Dr. Balcony Is Apparently Using 1099 "Handymen" To Perform Balcony Inspections & Repairs? It Looks Like It!

We were shocked when we saw the help wanted listings at Dr Balcony's website and read the job description for a "Field Operator" who according to the job description would be performing balcony inspections under SB326 and SB721. Update, 2/24/25 the advertisement for handyman balcony inspectors has disappeared, hmm we wonder why?

At first the job description sounds okay and one of the responsibilities described is to perform thorough inspections of balconies and also to conduct necessary repairs and maintenance on balconies. Where it gets shocking though is under their requirements for this job, which actually is not a job...

On page 2 of the job description they want you to have proven experience as a "handyman" along with experience in balcony inspections and repairs. I personally have never met a handyman that has any inkling of how to waterproof a deck or fix it, never mind properly inspect it for the purpose of saving lives. Dr Balcony has no requirement for having any license listed in their help washed ad, so we ask, are unlicensed handymen are who they're looking to contract with to inspect critical life/safety areas such as decks and walkways? It's looks like it. We ask, Seriously?

And as we said this is not a job it is a contract position where as this listing says, you will be a 1099 employee and be paid $280 a day plus gas reimbursement according to the benefits section. You will also be required to have your own insurance coverage as well as your own vehicle and valid driver's license you will be working independently and manage your own schedule.

Those terms are there to try to allow Dr. Balcony to say that you are an independent contractor. However they are going to assign you a job and you are going to have to do the job on the dates that they have agreed to do it with for the association. We're not lawyers, but in our opinion, from what we have read that is not an independent contractor position it is an employee position and Dr Balcony appears to be seeking to evade paying payroll taxes. California law is very clear about who is an employee and who can be classified as an independent contractor. 

If you are independently contracting with Dr Balcony you will get a 1099 and you will have to pay taxes including social security to the government and for $35 an hour, you are also paying your own insurance and your vehicle costs. In our opinion that is giving away your labor. Our opinion is this is a bad deal for an independent contractor. This type of arrangement should be paying around $75 to $90 per hour in our opinion. 

While this is bad on so many ways, the worst part is that HOAs who believe that they are getting experienced inspectors with an engineer on site performing the inspection themselves are instead getting contract laborers who may not have the experience required to be able to determine if there are life safety issues involved on the EEE they are inspecting.

To be fair Dr Balcony does have an advertisement looking for a junior civil engineer to do inspections as well, however the job position requirements do not show the need to have a license. An engineer who recently graduated from school would become an engineer in training working under a licensed civil or structural engineer.  Our understanding from working with Engineers is that a unlicensed engineer may not perform the inspection without a licensed engineer being present and overseeing the work.

if the report they issue  is signed by an engineer, but that engineer didn't perform the inspection,  is it a valid report under sb326? This is why it is so important to qualify your inspector and be sure that they are absolutely qualified under the bill. We know multiple companies that are licensed Structural Engineers or architects who work in tandem with waterproofing experts who write supplemental reports that are appended to the engineer or architects report. We know several structural engineering companies that also do their own waterproofing inspections and write a report. These reports in our opinion are a valid report that meets the requirements of 326.

All in all, I believe that HOAs are being ripped off by unethical people. Does your HOA want "handymen" doing it's life safety critical inspections instead of an experienced engineer? I think the answer is clearly no. 

HOAs must protect themselves against these kind of inspectors who look good on paper or the Internet now a days, but behind the scenes, in our opinion, are cheating you. I have to ask, are these handymen acting as engineers without holding an engineers license? 

An Officer of Balcony 1 Was Forced to Resign As an Officer After A CSLB Investigation Found He Falsely Certified a Contractors License Applicants Work Experience

One Structural dba Retrofit 1 Escapes Having a CSLB Complaint Disclosure on its License After Daniel Zilberberg Resigns as an Officer. From what we see, Balcony 1 is/ was misrepresenting that they are licensed by CSLB by posting the license number on their website and vehicles.

 • An ugly lawsuit by an ex- employee claimed that Daniel Zilberberg broke an oral agreement to set up a business partnership with him. 

• Daniel Zilberberg was found, by way of a CSLB investigation to have conspired with Samuel Torayson to falsify an application to the CSLB by lying about their experience as a "journeyman" in order to obtain a contractors license that Samuel Torayson wasn't qualified to obtain. Otherwise known as fraud. 

• CSLB in it's accusation claims a confidential settlement between Zilberberg and Torayson subverted cooperation with the Board. 

• Zilberberg was forced to resign as an officer and the other officers of One Structural resigned, leaving David Tashroudian as the sole member of the company. 

When a business relationship goes south it can get ugly really quickly and in this case it's really ugly. The lesson for Daniel Zilberberg, James Michaelson and David Tashroudian is don't screw your business associates else they will seek to screw you right back.

Daniel Zilberberg learned this lesson the hard way, when after torpedoing a business relationship with a gentleman named Christopher Kirksey, who Zilberberg induced to move to Northern California to be the territory manager for Repipe 1 in the Bay area, Kirksey was fired after Zilberberg apparently reneged on the deal for a business partnership.

