Deputy Agency Clerk ST ATE OF FLORID. A CLERK Evette Lawson-Proctor FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS |", 1/18/2012 FILED Florida Engineers Management FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL Corporation ENGINEERS, JAN 18 2011 ! Petitioner, Clerk: Sandee Malge v. FEMC Case No. 2010050477 JAMES LEE SMITH, 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 JAMES LEE SMITH, 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 ail times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 36177. Respondent’s last known address is Post Office Box 1751, Mt. Dora, Florida 32756. 3. On May 3, 2007 a Final Order was entered by the Board in FEMC Case #2004044194 imposing discipline upon Respondent. The Order was not appealed. 4, 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 list of acceptable commercial structural design projects, exclusive of interior build outs, completed by the Respondent at six (6) and eighteen (18) month intervals from the date that the Final Order adopting this Stipulation is filed with the Agency Clerk. The structural systems utilized in acceptable commercial structural design projects shall encompass reinforced concrete, reinforced masonry, structural steel, light gauge metal or wood or any combination of the foregoing. If Respondent has completed fewer than two (2) acceptable commercial structural design projects during cither of the periods for which submissions are required, Respondent shall include in the list any residential structural design projects that utilize any of the listed structural systems in order to meet the submission requirements. 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 (signed, sealed and dated) and calculations requested by the Consultant. Respondent is also responsible for the Consultant’s fees for reviewing the projects, and shall 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. 5. 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 Velez Residence (Velez Project) and the Captiva Spec (Captiva Project) for review. 6. The plans for the Velez Project are materially deficient as follows: FBPE vs, James L. Smith, P.E., Case No. 2010050477 2 A. The construction documents fail to indicate the design compressive strength, the grade and location of the reinforcing, the elevation and the anchorage for the concrete roof slab of the safe room. The documents fail to include necessary construction requirements regarding the construction of the roof slab of the safe room as required by Sections 106.1.1 and 1901.4 of the 2004 Florida Building Code (FBC) and Rules 61G15-30.003(1) and 61G15-31.002(5). The documents do not set forth the design compressive strength and the grade of reinforcing for the concrete masonry elements of the project. The grade of steel for the sill anchor bolts is not specified in the plans. Conflicting masonry wall grout strengths are provided in the “Block Wall Notes” on Drawing 2 of 9 and the “Block Wall Reinforcement” detail provided on Drawing 8 of 9. General structural notes setting forth the design codes and minimum material strength and properties are missing for the project plans. B. The construction documents fail to correctly define and detail the columns at the lanai as is required by Sections 106.1.1 and 1603.1 of the 2004 FBC and Rules 61G15-30.003(1) and 61G15-31,002(5). c. The construction documents fail to include construction requirements regarding the isolation of the untreated wood trusses from the masonry bond beam elements in the project construction documents as is required by Section 106.1.1 of the 2004 FBC and Rules 61G15- 30,003(1) and 61G15-31,002(5). D. The construction documents fail to provide the construction requirements for the conventionally framed roof areas for the project as is required by Sections 106.1.1 and 1603.1 of the 2004 FBC of the 2004 FBC and Rules 61G15-30.003(1) and 61G15-31.002(5). E. The calculations for the shearwalls fail to distribute the total lateral force (shear) on the structure to the various vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system (shearwalls) FRPE vs. James L. Smith, P.E., Case No. 2010050477 3 in proportion to their rigidities, considering the rigidity of the horizontal bracing system or diaphragm as is required by Section 1604.4 of the 2004 FBC. The calculations fail to analyze and design the specific shear wall elements for the lateral loading so distributed. Respondent, therefore, has failed to determine that the specific shearwall elements of the structure have adequate shear and flexural capacity to resist the code prescribed loading distributed to each element. Moreover, the calculations erroncously consider shearwalls that are 10 feet in height when the exterior masonry walls for the structure are typically {2 feet from the top of the foundation to the top of the walis. 7. The plans for the Captiva Project are materially deficient as follows: A. The construction documents fail to include construction requirements regarding the isolation of the untreated wood trusses from the masonry bond beam elements in the project construction documents as is required by Section 106.1.1 of the 2004 FBC and Rules 61G15- 30,003(1) and 61G15-31.002(5). The calculations provided for the shearwall design for the Captiva Project on Sheets 3 of 5 and 4 of 5 of Document 7 are flawed in that they fail to distribute the total lateral force (shear) on the structure to the various vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system (shearwalls) in proportion to their rigidities, considering the rigidity of the horizontal bracing system or diaphragm as is required by Section 1604.4 of the 2004 FBC and fail to analyze and design the specific shear wall elements for the Jateral loading so distributed. Respondent, therefore, has failed to determine that the specific shearwall elements of the structure have adequate shear and flexural capacity to resist the code prescribed loading distributed to each element. 8. 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 Velez and Captiva FBPE vs. James L. Smith, P-E,, Case No. 2010050477 4 Projects. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing documents that comply with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. 9. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record for the Structure for the Velez and Captiva Projects 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 Rules 61G15-30.003(1)(b) and 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 Velez and Captiva Projects fail to contain this information and thus fail to comply with the Responsibility Rules. : 10. 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 performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” 11. Rule 61G15-19.001(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.” 12. The Respondent’s drawings, specifications, and calculations for the Velez and Captiva Projects contain deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraphs Six (6) and Seven (7). Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by issuing engineering documents when such FBPE vs. James L. Smith, P.E., Case No. 2010050477 5 documents were materially deficient in respect to and not in compliance with applicable code requirements or acceptable engineering principles. 13. 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 approp' \ SIGNED this [3th day of Jénwe , 2012. i / / Zana Raybon Executive Director ; 4 J. Rimes, I F ing Attorney FBPE vs. James I.. Smith, P.E., Case No. 2010050477 6 COUNSEL FOR FEMC; John J, Rimes, Ht Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm PCP DATE: May 17, 2011 & January 10, 2012 PCP Members: Charland, Rebane & Hahn CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Jam Smith, P.E., Post Office Box 1751, Mt. Dora, Florida 32756 by certified mail, on/the vii j 2012. RPE vs, James L., Smith, PLE. Cuse Mo. 2010050477 7

Docket for Case No: 12-001189PL