The Issue The issue is whether Oliver J. Turzak violated statutes and rules governing the practice of engineering as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Clerk of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the “Board”) on October 4, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint at issue was filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (“FEMC”) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and at all times material to these proceedings has been, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 18230. Respondent’s last known address is 5405 Water Street, New Port Richey, Florida 34652. On April 20, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive, New Port Richey, Florida (“Fish Residence Project”). On June 10, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated an engineering opinion letter (“Letter”) which was addressed and sent to Champion Foundation Repair, the entity which was Respondent’s client for the Fish Residence Project. The Letter stated in material part: [Respondent], whose signature appears below, has verified placement of twenty-seven (27) exterior piers and twenty-five (25) interior jack pins as located on the drawings by the same job number. The piers all achieved sufficient load bearing characteristics to transfer the house weight to the piers and to close cracks substantially and stabilize the foundation. The remediation program was developed according to geological data supplied by Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc., dated November 2007. Similar pier reports on numerous structures with similar problems have demonstrated long term success without additional settlement. Therefore, it is the opinion of the [Respondent] that the location has been repaired and stabilized and, further, that there is no evidence of new sinkhole activity at the location. In compliance with Florida Statute 627.707, the report and remediation program was prepared under the supervision of a Registered Professional, whose field of expertise is a Geo-Technical Engineer. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (“Responsibility Rules”). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-35. Professional engineers, who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules, are required to comply with those rules. Rule 61G15-30.002(1) mandates that Respondent, as the structural engineer of record, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared for the Fish Residence Project. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing a document that complies with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record of the Structure for the Fish Residence Project as that term is defined in rules 61G15-31.002(1) and 61G15-31.003(1). As such, all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in rule 61G15-31.002(5), as mandated by rule 61G15-31.001, setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(4) provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” Rule 61G15-19.001(4) also provides that: [F]ailure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility Rules as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with this section unless the deviation or departures therefrom are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the professional engineer. Respondent’s June 10, 2008, Letter is an engineering “certification” as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-18.011(4): statement signed and sealed by a professional engineer representing that the engineering services addressed therein, as defined in section 471.005(6), F.S., have been performed by the professional engineer, and based upon the professional engineer’s knowledge, information and belief, and in accordance with commonly accepted procedures consistent with applicable standards of practice, . . . . “Certifications” are subject to the standards set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-29.001, which require that if an engineer is presented with a “certification” that “involve[s] matters which are beyond the engineer’s scope of services actually provided” that the engineer must “decline to sign . . . such certification.” Section 471.033(1)(a) provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for “[v]iolating . . . [a] rule of the [B]oard.” Section 471.033(1)(e) provides, in material part, that a professional engineer is subject to discipline for “[m]aking or filing a report or record that the licensee knows to be false” when the report is “signed in the capacity of a licensed engineer.” Rule 61G15-19.001(6) provides that: A professional engineer shall not commit misconduct in the practice of engineering. Misconduct in the practice of engineering as set forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., shall include, but not be limited to: * * * (b) Being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report, statement, or testimony whether or not under oath or omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report, statement or testimony when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, employer or the general public; . . . . The Fish Residence In 2007, the residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive in New Port Richey, Florida (the “Fish Residence”), experienced structural damage from subsidence in the ground underlying the home. As a result, a claim was made to Fish’s insurance company, and an investigation was commenced. Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. (“CFTL”), a geotechnical engineering firm, performed an in-depth analysis and found, in a signed, sealed, and dated engineering report issued on November 20, 2007, that the subsidence was likely caused by a number of factors, including sinkhole activity. As a result, the Fishes hired a contractor, Champion Foundation Repair (“Champion”) to remediate the damage. Champion hired Respondent to perform the engineering services necessary to obtain a permit for the remediation, inspect the construction, and complete a report certifying the adequate completion of the work. Respondent had a long history of providing similar services to Champion in the past, having performed engineering services in over 200 projects for Champion. Respondent created, signed, sealed, and dated on April 20, 2008, a Settlement Stabilization Plan (“Plan”), which formed the design basis for the work Champion carried out. Well into the project, the Fishes became dissatisfied with the work done by Champion. Champion was terminated as the contractor before the work was finalized and before Respondent was able to perform a final inspection of the property. Litigation was commenced and Bracken Engineering (“Bracken”), a forensic structural/civil engineering firm was engaged to perform an investigation of the work performed by Champion and Respondent for the pending litigation. Bracken issued a lengthy engineering report (“Bracken Report”), under engineering seal, on June 20, 2011. The Bracken Report found Respondent’s Plan deficient, that Respondent was not adequately knowledgeable about the site, that Champion’s implementation of the Plan, and Champion’s construction work as a whole was flawed and inadequate. Subsequent to the issuance of the Bracken Report, a complaint was filed with the Board, and these proceedings were initiated. Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence Roger Jeffery opined that the Plan failed to meet required engineering standards. The parties agree that when a structure, such as the Fish Residence Project, is initially built, the loads are directly transferred to the foundation, which then transfers the loads directly and uniformly as a continuously supported structure to the underlying soil. However, when, as occurred in this case, the structure’s loads are no longer transferred directly and uniformly to the ground through the foundation, but are transferred through pins which underlie the foundation, the foundation itself now acts as a beam or beams and is subject to the stresses applied to the beams. Respondent asserted that the foundation load would remain continuous, and therefore stable, since grouting had been poured under the Fish Residence to consolidate and stabilize the soils. However, Respondent’s plan did not call for grouting to be used. Moreover, according to the Bracken Report, no grouting was ever placed under the Fish Residence, even though it was called for in the CFTL Report to stabilize the structure. Respondent’s failure to perform a final inspection resulted in an inaccurate assumption and opinion. Respondent’s claim that grouting placed in the void under the structure reconstituted the original soil conditions is rejected, especially in light of the fact that Respondent also analyzed the pins and foundation in a beam configuration--a simple span beam. Further, Respondent’s analysis must be discounted because the calculations justifying his conclusion that the structure was adequately supported was performed in December 2013, well after these proceedings commenced and more than five years after the Plan had been created by Respondent. As a result of the changed structural support system (from ground support to pins), the position of the pins is critical to the stability of the structure. If the pins are too far apart for the strength of the foundation’s materials to accommodate the foundation, now acting as a beam or beams, the foundation will be overstressed. Cracking, at a minimum, or collapse, at a maximum, can occur. Cracking or collapse can occur because the concrete slab foundation used at the Fish Residence does not have any existing top reinforcing steel in it. When asked if perhaps reinforcing steel might have been placed within the slab itself, Mr. Jeffery stated he had never seen such use of steel in over 40 years. No evidence to support the steel within the slab theory was presented. When the newly installed pins become the structural support, a negative bending moment is introduced to the top of the foundation, now acting as a beam. The top of the foundation is made only of concrete, which has little ability to resist the induced negative moment. As a result, deflection, racking, and ultimate failure will be the result if the pin placement and the spans created by the placement are inadequately designed. Respondent’s after-the-fact calculations do not address this issue. Using a continuous beam analysis, the preferred method to evaluate the beam/pin assemblage design in structures like the Fish Residence, the spacing of the pins (usually ten feet apart) designed by Respondent coupled with the loads generated by the foundation and the lack of reinforcing steel in the top portion of the foundation would result in stress that would exceed the strength of the concrete and, at a minimum, the concrete would eventually crack. Dr. Ahmed Said, Respondent’s expert, agreed with this conclusion. Even using a simple beam analysis, the design method Respondent testified he used and that Dr. Said agreed was commonly used, movement, resulting in cracks at the foundation slab, would occur. Again, since no reinforcing steel exists at the top of the slab, as a matter of simple physics, the concrete would have to respond to the deflection that would occur at the bottom of the foundation and, concrete being weak, would likely crack or worse at the top. Respondent provided no persuasive rebuttal to Mr. Jeffery’s analysis. First, Respondent claimed that elevations taken at the site in 2013 showed minimal deflective movement, proving the Plan design was sufficient. However, Mr. Jeffery noted that subsequent elevations taken at the completed structure would have little