The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Tucker, is a registered building contractor holding State of Florida license number RB 0033063 (Ex. 7). Respondent was licensed as a building contractor by the State of Florida in September 1978, and has remained licensed at all times material hereto (Ex. 7). Since September 20, 1978, Respondent has held a local Building Contractor's License issued by the Leon County Contractor Licensing and Examination Board (Ex. 7). Respondent's license with the Department has been delinquent since July 1, 1985 (Ex. 7). In July 1983, Respondent made an oral agreement with Violet Gladieux to erect a carport for her at a cost of $1,350 (Ex. 3). Ms. Gladieux's residence is located at 2321 Belle Vue Way, within the city limits of Tallahassee. Jay Gladieux, Jr. became acquainted with Mr. Tucker from his position as an employee of Mr. Tucker on a prior construction project. Mr. Gladieux introduced his mother, Ms. Gladieux, to Mr. Tucker for the carport construction. It was orally agreed that Ms. Gladieux would pay Mr. Tucker for supplies as they were needed. Mr. Tucker began erection of the carport approximately one week after July 11, 1983, when he received the first payment of $300. On July 29, 1983, Mr. Tucker received final payment of $350 so that he could complete the carport (Ex. 3). Approximately two weeks after July 29, 1983, Respondent completed the carport. A permit for the erection of the carport was required by Section 7-63, Buildings and Construction Regulations (The Building Code) of the City of Tallahassee. The language of that ordinance has not changed since 1957 (Ex. 1). No building permit was ever obtained by Mr. Tucker for erection of the carport. Approximately two weeks after completion of the carport, it collapsed after a heavy rainfall (Ex. 4 and 5). Mr. Tucker returned to repair the damaged carport. He erected center studs and was to return later to complete the damage repair. Mr. Tucker has failed to return to complete the damage repair after requested to do so by Jay Gladieux. When an administrative complaint has been filed against a contractor, personal service of the complaint is attempted upon the contractor at his last address of record. If personal service cannot be effectuated at the contractor's last address of record, further attempts are made to locate the contractor. The building departments, both City and County, the telephone company, utility company and post office are contacted. The building departments are contacted to determine if the contractor has obtained any permits, for the permits would list the contractor's address. The telephone company is contacted for prior and new telephone listing(s) with address(es). The post office is contacted for forwarding address(es). The utility company is contacted for new utility service which would contain a new address (es). If the contractor cannot be located after using these avenues, a diligent search affidavit is executed by the investigator who is attempting to serve the contractor. In September 1978 and at all times pertaining to the construction of the carport, Respondent's address of record with the Department was 1515-21 Paul Russell Road and P.O. Box 20234, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had not notified the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board of any change in his address (Ex. 7), other than by the new address revealed on the Election of Rights form he filed in response to the administrative complaint. The Department attempted to personally serve Mr. Tucker at his listed address and could not locate him there. On May 21, 1984, Robert E. Connell, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, executed a diligent search affidavit concerning service of the Administrative Complaint upon Mr. Tucker in this proceeding (Ex. 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of the charges in count one of the Administrative Complaint, as amended; that counts two and three be dismissed; and that he be fined $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. 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 Errol H. Powell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert Tucker P.O. Box 10218 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact These proceedings were set for final hearing by a Notice of Hearing dated July 8, 1983 addressed to the parties, including Respondent at 488 Esther Lane, Altamonte Springs, Florida, 33596. 