We Ask ChatGPT To Review: CMA Homes

The Specification

Introduction​ & Method

​Continuing our series where we engage ChatGPT to review Australia's leading project builders, this installment focuses on Homes by CMA. Established in 2009, Homes by CMA is a privately held, family-owned company based in North Lakes, Queensland. With a team exceeding 30 staff members, they have constructed nearly 2,000 homes across the region. ​

Homes by CMA maintains an active presence on social media platforms, particularly Instagram and Facebook. Their Instagram account boasts over 46,000 followers and showcases their latest projects and designs. On Facebook, they have garnered over 10,600 likes, engaging with their community through updates and interactions. ​

A notable aspect of Homes by CMA is their emphasis on financial stability, ensuring that once a home construction begins, it is guaranteed to be completed. They offer custom designs at no additional cost and include Truecore™ steel frames and trusses with Colorbond™ roofs as standard features. Additionally, they provide a 25-year structural warranty and pride themselves on delivering personalized customer service throughout the building process. ​

In this article, we'll focus into ChatGPT's insights on Homes by CMA, examining their offerings, customer experiences, and overall performance in the Australian home-building industry.

Method

To create this post we followed the method detailed in the original post of this series. We started with the master instruction (prompt) then proceeding through each of the step by step prompt flows recording the output of GPT which is shown below, unedited.

AI-Powered Builder Reviews Of Project Builder Specifications

Understanding builder specifications and inclusions lists can feel like solving a puzzle without knowing the rules of engagement. That’s why we’re launching a new series asking ChatGPT to provide clear, unbiased reviews of the major Project Builders.

Constructor - Build A Better New HomeAnthony Painter

The Chat GPT Review of CMA Homes

Quality Review 

STRUCTURAL & GENERAL COMPLIANCE

Termite Protection:

• The use of Kordon™ for slab penetrations and a Camilleri™ perimeter reticulation system complies with AS 3660.1 (Termite Management).
• Refill requirement every 2–3 years (at owner's cost) is standard for chemical reticulation systems.

Soil & Site Allowances:

• Standard H1 soil classification and N2 (W33) wind rating are common for SEQ and align with NCC climate/wind region expectations.
• No piering included unless noted otherwise—this can be a concern on sloping or reactive sites. Additional cost risk to buyer.

Steel Framing (TRUECORE™):

• TRUECORE™ steel frames and trusses with 50-year manufacturer warranty is a standout inclusion.
• Complies with AS/NZS 4600 (Cold-formed steel structures).
• Third-party quality control mentioned—positive if consistently applied.

Slab Design:

• Waffle pod slab, engineered per site—standard for project builders.
• NCC Vol 2 and AS 2870 compliant if slab is site-specific and engineer-certified. No mention of edge thickening or edge beam depth—unknown.

INTERNAL FINISHES

Ceiling Height:

• 2590mm (single-storey) and 2440mm (upper storey) are standard to mid-upgrade levels; higher than NCC minimum of 2400mm.

Plasterboard & Trims:

• Use of 10mm plaster and WR board in wet areas is standard.
• Skirtings and architraves are MDF (primed pine)—typical for this tier.

Wardrobe Fit-Outs:

• Basic—one shelf and rail. Linen/pantry with four shelves. No advanced shelving systems or drawers unless upgraded.

WINDOWS & DOORS

Bradnams Aluminium Windows:

• Basic Essential range—meets minimum NCC glazing compliance.
• Flyscreens included (excluding hinged/cornerless) and required restrictors or security screens for upstairs—positive compliance with NCC Part 3.9.2 for fall prevention.

Internal Doors & Hardware:

• Hume flush doors, Gainsborough hardware—common entry-level hardware, no architectural upgrades included.

PAINTING

Solver Paint, Low Sheen Acrylic:

• Acceptable, but limited to one wall colour unless upgraded—this is restrictive.
• Water-based gloss on trims is typical. No mention of warranty or surface prep standards.