meaning regarding the adequacy of the design since: the design stands alone and is not affected by how the contractor implemented it; and no one could know whether the design, as constructed, would withstand the required stresses until it was subjected to full design loading, which would have to include the full wind loads to which the structure was designed. There is no evidence the structure was ever subjected to such stress in the period between its construction in 2008 and the later recorded elevations. Next, Respondent claimed the 3-foot “spreaders” attached to the pins would reduce the span of the foundation acting as a beam and thus would overcome the lack of reinforcing steel in the top of the foundation and the resulting overstress. The problem with this assertion is that the Plan does not call for “spreaders” to be placed in the design by any notations that are readily and universally cognizable. Respondent admitted that the symbol regarding the use of the spreaders was agreed to only between Champion and him, and was not included in the Plan. However, even if the notations used by Respondent could be interpreted as calling for the use of the “spreaders,” the “spreaders” would not materially impact the fact that the foundation, acting as a beam, would be overstressed, since a negative moment would still exist due to the lack of reinforcing steel at the top of the foundation. Finally, Respondent asserted that Mr. Jeffery’s analysis was flawed since Mr. Jeffery had assumed the Fish Residence was a masonry structure whereas Respondent claimed the structure was a wood frame covered with a stucco exterior. This issue is confused by the fact that both the CFTL and Bracken Reports, upon which Mr. Jeffery relied, both stated the Fish Residence was a masonry structure, although the CFTL Report notes the structure was initially constructed as wood frame. In any event, Mr. Jeffery testified that regardless of the masonry versus wood frame question, the structure would still be overstressed. Changing the construction from masonry to wood frame/stucco veneer might lessen the overstress, but not materially. In addition to the overstress created by failing to address the induced negative moment at the top of the foundation, Respondent’s design also resulted in a shear load which exceeded the maximum allowable under the American Concrete Institute 318 Concrete Code; and, since that code is incorporated into the Florida Building Code (“FBC”), the requirements of the FBC as well. The shear load factor is especially relevant since Respondent did not assure that the pins would not be placed under windows and doors where this issue is critical. Respondent did not address the shear issue as it applied to windows and doors in his after-the-fact calculations. The Plan is also deficient since it did not indicate the placement of windows and doors in the Fish Residence Project. By not doing so, the pins, when put in the ground, could be placed underneath these internal spaces which do not then form a continuous roof/wall/foundation assembly. If that occurred, and it apparently did in the Fish Residence on four occasions, the shear problem described above is exacerbated, since at either side of a door or window a point load is created and the shear stress increased. The Plan also fails to include required information. While the Plan calls for the use of a “FastSteel” product, the Plan does not include any product specification number or the strength of the material to be used. Although Respondent stated that the contractor, based upon its experience, knew what was intended, ultimately Respondent admitted that the required information was not in the Plan. Similarly, the Plan did not include the design loads and criteria used in the design and provided no building codes and standards. Respondent admitted the Plan lacked this required information. The missing information is important. Only by including such information on design documents can the engineer adequately communicate to the reviewing building code plans examiner or a contractor what the design engineer intended. By not including this required information, the reviewer can be uncertain as to whether the engineer used the correct loadings or designed the structure in accordance with the correct edition of the building code. Similarly, failing to provide sufficient information concerning the products to be used may lead a contractor to utilize the wrong product during construction. The Plan was submitted to Pasco County for issuance of a permit. The county building department issued a permit for the work to be performed. Mike Mosher of Champion believed the Plan included all the specifications he needed to identify the components to be used and the manner in which the work was to be performed. He also testified the work was completed consistent with the Plan. The June 10, 2008, Certification Letter Respondent issued the June 10, 2008 Certification Letter (“Letter”) under seal to his client before he completed the inspections necessary for the conclusions in the Letter to accurately reflect the opinions contained in it. Both Respondent and his client, Champion, agree that since the client had been denied access to the Fish Residence Project, no final inspection of the site by Respondent ever occurred. As a result, Respondent admitted that, when he signed, sealed, and issued the Letter, the engineering services, upon which the certification in the Letter was based, had not yet occurred. The evidence proved that Respondent’s last appearance at the Fish Residence Project occurred on or about May 5, 2008, and that most of the work done at the site occurred after that date with the final construction finishing on or about May 30, 2008. As a result, the conclusions and opinions contained in the Letter were not based upon accurate