STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FLORIDA ENGINEERS nee Tle q f L MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, Vv. FEMC Case No’s: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, & 200506211 FRED C. JONES, P.E., Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Professional Engineers against Fred C. Jones, 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 is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). The Board of Professional Engineers is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is and has been at all time material hereto a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 54476. Respondent’s last known address is 29" Ave. West, Bradenton, Florida 34208. CASE NO. 2005045832 3. On or about January 4, 2005, Respondent signed and sealed a seven page set of plans for a Frank Vogel Building project (“Vogel project”) at 64 Center East, Building “C”, Sarasota, Florida. These plans were submitted to the City of Bradenton Planning and Development Department on January 10, 2005 for a permit. Page six of the plans includes, but is not limited to, drainage, grading notes, clearing, and grubbing notes for the Vogel project. Page seven of the plans is labeled “Landscape Plans” and includes, but is not limited to, irrigation notes, groundcover and shrub planting detail, tree removal replacement for the Vogel project. These plans were prepared by a landscape architect to which the Respondent lacked the proper competence in the subject matter to be able to attest to same. 4. On or about April 23, 2004, the civil engineering firm of Zoller, Najjar & Shroyer, LLC (ZNS) submitted plans for their for the 64 Center project to the Bradenton Planning and Development Department . The plan labeled “C-1” included, but was not limited to draining, grading, and utilities designs. Beverly Zoller Burdette, L.A. submitted a plan for the 64 Center project labeled “L-1” which includes, but is not limited to, landscaping plans for the 64 Center project. 5. Respondent’s page 6 and page 7 for the Vogel project when compared with the ZNS “C-1” plan and the Burdette “Z-1” plans appears to be nearly identical duplicates. Some items have been removed from the plans and the title block has been changed. 6. At no time did the Respondent notify either ZNS nor Burdette, in writing by certified letter or otherwise of his plan to reuse these plans under his sign and seal as a successor professional engineer as required by 61G15-27.001, Florida Administrative Code. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 2 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. COUNT ONE 7. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 and 2, as if fully set forth in this Count One. 8. Respondent failed to comply with the procedures for a successor engineer laid out in 61G15-27.001, Florida Administrative Code, when he signed and sealed the plans of ZNS and Burdette respectively. 9. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 471 .033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating a rule of the board. COUNT TWO 10. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Two. 11. Section 471.033(1)(), Florida Statutes, provides that a Professional Engineer affixing his name to any final drawings, plans or documents that were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervision, direction or control is grounds for discipline by the Board. 12. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 471 -033(1)G), Florida Statutes and Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(j), Florida Administrative Code and by signing and sealing a drawing that was not prepared by him or under his responsible supervision. COUNT THREE 13. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Three. 14. Section 471.025(3), Florida Statutes, provides that a licensed professional engineer shall affix his name or seal to a plan or drawing that depicts work which he is not licensed to perform or which is beyond his profession or specialty therein. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 3 . Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. 15. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.025(3) Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code, by engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering. CASE NO. 2006067086 16. On or about November 14, 2006, Respondent signed and sealed and submitted plans for an addition to the Filson residence located at 305 North Bay Boulevard, Anna Maria, Florida to the Anna Maria Building Department. The project was assigned permit no. 05-00367. On or about December 1, 2006, a building department official, Kevin Donohue, sent notice to the Steve Kring Construction Company and the Respondent a list of items that were to be addressed by the aforementioned individuals before the review would be considered satisfactory to the building department. The deficiencies contained, but were not limited to, items not in compliance with the Florida Building Code (2004). 17. On or about March 20, 2006, a stop work order was issued against the project by the Anna Marie Building Department for among other reasons, the fact an inspection revealed certain work performed on the Filson residence that was performed and yet not accounted for in the plans submitted to the Building Department. 18. Respondent failed to utilize due care or have due regard for engineering standards in the preparation of the Filson addition design in one or more of the following ways: a. In Sheet A-1.1 Floor Plan fails to delineate what is preexisting and what is to be new construction. b. In Sheet A-1.1, there is an absence of a missing landing or platform, which should be at the rear entrance of the building. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 4 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. c. In Sheet A-2.1 Exterior Elevations the plans fail to delineate what is existing and what is to be new construction. d. In Sheet A-2.2 it is unclear where the H-10 connector specified is to be located and how that uplift load is to be transmitted by way of connectors to the foundation. A continuous load path for the uplift force is clearly missing. The plan fails to provide calculations that clearly show that these uplift forces are being properly resisted. e. In Sheet A-2.2 the first floor framing plan and adjacent roof framing plan are completely devoid of dimensions. f. In Sheet A-2.2, the ground floor framing and foundation plan is also completely without dimensions. g. In Sheet A-2.3 the plans fail to delineate what exists and what is to be new construction. h. In Sheet A-2.4 there are no dimensions listed whatsoever, with the exception of labels on the footings depicting the size of the footings. i. In Sheet A-2.4, the plans fail to delineate size or type of fastener to be used. The plans also fail to identify the size and type of coil to be used on the project. j. In Sheet A-2.4 the plans fail to specify the type and the size of the post bottom, the strapping, and fails to define who is to approve these items. k. In Sheet A-2.4 the floor framing is called out as “2 x 6 at 24 inches on the center” whereas on Sheet A-2.2 the floor framing near the center of the structure appeared to show a single 2 X 6 spanning approximately 30 feet without interior intermediate supports. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 5 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. g. In Sheet A-2.4 it is unclear at numerous locations as to the direction of the load path of the various loads imposed on the structure, including live, dead, and super- imposed loads. h. The aforementioned plans fail to contain neither a Certificate of Authorization number nor an Engineering Business License number. COUNT FOUR 19. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Four. 20. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 471 .033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001 (4), Florida Administrative Code, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. CASE NO. 2005031032 21. On or about April 2, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed plans for the River Place Condominium Walkway Restoration, 515 River Place Condominium, Ellenton, Florida. 22. On or about March 13, 2001, the engineering firm of Zoller, Najjar & Shroyer, L.C., “ZNS” signed and sealed plans for the River Place Condominium Walkway Restoration project, 515 River Place Condominium, Ellenton, Florida, that were filed with the permit application for the River Place Condominium Walkway Restoration project. 23. Respondent’s plans for the River Place project and ZNS’s plans for the River Place project contain some pages that when compared with each other appear to be a identical or nearly identical duplicates. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 6 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. 24, At no time did the Respondent notify ZNS in writing by certified letter or otherwise of his plan to reuse these plans under his sign and seal as a successor professional engineer as required by 61G15-27.001, Florida Administrative Code. COUNT FIVE 25. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Five. 26. — Section 471.033(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides that a Professional Engineer affixing his name to any final drawings, plans or documents that were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervision, direction or control is grounds for discipline by the Board. 27. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 471 -033(1)(j), Florida Statutes and Rule 61G15-1 9.001(6)(j), Florida Administrative Code and by signing and sealing a drawing that was not prepared by him or under his responsible supervision. COUNT SIX 28. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs | and 2, as if fully set forth in this Count Six. 29. Respondent failed to comply with the procedures for a successor engineer laid out in 61G15-27.001, Florida Administrative Code, when he signed and sealed the plans of ZNS and Burdette respectively. 30. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 471 .033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating a rule of the board. CASE NO. 2005030423 31. On or about April 7, 2005, Respondent signed and sealed plans for the Century 21 Advantage project located at 6021 Midnight Pass Road, Florida. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 7 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. 32. Respondent failed to utilize due care or have due regard for engineering standards in the preparation of the Century 21 Advantage project design in one or more of the following ways: a. In Sheet 2 of 7 the elevations are depicted, however eave bearing heights and roof heights are missing. No dimensions are found on this sheet. b. In Sheet 5 of 7 titled “The Roof Framing”, there are dimensions listed and none of the framing members are called out as to size or spacing. In addition, no connectors or fasteners are depicted. c. Sheet 6 of 7 titled “Misc. Details” is missing several important items including, but not limited to, the specification for the type of joist hanger, method of attachment of concrete pier to the framing, and five quarter-inch decking to the framing, as well as any hold downs or footing details. In addition, the piers shown in the floor-framing plan for an addition are not dimensioned and are only depicted in schematic form. This plan is violation of Rule 61G15-31.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, for not designating the foundation capacity and for not including the data indicating the nature of the foundation material anticipated. Also, the drawing does not comply with Florida Building Code (2004) Section 1719.5 in that the required lateral restraint required is not provided on the plans. d. In Sheet 7 of 7 that appears to include the foundation plan, however there are no call-outs as to size of the footings or labels to outline any of the three different areas of the foundation plan. What is displayed on the plans appears to be a stem wall footing and is in direct conflict with the “wall section” which depicts a monolithic footing. This sheet FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, PE 8 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. is also in violation of Rule 61G15-31.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, for not designating the foundation capacity and for not including the data indicating the nature of the foundation material anticipated. COUNT SEVEN 33. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Seven. 34. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 471 .033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, Florida Building Code (2004) Section 1719.5, and Rule 61G15-31.