FLOORING & FINISHES

Tiles and Carpet:

• 600x600 tiles in living, 450x450 to porch/alfresco—standard sizes, builder’s range only.
• Carpet with 10mm underlay is average.
• Grout/silicone colours and layout at builder’s discretion—no choice in set-out may affect finish quality.

Shower Screens & Waterproofing:

• Silver framed with pivot doors—entry-level.
• Waterproofing stated to meet Australian Standards (AS 3740)—expected and required. No mention of membrane brand or warranty.

KITCHEN

Stone Benchtops & Cabinetry:

• 20mm Lithostone stone to kitchen and wet areas is a good inclusion.
• Polytec melamine cabinets—decent for this price bracket.
• One bank of drawers only—limiting functionality.

Appliances:

• Westinghouse throughout; 600mm for homes <170sqm, 900mm for homes >170sqm—reasonable allocation.
• No range upgrade, no kickboard for 900mm freestanding—may affect appearance.

ELECTRICAL & CLIMATE

A/C:

• 5kW/6kW split system to one living area only—insufficient for whole home. Likely upgrade needed for comfort.

Lighting & Fans:

• LED downlights (1 per 10sqm)—minimal.
• Ceiling fans with lights in bedrooms included—meets QLD expectations.
• Only two TV and two data points. Additional outlets would incur variation.

EXTERNAL & ENERGY

Roof & Exterior:

• Colorbond roof and slimline garage door—positive inclusion.
• Brick veneer with acrylic bag and render only to front façade—standard hybrid finish.
• External paint/render single coat—might not provide adequate coverage or longevity.

Insulation:

• R3.0 ceiling batts and wall sarking included.
• Complies with minimum 6-star energy rating requirements under NCC, though the client bears cost of additional materials if target isn’t met—important to note.

WARRANTY & ADMIN

Warranty:

• 25-year structural and 12-month maintenance warranty—aligns with industry norms.
• TRUECORE™ steel warranty is conditional and external to CMA.

Variation Fees:

• $4,000 non-refundable deposit.
• Variations post-contract attract admin fees.
• Design changes beyond 3 concept plans charged at $80/hr—standard builder tactic to control admin load.

NOTABLE EXCLUSIONS

• No fencing, retaining walls, or feature finishes unless upgraded.
• No pendant lighting, niches, shower strip drains, or three-phase power included.
• Siteworks allowance capped (no rock excavation or excessive cut/fill).
• No driveway kerb cutout included—essential detail often missed by buyers.

CONCLUSION: REALITY CHECK

Homes by CMA’s standard inclusions fall firmly into the mid-tier range. The offering is competitive on several fronts, including TRUECORE™ steel framing, stone benchtops throughout, and above-minimum ceiling heights. However, many standard items remain basic—wardrobe fit-out, appliances, air-conditioning, and tile choices, for example. Their process includes typical cost-control mechanisms: strict limitations on variation, design revisions, and upgrade scope.

Exclusion of piering, driveway cut-outs, retaining walls, and site-specific costs (e.g., bushfire or acoustic requirements) can significantly impact final build cost and should not be overlooked.

CMA’s approach aligns with the expectations of volume builders in South East Queensland: attractively marketed upfront pricing with sharp presentation, but with several key practical items left to owner expense or variation. The language around responsibility for defects (e.g., turf maintenance, air conditioner noise) is also telling—it reflects a typical risk-shifting builder contract strategy.

Language Review

​The language used in the CMA Homes building specification brochure is largely marketing-driven and non-technical, which is typical for volume builders but creates several areas of ambiguity and risk for misinterpretation when compared with the clarity and precision expected in the NCC or Australian Standards.

