Findings Of Fact King Royer, Inc., the Petitioner, and the State of Florida, Department of General Services, entered into a contract dated October 15, 1974, for the construction of vocational facilities at the Union Correctional Institution at Raiford, Florida. A copy of the contract agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the plans for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and the specifications for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, all admitted into evidence. The contract has been completed and a certificate of contract completion issued by the Department of General Services as reflected in the copy of that certificate which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence. The certificate of contract completion is attended by a letter of explanation from the architectural firm in charge of the project which letter is Respondent's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This certificate of contract completion makes reference to change order No. 2, and a copy of change order No. 2 has been admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This cafe is brought pursuant to Article 8.5 of the contract document, Form of Agreement Between Contractor and Owner for Construction of Buildings, which calls for claims and disputes to be appealed to the Department of General Services for hearing. Those specific claims of appeal are promoted by two documents. The first document is the letter of July 16, 1975, by King Royer as president of the Petitioner corporation. This letter is addressed to the Director of the Department of General Services and is treated as the appeal document. There are five items within this element of the appeal which are listed as follows: "(1) Extension of tire for completion of the project, due to late delivery of the engineered metal building, and delays in completing corrective work of which we were informed only a few days before scheduled completion of the project. Removal of concrete floor which we believed to be 4" thick on the plans, but for which the Architect contends 6" thickness is required. Removal of approximately 2,500 square feet of slab which we contend was substantially in accordance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. Temporary bracing for the building, not necessary for any possible loads on such bracing, during removal of the concrete slab. Painting of interior metal structure, not required by the plans and specifications." Paragraphs one and four of this letter/petition will not be considered in substance, for reasons which will be set forth in the section of this recommended order, entitled Conclusions of Law. The second element of the appeal concerned an amendment to the appeal for purposes of considering change order No. 2, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This amendment was entered into by stipulation and agreement of counsel for the parties. The stipulation and agreement, indicated that the appeal could consider the elements of the change order to this extent: (1) The element on extension of time due to inclement weather; (2) liquidated damages, only those elements where the liquidated damages pertain to delays associated with the removal of the concrete floor slabs reflected in paragraphs two and three of the original appeal and the painting of interior metal structures as indicated in paragraph five of the original appeal; (3) additional testing shown in the change order; (4) additional services of the structural engineer shown in the change order; and (5) additional services, of the architects and engineering firm, shown in the change order. The first it ruled to be a proper subject for consideration in this appeal, was item two of the July 16, 1975, appeal. As mentioned before this item deals with the removal of a concrete floor which the Petitioner contends was supposed to be 4" thick in accordance with the plans and for which the architect in speaking for the Respondent claims should have been 6" thick to comply with the plans. This area is shown at page 2 of 27 in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which is to plan of the project. The area is found between column line A as a southern boundary and it's northern boundary is a common line extended from the northern wall of the auto mechanics shop. Its eastern boundary runs along column line 5, than proceed through an area approximately 4' 10" wide from column line 5, west to the eastern most wall of classroom 1, and then inset to the eastern wall of the instructor's office No. 1, and then inset to the small closet like area identified as No. 1, these latter dimensions making up the western boundary of the disputed area. In the initial pour of the concrete in that area, the depth of the pour was 4" and was so intended by the Petitioner. The architect of the project discovered that the depth was 4" and not 6" and ordered that this section of the concrete slab be removed. The removal was effected and the cost of that removal and reinstallation is at issue in the appeal. Sheet 5-2, which is at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, calls for a 6" concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop and this auto mechanics shop is that area identified on Sheet 2 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and includes the disputed area previously described before. Since the initial pour was 4" instead of 6" in the area as described, the Petitioner was not in compliance with the plans and the architect was correct to cause the removal of the initial pour and the substitution of the 6 " pour. Item three in the appeal, set forth on July 16, 1975, questions the requirement for the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of slab which the Petitioner contended was in substantial compliance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. This area would be constituted of the remaining aspect of the auto mechanic shop which has not previously been identified in discussing item No. 2. Its southern boundary begins at the intersection of column line A and 1, thence along column line A to the intersection with column line five; go dawn column line 5 from that point to the intersection with the first wall encountered to locate the western boundary; then along that wall east to an intersection of the wall and column line 1 to locate the northern boundary; and then south along column line 1, to the intersection of column line 1 and column line A, to locate the eastern boundary. When the Petitioner initially poured the concrete slab in this area it placed the welded wire fabric by such a method that fabric sunk to the bottom or near bottom of the concrete slab, in violation of Division 3.2C. of the specifications, which call for the welded wire fabric to be placed in the center of the slab. Approximately a week after the floor was poured a Case No. 584 diesel forklift which weighs 10,000 pounds was driven onto the newly poured slab in the auto mechanics area, 100 to 150 times carrying approximately 1500 pounds of structural members on each run. Subsequent to the time that the mesh sunk to the bottom or the near bottom of the concrete floor slab, cracks were discovered in the surface of the floor of the auto mechanics shop and these cracks are determined to be structural cracks. These structural cracks were promoted in part by the location of the mesh in the concrete slab and by the traffic of the fork lift. The location of the mesh may be seen in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 which is a photograph of the auto mechanics slab when it was being removed and also in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 which is a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area. The nature of the structural cracks is shown by hand drawn lines placed on number 5-2, at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, the pencil lines being drawn by Villany Hausner, the structural engineer on the project and the red lines being drawn by Jeff Hoxie, the project architect. This floor slab in the auto mechanics area was also dusted in contravention of Division 3.11A of the specifications which prohibits dusting of the exposed slab. The Petitioner tried to demonstrate that the cracks found on the surface of the concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop were not structural in nature by driving a 38,000 pound concrete truck onto the slab in the auto mechanics area in excess of two months after the pour. This test is found to be inadequate to overcome the conclusion that the cracks were structural in nature in that the test was not properly designed. The Petitioner was offered an opportunity for utilizing a properly designed test at its expense, as prescribed by the architect but the Petitioner did not respond to this offer. There was conflicting evidence about the depth of the initial pour in the area of the 2500 square feet. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 seems to indicate that a test performed by the Petitioner showed the depth to be substandard but other Exhibits by the Petitioner, namely Petitioner's Exhibits No. 11 and No. 12 show photographs of the concrete slab being torn out indicating that the depth approximated 7". There is also an Exhibit, Respondent's No. 9 which was a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area, but it is not clear what section of the auto mechanics area it was taken from, whether in the 2500 square foot area or in the narrow area 4' X 10" which was mentioned in the point No. 2 of the appeal of July 16, 1975. After reviewing the evidence on the depth of the slab, it is not clear what the true depth was on an average, in the 2500 square foot section. Nonetheless, based on the structural cracks, as explained by the mesh location and to a lesser extent by the driving of the fork lift truck onto the slab, the initial pour of to 2500 square feet was not in compliance with the contract and tie architect was correct in having the slab removed when the Petitioner failed to respond to his offer to have the slab tested. Item No. 5 in the July 16, 1975 appeal pertains to the painting of the interior metal structures and the Petitioner claims that these metal structures are not required by the plans and specifications to be painted. The Petitioner promotes his argument by reference to Division No. 9 of the specifications, particularly 3.7A of Section 9F, which is found on page 9F-8. This part, 3.7A says, "do not paint . . . pre-finished item as specified under Division 13- special construction." Therefore, it is the Petitioner's contention that any item found in Division 13 should not be painted. However, Division 13 in its Section 13B, 3.1C found at page 13B-2, says, "give one shop coat of paint as specified herein to all steel surfaces . . ." This statement is further supported by Division 9, Section 9F, 3.6B(3) at page 9F-7, which says that ferrous metals, including shop painted items will have one coat of rust inhibiting primer and one coat of interior gloss oil house paint. Therefore, the reference 3.7A in Section 9-F of Division 9 does not exclude all so called pre-finished items as specified under Division 13 from painting and the architect was correct in insisting that all interior metal structures which were not in fact pre-finished be given a shop coat, one coat of rust inhibiting primer, and one coat interior gloss oil house paint, as necessary. The second aspect of the appeal concerns change order No. 2. The parties agreed that the 20 day extension of time due to inclement weather should be awarded to the Petitioner at $50 a day for a total amount of $1,000. The second item of the change order concerning liquidated damages in the amount of $1,800 is sustained in view of the fact that only those items pertaining to the removal of the floor slab and painting of the structural members could be considered in addressing the liquidated damages, because of the prior stipulation. Therefore, the architect being found correct in his actions, the liquidated damages should stand. Items 3-5 in the change order concerning additional testing, additional services of the structural engineer and additional services of the architect and engineering firm are proper cost items in view of the problems associated with the floor slab and the appeal of their assessment should be rejected.
Recommendation It is recommended that those items found in the July 16, 1975 letter of appeal offered by the Petitioner not be allowed. It is further recommended that the matters as set forth in the amendment to the petition as found in change order No. 2 be allowed only to the extent of an award of $1,000 for extension of time due to inclement the technique considered acceptable far reimbursement of the amount of $1,000, regardless of the decision on the other matters of the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room 115, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John F. Roscow, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner is eligible to sit for the Professional Engineers examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. On December 12, 1983, Petitioner, Craig S. Smith, made application to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to sit for the April, 1984 professional engineering examination. Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, reviewed Petitioner's application in their meeting on February 19, 1984 and denied his reguest to sit for the April, 1984 examination. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to qualify under the ten-year provision which requires ten years of experience in engineering pursuant to Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, and Rule chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. The Board determined that Petitioner did not satisfy the requisite experience in the areas of engineering, responsible charge and engineering design. Specifically, Respondent determined that Petitioner had 82 months of creditable service toward the 120 month requirement and no experience in the area of engineering design. Petitioner's application reveals that he was employed by Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc., 6784 Northwest 17 Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida from May, 1971 to May, 1973 in the position of a driller crew chief. His professional duties during that period include the following: subsurface investigations for foundation design; securing and classifying subsurface samples in accordance with standard procedures of ASTM and AASHTO; overall responsibility for drilling operations and sampling equipment (standard penetration tests using either split barrel sampler, shelby tube, hollow stem flight auger, steel casing, drilling mud and rock coring, when required). From May, 1973 to January, 1979, Petitioner was employed by the same employer but held the position of laboratory and field engineering technician. His specific job duties include various construction sampling, testing and inspection as follows: ASPHALT asphaltic design mixes conforming to Florida Department of Transportation and FAA criteria; quantitative extraction of bitumen from bitumen paving mixtures; bulk specific gravity of compacted bituminious mixtures; compressive strength of bituminious mixtures; sampling bituminious paving mixtures; sampling bituminious materials; (o) bituminious mixing plant inspections; coating and stripping of bitumen-aggregate; determining degree of particle coating of bituminous-aggregate mixtures: maximum specific gravity of bituminous paving mixtures; specific gravity of solid pitch and asphalt displacement; determining degree of pavement compaction of bituminous paving mixtures; resistance to plastic flow of bituminous mixtures using marshall apparatus; resistance to deformation and cohesion of bituminous mixtures by means of hveem apparatus. CONCRETE compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens; making and curing concrete compressive and flexural strength specimens in the field and laboratory; obtaining and testing drilled cores and sawed beams of concrete; flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with third point loading); slump of Portland cement concrete; weight per cubic foot, yield, and air content (gravimetric) of concrete; (q) sampling fresh concrete; measuring length of drilled concrete cores; air content of freshly mixed concrete by the pressure method; securing, preparing and testing specimens of lightweight insulating concrete; air content of freshly mixed concrete by the volumetric method; checking approximate strength of hardened concrete by the Swiss hammer method; cement content of hardened Portland cement concrete; specific gravity, absorption and voids in hardened concrete; inspection and testing agencies for concrete materials as used in construction. SOILS investigating and sampling soils and rocks for engineering purposes; dry preparation of disturbed soil and soil aggregate samples for test; particle size analysis of soils; determining the liquid limit of soils; determining the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils; determining the field moisture equivalent of soils; moisture-density relations of soils using a 5.5 lb. rammer and a 12 in. drop; specific gravity of soils; moisture-density relations of soil-cement mixture; cement content of soil cement mixture; wet preparation of disturbed soil samples for test; moisture-density relations of soils using a 10 lb. rammer and an 18 in. drop; density of soil in place by the sand-cone method; the California