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering and failing to comply with the responsibility rules concerning the design of a structure. CASE NO. 2006008843 35. On or about May 20, 2005, Respondent contracted with John Blair for engineering services related to the storm damage repairs to Blair’s mobile home located in Port Charlotte Florida. 36. Onor about July 19, 2005, Respondent signed and sealed plans for the repairs that Blair himself, not a licensed engineer, had drawn. 37. After work had begun on the project without a necessary permit and a stop work order was issued by the Charlotte County Building Department, on or about June 28, 2005, a permit application for the project was filed with the Charlotte County Building Department. The plans as sealed by the Respondent were rejected by Charlotte County on or about August 2, 2005 as being inadequate for the scope of the work to be performed. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 9 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. 38. Respondent failed to utilize due care or have due regard for engineering standards in the preparation of the Blair remodeling project design in one or more of the following ways: a. The foundation drawings on the plans lack the adequate data to satisfy the requirements of the design of foundations required under Rule 61G15-31 .008(1) F.A.C. . b. There is no information with respect to the capacity of the bearing soil, either by soil analysis or assumed for design purposes. c. There are no walls shown on the drawings. If walls are not to be included, there are no other means of support for the roof pursuant to the information provided by the drawings, d. Some of the information that the plans do not include, but are not limited to; (1) Sheet 3 of the plans shows straps, but neglects to indicate what type of straps. (2) There are no lateral attachments methods shown which would attach what is labeled 2-2x8 to what is labeled 4x4. (3) There are no rail attachments shown (4) The depth of the footings below grade is not shown. (5) 2x10 HEADER shown over 10 x 8 DOOR does not indicate how it is to be built, installed or supported. (6) Sheet 4 calls for a 2x8 to be bolted to the frame but neglects to say what type of nuts, bolts or washers, nor where to install them. (7) No Joist attachment called out. 39. The plans as submitted to the Charlotte County Building Department failed to meet the basic requirements of information required for a structural project pursuant to Rule 61G15-31.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, and for the design of foundations pursuant to Rule 61G15-31.008(1), Florida Administrative Code. FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 10 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 200503 1032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. COUNT EIGHT 40. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Eight. 41. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, Rule 61G15-31.002(5), Florida Administrative Code and Rule 61G15-31.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering and failing to comply with the responsibility rules concerning the design of a structure. CASE NO. 200506211 42. On or about July 27, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed a set of plans (two sheets) for an addition to a residence owned by Jose Valle (“Valle project”) at 8302 36" Ave. E. Palmetto, Florida. These plans were submitted to the Manatee County Building Department (“Manatee County’), on July 27, 2004, along with an application for a permit for the project. Manatee County subsequently rejected the plans and asked the Respondent for numerous revisions to said plans 43. On or about October 21, 2005, Respondent submitted a revised signed and sealed set of plans for the Valle project to Manatee County. These plans incorporated some of the revisions as requested by Manatee County but ignored others. Manatee County rejected this revised set and eventually the permit for the project was voided. 44. Respondent failed to utilize due care or have due regard for engineering standards in the preparation of the Valle project design in one or more of the following ways: (1) On Sheet 2 of 2 labeled “Typical Wall Section”, the roofing material is called out as “shingles roofing on insulation board on 30# felt.” The minimum slope for a shingle roof is 2%: 12, whereas, the slope on this particular roof is %:12. The as built slope is FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E fl Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. entirely inadequate for a shingle roof and the roofing material must be revised to reflect one that will be adequate for the slope. (2) Also on Sheet 2 of 2 in the “Typical Wall Section”, the post base is called out as an “ABA 44 anchor.” From the calculations shown above, this connector is clearly inadequate and is a deficiency in the plans. This connector will have to be replaced with one that will adequately resist the applied loads. (3) In the “Typical Wall Section”, the “2 x 6 wood beam nailed to post” is identified at the top of the 4 x 4 post. This call out is insufficient and inadequate in that it does not specify the type, number, quantity, nor the size of the nail which is to be used to adequately resist the loads imposed on this member. COUNT NINE 45. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and (2) as if fully set forth in this Count Nine. 46. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, Rule 61G15-31.001, Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 61G15-31.022(5), Florida Administrative Code by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering and for failing to follow the responsibility rules for the design of a structural system. 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 FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E 12 Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 200503 1032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 2005062011. any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. SIGNED this 4 day of AS re , 2007. or | — : i BY: Patrik Creehan Prosecuting Attorney COUNSEL FOR FEMC: Patrick Creehan Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 PC/jt PCP: May 17, 2007 PCP Members: Matthews & Seckinger F | L E us ulation Business and P fea FEMC v. Fred C. Jones, P.E Cases: 2005045832, 2006067086, 2005031032, 2005030423, 2006008843, 200506201 1. Departmen SE PUTY CLERK Parardent Mihale ee 9-23-2007 FILED Florida Engineers Management Corporation Clerk CLERK DATE

Docket for Case No: 08-003967PL