Recommendation Based upon the admission of the Respondent, Oscar Darias, that the allegations in the Administrative Complaint are true, and the Respondent's plea of guilty to the violations as charged in the Complaint, it is RECOMMENDED that the certified general contractor's license, number CG C004728, held by the Respondent, Oscar Darias, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 22nd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 S.W. 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Oscar Darias 9402 S.W. 17th Street Miami, Florida 33174
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The parties stipulated that Respondent, Donald Euske, is a registered general contractor and is the holder of license No. RG0012553, which license is current and active. On January 24, 1979, Respondent entered into a contract with Messr. Ekstrom for the construction of a "strip" shopping center (Center) for a price of $99,800.00. In this regard, evidence reveals that the parties entered no less than three (3) construction agreements for the subject Center. According to the terms of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent abandoned the above referred project on May 15, 1979, when it was approximately 70 percent complete after having received $81,000.00 or approximately 81 percent of the contracted price. Construction on the Ekstrom Center progressed at a normal rate and Respondent timely obtained all the necessary permits from the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Section to commence construction. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of witnesses Reffrett and Marchitello) Respondent and Messr. Ekstrom had had one other prior contractual relationship for the construction of a commercial building. That building was completed without incident. As stated, Respondent and Messr. Ekstrom entered at least three (3) agreements for the construction of the subject Center which is situated at 3671- 3687 Davie Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. One agreement was entered into primarily for the purpose of obtaining construction and permanent financing; another agreement was entered for what was considered a "turn-key building" and another was entered into for construction of a "shell" without walls and air conditioning. Based on Messr. Ekstrom's prior relationship with Respondent, an acceptable draw schedule was entered and Messr. Ekstrom executed pre-signed draw releases for the construction monies. Additionally, the agreement was modified by the owner in several particulars including a substitution for tempered glass as opposed to plate glass since it would not comply with Code requirements. The substitution resulted in an upward price adjustment of approximately $900.00 and the parties disagreed as to who should bear the responsibility of that adjustment. Another item that surfaced as a dispute between the parties was a cost item of approximately $3,000.00 to $3,500.00 for fill dirt. The cost for fill was not specifically mentioned in either of the parties' construction agreements. Messr. Ekstrom refused to authorize payment for the fill, contending that it was an item which was necessarily included in the contracted price whereas Respondent contends that the cost of fill was purposely omitted from the agreement due to the varying soil conditions and varying costs dependent upon the degree of compaction required to bring the building site into Code compliance. Respondent left the construction site during May of 1979, after the Center was, according to the owner's estimate, approximately 70 percent complete. At that stage, Respondent had erected all exterior walls; completed the roof; roughed the electrical and plumbing systems; erected partition studs and all entrance and exit doors, including windows, were hung. After learning of his financial difficulties, Respondent approached his accountant who was commissioned to complete a cost analysis such that Respondent could review his expenses, compute his costs and attempt to complete the project and receive a reasonable margin of profit based on what was required to complete the Center. When the cost analysis was completed, Respondent, in fact, approached owner Ekstrom who refused to go along with the payment of any additional monies over and above that set forth in the contract which called for an agreed price of $99,800.00. When Respondent left the project, the owner was able to subcontract the work remaining for completion of the building using most of the mechanics previously retained by Respondent. Using the figures tendered by the owner, approximately $18,000.00 was needed to complete the Center when Respondent left. At that time, there remained in the construction draw account, approximately $19,800 for completion of the building. Thus, there existed in the construction draw account, more than sufficient funds to complete the project. The McGinnis Project On July 14, 1978, the Respondent entered into a contract with John McGinnis to construct a residence for a price of approximately $140,000.00. Messr. McGinnis was familiar with Respondent's reputation and workmanship and thus secured his services as a general contractor to build his residence. Numerous changes were made in the design of Messr. McGinnis' residence which delayed