Dec 16 200% 10:23 DEC-16-2668 11:21 From: 18585216521 Page:c4/a7T STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEMC Case No. 03-014! FEMC Case to. ra {ote | FRED C. JONES, P.E., Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Professional Engineers against Fred C. Jones, P.E., hercinafter 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 io Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following: 1. Petitioner is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board of Professional Enginecrs pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes. The Board of Professional Engineers is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is and has been at all time material hereto a licensed professional engineer in the State of Flonda, having bccn issued license number PE 54476. Respondent’s last known address is 239 US Highway Blvd., Suite B, Bradenton, Florida 34208. Dec 16 200% 10:23 DEC-16-2668 11:21 From: 18565216521 Page:co“a7T COUNT ONE 3, Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and two (2) as if fully set forth in this Count One, 4. The Respondent is the engineer of record for a Siesta Sun Condominium project, consisting of the construction of a walkway at the second floor of the condominium building, 5. The Respondent, as Engineer of Record, submiticd a total of five submissions of drawings for the project to the Sarasota County Building Department (SCBD) as a resull of deficiencies found by SCBD. 6, Respondent’s drawings contain numerous structural deficiencies, including the following: Respondent’s First Submission - Drawings dated January 28, 2003 a. The Respondent’s cantilever slab design to support the stairs is inadequate to meet the 100 psf requirement of section 1604.1 of the Florida Building Code. b. The Respondent failed to address building and structural review comments made by the Sarasota County Building Department. c. The connection details of the stair hand rail are not provided. d, The design load criteria of the various structural members arc not specified. @. The edge distance of the rail posts and pickets are not provided. f. The details of the damage and the repair solution at the comer of the building at the ground floor are not provided. B. The details of the damage and the repair solution at the comer of the building at the ground floor are not provided. FEMC y. Fred C. Jones, P.B., Case #03-0149 2 Dec 16 2008 10:24 DEC-16-2865 1i:ce From: 18585216521 Page: ce’aT h. Material specifications for the metallic members and many other members used in the design are not provided. i. The reinforced concrete slab details are not clear and are incomplete. j. The clear cover to the reinforcement of the supported slab is specified as 2.5” at one location and 14” at another location on drawing 3. k. The development lengths and reinforcement splices are not shown. 1. The detail of the existing foundations is not provided. m1. ‘The strength of the existing foundations cannot be verified as Respondent failed to provide the detail of the existing foundations in his drawings. n. A detail showing the connection between an existing and new footing is provided; however, the detail is incomplete and is not coordinated with the plan or the section across the porch. o. The reinforcement of the second floor slab is shown as loops instead of being straight. 7. Additionally, the Respondent’s revised plans for the Siesta Sun Condominium project contain structural deficicncics, including but not limited to the following: Respondent’s Second Submission - Drawings dated February 14, 2003 a. The revised plans show 8”x8” concrete masonry columns instead of aluminum columns. The revised plans show different footings for the concrete masonry columns. The details of these footings are incomplete. A masonry stem wall is shown between the slab on grade and a reclangular wall footing. Only a thickened edge of the slab on grade was shown in previously submitted drawings. FEMC v. Fred (. Jones, P.F., Case # 03-0149 3 Dec 16 2008 10:24 DEC-16-2865 1i:ce From: 18585216521 Page:er’ar b. The cantilever slab reinforcement details are not correct. The Plan view and section of floor slab on drawings 3 are not clear. Temporary support during demolition of support to the roof is not provided. c The design load criteria of the various structural members are not specified. The edge distances of the rail posts and pickets are not provided. The details of the stair connections are not complete. The details of the proposed foundation pads for the stairs are not provided. d. The details of the damage and the repair solution at the corner of the building at the ground floor are not provided. é. Materials specifications for the metallic members and many other members used in the design are not provided. The reinforced concrete slab details are not clear and are incomplete, f. The detail of the existing foundations is not provided. The strength of the existing foundations could not be verified. A detail showing the connection between an existing and new footing is provided. The detail is incomplete. The detail is not coordinated with the plan or the section across the porch. g. The 8”x8” reinforced conerctc masonry columns are inadequate. The details of concrete masonry columns are incomplete. The connection detail of the longitudinal bars of the reinforced masonry columns with the existing footings is not provided. 