FILED Florida Engineers Management Corporation 08/01/2018 Clerk: Rebecca Valentine} sTaTE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS — nereraaiaeal File # FILED Department of Business and Professional Regulation Deputy Agency Clerk FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, Petitioner, v. FEMC Case No. 2017007080 EDWARD LANDERS, 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 EDWARD LANDERS, 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, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, 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). 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 38398. Respondent’s last known address is 164 Plantation Avenue, Tavernier, Florida 33070. 3: The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (“Responsibility Rules”). These Rules are contained in Chapters 61G15-30 to 61G15-36, Fla. Admin. Code. Professional Engineers who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules are required to comply with these Rules. 4. 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), Fla. Admin. Code, 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.” ak Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Fla. Admin. Code, also provides that “[f]ailure 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.” 6. Rule 61G15-30.002(1), Fla. Admin. Code, mandates that Respondent, as the engineer of record for all engineering work delineated in the Specific Allegations, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing documents that comply with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. 7. Respondent acted as the Structural, Electrical, Mechanical (HVAC), and Mechanical (Plumbing) Engineer of Record for the Arnauts Residence Project located at 100 Shore FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 Drive, Tarpon Springs, FL 34689 (Arnauts Project) as that term is defined in Rules 61G15- 30.002(1), 61G15-31.002(1), 61G15-33.002(1) and 61G15-34.002(1), Fla. Admin. Code. As such, all engineering documents prepared, signed, sealed and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in Rule 61G15-30.003(1): When prepared for inclusion with an application for a general building permit, the Documents shall meet all Engineer’s Responsibility Rules, set forth in Chapters ...61G15-31, 61G15-33, and 61G15-34, F.A.C., and be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of the Florida Building Code [FBC], adopted in Section 553.73, F.S., and applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the Agency Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). The Documents shall include: (a) Information that provides material specifications required for the safe operation of the system that is a result of engineering calculations, knowledge and experience. (b) List Federal, State, Municipal, and County standards, codes, ordinances, laws, and rules, with their effective dates, that the Engineering Documents are intended to conform to. (c) Information, as determined by the Engineer of Record, needed for the safe and efficient operation of the system. (d) List engineering design criteria; reference project specific studies, reports, and delegated Engineering Documents. (e) Identify clearly elements of the design that vary from the governing standards and depict/identify the alternate method used to ensure compliance with the stated purpose of these Responsibility Rules. FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 8. The Florida Building Code (2014) — Building (FBC-B) Section 107.2.1 “Information on construction documents” states: “Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations,...” FBC-B Section 2701.1 “Scope” states: “This chapter governs the electrical components, equipment and systems used in buildings and structures covered by this code. Electrical components, equipment and systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (NEC).” FBC-B Section 107.3.5 “Minimum plan review criteria for buildings” states: The examination of the documents by the building official shall include the following minimum criteria and documents: Electrical: Wiring ... branch circuits, overcurrent protection, Wiring methods and Materials, Equipment; Load Calculations. 9. Rule 61G15-33.001 “Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers Concerning the Design of Electrical Systems” “General Responsibility” states in material part that: “Electrical Engineering documents shall be prepared in accordance with applicable technology and with the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction. The documents shall identify the Engineer of record for the electrical systems project. Electrical Engineering documents shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the applicable codes and standards. . . .” 