Florida Enger Manasennt | 5 “Ab 4 4 p. Li DEC 02 2H ‘ aa STATE OF FLORIDA i FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & "| Bats WDD pa Clerk; 2 “ on Pr ST ay FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, Petitioner, ty he v. FEMC Case No, 2013009988 ALBERTO CARDONA, P.E., Respondent, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation on behalf of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineess, and files this Administrative Complaint against ALBERTO CARDONA, P.E. (“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 (“Petitioner”, “Board”, or “FBPE”), 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). Page 1 of 9 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 17138. Respondents last known addresses are: 6246 SW 191 Avenue, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33332 and 2500 Parkview Drive, Apartment 2414, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009 3. In 2010 Respondent was retained to investigate water intrusion and reported wind damage to the windows and sliding glass doors at the Sunrise Lakes Condominiums Phase IV located in Sunrise, Florida. The first inspections were made in April 2010 and a report was issued without any date, Additional inspections were performed in September 2010 and a report was issued on September 28, 2010. Some re-inspections were performed in November 2010. Beginning in January 2011 inspections of almost all of the other units within Sunrise Lakes Condominiums Phase IV by Respondent’s staff members began. Based upon these inspections, Respondent issued a third amended report (Final Report) dated May 5, 2011. 4, The Final Report was materially deficient as follows: A, The calculations contained within the Final Report are based upon the current provisions of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 for an enclosed building, category II, exposure C and an importance factor 1.0. This is the incorrect reference to be used for these calculations. The Sunrise Lakes Condominiums Phase IV complex was constructed approximately 30 years ago. As a result, to be valid Respondent’s analysis must have been based upon the building code in effect at the time the buildings were permitted and constructed — not the current standards. Using the wind loads obtained from the Standard Building Code in effect at the time of construction would result in materially more accurate assumptions as to the actual strength of rer nen tee nanan FBPE vs, Alberto Cardona, P.E., Case No; 2013009988 Page 2 of 9 Adminictrative Camnlaint construction of the windows at the Sunrise Lakes Condominiums Phase IV complex than those obtained by Respondent. B. Respondent’s calculations contained within the Final Report assume that a %" shim is part of the single shear connection. However, the shim is not present in all locations and thus cannot be considered as 4 universal constant in the calculations in the Final Report. Additionally, the shim is free to move horizontally, cannot resist any load, and thus cannot be part of the shear connection or calculation. c. Respondent’s calculations contained within the Final Report assumed that the window frame is '%” in thickness. Since the thickness of the window frame makes a substantial difference in the final calculation results the use of an assumption is improper. The actual window frame thickness is easy to measure and should have been measured and used in the calculations, D. — Respondent’s calculations contained within the Final Report assumed that the screws are all 1” in length. However, the available evidence indicates the screw lengths varied from 1" to 14" in length. Therefore the calculations presented only apply for one particular case and not all of the windows at the complex although the Final Report does not limit its scope. E, Respondent’s calculations contained within the Final Report ignored the allowable stress increase permitted by the load duration factor Cp. The National Design Standard for Wood Construction allows the greater load capacity for short term loads such as the wind loads upon which the calculations were based. Neglecting this allowable factor renders the calculations incorrect. nen FBPE vs. Alberto Cardona, P.E., Case No: 2013009988 Page 3 of 9 Adminictrative Camolaint F. Respondent opined in the Conclusion section of the Final Report that all of the sliding glass doors and windows in the Sunrise Lakes Condominiums Phase IV complex needed to be removed and replaced. This conclusion was based solely upon Respondent’s observations and interpretations of the Florida Building Code. Other than the foregoing, Respondent’s conclusion did not reference any generally accepted engineering standards upon which the conclusion was based. Moreover, Respondent’s opinion was based upon the errors and omissions set out in paragraphs A though E, above, and thus is not properly supported by adherence to applicable engineering standards, G. Respondent opined in the Report that every sliding glass door and window in the entire Sunrise Lakes Condominiums Phase IV complex needed to be removed and replaced. Since the methodology and calculations upon which this conclusion in the Report was based contained errors and were not based upon generally accepted engineering standards, the opinion and conclusion were not properly supported by valid engineering analysis. 5. 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), Florida Administrative Code, 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.” 6. On May 14, 2013 Respondent signed, sealed, and dated an engineering report entitled “Destructive Testing at Sunrise Lakes” (“Testing Report”). By issuing the Testing Report, Respondent was Engineer of Record for the Testing Report as that term is defined in eerste annie FBPE vs. Alberto Cardona, P.E,, Case No. 2013009988 Page 4 of 9 Administrative Comnlaint Rule 61G15-30.002(1), Fla. Admin, Code: the Engineer of Record is “{a] Florida professional engineer who is in responsible charge for the preparation, signing, dating, sealing and issuing of any engineering document(s) for any engineering service or creative work.” 7. On January 20, 2014 in a civil proceeding, Sunrise Lakes Condominiym Association Phase IV, Inc,. v American Strategic Insurance Corp., Case No. 095539221, 17" Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Respondent’s deposition was taken. In the Deposition (Pages 140-175) Respondent was asked about Respondent’s engineering basis for the conclusions contained in the Testing Report and the calculations upon which the conclusions were based. Respondent stated (Deposition Page 141-142) that “...1 cannot tell you whether [the calculations upon which the conclusions in the Testing Report were based] are correct or incorrect because I don’t know how to do all of these calculations.” Moreover, Respondent could not interpret the results indicated in the Testing Report and stated (Deposition Page 165): “No. Like you know, my experience in structural engineering is not my first field, okay. So I don’t have the ability to do that.” Respondent’s background is in electrical engineering (Deposition Page 142-143). 