bearing ratio, the line-rock bearing ratio; unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil; permeability of granular soils (constant head) one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils; repetitive and nonrepetitive static plate load tests of soils and flexible pavement components, for use in evaluation and design of airport and highway pavements; determination of moisture in soils by means of a calcium carbide gas pressure moisture tester; bearing capacity of soil for static load on spread footings; density and moisture content of soil and soil- aggregate in-place by nuclear methods (shallow depth); classification of soils and soil aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes; determining the Florida bearing ratio test (Florida Department of Transportation) determining the calcium carbonate content for base course materials (Florida Department of Transportation). AGGREGATES sampling stone, slag, gravel, sand, and stone block for use as highway materials; amount of material finer than 0.075 mm sieve in aggregate; unit weight of aggregate; voids in aggregate for concrete; organic impurities in sands for concrete; sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates; mechanical analysis of extracted aggregate; sieve analysis of mineral filler; specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate; specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate; resistance to abrasion of small size coarse aggregate by use of the Los Angeles abrasion machine; soundness of aggregate by use of sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate; clay lumps and friable particles in aggregates; lightweight pieces in aggregate; surface moisture in fine aggregate; reducing field samples of aggregate to testing size; total moisture content of aggregate by drying. MISCELLANEOUS percent of elongation, yield and tensile strength of steel members; compressive strength of hollow load bearing masonry units; inspection tests, including the inspection of pressure grout to insure proper distribution for foundation design; inspection and testing agencies for reinforced concrete culvert, storm drain and sewer pipe as used in construction; inspection and testing amenies for precast and prestress oiling members; From January of 1979 through January of 1982, Respondent held the position of supervisor for the same employer, Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc. During that period, he was in charge or was otherwise overall responsible for field and laboratory operations, prepared engineering reports, analyses, recommendations and design for various construction projects; Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport-Resurface Requisition No. 14905 and No. 29019 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport- ADAP No. 06-12-0025-10 R/W and T/W Improvements and Resurfacing Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport - ADAP No. 06-12-0025-11 R/W and T/W Improvements and Resurfacing Key West International Airport - ADAP No. 06-12-0037-08 Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Project No. 7155 City of Fort Lauderdale Parking Garage Project No. 7071 City of Fort Lauderdale 5 Ash Waste Water Treatment Plant Project No. 7642 From January of 1982 to the present time, Respondent formed his own company and holds the position as President of that firm (Eastcoast Testing and Engineering, Inc., 430 Northwest Flagler Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301). Respondent is responsible for all phases of construction materials, testing, analysis, inspections, evaluations, quality control and quality assurance. The laboratory personnel and facilities of Eastcoast Testing and Engineering, Inc. has been inspected by the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards. It is accredited by the Department of Commerce, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for selected test methods of freshly mixed field concrete. Eastcoast was awarded the annual testing contract for the City of Fort Lauderdale during its first year of operation. During his tenure as an employee of Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc., Petitioner planned and implemented testing programs for the purpose of developing design criteria; implemented investigation and testing programs for the purpose of determining the cause of failures; prepared reports documenting material test data; and assisted in the preparation of reports for engineering evaluation under the guidance of a professional engineer. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) For Petitioner's experience at Florida Testing during the period 1971 to 1973, Respondent determined that "zero time" was credited for that experience based on the Board's determination that Petitioner's work was more a "technician's job than engineering-related job." (Testimony of Board member William B. Bradley, Tr. page 16.) For Petitioner's experience during the period Nay, 1973 to January, 1979, Respondent allotted fifty percent or 34 of the 68 months experience that Petitioner served in that position. The Board determined that the "in-house testing" would have a lot more association with normal engineering procedures than Petitioner's earlier work. (Tr. 17.) The Board considered the technical testing and reporting thereof that took place in the laboratories was more responsible for engineering and, therefore, creditable as opposed to Petitioner's field work. (Tr. 17-18.) Again, for the period 1979 through 1992, Respondent gave Petitioner 59 percent credit for a total of 18 months of the 3 years in question. For the period 1979 through 1982, the Board determined that Petitioner was not essentially doing anything different but, rather, that he was "in charge of people now; he is preparing engineering reports here which I assume Mr. Winterholler signed." For that service, Petitioner was given credit for 18 of those 36 months. From the period of January, 1982 to the present time, the Board gave Petitioner 199 percent credit because, as President of his own firm, he would be more involved and would have more responsibility for the actions of his testing laboratory and, therefore, entitled to full credit for that time. (Testimony of Bradley at Tr. page 21.) Finally, Mr. Bradley determined that be saw no design engineering in the Petitioner's submissions because designing is "actually putting onto paper what's going to be there." (Tr. page 29.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding Petitioner eligible to sit for the next regularly scheduled Professional Engineers examination based on his compliance with the ten (10) year requirement of Subsection 471.013(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1984.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 16, 1985, Petitioners submitted an application requesting qualifications in five major classes of work and two incidental classes of work. At the hearing, qualification in cement paving was not pursued. The Department denied the applications for qualification to bid on contracts for Minor Bridges, Portland Cement Concrete, Hot Plant-mixed Bituminous Base and Surface courses, and the two incidental classes of fencing and grassing, seeding and sodding. Petitioner here contests the Minor Bridge, Hot Plant-mixed Bituminous Base and Surface courses and the two miscellaneous categories. Superior Paving has been in the road building business for many years and the sole basis for denying qualification for Hot Plant-mixed Bituminous Base and Surface courses is that Superior does not own an asphalt plant. During the years Petitioner has worked in road construction for DOT its work has been satisfactory, contracts have been completed on time, and there has been no default. Petitioner has the financial ability to perform the work for which qualification is requested and has experienced personnel necessary for this work. With respect to construction work on minor bridges, Petitioner's general manager and superintendent both have extensive experience in this work area. During the past two years, Petitioner has done no work on DOT projects as the result of a two year suspension for a contract crime. Prior thereto on DOT construction involving minor bridge work in which Superior was the prime contractor, this work was subcontracted out to a contractor specializing in bridge construction. However, Superior has the resources to obtain all equipment needed for minor bridge work. Also Petitioner has been the successful bidder on jobs involving fencing as well as grassing, seeding and sodding. Petitioner has used this type work to meet its quota for subcontracting at least ten percent of the job to minority and female subcontractors. On one occasion when the sodding subcontractor failed to complete the