construction and increased Respondent's costs. Some of the changes included modifications to room dimensions, substitution of the exterior walls with cedar siding etc. When the McGinnis project was approximately 94 percent complete, Respondent again found himself in financial trouble and commissioned his accountant to prepare a cost analysis for the McGinnis residence. Based on that analysis, Respondent requested a profit of approximately $25,000 from Messr. McGinnis to complete the project. Messr. McGinnis refused and Respondent advised him that he felt he was entitled to a reasonable profit and could not complete the residence with the remaining funds available in the draw account. Messr. McGinnis utilized the services of the materialmen and subcontractors that were retained by Respondent to complete his residence. Owner McGinnis requested and obtained without difficulty a certificate of occupancy for his residence. The Respondent's Defense Respondent has been licensed by Petitioner since approximately 1972. Respondent, as a licensed contractor, has not been the subject of any prior charges or complaints by Petitioner. During October of 1978, through July of 1979, the subject projects were the only undertakings Respondent had contracted to complete. In bidding on both projects, Respondent projected that the time needed to complete both would be approximately 90 days. In excess of 150 days was needed to complete the projects, part of which was occasioned by changes and unforeseen construction developments which brought about delays in completing the projects. During this period, in addition to himself, Respondent's only other employee was a secretary. In preparing the bid for the two projects, Respondent factored into his bid a weekly salary of $500.00 per week. Respondent encountered a delay in the Ekstrom project at the outset when he was unable to persuade the owner to prepare the site for construction. When Respondent was unable to persuade the owner to defray the cost for preparing the site for construction, Respondent advanced the approximately $3,000.00 in costs associated therewith. Another problem Respondent encountered on the Ekstrom project centered around the placement of interior walls. This problem arose as a result of the owner's uncertainty as to whether or not he wanted to build what is referred to as "double' or "single" spaces which, of course, impacted on the number of interior walls that had to be built in the structure. This resulted in a cost increase of approximately $3,000.00 over and above the amount envisioned by Respondent when the contract was bid upon. Another problem Respondent encountered at the Ekstrom Center involved the removal of a sign by an adjacent land owner before the roof could be installed at the Center. The owner refused to have the sign removed and Respondent relented resulting in another unforeseen cost of approximately $500.00 over and above that envisioned when the contract was bid. Respondent approached both owners Ekstrom and McGinnis who refused to compromise when he presented the cost analyses prepared by his accountant. Respondent admitted that he bid on both projects without allowing for sufficient flexibility to offset cost overruns occasioned by unforeseen developments and/or inflationary trends. However, Respondent credibly testified that he used all of the draw proceeds from those projects exclusively on such projects and diverted no monies therefrom. As a matter of fact, evidence reveals that Respondent placed a second mortgage on his residence and used the mortgage money which was obtained from former Mayor and City Councilman of Hollandale, Edgar H. Galvin, who appeared and testified at this hearing. Messr. Galvin has known Respondent since approximately 1975, and has utilized his services as a contractor to build a "Taco Beaver" Restaurant in the Broward County area. Messr. Galvin has also retained Respondent to do sundry repairs for a country club and at several other small projects that he owned. Messr. Galvin is familiar with the construction business and has built numerous homes, restaurants, hotels, etc., in the Broward County area. Messr. Galvin credibly opined that fill dirt may well be an extra based on soil conditions, if not expressly mentioned in the construction bid and resulting agreements. Construction costs during the period in question in 1978, were approximately $35.00 per square foot. Using the $35.00 per square foot construction cost for these projects, both projects were under-bid by Respondent. Reverend Luther Anderson, the pastor of the First Lutheran Church in Fort Lauderdale, has known the Respondent for approximately ten (10) years. Respondent enjoys a good reputation for truth and veracity in the community and has completed several construction projects for the church and Rev. Anderson, without any problems respecting the quality of the work or the amount charged for his services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of February, 1981.
The Issue The issue is whether the proceeding initiated by the Department to suspend the certificate of qualification of Traylor Brothers, Inc. and Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. on May 30, 1991, should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Department's own procedural rules.
