Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Manuel Lanz graduated from the University of Illinois School of Architecture in December of 1971, with honors and high distinction in the area of design. He is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in Florida is composed of two parts. The written portion of the exam (Part B) is given in December, and petitioner passed this portion. The design and site portion of the exam (Part A) is given in June and consists of a twelve-hour sketch problem. Petitioner failed this portion of the examination in June of 1982, as he has done on two previous occasions. Part A of the examination is supplied to participating states by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and involves the design of a structure by an applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, cross sections, and floor plans. Applicants are provided with a preexamination booklet which sets forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which are to be addressed in order to achieve a passing grade. At the time of the examination, the applicant is given other information to enable him to more adequately design the structure and perform the necessary technical adjustments. Each participating state sends a number of graders to an intense two- day grading session sponsored by the NCARB. The purpose, of such sessions is to standardize the graders' conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each examination is graded on a blind basis by at least two independent architect graders. If the two separate grades received, when considered together, do not result in a definite pass or fail, a third, and on some occasions a fourth, independent grader will review the applicant's solution. The project to be designed in the 1952 Site Planning and Design Test was a municipal airport terminal building in a small city in the northwest. Applicants were provided with information as to the applicable topography and climate of the area, code requirements, space requirements, site circulation requirements and the various areas to be included within the building. The candidates were required to provide a site plan, a ground level plan-north elevation; a second level plan and a cross-section of the facility. Petitioner's solution to the problem was weak in many areas. Service, baggage and aircraft traffic were co-mingled. Accessibility for handicapped persons was not addressed. His solution failed to comply with the applicable building code requirements with regard to the number of exits required, the location of stairs and a fire sprinkler system. Petitioner also failed to comply with the requirements regarding square footage. His exit doors swung in the wrong direction and there was no means of exit from the kitchen other than through the dining room of the restaurant. His cross-sectional failed to indicate the location of beams and ducts for heating and cooling. There was no indication in the solution that petitioner gave any consideration to the program requirements of natural ventilation or natural lighting, or that he made any provision for noise from the aircraft. The flat roof provided by the petitioner would not accommodate the precipitation experienced in the area as described in the program. While an effort was made by the petitioner to comply with the program requirements, he failed in several material areas and some minor areas to achieve sufficient clarity in his presentation and to observe program requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying petitioner's application for licensure as an architect on the ground that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (304) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Silvio Lufriu, Esquire Suite 817 412 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Herbert Coons Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The exam consists of two parts: the written part is given in December of each year and the site and design problem is given in June of each year. Todaro graduated from Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana in 1977 and had met the requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Todaro took the design and site planning portion of the national architectural exam in June, 1980. This consists of a 12 hour sketch problem involving the design of a structure by the applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. The exam is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is used by all states. Pre-test information supplied to each applicant includes a booklet providing the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which applicants are expected to apply themselves in order to receive a passing grade. At the examination, other information is supplied to enable the applicant to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. The purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted by NCARB and allows the national testing service grading the examination (and through them the Florida Board of Architecture) to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which were tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December. The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectual registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the solution which lie is grading. The grader is instructed in how to consider the appropriate criteria. Graders are also instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is a three, and an applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant cause, Todaro received two 2's and one 3. He was therefore notified of his failure to pass the examination and of his right to this hearing. While Petitioner established that an effort had been made on his part to comply with the instructions, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation, particularly as to adequate consideration to grading and site planning, adequate consideration to marking elevations on his floor plans and adequate notation regarding the type of materials to be used in his elevations, floor plans, and wall sections. In general Todaro failed to place within his solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine that his program could be used; he failed to synthesize the information which he had learned in his educational process, in such a manner as to prepare adequate plans to respond to the requirements of good architectural practice in the formulation of design and site plans.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Stephen Todaro to change his grade on the June, 1980, site and design architectural examination be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Todaro 1507 N. E. 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 John J. Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In October, 1973, the Petitioner filed an application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida with the Board. By letter dated November 21, 1973, the Board, through its Executive Secretary, denied the application stating that the Petitioner lacked the required degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner requested that his experience be reviewed to determine whether he had training fully equivalent to such a degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). By letter dated August 19, 1974 the Board notified the Petitioner that his educational background was insufficient, and that the application would be denied. Petitioner thereupon filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. The court adjudged that the Board was required to consider not only the Petitioner's educational training, but his private study, on-the-job training and other practical experience. A copy of the court's Final Declaratory Judgment was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 12. Petitioner again appeared before the Board and offered evidence respecting his training and practical experience. See: Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8. On June 11, 1976, the Board entered its order finding the Petitioner to be not qualified and denying the application (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing in accordance with Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1). Petitioner's application for licensure is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which commenced prior to January 1, 1975. The parties have nonetheless stipulated that the provisions of Section 120.57(1) will hereafter govern the proceeding. The Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago Technical College, Chicago, Illinois on December 17, 1954. Petitioner's course of study was architectural engineering. The Chicago Technical College was not, during the time that Petitioner attended it, and is not now on the approved list of schools and colleges of architecture adopted and published by the Board. The course of study pursued by the Petitioner at Chicago Technical College was not the same as a program in architecture. The program was a highly technical engineering program. The design studio which is perhaps the major facet of an architectural program was not present in the architectural engineering program pursued by the Petitioner. Following his graduation the Petitioner worked with other architects in the general practice of architecture. His longest periods of employment were with Cabanban and Wasserman, architects, where he worked for four years and eleven months from 1958 until 1963; and with Ohrnstein and Wasserman, with whom he was employed for four years and four months from 1966 through 1971. In each of these jobs the Petitioner performed the sort of work ordinarily performed by architects. A listing of the different projects in which the Petitioner performed design and supervisory functions is set out as a part of Hearing Officer's Exhibit 10. A wide variety of commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and private residences are included. Petitioner served as a partner in Cabanban and Wasserman, and in Ohrnstein and Wasserman. Augustine Cabanban and Earl Ohrnstein were both registered architects during the course of the partnerships. Cabanban and Ohrnstein each testified that the Petitioner performed the full range of architectural services during the course of the partnerships, and that his work was excellent. Architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner to the Board demonstrate that the Petitioner did not achieve a high level of design proficiency from his work experience. The best drawings submitted demonstrated a level of competence of approximately a third year architecture student in a five year program. Other drawings demonstrated a lack of design competence, and were inadequate. During 1972, the Petitioner passed the standard examination offered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Petitioner holds a current certificate issued by the National Council, and is registered to practice architecture in the State of Illinois. Schools or colleges of architecture approved by the Board have many common features, and the curricula offered at the schools are fairly consistent. Generally the programs and the curricula have remained consistent since approximately 1955 with minor variations, or changes of a technical sort. There is no real distinction between the sort of program which would have been approved in 1955, and the sort of program which would be approved today. Typically an approved program which operated on a quarter hour academic basis would require approximately 240 quarter hours for graduation. Approximately 75 quarter hours would be in architectural design culminating in a thesis. Approximately 60 quarter hours would be in general education subject matter, with between 30 to 35 hours in social science and humanities. The social science background is important because an architect must bring together all the factors which relate to the building environment, including social factors. The educational program followed by the Petitioner lacked the necessary design courses and social science courses which would be required in an approved architectural program. An architectural engineer is an engineer involved with buildings. The design courses in an architectural engineering program are set up to enable the engineer to work with an architect. Through on-the-job training the Petitioner received considerable design experience; however, drawings which he submitted to the Board did not evidence that he had achieved the level of design competence which would be required of a graduate of an approved architectural program. The fact that the Petitioner passed the National Council's test does not in itself establish that Petitioner reached the necessary level of competence. Petitioner did not offer evidence from which it could be concluded that his studies and experience would substitute for the social science background required of a graduate of an approved program. The Petitioner did not establish that he took social science courses, or engaged in individual study in the social sciences, or engaged in any other activities which would substitute for such an academic background.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen Hamner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The examination consists of two parts. "Part B," which is a written examination, is given in December of each year and has already been successfully passed by the Petitioner. The other portion, "Part A," consists of a site plan and design problem and is administered in June of each year. The Petitioner met all the preliminary requirements for admittance to the licensure examination and took the subject design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, adopted in Florida, in June of 1980. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour drafting or sketch problem involving design and site plan criteria and considerations. It is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB). The examination problem involves requirements for placing a structure on a site, designing and drawing the elevations, the building cross-sections, the facades and the floor plan. There are few factual questions disputed in this cause. The Board of Architecture has long required examination prior to a candidate being licensed as a registered architect in the State of Florida. This statutory authorization was continued in Section 481.213(2), Florida Statutes, when it was adopted by the Legislature in 1979. The original examination administered by the Board prior to 1974 was a seven-part, 36-hour examination, including as two of its parts a site plan and design problem essentially identical to that administered in the present "Part A" of the Professional Architectural Examination which is the subject matter of this proceeding. This original seven-part examination had been administered for many years by the Board until the Board, in consultation with NCARB and other jurisdictions who are members of NCARB, determined that examination did not adequately test minimal competency to practice architecture. This ultimate determination was made after a thorough review by NCARB prior to 1974 and ultimately resulted in the creation of a new professional