Comparison with NCC and AS Language

Regulatory documents like the NCC and Australian Standards are written in structured, prescriptive or performance-based language, with defined terminology, measurable criteria, and minimal ambiguity. For example:

• NCC will specify requirements like: “minimum R2.0 insulation to external walls in climate zone 2” or “waterproofing must comply with AS 3740.”
• AS documents define terms clearly (e.g., “habitable room,” “deemed-to-satisfy,” “nominal size”) and provide specifications that can be tested or verified.

By contrast, CMA’s document uses generalised, non-binding language and terms open to subjective interpretation. Below are examples of concern:

1. Vague Terms and Marketing Language

• “Luxury Inclusions” – This is not a regulated or defined term and varies significantly between builders. It sets a perception that everything is high-end, but the actual content reflects mid-tier selections.
• “Quality carpet”, “premium underlay”, “slimline kitchen handles”, “designer bath” – These are subjective and not bench marked to any standard. There’s no indication of brand, density, wear rating, or warranty—so buyers can’t compare or verify easily.
• “Builders Range” – Used repeatedly for tiles, carpet, fixtures, but without defining what the range includes. The actual selections could be low-cost, and the builder retains total control over the options available.

2. Ambiguous Quantifiers and Allowances

• “Standard council fees”, “standard cut & fill”, “standard connection” – “Standard” is never defined. In practice, this may exclude many real-world costs, especially on non-flat blocks or new estates with unique requirements.
• “Up to 400mm crossfall”, “up to 6m house setback” – This sets thresholds, but beyond them, no cost or scope is described, leaving the builder flexibility to charge additional fees.
• “No piering allowance unless noted otherwise” – This language silently excludes a very common construction requirement in reactive soils. It also places the onus on the client to identify whether it’s “noted otherwise.”

3. Discretionary or Builder-Controlled Language

• “Grout and silicone colours at builder’s discretion U.N.O.” – U.N.O. means “unless noted otherwise,” but unless the client explicitly specifies this in the contract, they lose all control.
• “Tiles are not to be laid in a brick pattern… tile set-out is at the builder’s discretion.” – Aesthetic control is removed, which may disappoint clients expecting design freedom. These clauses limit liability while appearing serviceable.
• “If a product is discontinued... the builder reserves the right to substitute...” – While practical, there is no guarantee of equivalent quality, and no buyer recourse if the replacement is a cheaper product.

4. Conditional Compliance and Owner Burdens

• “Waterproofing to Australian Standards” – This is stated without specifying which standard (likely AS 3740). Without exact referencing, it’s not enforceable unless stated in contract documentation.
• “Minimum 6 stars Energy Efficiency Rating must be achieved… any extra insulation required... is at the client’s additional cost” – The responsibility to meet compliance falls back on the client, rather than being built into base pricing.
• “Annual inspection is mandatory to maintain termite warranty”, “Chemical system needs to be refilled every 2–3 years” – These are not flagged up front and place a long-term maintenance burden on the owner, which may void warranties if not done.

5. Administrative Loopholes

• “If not specified, all items are to be selected from the Builder’s standard range” – This gives CMA full control over selections unless the buyer explicitly locks them in before contract.
• “All variations will incur an admin fee”, “3 plan revisions max before hourly drafting fees apply” – These types of clauses are designed to discourage changes, potentially locking buyers into rushed decisions or incurring cost creep.
• “If retaining walls not built, parts of works cannot be built and will be credited” – This releases the builder from full delivery obligation and risks leaving the homeowner with an incomplete external environment and little leverage.

Overall Assessment of Language Use

The language used in CMA’s inclusions document is:

• Imprecise: Lacks quantified specifications, tolerances, or clear performance targets.
• Builder-weighted: Contains multiple discretionary clauses that give CMA flexibility at the client’s expense.
• Open-ended: Frequently relies on undefined terms like “standard,” “premium,” or “quality” without clear scope.
• Non-binding: Terms such as “to Australian Standards” or “engineered slab” are not supported by full references or defined design outcomes.