Findings Of Fact Traylor Brothers, Inc. and Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. are joint venturers, who successfully bid to construct a portion of the I-95 expansion program in Broward County. Their contract was to widen 5.7 miles of I-95, including a number of bridges. The contract the Department signed with the joint venturers contained two time-related deadlines, an interim/milestone completion date of 550 days after the Department issued its notice to proceed with the contract, and a contract completion date of 670 days after the joint venturers received the Department's notice to proceed. As is common in such contracts, the joint venturers requested extensions of the contract interim/milestone and contract completion dates. Obtaining such extensions when they are justified is important to the contractor, because a failure to meet those deadlines can result in substantial penalties, including suspension of the contractor's Certificate of Qualification to bid on other contracts, and the imposition of liquidated damages. On February 27, 1990, the resident engineer supervising the project on behalf of the Department of Transportation, James W. Ordway, who is an employee of the engineering firm of Post Buckley, et.al., wrote to the area manager for the joint venturers concerning a completion schedule the joint venturers had submitted on February 12, 1990. Mr. Ordway told the joint venturers that the Department had "agreed to a 35 calendar day extension of the contract milestone [date], but the contract completion [date] was to remain at 670 days". This letter was a response to a request made by the joint venturers for extensions of the milestone date and a final completion date due to subsoil excavation problems. While the February 27, 1990, letter from the Department's engineer agreed to the contract milestone extension, it did not deal with the contract completion date directly, for although the completion date was not extended, the request for extension of the completion date was not squarely denied. The joint venturers emphasized this point in a letter to the Department's District IV Direction of Operations dated March 9, 1990. The parties have been in negotiations with respect to the effect of subsoil excavation on the completion date for a long time; those negotiations led to an amendment to the construction contract, which bears the title "Supplemental Agreement." It was executed by the parties in March of 1991, the last signature was placed on the Supplement Agreement on March 25, 1991. Paragraph 3 of that agreement, and the language immediately following paragraph 3 state: (3) The interim milestone date of the contract is hereby extended thirty-five (35) calendar days, as agreed to in the Department's letter to the contractor dated February 19, 1990. This time extension does not alter the contract duration. The contractor takes exception to the adjustments to the contract made by the Engineer for Subsoil Excavation only, but agrees to perform the work and to accept compensation as determined herein by the Engineer without prejudice to any claim related to Subsoil Excavation which the Contractor may submit pursuant to Article 5-12 of the Standard Specifications. The Contractor's exception to the adjustments for Subsoil Excavation shall not constitute notification by the Contractor of his intention to make [a] claim for compensation in addition to the adjustments agreed to in this Supplemental Agreement. (Joint Venturers' Supplemental Response to its Motion to Dismiss and Reply to the Department's Response Thereto, Exhibit G.) On that same day, the joint venturers sent a letter to the resident engineer, Mr. Ordway, which stated The Department has extended the milestone date by 35 calendar days for this work. The Contractor claims for an extension of the final completion date for the same 35 days. (Id., Exhibit H.) This request for an extension was consistent with the agreement memorialized in the Supplemental Agreement quoted in Finding 4, above. The joint venturers received no response to their request for a 35 day extension of the project completion date made in the March 19, 1991, letter before they received the Secretary's notice that the Department intended to suspend the joint venturers' Certificate of Qualification under Rule 14-23, Florida Administrative Code, for unsatisfactory progress on the construction contract "because the allowed contract time for performing the work has expired and the contract work is not complete." (Secretary's letter of May 30, 1991.)
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the May 30, 1990, notice of intent to suspend the Certificate of Qualification of the joint venturers be dismissed, without prejudice, for the Department's failure to comply with Rule 14-23.013(1), Florida Administrative Code, one of the Department's own rules. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 22nd day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Reynold D. Meyer, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James E. Moye, Esquire Moye, O'Brien, O'Rourke, Hogan & Pickert Suite 710 Southeast Bank Building 201 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATTN: ELEANOR F. TURNER, MS #58 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The Department of General Services, (hereinafter "DGS") is a state agency, the responsibilities of which include the management of state construction project. It accomplishes such management through its Division of Building Construction. The Divisions responsibilities include, negotiation of architect/engineer contracts, review of plans and specifications, contract administration, and contract management. One such project is Project No. MA-87080010, the subject matter of which involves repairs and alterations to the National Guard Armory in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the Armory Project. Certain portions