Findings Of Fact The Respondent, at all times material hereto, was a licensed registered "residential contractor." He was not registered or licensed as a general or building contractor, however, as Respondent himself acknowledged. See also, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 in evidence. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with establishing licensure standards for building contractors of all types in the State of Florida, and with enforcing the various limitations on practice as a contractor embodied in that chapter. On or about January 28, 1986, the Respondent contracted with one Harold Martin, M.D., to build Dr. Martin a commercial office building in Leon County, Florida. The contract specified construction of all phases of the building project except the parking lot and the landscaping. The Respondent submitted a budget for the construction work to Dr. Martin depicting a total proposed cost for the project of $134,882. The Respondent performed substantial work on the office building in January and February of 1986. In March of 1986, due to a dispute which arose between the Respondent and Dr. Martin concerning the cost and progress of the construction project, Dr. Martin terminated the Respondent's service and contract and retained another contractor to finish the job, which was done. The Respondent established that when the contract was terminated, the building was approximately 65 percent complete. It is undisputed that the Respondent did perform a substantial amount of work on the office building pursuant to the contract with Dr. Martin. On March 27, 1986, the Respondent filed a claim of lien against the owner, Harold Martin, in which the Respondent stated that he had managed the construction of the office building in question and had performed $23,300 worth of work thereon. The Respondent also provided Dr. Martin with a Contractor's Affidavit, in which he certified to the owner that all lienors, except one, had been paid. The Respondent had contracted to perform the work after it had been started by another contractor retained by Dr. Martin, whom Dr. Martin had also terminated because he was not pleased with the progress and the quality of work of that first contractor. The Respondent established that one of the members of the Board of Directors of his corporation was a licensed general contractor, but admitted that that general contractor and board member had performed no work with regard to Dr. Martin's office building. The Respondent testified that another general contractor came to the job site from time to time to supposedly oversee the job. However, it was not established that any other general contractor, in the course of his practice, had any nexus with the Martin contract nor the performance of any construction on the building at times when the Respondent was performing construction thereon in January and February of 1986. This is demonstrated especially because of the fact that the Respondent never paid any other general contractor any money for any work or supervision performed with regard to this job, nor had Dr. Martin paid any other general contractor for such duties during the time that the Respondent was performing work on the building in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, in accordance with disciplinary guideline Rule 21E-17.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, according the Respondent the penalty of a Letter of Guidance. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2958 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William O'Neil, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. James L. Washington 320 West Pershing Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sergio J. Alcorta (Alcorta), is licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) as a professional engineer, license number PE 0014464. Alcorta is not licensed by the Department as a contractor. Alcorta has a company called mrf building systems, inc. Alcorta d/b/a mrf building systems, inc. is not listed in the records of the Contractors Section, Dade County Building and Zoning Department as a certified contractor doing or contracting for work in the building trades in Dade County. Hurricane Andrew, which hit the Miami area in August, 1992, damaged the home of Kenneth and Elizabeth Quinn. A friend of the Quinns referred them to Alcorta for assistance. By letter dated September 15, 1992, Alcorta outlined a discussion he had with the Quinns. The letter stated: Per our discussion, I will assist you in dealing with your insurance carrier and other construction workers to ensure that all hurricane damages are accounted for and the work is properly performed. I will prepare an initial damage evaluation report of all damages for the insurance adjuster and facilitate on your behalf the transfer of funds from your mortgage holder to you and to any pertinent party. My fees will be $150 for the initial evaluation and $500 at the end of construction work where you require my assistance. By letter dated September 16, 1992, Alcorta advised the Quinns of his findings concerning the damage to their residence. The engineer's report was prepared on the letterhead of Nu-Tech Engineering Services. Alcorta contacted a general contractor to see if the contractor could perform the work required to repair the Quinn's house. The contractor advised Alcorta that only a roofing permit would be required for the job and that because of the work he was already committed to do, he did not know when he could complete the repairs. Alcorta and Mr. Quinn signed a proposal on mrf building systems, inc. letterhead dated September 29, 1992. The proposal provided: We propose to furnish all materials, labor, tools, and equipment to repair the storm damaged dwelling at the above