STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,

Petitioner,

vs.

SCOTT CAMPBELL, P.E.,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

) Case Nos. 12-1635PL

) 12-1636PL

) 12-1637PL

)

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On July 2, 2012, an administrative hearing in these cases was held by video teleconference in St. Petersburg and Tallahassee, Florida, before William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire

Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303

For Respondent: Scott Guy Campbell, pro se

Apartment 805

250 58th Street, North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in these cases are whether the allegations of the administrative complaints are correct, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By two administrative complaints dated March 15, 2012, and an Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 3, 2012, the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (Petitioner) alleged that, as to three separate construction projects, Scott Campbell,

P.E. (Respondent), was negligent in the practice of engineering.

The Respondent disputed the allegations and requested an administrative hearing. On May 9, 2012, the Petitioner forwarded the cases to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On May 18, 2012, the three cases were consolidated, and the hearing was scheduled for July 2, 2012. The cases were transferred to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge on June 29, 2012.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of one witness and had Exhibits 1 and 3 through 9 admitted into evidence. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and had Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence.

A Transcript of the hearing was filed on July 24, 2012. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders that have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner is charged with responsibility for regulation of the practice of engineering within the State of Florida.

   
   

2. At all times material to these cases, the Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a professional engineer holding license PE40904.

3. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Joseph Berryman, P.E., a professional engineer licensed by the State of Florida. Mr. Berryman was accepted as an expert in structural engineering design, including aluminum structure design. Mr. Berryman's testimony regarding deficiencies in the Respondent's design of the projects referenced herein was clear and persuasive.

4. In response, the Respondent testified that the referenced projects met applicable professional standards, including load and stress standards.

5. The Respondent's primary engineering experience has apparently been in the realm of civil, not structural, engineering. According to Mr. Berryman, the Respondent's calculations included material errors, reflected structural elements other than those identified in the design documents, and revealed misunderstanding and misapplication of engineering precepts. The Respondent's testimony has been rejected.

   Mr. Berryman's testimony has been credited. DOAH Case No. 12-1635PL (Del Vecchio)

6. On October 7, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a one-page structural engineering design document for

   
   

   construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at "3611 Throle" in Rockledge, Florida (the "Del Vecchio" project).

7. The document failed to include elements and information required by the Florida Building Code (FBC) and by the Petitioner's rules.

8. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to identify the size of the "K-bracing" elements included in the design, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and referenced a design element that had been superseded elsewhere in the document. Additionally, the frame spacing dimensions set forth on the document failed to conform to the width of the proposed structure.

9. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the Aluminum Design Manual (ADM). The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction.

   
   

10. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the standard set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and purlins) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed by the Respondent has been fully credited.

11. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Del Vecchio project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards.

    DOAH Case No. 12-1636PL (Nunez)

    
    

12. On September 20, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 4128 Southwest 102nd Lane Road, in Ocala, Florida (the "Nunez" project).

13. The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules.

14. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise and failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure.

15. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard

    
    

    is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction.

16. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, purlins, cable bracing, anchor bolts, and gusset plates used in a roof beam splice) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited.

17. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Nunez project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards.

    DOAH Case No. 12-1637PL (Dunaway)

    
    

18. On September 8, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 8538 Southwest 135th Street, in Ocala, Florida (the "Dunaway" project).

    
    

19. The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules.

20. The document failed to identify the height of the gable rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and failed to identity the metal alloy of a clip used at a detailed shoulder connection.

21. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction.

22. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed by the Respondent's design document using the information set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and shoulder connection fasteners) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited.

    
    

23. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Dunaway project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2012).

25. Pursuant to section 471.038(3), Florida Statutes (2011), the Florida Engineers Management Corporation prosecuted these cases on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaints by clear and convincing evidence. Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d

    292 (Fla. 1987). Because the Petitioner charged the Respondent with negligence through an alleged failure to meet professional standards, the Petitioner was required to present expert testimony to establish the professional standards and to prove the alleged deviations from the standards. Purvis v. Dep't of

    Prof'l Reg., 461 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The Petitioner has met the burden.

    
    

26. Negligence in the practice of engineering constitutes grounds for discipline against a licensed engineer. See

    § 471.033(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (2011).