10. = Rule 61G15-33.003(2) “Design of Power Systems,” requires in material part that “Electrical Engineering Documents applicable to the design of electrical power systems shall, at a minimum, indicate the following: a) Power Distribution Riser Diagram with short circuit values. (c) Circuit interrupting devices and fault current interrupting capability. (d) Location and characteristics of surge protective devices. (e) Main and distribution equipment, control devices, locations and sizes. (f) Voltage drop calculations for the feeders and customer-owned service FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 conductors ....(g) Circuitry of all outlets equipment and devices. (h) Load computations. (1) Record documents applicable to power systems shall, at a minimum, contain information as required by Florida Building Code. 11. FBC-B Section 2801.1 “Scope,” states: Mechanical appliances, equipment and systems shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Mechanical (FBC-M). FBC-B Section 107.3.5 “Minimum plan review criteria for buildings” states: The examination of the documents by the building official shall include the following minimum criteria and documents: Mechanical 2. Exhaust systems: Clothes dryer exhaust. 3. Equipment. 5. Make-up air. 8. Ventilation. 9. Combustion air. 12. Rule 61G15-34 “Mechanical Systems” Section 61G15-34.001 “General Responsibility” states in material part: “Mechanical Engineering Documents shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable technology and with the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction. The documents shall identify the Engineer of Record for the mechanical systems project. Mechanical Engineering documents shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the applicable codes and standards . . . .” 13. Rule 61G15-34.003(4) “Design of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems,” requires that Mechanical Engineering Documents pertaining to HVAC systems .... shall indicate the following: (b) Equipment selection schedule for each piece of mechanical equipment. All equipment shall have capacities listed including efficiencies, electrical or fuel requirements, static pressure and fan air quantities as applicable to the system, . . . .(d) Outside (fresh) air make-up conditions. (g) Outside and inside design dry and wet bulb conditions. (k) Condensate discharge piping layout with pipe sizes. (m) Ductwork layout and sizing; and outside air intake sizes. The HVAC Drawings (Sheets M-1 through M-5) and the case file contain FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 incomplete equipment schedules for the split system to be installed, no make-up air or combustion air calculations, no ventilation design and no clothes dryer exhaust to the exterior. Additionally, specifications on Sheet M-5 are conflicting. The AC Schedule specifies the Air Handling Unit (AHU) heat strip to be 8 kW while a note on the same sheet specifies the heater to be 4.7 kW. These omissions and discrepancies constitute a violation of FBC-B 107.3.5. 14. FBC-B Section 2901.1 “Scope,” states: “Plumbing systems and equipment shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Plumbing (FBC-P). FBC-B Section 107.3.5 “Minimum plan review criteria for buildings” states: The examination of the documents by the building official shall include the following minimum criteria and documents: Plumbing: Fixture requirements; Water heaters, Vents, Back flow prevention. 15. Rule 61G15-34 “Mechanical Systems” states that construction documents shall . . . . define the required mechanical systems, including plumbing components, processes, equipment and material . .. Rule 61G15-34.007(2) “Design of Plumbing Systems,” requires that Mechanical Engineering Documents applicable to Plumbing Systems shall when applicable, include but are not limited to the following: (a) Equipment schedules for all plumbing fixtures, water heaters, . . . (c) Potable Water isometric diagrams with pipe sizes... .(d) Sanitary riser diagrams with pipe sizes and total sanitary waste fixture units. (e) Storm riser diagrams with pipe sizes and cumulative drain area square footages. (i) List of ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers), ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), ASPE (American Society of Plumbing Engineers), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and other applicable codes, design standards and requirements. 16. Respondent acted as Structural and Life Safety Engineer of Record for the Arnauts Project as that term is defined in Rules 61G15-30.002(1) and 61G15-31.002(1), Fla. FBPE vs, Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 Admin. Code. As such, all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed and dated by Respondent must contain the information required by Rules 61G15-30.003(1), (4) and 61G15- 31.002(5), Fla. Admin. Code. The plans and specifications for the Arnauts Project fail to contain this information and thus fail to comply with the Responsibility Rules. 