2/ The Notice of Hearing was not returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings as undelivered. At the time and place noticed for the final hearing the Hearing Officer waited until 9:16 a.m., to commence the proceedings, which concluded at 11:08 a.m. At no time has the Respondent contacted the Hearing Officer concerning a continuance or explained his failure to appear as noticed. At all times material to this proceeding Mr. McIntee has been licensed as a certified building contractor under license number CB C015923. He was also the qualifying agent pursuant to Section 489.119, Florida Statutes, for Delco, Incorporated. At no time has he ever attempted to qualify or otherwise notify the Construction Industry Licensing Board that he intended to affiliate with or do business as Earth Shelter Corporation of Florida, Inc. On July 30, 1980 Earth Shelter Corporation of Florida, Inc. (Earth Shelter) entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. William Sweet to construct an earth shelter single family residence in Lake County, Florida. The estimated cost of the project was to be $57,000 and was guaranteed not to exceed $60,000. The contract was negotiated by Respondent acting as president of Earth Shelter. Mr. McIntee was the contractor who pulled the building permit on behalf of Earth Shelter. The project was financed by First Family Federal Savings and Loan Association of Eustis, Florida. In order to obtain payments from the Association, Respondent periodically executed affidavits which stated in part: Affiant says further that all the subcon- tractors, materialmen or any other persons performing labor and furnishing materials used in the construction of the building, or improvements to the premises or appur- tenances thereof, have been fully paid in- cluding all extras. As the result of executing these affidavits Respondent received draws totaling $49,079.26 on the dates of September 30, 1980, October 31, 1980, December 3, 1980, February 4, 1981 and July 10, 1981. These affidavits were false. At the time the affidavits were executed all the subcontractors had not been paid by Respondent. As an example, Frank Wagner Excavating, Inc. performed subcontracting services at the Sweet project on June 4 and 5, 1981 at a cost of $1,451. This was billed to Respondent on June 6, 1981. He sent Wagner Excavating a check dated June 6, 1981, in the amount of the invoice, but the check was returned to Wagner for lack of sufficient funds at Respondent's bank. Before Respondent's check bounced, but subsequent to invoicing the work done on June 4 and 5, 1981, Mr. Wagner performed additional earth moving work at the Sweet project on July 3, 8, 9 and 10, 1981. That work was invoiced on July 10, 1981 for $1,378.75. No attempt was made by Respondent to pay for the second invoice. Eventually Wagner Excavating was paid by Mr. Sweet personally and by an additional payment directly to Wagner Excavating by First Family Federal Savings and Loan Association in order to satisfy Wagner's lien. In order to protect himself, Wagner had filed a lien against the Sweet property on August 17, 1981. Because of structural defects in the construction of Mr. Sweet's home performed by Respondent, Mr. Sweet filed a complaint with the Lake County Board of Examiners against Respondent. Notice of that complaint was given to Respondent on August 18, 1981. He was informed that on September 1, 1981 the Lake County Board of Building Examiners would take testimony concerning the allegations contained in the complaint. Respondent was urged to attend the meeting and to be represented by counsel if he so desired. Mr. McIntee did appear at that meeting. An investigation of the complaint followed. Respondent was subsequently noticed for a second meeting of the Board of Examiners to be held on October 6, 1981 concerning the Sweet complaint, but he failed to appear. At that time the results of the investigation were reviewed and the Lake County Board of Examiners revoked Respondent's license as a contractor in Lake County for abandonment and code violations related to his work on Mr. Sweet's residence. On September 19, 1980 Earth Shelter through Respondent entered into a contract with James V. Migliorato to construct a residence in Seminole County, Florida. The contract price was $48,500. During the course of the work performed by Mr. McIntee, liens in the amount of approximately $9,500 were filed by third parties who provided materials and services under subcontract to Earth Shelter in the construction of Mr. Migliorato's residence. By March of 1981 Respondent had abandoned the project without cause. Mr. Migliorato later met with him at which time Respondent explained that he had run out of money and was not going to finish the job. In August of 1981 Mr. Migliorato and his counsel met with Respondent and his counsel. During their discussions Respondent stated that the money which he had been paid for work on the Migliorato home had been diverted by him for use on the Sweet residence mentioned above. The liens outstanding against Mr. Migliorato's property were never satisfied by Respondent and had to be paid by the homeowner. An example of the outstanding liens was that filed by Superior Distributors, Inc. which supplied and installed a kitchen and bathroom cabinet at the Migliorato residence. The work was completed on June 30, 1981 and invoiced on the same date for $2,128. This invoice has never been paid by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license as a certified building contractor in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 14th day of October, 1983.