Deputy Agency Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA CLERK vette Lawson-Proctor FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Dete 4/28/2014. Files FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, Petitioner, [4- 0 SY FL v. FEMC Case No. 2012036452 FILED KEITH BRADBURY, P.E., Florida Engineers Management rporation / JAN 28 2013 - Ly , Le COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, hereinafter referred to “FEMC” on behalf of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner or Board,” and files this Administrative Complaint against KEITH BRADBURY, 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 is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. This complaint is filed by the FEMC on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to thie Board pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). ey TAIN SIMD GSAS 034 ra FILED FEB 24 AMAL SS FI fb 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued ticense number PE 43228. Respondent's last known address is 8731 Baywood Park Drive, Seminole, Florida 33777. 3. On April 10, 2012 and May 21, 2012 Respondent sealed and signed two sheets of drawings entitled “Anchor Clip Installation Instructions-196MPH (Installation Drawings). The Installation Drawings include a statement by Respondent that they are based upon design calculations done in accordance with “ASCE 7-10 and Chapter 16, Section 1609 2010 Florida Building Code, hereinafter referred to as “FBC.” Exposure C or D (facing water direction), risk category III; Max{imum] 500 Lb. condenser unit that withstands 196 mph wind speed for 3 second gusts. 4. The Installation Drawings details are materially deficient as follows: A. Respondent erroneously used a maximum weight requirement (500Ibs) rather than a minimum weight requirement. The self-weight of the unit is used to counteract the overturning moment on the unit due to the wind. The heavier the unit, the fess uplift load is required for the anchor clips. As a result, a unit that weighs 500 pounds will require less uplift capacity in the anchor clips than one that weighs 150 pounds. Therefore the design parameters must provide a minimum weight rather than a maximum weight. B. Additionally, Respondent has failed to provide any unit height parameters. The projected area normal to the wind consists of a unit width multiplied by a unit height. A unit could be 4 feet tall and 30 inches wide for an area of 10 square feet. The center of its load application would be 24 inches above the clip attachment. A second unit could be 5 feet wide and 24 inches tall with the same 10 square foot area but its center of load FBPE vs. Keith Bradbury, P.E., Case No. 2012036482 would only be 12 inches above the clip attachment. The moment and corresponding clip load would be twice as high on the taller unit than on the shorter unit. Therefore the unit height is an important parameter and must be addressed in the Installation Documents. C. Finally, the dimension parallel to the wind must be addressed in the Installation Documents. This action is necessary since a narrow unit would result in higher clip loads than a wider unit when considering the direction of the wind. 5. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Responsibility Rules.” These Rules are contained in Chapter 61G15- 30 to Chapter 61G15-36, Florida Administrative Code, hereinafter referred to as “F.A.C.” Professional Engineers who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules are required to comply with the Responsibility Rules. Included in the Responsibility Rules are Rules governing Product Evaluation Documents that are produced by a Professional Engineer. 6. The Installation Drawings are “Product Evaluation Documents” as that term is defined in Rule 61G15-36.002(2), F.A.C. Such documents are “[e]ngineering documents that define procedures, materials, devices, fabrication, and methods of construction and installation of a product, or standardized group of products, through product evaluation or rational analysis, with the objective of obtaining approval from the authority having jurisdiction of that product for installation. Product evaluation documents shall be generic and do not include documents prepared for a site specific project.” (Rule 61G15-36.002(2), F.A.C.) 7. Product Evaluation Documents such as the Installation Documents must conform to the Common Requirements to All Product Evaluation Documents, which is set out in Rule 61G15-36.003(2), F.A.C. That Rule requires that the Installation Documents, as Product Evaluation Documents, “... shall include engineering data presented in a manner that facilitates FSPE ys. Keith Bradbury, P.E., Case No. 2012036452 the application of the product at the project site.” For the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 3-6 above, the Installation Documents are materially deficient in that the Documents fail to contain necessary data for the application of the Anchor Clips during construction. 8. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F.A.C., provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F.A.C., also provides that “[flailure 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 this section 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.” 9. 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 in that Respondent, as set forth in Paragraphs 3-7, failed to comply with the applicable provisions of the Responsibility Rules and failed to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity and failed to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. 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 FBPE vs. Keith Bradbury, P.E., Case No, 2012036452 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 mem day of January, 2014. Zana Raybon Executive Director COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J, Rimes, IIT Prosecuting Attomey Florida Bar No.: 212008 Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 JRAL PCP DATE: January 14, 2014 PCP Members: FIORILLO, RODDENBERRY & MATTHEWS e (CATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Keith Bradbury, P.E., 8731 Baywood Park Drive, Seminole, Florida 33777 by Certified, Retum-Receipt U.S. Mail,onthe ~277%of_ Tire ecto! ,2014 —— FBPE ys, Keith Bradbury, P.E., Case No, 2012036452

Docket for Case No: 14-000884PL