FEMC Case No. 2010058230
.ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
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).
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 59805. Respondent's last known address is 405 Mission Hill Rd., Boynton Beach, FL 33435.
On July 1, 2009 a Final Order (Final Order) was entered by the Board in FEMC Case # 200012615 imposing discipline upon Respondent. The Order was not appealed.
The Settlement Stipulation that was made a part of the Final Order in the Stipulated Disposition of Law provided in material part that:
Respondent shall submit to the Board a detailed list of completed projects (signed, sealed,
and dated), by the Respondent for PROJECT REVIEW at six (6) and eighteen (18) month intervals from the date that the Final Order adopting this StipuJation is filed with the Agency C]erk.
A FEMC Consultant will select two (2) projects from each submitted list for review. Respondent is responsible for promptly furnishing any set of completed plans, calculations, and any other supporting documentation requested by the Consultant. Respondent is also responsible for the Consultant's fees for reviewing the projects, and shaJl remit payment by check or money order made payable in the name of the Board's Consultant and shall remit said payment to the Florida Engineers Management Corporation within thirty (30) days from the date of invoice. Should the Consultant return an unfavorable report concerning Respondent's projects, that report shall be submitted to the Probable Cause Panel for determination of whether additional disciplinary proceedings should be initiated.
As required by the terms of the Final Order, Respondent submitted a list of completed projects to FEMC for the six (6) month review. From that list, a FEMC consultant picked two (2) projects, the Gonzalez Residence (Gonzalez Project) and the Everly Garage (Everly Project) for review.
The plans for the Gonzalez Project are materially deficient as follows:
The 2500 psf soil bearing capacity stated in Design Criteria Note 3 on page A-2 of the drawings exceeds the prescriptive value set forth in Table 1804.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code. Data to substantfate the use of a load bearing capacity higher than set forth in Table 1804.2 as required by Section 1804.2 was not submitted for review.
The reference to the 2004 FBC Section R802.10 in the "Pre-Engineered Wood Trusses" notes is not appropriate as the construction is governed by the 2007 Florida Building Codes.
Detail 2 on drawing A-2 indicates 12" lengths for #5 dowels with six inches embedded into the footing and therefore 6 inches of lap splice for the wall reinforcing which does not meet minimum requirements. Although not drawn accordingly, the detail also sets forth a lap splice length of 30" for #5 reinforcing. As a result, the contradicting specifications indicate that the detail has not been coordinated properly.
Detail GS-5 is indicated at the wall with garage door openings. The detail depicts an 8" x 16" cast in place beam at the secon(\ floor level with a masonry wall above and nothing below the beam. At this location there is in fact no wall above and approximately 3'-4" of masonry wall below the beam over the door openings. Such wall segments are normally supported on pre-cast lintels spanning over the door openings. The drawings presented do not specify lintels and do not set forth how this wall segment is to be constructed.
Construction materials and details and dimensions for the safety railing around the deck over the garage are not set forth in the construction documents.
The structural elements and details for the interior stairs are not set forth in the construction documents.
The second floor framing plan, drawing S-3, does not show the openings for the two stairs indicated on the architectural plans and fails to set forth and detail the necessary framing to accomplish the required openings.
There is a note at 4 locations on the second floor framing plan (drawing S-3), erroneously specifying "Roof Sheathing" and nailing. These locations require sub floor and underlayment, not roof sheathing.
The drafting convention used in the structural drawings wherein section marks are identified by letters on the framing plans but are numbered on the detail sheets is confusing n<:>t industry standard.
The monolithic footing calculations fail to address the eccentricity of the wall load on the footing. The bearing pressure is not uniform under such footings.
The plans for the Everly Project are materially deficient as follows:
General Notes 02 and 08 do not adequately identify the governing code as is required by Rule 61O15-30.003(1)(b).
:a_. In the 'General Notes - Concrete" on Sheet 1, 3000 psi concrete is specified for slab-on-grade. The 'Foundation Plan' on the Same sheet allows 2500 psi concrete for the slab. The drawings have not been coordinated in this respect.
The 2500 psf soil bearing capacity stated in 'Wind Design lnfonnation' note 7 on Sheet l of the drawings exceeds the prescriptive value set forth in Table 1804.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code.
Notes on the 'Roof Plan' on Sheet 1 of the drawings set forth lintels at the windows and doors consisting of 3-2x10's with ½" plywood flitch plates. The typical door and window 'Header Details' provide on sheet 2 of the plans set forth these elements as 3-2x8's with ½" plywood flitch plates. The drawings have not been coordinated in this respect.
The 'Front Elevation' and 'Typical Wall Section' details on Sheet 2 set forth a 10'- O" eve height for the proposed garage. The typical door and window 'Header Details' provide on Sheet 2 of the plans set forth 8'- O" as the eve height. The drawings have not been coordinated in this respect. It is further noted that the calculations submitted use 9.5' as the wall height.