project, Petitioner used its own personnel and equipment to do so. Petitioner's request for qualification for these incidental classes was denied because its application failed to show that the company accomplished fencing, grassing, seeding and sodding with its own forces and equipment. (Exhibit 14.) Most of the evidence submitted in these proceedings involved the denial of qualification for the type work that has been Petitioner's primary category for many years, viz. asphalt paving. The sole reason for denying Petitioner qualification in this class of work is that Petitioner does not have its own asphalt plant (Exhibit 14.) This requirement imposed by Respondent is a recent one which was placed into effect in 1985 following the amendment to Rule 14- 22.03 F.A.C. That amendment added "and the adequacy of equipment to perform the specific classes of work." At the time this change to the rule was made DOT was applying the policy of requiring a contractor to own an asphalt plant in order to qualify for this work class. When asked why this unwritten policy was not included in the rule when amended in 1985, the witnesses involved in incorporating the change involving equipment into the rule replied he could not answer that. The policy of DOT that in order to qualify for asphalt paving the bidder must own an asphalt plant has general applicability and has been applied during the past year to all contractors bidding on DOT road projects. DOT personnel who testified in these proceedings stated the purpose of adding the phrase regarding having the necessary equipment to the requirement for qualification, was to bring the rule more in line with the statutory provisions. The adverse publicity DOT received in recent years because of contractor delays in completing projects and deficiencies in some of the work performed resulted in the tightening of the requirements for qualification. Two contractors in particular were late in completing contracts on which they were successful bidders and part of the delay was due to their inability to get the necessary road paving material. However, both of these contractors owned asphalt plants. One had delays in getting a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation to erect a plant near Destin, Florida, and the other had a falling out with his supplier and could not get the required material. In neither of these cases did the ownership of an asphalt plant alleviate the problem. No evidence was presented showing that a delay in the completion of a project was due solely to the failure of the contractor to have his own asphalt plant. Several asphalt producers submitted letters to the effect that they had supplied paving material to Petitioner for many years and would continue to supply him as much as he would buy. One plant owner testified that he had been in the production and laying of asphalt pavement for many years and much preferred to have the role only of supplier. He also testified that most producers felt the same way. There is no policy or rule requiring contractors who bid on jobs requiring the use of road aggregates to have their own rock quarry in order to qualify for this work class. Petitioner has the necessary equipment to transport mix from the plant to the job site and to install the mix at the job site. Hot Plant-mixed Bituminous Base and Surface courses can be successfully trucked approximately 60 miles from the plant. Accordingly, under DOT's policy, a successful bidder will frequently have to erect an asphalt plant near the job site. This will require him to obtain permits and negotiate the environmental problems associated therewith. The effect of not being qualified for Minor Bridge and Hot Plant-mixed Bituminous classes is that Petitioner is not qualified to bid as a prime contractor when one or more of these classes, in the aggregate, comprises fifty percent or more of the work.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Frank H. Suesz is a licensed general contractor having been issued certificate number CG C020463. On July 21, 1981, the Respondent Suesz submitted an application to the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation to take the certified contractors' examination as a general contractor. On the application, the Respondent Suesz stated that he had four (4) years of construction experience, one (1) year of on-the-job-supervisory experience, and some experience in the construction of buildings in excess of three(3) stories in height. The Respondent's work experience' was verified by Ethel C. Douglas, his mother-in-law and a building owner. Douglas' verification on the Respondent's application was notarized. The experience claimed by the Respondent on his application involved his prior position with Steel Systems Construction Company, a seller and erector of pre-engineered metal buildings. Steel Systems is owned by Richard Spinnenweber, who is also the Respondent's cousin and the complainant in this case. Steel Systems holds the franchise for American Steel Buildings while the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc., has acquired the franchise for Pre-Engineered Steel Buildings. Since the Respondent's resignation from Steel Systems, his relationship with his cousin has been anything but cordial. The Respondent and Spinnenweber have engaged in litigation concerning the termination of their former relationship and are now active business competitors through their respective companies. 1/ The Respondent's company sells and erects pre-engineered, prefabricated steel buildings that are built in a factory, shipped to the job site and erected. One witness for the Petitioner analogized the construction of these buildings to "erector sets". (See Tr. at 43) Since being certified in 1981, the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc. has successfully completed approximately 40 construction projects including a 45,000 foot roof for Pan Am at Miami International Airport, a 10,000 square foot marina warehouse in Key Largo, and has worked for the U.S. Customs Service and the Air Force. No evidence was presented that any of the Respondent's jobs completed since he became certified, were substandard or present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Permits were pulled on these projects and building inspections were passed when required. Prior to moving to Florida, the Respondent Suesz had varied construction experience which including supervising the construction of building additions, a shipping storage warehouse and a factory for Beckley Perforating Company, which is headquartered in Garwood, New Jersey. This testimony is corroborated by a letter dated May 13, 1982, from Frank P. Marano, President of Beckley, which also noted the Respondent's ". . .unusual competency in all areas of responsibility as to construction, maintenance and expansion." [See Petitioner's Exhibit 3(x).] Additionally, the Respondent has some construction experience in excess of three stories, which dates from his work with his father on apartment buildings located out of state. The extent of the Respondent's experience which dates from the 1940s, is set forth in detail in Respondent's Exhibit 2. Although his position at Steel Systems was primarily sales, the Respondent Suesz also worked in the field when necessary. 2/ While employed by Steel Systems, the Respondent supervised construction of two large dock roofs in 1978 and 1979, plus three buildings in 1980 and 1981 for the Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. By letter dated May 13, 1982, Rosario Strano, company owner, commended the Respondent for his work and stated that he intended ". . .to negotiate with him for all future requirements for buildings, dock roofs, etc." [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(y).] In early 1989, the Respondent Suesz built an addition to the Hialeah factory of Brice-Southern, Inc. His supervision of the project included pouring and finishing the floor slab. Philip H. Brice recommended the Respondent's work via letter dated May 13, 1982, and stated ". . .that he would give him the opportunity to do our future requirements." Petitioner's Exhibit 3(z).] According to Gerald Antel, Trustee, Sunshine Skateway, the Respondent supervised the construction of a $250,000 roller rink. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(aa).] Finally, in late 1980 and 1981, the Respondent supervised construction of a 16,800 square foot building for Woal Wholesale Plumbing Supply, Inc. His work on this project was observed and recommended by Randy S. Woal. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(bb).]