Mar 9 2011 11:17 MAR-@9-2211 12:@3 From:@58 521 @521 Page:3713 Deputy Agency Clerk CLERK Evette Lawson-Proctor 12/13/2010 STATE OF FLORIDA + too te Enajpaers th FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS rt 1s er Corporation FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL DATE ENGINEERS, Petitioner, v. FEMC Case No, 2010035452 ALLEN GEZELMAN, 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 a5 “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint against ALLEN GE7ELMAN, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120,60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding conceming 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 Engincers, is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. ‘Chis 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 Kngineers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). MAR-@9-2011 12:84 From:85@ S21 @5e21 Mar 9 2011 11:17 2. Respundent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 59108. Respondent’s last known address is 16502 Hanna Road, Lutz, FI. 33549. 3. In January 2006, Mr. Richard Knapp entered into a contract with US Foam and Coatings (USFC) to install a Spray Polyurethane Foam Roofing System (Roofing System) at his residence located at 5070 SW 9th Court, Plantation, Florida (Knapp Residence). In October 2006, an inspection of the work was performed by a City of Plantation Building Department (Building Department) inspector, The report of the inspector (titled “Final Structural Inspection”) indicated that the inspector observed numerous code violations or other construction related problems (“Red Tagged {tems”) with the Knapp Residence project. One of the code telated problems was the lack of a Notice of Acceptance (NOA) for material used for the underlying deck. 4. In an attempt to make the Knapp Residence Roofing System pass Building Department inspection requirements, Mr. Knapp sought Respondent’s services as a Professional Engineer, On March 16, 2007, the City of Plantation informed Respondent that Respondent was authorized to perform special ingpections on the Roofing system being installed at 5070 SW 9th Court, This authorization was provided in accordance with the criteria stated in the Florida Building Code (FBC), Broward County Amendments 2004, Section 109.10 of the Broward County Administrative Code, and as provided by Sections 553.71, Florida Statutes. 5. The above provisions of the FBC, the Broward County Administrative Code, and Florida Statutes allow Professional Engineers, such as Respondent, to perform building inspection services in place of the inspections that are normally provided by local building FBPE vs, Allen Cezelmen P.E,, Case No, 2010035482 Page:4713 Mar 9 2011 11:17 MAR-@9-2811 12:04 From:85@ 521 @521 Page:5713 departments. However, certain constraints and requirements are imposcd upon the Professional Engineers who perform such inspection duties, 6. On March 26, 2007 Respondent ptovided his “Swom Engineer Compliance Affidavil” (Affidavit) for the new roof system at the Knapp Residence. In this Affidavit, Respondent stated that Respondent had visited the site on January 10, 2007 and on several later occasions. Further, in this Affidavit, Respondent stated that he had looked at the job log eniries, had observed cores taken from the roof, atid had verified that photographs provided from the contractor were from this job. Respondent specifically stated that he looked at the underside of the roof to verify placement of deck screws. Lastly, Respondent stated in this Affidavit that: “...J concurted with the [Building Department) inspector and made recommendations to the contractor on how best to carry out the necessary corrections. I have verified by photographs supplicd by the contractor and by a site visit that the “red tag” correction have been made per my recommendations. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the building components and site improvements outlined herein and inspected under my authority have been completed in conformance with the approved plans and applicable codes.” 7. Respondent’s Affidavit and his inspection of the Roofing System at the Knapp Residence were materially deficient and not in compliance with rnandatory requirements of the Codes and standards which applied to the Affidavit and the inspection as follows: A. Respondent was authorized by the City of Plantation to inspect the roof system in accordance with the criteria presented in Section 553.71 and FBCBCA 109.10, Florida Building Code, Broward County Amendments (FBCBCA). Section 109,10.4 (February 9, 2006, FBCBCA revision) states that the special inspector’s scope of work is to inspcet the work for compliance with the approved plans and/or specifications. Respondent stated in the Affidavit that “...the building components and site improvements outlined herein and inspected under [Respondent’s] authority have been completed in conformance with the approved plans and FBPE ¥3,, Allen Gezelman P.6., Cage No, 2010035452, Mar 9 2011 11:17 MAR-@9-e611 12:04 From:85@ Sei @521 Page:6713 applicable codes." However, Respondent's conclusion was materially inaccurate and erroneous insofar as it was based upon proposed remedial actions that Respondent had recommended to be accomplished (but which had not yet occurred), In fact, at the time of the inspection, the Knapp Residence Roofing System was nvl in compliance with the requirements stated in the accepted plans and/or specifications. The conclusion in Respondent's Affidavit to the contrary was not accurate and his statements in the Affidavit were therefore in violation of FBCBCA 109.10.4, B. — Respondent’s reliance on photographs provided by the contractor to verity the conditions existing at the site, as was stated in the Affidavit, does not meet the criteria stated in FBCBCA 109.103 (February 6, 2006 revision). FBCBCA 109.10.3 requires that the special building inspector performing, the inspection under that provision shall be either an Architect or Professional Engineer or a duly acerediled employee representing cither. The contractor met none of these standards. Cc. Respondeni’s statement in the Affidavit that the “Red Tag” items referenced in the October 2006 City of Plantation Building Department report had been repaired was materially crroncous and inaccurate insofar as these items had not bcen repaired. a Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an cngineer 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 duc care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of enginecring principles.” 9. By failing to comply with the specific provisions of applicable codes and standards when Respondent prepared and issued the Affidavit, Respondent is charged with FDPE ys., Alla Gezelman P.E., Case No. 2010035452 Mar 9 2011 11:18 MAR-@9-2011 12:05 From:85@ 521 @521 Page: 7713 violating Section 471.033(1) (g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of enginesting, WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permancnt 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 assotiated 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 J day of _«. Décummbe 1 2010. Carrie Flynn Executive Director COUNSEL FOR FEMC; John J. Rimes, [3] Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm PCP DATE; November 30, 2010 PCP Members: Rebane, Hahn & Burke FBPE ve, Allen Gezelman P.E., Casc No. 2010035452 Mar 9 2011 11:18 MAR-@9-2011 12:@5 From:@58 521 @521 Pase:8-13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was fumish to Allen Gezelman, 16502 Hanno Road, Lutz, FL 33549, by certified mail, on the F4 op 44 el HASTY. (ha ead (C2 FBPE vs., Allen Gezelman PE., Case No. 2010035452

Docket for Case No: 13-004173PL