COD FF STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION <- ; BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN - wf . “as DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. DBPR CASE NUMBER 95-00384 Ol- Clore PL. LLOYD J. VOGT, Respondent. a : . ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, . hereinafter referred to as npetitioner," and files this Administrative Complaint against Lloyd J. Vogt, hereinafter — referred: to as "Respondent," before the Board of Architecture and Interior Design, hereinafter referred to as "Board, and alleges: 21. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of architecture and interior design pursuant to. 7 Section 20.165, Chapter 455 and Chapter 481, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed architect in the State of Florida, having been issued “License Number BR 0006609. Respondent's last known address is 1001 Howard Avenue, Suite 4303, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113-2045. 3. Respondent was, and was at all times material hereto, president of the Vogt Group/Architects, an architectural firm e @ headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. 4. On or about January 15, 1992, Respondent contracted with Ms. Keewatin Berg, hereinafter referred to as “the Owner,” to provide architectural services for a proposed residential project to be constructed at Lot #8, a/k/a 352 Beachside Drive in Carillon Beach, Bay County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as “the Project.” 5. On or about September 11, 1992, Respondent provided ‘construction documents and specifications for the Project. 6. Respondent was the architect of record for the Project referenced in paragraph 4, above. 7. On or about November 12, 1992, the Owner contracted with Nicol Lux d/b/a Southern Landmarks, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “the Contractor,” to provide construction services for the Project referenced in paragraph 4, above. 8. The Project was, at minimum, approximately 5,300 square _ feet in size, three stories in height, with an estimated base construction bid of $419,831.00. 9, In or around October, 1992, Respondent’s construction. documents and specifications for the Project were submitted for public record to the Bay County Building Department, hereinafter referred to as “Building Department”. . 10. Respondent's construction documents and specifications, referenced in paragraph 9, above, were numbered sheets 1-17 and sp- 1-SP-3, at minimum. 11. On or about November 24, 1992, the Contractor applied for a building permit from the Building Department for the construction of the Project. 12. On or about December 2, 1992, the Contractor received Building Permit No. 93-59 for the Project from the Building Department. 13. From in or around December, 1992 to in or around February, 1994, the Contractor provided construction services for the Project. ; 14. On or about February 17, 1994, the Building Department issued Certificate of Occupancy No. 94-115 for the Project. 15. The Owner became concerned about her home when the floor tile grout began to crack and the floors on the second and third levels began to shake when walked upon. 16. From in or around March, 1994 to in or around February, 1995, at minimum, Respondent was contacted by the Owner who. requested corrective action be taken by Respondent for work not in compliance with their contract referenced in paragraph 4, Above. 17... In or around November, 1994, the Owner retained Ronald WwW. Dowgul, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Dowgul,” to inspect the as-built floor systems and review the applicable architectural and truss drawings, used in the construction of the Project, for the : purpose of determining the cause of floor tile grout cracks. 18. On or about November 16, 1994, Dowgul issued his report of findings to the Owner which included, at minimum, the following: 3 a. The grout between the 12"x12" Astra floor tiles displayed a network of cracks on both floors; b. Subfloors, in various locations, spanned open areas below while supporting interior partition walls above; c. The total design load as specified on the truss manufacturer’s floor truss drawings for tiled floor areas were significantly less than the total as- built load, and total load as indicated by the configuration and materials indicated in the architectural plans and specifications; d. The floor trusses did not satisfy the Standard ‘Building Code for minimum live load and possibly for maximum allowable deflection in the tile floor installations; e. A reevaluation of the original floor truss design criteria needed to be conducted in order to ascer- tain the deflection resulting from the application of the as-built total load on the existing floor trusses; and : f. The design and construction of the floor trusses, as specified in the manufacturer’s truss drawings did not meet the requirements of the Standard Building Code for the floor loads. 