STATE OF FLORIDA FIL ER FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OX- dui fe MY MY 30 Ath 59 F ORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL AVISION ge ENGINEERS, ADMINISTR ATi ye HEARINGS °° Petitioner, v. FEMC Case No. 2007043799 T STILES PEET, P.E., Respondent, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of P :titioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”, and fi es this Administrative Complaint against T. STILES PEET, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “\espondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding concerning this complaint shall be conducted p trsuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the f lowing: 1. Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, is charged with regulating the p.actice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. This complaint is filed by the F orida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of F ofessional Engineers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed professional er gineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 49200. Respondent’s last k: own address is 404 SW Camden Ave., Stuart, FL 34994. 3. Respondent was retained by W. Kost Roof and Truss, Inc., to design the roof truss s} stem for a commercial building located at 6801 Lake Worth Rd. Green Acres, FL (the Project). R-spondent’s practice regularly involves providing roof truss system design services to W. Kost Roof and Truss, Inc. 4. The contractor for the project, Pat Whyte Construction, retained W. Kost Roof aid Truss to provide the roof trusses. The roof trusses and the engineering design documents u:on which they were to be based were intended to become a material part of the structural dvsign system for the Project, which was being designed by the Engineer of Record for the P:oject, Mark Duckett, P. E. 5. Because Respondent was responsible for the design of a component portion of the st uctural design for the Project, he was the “Delegated Engineer” for the design of the roof truss d-sign. A “Delegated Engineer’ is generally described in Rule 61G15-30.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, as a Professional Engineer “...who undertakes a specialty service and p ovides services or creative work (delegated engineering document) regarding a portion of the engineering project” while acting as “...the engineer of record for that portion of the engineering p oject.” 6. A “Delegated Engineer’ provides services which are governed by Rule Chapters 6.G15-30 to 61G15-36, Florida Administrative Code, which collectively are termed the Responsibility Rules. The Responsibility Rules apply to all professional engineers who perform the services outlined therein. Failure on the part of a professional engineer to comply with the F!.PE vs. T. Stiles Peet, P.E., Case No. 2007043799 ay plicable provisions of the Responsibility Rules is negligence in the practice of engineering and subjects the offending engineer to discipline as provided in Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Florida A ministrative Code, “Failure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility R les as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with [Section 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C.] , 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.” 7. The general duties and responsibilities that are placed upon a “Delegated Engineer” are found in Rule 61G15-30.006, Florida Administrative Code, which states: (1) It is the delegated engineer’s responsibility to review the Engineer of Record’s written engineering requirements and authorization for the delegated engineering document to determine the appropriate scope of engineering. (2) The delegated engineering document shall comply with the written engineering requirements received from the engineer of record. They shall include the project identification and the criteria used as a basis for its preparation. If a delegated engineer determines there are details, features or unanticipated project limits which conflict with the written engineering requirements provided by the engineer of record, the delegated engineer shall timely contact the engineer of record for resolution of conflicts. (3) The delegated engineer shall forward the delegated engineering document to the engineer of record for review. All final delegated engineering documents require the impressed seal and signature of the delegated engineer and include: FL PE vs. T. Stiles Peet, P.E., Case No. 2007043799 (a) Drawings introducing engineering input such as defining the configuration and structural capacity of structural components and/or their assembly into structural systems. (b) Calculations. (c) Computer printouts, which are an acceptable substitute for manual calculations, provided they are accompanied by sufficient design assumptions and identified input and output information to permit their proper evaluation. Such information shall bear the impressed seal and signature of the delegated engineer as an indication that said engineer has accepted responsibility for the results. 