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Frank H. Suesz, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified building contractor having been issued license number CB CA03134. At times material herein, the Respondent was the qualifier for and conducted his contracting business through the entity doing business as A-1 Builders, Inc. On June 29, 1981, A-1 Builders, Inc., entered into a contract with Albert E. and Helen E. Chaloux to construct a residence in Sebastian, Florida, for the sum of $53,158.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). The Chalouxs paid the Respondent a $4,000.00 deposit to commence construction (Petitioner's Exhibit 6 and TR pages 8-9). Respondent did not commence construction of the Chaloux residence nor did he return any portion of the tendered $4,000.00 deposit. On February 24, 1981, A-1 Builders, Inc., entered into a contract with Jeffrey and Linda Ferris to construct a residence in Sebastian, Florida, for the sum of $32,849.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Respondent completed the Ferris residence during July 1981 and A-1 Builders, Inc., through the person of the Respondent, received full payment at the closing (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). At closing, Respondent transmitted a warranty deed to the Ferrises stating that the property was being delivered to them without any encumbrances (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). At the time of closing, Respondent, through the qualifying entity A-1 Builders, Inc., owed several suppliers and contractors monies for material and services which were furnished for the completion of the Ferris residence and remained unpaid. Specifically, Respondent owed the following suppliers and subcontractors monies: Colkitt Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning, Inc. - $1,500.00 (Petitioner's Exhibits 10-11); Russell Concrete, Inc. - $421.20; and White Drywall - $1,634.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). RESPONDENT'S POSITION Respondent acknowledged that he received a $4,000.00 deposit from the Chalouxs and that he did not commence construction as agreed. However, Respondent urges that A-1 Builders underwent financial difficulties based upon unwarranted newspaper accounts and malicious prosecution by the local State Attorney's office and the Petitioner's investigator which forced him near bankruptcy. Respondent did spend some money toward the initial phases of commencing construction for the Chalouxs which consisted primarily of he payment of monies toward the filing of an application fee for the Chalouxs to obtain financing, the preparation of plans and drawings and some unspecified costs respecting the site preparation for the Chaloux residence. Respecting the allegation that Respondent falsely indicated that there were no encumbrances on the Ferris residence, Respondent's only position is that he was forced to foreclose on certain homes and that the various liens and claims of liens which have been filed by the above-referenced suppliers and subcontractors are being paid as monies are received from the foreclosures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's certified building contractors' license number CB CA03134 be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April 1984.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, White Rock Quarries (“White Rock”), is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees to be paid by Respondents, Dorothy Brown-Alfaro and Amilcar Alfaro (“Respondents” or “Ms. Alfaro”), pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and an award of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to be paid by Respondents pursuant to section 552.40(9), Florida Statutes; and, if so, the amount of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to which White Rock is entitled.
Findings Of Fact White Rock engages in construction materials mining activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Specifically, White Rock utilizes explosives to procure construction materials (i.e., limestone) from quarries that are located in northwest Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondents reside in a single-family, one-story home located at 14699 Southwest 47th Street, Miramar, Broward County, Florida 33027. Respondents are the third owners of the home, which was built in 1981. Respondents have resided in the home since 1998. The home is approximately 3,000 square feet “under air,” and is composed of concrete block with stucco finishes, a shallow slab-on-grade foundation system, wood-framed interior walls, and ceramic tile flooring. The subject quarries are located within various geographic areas identified by different sections in close proximity to Respondents’ home. Of particular relevance to the instant matter are sections 7, 6, and 4/5. Section 7 is approximately 2.6 or 2.7 miles from Respondents’ home. Section 6 is approximately 2.3 or 2.4 miles from Respondents’ home. Section 4/5 is approximately 1.6 miles from Respondents’ home.1/ In the underlying case, Respondents asserted that White Rock’s quarrying activities caused damages to their home. Respondents alleged damages centered on “cracks” that exist throughout the home--specifically, cracks throughout the tile flooring inside the home; cracks on the cement flooring of the garage; cracks in the interior and exterior walls and ceilings; cracks in the semi-circular, stamp-concrete driveway and patio; and cracks around the surface of the windows. It is undisputed that cracks exist throughout Respondents’ home and that Respondents’ home is damaged because of the cracks. However, the issues to be determined in the underlying proceeding were whether the cracks were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities, and, if so, the amount Respondents should be compensated for the damages. Section 552.40(1) provides, in pertinent part, that: A person may initiate an administrative proceeding to recover damages resulting from the use of explosives in connection with construction mining materials mining activities by filing a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings by electronic means through the division’s website on a form provided by it . . . . Pursuant to section 552.40(2)(c) and (d), the petition must include: The approximate time, date, and place of the use of explosives which is alleged to have resulted in damage to the petitioner; and A description of the damage caused and the amount sought for recovery. On December 14, 2015, Respondents’ former counsel filed an Amended Petition Under the Florida Construction Materials Mining Activities Administrative Recovery Act. In the amended petition prepared and filed by Respondents’ former counsel pursuant to sections 552.40(1) and (2), Respondents claimed they were entitled to the following items of damages caused by White Rock’s blasting activities: Floor ($24,000) Foundation ($100,000) Walls ($50,000) Ceiling ($20,000) Patio ($50,000) Driveway ($75,000) Windows ($45,000)2/ The final hearing in the underlying proceeding lasted two days. At that hearing, Respondent Dorothy Brown-Alfaro (who appeared pro se at the final hearing), presented photographs and a home inspection report showing cracks throughout the home. She described new, worsening, and expanding cracks throughout the home resulting from White Rock’s blasting activities. In addition, Ms. Alfaro submitted into evidence a blasting log, which documented the date, time, and intensity of White Rock’s ongoing blasting activities since 1999 Respondents claimed they felt at their home. The blasting log was also an exhibit to Respondents’ amended petition. At the hearing, Ms. Alfaro testified to White Rock’s frequent blasting and the effects on her home from the blasts. According to Ms. Alfaro, when White Rock’s blasting activities occur, the house “sways,” “everything shakes,” and “the entire structure of my house moves.” According to Ms. Alfaro, “when it shakes, my ceiling, my roof, my walls, my floor, everything shakes.” She testified that items fall off the shelves and she described the feeling from the blasts as a “vibration similar to an earthquake.” Ms. Alfaro presented the additional testimony of Barbara Hagan, Paul Ingelmo, and Ismailia Rashid. Mr. Ingelmo is a structural engineer who performed a visual inspection of Respondents’ residence. Ms. Rashid is a general and roofing contractor. Neither Mr. Ingelmo, Ms. Rashid, nor Ms. Hagan could opine that the damages to Respondents’ home were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. Ms. Alfaro is an electrical contractor. She is not a licensed general contractor or structural engineer. At hearing, Ms. Alfaro conceded that she does not have experience as a general contractor or seismologist. She has not had any training in seismology or blasting activities. The undersigned found Ms. Alfaro’s testimony regarding the purported cause of the cracks not to be credited or persuasive. Ms. Alfaro