray is part of a structural drying out process. 
2)  This invoice directly contradicts point #6 in APR's response, which states that they do not go on a "witch hunt" for mold.  In their execution of the work, APR demonstrates a professional concern about the potential for mold growth through the inclusion of 6 separate line items to apply a plant-based anti-microbial agent in 4 separate basement locations.
3)  The results of the mold testing report by ** ********* has been used to quantify the mold problem that occurred after APR performed the attached scope of work.  ** ********* has never stated that APR was responsible for the resulting mold problem, and I have never stated that ** ********** placed fault with APR.  That was never their role in this dispute, only to validate and quantify the mold problem that has arisen since APR was on-site at the property.  In my original complaint, I stated that it was the highest mold count the industrial hygienist from **** ********* had seen in his career.  APR's recollection of the phone conversation of April 7 is in error, as ** ********* has been careful to side with neither party in this complaint, only speaking to the results of the Dec 2013 mold testing.
4)  The attached mold remediation protocol from **** ********* documents on page 1, observations - basement "The basement stairs had residual mud and debris beneath them" w/ photo documentation on page 7, bottom two photos of the stairs.  Given the wide variety of potential natural and man-made contaminants in the flood debris, the mud that was left behind after APR performed the work may have been a potential vector for introducing mold into the basement.  At a minimum it speaks to the lack of thoroughness in the work that was performed.
5)  To address point #7 in APR's response, I have attached the document that was provided when I asked for APR's warranty for the work performed.  I ask the BBB to help me to understand how this is a complete and valid warranty.
6)  Please review the document titled Better Business Bureau - APR Warranty for a copy of the email communication from APR on 31 Jan.  Unfortunately I could not provide an easier to read copy.  If BBB could provide a preferred email address, I could provide a complete copy of all email and SMS messages between APR and myself, as well as any additional information BBB requires to help resolve this issue. 
7)  I have not requested a refund from APR for any specific line items, as this would not satisfy my complaint.


******* ** ****

Business Response: ***** *** ****** *************************** *** ********************** ********************** *** *** ****** *************************** ***** **** *** *** **** ** **** ** ******** *** ***** ******** ** ********* ********* 

Thanks for your help in posting this as I tried yesterday on two occasions, but could not get the system to save and post.  I will address each point as listed by Mr ** **** in the same order as he presented in his last response.
1)      The line items within All Phase’s scope of work are, in fact, consistent with a structural dry out involving Category 3 water (water containing contaminants including but not limited to bacterial, fungal, waste products, fertilizers, etc).  All Phase Restoration follows the guidelines and best practices set forth in the S500 by the IICRC (Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification).  The IICRC is a non-profit organization that was created in partnership with multiple trade organizations to establish standards and certification protocols for our industry.  The S500 states that pressure washing and application of an anti-microbial should be utilized on affected treatable surfaces as a precaution, even when no visible indication of presence of contamination is present.

2)      It does not contradict any comments made by All Phase Restoration.  The Company was following established protocol as defined in the S500.  A “witch hunt” would be more accurately described as performing destructive demolition to seek out evidence of something that is not visibly seen.  This creates several issues, which are easy to identify using logic.  Who pays for the ongoing demolition until evidence is found?  At what point is destructive demolition stopped if lack of visual evidence occurs?  Do you continue demolishing until all structural materials are removed?  Who pays for the reconstruction?  Mold is ubiquitous.  It is natures way of breaking down organic material.  It is always present, even in “clean” air.  That is why the standard is one of visibility.

3)      All Phase Restoration agrees.  ** ********* has not stated that All Phase Restoration caused the mold, in fact, they agreed with the commentary provided to Mr ** **** on April 7th that All Phase Restoration did not cause the mold.  All Phase Restoration does not dispute the results of their air sampling, we acknowledge high levels of mold spores are present.  All Phase Restoration’s position is that the mold was not caused by the Company, and therefore should not be responsible for Mr ** ****’s demand of paying the $15,000 requested for mold mitigation.  In addition, as has been expressed to Mr ** **** on more than one occasion, if there are specific items within the scope of work; provided to, reviewed, and approved by Mr ** **** prior to starting work – that were not performed, All Phase Restoration would credit him for those items.  To my knowledge, Mr ** **** has yet to contest any line items, and All Phase Restoration’s position is that evidence has been provided that the scope of work was completed, returning the structure to pre-loss moisture levels, and should be compensated for that work at the agreed upon price.

4)      All Phase Restoration does not contest the observations and documentation from ** *********.   The residual mud in the photo should have been addressed during the work performed by All Phase Restoration.  As stated above, All Phase Restoration is willing to credit Mr ** **** for this portion of the work.  To construe the small amount of mud as the possible vector for the resulting mold is beyond just reaching.  The mud originated in the flood of September 2013 and filled Mr ** ****’s basement with 32 inches of contaminated water, mud, and debris.  All Phase Restoration did not perform the structural dry out in Mr ** ****’s property until three weeks later.  Testing for mold did not take place in Mr ** ****’s residence until more than 8 weeks after All Phase Restoration completed its scope of work.  Based upon the timeline, it is impossible to determine without question what the cause of the mold in Mr ** ****’s property is.  The most likely candidate is a result of the flood given the Category of water and the length of time in which the structure sat in post flood condition.

5)      Mr ** **** asked for a copy of our Warranty, and it was provided to him.  All Phase Restoration provides a 5 Year Workmanship Warranty on all work, excluding Roofing, unless otherwise explicitly stated in writing and agreed to by Customer and Company.  A certificate is not needed to enforce our Warranty, it is assumed on all jobs we perform at moment of payment.  Mr ** ****’s information, or that of a Company Representative, are not required.

6)      No response needed.

7)      No response needed.

Thanks again *****!          
*** ******
Chief Operating Officer
7355 Greenridge Rd Ste C
Windsor, CO 80550
************ *** ************ *** ************ ***** **********
************ *****

Consumer Response: Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

1)  While APR's employment of logic is commendable, how can a home that is restored to the industry standard for moisture content continue to harbor and grow mold to the levels found by AG *********?  The HVAC system and electrical power had been restored well before APR was on-site, and continued to run afterward.  There was no other water intrusions in the home after APR was on-site.  While a small amount of mold would be consistent with APR's statements, the extensive mold count found in the lower levels of the home is not consistent with the services APR claims to have provided.  Regarding destructive testing, when APR restoration was hired to perform this job, I was relying on their professional expertise and experience to provide recommendations on how to proceed.  While APR's response indicates that the did not have clear guidelines or the ability to determine when to stop destructive testing, a Denver based firm that I retained was able to perform localized destructive testing within the home in a manner that resolved any questions while minimizing damage - a professional job.

2)  A.G. ********* has never stated that APR restoration was or was not the cause of the mold problem in the property.  They have only ever addressed their test results.  Instead of continually coming back to this point, would it be possible for the BBB as an independent third party to contact AG ********* directly to determine the veracity of this statement.  I can provide contact information upon request.

3)  APR is very dismissive of the fact that their technicians left potentially contaminated mud in the home.  It is a possible vector, and yes, if I had known that APR had left flood material behind in the home I would have had mold testing performed right after they had left the property.


******* ** ****

Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

10 Customer Reviews on All Phase Restoration
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Fusion Chart
Fusion Chart