Oct 12 2009 14:28 OCT-1e-2869 14:21 From:656 S21 521 Page:4-19 Deputy Agency Clerk Brandon Nichols 8/12/2009 STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL FILED ENGINEERS, Florida en aon Petitioner, v. FEMC Case Nos. 2008063321 & 2008044429 LAWRENCE BENNETT, 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 LAWRENCE BENNETT, P.E., hereinatter 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: FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO FEMC CASE NUMBER 2008044429 and CASE NUMBER 2008063321 1. Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 453, Florida Slalutes. This complaint is filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged Oct 12 2009 14:29 OCT-1e-2869 14:ce From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page:5719 with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Buard of Professional Engincers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). 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 16644. Respondent’s last known address is PO Box 214368, § Daytona, FL 32121 4368, FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO FEMC CASE NUMBER 2008063321 3. During May 2007, Respondent scaled, signed and dated structural engineering documents that were used in applications for building permits from St. Johns County for the following swimming pool screen enclosure projects: A. Humphrey Project (1524 Barington Circle, Saint Augustine)-4 drawings indicated as Pages 1 of 25 thru 4 of 25 [or Permit #10803009. B. Kaczwata Project (124 N. Church Hill Drive, Saint Augustine)-4 drawings imdicated as Pages 1 of 25 thru 4 of 25 for Permit #10803836. Cc. Truncetto Project (1852 Keswick (the Royals), Saint Augustine)-4 drawings indicated as Pages | of 25 thru 4 of 25 for Permit #10803837. FBPE v Lawrence Bennett, P.E., Case Nos. 2008063321, 2008044429 OCT-1e-2869 14:ce 4. Oct 12 2009 14:29 From:656 S21 521 D. TeCalsey Project (1225 Redcliff Lane (Kensington), Saint Augustine)-4 drawings indicated as Pages 1 of 25 thru 4 of 25 for Permit #10803838. Page:e-19 Respondent’s cngineering documents for the Humphrey Project arc materially deficient as follows: A. Design stresses in the 2x7 SMB mansard roof beam element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of consiruction at Florida Building Code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 Aluminum design Manual (ADM) equation 4.4-2 = 3.732. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4.4-2 is 1.0, B. Design stresses in the 2x5 SMB wall column element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction alt Florida Building Code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 44-2 = 5.891. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. Cc, The design tensile force in the 1/8” diameter slainless steel bracing cables exceeds the typical manufacturer’s published breaking strength for the cable at Florida Building Code preseribed loading. FBPE v. Lawrence Bennetl, PE, Case Nos. 2008063321, 2008044429 OCT-1e-2869 14:ce Oct 12 2009 14:29 From:656 S21 521 Page: 719 Respondent's engimeering documents for the Kaczwara Project are materially delicient as follows: 6. A. Design stresses in the 2x7 SMB mansard roof beam element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at Florida Building Code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 3.419. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. B. Design stresses in the 2x5 SMB wall column clement excecd the appropriate allowable stresses for the matcrial of construction at Florida Building Code prescribed loading. The stress mleraction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 5,950. The maxtmum calculated valuc allowed for equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. C. The design tensile force in the 1/8” diameter stainless steel bracing cables exceeds the typical manufacturer’s published breaking strength for the cable at Florida Building Code prescribed loading. Respondent’s engineering documents for the Truncetto Project are materially deficient as follows: VBP y. Lawrence Bennett, Pe. Case Nos. 200803321, 2008044429 OCT-1e-2869 14:ce 7. Oct 12 2009 14:29 From:65@ Sel @5e1 A. Design stresses in the 2x7 SMB mansard roof beam element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at Florida Building Code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 2.517. The maximum calculated value allowed for cquation 4.4-2 is 1.0. B. Design stresses in the 2x5 SMB wall column element excecd the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at Florida Building Code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = §.226. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4,4-2 is 1.0. C ‘The design tcnsile force in the 1/8” diameter stainless steel bracing cables cxeceds the typical manufacturer’s published breaking strength for the cable (with a minimally appropriate factor of safety of 1.5) at Florida Building Code prescribed loading. Page:a-19 Respondent’s cnginccring documents for the Lecalsey Project are materially deficient as follows: A. Design stresses in the 2x8 SMB mansard roof beam element execed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material FRPE y. Lawrence Bennett. PE, Case Nos. 2008063321, 2008044429 Oct 12 2009 14:30 OCT-1e-2869 14:ce From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 9719 of construction al Florida Building Code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.1.1-] = 1.168. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4,4-2 is 1.0. B. Design stresses in the 2x6 SMB wall column element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at Florida Building Code prescribed loading. ‘he stress mleraction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 8.380. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4,4-2 is 1.0, FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO FEMC CASE NUMBER 2008044429 &. In February 2007, a new sunroom was being added to an existing residence located at $235 Venice Way, NF, Saint Petersburg, Florida. During construction, some existing wood posts were removed and new 4x4 aluminum posts were added. It was determined by the Saint Petersburg Building Inspector's office that “additional” post connection requirements were needed and that “engineering recommendations” would be required for those connections. 