19. On or about April 28, 1995, the Building Department declared the Project unsafe based on, at minimum, observations of _ serious deflections in floor trusses and repairs needing to be made until such time that the floor systems were brought into compliance with the building code. 20. The declaration that the Project was unsafe, referenced in paragraph 19 above, ‘stipulated that the Project was not to be occupied until all such repairs were made. -21. In or around May, 1995, the Contractor retained Michael V. Carr, -P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Carr,” to prepare a 4 © © report of findings and conclusions drawn therefrom for the as-built condition of 22. On findings to following: the Project. or about May 16, 1995, Carr issued his report of the Contractor which included, at minimum, the Overall and in general, there was no visible evidence of structural distress anywhere; There was floor/ceiling deflection downward clearly visible at the girder above the ground floor storeroom ceiling and it was very obviously caused by- the heavy fireplace load nearby, and above, on the first floor; The fireplace load was also contributing to the deflection in the top floor by pulling downward on the interior curtain walls and the top floor had concentrated loads in the bathroom; Respondent’s plans should have indicated the need for floor truss girders on both floors at the obvious two locations between the three areas of 16" deep floor trusses 16" on center; The floor truss manufacturer should have noticed the lack of girders on Respondent’s plans and provided for them in their floor framing layouts; Thé Project. exhibited no discernable symptoms of impending structural failure or unusually high stresses despite structural design oversights by Respondent and the floor truss manufacturer; Special framing under the heavy concentrated loads should have been signaled to the Contractor by Respondent in his plans and on-site inspections; With due consideration for possible maximuin live loads, there should be additional framing designed and installed under the obvious concentrated dead load areas in order to prevent further floor/ceiling™ deflection in the future under possible heavy live loads; and i. Carr could not understand how the Project structure could be declared unsafe. 23. The Project’s floor truss manufacturer referenced in paragraph 20, above, was Fagens of Florida, Inc., hereinafter ' referred to as “Fagens,” located in Panama City, Florida. 24. In Or around May, 1995, the Owner retained Thomas Zgraggen, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Zgraggen,” to conduct an on-site visit to physically review the as-built construction of the Project in order to identify damage or defects that could be present. : _ . 25. On or about June 2, 1995, zgraggen issued his report of findings to the Owner which included, at minimum, the following: a. Contractor had not properly used the trusses provided by Fagens; b. Contractor had installed various trusses in incor- rect locations; : Cc. contractor had field modified various truss lengths; d. Contractor had removed various truss webs; e. * Contractoré had damaged variotts members within the trusses; £. ‘Contractor had improperly bored holes through or cut . through truss chords at.various locations;. g- Contractor had installed various trusses upside down; : . h. Contractor had not provided truss strongbacks; i. Contractor misapplied ledgers at the floor which ultimately supported the floor load; j. Contractor had inappropriately spliced and installed a S-ply 2"x12" header in a location that required more structural capacity; k. Contractor had misapplied framing hardware; l. Contractor had not assured the structure was watertight;. : m. ° No design information was available for the roof ; ' trusses; n. Fagens had not properly accounted for all loads in the design of the floor trusses; . Oo. Fagens had not followed the computer design geo- metries. when fabricating the floor trusses; Pp. Fagens had not. conformed to applicable standards during fabrication of the floor trusses; ; q. © The overall structural condition of the Project was well below what was necessary for proper structural : integrity; r. Loads were undersized both in consideration of the standard uniform loads and special loads; s. Individual structural components were not properly fabricated to floor truss design or product speci- fications; ee be Floor trusses had been field modified, installed improperly, then attached to adjacent construction that also was not properly installed; . u. Truss plates in various locations were not fully embedded which suggested either improper floor truss fabrication, truss mishandling, truss cyclic wetting -and drying or was indication that the joint had failed; . | ve The above résulted in individual truss components that were the basis of the floor systems being severely compromised, and Ww. The above resulted in a dramatic reduction in the overall efficacy of the structural capacity of the Project. 26. In or around June, 1995, the Owner retained John T. Smith, M.E., M.S., S.S.D., hereinafter referred to as “Smith,” to calculate the Project’s energy code compliance. 27. On or about June 16, 1995, Smith issued his findings to the Owner which included, at minimum, the following: a. The Project, as designed, failed to meet Florida standards for energy code compliance, and b. The Project, as-built, failed to meet Florida standards for energy code compliance. 28. On or about June 26, 1995, Zgraggen issued his subsequent report of findings to the Owner addressing the as-built conditions of the roof trusses which included, at minimum, the following: a. Some roof trusses were inadequately designed; b. Some. roof trusses had inadequate . details. and connections; : c. Some roof trusses had unknown attachments for wind uplift; d. Some roof trusses had inadequate attachments at frame-in points; e. The roof was not adequate to support loads imposed : upon it; f. The hip rafters and hip girder trusses could fail causing a breach to the building envelope; and g.°. The Project could be susceptible to extensive damage or collapse. 