STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, Petitioner, v. FEMC Case No. 2005014415 ROGER MALONE, P.I., Respondent, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FLMC) on behalf of Petitioner, llorida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint agains. ROGER MALONE, P-E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”, ‘This Administrative Complaint is issucd 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 Lingincers, is charged with regulating the practice of cngineering 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). geeiaeed TESETESSSET two 4 Spiel Bae2-68-950 2eitT 800¢ 6 Jay 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 56496. Respondent's last known address is 11485 Nicole Court, Carmel, IN 46032, 3. On May 7, 2003, Respondent sealed signed & dated structural cnginccring plans and specifications for the New Flagler 6-12 School (New Flagler School Project) in Palm Coast, Florida. 4. The structural engineering plans and specifications for the New llagler School Project Contained material structural deficiencies including but not limited to the following (document references are to Respondent’s structural design documents for the New Flagler School Project): A. A Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) wall was inadequately reinforced with steel rebar so as to be able to resist the wind loads imposed on it. This CMU wall is located on the east side of Building Unit C as shown on shects $B103 & SF104, wall line 21. B. A floor beam that was not of sufficient strength to withsland the loads that would be imposed on it during construction of the project. This floor beam is located along cach side of the second floor corridor of Building Unit J as shown on sheet SF113, line A9. C. Inadequate metal roof deck fastening insofar as the documents allow the substilution of #10 sclf-tapping screws, Acceptable structural cngineering design would mandate Number 12 self-apping screws at a minimum as is requited by the deck manufacturer, dD, Roof beams that were structurally inadequate to resist design wind loads. ‘The two beams in question, W 8x10 & W 16x31, are located in Building Unit B as shown in the roof framing on sheet SF103. FRPP: ys Roger Malone, P.B., Case No. 2005014415 q Bepraeed TeSETeSset wo44 Spict S@8e-66-330 2eitT 800¢ 6 Jay E. A joist-bearing plate that was inadequate to resist uplift and shear loads imposed by design wind loading. This joist bearing plate is located along the east well of Building Unit C as shown on shect SF104 & details 14/8302 & 8/8305. F. A masonry lintel thai was inadequate to resist reasonably expected imposed structural loads. ‘This lintel is located on the northeast wall (L8) on Building Unit J as shown on shect SL+113 & CMU Lintel Schedule on sheet $001. G. A steel column that was inadequate to resist reasonably expected imposed structural loads. This steel column is located at the cortider wall of Building Unit J as shown on sheet SF113. H. A steel column that was inadequate. ‘This steel column is located at the intersection of building lincs A9 & B6 in Building Unit D as shown on sheet SF106, 1. A building footing that was inadequate This footing is located at the intersection of building lines A9 & B6 in Building Unit D as shown on sheet 8B104, ‘Lhis is the same location as the column referenced in Paragraph 4(H) on sheet S1'106. 5, In material part due to the design deficiencies set forth above, the construction of the New llagler School Project was required to be discontinued while construction was in progress. The Flagler County School Board was required to seek redesign of the structural aspects of the New Flagler School Project in order for it to be completed which resulted in an increase in construction cost of approximately $10,000,000.00. 6. 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 PRP: vs Roger Malone, P.E., Case No, 2005014415 3 Qegiaeed TESETESSSET two 4 Spiel Bae2-68-950 2eitT 800¢ 6 Jay duc care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” 7. The Board of Professional Engineers has adopted Rule Chapiers 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 thercin. Failure on the part ofa professional engineer to comply with the applicable provisions of the Responsibility Rules is negligence in the practice of engineering and subjects the offending engincer 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), FE. A. ©.) Unless the deviation or departures there from are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the professional engineer.” 8. Rule Chapter 61G15-31 of the Responsibility Rules applies to the design of structures and structural sysicms and is therefore applicable to the New Flagler School Project. Rule 61G15-31,00!"General Responsibility” seis out standards of responsibilily which are applicable to all structural design. This Rule states in material part that “[t]he engincer of record for a structure is responsible for all structural aspects of the design of the structure including the design of all of the structure's systems and components. .... [T]he engineer of record for the structure ...shall comply with the requirements of the general responsibility rules...” 9. ‘The enginccring design of a structure is evidenced by the creation of Structural Engineering Documents by the professional engineer in responsible charge of the design of the structure. Structural Engineering Documents arc defined in Rule 61G15-31.002(5) as “|t|he structural drawings, specifications and other documents setting forth the overall design and FBPE vs. Roger Malone. P.T., Case No. 2005014415 4 Beg: aeed TeSETeSset wo44 Spict S@8e-66-330 2h:TT 8002 6 Jal requirements for the construction, alteration, modemization, 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 cnginecring 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 lo describe, detail, label and define the structure's components, systems, materials, assemblies, and equipment.” 10 Respondent's structural drawings and specifications for the New Flagler School Project are materially deficient in the design of and specifications for required elements, in their compliance with applicable codes, and in the material lack of presentation of data upon which his engineering decisions were based. As a result, Respondent’s structural design drawings and specifications for the New Flagler School Project fail to comply with the requirements of the Responsibility Rules and reflect failure on the part of Respondent to utilize due care when performing im an cngincering capacity and failure to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. tl. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1} (g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respecttully 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 finc, 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 FRPF vs Roger Malone, PE, Case No, 24005014415 5 Bei abe TeSETeSset wo44 SPict S8Be-68-350 SP:TT 800¢ 6 Jal associaled with an attomey’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relicf that the Board deems appropriate, — “yp SIGNED this 27 day of _ = , 2008. FILED Department of Business and Professional Regulation DEPUTY CLERK Executive Direc tor fy Attorney Carrie Flynn COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes TIT Prosecuting Attomey FILED Florida Engineers Management Corporation Florida E ingineers Managoment Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 " Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Flonda Bar No. 212008 CLERK, IRijt DATE i es ~ ze PCP DATE: January 17, 2008 PCP Members: Rebane, Seckinger CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cerlily that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to ROGIER MALONE, P.E., c/o EDWIN RAYO’, ESQ., Metzger Grossman I'urlow & Bayo LC, 1408 N Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308, by certified mail, on the o/ft & of of JAN , 2008. Q3}—— TRPR vs. Roger Malime, PE, Cuxe Nav 200514415 6 Beg: aed TeSETeSset wo44 SPict S8Be-68-350 BRITT 800¢ 6 Jay

Docket for Case No: 08-006142PL