17. Rule 61G15-31.001 “General Responsibility” states: The Engineer of Record is responsible for all structural aspects of the design of the structure including the design of all of the structure’s systems and components. As noted herein the engineer of record may delegate responsibility for the design of a system or component part of the structure to a delegated engineer. In either case the structural engineering documents shall address, as a minimum, the items noted in the following subsections covering specific structural systems or components. The Engineer of Record’s structural engineering documents shall identify delegated systems and components. Both the Engineer of Record for the structure and the delegated engineer, if utilized, shall comply with the requirements of the general responsibility rules, Chapter 61G15- 30, F.A.C., and with the requirements of the more specific structural responsibility rules contained herein. The Engineer of Record for the Structural System(s) shall provide design requirements in writing to the delegated engineer if one is used and shall review the design documents of the delegated engineer for conformance with his written instructions in accordance with Rule 61G15-30.005, F.A.C. When information collected from the engineer or the engineer’s authorized representative from a site visit is part of the engineer’s deliberative process, the engineer is responsible for the accuracy of such information. 18. Rule 61G15-31.002(5) “Structural Engineering Documents” states: The structural drawings, specifications and other documents setting forth the overall design and requirements for the construction, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, arrangement and/or use of the FBPE vs, Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 structure, prepared by and signed and sealed by the engineer of record for the structure. Structural engineering documents shall identify the project and specify design criteria both for the overall structure and for structural components and structural systems. The drawings shall identify the nature, magnitude and location of all design loads to be imposed on the structure. The structural engineering documents shall provide construction requirements to indicate the nature and character of the work and to describe, detail, label and define the structure's components, systems, materials, assemblies, and equipment. ELECTRICAL DESIGN DOCUMENTS 19. Respondent’s Electrical Engineering Design Documents for the Arnauts Project are materially deficient as follows: (a) The drawings contain an Electrical Riser Diagram, but no short circuit values and no voltage drop calculations for the feeders and customer-owned service conductors. These omissions constitute violations of Rules 61G15-33.003(2)(a and f). (b) The conductor serving the 200 amp Disconnect Switch (see Electrical Riser Diagram on Sheet E-5) on the load side of the Utility meter shows 3 #3/0 conductors for the phases and neutral, but no ground conductor. This is a violation of NEC 250.64, which requires all circuits to have a separate ground conductor. (c) Circuit interrupting devices are shown of the Panel Schedules but no reference is made regarding fault current interrupting capability, and there is no explanation on the electrical drawings for this deviation by the Respondent. Panel A schedule (Sheet E-5) contains violations of NEC 310.15(B)(16), allowable ampacities of conductors. The circuit breaker serving the water heater is a 30 amp, 2 pole (30/2) breaker, and #10 copper conductors, but the plumbing sheet P-5 shows the load to be 54 amps at 240 volts which requires a 70/2 breaker and #4 copper FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 conductors. The breaker serving each condensing unit (CU) is a 40/2 breaker and #8 conductors, but the load in the panel schedule is shown to be 10 kVA for each CU, which requires a 60/2 breaker and #6 copper conductors. The load calculations (Sheet E-5) show the load for the kitchen range to be 10 kVA, but the panel schedule shows a load of 6.0 kVA, served through a 30/2 breaker and #10 copper conductors, which is sufficient for a 6.0 kVA load. However, this would constitute a violation of NEC 310.15(B)(16) for a 10 kVA range, which would require a 60/2 breaker and #6 copper conductors. The failure of the Respondent to address the issue of fault current interrupting capability and the other errors pertaining to loads, breakers, and conductor sizing constitutes a violation of Rule 61G15-33.003(2)(c). (d) No surge protective devices are shown on the electrical drawings and there is no explanation on the electrical drawings for this deviation by the Respondent. These omissions constitute a violation of FAC Responsibility Rule 61G15-33.003(2)(d). (e) The Utility meter, 200 amp disconnect switch, and Panel A are shown of the Electrical Riser Diagram (Sheet E-5), and the location of Panel A is shown on the Electrical Second Plan (E-2). But the locations of the utility meter and the main disconnecting means for the residence are not shown on the plans. These omissions constitute a violation of Rule 61G15- 33.003(2)(e). (g) | The entries on the Panel A schedule (Sheet E-5) contain many errors. The panel schedule shows a “thankless (tankless) water heater” load of 4.5 kVA and a circuit breaker of 30 amps, 2 poles. However, Plumbing Sheet P-5 shows the water heater to be rated at 54 amps at 240 volts (calculates