regularly provides construction estimates in her business. Ms. Alfaro testified that the damages she requested in the amended petition were based upon her estimate of the repair costs she would incur to correct the damages caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. She testified, without objection, that she obtained material costs and calculated the amount of materials needed (i.e. per cubic yard of concrete and drywall) and labor to complete the repairs. In response to the evidence presented by Ms. Alfaro at the hearing, White Rock presented the testimony of Jeffrey A. Straw, a seismologist; David L. Teasdale, a civil structural engineer; and Michael Schraeger, a general contractor and building inspector. As a seismologist, Mr. Straw was responsible for monitoring the impacts and vibration from White Rock’s blasting activities and analyzing their effects on structures. At the hearing, he described the concept of peak particle velocity (“PPV”), the speed at which a particle of ground oscillates as the vibration wave moves through the ground following a blast. Mr. Straw testified that according to seismographs located within the vicinity of Respondents’ home, at no time have any of White Rock’s blasting activities reached or exceeded the PPV limit of 0.5 inch per second established by the state of Florida. Mr. Straw also visited Respondents’ home twice: in April 2006 and January 2016. On both occasions, Mr. Straw brought a camera and notepad with him to catalog the defects identified by Respondents. Mr. Straw took extensive and comprehensive photographs detailing the cracks throughout Respondents’ home and driveway. Mr. Straw also testified that 90 percent of the alleged defects he observed in 2016 were items that he also observed in some format in 2006.3/ While at Respondents’ home in January 2016, Mr. Straw experienced the effects of a blast. He described it as “[r]elatively minor based on blasts that I felt,” and indicated the blast lasted about three to five seconds at most. However, Mr. Straw further testified that he could feel the impact of the blast under his feet, and he could hear it, “there was some general vibration of the structure,” and some “dish rattling.” Mr. Teasdale is extensively familiar with seismographs and has extensive experience installing and using them. At the hearing, he was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in structural behavior from ground motion and normal service loads, the influence of construction practices and environmental conditions on building features, soils and hardscape, the causes and conditions documented at Respondents’ residence, and lot features including the suitability of existing safe blasting standards in the state of Florida. Mr. Teasdale explained the substantial differences between an earthquake and quarry blasting. Mr. Teasdale testified that for blasting to cause damage to a structure, distortion must occur. According to Mr. Teasdale, distortion occurs where the foundation of a structure is accelerated laterally and causes the under part of the building to lag in response, which causes the building to shift back and forth and mimic a parallelogram shape. He explained that when distortion occurs, cracks will emanate from the corner of the walls and that those cracks will be mirrored on the opposite walls (inside and outside the structure). Mr. Teasdale testified there was no damage to the foundation of Respondents’ home, and the foundation and floor of a home would not experience distortion at 0.5 PPV or below because those limits are too low to produce the energy necessary to cause a structure to become mobilized. According to Mr. Teasdale, Respondents’ home exhibited a variety of horizontal and vertical cracks and separations in the finishes, which are typical of environmental stresses in those materials. Mr. Teasdale also testified that distortion causes diagonal cracks, while thermal environmental stresses cause cracks vertically and horizontally. He explained that cracks caused by environmental conditions do not correlate on the inside and outside, while cracks caused by distortion do correlate on the inside and outside. He emphasized that the absence of corresponding cracks on the inside and outside of the structure generally precludes blasting as the cause of damages. Mr. Teasdale explained that from the moment the concrete is cast, it begins to shrink and develop cracks. Mr. Teasdale further explained that stucco, which is essentially the same material as concrete, is also prone to cracks due to normal environmental conditions. Based on his review and analysis of Respondents’ home, Mr. Teasdale concluded that he would exclude blasting to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty as the cause of damages to Respondents’ home. Mr. Schraeger has been licensed as a general contractor for 22 years and specializes in repairs, remodeling, and renovations of commercial and residential structures. He has 20 years of experience performing inspections of buildings relating to determination of material, construction failure, and defects. At the hearing, Mr. Schraeger was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in construction practices and environmental effects on materials and structures. Mr. Schraeger inspected Respondents’ home in 2006 and 2016. He testified that 90 to 95 percent of the alleged defects he observed in the home in 2016 existed when he inspected the home in 2006. Mr. Schraeger testified that the cracks that he observed on the tile floor inside Respondents’ home are very typical in a South Florida home because concrete typically cracks within all concrete structures. These types of cracks can be caused by poor installation of the tile or shrinkage of the monolithic slab over time. He opined there was no evidence of foundation damage. Mr. Schraeger further testified that in his professional opinion, some of the cracks in Respondents’ home are the result of poor construction practices. For example, he explained that most of the cracks in the interior of the home are due to poor construction practices because of the use of an inappropriate method for finishing the joints in the drywall. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger observed tape on some of the joints, which either had no joint compound under them, or the tape was applied after the compound started to dry, causing a bond failure. Some of the cracks generating from the corners of openings appeared to be from improperly secured corner bead. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger also observed a crack in the master bedroom approximately eight feet in length, which appeared to be a joint in the drywall. This was apparent to Mr. Schraeger because the crack was visible on both sides of the joint tape, which had failed. According to Mr. Schraeger, the cause of this failure was moisture from a roof leak. Staining due to moisture on the ceiling in the area and a repair of the roof above this area indicated a previous leak. Notably, other areas of the home indicated roof leaks, including stains on the ceiling of the office area and staining around the skylight in the hallway. Mr. Schraeger further testified that the patio tile and driveway lack sufficient control joints, thereby making the stamped-concrete driveway and patio prone to crack. Mr. Schraeger also identified issues of poor maintenance by Respondents. For example, he noted that the caulking around the windows was brittle and almost nonexistent. At the hearing, Mrs. Alfaro acknowledged that in the 17 years she has owned the home, the windows have never been re-caulked. According to Mr. Schraeger, several cracks were observed on the stucco exterior walls of the home. With the exception of a severe crack on the wing wall on the rear of the patio, he opined that all of the cracks in the exterior walls of the home were attributed to common aesthetic cracks caused by the lack of control joints, dissimilar materials, bond failure, and improper maintenance. According to Mr. Schraeger, the crack on the wing wall of the patio, which ran along the bottom of a large tie beam, was attributable to poor construction methods. At the hearing, Mr. Schraeger disputed Ms. Alfaro’s cost of repair testimony. However, Mr. Schraeger was not asked to give an expert opinion regarding the amount of damages, and he provided only “ballpark” or “rough” estimates of the cost of repair. For example, Mr. Schraeger testified that the cost to repair the flooring would be “approximately $11,000.”4/ As to the foundation, he estimated the cost to be $0.00 because he found no damage. As to the walls, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure of $16,000. As to the ceiling, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure of $5,000. As to the