The 'Typical Wall Section' on Sheet 2 sets forth nominal 6" wall framing (studs, sill and cap plates) whereas the 'Header Detail's' set forth nominal 4" wall framing. The drawings have not been coordinated in this respect.
The 'Typical Wall Section" does not specify the nailing requirements for the wall sheathing.
The 'Wall Analysis' calculations appear to set forth some loading for the wall elements of the structure but don't address or show in any way that the affected structural elements can resist the Loading.
As required by the terms of the Final Order, Respondent submitted a list of completed projects to FEMC for the eighteen (18) month review. From that list, a FEMC consultant picked two (2) projects, the Schulman Addition (Schulman Project) and the Gillot Residence (GiHot Project) for review.
The plans for the Schulman Project are materially deficient as follows:
The 2500 psf soil bearing capacity stated in the Wind Design Information, Note 7 on Sheet 1 of the construction documents exceeds the prescriptive value set forth in Table 1804.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code and utilization of the excess capacity is not substantiated as required by Rule 61Gl5-31.008(1) which mandates that "structural engineering documents shall designate the foundation
capacity used as the basis.of design and shall include data indicating the nature of
the foundation and sub-grade material."
The size and quantity of the reinforcing in the monolithic slab footing is not set forth in the construction documents. The footings are not shown on the foundation plan on Sheet 2 of the construction documents. AS a result, Respondent has failed to set forth the nature and extent of the proposed construction in accordance with Rule 61Gl5-30.003(1) and the 2007 FBC, Section 106.1.1 and has failed to to indicate the nature and character of the work and to describe, detail, label and define the structure's components, systems, materials, assemblies, as required by Rule 61G15-31.002(5).
The following note is set forth on Sheet 2 of the construction documents. "Existing 30" x 12" cont poured cone ftg is adequate to resist gravity and wind loads as req. in exposure 'B.'" A review of the calculations submitted by Respondent to justify the above conclusion fail to address or determine the appropriate load combinations for the wall and footing in accordance with Section 1605 of the 2007 FBC. Further, the calculations fail to determine the load effects (stresses) in the wall and footing elements. Tbe calculations fail to determine that the stresses in the masonry wall and it's reinforcing, the concrete footing and it's reinforcing and the foundation bearing pressure do not exceed the appropriate specified allowable stresses for the materials of construction. Respondent has neglected to make the necessary calc ulatio ns (analyses) to determine and certify that the subject masonry wall and the masonry wall footing meet the strength requirements of the Florida Building Code.
The plans for the Gil1ot Project are materially deficient as follows:
The 3•x 3' spread footing indicated in the calculations presented for the porch columns is included in the Concrete Foundation Schedule on Sheet 3 of 6 of the construction documents but is not shown or referenced on the foundation plan. It is noted that the thickness of the footing and minimum reinforcing in both directions ate not specified for the F 36 footing scheduled on drawing 3 of 6 of the construc;tion documents. The foundation drawings fail to show the location of the footings for the porch columns on the foundation plan. The drawings fail to set forth the required design thickness of the same footings. The reinforcing specification for the porch column footings fai)s to provide the m_jnimum reinforcing in both directions required by AC1318-05, Section 10.5.4. The drawings therefore fail to clearly indicate the location, nature and extent of the proposed construction and show in detail that it confonns to the requirements of the 2007 FBC as is reqiuired by Rule 61015-30.003(1) and by the 2007 FBC, Section 106.1.1. and fail to indicate the nature and character of the work and to describe, detail, label and define the structure's components, systems, materials, assemblies, as required by Rule 61015-31.002(5).
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 Gonzalez, Everly, Schulman and Gillot Projects. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing documents that comply with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules.
Respondent acted as Engineer of Record for the Structure for the Gonzalez, Everly, Schulman and Gillot Projects as that term is defined in Rule 61Gl5-31.002(1), F. A. C. As such all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in Rules 61015-30.00J(l)(b), 61G15-31.002(5), 61015-31.008(1) F. A. C., as is mandated by Rule 61015-31.001, F. A. C., setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. The plans and specifications for the Gonzalez, Everly, Schulman and GiUot Projects fail to contain this information and thus fail to comply with the Responsibility Rules.
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 61015-19.001 (4), F. A. C., 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."
Rule 61Gl5-19.001(4) also provides that "(fJailure 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."
The Respondent's drawings, specifications, and calculations for the Gonzalez, Everly, Schulman and Gillot Projects contain deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraphs Five (5) through Ten (10). Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(l)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by issuing engineering documents when such documents were materially deficient in respect to and not in compliance with applicable code requirements or acceptable engineering principles.
Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(I)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61Gl5-19.001(4), F. A. C., by being negligent in the practice of engineering.