This type of wording does not meet the clarity, objectivity, or enforceability found in regulatory codes. Buyers will need to ensure any expectations or clarifications are locked into the contract or addenda, otherwise they risk receiving less than anticipated with limited recourse.

What They Say vs. What They Do

The language used in CMA Homes’ specifications document is written in plain, consumer-facing language, which is appropriate for marketing materials, but it does differ notably from the technical precision found in the National Construction Code (NCC) and Australian Standards (AS). Here's a detailed analysis of where the document is clear, where it's vague, and where it may allow for misunderstandings or loopholes:

1. Precision vs Ambiguity

Regulatory Language (e.g., NCC, AS):
Regulatory documents like the NCC and AS use highly specific, defined terms with minimal room for interpretation—e.g. “must comply with AS 3740” or “a minimum R-value of 3.0.”

CMA Homes Specification Language:

• Vagueness Examples:
  • “Build time from concrete slab: ____ weeks” – left blank, provides no benchmark or accountability.
  • “Standard Council fees” – does not specify which fees are or are not included. “Excluding HSTP” is helpful, but overall this section is vague.
  • “Stone benchtops – 10 colours to choose from” – no mention of available upgrade paths, thickness variations (20mm mentioned but no edge detail), or product warranty.
  • “Driveway crossover during construction to comply with Council regulations” – good intent, but no mention of who obtains approvals, who pays if it’s damaged, or what finish is used.
  • “Professionally cleaned” – ambiguous. No definition of what’s included: builders clean? Final clean? Does it include windows, grout haze removal?

Concerns:

• Phrases like “U.N.O.” (Unless Noted Otherwise) appear throughout but are undefined for the consumer and are not used in the NCC or AS. This leaves interpretation open and creates room for disputes.
• “Builder reserves the right to provide a replacement product of similar quality & functionality without prior written notification” – potentially problematic. No objective standard for "similar quality" is defined, and absence of notice reduces transparency.
• “Builders range” appears often without defining what’s in that range or where it's documented. This allows scope to downgrade quality without contractual breach, unless separately itemised.

2. Terminology Suggesting Discretion or Shifting Responsibility

• “At builder’s discretion” – used in reference to grout colour, silicone, and tile setout. These are aesthetic features that significantly impact the finished product. In contrast, AS 3958.1 (Tiling) includes clear guidance on tolerances and layout—this phrase sidesteps those expectations.
• “Owner must provide…” and “Owner is responsible for…” – frequently used to transfer operational or ongoing risks to the buyer. These include:
  • Watering turf daily (risk of turf failure becomes buyer’s problem).
  • Air conditioner noise not being the builder’s responsibility.
  • Site cleanliness before construction.
  • Maintaining termite system (valid but could be clearer regarding compliance implications and cost).

3. Non-Committal or Non-measurable Phrases

• “Soft close drawers” and “premium 10mm underlay” sound appealing, but no brands or specifications are named. In contrast, the NCC or AS would cite minimum compressive strength, performance class, or standard test criteria.
• “Professionally cleaned” is not measurable unless a scope or checklist is defined.
• “Cut & fill pad to 400mm crossfall” sounds specific, but does not clarify what happens if crossfall exceeds 400mm—likely a cost variation, but it’s not stated.

4. Comparison with NCC/AS Style

The NCC and Australian Standards use defined terms like "shall", "must", or “in accordance with...” followed by an applicable standard (e.g., AS 2870 for slabs, AS 1684 for timber framing).

• CMA's document uses phrases like “included”, “allowance for”, “approximately”, or “up to”—leaving open-ended interpretations and potential cost implications.
  • Example: “Up to 800sqm block and 6m setback” – implies that anything over this triggers extra cost, but no rates are provided.