    
    

27. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(4) provides the relevant definition of "negligence" and further provides as follows:

    A professional engineer shall not be negligent in the practice of engineering. The term negligence set forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., is herein defined as the failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. Professional engineers shall approve and seal only those documents that conform to acceptable engineering standards and safeguard the life, health, property and welfare of the public. Failure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility Rules as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with this section unless the deviation or departures therefrom are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the professional engineer.

    
    

28. Rule 61G15-31.002 provides the following relevant definitions specific to the practice of structural engineering:

    1. Engineer of Record. The Florida licensed professional engineer who develops the overall structural design and the structural design criteria for the structure, and is responsible for the preparation of the structural engineering documents.

       
       

    2. Structural Component. An individual structural member or element designed to be part of the structure or structural system. This definition of component should not be confused with any other published definitions.

       
       

    3. Structure. The entity to be built.

       
       

       * * *

       
       

       (5) Structural Engineering Documents. The structural drawings, specifications and other documents setting forth the overall design and requirements for the construction, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, arrangement and/or use of the structure, prepared by and signed and sealed by the engineer of record for the structure. Structural engineering documents shall identify the project and specify design criteria both for the overall structure and for structural components and structural systems. The drawings shall identify the nature, magnitude and location of all design loads to be imposed on the structure. The structural engineering documents shall provide construction requirements to indicate the nature and character of the work and to describe, detail, label and define the structure's components, systems, materials, assemblies, and equipment.

       
       

29. The Respondent was the engineer of record for the three projects referenced herein. The engineer of record is responsible for all structural aspects of the design of the structure including the design of all of the structure's systems and components. The design of such systems and components must comply with the requirements of the general Responsibility Rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G15-31.001.

    
    

30. Chapter 61G15-30 sets forth various definitions and requirements commonly applicable to all engineers. The requirements related to engineering documents prepared by a Florida-licensed professional engineer are set forth at

    rule 61G15-30.003(1). Such documents must meet various specified rules and "be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of the Florida Building Code, adopted in Section 553.73, F.S., and applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. . . ." Specifically, such documents must identify the "material specifications required for the safe operation of the system that is a result of engineering calculations, knowledge and experience" and clearly identify "elements of the design that vary from the governing standards and depict/identify the alternate method used to ensure compliance with the stated purpose of these Responsibility Rules."

31. In these three cases, the applicable standard required that every element in each proposed structure be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. As to the Respondent's engineering documents, the standard of conduct required that the specifications and

    
    

    calculations accurately reflect design assumptions and conclusions, that the calculations be free of material errors and omissions, that the specifications comply with code requirements, and that the design and specifications be complete and internally coherent so that a contractor could follow the documents and build each structure.

32. Mr. Berryman's testimony established that the Respondent failed to meet the relevant standard of conduct in these three projects. The Respondent offered no credible evidence to rebut Mr. Berryman's testimony. The Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that, as to the three projects referenced herein, the Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering.

33. The Petitioner has set forth disciplinary guidelines relevant to this proceeding at rule 61G15-19.004(2)(g)2.a. The penalties set forth in the rule vary based on whether the offense is a first or a subsequent violation. In this case, the three projects have been treated as separate violations.

34. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Petitioner suggested that the Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Petitioner and that an administrative fine of $6,000 ($2,000 per case) be imposed. The recommendation

    
    

    is within the range of penalties authorized by the referenced rule.

35. Additionally the Petitioner proposed that the Respondent be prohibited from practicing structural engineering until he successfully completes a specified civil engineering exam that includes a structural engineering component. Such a restriction is specifically authorized by section 471.033(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2011).

36. The penalties proposed by the Petitioner are appropriate under the circumstances of these cases.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Petitioner, and imposing a fine of $6,000 against the Respondent.

Additionally, the final order should prohibit the Respondent from the practice of structural engineering until the Respondent submits to the Petitioner proof of his successful completion of an appropriate examination to be designated by the Petitioner.

DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2012.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Scott Guy Campbell Apartment 805

250 58th Street, North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33710

Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5268

Michael Flury, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 12-001636PL

Orders for Case No: 12-001636PL