8. During Respondent’s January 20, 2014 deposition Respondent stated (Deposition Pages 140-175) that Respondent was present at all times during the removal of three windows at Sunrise Lakes and that Respondent photo-documented these activities in the Testing Report. 9. On February 26, 2014 a re-inspection of the three windows referenced in Paragraph 8 was done. All parties present during the February 26, 2014 inspection concurred that only one window had been removed. At that time Respondent, contrary to the testimony in the January 20, 2014 deposition, admitted that, in fact, Respondent had not witnessed the removal of the second and third windows and that the removal work was never done. FBPE vs, Alberto Cardona, P.E., Case No: 2013009988 Page 5 of 9 Administrative Camnlaint 10. — Section 471.033(1)(j) , Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for “...[a]ffixing or permitting to be affixed his or her seal, name, or digital signature to any final drawings, specifications, plans, reports, or documents that were not prepared ... under his or her responsible supervision, direction, or control.” In order to meet this standard an engineer must be in responsible charge of all engineering documents issued and sealed by the engineer. Rule 61G15-18.011(1), Fla. Admin. Code, provides that (1) “Responsible Charge” shall mean that degree of control an engineer is required to maintain over engineering decisions made personally or by others over which the engineer exercises supervisory direction and control authority. The engineer in responsible charge is the Engineer of Record as defined in subsection 61G15-30.002(1), Fla. Admin. Code” (a) The degree of control necessary for the Engineer of Record shall be such that the engineer: 1, Personally makes engineering decisions or reviews and approves proposed decisions prior to their implementation, including the consideration of alternatives, whenever engineering decisions which could affect the health, safety and welfare of the public are made. In making said engineering decisions, the engineer shall be physically present or, if not physically present, be available in a reasonable period of time, through the use of electronic communication devices, such as electronic mail, videoconferencing, teleconferencing, computer networking, or via facsimile transmission. 2. Judges the validity and applicability of recommendations prior to their incorporation into the work, including the qualifications of those making the recommendations. 11. — Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering. Rule 61G15-19.001(6) (b) and (d), Fla. Admin, Code, provide that: (6) A professional engineer shall not commit misconduct in the practice of engineering. Misconduct in the practice of engineering as set forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., shall include, but not be limited to: eee (b) Being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report, statement, or testimony whether or not under oath or omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report, statement or testimony when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, employer or the general public; wee ne Enna FBPE vs. Alberto Cardona, P.E., Case No: 2013009988 Page 6 of 9 Administrative Camnlaint (d) Affixing a signature or seal to any engineering pian of document in a subject matter over which a professional engineer lacks competence because of inadequate training or experience.” COUNTI 12. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Five (5) as if fully set forth in this Count One. 13. The Final Report contains deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraphs One (1) through Five (5). As set forth therein, the Final Report was materially deficient due to Respondent’s use of the wrong building code, due to the errors contained within Respondent’s calculations and due to Respondent’s failing to follow accepted engineering standards. As a result of those deficiencies, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Fla. Admin. Code, by sealing and signing engineering documents that were issued when such documents were materially deficient in that Respondent: (1) did not exercise due care in the preparation of the final engineering documents for the Final Report, and (2) the Final Report was not issued in compliance with acceptable engineering principles. COUNT It 14. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Eleven (11) as if fully set forth in this Count Two, 15. For the reasons set forth in Paragraphs One (1) through Eleven (11), the Testing Report was not prepared under Respondent’s responsible supervision, direction, or control in violation of Section 471.033(1)(j), Florida Statutes. nannies antenienenaeneatae FBPE ys, Alberto Cardona, P.E.,Case No: 2013009988 Page 7 of 9 Adminictrative Comnlaint COUNT It 16. _ Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Eleven (11) as if fully set forth in this Count Three. 17. For the reasons set forth in Paragraphs through Eleven (11), Respondent violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(d), Fla. Admin. Code, by committing misconduct in the practice of engineering by issuing, sealing and signing the Testing Report when Respondent lacked competence to issue the Testing Report due to inadequate training or experience. COUNT IV 18. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Eleven (11) as if fully set forth in this Count Four. 19. For the reasons set forth in Paragraphs (1) through Nine (9) and Eleven (11) Respondent violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(b), Fla. Admin, Code, by committing misconduct in the practice of engineering by being untruthful in testimony given in Respondent’s deposition taken January 20, 2014 in a civil proceeding, Sunrise Lakes Condominium Association Phase IV, Inc.. v American Strategic Insurance Corp., Case No. 095539221, 17" Judicial Circuit, Broward County, in which Respondent stated falsely that Respondent was present when three windows at the Sunrise Lakes Condominiums had been removed for testing when, in fact, only one window had been removed. Since the inspection and testing of a representative sample of the installed windows was material to Respondent’s conclusions in the Testing Report, Respondent’s fallacious testimony materially and erroneously justified the conclusions in the Testing Report. FBPE ys. Alberto Cardona, P.E., Case No: 2013009988 Page 8 of 9 Adminictrativa Camnlaint 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. SIGNED this_{ 2& day of Decent ver, 2014. Zana Raybon Exectitive Director é 3Y/ John J. Rimes, III secuting Attorney COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes, III, Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 PCP: November 18, 2014 PCP Members; RODDENBERRY, MATTHEWS & PEPPER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a filed copy of the Administrative Complaint was furnished to Alberto G, Cardona, at 2500 Parkview Drive, Apartment 2414, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009 and at 6546 SW 191 Avenue, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33332 by U.S. certified mail, on the “of a ci, 2014, , 4h of a eeu. FBPE vs. Alberto Cardona, P.E., Case No: 2013009988 Page 9 of 9 Administrative Camnlaint

Docket for Case No: 15-002544PL