29. On or about July 11, 1995, Dowgul issued his subsequent report of findings to the Owner that constituted the most serious 8 wa od and significant conditions that would result in an immediate, or long term, detrimental consequence on the functional status of the Project which included, at minimum, the following: 30. a. b. Existing water damage due to multiple water entry points; Main entry stairs did not meet building code requirements; Contractor had cut holes ina wide- flange steel beam to accommodate piping; Dowgul concurred with Zgraggen’s report referenced in paragraph 25, above, that interior ledgers were not properly attached to concrete bond beams on the exterior walls; Dowgul concurred with Zgraggen’s report referenced in paragraph 25, above, that the 5-ply 2"x12" header supporting first level floor trusses did not comply with building code minimum design load requirements; Inadequate window headers were not in compliance with the building code minimum design load require- ments; Dowgul concurred with Zgraggen’s report referenced in paragraph 25, above, that the roof truss design was not in compliance with the building code minimum design load requirements and that various floor trusses were improperly modified during installation by the Contractor; - Inadequately supported balcony handrails servicing the northwest balcony had excessive top handrail motion not in compliance’ with NFPA Life Safety Code = requirements, and The above listed defects, items 29.d. - 29.g., dictated the replacement. of the entire roof system and all of the interior floor truss systems to bring ; the structure into code compliance. In or around July, 1995, the Owner’ retained Victor Ss. Bowman, Architect, hereinafter referred to as “Bowman, ” to conduct 9 an on-site inspection of the Project and to specify any reconstruction recommendations. 31. On or about July 20, 1995, Bowman issued his report of findings to the Owner which included, at minimum, the following: a. Front entry steps did not meet the requirements of the Standard Building Code, Article 1007.3 - Treads and Risers or the requirements of the Life Safety Code, Article 5-2.2; Respondent had failed to detail a stair that met local or state code, resulting in a stair that did not have a nosing as required for all stairs with less than a 9-1/2" tread; Contractor had failed to construct the entrance . steps to meet the requirements of local and state codes and the intent of the contract documents; The entrance steps did not meet applicable tolerance levels and did not incorporate a nosing as required by code, resulting in’an unsafe condition for the Owner and increased liability to the Owner due to privity of knowledge related to an unsafe condition; Existing stair was required to be rebuilt; All exterior corners and horizontal exterior corners above windows and doors were bleeding rust; Respondent had not included a specification for the exterior stucco; _ Existing stucco was required to be removed from - exterior corners of the, Project, existing metal corner bead was required to be removed and replaced with an industry standard vinyl corner bead, then re-stucco and re-paint work was required to match existing; All exposed flashing and the vent hoods were beginning to rust. The standard of care for beach construction was that all exposed metal be con-.- structed of stainless steel. 10 3. Existing galvanized metal exposed flashing and the vent hoods were required to be removed and replaced with stainless steel; k. The roof as installed did not meet the specifi- . cations for copper slating nails or the supplier of the roofing tile; 1. The roof as’ constructed did not meet the specifi- cations as to the thickness of the insulation and the attachment to the structural substrate; m. The installed two 4s" layers of homesote material fell far below the requirements to meet the Florida Energy Code. and far below the requirement of the energy calculations submitted with the application for the building permit; and n. Existing roof was recommended to be removed. 32. In or around August, 1995, the Owner and Contractor entered into arbitration before the American Arbitration Association in Case No. 33 110 00043 95 UP. 33. On or about July 23, 1996, the Owner was considered the prevailing party in the arbitration referenced in paragraph 32 above, and was awarded $222,700.00 to be paid by the Contractor. : . on ; oO 34. In or around June, 1996, the Owner retained Bowman as liaison coordinator to provide construction management services for e the necessary reconstruction effort of the Project. COUNT ONE 35. Petitioner realleges and incorporates, as if fully stated herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-10, above. | 11 36. Respondent’s construction documents and specifications referenced in paragraphs 9-10, above, are denoted “The vogt Group Architects - New Orleans.” 37. Respondent’s business stationery used for invoicing the Owner for architectural and construction management services, at minimum, via correspondence from on or about March 31, 1992 through July 5, 1994, is denoted “The Vogt Group - New Orleans.” 38. Section 481.225, Florida statutes, provides in pertinent part that: (1) The following acts constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions in subsection (3) may be taken: (a) Violating any provision of ... s. 481.221 ++. Or any rule of the board or department lawfully adopted pursuant to this part or Chapter 455. 39. Section 481.219(2), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: A certificate. of authorization shall be required for a corporation, partnership, or person practicing under a fictitious name, offering architectural services to the public _ jointly or separately. . 40. Section 481.221(8), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: Each registered architect or interior designer, and each corporation or partnership holding a certificate of authorization, shall include its certificate number in = any newspaper, telephone directory, or other advertising medium used by the registered 12 architect, interior designer, corporation, or partnership. 