to 12.96 kVA). The Mechanical drawing M-S5 refers to the HVAC systems as split systems, with an outdoor unit and an indoor unit. Panel A schedule shows each AHU (air handling indoor unit) to have a load of 6.0 kVA. But the AC Schedule (Sheet M-5) shows a heat FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 strip load of 8 kW; and a Note on Sheet M-5 states 4.7 kW for the AHU heater. Panel Schedule A (Sheet E-5) shows each outdoor condensing unit (CU) to have a load of 10 kVA. But the AC schedule (Sheet M-5) shows no electrical parameters, except for a voltage range of 208-230 volts. These errors with the entries to the Panel Schedule A result in faulty load computations and constitute violations of Rule 61G15-33.003(2)(h). (h) NEC 210.52(E)(1) requires for a one-family dwelling, at least one outdoor receptacle outlet . . . shall be installed at the front and back of the dwelling. One receptacle is specified for the west side of the First Plan but none at the only entrance, and none at the back (east) side of the dwelling. The absence of such receptacles constitutes a violation of NEC 210.52(E)(1). (i) NEC 210.52(E)(3) requires that “Balconies, decks, and porches that are accessible from inside the dwelling unit shall have at least one receptacle outlet installed within the perimeter of the balcony, deck or porch.” None are specified for the terrace. The absence of such receptacle on the Terrace violates NEC 210.52(E)(3). q) NEC 406.9(A) requires that a receptacle installed outdoors in a location protected from the weather or in other damp locations shall have an enclosure for the receptacle that is weatherproof when the receptacle is covered. Drawing Sheets E-1 and E-5 show no weatherproof receptacles for the residence project, which violates NEC 406.9(A). (k) The spacing of receptacles on the Second Plan is inadequate, and violates NEC 210.52(A)(1), which states: Spacing. Receptacles shall be installed such that no point measured horizontally along the floor line of any wall space is more than 6 feet from a receptacle outlet. Omissions and errors associated with circuitry of outlets and devices constitutes violations Rule 61G15-33.003(2)(g). FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 (dD) The Electrical Drawing E-S does not state specific codes, rules or ordinances to which the Electrical systems must comply. Electrical Note 1 on Sheet E-5 states as follows: All work shall be in accordance with the National Electrical Code and other applicable codes and standards. This absence of specific requirement violates Rule 61G15-30.003(1)(b) which requires: . . engineering documents to “List Federal, State, Municipal, and County standards, codes, ordinances, laws, and rules, with their effective dates, that the Engineering documents are intended to conform to.” (m) Electrical Note 10 on Sheet E-1 reads as follows: All conductors shall be run in conduit (metallic type). Non-metallic sheathed cable “Romex” is also allowed. This direction is conflicting and inconsistent with acceptable standards of engineering principles. Romex is a conductor (or conductors) not in conduit, which is counter to “AII conductors shall be run in conduit.” (n) The Electrical Drawings do not contain information as required by the FBC. FBC-B Section 107.3.5 “Minimum plan review criteria for buildings” states: The examination of the documents by the building official shall include the following minimum criteria and documents: Electrical 1. Electrical wiring, branch circuits, overcurrent protection. 2. Equipment. 7. Load calculations The absence of these FBC-B requirements, deficiencies in overcurrent protection and branch circuits, and erroneous engineering coordination and load calculations constitutes a violation of Rule 61G15-33.003(2)(1). MECHANICAL (HVAC) DESIGN DOCUMENTS 20. Respondent’s Mechanical (HVAC) Engineering Design Documents for the Arnauts Project are materially deficient as follows: FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 (a) The HVAC Drawings (Sheets M-1 through M-5) contain incomplete equipment schedules for the split system to be installed, no make-up air or combustion air calculations, no ventilation design and no clothes dryer exhaust to the exterior. Additionally, specifications on Sheet M-5 are conflicting. The AC Schedule specifies the Air Handling Unit (AHU) heat strip to be 8 kW while a note on the same sheet specifies the heater to be 4.7 kW. These omissions and discrepancies constitute a violation of FBC-B 107.3.5. (b) Air conditioning equipment schedules are shown on Sheet M-5 for the air handling units and condensing units but the schedules are incomplete. They do not contain some key parameters such as electrical sizing. The drawing does not contain outside and inside design dry and wet bulb conditions, nor outside (fresh) air make-up conditions. These omissions constitute violations of Rule 61G15-34.003(4)(b, d, and g). (c) Condensate discharge piping is shown for A/C #1 (Sheet M-2), but not shown for A/C #2 on the drawing M-3. The Drawings are inconsistent in specifying the A/C Condensate