Why on earth are you even considering #2? Price? Seriously? Someone who would moonlight to steal work from his employer isn't someone who would ever get a dime from me. Not to mention being late, no moisture testing, and trying to convince you that a dark stain would hide the pet stains (it won't).

Pay #1 his full price. He's worth every penny.

First of all, I wouldn't touch your job for less than $4500, so you must live in a market that has low ball pricing for floor finishing. Or... contractor #1 is going to use a very inexpensive waterborne polyurethane for the first two coats.

Second, contractor #1 loses my respect because you were able to "talk him down" by negotiating a "cash" transaction. Perhaps I am out of step with the rest of the "American experience"... but I would have rejected your offer and stuck with my original quote WITH whatever local sales tax that would apply.

As for contractor #2...I agree with hollyspring's take on it.

Third, two-part waterborne polyurethane wood floor finishes can be as durable as the solventbourne finishes, if not more so. But, waterborne can be twice the price of solventbourne...and you really do get what you pay for with most products.

Yeah I agree with everyone. One seems like the obvious better choice. He didn't be you and gave you brand names for finish. That's a plus in my eyes. Your stains most likely won't come out. They may lighten up. The fact that #1 gave you pricing for everything is another plus. I agree with Glenn though. I don't like the fact that you were able to talk him down with cash. But he could be hurting for work and that doesn't necessarily reflect his end product

So let me get this straight, the contractor loses respect for accepting a discounted cash deal, but the OP who OFFERED the deal is okay?

IMO, cash is king. It wouldn't bother me at all if a contractor agreed to a discounted price for cash, and if it did bother me, I wouldn't offer him that deal. As long as I pay him the agreed upon amount, I couldn't care less what he does with it afterwards. And we don't know how he's going to handle those finances tax-wise anyway.

Daimbert, what I don't understand, though, is why you wanted to "talk him down" in the first place.The price actually seems low for the amount of work involved, and he comes highly recommended by friends. That right there is an advantage for you ... you aren't going into this completely blind. If his bid comes in a bit higher, it might be worth it just to have that reassurance. I agree with gregmills that accepting a discounted price is no indication that the quality of work will suffer, but his original price was likely a fair to begin with.

#2 would be out by default. Sounds like an unstable situation. In regards to #1 - Pay him his bid price and let him understand that you are picky and you expect his best work. When a contractor discounts his labor, consciously or unconsciously, they have resentment towards the customer. They will never come out and say it, but you will see it other ways - you may have just cheated yourself out of a job where the contractor would have went the extra mile for you, but since you clipped him for $300, he may just give you a job that's good enough with a few shortcuts instead of a complete, thorough job. Look out for extras and always judge a sand and finish floor by looking around the edges of the room - that is where most shortcuts are taken.

I would talk to a couple others. See their work.

Of the two, i would pick #1 because he is paying attention to details, advising and communicating with you. Why the need to talk his price down? You're not buying a car here. He should not compromise quality with a discount but only tell you what he might successfully do to reduce costs a bit.

"Someone who would moonlight to steal work from his employer isn't somnow nne who would ever get a dime from me. "

I don't see where the conclusion he is stealing work from his employer derives from. If he is finding side jobs on his own, he is not obligated to turn them over to his day time employer just because they are in the flooring biz. That's ridiculous. He is as entitled as anyone else to start his own Independent business. They need to find their own jobs. What he does with his time in his personal life is none of their business.

Now an employee sent into your house who offers work for cheaper, outside the boss, is another story. I have had that happen and it is a pretty stinky and dishonest thing to do. You don't use your company's jobs, leads and contacts to compete with them and drum up work for yourself. That is a very unethical thing to do and I wouldn't want that person working in my house at all.

"I don't see where the conclusion he is stealing work from his employer derives from. If he is finding side jobs on his own, he is not obligated to turn them over to his day time employer just because they are in the flooring biz. That's ridiculous. He is as entitled as anyone else to start his own Independent business. They need to find their own jobs. What he does with his time in his personal life is none of their business."

Agreed. My only concern would be whether or not he was licensed as an individual contractor. If he "works for another wood company," he may be working under their license. I'm all for people starting their own independent businesses, but where I live, the market is already saturated with unlicensed contractors. If contractor #2 has his own license, I don't see why he can't work two jobs, unless he's getting those extra jobs through his employer's leads.

I'm not sure where the OP is located, but unfair competition could be the reason contractor #1 is being forced into lowering his prices ... it is very hard to compete with the prices of unlicensed contractors.

My response to Daimbert was about the contractor's conduct. The perception can be that businesses that deal in cash hide income and falsify business records as a matter of course. That they do either of those things is not always true. However, businesses and customers that conspire to avoid government imposed sales tax where applicable, for example, engage in fraud and both can be held liable for tax avoidance. I wouldn't purchase anything from a business by paying cash...for me it's check or credit card. That way it makes it difficult for the business to avoid paying over the taxes owed.