Feb 26 2009 «9:17 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:52; Page 3/12 ! . \ { STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FILED id Florida Engineare Ma c nagement Comoration FEMC: Case No. 2008012615 vy. LUIS A. LOPEZ, 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 LUIS A. LOPEZ, PE., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued ‘pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding concertimg ‘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 Engineets, 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). Feb 26 2009 «9:17 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:52; Page 4/12 { ns 2. Respondent is, and-has been at ali-times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbet PE 59805. Respondent’ s last known address is 405 Mission Hill Road; Boynton Beach, FL 33435. 3. Ata date prior to June 7, 2006, a remodeling project at an enclosed garage located at the Ramirez Residence located at 83 Barbados Drive in Lake Worth, Florida was completed (Remodeling Project). Unfortunately, the Remodeling. Project was constructed without a permit being issued or inspections being performed by the Village of Palm Springs Building Department. 4. Upon being informed about the need for permitting and inspection, the owner of the residence at 83 Barbados Drive contracted with Respondent to conduct engineering inspections of the Remodeling Project, to create an as-built set of plans, to perform any additional design needed to assure that the Remodéling Project complied with the 2004 Florida Building Code (FBC), and to inspect the constriction to confirm to the Village of Palm Springs Building Department that the construction of the Remodeling Project complied with the 2004 FBC, 5. In fulfilling the foregoing duties on June 9, 2006, Respondent, sealed, signed and dated a one-page “as-built” engineering design document of the Remodeling Project. This document also set out Respondent’s “Scope: of Work” which, included a statement on the document that “all the “as-built” areas and components shall be updated per [FBC] 2004 and drawings.” Additional notes and directions wete included on the drawing reflecting the need for confirmation of engineering and construction details: and for remediation, if needed for the structure to conform to the 2004 FBC. FBPE vy. Luis Lopez, P.E., Case No, 2008012615 Feb 26 2009 «9:17 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:52; Page 5/12 i 6. While Respondent’s June 7, 2006 drawing purports to contain sufficient information to assure that the Remodeling Project. ultimately complied with the 2004 Florida Building Code, the drawing contains material deficiencies. 7. Pursuant to 2004 FBC Section 106.3.5 (Minimum Plan Review Criteria for Buildings: Residential). ..“Structural requiremerits shall inelude: Wall sections from foundation thru roof, including assembly and-materials, connector tables, wind Fequirements and structural calculations (if required).” This FBC requirenient is reiterated in the Rules of the Board in Rule 61G15-31,002(5), Florida Administrative. Code, (Definitions; Structural Engineering Documents). “Structural engineering documents shall...specify design criteria... for structural components and structural systems...and. define the structure’s components, systems, materials, assemblies and equipment. 8. The June 7, 2006 drawing reflects the following Jack of compliance with the requirements of these FBC and Board Rule sections: A, While wood studs were shown as the material for the exterior walls, neither the wood species nor the grade of lumber was specified. B. Where anchor bolts (expansion bolts) were specified as the connector to fasten the sill plate to the “foundation”, minimum edge distances were not specified. 9. Additionally, pursuant to 2004 FBC Section R301.1 (Design)...“Buildings and structures, and all parts thereof, shall be constructed to safely support all loads.,.as prescribed by this code, The construction of buildings and. structures shall-result in a system that provides a complete load path capable of transferring all loads irom their point of origin through, the load- resisting elements to the foundation”, and pursuant to 2004 FBC Section R601.2 FBPE v. Luis Lopez, P.E., Case No. 2008012615 Feb 26 2009 9:18 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:53; Page 6/12 ( (Requirements)...“Wall construction shall be capable of accorhmodating all loads imposed according to R301 and of transmitting the resulting loads to the supporting structural elements”. 