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Florida. Respondent, David P. Miller, was licensed as a certified building contractor under license number CB C039127 and was doing business as Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. On March 14, 1988, Robert Crowley, a semi-retired real estate broker and promoter, and Treasurer of Enterprise Industrial Park, Inc., (EIP), entered into contracts with the Respondent to construct three buildings, A, B, and H, for it within the park boundaries. Building A was to house offices and retail space; building B was to house warehouse and offices; and building C was to house garage space. The construction was to be financed by an infusion of shareholders' money and by a construction loan from the Southland bank in the amount of $375,000.00. The loan was ultimately increased to $614,000.00 so that EIP could begin development of phase II of the park. The contracts provided for Respondent to be paid $110,000.00 for Building A, $67,000.00 for Building B, and $52,807.00 for Building H. The loan was obtained in phases. The developers had outlined the project to bank officials who approved it, initially, for development of the park and construction of four buildings. Phase one was to include the roadway and one building. When that was completed, the other buildings were to be erected. Site preparation was accomplished by John T. Day. Most of the site preparation was completed before Respondent started construction. Thereafter, as work progressed, Respondent periodically certified to the bank what work had been done and that suppliers had been paid. Upon receipt of that certification, the bank would issue a check for the appropriate amount to EIP which would, thereafter, issue its own check to Respondent. There was an exception, however, in the case of payments to Ludwig Steel. Whereas that supplier would bill Respondent for small items delivered, it demanded payment by cashiers' check upon delivery for major structural steel fabrications. These checks, for steel for Buildings A and B, were for $18,511.84 and $17,716.84, were issued by Southland Bank, at the request of EIP. During the course of his performance of the contracts for the construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent executed several of the above mentioned certification forms. For Building H: These included: a. August 30, 1988 $ 9,505.00 b. October 4, 1988 9,505.00 c. October 17, 1988 9,505.00 d. December 28, 1988 11,881.50 e. January 31, 1989 9,437.50 TOTAL $49,834.00 Prior to these certificates, the bank also released $90,000 in advances for start up costs and the loan in March, April and May, 1988. In addition to the certificates listed above, Respondent also signed certificates for Building A totalling $91,446.00 as follows: a. August 30, 1988 $ 19,800.00 b. October 4, 1988 19,800.00 c. October 17, 1988 19,800.00 d. December 28, 1988 24,750.00 e. January 31, 1989 7,296.00 TOTAL $ 91,446.00 Respondent also signed additional certificates for Buildings B as follows: a. December 28, 1988 $ 46,642.00 b. January 31, 1989 28,031.00 c. March 1, 1989 28,031.00 TOTAL $102,704.00 These certificates were also signed by the architect, Mr. Wilcockson. In fact, they were not correct in that not all the work had been done and not all suppliers had been paid. Respondent admits to falsely signing the certificates but claims he was urged to do so by representatives of EIP who indicated to him it was just a routine procedure. Consequently, even knowing the certificates were not accurate, he signed them because he wanted to get paid. It is found, however, that Respondent has been a licensed contractor for a number of years and knew the implications of his actions. His attempts at justification for his actions are neither credible nor impressive. Construction progressed satisfactorily and without major problems up to the time for the last draw. At that point, the bank declined to issue a check to EIP for the construction of Building C, also to be erected on the site, when it became aware that numerous liens had been filed by subcontractors and materialmen indicating Respondent's failure to make satisfactory payment for buildings A, B, and H. These liens included claims by: American Roll-Up Door Co. $ 3,630.00 B & B Painting Contractors 3,020.00 Blackton, Inc., 5,820.73 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #1 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #2 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #3 1,635.00 Don Alan Dinora 930.00 Energy Savings Systems, Inc. 10,750.00 Florida Mining & Materials 2,388.31 Mid Florida Air Conditioning, Inc. 3,982.00 Neeley-Built Structures, Inc., 4,995.78 Residential Building Supply 7,857.11 Total $47,058.93 Mr. Crowley claims the above liens were satisfied by EIP, and it is so found. He claims EIP also paid some subcontractors who did not file liens because of a desire to help small contractors who otherwise would not have been paid. No figures were available to support that latter claim, however, and it is not considered to be probative of any issue. It is found, however, that Respondent paid Neeley-Built the amount of $4,995.78 and the claim of lien form