By STATE OF FLORIDA diy, @ & 2) FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS tp » on 4 “O\ “Cty Mio, Me FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL 0% 43 HEMISES op é ENGINEERS, Ne Mi ye Petitioner, v FEMC Case No. 2006051138 LESTER M. MAPLES, P-E., Respondent, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint against LESTER M. MAPLES, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding concerning this complaint shall be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following: 1. Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. This complaint is filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE #10214. Respondent’s last known address is 1616 Missouri Ave., Lynn Haven, FL 32444. 3. On June 23, 2006, Respondent sealed, signed and dated a set of engineering documents for a Walgreen’s Pharmacy to be built in DeFuniak Springs, FL (Walgreen’s Project). The documents depicted the Fire Sprinkler System for the Walgreen’s Project and consisted of three (3) pages of engineering design documents and twelve (12) pages of related specifications and calculations. 4. The drawings, specifications and calculations reflect the following engineering design deficiencies in violation of the Florida Building Code and the applicable provisions of the National Fire Protection Association Code (NFPA) 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, which have been incorporated and made a part thereof: A. The hydraulic calculations specify 16’ spacing, but the drawings show 17’ in one location and spacing exceeding 8’ from walls in multiple locations. Additionally, the one head in the Women’s Room is 11’ from one corner and 12’ from the corner at the entry door. As a result, the design drawings fail to comply with NFPA 13 and applicable code. B. The Porter room does not have a sprinkler head when at least one is required by applicable code. C. One sprinkler head in each toilet room as called for on the documents is inadequate based on the design criteria and equipment used. D. The hydraulic calculations state that the design is a “Wet Pipe” system as evidenced by the legend on the drawings which indicates no dry pendant FBPE vs. Lester M. Maples, P.E., Case No. 2006051138 heads. However, the sprinkler heads which the design calls for to be placed inside the freezer cannot be wet pipe heads (as mandated by the design) and comply with applicable code requirements. E. No sprinkler heads are shown to be installed at the storage room ceiling above the cooler and freezer when such heads are required by applicable code. F. The entry canopy, side canopies and drive-through show upright pendant heads only. However, sprinkler head protection below these portions of the structure is required since storage is possible underneath these structures. Thus, in order to comply with applicable code the design should have included 17 pendant heads to protect the areas beneath the canopies and drive-through. The omission of these heads constitutes a violation of the FBC and NFPA 13. 5. The Board of Professional Engineers has adopted Rule Chapters 61G15-30 to 61G15-36 which are collectively termed the Responsibility Rules. The Responsibility Rules apply to all professional engineers who perform the services outlined therein. Failure on the part of a professional engineer to comply with the applicable provisions of the Responsibility Rules is negligence in the practice of engineering and subjects the offending engineer to discipline as provided in Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, “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 [Section 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C.) 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.” FBPE vs. Lester M. Maples, P.E., Case No. 2006051138 6. Respondent’s engineering documents for the Walgreen’s Project represent the design of a Water Based Fire Protection System and therefore constitute engineering design which is governed by the Responsibility Rules. As such, the design must comply with the provisions of Rule 61G15-32 and particularly with the provisions of Rule 61G15-32.004, Florida Administrative Code which addresses the design of Fire Protection Systems, generally, and Water Based Fire Protection Systems, particularly. 7. Respondent’s design documents for the Walgreen’s Project do not comply with the provisions of Rule 61G15-32.004 as follows: A. The drawings fail to comply with Rule 61G15-32.004(2)(c) which requires the classification of hazard occupancy for each room or area since the hydraulic calculations identify the facility as “Light Hazard” but no classification is provided for each room or area. B. The drawings fail to comply with Rule 61G15-32.004(2)(f) which requires the flow test data to be placed on the documents, which data must include the date and time of test, and who conducted the test or supplied the information upon which the test flow data was compiled. Neither the date nor time of the test nor the identity of test conductor was provided. Cc. The drawings fail to comply with Rule 61G15-32.004(2)(g) which requires that the fire alarm requirements are shown. However, the drawings do not refer to any required connection to a building Fire Alarm System or other remote monitoring capability, as required by NFPA 70 (1999), National Fire Alarm Code. FBPE vs. Lester M. Maples, P.E., Case No. 2006051138 Dz. The drawings fail to comply with Rule 61G15-32.004(2)() which requires adequate backflow prevention and metering details. Backflow device sizes are not shown on the drawings, nor are shop drawing submittals provided so that a reviewer could identify the backflow prevention and metering specifications and details. E. The drawings fail to comply with Rule 61G15-32.004(2)(j) which requires that the drawings contain quality and performance specifications of all yard and interior fire protection components. No shop drawings, submittals or cut sheets were provided to show manufacturers’ specifications for sprinkler heads, pipe, fittings, hangers, check valves, fire department connections, gauges, gate valves, alarm devices, gong, flow switch or tamper switches. 8. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Fla. Admin Code, provides that negligence constitutes “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.” Respondent’s Fire Protection System design for the Walgreen’s Pharmacy Project fails to meet these standards for the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 4-7 above. 9. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Fla. Admin Code, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. FBPE vs. Lester M. Maples, P.E., Case No. 2006051138 WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or suspension of the Respondent’s license, restriction of the Respondent’s practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the assessment of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with an attorney’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. vf a Z SIGNED this 0 day of — , 2008. F Carrie Flynn are snd l E Executive Director Prosecuting Attorney COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation FILED ; 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Florida Engineers Management Corporation Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Clerk Florida Bar No. 212008 PCP DATE: March 11, 2008 oes - PCP Members: - Rebane, Seckinger CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to LESTER MAPLES, P.E., c/o ALVIN L. PETERS, ESQ., PETERS & SCOON, 25 E 8™ ST, PANAMA CITY, FL 32401, by certified mail, on the’Z2"__ of /' “&__, 2008. Jf Lf FBPE vs. Lester M. Maples, P.E., Case No. 2006051138

Docket for Case No: 08-002143PL