Drywell. Sheet M-1 directs the condensate to terminate in 12” drywell (assumed to be 12” diameter). The Drywell Detail on Sheet M-5 shows the drywell to be 8”D x 24”L (assumed to be 8” diameter and length of 24”). The absence of complete condensate discharge piping constitutes a violation of Rule 61G15-34.003(4)(k). (d) | Ductwork is shown on the drawing, but no duct is shown for outside air intake. The absence of outside air intake duct on the drawings constitutes a violation of Rule 61G15-34.003(4)(m). (e) The Mechanical Drawings fail to specify that compliance with FBC-B Section 1609 Wind Loads is required. Table 1609A requires that design of outdoor equipment FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 such as Condensing Units mounted on the Roof shall withstand 145 MPH winds in Pinellas County. (69) The HVAC Drawings do not state specific codes, rules or ordinances to which the HVAC systems must comply. HVAC Note | on Sheet M-5 states as follows: All work shall conform with the 2014 Florida Building Code and all other applicable state and local ordinances. The project cover sheet (C-1) lists the governing code to be Florida Building Code- Residential (FBC-R) 2014 (5th Edition). The erroneous listing of the current edition of the FBC and the absence of other specific requirement violates Rule 61G15-30.003(1)(b) which requires: . . . engineering documents to “List Federal, State, Municipal, and County standards, codes, ordinances, laws, and rules, with their effective dates, that the Engineering documents are intended to conform to.” MECHANICAL (PLUMBING) DESIGN DOCUMENTS 21. Respondent’s Mechanical (Plumbing) Engineering Design Documents for the Arnauts Project are materially deficient as follows: (a) Other than requiring that all plumbing work shall conform to the 2014 FBC, the Plumbing Drawings do not state specific codes, rules or ordinances to which the Plumbing systems must comply. Plumbing Notes 1 and 13 on Sheet P-1 state as follows: 1. All plumbing work shall be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the Florida Building Code 2014 local ordinances, and in compliance with the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction. 13. All work shall conform to the South Florida Building Code, NFPA, and U.L. requirements. The reference to the South Florida Building Code is archaic. The South Florida Building Code was replaced by the FBC-B in the 1990’s. This absence of specific code requirements violates Rule 61G15-30.003(1)(b) which requires:. . . . engineering documents to FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 “List Federal, State, Municipal, and County standards, codes, ordinances, laws, and rules, with their effective dates, that the Engineering documents are intended to conform to.” (b) There is no equipment schedule to specify all plumbing fixtures. A “Plumbing Fixture List” note 6 on Sheet P-5 states as follows: Plumbing fixtures shall be as per equipment schedule, or approved equal. All fixture trim shall be chrome plated. Fixtures shall be provided with supports, hangers, etc. This omission of a plumbing fixture schedule constitutes a violation of Rule 61G15-34.007(2)(a). (c) A potable water isometric diagram is shown on Drawing Sheet P-6. The water riser (Sheet P-6) and plumbing plans (P-2, P-3) show all Cold Water (c.w.) lines suppling plumbing fixtures to be 4” while the fixture Connection Schedule (Sheet P-5 ) specifies all c.w. lines to be 4%”. The inconsistencies in the water isometric and other plumbing specifications on the other plumbing sheets constitute a violation of Rule 61G15-34.007(2)(c). (d) A sanitary waste isometric diagram is shown; however, total flow waste fixture units are not shown on the Drawings. Additionally, some Plumbing Notes on Sheet P-5 are inaccurate and would result in confusion for Plans Reviewers and contractors, as follows: Note 9... existing vent lines. (This residence was designed to be constructed on a vacant lot. There should be NO existing vent lines). Fourth Note 1. Sanitary waste from house to septic tank shall . . .. (Plan P-1 and Sanitary Riser P-6 show sanitary waste being piped to the Public Sewer with no septic tank on this project). There is confusion involving the stack vents. Fourth plan (P-4) shows 2-2” stack vents; Sanitary Riser (P-6) shows 2-3” stack vents. A 3” diameter stack vent at the Laundry Room (P-2) is shown going through to Third Floor, but not to the Roof. Sanitary Riser (P-6) shows it exiting the roof level as a 2” vent. There is additional confusion regarding the 2- way cleanout. It is shown correctly on Sanitary Riser (P-6), but incorrectly on First Plan (P-1). It FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 should be shown downstream of the final connection to the sanitary drain going to the Public Sewer. These omissions constitute a violation of Rule 61G15-34.007(2)(d). (e) No storm water riser diagrams are shown on the Drawings. No area drainage calculations are shown on the Drawings. The omission of a storm water riser diagram and area drainage calculations constitutes a violation of