5. Statements That Could Be Misunderstood or Misleading

• “25 Years Structural Warranty (T&Cs apply)” – doesn’t state who the underwriter is, what is covered, or how this interacts with QBCC statutory warranties.
• “Waterproofing to Australian Standards” – good in theory, but doesn’t say which one (presumably AS 3740), nor which waterproofing system is used or its warranty period.
• “Minimum 6-star Energy Efficiency must be achieved” – misleading without context. The house must meet this by law (NCC), but this clause shifts the burden of any additional cost to the owner, which can come as a surprise.

Final Observations

• Overall clarity: The language is broadly readable and digestible for consumers but lacks the legal and technical precision found in the NCC or AS. It is framed to be reassuring and “inclusive,” but much of the control remains with the builder.
• Potential Loopholes: Terms like “at builder’s discretion,” “U.N.O.,” and “builders standard range” are red flags if not properly clarified in the contract documentation.
• Recommendation for Buyers: Ensure that all product selections, colour ranges, material brands, layout preferences (e.g., tile pattern), and exclusions are fully documented and signed off during the pre-contract phase. Otherwise, the builder has ample room to vary or downgrade selections without breaching their obligations.

What They Say vs. What They Do

​Homes by CMA presents itself as a builder offering high-quality homes with superior inclusions and customer service. While many clients report positive experiences, there are instances where the company's claims do not align with customer experiences.​

Potential Risks for Consumers:

1. Construction Delays and Communication Issues:
   • Some clients have reported significant delays during the building process, leading to frustration and financial strain. For example, a customer mentioned that their build took over two years, citing poor workmanship and communication issues. ​
2. Post-Handover Maintenance and Responsiveness:
   • There are reports of challenges in scheduling and completing maintenance tasks after handover. A client noted that despite requesting a 12-month inspection, they received no response for several months, during which significant issues arose.
3. Quality of Workmanship:
   • Concerns about the quality of construction have been raised, including issues like unconnected bath drains leading to flooding and improperly installed laundry drains. Such defects suggest lapses in quality control and adherence to standards. ​Specification Language Concerns:

• Ambiguity in Terms:
  • The use of phrases like "builder's standard range" without detailed definitions can lead to misunderstandings about the quality and brand of materials used.​
• Discretionary Clauses:
  • Terms such as "at builder's discretion" regarding material substitutions or construction methods grant the builder significant flexibility, potentially leading to deviations from client expectations without prior consent.​
• Owner Responsibilities:
  • Clauses that assign maintenance tasks to the owner, such as turf care or termite system upkeep, may not clearly outline the extent of the owner's obligations, leading to potential disputes.​

Conclusion:

While Homes by CMA has a record of satisfied clients and offers appealing inclusions, it is crucial for potential customers to thoroughly review contract terms, clarify ambiguous clauses, and maintain proactive communication throughout the building process to mitigate risks and ensure expectations are met.

Rate the Builder (1–10)

Rating: 6 out of 10

Rationale:

• Ability to Deliver on Time:
  CMA Homes advertises competitive build times but leaves the actual time frame blank in its specification document. Public feedback includes multiple reports of extended delays and inconsistent communication during the build process. This reduces confidence in timely delivery.
• Ability to Deliver to Cost:
  The base pricing and inclusions appear attractive, but the contract is loaded with exclusions, allowances, and discretionary language (“U.N.O.”, “builder’s standard range”, “owner responsibility”). Many site-specific items (e.g. retaining walls, acoustic treatments, HSTP, kerb cutouts) are excluded, exposing buyers to variation costs. Clients have reported unexpected expenses due to unclear allowances.
• Consistency of High-Quality Work:
  Some standout inclusions (TRUECORE™ steel frame, stone benchtops, 25-year structural warranty), but reports of quality control issues post-handover, including poor drainage, slow maintenance response, and visible defects, suggest that workmanship and supervision are inconsistent across builds.

CMA Homes offers value on paper, but execution may vary. The risk of delays, cost blowouts, and post-handover frustration lowers the overall score. It is a mid-tier builder with strengths, but not without serious caveats.