41. Rule 61G1-11.013(9) (a) (13), Florida Administrative Code, states in pertinent part: The term “newspaper, telephone directory or other advertising medium” as used in Section 481.221(8), Fla. Stat. shall include business stationery. 42. At no time material hereto has Respondent’s firm, The Vogt Group - New Orleans, possessed a Certificate of Authorization, as required by the Board. 43. Respondent failed to include a Certificate of Authorization number in his firm’s business stationery. 44. Based on the foregoing, pursuant: to Section 481.225(1) (a}, Florida Statutes, Respondent has violated Sections 481.219(2) and 481.221(8), Florida Statutes, by failing to acquire a certificate of authorization and by failing to include a certificate of authorization number in his firm's business stationery. . be 45. Petitioner realleges and incorporates, as if fully stated herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-18 and 23-34 above. - 46. Respondent’ s contract with the owner for the Project, as referenced in paragraph 4, above, was ‘executed on American Institute of Architects AIA Document B151, hereinafter referred to 13 as “AIA Document B151,” Abbreviated Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. 47. Respondent therein agreed to, at minimum, act in the best interest of the Owner by the following: a. Provide administration of the Contract for Con- struction in accordance with Section 2.4.2, AIA Document B151; b. Be the representative of the Owner, advising and consulting with the Owner, during construction until final payment to the Contractor was due in accord- ance with Section 2.4.4, AIA Document B151; c. Visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work completed and to determine in general if the work was being performed in accordance with Section 2.4.5, AIA Document B151; d. Keep the Owner informed of the progress and quality of the work, and endeavor to guard the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the work in accordance with Section 2.4.5, AIA Document B151; and _@. Review and certify Applications for Payment sub- mitted by the Contractor based on Respondent’s observations and evaluations in accordance with Section 2.4.8, AIA Document B151. 48. Respondent invoiced the Owner from or about March 31, 1992 through or about July. 5, 1994, for construction management fees. . 49. Respondent received from the Owner approximately $4,317.00 during the time frame referenced in paragraph 48 above for construction administration fees. 50. “Respondent failed to ‘observe incorrect floor truss installation, damage to floor trusses caused by tradesmen during 14 \ e installation of their work, fabrication and installation of a five- member 2" x 12" wood beam intended to replace a prefabricated truss girder, and excessive deflection in the aforementioned wood beam. 51. Respondent failed to observe separation of numerous partitions from adjacent surfaces due to floor deflection. 52. Section 481.225, Florida statutes, provides in pertinent part that: (1) The following acts constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions in Subsection (3) may be taken: (g) Committing an act of fraud or deceit, or of negligence, incompetency, or misconduct, in the practice of architecture. 53. Rule 61G1-12.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, states: An architect or interior designer or firm may not be negligent in the practice of architecture or interior design. The term negligence is defined as the failure, by an architect or interior designer, to exercise . due care to conform to acceptable standards of architectural or interior design ‘practice, in such a manner as to be detrimental to a client or to the public at large. — : 54. Rule 61G1-12.001(4) (a), Florida Administrative Code, states in pertinent part: An architect or interior designer shall meet a standard of practice which demonstrates his knowledge and ability to assure the safety and welfare of his clients and the public. 55. Rule 61G1-12.001(4) (b), Florida Administrative Code, states: 15 e @ An architect or interior designer shall be required to coordinate his activities with other professionals involved in those projects wherein the architect or interior designer is engaged to provide plans, drawings, and specifications which result in the production of working documents which are used or intended to be used for the construction of a structure. 56. Respondent failed to act in the best interest of the Owner by contracting for services which Respondent failed to fulfill -in his professional capacity as an architect. 57. Respondent failed to represent the best interest of the Owner during construction until final payment to the Contractor was due by failing to observe significant defects in the work and to take steps to have the aforementioned defects corrected. 58. Respondent failed in his duty to guard the Owner against defects and maintain a certain quality in the work acceptable, at minimum, according to standards of the profession. 59. Respondent failed in his duty to have life safety defective work corrected in the best interest of the Owner ‘and the ‘general public. . 60. Respondent failed to exercise due care to conform to acceptable standards of architectural or interior design practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to the Owner, his client, and to the piblic at large. 61. Respondent failed to meet a standard of practice’ which demonstrated his knowledge and ability to assure the safety and welfare of the Owner, his client, and the public at large. 