patio, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure “well within the high end of six thousand.” As to the driveway, Mr. Schraeger estimated a range between “roughly” $17,000 and $20,000--the high end of the range resulting from “material fluctuation” construction costs. As to the windows, Mr. Schraeger estimated $12,000. Clearly, Mr. Schraeger acknowledged there are actual damages throughout much of the home, and there are actual costs associated with the repair of the damages. That the parties disagreed as to the amount of damages as to each item of alleged damages does not mean that the amount of damages claimed was unsupported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim. In sum, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the undersigned found that Respondents failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the damages to their home were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing established that the damages to Respondents’ home were not caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned credited and found persuasive the testimony of Mr. Straw, Mr. Teasdale, and Mr. Schraeger. Although the undersigned was not persuaded in the underlying case by the evidence presented by Respondents, this does not mean that Respondents’ claims were not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims. There was competent, substantial evidence introduced by Respondents at hearing showing that: (1) Respondents’ home was in close proximity to White Rock’s frequent blasting activities; (2) when the blasting occurs, the house “sways,” “everything shakes,” “the entire structure of [the] house moves,” items fall off the shelf, and Ms. Alfaro feels a vibration similar to an earthquake; and (3) there are cracks throughout the home--some of the cracks are new, worsening, and have expanded as a result of White Rock’s frequent blasting activities. White Rock is the prevailing party in Dorothy Brown- Alfaro and Amilcar Alfaro v. White Rock Quarries, DOAH Case No. 15-6014CM. However, White Rock has failed to establish it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to sections 57.105 and 552.40(9). On page 16 of its proposed final order, White Rock also claims it is entitled to recover taxable costs under section 552.40(9), totaling $9,287, as the prevailing party in the underlying case. The amount of taxable costs claimed is based on Exhibits 12A through 12G. In Respondents’ Proposed Final Order, Respondents do not dispute that White Rock is entitled to “recover costs totaling $9,287.15 (all the costs claimed except for the cost of lunches totaling $62.65) as costs reasonably necessary to defend the claims asserted in the underlying case.” The undersigned has examined White Rock’s Exhibits 12A through 12G, which constitute the universe of taxable costs sought, and the total of the costs is $9,287. There is no cost of lunches included within Exhibits 12A through 12G. All of the costs identified in Exhibits 12A through 12G are taxable costs or incidental administrative costs directly associated with the case, and therefore, are recoverable under section 552.40.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for reexamination at the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 74.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 67.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 4, 10 and 17. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question numbers 4, 10 & 17 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. As to question number 4, the only correct response to the question was answer "B". Petitioner's answer to the question was "D", which was not acceptable. As to question number 10, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "B", was not acceptable. As to question number 17, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "A" was not acceptable. The Department's determination that answers "B", "C" and "C" were the only appropriate answers was not arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner that he be awarded a passing grade for Part III of the June 1990 certified building contractors examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Uebelacker 326 NW Catherine Avenue Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the certification examination for general contractors administered on May 18, 1994. The contract administration portion of the examination consisted of 40 questions. The first twenty questions were worth four points each. The remaining twenty questions were worth one point apiece. To pass this portion of the examination, a total of 70 points was needed. Question 21 of this portion of the examination was a multiple choice question which required the candidate to identify factors which, according to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," should be taken into consideration in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. According to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding "depend[s] on many conditions: the type of job to be done, whether interior or exterior; ground conditions; height and width, as well as load to be carried; and length of time it will be in use." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 21 was clearly "B." Petitioner selected answer "A," which included "wire rope block size" as one of the factors needed to be considered in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. Wire rope block, however, is used in suspended scaffolding, not in tubular steel scaffolding. Petitioner's answer to question 21 therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 31 of the contract administration portion of the May 18, 1994, certification examination was also a multiple choice question. It required the candidate to select the number of days within which, according to the "American Institute of Architects' Document A401" (AIA-A401), a contractor must make a progress payment to a subcontractor following the contractor's receipt of payment from the owner. Section 11.3 of AIA-A401 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he Contractor shall pay the Subcontractor each progress payment within three working days after the Contractor receives payment from the Owner." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 31 was clearly "B." Petitioner's answer to the question was "C," which was clearly incorrect. Petitioner erroneously based this answer upon Section 4.7 of AIA-A401, 1/ which addresses the subject of "remedies for nonpayment" and does not, unlike Section 11.3 of that document, specify the time frame within which the contractor must pay the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the contract administration portion of the certification examination for general contractors for which he sat on May 18, 1994. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1994.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, August T. Nocella, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board), is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, authorized under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the licenses of, among others, certified aluminum contractors. Respondent, August T. Nocella (Respondent), is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified aluminum contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-3197. At times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was doing business as Allied Aluminum, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1997, Ms. Mary J. Pugh had a small screened porch added to her house located at 12855 Gorda Circle West. Approximately two years later, in July 1999, the porch was damaged or destroyed by a storm. Thereafter, Ms. Pugh requested and received a proposal from Allied Aluminum to repair or rebuild the screened porch. On September 1, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Pugh to repair or reconstruct the previously existing screened porch. The contract provided that Respondent would install a new aluminum roof to replace the damaged existing screened porch roof, install gutters and trim, replace 13 feet of valance, replace the screen, and install a new wall front. The contract noted that a riser wall was required for "proper roof pitch." The contract price was $2,300.00, with $1,000.00 to be paid as a down payment and the remaining $1,300.00 to be paid upon completion of the project. Ms. Pugh paid Allied Aluminum in accordance with the terms of the contract. She made the first payment of $1,000.00 on September 1, 1999, and made the final payment of $1,300.00 on September 22, 1999, upon Respondent's completing the job. On or about September 16, 1999, Respondent obtained a permit for the repair or reconstruction of the screened porch at Ms. Pugh's house. Respondent began the