referenced location as follows: Roof recovering with shingles and ply- wood sheathing repairs $7,500. Structural repairs to concrete columns, stucco repairs as necessary $2,500 Enclosing terrace with new exterior walls and french doors $7,500 Retiling terrace room and pool area $2,000 Securing cabinets and other interior damage $1,000 Removal, installation of solar collector $500 New terrace central air conditioner $2,000 Exterior fencing $3,000 Total repair estimate $26,000 TERMS: One third down payment upon execution of the contract. Partial payments upon completion of work segments. Estimated time for completion of job: 21 days. On mrf building systems, inc.'s letterhead dated September 30, 1992, Alcorta provided Ms. Quinn with an estimate for interior painting, taking off the roof mounted solar collector and reinstalling it on the new roof, replacing roof insulation, structural epoxy repair, and replacing torn vent screens. Alcorta was paid approximately $14,650 by the Quinns on this project. Alcorta in turn paid for some of the materials and labor used on the project. The checks from the Quinns were made payable to Alcorta, not to mrf building systems, inc. By letter dated October 2, 1992, on mfr building systems, inc., letterhead, Alcorta forwarded a copy of the contract with the Quinns to the Quinn's mortgage company advising them that the Quinns had given him a down payment of $4,000 and listing the anticipated completion dates for the various tasks to be performed. Alcorta bought supplies and had laborers come to the site to perform work. There was no licensed contractor on the job. The only building permit pulled on the project was obtained by Elizabeth Quinn, the homeowner. The building permit did not carry the disclosure statement required by Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. Alcorta witnessed Ms. Quinn's signature on the application for building permit. Alcorta did not advise the Quinns that they were to act as contractors per Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. The Quinns did not supervise the construction on the project but relied on Alcorta to supervise the work. Alcorta was not an employee of the Quinns. The Quinns experienced problems with the roofing work performed pursuant to the contract with mrf building systems, inc. The roof leaked, requiring the Quinns to have the roof replaced at a cost of $10,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Sergio J. Alcorta violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), and assessing an administrative penalty of $3,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Bass, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Sergio J. Alcorta Nisky Center, Mail Box 401 Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 Lynda Goodgame, Genral Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This case arises on an amended administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner which seeks to have Respondent's contractor licenses disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, incident to the construction of a residence near Melrose, Florida. The case originally was scheduled to be heard on July 10, 1987, but after the hearing was convened, Respondent's counsel sought a continuance based on Respondent's health problems which were supported by a doctor's statement. The motion was granted and the hearing was continued until August 25, 1987. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Evans Starke, Marion Uhl, and Robert H. Adams. Petitioner submitted eight exhibits in evidence, including the depositions of Respondent and Matthew M. Gordon. Respondent testified in his own behalf and submitted three exhibits in evidence. However, Respondent's exhibit three, which was a house plan, was retained by Respondent and a copy thereof was to be filed within 10 days after the hearing. Additionally, Respondent was provided a period of 10 days after the hearing to submit a deposition of James A. Taylor However, the deposition was not filed within the required period nor was Respondent's exhibit three. Respondent's post-hearing motion to extend the time for filing the deposition was denied. The parties were provided a period of ten days from the filing of the hearing transcript in which to file proposed recommended orders. Neither party made a timely submission. However, Respondent's post-hearing motion to extend the time period was granted. The proposed Findings of Facts submitted by both parties were considered and substantially incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joseph Rentz is licensed as a registered building contractor, roofing contractor, and mechanical contractor, and was so licensed at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In addition, he is the qualifying contractor for Alachua Association Builders. (Petitioner's exhibits 2-3) In March 1985, Evans Starke of Miami, Florida entered into an oral agreement with Respondent for the construction of a residence near Melrose, Florida. Respondent agreed to build the house on a cost-plus basis and estimated that the cost would be approximately $27.00 per square foot or less. Respondent told Starke that he would be satisfied with 10 percent of the cost of construction for his fee. The arrangement was that Starke would Periodically provide money to his aunt, Lenora Peterson, and that Respondent could make draws from that source as required to progress with construction. Starke also asked Respondent to open a checking account from which he would pay the bills for materials and labor. (Testimony of Starke) The original construction plans provided to the Respondent by Starke were for a house of approximately 4,000 square feet, but since Starke wished to expand the size of the house considerably, he informed Respondent of the various modifications which resulted in Respondent obtaining revised plans from a draftsman for a house of approximately 10,000 square feet. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent) Respondent obtained a building permit in his name and commenced construction. As work progressed, Respondent would inform Lenora Peterson of the need for progress payments for materials and labor on a weekly basis. She would then provide the necessary money in cash to Respondent and obtain a signed receipt from him. During the period March through September, 1985, Respondent signed receipts amounting to $121,360. Respondent had several checking accounts in the name of "J. & L. Properties", into which some of the draws were deposited and checks drawn thereupon to pay materialmen, subcontractors, and workmen. In other instances, Respondent paid cash to workmen, but obtained no receipts therefor. Starke visited the project site usually on a biweekly basis during the initial months of construction. On several occasions, he met Respondent midway between Gainesville and Miami to deliver cash for construction costs. Some of this money given to Respondent was not evidenced by a receipt of Respondent. Starke testified that on one occasion, he gave Respondent $3,000 to pay for the installation of a well, but Respondent had only given the well-digger $1,000, and Starke later found that he still owed the balance, plus a 25 percent rise in cost. Starke also claimed that he spent $1,000 to put a drain under the driveway to the basement because Respondent had forgotten to do so. He further stated that he had given Respondent $5,000 to purchase shingles for the house, but Respondent bought only enough to cover the garage. Consequently, Starke was obliged to expend further sums to obtain the remaining shingles. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, exhibits to deposition of Rentz (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), (Petitioner's composite Exhibit 6) During Starke's periodic visits to the job site, he requested that Respondent show him the bills and receipts for the purchase of construction material and labor payments, but Respondent evaded such request by saying that his wife was handling the business matters, and that she was ill and unable to show him the records. Eventually, Starke became more concerned because of the discrepancies in the expenditures of funds, and therefore made a special trip in October 1985 to meet with Respondent and go over the project accounts. At that meeting, Respondent's wife provided Starke with a number of canceled checks on the J. & L. Properties account, which failed to identify any specific payments for the Starke project, but which consisted mostly of apparent payments of Respondent's personal bills. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2,6) Subsequent to the October meeting, Respondent asked Starke for the sum of $1,500 for his own services, which was paid. This was the last payment made by Starke to Respondent and the last contact that he had with him. Respondent performed no further work and left the project about the third week of November 1985. Although Starke attempted to get in touch with him during the intervening period, he was unsuccessful in doing so. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On January 31, 1986, Starke obtained a new building permit to complete his residence, and hired Marion C. Uhl, a certified residential contractor, at an hourly rate to supervise the remaining work. Uhl found at that time that the house consisted of a shell with some interior partitions erected and doors in place, but without any electrical or plumbing work, except for a garage bathroom. It took him approximately ninety days to correct previous construction errors before it was ready for subcontractor work. Specifically, he found that the partition walls were out of plumb and that some of the doors were not framed properly. It was necessary for him to tear them out and redo the work. He found no backing (dead wood) for the ceilings and walls which should have been in place before the roof was sheathed. He had to take out all the windows which were out of plumb and reinstall them. It was necessary to frame out the gables of the house in order that water wouldn't accumulate in vacant areas. Water had accumulated in the garage basement due to a failure to install proper drain fields under the house. Additionally, it was discovered that there was no concrete in the tie beams which supported the floor above and could cause it to sag eventually. In Uhl's opinion, which is accepted, these problems would not have occurred if the job had been properly supervised. (Testimony of Starke, Uhl) Robert H. Adams, an expert in the residential contracting field, who owns a building inspection firm, inspected the Starke premises on May 18, 1987 at the request of Petitioner. Based upon his examination of the house, he found the following deficiencies, which had existed at the time Respondent left the project: In some areas, the brick veneer exterior walls were not properly supported on the footing in that the brick veneer protruded beyond the outside edge of the footing. Also the footing was at grade rather than being below grade. Failure to utilize solid concrete walls or pouring of concrete into concrete blocks which formed walls supporting a steel I-beam. This deviation from the plans could result in failure of the foundation walls. Improper splicing of girders under the house. Girders were butt-spliced rather than spliced with either a shep or a diagonal cut. The joints were not over a supporting pier. Settling from the floor above could cause the house floor to sag. The exterior brick roll-out window sills were level instead of being at a slight angle to permit water