8. Respondent’s revised plans for the Siesta Sun Condominium project coniain additional structural deficiencies, including but not limited to the following: Respondent’s Third Submission - Drawings dated March 19, 2003 a. The design load and grade of materials are not specified on the drawings. PEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P-E., Case # 03-0149 4 Dec 16 2008 10:24 DEC-16-2865 1i:ce From: 18565216521 Page: ca’a7T b. The wind load parameters are not specified on the drawings as per Section 1606.1.7, Florida Building Code, c. The construction details of rear side porches are not provided. d. The 36” height of guard rail does not comply with the Florida Buildmg Code. The height of the guard rail is required to be at a minimum of 42” pursuant to section 1015.2 of the Florida Building Code. e. The information for reinstallation of the stairs is incomplete as the top connection delails of stairs, the foundation details and live load are not provided. f. The details of the cantilever slab are inadequate. g. The rail post spacing is not provided. h. The connection details for the posts are inadequate for the live load of the railing. i The detail “Old Footer-New Footer” on drawing 3 is not coordinated with the plan. j The support of the new slab at the building is provided by #4 bars at 12” o.c. The shear friction of the bars is not checked. > 4 he cover to rcinforecment at the cantilever slab is inadequate. 9. Respondent’s revised plans for the Siesta Sun Condominium project contain additional structural deficiencies, including but not limited to the following: Respondent’s Fourth Submission - Drawings dated March 27, 2003 a. Respondent failed to address building and structural review comments made by Sarasota County Building Department. ¥EMC v. Pred C. Jones, P-E., Case #03-0149 5 Dec 16 2008 10:24 DEC-16-2865 1i:ce From: 18585216521 Page:co’aT b. The Cantilever slab reinforcement details are still not correct. The connection details of the stairs and the cantilever slab are not clear. Plan review and section of floor slab on drawing 3 are not clear, Temporary support during demolition of support to the roof 1s not provided. G The design load criteria of the various structural members are not specified. The edge distances of the rail posts and pickels are not provided. The details of the stair connections arc not complete. The details of the proposed foundation pad for the stairs are not provided. d. Materials specifications for the metallic members and many other members used in the design are not provided. The reinforced concrete slab details are not clear and are incomplete. The clear cover to the reinforcement of the supported slab is shown as 3” at one location and 2.5” at another location on drawings 3. e. The development lengths and reinforcement splices are not shown. The reinforcement of the second floor slab is shown as loops instead of being straight. The length of the dowels connecting the second floor slab to the existing beam at the second Moor is not specified. The dowels are not tied to the main reinforcement of the slab, but instead placed between a pair of main reinforcement. The height of the balcony rails is not specified. f. The detail of the existing foundations is not provided. The strength of the existing foundations could nol be verified. A deiail showing the connection between an existing and new footing is provided. The detail is incomplete. The detail is not coordinated with the plan or the section across the porch, 10. Respondent’s revised plans for the Siesta Sun Condominium project contain additional structural deficiencies, including but not limited to the following: FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.H., Case # 03-0149 6 Dec 16 2008 10:25 DEC-16-2865 1i:ce From: 18585216521 Page: 3837 Respondent’s Fifth Submission - Drawings dated April 23, 2003 a. Respondent failed to address building and structural review comments made by the Sarasota County Building Department. b, The cantilever slab reinforcement details are incorrect. Connection details of the stairs and the cantilever slab are not clear. Plan vicw and section of the floor slab on drawing 3 are not clear. Temporary support during demolition of support to the roof is not provided, c. The connection details of the stair hand trail are not provided. The design load entena of (he various structural members are not specified, The edge distances of the rail posts and pickets are not provided, The details of the stair connections are not complete. The details of the proposed foundation pads for the stairs