and contemporaneous engineering analysis. Since the Letter purports to be grounded in engineering inspections, the statements in the Letter were not fully based upon the services Respondent actually provided. While not entirely clear from the evidence and testimony, had Respondent had the ability to perform a final inspection, he would have had the opportunity to discover several deficiencies in the construction. The Bracken Report detailed several deficiencies and non-conformances with the Remediation Plan. These deficiencies included: 1) failure to drive 5/6ths of the pilings to the depth prescribed by the notes to the Plan; a large number of pins found beneath door and window openings; mis-installation of pins and pin assemblages; and 4) no grouting placed in the ground although Respondent intended that grouting be used. Respondent agreed that at least some of the Bracken Report conclusions were warranted. Respondent asserts that, although the Letter was issued prematurely, Respondent should not be held accountable since the Letter “never went public.” This contention is rejected. The Letter was a final engineering report/certification and, upon issuance to Respondent’s client, Champion, was fully subject to all engineering standards, rules, and statutes. Since the Letter contained conclusions that were inaccurate and based upon information that was not collected under Respondent’s direct supervision, issuance of the Letter constituted negligence and misconduct in the practice of engineering. Respondent’s Prior History of Discipline Respondent has previously had discipline imposed. The instant case is the first in more than 40 years of Respondent practicing engineering that involved a subsidence remediation plan. Respondent’s first prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 00-0086. In that case, Respondent was hired to correct building code issues identified by a county building department. The drawings he made violated the building code requirements, contained deficiencies, and were not in compliance with the standard practice of engineering. Respondent proceeded to hearing without benefit of legal counsel. A final order was entered by the Board reprimanding his license, fining him $1,000, plus costs of $302.93, placing him on probation for one year, and requiring he complete a course in professionalism and ethics while on probation. Respondent’s second prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 01-0079. That matter was based upon drawings that were dated February 16, 2001. Respondent was not represented by counsel in that proceeding. In that proceeding, no proof was presented that the structure depicted in the plans by Respondent was ever built. Therefore, no direct risk of harm to the public was proven. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that matter which was approved by the Board of Professional Engineers. He agreed to pay a total administrative fine of $7,000, plus $316.67 in costs and receive a reprimand on his license. He also received a one-year suspension of his license, followed by two years’ probation, and continuing education requirements. The other instance of discipline imposed against Respondent was in FEMC Case No. 2004037005. That complaint arose from plans that were signed by Respondent in June 2004. He was charged with signing plans he had not personally prepared or were not prepared under his supervision. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that case that was approved by the Board. He paid a $5,000 administrative fine and costs of $750; received a reprimand on his license; received two years of probation; and was required to make detailed reporting to the FEMC during the probationary period. No additional evidence of prior disciplinary matters was offered other than the three cases described above.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Oliver Turzak’s Professional Engineer license be reprimanded, and that the license shall be suspended for a period of one year. Upon termination of the suspension, Respondent shall be reinstated under terms and conditions of reinstatement as the Board determines are appropriate, including two years of probation with terms the Board deems appropriate. Respondent shall also be fined $1,000 per count ($2,000 total fine). Finally, Petitioner shall be entitled to assess costs which are related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs or fees associated with an attorney’s time, as provided in section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David P. Rankin, Esquire Law Office of David P. Rankin, P.A. 18540 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33548 John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Based upon the stipulated facts, only one issue, a legal one, must be resolved. The issue is whether Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is properly applied by the Board which interprets this section to require a minimum of four years of experience as a certified contractor. Having considered the statute and the Board's position in applying the interpretation above, it is concluded that the Board's interpretation is erroneous.