16 62. Respondent failed to coordinate his activities with other professionals involved in a project .wherein he was engaged to provide drawings which were to be used for the construction of a structure. 63. Respondent’s failures as referenced in paragraphs 56-62, above, constitute negligence in the practice of architecture. 64. Based on the foregoing, pursuant to Section 481.225(1)(g), Florida Statutes, Respondent has violated Rules 61G1-12.001(4), (4) (a), and (4) (b), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to exercise due care to conform to acceptable standards of architectural practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to his client, by failing to demonstrate knowledge and ability to assure the safety and welfare of his client, and by failing to coordinate his activities with other involved professionals in the Project wherein he was engaged to. provide plans, _ drawings, and specifications that resulted in the production of working documents used or intended to be used for the construction of a structure. HREE 65. Petitioner realleges and incorporates, as if fully stated herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-18, 23-34, and_ 46-51, above. 66. Respondent further agreed to, at minimum, act in the best interest of the Owner by the following: a. Review and take appropriate action on shop drawings, product data and samples submitted by Contractor for 17 the purpose of verifying conformance with the intent of the contract documents in accordance with Section 2.4.11, AIA Document B151, and b. Be the representative of the Owner, advising and consulting with the Owner, during construction until final payment to the Contractor was due in accordance with Section 2.4.4, AIA Document B151. 67. Contractor failed to provide shop drawings, product data and samples as required in the construction contract with the Owner as referenced in paragraph 7, above. 68. Respondent failed to demand Contractor fulfill his contractual obligations for architectural and ‘construction management responsibilities Respondent was retained by Owner to perform. 69. Respondent’ s failure to-demand shop drawings contributed to incorrect fabrication and installation of a five-member 2"x12" wood floor beam inadequate for the intended use. 70. Section 481.225, Florida statutes, provides in pertinent part that: '. (1) The following acts constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions in subsection. (3) may be taken: “(g) Committing an act of fraud or deceit, or of negligence, incompetency, or misconduct, in the practice of architecture. : 71. Rule 61G1-12.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, states: “an architect or interior designer or firm may ~ not be negligent in the practice of architecture or interior design. The term 18 72. states in 73. states: 74, Owner by contracting for services that Respondent failed to provide negligence is defined as the failure, by an architect or interior designer, ‘to exercise due care to conform to acceptable standards of architectural or interior design practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to a client or to the public at large. Rule 61G61-12.001(4) (a), Florida Administrative pertinent part: An architect or interior designer shall meet a standard of practice which demonstrates his knowledge and ability to assure the safety and welfare of his clients and the public. Rule 61G1-12.001(4) (b), - Florida Administrative An architect or interior designer shall be required to coordinate his activities with other professionals involved in those projects wherein the architect or interior designer is engaged to provide plans, drawings, and specifications which result in the production of working documents which are used or intended to be used for the construction of a structure. . Respondent failed to act in the best interest of the in his professional capacity as an architect. “75, Owner by his failure to demand that Contractor submit shop drawings. 76. Respondent failed to represent the best interest of the Owner. during construction until final payment to the Contractor was taking steps to have the aforementioned defects corrected. Respondent failed to represent. the best interest of the , due by failing to observe significant defects in the work and 19 77, Respondent failed in his duty to guard the Owner against defects and to maintain a certain quality in the work acceptable, at minimum, as standards of the industry. 78. Respondent failed in his duty to have life safety defective work corrected in the best interest of the Owner and the general public. 79, Respondent failed to exercise due care to conform to acceptable standards of architectural or interior design practice _in such a. manner as to be detrimental to the Owner, his client, and to the public at large. 80. Respondent failed to meet a standard of practice which demonstrated his knowledge and ability to assure the safety and welfare of the Owner, his client, and the public at large. 81. Respondent failed to coordinate his activities with other professionals involved in a project wherein he was engaged to provide drawings that were to be used for the construction of a. structure. 82. Respondent’ s failures as referenced in paragraphs 74-81 above, constitute negligence in the practice of architecture. 