Kirksey then apparently  complained to the CSLB about Zilberberg committing fraud on a license application. Kirksey's complaint to CSLB was about Zilberberg apparently falsifying the  experience in the plumbing trade when an employee applied for a contractors license.. Kirksey also filed suit against Zilberberg citing Breach of Partnership Agreement, Breach of Contract, Fraud, Negligent Representation, Constructive Fraud and Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing plus several other allegations.

Apparently Samuel Torayson, an employee of Daniel Zilberberg, was directed by Zilberberg to apply for a plumber's license with the CSLB. Zilberberg signed a statement on a certificate in support of the Torayson's experience to enable that employee to qualify for a license. Zilberberg apparently stated that his employee had four years of plumbing experience when in fact Torayson was a clerical staff person with the title of accounts receivable. The complaint alleged that Torosyan had never been employed as a plumber laborer or apprentice in the field of plumbing and that Zilberberg falsified the certification as part of a larger scheme to avoid providing health care to some of his employees.

Accusation. CSLB Order click the links to the CSLB website to read and download these documents. 

The CSLB performed its investigation and determined that Daniel Zilberberg had indeed falsely signed certificates under penalty of perjury, in support of the applicants experience qualifications and that he also interfered with the board's investigation by having Christopher Kirksey sign a confidential settlement agreement that subverted cooperation with the board. As a result of the confidentiality provision, the investigation of the respondent by the board was subverted and that also became part of the accusation against Zilberberg as interfering with an investigation is a no-no.

The CSLB also investigated Samuel Torayson and his license application as a result of a whistle blower complaint. The investigation found that Torayson indeed falsified his application in a conspiracy with Daniel Zilberberg to commit fraud. Torayson's contractors license has been revoked.

Because there were multiple officers listed on the license, CSLB required most of them to sign a stipulated settlement agreement that enabled Structural One DBA Balcony One to escape having a complaint disclosure listed on their license.

Kirksey apparently settled his suit against Zilberberg for an unknown amount, his suit which we have a copy of, sought $200,000 in damages plus any additional cost to be proven at trial. The cslb found that zilberberg's confidentiality agreement prohibited Kirksey's cooperation with the board and its investigation of zilberberg. A provision of this nature is void as it is against public policy.

As a result of the CSLB investigation, the officers of Repipe 1 DBA Retrofit 1 all signed a stipulated settlement agreement with the CSLB, including James Patrick Michaelson, David Tashroudian and Daniel Zilberberg. After this matter was settled with CSLB, James Michaelson apparently voluntarily disassociated from Balcony 1 in 2021 and Daniel Zilberberg disassociated as per the stipulated settlement in 2020. A Timothy Parker who is listed as a RME disassociated in September of 2020 as well. Parker is not named in the accusation or the settlement between the cslb and repipe one.

Daniel Zilberberg's licenses have complaint disclosures listed on them, the licenses being under Ultimate Builders Inc DBA Repipe 1 license number 927892 which is active and a license listed as Daniel Zilberberg license #816016 also listed as active. Zilberberg also agreed to repay the CSLB $9000+ for investigative costs the Board incurred. Zilberberg will make payments of $300+ a month for several years.

All in all this is a sordid affair and indicative of why one should really consider whether to do business with any of these firms. Balcony 1 actually uses the license number of Structural 1 Restoration on their vehicles, which appears to violate CSLB regulations as the name is not correctly used. If you get a sb326 report from balcony one you want to ensure that it has been signed by a civil or structural engineer or an architect not by David Tashroudian as he is not allowed to sign these reports, he can only sign SB721 reports as a licensed B contractor.

UPDATE! AT APX 4 PM ON THURSDAY 12/5/24 Daniel Zilberberg called me from telephone number 818-481-2627 and directly threatened me that he would sue me and I had better watch it.

Several specific threat's  from Daniel included       "I'll spend a hundred thousand dollars to sue you if you don't remove this post."    "I'm going to slander you on Balcony one's website."   "Go fuck your Mom motherfucker." "Better watch yourself"

Hey Daniel, First, you dialed me without blocking your number, so now I have a traceable link to you. Don't drink and drunk dial.

Second I think that's the best thing you can do is threaten to post something about me on balcony ones website  and draw more attention to this whole thing.  

Thirdly, we will offer you the opportunity to tell us what is slander or libel as you say that we have published on this post. Your failure to identify what you feel is slander and back up your claim with provable facts that we can trace, then our documents and opinions shall remain published.

Fourth, We are well familiar with defending against unsustainable claims of slander and libel when the law in California protects journalists against slapp lawsuits. Go ahead and use the word libel or slander in your suit and we will slap you back with an anti-slapp claim. I understand that you don't like this post, however, we downloaded the accusation and order from CSLB, downloaded the lawsuit documents from Contra Costa county, so let us know what's not correct so we can correct it. Offers to correct are defensible in court so you better come up with proof of something that I said isn't correct. Otherwise you won't have much of a case. Ask Tash.