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Margaret K. Roberts, was licensed as a Certified Building Contractor October 19, 1984. Petitioner filed an application to take the State Certified General Contractor's Examination on or about December 19, 1984. At the time Petitioner applied to take the Certified General Contractor's Examination, she held Certified Building Contractor's License No. CB C031970 and she had four years of proven experience in the Certified Building Contractor's field, although she had only been certified as a building contractor since October 19, 1984. One may obtain experience in an area of contracting without being certified. Petitioner is not qualified by virtue of holding a baccalaureate degree or experience as a residential contractor. Petitioner was not certified as a building contractor for four years prior to applying for the general contractor's examination. Petitioner's only basis of claimed eligibility to take the General Contractor's Examination is Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's application to take the certification examination because of insufficient time as a certified building contractor in accordance with Florida Statutes 489.111(4)(c). Other than the issue of requisite experience as a certified contractor, Petitioner meets all other statutes and Board Rules regarding eligibility for the Certified General Contractor's Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the stipulated facts and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, be interpreted to include qualifying service in a non-certified capacity and that Petitioner's application to take the building contractor's examination be approved. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1986 COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maxwell G. Battle, Esquire 8204-A West Waters Avenue Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33615 Arden Siegendorf, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD MARGARET K. ROBERTS, License No. CB-C031970 Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 85-2240 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Respondent. /
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, set forth in an Administrative Complaint signed May 19, 1987. At the hearing the Respondent stipulated to several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Thereafter, the Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses and offered five exhibits, all of which were received in evidence. The Respondent did not testify on her own behalf, but did present the testimony of one witness. The Respondent did not offer any exhibits in evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given 20 days from the date of the filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The transcript was filed on October 15, 1987, and the Petitioner thereafter filed a timely proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. As of the date of this recommended order, the Respondent has not filed a proposed recommended order nor any other document containing proposed findings of fact. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the hearing I make the following findings of fact. Stipulated findings At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent held license number RC 0060128 issued by said Board. The Respondent's address of record is in Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent did, through the contracting business Respondent was then associated with and responsible for in her capacity as a licensed contractor, contract with Darryl Debow, hereinafter referred to as the "Customer," to perform certain contracting work for the Customer. The details of the contracted work were generally as follows. The contract was entered into on or about April of 1986. The contract price was $5,900.00. The job was located in St. Augustine, Florida. The job generally consisted of repairing the roof of the Customer's commercial buildings. After entering into the contract, the Respondent's contracting business began work on the job. The rest of the facts The Respondent's business began work on the job described above without obtaining a permit for said work from the local building department and without assuring that someone else had obtained a permit for the work. There was no permit posted on the job site when Respondent's business began the job. The Respondent did not ask the local building department to inspect the work done on the subject contract. The Respondent was not licensed as a roofing contractor in St. Johns County, Florida, at any time from the beginning of 1985 until the day of the hearing. At all times material to this case, the applicable building code required permits for roofing work.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the violations charged in subparagraphs (b) and (c), of paragraph 13 of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in subparagraphs (a) and (d) of paragraph 13 of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 1st day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2672 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: This paragraph is a proposed conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding. Paragraphs 2 through 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Accepted in part and rejected in part. Accepted that no inspection by the local building department was requested. Portion which states such inspections were required is rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 9: Rejected as addressing matters which are not clearly placed in issue by the Administrative Complaint and which, in any event, are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: The Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Dorothy Homesley 35 Norde Drive, West Number 18 Jacksonville, Florida 32224 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Did respondent fail to properly supervise, direct and manage the contracting activities of the business of which he is the qualifier, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against respondent's contracting license?