included within Petitioner's exhibit of filed liens refers to property other than that in issue here. In addition, the $10,750.00 lien of Energy Savings Systems is not totally attributable to services or materials for the instant project. It is estimated that 60 percent of that amount relates to work done outside the three contracts in issue here. Further, only $1,700.00 of the lien of Residential Building Supply relates to material provided for the work done by Respondent under these contracts. The balance relates to work done outside the original contract limits. Over the course of the contracts, EIP paid Respondent, in addition to a deposit of $25,786,99 for Bldgs. A & H, the sums below, for a total of $259,006.72 for Bldgs. A, B, & H: a. Aug. 31, 1988 $19,800.00 for Bldg. A b. Aug. 31, 1988 9,505.00 for Bldg. H c. Oct. 05, 1988 10,793.16 for Bldg. H & A d. Oct. 17, 1988 29,305.99 for Bldg. A & H e. Dec. 14, 1988 19,000.00 f. Dec. 29, 1988 49,417.06 g. Feb. 06, 1989 7,296.00 for Bldg. A h. Feb. 06, 1989 28,310.00 for Bldg. B i. Feb. 06, 1989 9,473.50 for Bldg. H j. Feb. 10, 1989 2,350.00 for misc. k. Feb. 15, 1989 20,000.00 l. Mar. 03, 1989 28,031.00 for Bldg. B In addition to those payments, EIP also paid $16,000.00 to Benson Drywall on December 12, 1988 at the request of Respondent. The total paid by EIP, either to or on behalf of the Respondent, was: $ 25,786.00 deposit 233,280.72 to Great Southern 16,000.00 Benson Drywall 36,228.68 Ludwig Steel $311,295.40 TOTAL Mr. Crowley was not the main source of corporate funds. The President of the company is a Mr. Nelson who was the "money man." Contractor selection was by agreement between Nelson and Crowley, but Crowley was the supervisor of the contracts and did most of the negotiating with Respondent. The work stipulated in the contracts between EIP and Respondent was not the only work called for in their relationship. The contracts provided for the basic construction but Mr. Crowley requested Respondent to perform additional work in or around buildings A, B, and H, which included: Tenant improvements in buildings A and B valued at $23,000 excluding labor; Additional site work including electrical, telephone, grading and filling, berm modification, concrete sidewalks and parking buffers, and repair of damaged concrete (all but the repair of concrete was the result of the failure of the original site preparation contractor to properly complete his work); Negotiations and discussions with Volusia County regarding the sewer/septic system necessary for the project. In addition to the $23,000.00 for tenant improvements mentioned in the paragraph next above, Respondent also paid out of pocket to the following contractors and suppliers for work outside the scope of the original contracts: a. Ludwig Metal Buildings $ 3,000.00 b. Concrete 3,840.00 c. John Bates & family 6,497.73 d. Four Seasons 1,190.00 e. Will Cox 975.00 f. Riley 3,100.00 All Star Electric 4,705.32 Jerry's Concrete Service 1,350.00 TOTAL $24,658.05 Though the contracts referenced in this proceeding pertain to construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent was also retained to erect a metal building to be designated C. Respondent received a total of $253,000.00 from EIP to construct those buildings for which he had the initial contracts and also to put up the metal building, C. The cost to complete Building C was $45,500.00 but EIP had remaining only slightly over $6,000.00 to pay for that work. Respondent did substantial work for EIP which was over and above the services called for under the contracts for Buildings A, B, & H as amended by the change orders for which he was not paid because Mr. Crowley advised him no additional monies were available. For example, he and his brother, Thomas, did additional site work valued by him at $24,260.00; and additional labor and services on the septic and sewer system problems valued by him at $5,600.00 and for tenant improvement, valued by him at $5,000.00. Here, however, it must be noted that the figures cited are not documented by any supporting material and contain significant amounts for his labor which he priced at $90.00 per hour. Mr. Miller, during his relationship with EIP, purchased a 10 percent interest in the firm. He originally filed his own lien on the property for $80,364.00 based on the contracts he had in hand and the site work which he valued at $18,000.00. He claims he subsequently withdrew his lien without being paid so that the limited funds available could be used to pay the subcontractors. No corroborating evidence on this point was introduced, however. Mr. Miller's contracting license was, subsequent to the incidents herein, placed in inactive status and currently remains so. He is not now engaged in contracting and claims he does not intend to do so in the future. His motivation in contesting the allegations against him is, he claims, solely to clear his good name and reputation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Respondent, David P. Miller, d/b/a Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. pay an administrative fine of $3,750.00 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 9th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7413 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as the total amount paid by EIP for the buildings constructed by Respondent. The figure is somewhat higher due to deposit and amounts paid to suppliers by EIP. Accepted and incorporated herein. * At this point, Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact become misnumbered. There are two numbers 5. The subsequent numbers are as reflected in Respondent's submittal. 5. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted. 17 & 18. Accepted. Alleged but not proven. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracy Sumner, Esquire William S. Cummins, Esquire Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kurt R. Borglum, Esquire 366 East Graves Avenue, Suite B Orange City, Florida 32763 Jack McRay General Counsel Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The ultimate issue to be decided in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner C & M Building Systems, Inc. should be granted certification as a minority business enterprise. In order to make that determination it must be decided whether Maxine R. Chentnik, the president of the Petitioner corporation, and its minority group member owner, controls the management and daily operations of C & M Building Systems, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, C & M Building Systems, Inc., was incorporated in Florida on October 15, 1975. The Petitioner at that time operated under the name of Homes Unlimited, Inc. and was primarily engaged in residential construction contracting. Since that time, the name has changed to the present name of the Petitioner corporation and since at least the mid-1980's the primary business of the corporation has been commercial construction contracting. The net worth of the Petitioner corporation is under a million dollars and 60 percent of its stock is owned by Maxine R. Chentnik, an American female. Forty percent of the stock is owned by her husband Chester G. Chentnik. Mr. Chentnik has over 33 years experience in the construction business as well as a doctorate degree in business administration. For some twelve years he taught business management courses at Florida State University. Mrs. Chentnik has a bachelor of science degree in education and attended business college for approximately one year. Additionally, she has taken approximately 15 hours of college level courses in the fields of interior design and architectural drafting. Mrs. Chentnik's experience in the construction industry began when she and her husband built their own home in 1974. They served as their own contractors and Ms. Chentnik was most involved in that construction project since her husband worked full time at the university. This allowed her to gain experience in hiring and negotiating with subcontractors, arranging for payment of them, in ordering materials and supervising the construction of the home. She and her husband were in need of extra income and therefore she conceived the idea of starting their own residential construction business. When their Corporation, Homes Unlimited, Inc. formed, Mrs. Chentnik was unemployed and, since her husband was still employed at Florida State University, she devoted the majority of the time of the two owners and officers, to the operation of the business. After building their own home, various friends and other customers began engaging them to do residential building projects. Thus, from 1974 until 1982, they built approximately 12 residences. Some of these were built for speculation purposes. Mrs. Chentnik did part of the initial design of the homes, obtained prices from subcontractors, exercised supervision at the job site as to the manner of construction and maintained the books and records of the business. Mrs. Chentnik has never held a contractor's license herself. All of these projects were built using Mr. Chentnik's license. He did the estimating of materials needed, material and labor costs involved and arrived at prices to charge the owner or customer. He had similar managerial duties to those of Mrs. Chentnik. The supervision of the home construction was a joint project because Mr. Chentnik had more technical construction knowledge than Mrs. Chentnik due to his years of experience in construction. He had many years of construction experience working with his father prior to obtaining his college education. In 1982, Mr. Chentnik left his employment with Florida State University and engaged in the construction business full time. From 1983 to 1985, Homes Unlimited, Inc. was associated with Paragon Builders, a corporation which was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik and another couple. Paragon entered into a consultant agreement with Homes Unlimited by which Homes Unlimited was responsible for estimating material and labor needs, as well as job costs, for bidding purposes, and assembling, preparing and submitting bids. It was also charged with performing job site supervision of Paragon's