to flow away from the bottom of windows, thus causing the potential of water intrusion into the house. Front entry brick steps were not centered with the door opening by approximately 18 inches. An exterior garden hose bib Produced hot water instead of cold at left front of the garage. This was caused by "mis- plumbing" the cold and hot water lines. Block wall of the garage was out of plumb approximately 7/8 of an inch over a 4 foot vertical distance. One of the garage roll doors had only 9 foot, 3 inch clearance instead of 10 feet as called for by the plans. Uneven coursing of brick veneer at the ceiling of the right rear porch. Waferboard was used on roof decking rather than plywood as called for by the plans. Waferboard is not as strong as plywood. Water intrusion into the garage- basement. In Adams' opinion, which is accepted, the deficiencies noted by his inspection reflected very poor workmanship and gross negligence, in that the fundamentals of construction as practiced in the construction trade were not observed by Respondent in major areas. They were gross deviations from good building practices and a competent contractor properly supervising the job would have been aware of the deviations from good contracting practice. In addition, it is incumbent upon a contractor to keep accurate and complete financial records for a particular project. (Testimony of Adams, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) In January 1986, Starke employed Universal Engineering Testing Company, a structural engineering firm, to ascertain the cause of groundwater leaking into the garage-basement of his house and to provide remedial recommendations. Professional engineers of the firm inspected the premises and observed that groundwater was leaking at the wall-floor joint around most of the garage. They found that although a drainage system had been installed during construction, soil and groundwater conditions at the site limited the effectiveness of the existing system, due to hydrostatic pressure build up under the garage floor. It was determined that, unless the pressure was dissipated with under-slab drainage, the slab would heave, crack, and leak at the wall-slab joint They found that the situation could only be remedied by installing an under drain grid after removal of the existing slab. In their professional opinion, which is accepted, the failure of the existing slab had been caused by excessive water pressure build up and improper construction techniques. (Testimony of Gordon, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he had never constructed a house of the scope and size of the Starke residence, but that he had attempted to build what Starke desired in accordance with the plans and numerous changes required by Starke during the course of construction. Such changes, in his view, caused the difficulty in centering the brick work at the front of the house since this work was called for after the front door had already been installed. He claimed that he had waterproofed the garage-basement and put in French drains, but that water couldn't go out, and it was necessary to install a tank under the driveway to pump the water from the basement. Respondent also conceded that he did not maintain continuing records during the course of construction as to the financial aspects of the project, but intended to recapitulate all costs and payments when construction was completed. He acknowledged that receipts from the project were commingled with other funds in his bank accounts and he was unable to show the disposition of proceeds from the project. As to leaving the job, Respondent said that he left because he was threatened by Starke and also because of ill health caused by the stressful situation which came from continuing complaints by Starke concerning the workmanship, and also by the numerous changes to the construction plans. Although Respondent claimed that he notified Starke by letter of January 14, 1986, that he intended to remove his permit no later than January 27, 1986, because it appeared that Starke had decided to take charge of completing the construction, Starke denied receiving such a letter and there is no credible evidence that it was delivered. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 1) On two prior occasions in 1985 and 1986, Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to settlement stipulations of administrative complaints filed by Petitioner against Respondent. In those stipulations, Respondent admitted violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the complaints, and administrative fines of $250 and $400 were imposed. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5)
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on conduct set forth in two Administrative Complaints filed herein dated March 14 and July 19, 1984.
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 factual findings. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida and has been issued license number CGC 015834. 