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the respondent was a certified building contractor licensed by the State of Florida and the qualifying agent for Custom Concrete of Naples, Inc. (Custom Concrete). Rodney Velez was the president of Custom Concrete and licensed only in concrete--concrete forming, placing and finishing. Susan Velez, Rodney Velez's wife, was an officer of Custom Concrete. On April 23, 1983, Custom Concrete, by and through Rodney Velez, entered into a contract with Mark and Penny Paterson to construct a home for $38,550.00. Mrs. Paterson had previously met Rodney Velez in the course of her work, and Velez had told her that he was a builder. Mrs. Paterson had suggested that Velez look at a floor plan that she and her husband had, and after certain negotiations, including a change of floor plan, the contract was entered into. During the course of the negotiations Mrs. Paterson never talked to the respondent and was unaware that the respondent was involved or would be involved in the construction of the home. Mrs. Paterson believed that Rodney Velez was the "builder"; however, the construction of the Paterson home was beyond the scope of Velez's concrete license. The respondent signed the application to secure the building permit for the Paterson residence, although he did not personally appear to procure the building permit. The clerk of the contractor's licensing section of the building code compliance department relied on the signature on the application because it was notarized. The notary was Susan Velez. Respondent did not supervise or direct the construction of the Paterson home. Neal Jackson, president of the company who did the electric work on the home, was unaware that respondent was involved in the project until well after the house was finished. Although it is usual for a supervisor or superintendent to be at the job site some of the time, Jackson never saw the respondent or Velez at the job site. Jeff Allain, the carpenter who did the framing and certain other work, was on the job site five or six days and saw the respondent once during the framing of the structure "just generally looking around." The respondent didn't say anything to Allain. David Isom did drywall work on the house. He had no contact with the respondent and did not see him at the construction site. Mrs. Paterson went by the construction site quite often and realized that the job was not being properly supervised. Velez was rarely there, and Mrs. Paterson never saw the respondent. The workmen on the site would ask the Patersons when Velez would be there because they had questions concerning the work. Neither of the building inspectors saw anyone supervising at the job site, although usually no one is at the job site when an inspection is made. Two days after the Patersons moved into their house, they compiled a "punch list" of the items that needed to be completed or corrected. The list was given to Velez, but the work was not corrected to the Paterson's satisfaction. Although Velez did not give the "punch list" to respondent, Velez discussed the problems with the respondent. Respondent did not take any steps to remedy the problems and said he thought "a lot of it was nonsense." Velez told respondent that he, Velez, would take care of it. Because of the unresolved problems with the house, Mrs. Paterson finally called the licensing board to file a complaint against Rodney Velez. At that time, she was informed that Rodney Velez was not the contractor; the contractor was the respondent. This was the first time that Mrs. Paterson was aware that the respondent was involved with the construction of the house. All of the Patersons dealings had been with Velez, and all checks for construction payments were made out to Velez personally. 2/ Even though the Patersons had not received satisfaction from Custom Concrete for the problems with the house, they signed the closing papers because Velez threatened to evict them. At closing the Patersons received a lien release from Custom Concrete which released all work prior to March 9, 1984. Subsequently, Velez filed a claim of lien against the Paterson property for work completed on February 9, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(j), Florida Statutes, that he be fined $1,000.00, and that his license be suspended for 60 days from the date the Construction Industry Licensing Board enters its final order in this case. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 30th day of January, 1985.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Ramiro Palma, be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 31, 1981. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registered building contractor's license be suspended for one year after the date of the final order entered in this proceeding and that Respondent pay a $1000 administrative fine. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1982.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a structural engineer should be approved. This case arose as a result of a determination by Respondent that Petitioner had not passed the reexamination for licensure as a structural engineer which was held on October 25, 1985. Petitioner contends that he was disadvantaged by the time allowed to study for the examination, the time taken to publish the results of the examination, the esoteric nature of a steel beam problem, and the design method required for a reinforced concrete structure. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner was not so disadvantaged, but that even if he were, it is not sufficient to increase his grade to a passing score. The respective contentions of the parties were embodied in a pre-hearing stipulation which was received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. Petitioner appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel and was therefore advised of his rights and the procedures to be employed in the administrative proceeding. He indicated that he understood his rights and such procedures, and elected to represent himself. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted six exhibits which were received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of James A. Power, a consulting structural engineer and Allen R. Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. In addition, Respondent submitted six exhibits in evidence, which were admitted. Petitioner's application for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. The parties were given until September 2, 1986, in which to file any posthearing submissions. However, Respondent failed to file any such submission and Petitioner's written argument was untimely filed on September 3, 1986.