are not provided. d. Matenals specifications for the metallic members and many other members used in the design are not provided. The reinforced concrete slab details are not clear and are incomplete. The clear cover to the reinforcement of concrele members is specified in general as 2.5”, which is inappropriate for the supported slab and also the cantilever slab. The development lengths and remforcements splices are not shown. The reinforcement of the second floor slab is shown as loops instead of bcing straight. The length of the dowels connecting thc second floor slab to the existing beam at the second floor is not specified. The dowels are not tied to the main reinforcement of the slab, bul inslead placed between a pair of main reinforecment. The height of balcony rails is specified as 36”. Section 1015.2 of the Florida Building Code requires 42” height for the guard rail. 11. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statuies, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineenng. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, PB, Case # 03-0149 vi Dec 16 2008 10:25 DEC-16-2865 11:23 From: 18585216521 Page: 31/37 COUNT TWO 12. ‘Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through two (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Two. 13. On May 20, 2003, the Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a Shadow Pine Way project which consists of the construction of a new single family residence. 14. On December 16, 2002, the stamp of Harold W. Pearman, P.E. appears on plans identical to the Respondent’s Shadow Pine Way project drawings. 15. The Respondent failed to notify Mr. Pearman by certified letter, as the original professional engineer, of his intent to use or reuse Mr. Pearman’s engineering detail, as required by Rule 61G15-27.001(2), Florida Administrative Code. 16. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471,033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating Rule 61G15-27.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, 17. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through two (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Three. 18. On or about April 29, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed, as Engineer of Record, a “Checklist For Plans Review of Commercial Buildings” which was submitted to Sarasota County for a building permit for an Ocean Boulevard Restaurant project, pertaining to a kitchen addition at an existing restaurant. 19. The Respondent was a third party plans reviewer for the project, but he also signed and scaled the application as the Engineer of Record. FEMC y. Fred C. Jones, P.B., Case # 03-0149 g Dec 16 2008 10:25 DEC-16-2865 11:23 From: 18565216521 Page: 32°37 20. Section 553.791(2), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that “notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fee owner of a building may use a private provider to provide building code inspection services with regard to such building and may make payment directly 1o the private provider for the provision of such services. All such services shall be the subject of a written contract between the private provider, or the private provider's firm, and the fee owner. The fee owner may clect 10 use a private provider to provide either plans ” review or required building inspections...” The Respondent, as a private provider, signed a contract with the contractor to provide the third party plans review services in violation of Section 553.791(2), Florida Statutes. 34. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating Rule 61G15-19,001(6)(n), Florida Administrative Code, to wit: violating Section 553.791 (2), Florida Statutes, COUNT FOUR 22. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through (wo (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Four. 23. Onor about April 29, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed, as Engineer of Record, a “Checklist For Plans Review of Commercial Buildings” which was submitted to Sarasota County for a building permit for an Occan Boulevard Restaurant project, pertaining to a kitchen addition at an existing restaurant. 24, Respondent, in signing and sealing the aforementioned checklist, certified that the plans and specifications comply with the applicable minimum building codes and the applicable minimum fire safety standards. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E., Case #03-0149 ) Dec 16 2008 10:26 DEC-16-2865 11:23 From: 18565216521 Page: 33°37 25, The Respondent’s Ocean Boulevard Restaurant project contains deficiencies, including but not limited to the following: a. The design loads for the addition are not specified. b. The roof and wall sheathing connections were not specified in the first submittals of the drawings. c. The size of existing structure has not been provided. The wind loads could not be calculated. ‘The design of the extenor lad bearing wood stud walls and the connections of roof rafters could not be venfied. d. The drawings were approved without proper specification for protection to the envelope of the building. 