Rule 61G15-34.007(2)(e). (f) No list of applicable plumbing codes, design standards or requirements is shown on the Drawings. The omission of applicable codes, design standards and requirements constitutes a violation of Rule 61G15-34.007(2)(i). STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS 22. Respondent’s Structural and Life Safety Engineering Design Documents for the Arnauts Project are materially deficient as follows: A. The Structural Documents show numerous deficiencies that relate to a lack of adequate coordination between the design disciplines and a lack of sufficient information that would be required to construct the involved residence. The following deficiencies violate Rules 61G15-30.003(1) and (4) and the FBC: ls The Drawing Index on Sheet C-1 lists a Landscape Plan (Sheet L-1) and a Schedule of Windows and Doors (Sheet A-11) that were not included in the initial file documentation. The first "Supplemental Response" stated that signed and sealed sheets would be forwarded; however, the second "Supplemental Response" only contained Sheet A-11. The information shown on Sheet A-11 is mostly illegible and appears to be incomplete and inaccurate with respect to several of the window and door designations and sizes. 2. The drawings and specifications/notes do not provide any information regarding the design intent for roof drainage, such as the direction and magnitude of FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 roof slope, interior roof drains versus perimeter gutters and downspouts, and the intended roofing materials and installation details. 3. There is no information on the "Permit Set" of drawings regarding the required height, materials, and details to be used for handrails and guardrails that are required by FBC Chapter 10, Section 1012. 4. The First Floor Plan (Sheet A-1) and Elevation D on Sheet A-7 appear to depict openings for the garage doors, but there are no notes or details specifying the garage doors or their method of attachment to the structure. Sheet A-1 shows a 2-car and a 1-car garage, but recently submitted Sheet A-11 lists only one garage door size (2'-10" x 8'-0"). 25 Sheet A-1 contains two hand-written notes identifying flood vents on the north and west sides of the garage, with a reference to Sheet S-2. The required flood vents are not shown on Sheet S-2 or mentioned elsewhere on the "Permit Set" of drawings. B. The following deficiencies on Sheet S-0 violate the requirements of Rules 61G15-30.003(1) and (4), 30.005, and 30.007, and FBC Chapter 16, Sections 1603 and 1604: ia Structural Design Criteria, Item 1 states: "The design complies with the requirements of the Florida Building Code - (2014 Edition) and other referenced codes and specifications." The drawings also reference the FBC - Residential, 2014 Edition, and "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete." The latter reference should be to the American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11). 2. The structural calculations provided with the first "Supplemental Response" do not clearly specify what design dead loads were assumed in the structural design. 3. Structural Design Criteria, Item 5 indicates that wind net uplift loads on the roof trusses can be found on Sheet S-4; however, this drawing is for the third floor (a FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 concrete slab), and no wind uplift loads are shown on Sheet S-5 (the Fourth Floor/Roof, also a concrete slab). Cc. The Documents do not depict a means of providing a complete load path capable of transferring loads from their point of origin through appropriate load-resisting elements and to the foundation, as required by FBC, Chapter 16, Sections 1603 and 1604. 1. The building elevations shown on Sheets A-5 and A-6 appear to show cantilevered concrete slabs at the west end of the second floor and the roof. This depiction is inconsistent with the building sections shown on Sheets A-9 and A-10. No details are provided showing how these slabs are expected to be supported by, or connected to, the structural frame. 2. Sheet A-5 shows two diagonal columns extending between the first and second floor, which appear to correspond to columns C-8 and C-9 on Sheet S-2. The specific location of these columns is not clear, and there are no details showing their connection to the foundation and floor systems. 3. There are no details showing typical connections between beam and slab components and the supporting columns or walls. 4. There are no details showing the connection of wall components, and door and window elements, to the structural frame. 5: There are no details showing the connection of the concrete pile caps to the pile-supported foundation system. 