3/ (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, relating to the imposition of licensure standards and standards for the practice of contracting. During times material hereto, Respondent was a full-time employee of the Metropolitan Dade County Aviation Authority. At no time during his employment with the authority did Respondent advise the Dade County Aviation Authority that he was performing work outside the scope of his employment while on County time. When confronted with the results of an investigation undertaken by the Dade County Attorney's Office in June of 1983 with regard to his (Respondent's) possible violation of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Respondent resigned from his position with the County. (Tr. pages 101-102) DOAH CASE NO. 84-1298 During late February, 1983, Albert Kairy contracted with an unlicensed contractor for the closure of a carport at his residence located in North Miami, Florida. After observing Respondent's classified advertisement in a local flier, Kairy contacted Respondent with regard to preparing necessary blueprints for the enclosure. Kairy contracted with Respondent to prepare both the blueprints and to supervise the activities of the unlicensed contractor. The contract amount was $400. On February 25, 1983, Kairy received an owner/builder permit for the carport enclosure from the City of North Miami. (Tr. pages 7-10, 93) Subsequently, problems began to develop with work performed by the unlicensed contractor and Respondent persuaded Kairy to dismiss that individual and to retain him as the contractor. On March 7, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract with Kairy to construct a room addition to the residence. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) The project was to be completed pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the City of North Miami. The contract called for a bedroom addition; an additional bathroom and a utility room. The contract included extending the carport wall approximately 101 feet. The contract price was $14,500 which included an advance of $2,500. On March 12, 1983, Respondent entered into a second construction contract with Kairy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Tr. 19) The contract price was $15,000. Except for the increase in the contract price, Kairy was led to believe that the terms and conditions of the second contract were substantially similar to the contract previously executed by the parties on March 7, 1983. However, Respondent reduced the extension of the carport wall to 10 feet and Respondent did not inform Kairy of this reduction. (Tr. page 48) The contract called for draw payments as follows: $4,000 as a downpayment/advance; $3,000 upon completion of slab and block walls; $1,500 upon completion of piping and tie-columns; $2,500 upon completion of partition and drywall; $3,000 upon completion of the roof, and $1,000 upon completion of the job. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Respondent subsequently applied for a permit from the City of North Miami. The City of North Miami denied Respondent's application because Respondent failed to comply with the Dade County licensing requirements. (Tr. pages 21-22) Although Respondent acted in the capacity of a general contractor, he (Respondent) requested that Kairy obtain a owner/builder permit. Upon applying for the owner/builder permit, the City cancelled the original permit for the carport enclosure. (Tr. page 94) Kairy obtained the owner/builder permit pursuant to Respondent's assurances the permit would be properly transferred to Respondent's contracting license. The City provided Kairy with a "hold harmless letter" for Respondent to execute. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Upon presentation of that letter by Kairy to Respondent, Respondent refused to execute the "hold harmless letter." (Tr. pages 22-24) Subsequently, Kairy and Respondent executed an addendum to the construction contract. The addendum involved changing the enclosures roof structure from shingle to barrel tile. This change involved a price difference of $1,950 and increased the total contract price to $16,950. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, Tr. pages 31-32) The addendum was executed after completion of the tie-beam and tie- column portion of the construction project. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the March 12, 1983 construction contract, Kairy provided Respondent with the following amounts: $4,000 as an advance/downpayment on March 21, 1983; ($2,500 under the March 7 contract plus an additional $1,500); $3,000 upon completion of the slab and block work; $400 for preparation of the original set of plans; $500 toward tinted windows; $1,500 upon completion of the tie-beam and tie- column; $1,500 as an advance on the barrel tile roof; and $1,500 as an advance upon the completion of the roofs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Kairy paid Respondent a total of $12,400 on the total contract price of $16,950 or approximately 73 percent of the contract price. Kairy timely remitted to Respondent installment payments for the slab and block work, tie- beam and tie-columns and advanced Respondent $3,000 towards completion of the roof. During April, 1983, Respondent commenced construction for enclosing the roof structure. Respondent ceased all construction activity upon being informed (by Kairy) that he would no longer pay Respondent in cash. (Tr. page 44) Respondent refused to accept payment in any form other than cash and offered no explanation, reason or excuse to Kairy for the cessation of work on this project. Kairy offered several reasons for his refusal to pay contract installments in cash. First, Respondent refused to execute the hold harmless letter provided by the City of North Miami and Respondent failed to properly supervise the construction activities by, among other things, disappearing from the project for a period of approximately three weeks. Finally, Respondent requested additional advances on the contract while the project was not progressing as scheduled. (Tr. pages 28, 44-46) Respondent did not return to the construction site after Kairy refused cash payments. On July 20, 1983, Respondent's roofing subcontractor filed a claim of lien against Kairy's property in the amount of $1,210. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Respondent has failed to satisfy the claim of lien and Kairy is in the process of satisfying that claim. (.Tr. page 54) Respondent also failed to pay an electrical subcontractor for services provided in the amount of $965. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) Again, Kairy is currently in the process of satisfying that debt and Respondent refuses to honor that obligation. (Tr. 57) Kairy reimbursed the plumbing subcontractor in the amount of $675 after Respondent's personal check was returned due to insufficient funds. (Tr. page 62 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9) On April 1, 1983, the City of North Miami Building Department inspected the foundation and slab. On April 18, 1983, the Building Department inspected the tie-beam and columns. On May 6, 1983, the City of North Miami Building Department performed a tin-cap inspection on the enclosure roof. The City of North Miami Building Department estimated the actual construction completed when Respondent left the project and determined that it was approximately 70 percent complete. Completed construction included the slab, foundation, walls and tie-beam. Little interior construction work had been performed and drywall and partition walls were only partially complete. Kairy has either expended or will be required to expend the following sums in connection with the contract with Respondent: $12,400 - the amount paid directly to Respondent; $1,210 - the amount of the roofer's lien; $965 representing the amount owed to the electrician; and $675 representing the amount Kairy paid the plumbing subcontractor for a total of $15,250. 4/ Although Respondent completed approximately 70 percent of the actual construction, Kairy will correspondingly be required to expend approximately 90 percent of the contract price over and above monies paid to Respondent to complete this project. DOAH CASE NO. 84-3202 On May 12, 1983, the City of Miramar issued William Borden an owner/builder permit for the construction of a four-bedroom, three-bath home to be located in Miramar, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Between May and October, 1983, the Bordens performed the site preparation necessary for pouring the building's foundation and slab. After observing Respondent's classified advertisement in a local flier, the Bordens contacted Respondent with regard to the construction of their home. (Tr. page 16) On November 11, 1983, Respondent contracted with the Bordens to provide certain contracting services relative to the construction of their home. The Bordens contracted Respondent to pour the foundation and slab, perform the block work, frame and pour the tie-beam and tie-columns. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Tr. pages 18-20) The Bordens were to complete all of remaining construction of their home) The contract price was approximately $16,810. On October 17, 1983, the City of Miramar issued William Borden an owner/builder permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) William Borden was to install the rough plumbing prior to Respondent pouring the foundation and slab. (Tr. 33) Due to certain time constraints, Respondent offered to install the rough plumbing. On October 25, 1983, Respondent received $475 from the Bordens toward installation of the rough plumbing. Respondent failed to subcontract the installation of the rough plumbing and failed to obtain the necessary building permit. On November 8, 1983, the Bordens provided Respondent an additional $470 representing final payment for installation of the rough plumbing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) On November 1, 1983, Mr. Bill Lafferty, chief building and mechanical inspector for the City of Miramar, performed an inspection of the rough plumbing work performed for the Bordens by Respondent. Lafferty determined that Respondent had failed to install the rough plumbing in accordance with provisions of the South Florida Building Code as adopted by the Broward County Code. As a consequence, Lafferty required Respondent to remove and reinstall the rough plumbing in accordance with applicable building code provisions. On November 7, 1983, Lafferty reinspected and approved the rough plumbing as reinstalled by Respondent. (Tr. pages 51-55) Respondent reinstalled rough plumbing at the Borden residence during the first week of November, 1983. Respondent did not obtain a building permit prior to reinstalling the rough plumbing. On November 16, 1983, the City of Miramar levied against Respondent a fee totalling $163.45. Part of that levy included $63.45 for renewal of the building permit and reinspection fee, and the remaining $100 represented a fine against Respondent for failing to properly obtain a building permit. (Tr. pages 58, 64 and Petitioner's Exhibit 7) On November 10, 1983, Salvatore Jenco, structural building inspector for the City of Miramar Building Department, inspected and approved the footing slab for the Borden residence. Subsequently, Respondent poured the concrete slab and foundation. Respondent did not obtain the requisite building permit prior to proceeding with construction. Respondent could not properly proceed with construction pursuant to William Borden's owner/builder permit. On November 11, 1983, inspector Jenco reinspected the concrete slab and foundation as poured by Respondent. As a result of that inspection, Jenco ordered all construction activities to be stopped at the Borden project. Specifically, Respondent materially deviated from the architect's plans and specifications by failing to pour a monolithic (continuous) slab and foundation for the Borden residence. As result of that deviation, the structural integrity of the building was compromised. (Tr. pages 71-73) Construction activity at the Borden residence was halted approximately three weeks while the Borden's architect developed a new set of blueprints. After the City approved the revised blueprints, Respondent began laying blocks and framing the