FILED Department of Business and Professional Regulation Deputy Agency Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA CLERK —_Evelte Lawson-Proctor FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Date 9/30/2011 FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL _ Fora Ergncers Management Corporation i RS, Petitioner, a FEMC Case No. 2011007349 FRANK CLEATON, PE. 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 FRANK. CLEATON, 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 Engincers, 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 35816. Respondent’s last known address is 260 Wekiva Springs Road, Longwood, Florida 32779. __ ome 3. On January 26, 2011 Respondent sealed, signed and dated a multi-page set of engineering design documents for an aluminum swimming pool screen enclosure structure to be located at the 135 Birchmont Drive, Deland, FL (Birchmont Project). 4. Respondent’s engineering documents for the Birchmont Project are materially deficient as follows: A. Respondent has failed to label and define or show the size and section of the diagonal roof bracing elements in the roof of structure. B. Respondent has failed to indicate the intended section for the 2x4 (SMB or H) end wall column elements. Cc. Respondent has failed to indicate or adequately describe the required lateral bracing elements (K-braces or Cables) at the outboard wall of the structure and therefore, has failed to provide lateral stability for the structure. D. Respondent has failed to indicate the elevation of the chair rail (wall girt) element. E. The 2x5 SMB roof beam elements of the subject structure are significantly overstressed at 2007 FBC (Table 2002.4) prescribed design loading. F. The 2x5 SMB wall column elements are significantly overstressed at 2007 FBC (Table 2002.4) prescribed design loading. G. The 2x2x.044 tube purlin elements are overstressed at 2007 FBC (300 Ibs/1ft per Section 2002.4) prescribed design loading. FBPE vs. Frank Cleaton P.E., Case No. 2011007349 2 H. For the 5.0 ft tributary load width column of the “Column Schedule” on Sheet ‘D3’ of Document 2-D, the 2x4 SMB, 2x5 SMB, 2x6 SMB, 2x7 SMB, 2x8 SMB and 2x10 SMB sections are significantly overstressed under 2007 FBC prescribed design loading at the spans _ indicated. I. For the 8.0 ft tributary load width column of the “Column Schedule” on Sheet ‘D3’ of Document 2-D, the 2x4 SMB, 2x5 SMB, 2x6 SMB, 2x7 SMB, 2x8 SMB and 2x10 SMB sections are significantly overstressed under 2007 FBC prescribed design loading at the spans indicated. J. For the 5.0 ft tributary load width column of the “Beam Schedule” on Sheet ‘D3° of Document 2-D, the 2x4 SMB, 2x5 SMB, 2x6 SMB, and 2x7 SMB sections are significantly overstressed at the spans indicated under 2007 FBC prescribed design loading. K. For the 8.0 ft tributary load width column of the “Beam Schedule” on Sheet ‘D3’ of Document 2-D, the 2x4 SMB, 2x5 SMB, 2x6 SMB, 2x7 SMB and 2x8 SMB sections are significantly overstressed at the spans indicated and 2007 FBC prescribed design loading. L, Utilizing a hypothetical frame as would be used for a typical screen enclosure structure selected from the Beam and Column Span Schedules in accordance with the instructions included in Document 2-D, the 2x10 SMB roof beam element of the frame was overstressed at 2007 FBC prescribed design loading. M. Utilizing a hypothetical frame as would be used for a typical screen enclosure structure selected from the Beam and Column Span Schedules in accordance with the instructions included in Document 2-D,The 2x6 SMB post element of the frame was significantly overstressed at 2007 FBC prescribed design loading. FBPE vs, Frank Cleaton P.E., Case No. 2011007349 3 N. Respondent has failed to design and proportion the elements of the subject screen enclosure in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 FBC. O. _ The span tables included in Document 2-D are deficient in that Respondent has failed as indicated to determine the allowable span data in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 FBC. 5. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (Responsibility Rules). These Rules are contained in Chapter 61G15-30 to Chapter 61G15-36, Fla. Administrative Code. Professional Engineers who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules are required to comply with the Rules. 6. Rule 61G15-30.002(1), F. A. C., mandates that Respondent, as the engineer of record, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared for the Birchmont Project. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing documents that comply with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. 7. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record for the Structure for the Birchmont Project as that term is defined in Rule 61G15-31.002(1), F. A. C. As such all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in Rule 61G15-31.002(5), F. A. C., as is mandated by Rule 61G15-31.001, F. A. C., setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. The plans and specifications for the Birchmont Project fail to contain this information and thus fail to comply with the Responsibility Rules. 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), F. A. C., provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in FBPE vs. Frank Cleaton P.E., Case No. 2011007349 ‘ 4 performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” 9. _ Rule 61G15-19,001(4) also provides that “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.” 10. The Respondent’s drawings, specifications, and calculations for the Birchmont Project contain deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraph 4. Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15- 19.001(4), F. A. C., by sealing, signing and dating engineering documents that were issued and filed for public record when such documents were materially deficient in respect to and not in compliance with applicable code requirements or acceptable engineering principles. 11. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F, A. C., by being negligent in the practice of engineering. 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. FBPE vs, Frank Cleaton P.E., Case No. 2011007349 5 SIGNED this_ 9 aay of Mptinksn J 2011. COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes, If Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm PCP DATE: September 20, 2011 PCP Members: Charland Rebane & Hahn CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Frank A. Cleaton, P.E., 260 Wekiva Springs Road, Longwood, Florida 32779, by certified mail, on the 2011, ) i, FBPE vs. Frank Cleaton P.E., Case No. 2011007349 5 of

Docket for Case No: 12-000257PL