6. There are no details showing how to construct the concrete walls that are depicted on Sheet S-2. Ts The stair details on Sheet S-7 appear to depict excessive rebar, or rebar that is not adequately identified. FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 D. Sheet S-0 has a section titled "Shop Drawings & Delegated Enging" [Engineering]. This section of the structural notes contains the EOR's requirements for shop drawing submittal and review, and delegated engineering services. The following deficiencies are violations of Rules 61G15-30.005, 30.006, and 30.007: 1. Sheets A-5, A-6, and A-7 appear to show wall panels on the exterior elevations; however, the "Permit Set" of drawings do not specify the design criteria, provide construction details, or make any reference to a specific wall panel manufacturer's design and installation criteria. 2: There is no documentation showing that the appropriate design criteria for the wall panels was communicated in writing to another engineer. The "Permit Set" of drawings does not provide sufficient information regarding the design and wind load resistance criteria for the exterior wall panels, or the connection of the wali panels to the structure. 4. Sheet S-5 contains a note that states "Steel Stairs (by others)." These stairs also are graphically depicted on the architectural plans and elevations (without any notes). The drawings do not state the required design loads and specific construction criteria for these exterior stairs, which appear to be intended for access between the roof and the third floor. 5. Delegated Engineering requirements were established for the doors (including the garage doors), windows and mullions, exterior wall panels, exterior stairs, and railings. This information is not adequately referenced on the "Permit Set" of drawings, and separate written engineering requirements were not provided. E. The schedules and details shown on Sheet 8-6 for the reinforced concrete foundation, beams, and columns contain numerous contradictions, errors, and inconsistencies. The FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 following deficiencies are violations of Rule 61G15-30.003 and FBC Chapter 16, Sections 1603 and 1604: 1. The grade beam details show stirrups, but none are specified in the foundation schedule. Pe The beam schedule does not show any rebar for beam B-3. 3: The beam schedule shows 7 - #1 rebar for beam B-42. It should be noted that the smallest rebar available is a #3 (3/8-inch diameter). The reference to #1 rebar appears to be a typographical error; however, the designer's intent is ambiguous. 4. The beam schedule shows no stirrups at beams B-3, B-47, B-51, B- 52, B-54, and B-55; however, the beam details do show stirrups. 5. There are several contradictions between the number of horizontal rebar shown in the beam schedule and the number of rebar shown in the beam details. 6. There are hand-written changes to dimensions shown for columns C-1 and C-7 in the column details; however, the corresponding dimensions were not changed in the column schedule. 7. There are several contradictions between the number of vertical rebar shown in the column schedule and the number of rebar shown in the column details. F. Respondent’s structural calculations are inadequate or erroneous as follows: deficiencies are violations of Rule 61G15-30.003(1) and FBC Chapter 16, Sections 1603 and 1604: 1. The structural analysis contains several references to ACI 318-05. As previously noted, the 2014 FBC references ACI 318-11, which represents two additional code cycles for reinforced concrete design specifications. The entire structural design should be FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 reevaluated and verified to comply with the current building code and applicable reinforced concrete design requirements. 2. There is no explicit reference to the structural design of the concrete floor and roof slabs, any deflection checks on the cantilevered slabs, or any notes regarding special detailing requirements for the cantilevered balcony and roof slabs at the west side of the building. 3. The structural calculations do not include any provision for potential rainwater accumulation or ponding loads on the roof and the balcony structures. G. Respondent’s Life Safety Documents are deficient in that they do not adequately address FBC required egress requirements: 1. The only apparent means of egress on the Documents for the upper floor levels are the two sets of stairs that are located along the north (exterior) and south (interior) sides of the north elevation. As shown on Sheet A-2, the second floor is only accessible via a wall opening that is located near the middle of the interior stairs. Sheet A-3 depicts access to the third floor via both sets of stairs that lead to door and wall openings in the northeast corner of the building. Based on the requirements of Section 1015, it appears that at least two exits would be required for the third floor, and possibly the second floor, of the proposed structure. In addition, the exits must be separated from each other by a distance equal to at least one-half the maximum distance of travel. All of the windows in the house appear to be fixed inoperable, and there are no apparent provisions for emergency exit from the second-floor balcony, the upper living areas, or the roof. These deficiencies pose significant potential life/safety issues. 