10. Respondent's June 7, 2006 drawing does not comply with the 2004 FBC provisions noted in Paragraph 9 in the following instances: | A. No connection of the double top plates:to-existing wood beam is specified (load- path not provided). B. In some cases, connectors are specified although those connectors could not be properly applied in the manner in which they are designed to be applied (load-path not properly designed), Cc. Studs not fastened to top and bottom plates with connector capable of providing horizontal load capacity (load-path not provided), dD. Expansion bolts connecting sill plates to “foundation” do not achieve minimum specified edge distance (clearance to edge of concrete member); therefore, no capacity can be assigned (load-path not properly designed, nor provided). E. Wall detail depicts new wood studs to frame vertically (infill), Where infill occurs at existing garage door opening, the drawing has revised the load path of the existing structure’s load path while not compensating for new load path (oad path not provided). F, Header detail depicted on plan has no lateral capacity (load path not properly designed). ll. Rule 61G15-33.003(2), F. A, C.--states: - Electrical engineering documents applicable to power systems shall at a minimum indicate the following: (a) System riser diagram: d) Panel board locations; (f) Short: circuit analysis; (g) Load computations; (i) Grounding and bonding: Rule 61G15-34.003(2), F. "A. C., states: Mechanical Engineering documents applicable FRPE v. Luis Lopez, P.E., Cas¢é No. 2008012615 Feb 26 2009 9:18 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:53; Page 7/12 to HVAC systems shall, where applicable, include but are not’ limited to the following: (a) Equipment selection schedule for each piece of mechanical equipment, (c) Outside (fresh) air make-up conditions, Rule 61G15-34,007(2) states: Plumbing System documents shall, when applicable, include but are not limited to the following: (a) Equipment schedules for all plumbing fixtures; {c) Isometric diagrams with pipe sizes and total water fixture units; (f}) Cold water, hot water piping layouts. 12. Respondent’s June 7, 2006 drawitig includes mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering design and thus must comply with the Rule requiremetits set forth in Paragraph 11. However, the electrical system did not include the elements required by the cited portions of Rule 61G15-33.003(2), F. A. C., the mechanical system did not include the elements required by the cited portions of Rule 61G15-34.003(2), F. A, C.,-and the plumbing system did not include the elements required by the cited portions of Rule 61 G15-34,007). 13. — After creating the drawing discussed in Paragraphs 5-12 above, Respondent purportedly performed inspections of the Remodeling Project to assure that the actual construction included any upgrades needed to conform to the 2004 FBC. On January 30, 2008 and again on February 12, 2008, Respondent issued signed and sealed as-built inspection reports stating that after conducting “inside and outside” and “rough and final” inspections the Remodeling Project complied with the 2004 Florida Building Code as to Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical, Miscellaneous (shutters).. In fact, upon-a final inspection performed by the Village of Palm Springs building department, the inspection reports issued by Respondent were materially erroneous and or incomplete as follows: A. The windows that were installed were a different brand of windows than were allowed under locally accepted “Product Approvals” and, importantly, were non-impact. Product EBPE v. Luis-Lopez, P.E,, Case No, 2008012615 Feb 26 2009 9:18 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:53; Page 8/12 Approvals submitted with the Building Permit application specified Impact-Resistant window systems. B. Windows as installed were missing screws, Product Approvals for any window or door system are null and void if any of the requirements. specified are missing or incorrectly implemented. Obviously, missing screws in a window installation would render the system “void”. C, The wrong screws were used to install windows. Drywall screws were used. Clearly, the use of incorrect screws in a window installation would render the window system “void,” D. Shutters were not installed. Even if the Notice of Acceptance (Product Approval) for the window system was such that it were for a non-impact rated system and, as a result, shutters were required, an adequate inspection would have required that the shutters were actually erected for inspection before certifying. acceptability. E. The door label was missing and thus jt was not possible to verify the correct door. In addition to utilizing-an impact-rated door, it is required by the inspector to verify that the proper door system was properly installed. F, The Remodeling Project plans (those. sealed by Respondent on June 9, 2006) specified wood siding. Instead, stucco was installed on ‘the exterior. Since the plans specify wood siding, without removing the stucco, there is no way for one to verify the required wood siding and/or siding connections. G. Step at door threshold did not meet 2004 FBC requirements (FBC 1008.1.6). Pursuant to 2004 FBC: 1008.1.6, thresholds at doors ar¢ limited’to 0.5” in height. The steps were FBPE y. Luis Lopez, P.E., Case No. 2008012615 Feb 26 2009 9:18 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:54; Page 9/12 a at least 3.5” in height and were well in excess of that allowéd by code, since the door was a required egress door. H. All wood framing members that vest on concrete or masonry exterior foundation wails and are less than 8” from exposed.ground shall be pressure treated (2004 FBC R319.1.2). Wood sheathing and wali framing on the exterior of a building having a clearance of less than 6” from ground shall be pressure treated. The distance from ‘the top: of the concrete “foundation” and the adjacent, exposed ground was approximately 3.5”...well below the required 8”, Therefore, according to the requirements of the 2004 FRC, the wall studs were required to be pressure treated but non-pressure treated studs are depicted. om the (June 9, 2006) plans. Nevertheless, Respondent certified compliarice with the 2004 FBC, L The property area surrounding the Remodeling Project did not meet the Tequirements of 2004 FBC R401.3 (Drainage). In that section, it is required that the lot be graded so as to drain surface water away from the foundation. walls at a iinirum rate of 6” within the first 10 fect. In the instant case, since the “adjacent grade” is the remainder of the old driveway, it is essentially flat with no provisions for proper drainage. 14. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of enginéering: Rule 61 G15-19.001(4), Fla. Admin Code, provides that negligence constitutes’ “failure by a‘professional engineer to utilize due cate in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” 153. The Board of Professional Engineers has adoptedRule Chapters 61G15-30 to 61G15-36 which are collectively termed the Responsibility Rules. The Responsibility Rules apply to all professional engineers who perform the services outlined therein. Failure on the part PPE y, Luis Lopez, PE., Case No, 2008012615 Feb 26 2009 9:19 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:54; Page 10/12 of a professional engineer to comply with the applicable 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 Administrative Code, “Failure 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 [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 ptoféssional engineer.” 16. For the reasons set forth in Paragraphs. 5-12 above, Respondent’s June 7, 2006, “As-Built” Structural, Electrical Mechanical & Plumbing System design for the Remodeling Project fails to meet the standards set forth in Paragraphs 14 and'15 and thus Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering. | 17. The inspections that Respondent performed.on the Remodeling Project were also incomplete and the reports generated therefrom were deficient and also reflect Respondent’s failure to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity and his failure to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 13, Respondent’s inspections were incomplete because the reports tnissed open and obvious material deficiencies in the construction of the Remodeling Project. Additionally, Respondent’s inspection reports to the Village of Palm Springs Building Department dated January 30, 2008 and February 12, 2008, finding that the Remodeling Project was ultimately constructed in accordance with the 2004 FBC, were materially erroneous insofar as Respondent stated therein that the Remodeling Project was ultimately constructed in compliance with the 2004 FBC when, for the reasons discussed in Paragraphs 5-13, it was not. FAPE v. Luis Lopez, PE, Case No. 2008012615 Feb 26 2009 9:19 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:54; Page 11/12 18. Due to the fact that Respondent’s inspections of the Remodeling Project were incomplete and his reports based thereon were materially erroneous, Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering, | 19. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1) (g), Florida Statutes, by cngaging in negligence 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 Reéspondent’s practice, imposition of an adminisirative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placemént 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 oy =, 2008. F LED Carrie Flynn Department of Business and Protessional Regulation Exeoutive Director DEPUTY CLERK CLERK DATE Pol John Rimes Prosecuting Attorney COUNSEL FOR FEMC; John Rimes Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/t PCP DATE: July 15, 2008 FBFE v. Luis Lopes, PE., Case No. 2008012615 Feb 26 2009 9:19 Sent By: Genesis Gqoup ; 850 681 3600; Feb-26-09 11:55; Page 12/12 f PCP Members: Rebane, Seckinger CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to. Luis ‘A. Lopez, P. E., 405 Mission Hill Road, Boynton Beach, FL 33435, by certified mail, on the Z fof Tuy, 2008. ai FRPE v, Luis Lopez, P.E., Case No. 2008012615

Docket for Case No: 09-001045PL