examination, which was adopted by all the member states and which consisted of what is now "Part B" of the Professional Architectural Examination (the written examination). The Executive Director of NCARB, Samuel Balin, was instrumental in the preparation of the initial professional examination. His testimony described the concern the National Council and the Boards had regarding the original seven-part examination, that it was an extremely technical examination, aside from the site and design plan problem, designed primarily to cover subjects which had already been covered in most accredited college degree programs. Thus, at the time the NCARB and member boards were in the process of changing over from the seven-part examination to what is now the "Part B" professional examination, NCARB and the member boards of each state were also rapidly moving toward requiring the completion of architectural degrees by candidates as a prerequisite to entry into the architectural profession. As established by this witness, NCARB research showed that much of the material contained in the seven- part examination was already adequately taught in the various universities offering architectural degree programs, and thus the examination necessary for registration should focus on the professional aspects of architecture and the practical methods by which an architect actually must provide his services to the public, rather than merely being an examination consisting of a review of what had already been taught in the colleges and universities. Based on this intensive review regarding the most appropriate means to test architectural competency based upon what candidates were already receiving in various degree programs, the two-day "Part B" examination was developed and first offered in 1973, concurrently with the seven-part examination previously in effect. It was determined by the Respondent, other state boards and the NCARB that, since many individuals had successfully completed large portions of the seven-part examination, it would be unfair to not allow them to finish the examinations they had originally begun. A minimal number of parts passed on the seven-part examination was thus required in order for a candidate to continue to attain licensure based upon that examination during the 1974 examination session. Subsequent to 1974, an individual who had not already successfully completed the entire seven-part examination was required by the Board to take what is presently "Part B" of the current examination. Thus, from 1975 through 1977, the sole licensure examination, requirement in Florida was the "Part B" written examination provided to the Florida Board by NCARB and adopted by the Florida Board in its rules as Rule 21B-2.02(1), Florida Administrative Code (1974). During the period 1974 to 1977, the Board became increasingly concerned with deficient graphic abilities of examination candidates in drafting plans, as well as their physical ability to synthesize the problems faced by an architect in building design into overall solutions and to incorporate those solutions into appropriate building and site plans for clients. Accordingly, a number of states expressed to NCARB their desire to have a site and design plan problem again incorporated into the National Architectural Examination. As a result of these requests, NCARB initiated a study to determine whether such a site and design plan problem was really a legitimate tool to test the competency of an architect in synthesizing building and construction design problems and expressing in a graphic manner the various component skills or abilities required to practice the profession of architecture and, corollarily, whether or not the lack of it in the "Part B" examination rendered it a substandard tool for determining minimal competence. The study resulted in a report by a distinguished panel of architects from various jurisdictions which recommended that, in fact, the site plan and design problem should be included in the professional examination. Florida then, in 1977, determined, based upon the evidence presented to it by NCARB, as well as through its own professional expertise, that a site and design plan problem was indeed a necessary component in determining minimal competency of architectural licensure candidates. The NCARB, at its meeting of June, 1977, thus adopted the site and design plan problem as part of the uniform National Professional Architectural Examination. The Florida Board subsequently thereto, and after receiving detailed information regarding the contents of the new portion of the national examination, proposed its own Rule 21B-2.02(2), on March 31, 1978, by notice contained in the Florida Administrative Weekly, which rule constituted Florida's adoption of the new site and design plan problem added to the National Professional Architectural Examination by NCARB. A hearing was held before the Florida Board on April 28, 1978, and the rule was certified and filed with the Secretary of State on May 30, 1978. Documents required to be filed with that rule pursuant to Chapter 120 were admitted into evidence in this proceeding. The effective date of Rule 21B-2.02(2) was June 19, 1978, therefore, subsequent to that date the professional architectural examination in Florida has consisted of two parts. One part being "Part A" which was the new site and design plan problem and the other part being the previously adopted "Part B" (multiple choice examination). The Legislature in 1979 pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, "sunsetted" all professional boards. The Board of Architecture was reconstituted pursuant to Chapter 79-273, Laws of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 79-273 it was provided that all rules in existence would be repealed as of January 1, 1980. Accordingly, on December 3, 1979, the Florida Board readopted, pursuant to Section 481.209, Florida Statutes, and Section 455.217, Florida Statutes, examination rules set out in Rules 21B-14.01, 14.02 and 14.03, Florida Administrative Code (the successors to the above-cited rule) . There have been no substantive amendments to those rules since their effective date of December 23, 1979, and the issues with which the Petitioner's challenge to the rules are concerned have not been substantially affected by that readoption procedure.
The Issue The sole issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, which he took in June, 1982. Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The architectural examination in Florida is administered in two parts: a written examination given in December of each year, and the design and site planning examination given in June of each year. Canavan met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Canavan took the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1982. This examination consisted of various design and site problems to be resolved in drawings to be completed within 12 hours. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The examination is prepared and supplied to the Office of Examination Services by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The design and site planning portion of the examination for June of 1982 required the design of a small airport terminal by the applicant to include drawings of the structure on the site, exterior elevations, interior floor plans and cross-sections of the building interior. Canavan, together with the other applicants, was supplied information and a preexamination booklet setting forth generally the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which the applicants would be expected to sketch. At the time of the examination, other information was supplied to the applicants to enable them to more adequately design the structure requested and meet the necessary architectural requirements. The examination of the Petitioner, together with the examinations of the applicants from some 20 states using the NCARB standardized examination, were graded at one time by graders of the NCARB. Each state participating in the examination process provides at least two qualified architects to function as graders. These graders are given specific training by NCARB to standardize their grading approach to the examination. The examinations of all the applicants are divided among the various graders on a blind grading basis in such a manner that the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination he is grading. Graders look at the applicant's overall plan to determine whether the applicant has met or failed to meet the requirements. The grader makes notations of specific areas of weakness based upon the grading criteria and based upon the overall conception of the applicant's submission. Each examination is graded by a minimum of two graders, who grade the examination independently. If the examination receives a failing grade from each of the independent graders, it is graded by a third grader. The Petitioner's examination was graded in accordance with the above process and received a failing grade, indicating that it was graded by three independent graders. The Petitioner was notified of his failure to pass the examination and given notice of his right to a formal hearing. Jeff Hoxie, who was one of the graders on the June 1982 examination and who is an experienced architect licensed in the State of Florida, reviewed the Petitioner's examination in the manner that it would have been assessed by the graders, explaining the process generally and explaining the specific deficiencies which he noted. He used the original grader's comments regarding the deficiencies noted as a point of departure to explain his assessment of the Petitioner's examination. The Petitioner failed to follow specific examination requirements as to the required sizes of specific floor areas, failed to follow building code requirements in his design of the kitchen and restaurant, and failed to properly draw the sketch required of the structural and mechanical elements of the building. While there were other areas of weakness noted, Mr. Hoxie stated that the major failures listed above would justify a failing grade. Petitioner's testimony revealed that he had made a mistake in sketching one plan, and that, because of this mistake and the corrections which Petitioner made, he ran out of time, which resulted in the specific failings noted by the three graders at the national level and confirmed by Mr. Hoxie.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture of the State of Florida fail the Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination taken by Canavan in June, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 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 11th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel T. Canavan 814 Avenida Hermosa West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to comply with specified provisions of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61G15-30.001(4), 61G15- 30.002(5), and 61G15-30.003(1), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Florida Board of Professional Engineers, regulates the practice of engineering pursuant to chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a board within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), created pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes. The Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to subsection 471.038(4), Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a licensed professional engineer, holding License No. PE 31542. Engineering involves analysis and design. Analysis is the process of applying load to a structure and using engineering principles to determine the resulting forces or stresses in the elements of that structure. In design, an engineer applies the forces or stresses to the materials and elements used in the structure to determine whether the material and connections are capable of withstanding the load. The intent of an engineer is determined by his or her drawings. It is those drawings that establish what the contractor has to build in the field. Two engineers can review a set of engineering drawings, make different assumptions, arrive at different conclusions, and have both conclusions meet engineering standards. It is well established that different engineers make different assumptions about connectivity of the members of a structure that materially affect how the structure will react, and that engineers do not design structures in the same way. This case involves an Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner alleging that Respondent prepared and certified plans for two aluminum structures that failed to meet the standards imposed by the FBC, thus constituting negligence in the practice of engineering. In general, engineering principles are not dependant on the materials used to build a structure. Although aluminum members used in construction are typically of a thinner gauge than, for example, steel members, the structural engineering principles and designs are not unique. In 2009, Petitioner and Respondent settled a disciplinary action involving Respondent by entry of a settlement stipulation. Pursuant to the stipulation, which was incorporated in a Final Order, Respondent agreed to periodically submit a detailed list of all completed projects that were signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent. From that list, two projects were to be selected for review by the FEMC. The Final Order was not appealed. Respondent submitted the list of projects from which the FEMC selected two for further review. Those two projects form the basis for the Administrative Complaint. Respondent was the engineer of record, as that term is used in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-31, and signed and sealed the last iteration of the structural engineering plans for the two projects. Those projects are: The Shank Residence Project, an aluminum-framed, composite roof patio project; and The Emilion Court Residence Project, an aluminum- framed screen pool enclosure. The plans were filed with the building department for St. Johns County, Florida, as part of the application for a building permit. The plans were reviewed by a county plans examiner, and a building permit was issued. The issuance of the building permit demonstrates that St. Johns County found that the proposed project did not violate the FBC. The Certificate of Completion for the Shank Residence project was issued on January 14, 2010. The Certificate of Completion for the Emilion Court Residence project was issued on March 30, 2010. The purpose of Petitioner’s review was to review what Respondent did, with the review of documents similar to that conducted if Respondent were seeking a permit. The purpose was not to find an alternative analysis. The files were originally assigned to Michael E. Driscoll, a professional engineer assigned by FEMC to review the plans and documents submitted for the two projects. On August 13, 2010, Mr. Driscoll, through his firm, Driscoll Engineering, issued a Project Review Report for the two projects. On January 27, 2011, Mr. Driscoll issued a Supplemental Structural Report. Respondent filed a response and objections to Mr. Driscoll’s