26. 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. COUNT FIVE 27. Petitioner reallegcs and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through two (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Five. 28. The Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a new residential project located at 17356 Deer Praine Drive in Sarasota County, Florida. 29, The Respondent’s structural drawings for the Deer Prairie Drive project contain deficiencies, including but not limited to the following: a. The structural calculations are not provided. db. The Respondent did not provide the roof diaphragm calculations. The wind loads based upon a “Partially Enclosed” building are too high to be resisted by the nailing pattern provided. TEMC v, Fred C. Jones, P.E., Case # 03-0149 10 Dec 16 2008 10:26 DEC-16-2865 11:23 From: 18565216521 Page: 34°37 C. The pre-cast lintcls arc inadequate and have not been checked by the Respondent to resist the wind loads. d. The soil conditions are not described on the drawings. c The reinforcement details of the thickened edge under the load bearing wood stud at the garage is not provided. f. The interior finishes, interior details, door/windows schedules, and site plan are not provided. g. The front porch column details are not provided. h. The truss wind uplift reactions provided by Respondent are too low for a partially enclosed building. 30. Based on ihe foregoing, the Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engmeerng. COUNT SIX 31. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through two (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Six. 32. The Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a Manasota Drive Screen Room project, which pertains to an aluminum screen room to an existing residence. 33, In a letter dated November 14, 2003, the Respondent admitted that another professional engineer prepared the Manasota Drive Screen Room project details; however, Respondent signed and sealed them. 34, Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)Q), Florida Statutes, by affixing his seal and name to drawings that were not prepared by him or under his supervision, direction, or control. FEMC vy Fred C. Jones, P.E., Case # 03-0149 ll Dec 16 2008 10:26 DEC-16-2865 11:e4 From: 18585216521 Page: 39°37 COUNT SEVEN 35. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through two (2) as if fully sel forth in this Count Seven. 36. The Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a new residential project located at 17356 Deer Prairie Drive in Sarasota County, Florida. 37. The Respondent’s Electrical drawings for the Deer Prairie Drive project contain deficiencies, including but not limited to the following: a. The load calculations are missing. b. No Electrical riser diagram is provided. c. No panel or circuiting is shown for serving the lighting, A/C units, kitchen equipment, water heater, or receptacles are specified. d. No specifications for HVAC equipment, water heater, fulure pool equipment, kitchen equipment or other loads are not shown in the plans. é. The plans do not specify that all exterior receptacles must be GFCT protected as required by NEC 210.8(A). £ The number of receptacles specified for the Kitchen are inadequate pursuant to NEC 210.52(C). g. Bathroom receptacles are not on a dedicated circuit breaker as required by NEC 210.11(C)(3), h. No grounding electrode system is specified, as required by NEC 250.50. i. No disconnecting means are specified for the HVAC equipment, as required by NEC 440.11. FEMC v. Pred C. Jones, P.E., Case # 03-0149 12 Dec 16 2008 10:26 DEC-16-2865 11:e4 From: 18585216521 Page: 36°37 j. Lighting fixtures in closets are not specified to be installed in accordance with NEC 410.8. k. No single-slation 120 volt smoke detection with local alarm and battery back-up as requited within cach sleeping room, as required by FFPC Section 26.3.3.5. 38, Based on the foregoing, the Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(z), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of enginecring. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engincers 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 casts related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with an attomey’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropri ate. al _ SIGNED this ee dayof_ Ws FILED ~ Departnvent of Business and Professional Regutation Executive Director DEPUTY CLERK : j —— Is. Yo CLERK 7} eichol ‘ y Douglas D. Sunshine DATE o | 2A trosecuting Attomey COUNSEL FOR FEMC: Douglas D. Sunshine FILED Prosecuting Atiorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation {-] Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Vlorida Bar No. 935263 DDS/tb PCP Members: Matthews, Tomasino, Seckinger FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E., Case # 03-0149 13

Docket for Case No: 08-006238PL