project on or about September 15, 1999, and completed the job on September 22, 1999. Section 105.6 of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, as amended,(Standard Building Code) requires local building officials, "upon notification from the permit holder or his agent," to make a final inspection of a building after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. In order to comply with the Standard Building Code, it was the responsibility of the permit holder, in this case, Respondent, to call local officials for a final building inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, a building official would then notify the permit holder of "any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes." Respondent failed to notify building officials that the Pugh project was completed and ready for occupancy and, thus, ready for final inspection by appropriate building officials. As a result of Respondent's failure to call for a final inspection, building officials never inspected Respondent's work on Ms. Pugh's screened porch and made no determination as to whether the project complied with the applicable technical codes. In July 2000, during a storm, the roof of Ms. Pugh's screen porch collapsed. Relying on statements of unnamed contractors, Ms. Pugh believes that the roof collapsed because it did not have the proper pitch. Respondent attributes the collapse of the roof to the gutters being blocked with leaves. Despite these assertions no evidence was presented at hearing to establish the cause of the roof's collapsing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent failed to obtain a satisfactory inspection as alleged in Count One, and is guilty of the offenses described in Chapter 89-504, Subsections 24, (2)(d), (j), and (n), Laws of Florida; (2) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the foregoing offenses; and (3) dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 August T. Nocella 1017 Robinson Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Findings Of Fact A draftsman named Ward approached respondent with plans which Mr. Ward told respondent he had been given by one W. J. "Jack" Harlan. Mr. Ward also told respondent that Mr. Harlan had said that the plans were for a standard steel "pre-engineered" Mitchel Building, which Mr. Harlan proposed to construct for D & D Machine Specialties, Inc. in Fort Myers, as an annex to an existing building. Respondent was given to understand by Mr. Ward that Mr. Harlan wanted respondent "to prepare a plot plan and foundation plan, [and a plan for an] electrical riser and . . . [to] copy . . . some details furnished by" Mr. Harlan. Respondent agreed to undertake the project. In accordance with respondent's instructions, Mr. Ward drafted four sheets of drawings. Respondent "checked [the drawings] . . . , made some minor changes and corrections and . . . signed them." (T65) These drawings came in as petitioner's exhibit No. l. The first of the four sheets contains a schematic riser diagram, an electrical floor plan and a plot plan. On this sheet is written "PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING BY MITCHEL." The second sheet contains a foundation plan and detailed drawings of columns. On the second sheet is written "SPECIFICATIONS COPIED FROM ENGR. DATA BOOK, AS PUBLISHED BY MITCHEL METAL BUILDINGS, AS APPROVED BY STEEL JOIST INSTITUTE." The third sheet contains floor plans and drawings of the north, east, south and west elevations of the proposed structure. The fourth sheet contains a roof framing plan, a stress diagram, and wall and other structural details. On this sheet is written "SPECIFICATIONS COPIED FROM COMPUTER [sic] PRINT OUT, & ENGR. DATA BOOK, BY MITCHEL STEEL BUILDINGS, AS APPROVED BY STEEL JOIST INSTITUTE." Respondent's seal and signature appear on each of the four sheets. The first sheet is dated February 23, 1977. Each of the other sheets is dated February 14, 1977. Mr. Harlan submitted all four sheets of petitioner's exhibit No. 1 to Fort Myers' Building and Zoning Department as part of his application for a building permit. Mr. Alfred J. Heinman, Director of Fort Myers' Building and Zoning Department, and others in the Building and Zoning Department who reviewed the drawings, had reservations about the stability and strength of rails proposed along either side of the planned structure to bear the weight of a movable overhead crane. Accordingly, the Building and Zoning Department denied Mr. Harlan's application for a building permit. Mr. Harlan never told respondent that his permit application had been denied. Instead, he engaged Jorge Zorilla, a professional civil engineer whose specialty is structural design engineering, to remedy the deficiencies in the drawings respondent had done. In examining petitioner's exhibit No. 1, Mr. Zorilla concluded that, if the building had been constructed in accordance with respondent's drawings, trying to lift with the overhead crane in an eccentric position, or even a strong wind, could have caused its collapse. Specifically, the connections between roof members and columns proposed in petitioner's exhibit No. 1 were not strong enough to resist lateral forces on the building; there was inadequate provision for the support of the overhead crane; and there was no bracing system between the columns to resist winds in an easterly or westerly direction. In Mr. Zorilla's opinion, respondent gave no consideration to forces that would have been exerted on the structure by the wind and also failed to consider the consequences of an eccentric crane load. As originally drawn by respondent, the plans did not meet the requirements of the Southern Building Code. Before redrawing sheet four of petitioners exhibit No. 1, Mr. Zorilla asked Mr. Harlan for any information he had "from the Mitchell Steel Building people." (T18) Mr. Harlan answered that he had none; that the proposed building was not a standard model; and that he had collected building materials from various sources. As reflected by petitioner's exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Zorilla made several changes in sheet four of petitioner's exhibit No. 1, including doubling the number of joists in the area where the crane load would exist; increasing from 4" to 12" the height of plates welded to columns to support the crane girders; specifying that 6" x 1/4" plates be welded to the bottoms of the joists near the points of connection with columns; modifying plans for the corner columns; specifying that sway bars be included in two bays on both of the longer walls; and specifying larger angles for bridging. Mr. Ward, whom Mr. Harlan had engaged for the purpose, drafted the changes specified by Mr. Zorilla. When Mr. Zorilla saw Mr. Ward's first draft, he asked him to make certain changes. After Mr. Ward had accomplished the changes, Mr. Zorilla signed and sealed the revised sheet four. On the basis of the plans as revised, Fort Myers' Building and Zoning Department granted Mr. Harlan's application for a building permit. Respondent testified that he was not registered as a structural engineer, "that it was a little over . . [his] head," (T56) and that he had never intended that the plans he signed and sealed should be used by themselves. Respondent testified without contradiction that it was customary, in the case of "pre-engineered" buildings, for the structural engineering to be done by one engineer, while other engineers prepared electrical, air conditioning and other plans for the same structure. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjuction with the statement required by Stuckey' s of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspended respondent's certificate of registration for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Respondent's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Petitioner did present evidence "as to its allegation" in the first specification of the administrative complaint. Taken as a whole, the evidence did establish that respondent knew or should have known that he had taken on a structural engineering task. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have generally been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not establish whether or not the plans drawn at respondent's direction resembled "a Mitchell pre-engineer[ed] building"; and the plates specified by Mr. Zorilla were six inches by one quarter inch. COPIES FURNISHED: Ford L. Thompson, Esquire Suite 701, Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen W. Buckley, Esquire Corner Main and Broadway Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= IN THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION, a State agency, Complainant, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 77-2224 CLARENCE L. KIMBALL, Registrant. /