9. Respondent, on lebruary 28, 2007, provided a signed and scaled detail (“Post to Existing Wood Beam & Concrete Slab) to address the request of the Saint Petersburg Building Inspector’s office regarding the aluminum post connections. The detail included the following verbiage: “Note: This is a[n] “As Built” drawing to certify the work already performed (2 places lypical),” FRPF v Lawrence Benneil, PP, Case Nos, 2008063321, 2008044429 Oct 12 2009 14:30 OCT-1e-2869 14:23 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 18°19 10. Respondent's “certification” stated that “the plans and specifications have been designed to comply with the applicable structural portions of Florida Building Code 2004. [Respondent] also certified] the structural components, systems and related elements provide adequate resistance to wind loads and forces specilied by these plans.” 11. By certifying the “As Built” condition of the structure, Respondent certified that the structure was not only designed in accordance with applicable code requirements but also was constructed to be in material compliance with all such standards 12. Respondent's signed and sealed “As Built” detail drawing was “accepted” by the Saint Petersburg Building Inspector’s office and thal office’s subsequent inspection of project (March 2, 2007) resulted in an “approved” status. However, approximately 3 months later, the homeowner experienced water intrusion issues (leaks). 13. Upon further inspection, the information contained on Respondent’s “As Built” detail was found to be materially in crror, as follows: A. Respondent's “As Built” detail specified 1/4" thick connection angles, however, the angles were found to he 1/8” thick. B. Respondent's “As Built” detail required all “concrete screw anchors” to be placed a minimum spacing of 2” from edge of concrete slab edge, however, the anchors were found to be 1” from edge of slab. FBPE v. Lawrence Bennett, P.E., Case Nos. 2008063321, 2008044429 OCT-1e-2869 14:23 14, Oct 12 2009 14:30 From:656 S21 521 C. Respondent’s “As Built” detail (top of post) shows wood lag screws into wood beam above. ‘The actual condition, however, discovered on sile was that Cedar trim was placed directly above the post such that the wood screws were required to “pass thru” the Cedar trim member, thus reducing the screws’ penetration into (structural) wood beam. Dd. Respondent’s “As Built” detail specified (2) connection angles required ai the top and bottom of the new posts, however, it was discovered that, at the bottom of the North post, only (1) connection angle had been used. E. At the top of the South post, it was discovered that the top connection was not actually made as shown on Respondent’s “As Built” detail. The connection was actually made through the drywall, into the furring strips behind (i.c., the connection was made to non-structural members). Page:11°19 Based upon the discrepancies listed in Paragraph 13 between the actual condition of the construction and the information contained on Respondent’s “As Built” detail, it is clear that the actual connections of the aluminum posts do nol correspond with the signed and scaled “As Built” certification provided by Respondent for those same connections. The connector deficiencies discovered (and listed herein in Paragraph 13) materially decrease, (or possibly void entirely), the structural capacity of the connections. PAPE v Lawrence Bennett, P.E., Case Nos. 2008063321, 2008044429 Oct 12 2009 14:30 OCT-1e-2869 14:23 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 1219 COUNT 1 (FEMC CASE # 2008063321) 15. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through seven (7) as if fully set forth in this Count I. 16. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides thal an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Fla. Admin Code, provides that negligence constitules “failure by a professional engineer to utilize duc care in performing in an enginecring capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” 17. As sct forth in Paragraphs (3)-(7) above, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by scaling, signing and dating engineering documents that were issucd and filed for public record when such documents were materially deficient in respect to and not in compliance with applicable code requirements or acceptable engineering principles. 18. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engincering. COUNT TI (FEMC CASE # 2008044429) 19. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Two (2) and Light (8) through Thirteen (13) as if fully set forth in this Count ID. 20. Section 471.033(1)(2), Florida Statutes, provides that an cngincer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of enginecring. Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Hla. FRPE v. Lawrence Bennett, P.C., Case Nos. 2008063321, 2008044429 Oct 12 2009 14:31 OCT-1e-2869 14:23 From:656 S21 521 Page:13°19 Admin Code, provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional cngineer to utilize duc care in performing in an enginecring capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of enginecring principles.” 21. As set forth in Paragraphs (8)-(13) above, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471,033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by sealing, signing and dating enginecring documents that were issued and filed for public record when such documents were materially deficient in respect to and not in compliance with applicable code requirements ot acceptable enginecring principles. 22. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engincering. WIIERLIORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penaltics: 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 attomey’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. FBPE y. Lawrence Bennett, P.E., Case Nos. 2008063321, 2008044429 Oct 12 2009 14:31 siannp this _/ OF say of blu Caaf , 2009. Carric Flynn °, Executive Director ia BY: John Rimes Prosecutitg Altomey COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John Rimes III Prosecuting Attomey Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 ‘Tallahassce, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 0063540 JR/sm PCP DATE: July 14, 2009 PCP Members: Rebane, Charland, Halyard CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to LAWRENCE BENNETT, PE. PO BOX 214368, § DAYTONA, FL 32/21, by certified mail, on the if Ie Lhapethos. Rimes, IIi FRPE v. Lawrence Bennett, P.E., Casc Nos. 2008063321, 2008044429 OCT-1e-2869 14:24 From:656 S21 521 Page:14°19

Docket for Case No: 09-005542PL