Findings Of Fact By application received by Respondent on August 13, 1985, Petitioner Max E. Lambie applied for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination to be held on October 25, 1985. The application reflected that Petitioner had previously passed the "Fundamentals" part of a previous examination on April 19, 1985, and that his application was to take the "Principles and Practice" part for reexamination in the discipline of structural engineering. By a letter dated August 21, 1985, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the application and applicable fees. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Petitioner thereafter received from Respondent's Office of Examination Services, a "Notice to Appear for October 24-25, 1985, Professional Engineer (PE) Examination." The notice included information that Part II of the examination was to be based on Professional Principles and Practice, and devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of the candidate's discipline. It further stated as follows: In the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, candidates are required to solve eight (8) problems; four (4) in the morning session and four (4) in the afternoon session, drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (H) STRUCTURAL: Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces. The notice also stated that a passing grade on Part II of the examination was defined as a grade of seventy (70) or better, and that within approximately three (3) months after the examination date, the applicant would receive written notification of the examination results. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) By a Memorandum from Allen R. Smith, Jr., Director, Board of Professional Engineers, dated September 20, 1985, applicants applying for licensure by examination in the structural engineering discipline were advised that the examination was now given once a year and that the schedule was October 24 and 25, 1985, and October 23 and 24, 1986. The Memorandum further noted that the Board of Professional Engineers had amended Rule 21H- 21.02, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to the discipline of structural engineering to require that applicants were required to answer questions dealing specifically with structural engineering, and that applicants must answer four out of six questions on the a.m. and four out of six questions on the p.m. portions of the Principles and Practice examination. Enclosures to the Memorandum reflected the subject matter and numbers of the examination questions. A copy of Chapter 21H- 21 of the Respondent's Rules, dated July, 1985, was attached to the Memorandum. Rule 21H-21.02(2) provided in part as follows: Part two of the examination shall be based on Professional Practices and Principles and shall be devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's finding solutions to problems designed to test the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of his discipline. Applicants for registration must select one of the listed specializations in which to be examined. . . . In Part Two of the examination the applicant will usually be required to solve from seven to ten problems which the applicant may choose from approximately twenty problems drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (h) STRUCTURAL--"Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces." Finally, the Memorandum included an enclosure entitled "Design Reference Codes, Standards and Manuals" which listed various manuals and codes to be used as references for the review and use of applicants. The Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and Basic Building Code, had an asterisk after their listings. A note at the bottom of the listing stated "Use code with which you are familiar and/or currently using in your practice." One of the listings also was "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318- 83." It was not followed by an asterisk on the listing. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Petitioner took the October, 1985, examination which was a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) and available for certification or licensure throughout the United States. Respondent's Rule 21H-21.01 provides that the examination "shall be provided by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE)." (Stipulation (Joint Exhibit 1), Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Testimony of Petitioner) Petitioner did not receive his examination grades until March, 1986. The uniform grade notice, dated March 21, 1986, advised him that his examination grade was 66.3 which was failing and that a minimum passing score was 70. The reason for the delay in mailing the examination scores was that one of Respondent's graders for a specific portion of the examination was unavailable due to illness or accident. (Testimony of Smith, Respondent's Exhibit 5) At the hearing, Petitioner testified that the late notification by Respondent that only questions on structural engineering would be on the October examination disrupted his preparation and left him insufficient time to adequately prepare for the examination. He testified that in prior examinations it was possible for a candidate to select questions not specifically related