tie-beam. Subsequently, Respondent requested Sunshine Concrete Company to commence pouring the tie-beam. The concrete company requested payment in cash due to the fact that Respondent had previously tendered a check to Sunshine Concrete Company which was returned due to insufficient funds. When informed of the concrete company's demands, the Respondent ordered the company to cease pouring the tie-beam. Upon being informed the tie-beam required a continuous pour, Respondent left the construction site and the Bordens were required to directly reimburse the concrete company. Respondent abandoned the project and has not returned to the construction site. Respondent owes the Bordens approximately $4,696 in reimbursed expenses. (Tr. pages 40-42) Respondent's Defense In DOAH Case No. 84-1298, Respondent did not offer any testimony to refute or otherwise rebut the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent refused to be placed under oath when he made statements as to his position in Case No. 84-3202.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. Additionally, Respondent shall pay to the Construction Industry Licensing Board an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. However, if Respondent provides the Construction Industry Licensing Board with sufficient evidence indicating settlement and satisfaction of the existing disputes between Mr. Albert Kairy and Mr. and Mrs. William Borden, the suspension shall be reduced to one (1) year after which time it is recommended that his license be reinstated. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1985.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent's proposed award for ITB 09-22 for Building 14B renovation is contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid.
Findings Of Fact The University of North Florida published its Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal in reference to ITB #09-22 entitled "GC's for Building 14B Renovation" on December 19, 2008, with a submission deadline of January 27, 2009. The opening date was eventually extended to January 30, 2009. There were four addendums to the ITB #09-22 Project. The Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal document contained the following provisions: This project consists of the following scope of work: The work includes all labor, supervision, equipment, and materials required to execute the Contract Documents in two phases for the tenant build-out of the existing UNF Building 14-B (approximate square footage 9742). The work includes, but is not limited to, demolition of all interior walls, finishes, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and communication components as well as a new exterior curtain wall system. Exterior construction will include new glazing in aluminum curtain wall. Interior construction will include new gypsum wallboard partitions with metal stud walls, millwork, suspended acoustical and gypsum wallboard ceilings, wood and metal doors in hollow metal frames, coiling overhead grilles, toilet partitions and vanities. Interior finishes include carpeting, resilient tile, ceramic tile, painting, and window treatments. Mechanical work includes installation of new Owner provided HVAC units with ductwork and all necessary connections to the UNF Central Plant chilled water system. Plumbing includes new piping and fixtures for the tenant build-out and renovation of the group male and female restrooms. Electrical work includes new wiring, devices and lighting for the new tenant build-out. Successful bidders must have demonstrable previous experience with the described systems and technical requirements. All bidders must be qualified at the time of the bid opening in accordance with the Bidders Qualification within the ITB 09-22 Bid documents. . . Article I, Section 2 includes a heading in bold stating "Qualification Criteria." This section states: Participants must qualify to bid on this project. UNF will utilize the following criteria to qualify the general contractors within this ITB. The information must be completed on the UNF Qualifications Form provided (page 10-11): Bonding: Demonstrates a bonding capacity of at least $2 million dollars and has an A.M. Best Rating of "A-V" or better. Licenses: Company is licensed to do business in the state of Florida and approved by the US Department of Treasury listing as an acceptable surety. Project references: Company has successfully completed at least 3 commercial construction projects of more than $1 million dollars each in the past three (3) years. List 3 such projects to include project name, client name, completion date, location, project value, role in project. Reference: Project name, owner, owner's representative name/phone number, completion date and construction cost. Years of experience: Company has a minimum five (5) years of GC experience under the current company name. The directions for the General Contractor's Qualification Summary, under Related Experience, reiterated that the bidder was to list "No more than 4 projects of comparable type, size and complexity. (1) Project must be for a college/university)." Addendum I for the Project, issued January 9, 2009, clarified that the requirement for having completed successfully a project of similar size and scope at a Florida University in the last three years is a qualification factor for this project. Addendum II, issued January 12, 2009, removed the requirement for bidders to have completed one project for a college or university. The other two addenda did not address contractor qualifications. Petitioner, Core Construction Company (Core Construction or Petitioner) bid in response to the ITB. Approximately 19 other bidders also responded. Core Construction was the apparent low bidder on the project, with a bid of $1,073,000. There