report. In order to avoid Respondent’s objections from becoming an issue, the FEMC reassigned the review to Joseph Berryman, a professional engineer who is frequently retained by the FEMC for such purposes. Mr. Berryman reviewed and responded to many of Mr. Driscoll’s conclusions, but provided his own independent analysis as to whether the plans for the two projects complied with sound engineering principles. Mr. Berryman prepared a report, dated June 7, 2011, in which he concluded that Respondent “failed to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity and has failed to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles” with respect to the plans for the Shank Residence and Emilion Court Residence, and as a result was negligent within the meaning of section 471.033(1)(g) and rule 61G15-19.001(4). Neither Mr. Driscoll nor Mr. Berryman performed a failure analysis on the Shank or Emilion structures. Mr. Berryman testified that, in his opinion, whether an engineer’s signed and sealed plans have been approved by a local building official does not affect an analysis of whether those plans meet the standards for the practice of engineering established by the Board of Professional Engineers. The FEMC presented its findings to a Probable Cause Panel convened by Petitioner to hear cases involving alleged violations of chapter 471 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The panel found probable cause to proceed against Respondent. On July 25, 2011, Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for this case. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent's structural engineering plans for each project were deficient and failed to comply with acceptable standards of engineering practice. Shank Residence Project The Administrative Complaint alleged five separate counts related to alleged deficiencies in the Shank Residence Project. The deficiencies were limited to whether required information was shown on the plans sufficient to allow a contractor to construct the project, and not to whether elements of the project were overstressed or otherwise failed to meet safety standards. The Counts were identified as Counts 6.A. through 6.E. Count 6.A. Count 6.A. alleged that Respondent failed to indicate the roof design live load, the enclosure classification, and internal pressure coefficient. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the FBC requires that roof design live load, the enclosure classification, and internal pressure coefficient be shown on building plans. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the information was not on the design document for the Shank project. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.A. Count 6.B. Count 6.B. alleged that Respondent failed to indicate the column spacing at the fourth wall, the overall dimension of the canopy at the fourth wall, the column spacing at the intermediate roof beam, and the dimensions of the knee brace elements. As to the column spacing at the fourth wall and the intermediate roof beam, Mr. Berryman opined that the drawing did not contain sufficient information regarding those elements of the plans. Mr. Martin indicated that column spacing was on the plan front view, but because the columns were in alignment, the front measurement was sufficient to convey the information as to column spacing at the fourth wall to the local building officials and the contractor. However, Mr. Martin admitted that the drawings contained no information regarding the spacing of one non-aligned beam at the fourth wall. Although the full side span length from the fourth wall to the front of the patio structure is provided, the spacing of the intermediate beam is not.1/ Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.B. regarding Respondent’s failure to indicate the non-aligned column spacing at the fourth wall and the spacing of the intermediate roof beam. As to the dimensions of the canopy at the fourth wall, while the dimension of the canopy is not written in at the fourth wall overhead view, it is depicted in the front view. There was no evidence that a front view measurement is contrary to FBC requirements. Mr. Martin testified that such a measurement provided sufficient information to the local building officials and the contractor, and was therefore acceptable. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.B. regarding Respondent’s failure to indicate the dimensions of the canopy at the fourth wall. The posts and beams on the Shank project were buttressed with knee braces. The effect of the knee braces is to shorten the span length between posts, which reduces the stresses on the beams. The locations of the braces were depicted on the drawing. The detail for the 2x3 knee braces was included in a detail sheet that accompanied the drawings. Petitioner discounted the detail sheet due to a statement at the bottom of the sheet that “[c]ertification extends only for the span tables specified for the structural shapes listed.” Petitioner asserted that language had the effect of nullifying any reliance on the information contained in the detail sheet, a position that the undersigned finds to be unreasonably and unnecessarily restrictive. In addition, such a construction would also nullify the remaining language along the border of the detail sheet that “[d]rawing valid with raised impression engineer seal.” The drawings provided by Respondent, read in conjunction with the details, establish the dimensions of the knee brace elements on the drawings. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.B. regarding Respondent’s failure to indicate the dimensions of the knee brace elements. Count 6.C. Count 6.C. alleged that Respondent failed to detail the anchorage of the patio cover posts at the fourth wall and other locations where the posts do not align with an existing 4x4 railing post, and therefore neglected to provide a complete load path capable of transferring loads from their point of origin to the load resisting elements. Mr. Berryman noted that the detail provided regarding the connection of the posts to an existing rail would not apply to the fourth wall since there is no rail at that location. The drawings confirm Mr. Berryman’s testimony as to the existence of a railing at the fourth wall. Mr. Martin testified that he was “interpreting that to be a connection to the existing wood rail structure that’s back here at the fourth wall.” Mr. Martin’s testimony on that point is not accepted, since the detail clearly depicts the post and rail structure at the front of the existing deck, and not at the point at which it connects to the building. Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.C. regarding Respondent’s failure to detail the anchorage of the patio cover posts at the fourth wall to provide a complete load path capable of transferring loads from that point to the building. Mr. Berryman also noted locations where the supporting column did not align with an existing deck post, thereby providing no direct pathway of the load of the structure to the foundation element. His testimony finds support in the drawing. Mr. Martin agreed that the FBC requires a direct load path from the point of application of the load to the ground. He noted that the detail provided a load path to the posts, “provided they align.” Where the column and post did not align, one cannot ascertain the attachment point for the column. The drawings, including the attached detail sheets, are insufficient to demonstrate that the columns and the deck posts align to provide the load-to-ground pathway and, in fact, demonstrate the opposite. Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.C. regarding Respondent’s failure to provide a complete load path capable of transferring load to the foundation elements of the structure. Count 6.D. Count 6.D. alleged that Respondent failed to set forth the material thickness/section and alloy for the 3x3 fluted posts and beams. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the FBC requires the material thickness, section, and alloy for structural members to be set forth in the construction documents. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the drawings gave the general dimensions of the posts and beams, but provided no information as to the gauge, thickness, or alloy of those structural members. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.D. regarding Respondent’s failure to set forth the material thickness and alloy for the 3x3 fluted posts and beams. Count 6.E. Count 6.E. alleged that Respondent failed to describe and define required roof panel components. Mr. Berryman indicated that the identification of “generic” roof panels, without information as to the thickness of the aluminum cladding, did not provide sufficient information that the panels met the FBC strength requirements. Mr. Martin agreed that Respondent did not identify a particular product, that the drawings provided no other information as to the thickness of the aluminum sheets that covered the foam core, and that the information provided regarding the roof panels was therefore “incomplete.” In the absence of a specific product, an engineer “should specify what the thickness of that skin is.” No such specificity as to the thickness of the aluminum skin, or of the brand name of the product used was provided with the plans for the Shank project. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.E. regarding Respondent’s failure to describe and define required roof panel components. In general, Mr. Martin’s description of Respondent’s plans for the Shank project as “sloppy” understated the lack of information provided. A covered patio structure may not rank among the most complex or difficult structures for an engineer, but the simplicity of the project does not excuse a lack of care and precision that is required to ensure that projects meet applicable standards. In the case of the Shank Residence project, Respondent failed to exercise that requisite degree of care and precision. Emilion Court Residence Project The Administrative Complaint alleged 11 separate counts related to alleged deficiencies in the Emilion Court Project. The Counts were identified as Counts 7.A. through 7.K. Count 7.A. Count 7.A. alleged that Respondent failed to adequately dimension his permit drawings. Mr. Berryman testified that the deficiency that formed the basis for Count 7.A. was related to a failure to establish the “overhang” of the existing structure, inasmuch as the aluminum pool enclosure was to be attached to that overhang. The drawings submitted indicate that the structure was to be attached to the host structure at the “super gutter.” The super gutter is depicted on the structure specific plans, and the attachment details are provided on that section of the detail sheet entitled “Typical Super Gutter Attachment Schematic Plan and Detail.” Mr. Martin indicated that he was able to determine the dimensions of the structure with the exception of a 2x2-inch “girt 1” which was akin to a chair rail around the enclosure. However, the location of “girt 1” was not identified as a basis for the allegations in Count 7.A. The drawings provided by Respondent, read in conjunction with the details, establish that Respondent adequately dimensioned his drawings. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.A. that Respondent failed to adequately dimension his permit drawings. Count 7.B. Count 7.B. alleged that Respondent failed to show the size, section, and location of the framing elements and to define and detail the connections of the transom wall. Mr. Martin testified that that he had no difficulty in determining the dimensions of any of the columns or beams that made up the pool enclosure. He had one question regarding the dimension of an eave gutter at the point at which the structure would attach to the host, but it was a question of a few inches difference. Mr. Berryman’s testimony was limited to the lack of detail regarding the transom wall, not to other framing elements for the pool enclosure. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.B. that Respondent failed to show the size, section, and location of the framing elements. Occasionally, a structure like a pool enclosure is higher than the eave of the host structure. A transom wall is a short wall that extends from the eave of the host structure to the framing members to support the spans from the screen pool enclosure. The evidence in this case demonstrates that Respondent did not include a transom wall in his design. Petitioner’s expert assumed the existence of a transom wall because the pool enclosure extended to a height greater than that of the connection to the house. The side view of the structure shows a vertical element extending up from the eave of the house at the nine-foot elevation, but provides no direct information of any structure associated with that vertical element. Respondent argued that the transom wall was, in essence, a structure that was made up by Mr. Driscoll, and that since it did not appear as part of Respondent’s drawings, it could not form the basis for a violation. Mr. Martin stated that the drawings included no transom wall, whereupon he assumed that the vertical line on the “side view” drawing depicted a sloping gabled roof or some other unspecified feature of the host structure that was not clearly depicted. Mr. Martin further testified that the drawings did not provide the details for attaching that portion of the structure to the host structure, regardless of whether it was being attached to a gabled roof or to a transom wall. Contrary to Respondent’s assertion that there was no transom wall was his reply to the Project Review Report prepared by Driscoll Engineering, Inc. In his report, Mr. Driscoll noted the plans prepared by Respondent: Do not establish or define the height of the connection between the screen enclosure roof and the host roof perimeter (eave). A note on the Plan View (Exhibit B-1) suggests that “2X4 SMB Vert.” are present along one fascia segment, but their height is not shown, nor does Sheet 2 (B-3) depict an elevation of this assumed transom wall.” (emphasis added). In his response, Respondent, through his authorized agent, did not deny the existence of a transom wall, and made no suggestion that the structure tied into the existing host structure, but rather stated that “the transom wall is not shown; however [Respondent] assisted in the field with the installation of the transom wall.” Thus, by virtue of Respondent’s admission, the evidence is clear and convincing that a transom wall was part of the required design of the pool enclosure as constructed. During the course of the hearing, a suggestion was made that Respondent went back to the project site, after-the- fact, and constructed a completely unnecessary transom wall “in good faith to try to participate in this process.” That explanation is neither supported by the record, nor is it a reasonable or logical explanation for a transom wall having been constructed and attached to the host structure. Regardless of whether the vertical line depicted the host structure or a transom wall, the drawings failed to define and detail the connections of the structure to the host structure. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.B. that Respondent failed to detail the connections of the transom wall, or other such framing element necessary to connect the pool enclosure to the Emilion Court residence. Count 7.C. Count 7.C. alleged that Respondent failed to show the section and therefore to define and detail the “2x3 Special” eave rail. A “special” structural component is one that does not have four 90-degree corners. Rather, one or more of the corners may be something other than 90 degrees. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the section of the special eave rail was not shown in the plans. Mr. Martin acknowledged that the section of the eave rail should have been on the plans. Mr. Berryman indicated that by not specifying the section, the contractor may “interpret the plan, and put whatever he wants.” Though not a “major issue,” Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.C. that Respondent failed to show the section and therefore to define and detail the “2x3 Special” eave rail. Count 7.D. Count 7.D. alleged that the 2x6 SMB post element and the 2x7 SMB beam element of Frame A are overstressed at code- prescribed design loading, and that the 2x6 SMB post element of Frame B is overstressed, and that Respondent therefore failed to proportion the subject framing elements in compliance with FBC strength standards. In general, the evidence elicited from the experts was contradictory, including evidence of the standard for measuring stresses; the assumptions relied upon for determining the manner in which structural elements were connected, and other elements of the analysis. The testimony of the witnesses, both of whom were credible, failed to establish a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Thus, except as set forth in the following paragraph, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.D. that the structure elements were overstressed, and that Respondent failed to proportion the subject framing elements in compliance with FBC strength standards. This finding is not one that the elements identified in the allegation were actually compliant, but is one based on a failure of proof. As to one connection at which the Frame A beam attached to the carrier beam, which was identified by Mr. Martin as ID 3028, the evidence was clear and convincing that the applied bending moment, assuming that all of the connections of Frame A were fixed, was 27,201.9 inch-pounds, which exceeded the allowable bending moment calculated by Mr. Driscoll. There was no evidence that the allowable bending moment used in that analysis was unsupported by sound engineering principles. Thus, at the ID 3028 location where the Frame A beam attached to the carrier beam, Frame A was overstressed. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.D. that Frame A was overstressed at code-prescribed design loading and that Respondent therefore failed to proportion the subject framing elements in compliance with FBC strength standards. Count 7.E. Count 7.E. alleged that Respondent failed to provide a foundation plan for the specific construction proposed. Mr. Martin testified that documents sealed and submitted by Respondent were sufficient to establish the foundation plan for the Emilion project. In Mr. Martin’s opinion, the details, including the “Typical Post Base Detail” and “Typical Foundation Details,” were adequate to enable a contractor to construct the project in accordance with the engineering design document. Mr. Berryman did not agree that the foundation elements depicted in the detail sheet were sufficient to establish a foundation plan. However, his opinion in that regard was largely predicated on his presumption that the preprinted disclaimer that “certification extends only for the tabulated spans of the structural shapes listed” meant that the entire detail sheet was to be disregarded except for the span table. In Mr. Martin’s opinion, the limitation or “disclaimer” language related only to beam spans, and did not serve to disclaim Respondent’s responsibility for the information contained in the certified detail sheets. It is common for an engineer to incorporate standard details into a design when appropriate. When a document is sealed, whether an original drawing or a standardized detail sheet, that seal represents the certification that the engineer is taking responsibility for the document. As indicated previously, the construction of the disclaimer applied by Mr. Berryman has the effect of nullifying the detail sheet in its entirety, except for the span table. The undersigned finds that a more reasonable construction is that the limitation serves to ensure that the span table does not apply to shapes, sizes, and spans not set forth therein. By applying his seal to the detail sheet, the undersigned finds that Respondent incorporated those details into his plans, and took responsibility for the plans incorporating those details. For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned accepts that the detail sheet has been properly incorporated into Petitioner’s plans for the Emilion Court project. That does not end the inquiry. The section entitled “Typical Foundation Details” does not specify a particular foundation plan. As noted by Mr. Berryman, the sheet provides detail for four different types of foundations. Petitioner failed to specify which foundation was applicable, and therefore gave the contractor no useful information as to which foundation type was appropriate for the project. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.E. that Respondent failed to specify a foundation plan for the Emilion Court project. Count 7.F. Count 7.F. alleged that Respondent failed to address the design of the structure’s foundations and failed to verify that the foundations meet the FBC strength requirements. The basis for Count 7.F. is generally the same as that given for Count 7.E. For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned accepts that the foundation detail sheet has been properly incorporated into Petitioner’s plans for the Emilion Court project. As set forth in the analysis of Count 7.E., the typical foundation details do not specify a particular foundation plan. Petitioner failed to specify which foundation was applicable and, therefore failed to address the design of the structure’s foundations and failed to verify that the project-specific foundation met the FBC strength requirements. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.F. Count 7.G. Count 7.G. alleged that Respondent failed to indicate the size, section, location, and configuration of the typical diagonal roof bracing and all wall-bracing components for a lateral bracing system. As to the size, section, location, and configuration of the typical diagonal roof bracing, Mr. Martin testified that “I do not see any diagonal bracing whatsoever. It’s all purlins and there’s no diagonal bracing.” However, Mr. Martin was not able to tell whether Respondent determined that diagonal bracing was not required in the roof section, and in that regard testified that “since this has an L-shaped plan to it and it has host walls in both directions to connect to, then the roof bracing may not be required.” Mr. Berryman’s testimony as to the diagonal roof bracing was fairly conclusory, and failed to establish the fundamental element that diagonal roof bracing was necessary for the Emilion Court project. Although the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to include roof-bracing details, the fact that it was not proven that roof bracing was necessary leads the undersigned to find that Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the lack of roof-bracing detail in this case constitutes a violation as alleged in Count 7.G. Mr. Berryman’s testimony as to the deficiencies in the description of the cable wall-bracing system was predicated on his opinion, previously discussed herein, that the typical cable bracing details contained on the detail sheet submitted with the plans must be disregarded due to the “span table” limitation. For the reasons previously discussed, the undersigned finds the limitation does not serve to negate the detail, nor was that Respondent’s intent. Furthermore, Respondent modified the detail in his drawings by specifying the use of 3/16” cable, rather than the standard 3/32” cable provided in the detail. Therefore, Respondent separately acknowledged and certified that detail. Mr. Martin testified that the plans, when read in conjunction with the certified details, provide sufficient information as to the wall-bracing components. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.G. that Respondent failed to indicate the size, section, location, and configuration of the wall-bracing components. Count 7.H. Count 7.H. alleged that Respondent failed to address the design of the structure’s bracing elements and failed to verify that the structure’s bracing elements meet the FBC strength requirements. For the reasons set forth in the analysis of Count 7.G., Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.H. that Respondent failed to address the design of the structure’s bracing elements and failed to verify that the structure’s bracing elements meet the FBC strength requirements. Count 7.I. Count 7.I. alleged that in the column of the table for 5’0” Post Spacing and Exposure Category B in “Drawing 1 of”, the 2x4 SMB, 2x5 SMB, 2x6 SMB, 2x7 SMB, 2x8 SMB, 2x9 SMB, and 2x10 SMB posts, and the 2x7 SMB beam element of Frame A are overstressed at the listed span and loading, and that in the column of the table for 7’0” Post Spacing and Exposure Category C, the 2x4 SMB, 2x5 SMB, 2x6 SMB, 2x7 SMB, 2x8 SMB, 2x9 SMB, and 2x10 SMB, posts are overstressed at the listed span and loading. The calculation of whether a support member is overstressed varies greatly depending on the means by which the support members are fastened to one another. In general, measurements are taken at the base, at the shoulder, and at the carrier beam or other fixed structure to which a member is attached. If members are fastened by means of a single fastener, they are characterized as “pinned” connections. Pinned connections have greater stresses exerted by rotation and bending. If members are fastened together with multiple fasteners, they are generally characterized as “fixed” connections, with the degree to which they are fixed somewhat dependant on the number of fasteners per connection. Mr. Berryman determined that Respondent assumed that the mansard roof had pinned connections at the base, at the shoulder, and at the connection to the supporting structure. In making that determination, as with regard to other counts, Mr. Berryman disregarded the detail sheet that accompanied Respondent’s drawings due to General Notes and Design Criteria, #12, that “[c]ertification extends only for the tabulated spans of the structural shapes listed. The engineer of record shall verify all other details including overall stability.” Therefore, despite Respondent having included the detail sheet that clearly showed connections with multiple fasteners as part of his engineering package, Mr. Berryman opined that the disclaimer “specifically excluded all of the details in the project from his certification. Then there was nothing for me to consider regarding those details. They’re not part of his work.” As a result, Mr. Berryman concluded that Respondent “didn’t design any connections. And actually, I found an issue with his work because he didn’t design any connections.” The detail sheet provided demonstrates the typical post to beam connections by the dimensions of each of the structural members being connected. Each of the typical joints called for multiple screws. Therefore, the joints were not pinned, as assumed by Mr. Berryman, but were closer to fixed joints. Thus, the assumption used by Mr. Berryman that joints were pinned -- an assumption that would be expected to materially affect the conclusions as to the stability and strength of the structure -- was incorrect. In general, the evidence elicited from Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin was contradictory, including evidence of the standard for measuring stresses, the assumptions relied upon for determining the manner in which structural elements were connected, and other elements of the analysis. The testimony of the witnesses, both of whom were credible, failed to establish a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.I. This finding is not one that the elements identified in the allegation were actually compliant, but is one based on a failure of proof. Count 7.J. Count 7.J. alleged that Respondent failed to address the design and verify the structure’s connections, bracing and anchorage, and failed to verify that they meet the FBC strength requirements. The basis for the allegation is that the certification of the generic details and specifications is limited to the tabular span data listed on the generic details and specifications drawings. Therefore, Count 7.J., on its face, requires that the details submitted by Respondent with his drawings be disregarded. As discussed several times previously, Mr. Berryman has expressed his opinion that the detail sheets submitted with the plans must be disregarded due to the “span table” limitation. For the reasons previously discussed, the undersigned finds the limitation does not serve to negate the details, nor was that Respondent’s intent. Thus, since Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the information conveyed in the details did not comply with the FBC, and for the reasons otherwise expressed with regard to other similar counts, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.J. Count 7.K. Count 7.K. alleged that the beam span table in “Drawing 2”, the 2x4, 2x5, 2x6, and 2x8 beam elements are overstressed at the listed span and loading in frame configurations allowed by the table, and that the 2x2 snap beam element is overstressed for all spans listed. Mr. Berryman’s opinion that the structure was overstressed is, again, largely predicated on his assumption that the structure had pinned connections. The evidence is more persuasive that the connections were fixed. For the reasons set forth in the analysis of Count 7.I., including the contradictory testimony of the two generally credible witnesses, the evidence failed to establish a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.K. This finding is not one that the elements identified in the allegation were actually compliant, but is one based on a failure of proof.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding that Respondent is guilty of violating section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001 for the counts identified herein. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded, that he be placed on probation for two years, that his license be restricted from practicing structural engineering involving the design of aluminum structures until such time as he passes and submits proof of passing the NCEES Structural Engineering Examination, that he be fined $2,000, and that costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case be assessed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2012.