of the bid specification for the Armory Project were prepared by the project architect, Mr. William D. Tschumy, Jr. Other portions, specifically the portions dealing with bidding conditions and contractual conditions, were provisions provided by DGS for inclusion in the specifications. The project architect was not familiar with all of the bid specification provisions provided by DGS. Prior to submitting its bid on the Armory Project, James P. Moran, Inc., had been prequalified for bidding on the project. Such prequalification did not obviate the need for James P. Moran, Inc., to meet the experience requirements in the bid specifications and in Rule 13D-11.904(2)(a)(8), Florida Administrative Code. The bid specifications for the Armory Project include the following provisions: 1/ Section B-2, page 9: 8. Firm experience - must have successfully completed no less than two project of similar size and complexity within the last three years. and; Section B-22, page 16: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the best interest of the State of Florida and to reject the proposal of a bidder who the owner determines is not in a position to perform the contract and to negotiate the contract in accordance with its Rule 13- D11.08 if the low qualified bid exceeds the project construction budget. James P. Moran, Inc., timely submitted its bid on the Armory Project and was subsequently notified that it had been recommended for contract award by the Director of the Division of Building Construction. This recommendation was made on the basis of a recommendation by the project architect that the bid be awarded to James P. Moran, Inc. At the time of making his recommendation, the project architect was not aware of the firm experience provision in either the bid specifications or the applicable rules. A timely protest was filed by another bidder on the Armory Project, in which the protesting bidder raised the issue of the firm experience of James P. Moran Inc. DGS concluded that the protest was valid and after further deliberation made the determination to reject all bids. All the bids other than the bid submitted by James P. Moran, Inc., exceeded the funds available for construction of the Armory Project. Because the other bids all exceeded the available funds, DGS decided that the best course of action would be to modify the scope and nature of the work involved in the project and then re-bid the project. It is reasonable to expect that the proposed modifications to the project will result in lower bids, because the modifications would permit the work to be done quicker and at less cost to the contractor. James P. Moran, Inc., was incorporated in 1981. However, prior to the summer of 1988, it had submitted no bids acquired no permits, and had neither started nor completed any jobs. The qualifying contractor for James P. Moran, Inc., is Mr. James P. Moran who, for many years prior to the summer of 1988, was an employee, officer, and shareholder of Frank J. Moran, Inc. Mr. James P. Moran holds a State of Florida building contractors license, a State of Florida electrical contractors license, a Dade County electrical masters license, a Broward County electrical masters license, and a State of Maine electrical contractors license. While employed by Frank J. Moran, Inc., Mr. James P. Moran was also the qualifying contractor for that corporation. While so employed, Mr. James P. Moran's primary duties were those of project director and estimator. He was also a corporate officer of Frank J. Moran, Inc. During his employment with Frank J. Moran, Inc., Mr. James P. Moran was the project manager on projects of similar size and complexity to the Armory Project. The construction budget for the Armory Project is approximately 250,000. The dollar values of construction jobs are valid indicators of the comparative sizes of construction jobs. The dollar values of the two largest construction jobs completed by James P. Moran, Inc., are approximately $161,000 and $112,000, respectively. The two largest construction jobs completed by James P. Moran, Inc., are not of similar size to the Armory Project. While DGS is concerned about the qualifications of the personnel employed by a contracting firm, DGS is also concerned about the track record of the firm itself, and, therefore, requires that a firm have completed projects in its own name in order to qualify for a bid award. In other words, a new firm cannot "take credit" for work performed by one of its employees at a time when the employee was working for another firm. Also, DGS does not allow "stacking" of the dollar value of several small jobs in order to demonstrate completion of a job of similar size to the job that is the subject of a bid. The purpose of the experience rule is to require a contracting firm to have completed at least two jobs of similar dollar size to the dollar size of the job being contracted. Among, the reasons stacking is not allowed is that completion of a job of any given size is a more complicated and complex undertaking than completion of a series of smaller jobs that total up to the same dollar value as the job of given size. DGS has now modified the scope of the project and has amended the plans and specifications in such a fashion that it will take less time to complete the modified Armory project and may reasonably be expected to result in lower bids closer to or below the construction budget. The modified Armory project may reasonably be expected to result in a savings of both time and money.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services issue a final order in this case rejecting the bid of James P. Moran, Inc., as being non-responsive, and rejecting all other bids, in order to modify the scope of the project and rebid it. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of March 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered general contractor having been issued license number RG 0009255. On September 5, 1980, Respondent, who was then doing business as George N. Sullivan, Inc., entered into a contract to remodel a residence owned by Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida, for the sum of $46,900. On September 8, 1980, George N. Sullivan, Inc., was paid $4,690 by the Cains as a down payment for the above-referenced construction project. Respondent performed no work with reference to that construction project. On December 7, 1979, the Respondent, doing business as George N. Sullivan, Inc., entered into a contract with Vero Fore, Inc., to construct a residence located at Lot 27, Unit 3, The Moorings of Vero Beach, for the sum of $155,628. The difference between the sum of the contract, $155,628, and the sum alleged in the Administrative Complaint of $171,688 constitutes agreed-upon extra items. Respondent discontinued construction on the Vero Fore project on or about September 22, 1980, after having received $153,547 of the contract amount. At the time that Respondent discontinued construction on the Vero Fore project, there remained $66,199.60 in unpaid bills for labor and materials furnished to Respondent for that residence; yet, the owners of the residence only owed to Respondent $18,141 of the final contract price. On July 6, 1981, Respondent was convicted of five counts of passing worthless checks. These checks represented payments to materialmen and subcontractors with regard to the residence being built for Vero Fore, Inc. The convictions resulted in a judgment dated July 6, 1981, which was entered in the County Court, Indian River County, in cases styled State of Florida v. George N. Sullivan, Case Nos. 81-57 and 81-589, in which the Respondent was placed on probation for 18 months with condition of restitution. At no time material herein did Respondent properly qualify George N. Sullivan, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent's registered general contractor's license number RG 0009255 with the provision that Respondent be allowed to have his license reinstated after a two- year period if he furnishes to the Construction Industry Licensing Board clear and convincing evidence that he has made restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Cain and the five material suppliers to which he was convicted of passing worthless checks. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: JOHN O. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE 547 NORTH MONROE STREET, SUITE 204 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 MR. GEORGE N. SULLIVAN 22 EAST SPRUCE STREET ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32804 SAMUEL R. SHORSTEIN, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 J. K. LINNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 2 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32201 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0014375 0009520 GEORGE N. SULLIVAN RG 0009255 DOAH CASE NO. 82-1535 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32804, Respondent. /
The Issue The primary factual issue was whether the company which the Respondent had qualified was in fact the contractor on the job from which the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint arose. The Petitioner submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Edward Ryan, is a certified building contractor holding license number C3 C006481 and was the qualifying agent for Behr Contracting, Inc. (thereafter "Behr Contracting"), at all times relevant to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Behr Contracting was, and is a business engaging in, contracting, selling building materials, and mortgage brokerage. Its operations as a mortgage broker are now carried on under a separate corporation; however, at the time involved in these proceedings, its mortgage brokerage operation was carried out in the name of Behr Contracting, Inc. Willie Mae Williams resides at 1451 Northwest 92nd Street, Miami, Florida. In 1980, Ms. Williams had extensive modifications made to her house at the foregoing address. With regard to the work on her house, Ms Williams' initial contact was with S. J. (Jerome) Farmer. Farmer was an independent contractor who was doing home repairs in early 1980 to several homes close to the Williams home. He was not doing these jobs as an employee of Behr Contracting, and no evidence was introduced that at said time he was an employee of Behr Contracting. After he had already begun working on the Williams home, Farmer approached the Respondent and requested Respondent's assistance in helping him estimate additional repairs and modifications to Ms. Williams' home and assistance in obtaining the financing for this job. Farmer was not affiliated in any manner with Behr Contracting. The Respondent arranged for an estimator to assist Farmer in estimating the cost of the project and in obtaining financing for the project. (Testimony of Ryan, Tr. 58 et seq.) This estimator had two contract forms signed by Ms. Williams, one for financing and one for construction. These documents were identified by Ms. Williams and were received into the record. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3.) Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is the contract between Behr Contracting and Ms. Williams for the financing of the modifications to the Williams house. Financing for the project was obtained through the mortgage brokerage operation of Behr Contracting and the money funneled through Behr Contracting to pay for materials purchased through Behr's building materials operation. Ms. Williams has made payments and is making payments as required under said contract to the finance company, Uni Credit of Jacksonville, Florida. Behr Contracting provided cabinets, windows and certain appliances, to include a dishwasher. The Respondent was at Ms. Williams' house approximately three times prior to the delivery of building materials from Behr Contracting. (Testimony of Ryan, Tr. 23.) On none of these occasions was the Respondent there as a building contractor qualifying Behr Contracting. At all times, Farmer was in charge of the project. (See testimony of Williams, Tr. 184.) Farmer was the contractor in fact. Subsequent to installation of the dishwasher, the Respondent was present at the Williams house often because of Ms Williams' complaints about the dishwasher. The Respondent replaced this dishwasher and had Ms. Williams' septic tank pumped in order to solve the drainage problem which was causing the dishwasher to malfunction. This was done to honor the warranty on the dishwasher. (Supra, Tr. 45-51.) A salesman for Behr Contracting gave Ms. Williams an estimate on both the contracting and on the financing for the modifications and remodeling of the Williams house. Under its business practices, Behr Contracting disapproved or rejected the contract for construction, yet approved the financing contract. Approval of a construction contract in the amount of the instant contract, over $11,000, would have required an officer's approval. (See testimony of Stanley Weiss, Tr. 21-28.) Although Ms. Williams identified her signature on the purported construction contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), she could not identify the signature appearing on the lefthand side of the page at the bottom of the contract in the area of "Agent" and "Officer." This signature also could not be identified by Stanley Weiss or Margaret Behr, officers of Behr Contracting. It was not the signature of Weiss, Ms Behr or the Respondent, who were the only officers of the corporation authorized to approve a contract of this amount at the time that this contract was prepared. This contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) was never accepted by Behr Contracting (See testimony of Weiss, Tr. 35.) Although a copy of Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was discovered by Weiss in the files of Behr Contracting, this was a photo copy given to Weiss by the Respondents who had received it from the Board's investigators when the Respondent first spoke to them about this case. (See page 8, deposition of Ryan taken September 17, 1982; see pages 3, 4 and 8, deposition of Weiss; testimony of Ryan, Tr. 70-75; testimony of Weiss, Tr. 10-12.) The Respondent's involvement in this matter was "limited to providing gratuitous advice to Farmer at Farmer's request on one occasion, concerning a broken major waste drain, and representing Behr Contracting who was a major supplier of materials and appliances for the job. It is specifically found that the Petitioner failed to establish the existence of a construction contract between Ms. Williams and Behr Contracting. Regarding the allegations that the Respondent abandoned the job, the Respondent caused the dishwasher supplied by Behr Contracting to be replaced under warranty service. The septic tank at the Williams house was pumped and cleaned at the request of Uni Credit in an attempt to solve the problem. Finally, over a year after the job had begun, the Respondent had the septic tank and drainfeild rebuilt and solved Ms. Williams' drainage problems. This last action was taken under threat of prosecution by the Board's investigators and was done in spite of the fact, which is uncontroverted, that the construction did not address modifications to the plumbing in the house. After the Respondent had taken these actions, Ms. Williams than wanted the cabinets and other work, which had been done by Farmer, replaced because of water damage caused by the drainage problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Amended Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Edward Ryan, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Kristin Building, Suite 101 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 32206 Mr. Edward Ryan 19762 Bel Aire Drive Miami, Florida 33138 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Respondent Rubin Wilson holds General Contractor's License No. RG 0019093. He is employed full time at the Pensacola Naval Base, and works evenings and weekends as a building contractor. Amos and Julia Smith entered an oral contract with Respondent in September, 1977, for construction of a house on their property at the northwest corner of Bobe and 16th Avenue in Pensacola. The Smith paid Wilson $4,000 as a down payment on a total agreed price $20,000. The parties disagree as to how the remaining $16,000 was to be paid. The Smiths understood that on completion of the house they would make a further $1,000 payment and obtain $15,000 in financing from Mutual Federal Savings and Loan. Wilson contends the Smiths were to pay the remaining $1,000 personal payment during the pendency of construction and secure financing whereby Wilson could receive "draws" as he progressed on the project. Respondent obtained a building permit in November, 1977. He requested a foundation inspection in May, 1978, and a slab inspection in November, 1978. He did some framing work in January, 1979, and had some materials delivered to the site in March, 1979. Thereafter, Wilson did no further work on the project which was about ten percent complete. In April, 1979, the Smiths sought to obtain a written contract from Respondent but were unsuccessful. They brought suit against Wilson in May, 1979, to terminate the oral contract and recover their down payment. Wilson counterclaimed for $6,600 and the suit was dismissed with prejudice by agreement of the parties. The house was eventually completed by a second contractor at a substantially higher cost to the Smiths.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found not guilty of violating Subsection 468.112(2)(h) Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. M. McDavid, Esquire 103 North DeVilliers Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