to structural engineering, such as economics, and that he had to "scramble" to obtain texts to study for new subjects. He also claimed that the note at the bottom of Respondent's Design Reference Codes, Standards and Materials (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) which had accompanied Respondent's September 20, 1985 Memorandum to applicants (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) was misleading in that he construed the note to permit him to use whatever building code he was familiar with, and that it was not until he arrived at the examination that he found out that he had made the wrong assumption in that regard. The facts show, however, that the prior examination taken by Petitioner was not solely in the structural engineering discipline, but was a Civil/Sanitary/ Structural examination. Further, Respondent's note on the listing of reference manuals clearly indicated that it applied only with respect to the Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and the Basic Building Code, and not to the other codes and manuals listed therein. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 2- 3, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner claimed that the examination contained questions requiring the application of building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318- 83, which had only been in effect for the past two years and was not familiar to applicants of his age group and past experience. He contended that he had to hurriedly prepare himself utilizing unfamiliar texts that had become available only a few months prior to the examination. ACI 318-83 deals with a concept called "ultimate strength design," but Petitioner was familiar with an older concept called "working strength design." He further claimed that the South Florida Building Code was based entirely on the latter concept. However, expert testimony presented by the Respondent showed that the ultimate strength design concept had been part of the ACI code since 1956 and always had been required in designing prestressed concrete members. He also testified that working strength design is still permitted as an alternative concept in ACI 318-83, that both the South Florida Building Code and Standard Building Code require conformance to ACI 318-83, and that such requirements have been in both codes for at least 25 years. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioner's claims that he was prejudiced by the use of ACI 318-83 in problems on the examination are without merit. In this regard, it is also noted that the April 19, 1985 examination required the use of the latest ACI code and one question required the use of the ultimate strength method. (Testimony of Petitioner, Tower, Respondent's Exhibits 1-6) Respondent also contended at the hearing that question no. 275 of the October, 1985 examination contained a typographical error which required assumption of a different criterion for the solution, and that his expenditure of time in resolving the situation resulted in a score of five out of a possible ten. However, no evidence was presented that his solution was incomplete or that the score awarded by the graders was incorrect. Petitioner brought the typographical error to the attention of the Board by a letter stating that the error induced "extraordinary anxiety which contributed to a loss of concentration" and asked that his observation be passed on to the NCEE. At the hearing, he claimed that past typographical errors on examinations had resulted in adjustment of score points and that such should have been done with regard to the error which he pointed out to Respondent. Again, however, it is found that there was insufficient evidence presented to establish that the error noted by Petitioner had affected the grading of his solution. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 6.) Petitioner's claim that the late grading of the examination precluded him from applying for the Spring, 1986 examination is found to be irrelevant to the question of his failure of the October, 1985 examination. Further, his complaint that the new structural examination is used only in six states and that Florida was one of the first states to adopt the new examination provides no grounds for relief. The Board's purpose in changing the examination format was due to the belief that structural engineers should be more qualified in that particular discipline. In any event, the new Board rule established such format and no challenge to the rule was filed by Petitioner. (Testimony of Petitioner, Smith)
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent has been disciplined by a local government, the City of Tampa, in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: During times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CG C006397. Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. On May 5, 1987, Respondent was disciplined by the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa, and thereafter, on August 13, 1987, Respondent's license was revoked based on the determination that Respondent was guilty of violating City of Tampa codes. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.). Respondent's disciplinary action by the City of Tampa was reviewed by Petitioner and based on the May 5, 1987 suspension of Respondent's license, Petitioner found probable cause against Respondent on June 11, 1987. As stated, Respondent failed to appear to contest or otherwise refute the fact that the Unified Construction Trades Board of Tampa took disciplinary action against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's certified general contractor's license number CG C006397 be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the entry of the Board's final order. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1989.