2s The information on the Documents is incomplete (square footage per floor), illegible (Sheet A-11 - Schedule of Windows and Doors), or contradictory. The lack of FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 20 clarity and the lack of adequate and clear provisions for safe egress from the structure violates the FBC and Rules 61G15-30.003(1) and (4) and 61G15-31.001. COUNTI ELECTRICAL DESIGN DOCUMENTS 23: Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Ten (10) and Nineteen (19) as if fully set forth in this Count One. 24. Respondent’s electrical engineering drawings for the Arnauts Project contain deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraph Nineteen (19). As a result of those deficiencies, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by sealing and signing electrical engineering documents that were issued and filed for public record when such documents were materially deficient in that Respondent: (1) did not exercise due care in the preparation of the final engineering documents for the Arnauts Project and (2) the final engineering documents for the Arnauts Project were not issued in compliance with acceptable engineering principles. 25. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by being negligent in the practice of engineering. COUNT II MECHANICAL (HVAC) DESIGN DOCUMENTS 26. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Seven (7), Eleven (11) through Thirteen (13) and Twenty (20) as if fully set forth in this Count Two. 27. Respondent’s mechanical (HVAC) engineering drawings for the Arnauts Project contain deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraph Twenty (20). As a FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 21 result of those deficiencies, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by sealing and signing mechanical (HVAC) engineering documents that were issued and filed for public record when such documents were materially deficient in that Respondent: (1) did not exercise due care in the preparation of the final engineering documents for the Arauts Project and (2) the final engineering documents for the Arnauts Project were not issued in compliance with acceptable engineering principles. 28. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by being negligent in the practice of engineering. COUNT I MECHANICAL (Plumbing) DESIGN DOCUMENTS 29. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Seven (7), Fourteen (14) through Fifteen (15) and Twenty-One (21) as if fully set forth in this Count Three. 30. Respondent’s mechanical (plumbing) engineering drawings for the Arnauts Project contain deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraph Twenty- One (21). As a result of those deficiencies, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by sealing and signing mechanical (plumbing) engineering documents that were issued and filed for public record when such documents were materially deficient in that Respondent: (1) did not exercise due care in the preparation of the final engineering documents for the Arnauts Project and (2) the final engineering documents for the Arnauts Project were not issued in compliance with acceptable engineering principles. FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 22. 31. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by being negligent in the practice of engineering. COUNT IV STRUCTURAL AND LIFE SAFETY DESIGN DOCUMENTS 32. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Seven (7), Sixteen (16) through Twenty-Two (22) as if fully set forth in this Count Four. 33. Respondent’s structural and life safety engineering drawings for the Armauts Project contain deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraph Twenty- Two (22). As a result of those deficiencies, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by sealing and signing structural and life safety engineering documents that were issued and filed for public record when such documents were materially deficient in that Respondent: (1) did not exercise due care in the preparation of the final engineering documents for the Arnauts Project and (2) the final engineering documents for the Arauts Project were not issued in compliance with acceptable engineering principles. 34. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), F. A. C., by being negligent 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 Respondent’s practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 23 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 “75 } _ day of __< YX Ds A , 2018. COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes, IIT Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/rv PCP DATE: July 18, 2018 PCP Members: MATTHEWS, DRURY & ALBERGO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Edward Landers, P.E. by service upon his attorney of record: Kevin S. Opolka, Esquire at 7850 NW 146 Street, Suite 502, Miami Lakes, Florida 33016, by certified mail and First Class U. S. Mail, on the _-X of ma ; 2018. Vsheee « ghacbs Rebecca Valentine, Paralegal FBPE vs. Edward Landers, P.E., Case No. 2017007080 24

Docket for Case No: 19-001544PL