8. Engineer of Record Duckett communicated his design intent for the Project ir cluding the roof trusses to Respondent in April 2007 and was therefore ready to receive the cc mpleted delegated roof truss design from Respondent within a reasonable period of time. However, despite the fact that Engineer of Record Duckett’s design intent (including comments aid revisions thereto) was adequately communicated to Respondent it took six (6) roof truss d: sign submissions (dated April 5, 2007, May 4, 2007, July 3, 2007, July 4, 2007, July 16, 2007, aid July 24, 2007) before the roof truss design complied with the directions given to Respondent b: Duckett and were finally accepted on August 3, 2007. The six preliminary submissions failed tc adequately address revisions required by the Engineer of Record, which had been made clear tc Respondent in the initial submission provided by Respondent to Duckett. 9. As a result of Respondent’s failure to perform his duties as Delegated Engineer, it tcok four months for the roof truss design approval process to be completed whereas a FE PE vs. T. Stiles Peet, P.E., Case No. 2007043799 reasonable period of time for approval for a structure such as the Project would be no more than one month (30 days). 10. By failing to complete final roof truss design documents which adequately reflected the design intent of the Engineer of Record within a reasonable period of time Respondent failed to comply with the applicable provisions of the Responsibility Rules as d.-scribed above in Paragraphs 6 and 7. 11. During the provision of the roof truss design documents for the Project, R-spondent, on numerous occasions, permitted his engineering seal to be placed upon such dcuments by employees or other members of W. Kost Roof and Truss, Inc. at times when R :spondent was not present and did not observe the placing of the seal upon the documents. 12. Moreover, Respondent did not place his autograph signature upon any of the roof tr iss design documents prepared and sealed for the Project but instead utilized a rubber stamp, wich contained his initials, to substitute for the placing of his signature upon all of the roof truss d-sign documents submitted to the Engineer of Record. 13. Section 471.025(2), Florida Statutes, requires that “[ajll final drawings, s} ecifications, plans, reports, or documents prepared or issued by the licensee and being filed for p iblic record and all final documents provided to the owner or the owner's representative shall b:: signed by the licensee, dated, and sealed with said seal.” Rule 61G15-23.002(1), Fla. Admin. Cade, provides that “[a] professional engineer shall sign his name and affix his seal to all plans, s} ecifications, reports, final bid documents provided to the owner or the owner's representative, o- other documents prepared or issued by said registrant and being filed for public record.” FI PE vs. T. Stiles Peet, P.E., Case No. 2007043799 COUNT I 14. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through ten (10) as if fi lly set forth in this Count I. 15. By not timely providing delegated roof truss engineering documents to the E igineer of Record for the Project which reflected the design requirements mandated by the Eigineer of Record, Respondent failed to comply with the applicable requirements of Rule 6 G15-30.006(2) Florida Administrative Code, as set forth above. 16. 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 II 17. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through ten (10) as if fi lly set forth in this Count II. 18. Respondent did not seal or apply his signature to the roof truss design documents fcr the Project even though such documents were final delegated engineering documents being st bmitted to the Engineer of Record and thus were required to be sealed, signed and dated by Respondent under the provisions of Rules 61G15-23.002(2) and 61G15-30.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. 19. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1) (¢), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering through violating Rale 61G15-30.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, with violating Section 471.033(1) (g), F orida Statutes, by engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering, and with violating Fl PE vs. T. Stiles Peet, P.E., Case No. 2007043799 Soction 471.033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 471.025(1), Florida Statutes, and Rale 61G15-23.002, Florida Administrative Code. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers tc 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 acministrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the a: sessment of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs a‘ sociated with an attorney’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or ayy other relief that the Board deems appropriate. SIGNED this 74 dayof__ 7) , 2008. Department I L of Business an d Protessi ie Fl DEPUTY CLERK” Reguiation See A Director YY: John Rimes Ili Prosecuting Attorney COUNSEL FOR FEMC: Jchn J. Rimes III P osecuting Attorney F orida Engineers Management Corporation FILED 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Florida Engineers Management Corporation T illahassee, Florida 32303 Clerk F orida Bar No. 212008 P&P DATE: January 17, 2008 DATE P “P Members: Rebane, Seckinger Fi PE vs. T. Stiles Peet, P.E., Case No. 2007043799 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to T. STILES PEET, P.E., c/o KENNETH C. SUNDHEIM, ESQ., 310 OCEAN BLVD, STUART FL 34994, by certified mail, orthe LH of Fav —_, 2008. a a4f— FE. °E vs. T. Stiles Peet, P.E., Case No. 2007043799

Docket for Case No: 08-002614PL