was some concern expressed by the architect reviewing the bids because the bids were all within ten percent of each other for the top bidders, with the bidders 2-10 being within six percent of each other. In an e-mail to Dianna White, the Senior Buyer for UNF purchasing, Mr. Norman stated: Overall there was a 20% range in bid prices which I attribute to a significant difference in the size, quality and abilities of the contractors that bid this project. The apparently low bidder was $60,516 below the second low bidder and $83,000 below the third low bidder. This is a significant concern since there is only $46,484 between the second and fifth low bidders. I suggest the apparent low bidder be contacted and asked if they feel comfortable with their bid, because it appears to me they are missing something significant in their pricing. Purchasing should also carefully review their current financials and current bonding capacity if this is allowed. Project reference checks, price verification against the architect's construction estimate and bonding checks were performed with respect to the four lowest bidding companies: Core Construction, Pooley Contracting, Rivers & Rivers and Warden Construction. Pooley Contracting, the second-lowest bidder, was disqualified as non-responsive because its bid package did not include a bonding letter. Core provided the names of three completed projects that were valued at over one million dollars. Dianna White called each of the references provided, not only for Core but for three of the four lowest bidders. The same questions were asked of each reference for each company: 1) Was the project on time and within budget; 2) Did the project run smoothly; 3) Were project issues handled; and 4) Would you use the contractor again. Calls related to Pooley Contracting were not completed because it was disqualified as non-responsive. While the references for Rivers & Rivers and Warden were consistently good, two of the three references received for Core were not. Ms. White described them as the most "strongly negative" references she had ever received. In particular, the references indicated difficulty in completing jobs within budget and on time, which the Respondent viewed as the basis for determining whether a contractor had successfully completed a project. Two of the references indicated that they would not use the contractor again, or as one put it, "not if there was any way around it." Based on the recommendations received, the Purchasing Office for the University recommended that Core Construction be disqualified for failing to demonstrate successful completion of three projects over one million dollars that were similar in scope. Because Pooley Construction was also disqualified, the Purchasing Department recommended that the Project be awarded to the third-lowest bidder, Rivers & Rivers. The recommendation to award the project to Rivers & Rivers was accepted by the Vice President of Administration and Finance, and on February 18, 2009, a Notice of Award issued identifying Rivers & Rivers as the company receiving the award. On February 19, 2009, Core Construction notified Respondent that it intended to protest the award of the Project to Rivers & Rivers. On February 24, 2009, Core Construction provided a $10,000.00 surety bond and a written protest of the award. The basis of the protest was two-fold. First, Core Construction contended that Rivers & Rivers did not meet the qualification criteria set out in the ITB, because it was did not have a minimum of five years of general contractor experience under the current company name. Second, Core felt that the poor references received should not be a basis for disqualification. Upon receiving the bid protest, Respondent contacted Rivers & Rivers to verify its licensure status. Upon inquiry, it was determined that while the principals of the company had over 30 years of experience, the Rivers & Rivers entity had not been licensed under that name for the requisite five years. While no action has been taken while this bid protest is pending, Respondent indicated its intention to withdraw the award from Rivers & Rivers and award the contract instead to the next lowest bidder. The procedures used by the University in determining the appropriate award were not contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid. It was consistent with University policy to check references for projects of similar scope and size. Therefore, it was appropriate to ask for and check references for projects of over one million dollars. There is no indication that any bidder questioned what the University would consider as successful completion of a project. The time for questioning this issue would have been when the specifications were issued, consistent with Article I, Section 7 of the ITB. Having a project come in on time and within budget is a reasonable measure of successful completion. It is not the same as "substantial completion," which generally refers to a point of time in the construction process, not the final completion of the project.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the President of the University of North Florida, pursuant to his authority under Board of Governor's Regulation 18.002, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's written protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay H. Chung Core Construction Company, Inc. 4940 Emerson Street, Suite 205 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Paul Christopher Wrenn, Esquire University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2100 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224 John A. Delaney, President University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2800 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224