83. Based on the foregoing, ‘pursuant to Section 481.225(1) (g), Florida Statutes, Respondent has violated Rules 61G1-12.001(4), (4) (a), and (4) (b), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to exercise due care to conform to acceptable standards of architectural practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to his client, by failing to demonstrate knowledge and ability to assure 20 the safety and welfare of his client, and by failing to coordinate his activities with other involved professionals in the Project wherein he was engaged to provide plans, drawings, and specifications that resulted in the production of working documents used or intended to be used for the construction of a structure. COUNT FOUR 84. Petitioner realleges and incorporates, as if fully stated herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-18, 23-34, and 46-51 above. . . 85. Respondent’s construction documents and specifications referenced in paragraph 10, above for the structural, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical disciplines, are incomplete, inaccurate, ' and misleading. 86. Section 481.221(2), Fla. Stat., provides that; No registered architect shall affix ... his seal or signature to any final construction document or instrument of service which includes any plan, specification, drawing, or other document which depicts work which ... he is not competent to perform. 87. Structural elements in the documents are deficient in that: a. Respondent failed to specify pile foundation data on Sheet 1, e.g:, design purpose, design criteria, . ' driving criteria, required and actual load. capaci- ties, engineer’s pile log requirement, all being required, at minimum, by the Standard Building Code [SBC 1804, 1805]; - : ~. 21 i i | I i i t | i i \ i i i that: 88. 89. Respondent’s pile cap detail on sheet 1 incorrectly delineates pile to be eccentrically loaded; Respondent failed to define requirements for the elevator pit; Respondent failed to adequately address typical floor structural framing and upper roof framing; Respondent failed to adequately address floor and roof design loadings; and Respondent failed to correctly delineate details 3/2 and 4/2 wherein they are incorrect, depict condi- tions that do not exist, or are not coordinated with other drawings. ; Plumbing elements in the documents are deficient in that: a. b. Respondent failed to adequately address the plumbing discipline except to delineate fixtures; Respondent failed to adequately address information regarding the water supply system, special require- ments to prevent corrosion, waste disposal system, and HVAC condensate disposal; Respondent failed to adequately address specifics for the water heater; and Respondent failed to. adequately address requirements for the plumbing discipline’s product submittals. Mechanical elements in the documents are deficient in Respondent failed to adequately address the mechanical discipline system except to delineate a general location of a. single interior AHU on the ground floor and graphic locations of three floor | air distribution grilles at the second floor; -Respondent failed to, adequately address the gas heating unit, e.g., size and location, location of gas:.service, and requirements for an exhaust flue, if necessary; 22 | | | c. Respondent failed to locate the air-conditioning compressor and installation requirements for refrigerant lines; and ; d. Respondent failed to adequately address requirements for the mechanical discipline’s product submittals. 90. Electrical elements in the documents are deficient in that: a. Respondent failed to adequately address the HVAC system, oven/range power requirements and location, basic interior lighting and receptacle placement, specialty items such as the elevator and jacuzzi, exterior site lighting, electrical panel location, service entrance location, and municipal require- ments; b. Respondent failed to provide a complete electrical plan which was satisfactory to the Owner for layout and coordinated with project conditions. Respondent’s failure subsequently led to field changes and addenda which resulted in additional costs to the Owner; and c. Respondent failed to adequately address requirements for the electrical discipline’s product submittals including, but not limited to, shop drawings, riser diagrams and load. calculations, and specifications as a performance specification. Ql. The deficiencies noted in paragraphs 87-90 above in Respondent’ s construction documents and specifications ‘demonstrate that he is not competent to sign and seal documents containing such extensive elements of the structural, plumbing, mechanical, and - electrical disciplines. ' 92. ° Based on the foregoing, pursuant to Section 481.225(1) (a), Florida Statutes, Respondent has violated Section 481.221(2), Florida Statutes, by signing and sealing documents depicting work he was not competent to perform. 23 WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter an Order imposing one or more of the following penalties: revocation or suspension of Respondent's license, restriction of Respondent's practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of Respondent on probation, and/or any other relief.that the Board deems appropriate. SIGNED this 27 “day of Dacaycrd , 1997. ~ Richard T. Farrell Secretary ha H Gund BY: Charles F. Tunnicliff Bureau Chief Fla. Bar No. 153831 COUNSEL FOR DEPARTMENT: Mary Ellen Clark and Charles J. PellegrinY) Senior Attorneys Department of Business and Professional Regulation ; F | L. F D 1940 North Monroe Street : i 9-07.92 Department of Business and Professional Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 3239 DEPUTY CLERK wale cane Brandrll hale DATE q - G- "3 lst PCP: Falkanger, Wirtz DATE: July 8, 1997 f 2nd PCP: Falkanger, Wirtz, and Shiff DATE: September 22, 1997 h:\cjp5\500384ac.cjp 24 po 4 - \\ ELECTION OF RIGHTS aaa 3 a 2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGERATI wr os ed ON Roe NS Case No.: 95-00384 — Lloyd J. Vogt . oer BBS - Ge faa bad co) I have read the Administrative Complaint in this matter, and elect as follows: Oy S Fs O-Ob2bhL CHECK ONE 1. ( ) Ielect not to dispute the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and wish to appear before the Department at an informal hearing to be heard on the conclusions of law and the issue of penalty. I therefore request an informal hearing under section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. I understand that at the informal hearing I will not be allowed to deny the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, but will only be permitted to submit written and/oral evidence in mitigation of the Administrative Complaint to the Department. ; 2. (X) Ido dispute the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and request that this be considered a petition for Formal Hearing before a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. If you elect this option, you must state below which specific facts you dispute. (Use the back of this sheet if needed.) SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE: _—_ 3. () Iwaive my right to object or be heard concerning this matter, and the Department may do as it sees fit concerning this matter. : : oe THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT. IF) ‘OU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD SEEK LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE SIGNING. MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED ADDRESS Neo CRLems LA, 7219 CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE Sot) 528 -96N TELEPHONE (Home & Work) : E _ Biss (S04) 32-9222 Loosians ATTORNEY’S NAME AND TELEPHONE State of Flerida ‘ th, County of _JeFFERSO}, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_ !6"" day of _CeTRBER __-> 1998, by [ioyo VOGT ___ who is personally known to me er-who-has produced. -ps-identification- MAIL THIS FORM TO: Charles J. Pellegrini, Senior Attorney . FL Bar No. 989274 Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0784 STATE OF FLORIDA hoy oo DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATI gy BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN ie % , Yen te ws A Tiffen.» "8 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND OSL PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, PETITIONER vs. DBPR CASE NUMBER 95 - 00384 LLOYD J. VOGT, RESPONDENT ELECTION OF RIGHTS Lloyd J. Vogt (hereinafter “Vogt"), respondent herein, disputes facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and states the specific facts he disputes as follows: 1, He disputes the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint in that the contract was entered into between the Owner and The Vogt Group/ Architects, a Louisiana Professional Corporation. 2. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer that Vogt submitted construction documents and specifications to the Building Department or that unsealed construction documents and specifications were so submitted or that he allowed or authorized unsealed construction documents and specifications to be so submitted. 3. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer that Vogt performed any work not in compliance with the contract. 4. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer or allege that (i) Ronald W. Dowgul was qualified to issue a structural report, and (ii) any of the findings in his report are correct. 5. He disputes the allegations of paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer the Project was unsafe. 6. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer or allege that all of the findings in the Carr report are correct. 7. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer or allege that all of the findings in the Zgraggen report are correct. 8. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer or allege that all of the findings in the Smith report are correct. 9. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer or allege that all of the findings in the subsequent Zgraggen report are correct. 10. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer or allege that (i) Ronald W. Dowgul was qualified to issue a subsequent structural report, and (ii) any of the findings in his subsequent report are correct. 11. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 31 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent they infer or allege that any of the findings in the Bowman report are correct. 12. He disputes the allegations of paragraphs 42 and 44 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent that an application for a Certificate of Authorization has been submitted and pending for some time. 13. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent that the entire contract is the best evidence of its contents, including all terms, conditions and limitations. 14. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 48 and 49 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent that while construction management and administration services were performed, he is unsure of the exact dates or amounts. 15. He disputes the allegations of paragraphs 50, 51,56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 of the Administrative Complaint. 16. He disputes the allegations of paragraph 66 of the Administrative Complaint to the extent that the entire contract is the best evidence of its contents, including all terms, conditions and limitations. 17. He disputes the allegations of paragraphs 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92 of the Administrative Complaint. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE,ME THIS /6% Day OF , 1998

Docket for Case No: 01-000626PL