Thanks Bill Leys 

Deck expert, explain why it is unethical for a company to come back in and say they will beat the lowest price received by an HOA seeking balcony inspection proposals by 20% when they should have been the lowest price if they were really competitive in the HOA market

What you’re describing raises serious ethical concerns in competitive bidding — especially in HOA contracts — because it undermines fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the procurement process.

Here’s why it’s problematic:

1. It Undermines the Integrity of Sealed Competitive Bidding

In a true competitive bid process (especially HOAs), bids are supposed to be:

Submitted independently

Final at the time of opening

Based on the bidder’s best price

If a company says after the fact that it will “be 20% lower than the lowest bid,” that suggests:

They did not submit their true best price initially, or

They are attempting to undercut competitors after seeing their pricing.

That defeats the purpose of sealed bidding.

Here's an example of an unethical company 

2. It Suggests Price Shopping or Bid Manipulation

If a bidder can revise downward after seeing competitors’ numbers, that creates:

An uneven playing field,

Incentive to intentionally submit a safe/high bid first

Post-opening negotiations disguised as competition,

This can amount to:

Bid shopping

Bid peddling

Or even collusive practices

On HOA projects, that can violate not only procurement rules but potentially antitrust principles enforced by state authorities.

3. It Violates the “Lowest Responsible Bidder” Principle

HOAs typically award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder — not to whoever negotiates lowest after bids are opened.

Allowing a bidder to say “we’ll be 20% lower than whoever wins”:

Turns a sealed bid into a negotiation

Potentially invalidates the entire bidding process

Opens the  HOA to protest or legal challenge

Courts have repeatedly held that material post-bid modifications are improper in public procurement law, HOAs may be similar.

4. It Suggests the Initial Bid from the Company Was Not Genuine

If a company can instantly drop 20%, that raises questions:

Was the first number inflated?

Are they desperate for backlog?

Are they planning change orders later to recover margin or overcharge for engineering work? 

This damages trust.

5. It Encourages a Race to the Bottom

Ethically, competitive markets are supposed to reward:

Efficient operations

Accurate cost estimating

Honest pricing

Not:

Tactical undercutting after seeing competitors’ numbers

A bidder who holds back their real price until they know the benchmark is gaming the system — not competing fairly.

6. It Can Harm the Owner

If a contractor drops 20% after bids open, the owner should ask:

Where is that 20% coming from?

Quality cuts?

Scope reductions?

Future change orders?

A dramatically lowered price can signal:

Underbidding to win

Intent to recover profit later

That creates project risk.

In HOA/condominium settings, boards typically operate under fiduciary duties imposed by state nonprofit and common interest development laws (for example, in California under the Davis‑Stirling Common Interest Development Act).

Here’s why a “we’ll beat the lowest bid by 20%” statement is ethically problematic in that context:

1. It Undermines Fair Competition

If proposals were requested as competitive submissions, each vendor is expected to submit:

Their best pricing

Their honest scope

Their real cost structure

If a company later says, “We’ll be 20% below whoever is lowest,” it suggests:

Their initial proposal was not their true market price

They were waiting to see competitors’ pricing

They are now negotiating based on inside knowledge

That distorts the competitive process.

2. It Puts the Board at Risk of Breaching Its Fiduciary Duty

HOA boards have fiduciary duties of:

Good faith

Fair dealing

Acting in the association’s best interest

If a board allows post-proposal price manipulation after reviewing other bids, it may expose itself to claims that it:

Did not run a fair process

Favored a bidder

Allowed improper negotiation

Owners could argue the board failed to exercise business judgment properly.

3. It Suggests Strategic Underbidding

A sudden 20% reduction raises serious questions:

Was the first price inflated?

Is the vendor desperate for backlog?

Will they attempt to recover margin via change orders?

Will service quality suffer?

In professional services (roof inspections, engineering, reserve studies, etc.), quality degradation is a real risk when pricing drops sharply.

4. It Creates Appearance of Impropriety

Even if technically allowed in a private setting, it creates:

Appearance of back-channel communication

Perception that one bidder had access to competitor pricing

Distrust among owners

Perception matters in HOA governance.

5. It Encourages a “Race to the Bottom” Culture

Professional services rely on:

Competence

Insurance coverage

Licensing

Time allocation

If firms compete by slashing margins after bids are opened, the market shifts toward:

Underpricing

Corner-cutting

Higher long-term risk

That ultimately harms associations.

6. It Signals That the Initial Proposal Was Not Submitted in Good Faith

Ethically, competitive proposals are supposed to represent:

“This is our best offer under the stated scope.”

If a company can instantly go 20% lower, that suggests:

The first proposal was strategic padding

Or they never intended it to be final

That weakens trust.

Important Distinction

Because this is not a public entity, it may not violate procurement law unless:

The RFP prohibited post-submission negotiation

The governing documents require sealed bidding

Or there was misrepresentation

But ethically, it still undermines transparency.

A Smarter Ethical Approach (If Negotiation Is Allowed)

If the association wants to negotiate, the ethical way is:

Notify all bidders that negotiation is occurring

Allow all bidders equal opportunity to submit revised proposals

Avoid disclosing competitor pricing

That preserves fairness.