construction projects. Mr. Chentnik performed under this consulting agreement for Homes Unlimited. Mrs. Chentnik was less active in the business operations at that time due to her child rearing duties. In 1985, the relationship between Homes Unlimited and Paragon Builders came to an end and Paragon Builders, Inc. was dissolved. Homes Unlimited had become primarily a commercial construction contracting company and as a result the name was changed to that of C & M Building Systems, Inc. in November, 1985. The initial directors of Homes Unlimited and C & M Building System corporation were Chester G. Chentnik and Maxine R. Chentnik. The articles of incorporation provide that there should not be less than two directors. The articles also provide that the initial bylaws of the corporation must be adopted by the Board of Directors, and that the Board has the power to amend them. Article 3 Section 2 of the Bylaws at present, provides that the number of directors shall be two and that the affairs of the corporation shall be managed by the Board of Directors. The Bylaws provide that the Board of Directors shall be elected by the shareholders at the annual meeting. Section 12 also provides for cumulative voting for election of the Board members, meaning that at each election of the Board, each shareholder shall have the right to vote the number of shares owned by him for as many persons as there are directors to be elected or he may accumulate his votes by giving one candidate as many votes as the number of directors to be elected, multiplied by the number of his shares, or by distributing those votes on the same principle among any number of candidates. The Bylaws provide that a majority of the directors constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. Article 4 Section 1 of the Bylaws provides for a president, vice president, a secretary, and treasurer. All must be elected by the Board of Directors. The president is the chief executive officer of the corporation, subject to control by the Board. The president may execute contracts or other documents which the Board authorizes, as can the secretary or other officers. In January, 1986, the Board passed a resolution providing that estimates of the costs of work proposed to be done by the corporation are to be prepared by the president or secretary and that any proposal submitted by the corporation must be prepared, examined by and submitted to the president or secretary. It is also required that all orders for materials are to be given in writing by the president and secretary or by either of them acting with the consent of the other. No order is valid unless signed by the president or secretary. Contracts for the performance of work are valid only when signed by the president or vice president and by the treasurer or secretary. In April, 1986, C & M, by resolution of its Board, entered into an agreement with CGC Company whereby CGC would thereafter provide "all bidding, on-site management, and "special administrative services" (subject to the ultimate management power being vested in C & M's Board of Directors). CGC is to be compensated for these services at the rate of $1,000 per month, plus a performance fee at the end of each fiscal year, as determined by C & M's Board of Directors, based upon C & M's profitability during the preceding fiscal year. Chester Chentnik is the president of CGC Company and performs the services involved in construction site management, preparation of bids and the like. Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik have alternated at being president of C & M since its incorporation (under its original name) in 1975. Mr. Chentnik was first elected president and Mrs. Chentnik was elected vice president, as well as secretary- treasurer. Mr. Chentnik was president in 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1987. Mrs. Chentnik was president on alternate years beginning in 1977 and was president in 1988 and to the present. Mr. Chentnik explained that the alternating presidencies were intended to more evenly divide the workload involved in signing documents. Mr. Chentnik is currently the vice president and secretary-treasurer of the corporation. In 1986 and 1987, Mrs. Chentnik was employed with a real estate firm and Mr. Chentnik primarily ran C & M operations by himself. The Petitioner is currently working on construction projects involving the Florida A & M University President's residence, the Department of Transportation building; the computer room in the Carlton Building, a bus washing facility for the Leon County School Board, as well as a renovation project for the Florida Bar. Those projects are being performed under Mr. Chentnik's license. Mr. Richard Farrell was employed with C & M as a building superintendent and placed his contractor's license with C & M. His license was not used for any contracts presently being performed by C & M, however. Mr. Farrell is no longer an employee and is not performing work for C & M. Mr. Farrell now manages a related mill-work manufacturing company owned by the Chentniks, but is not performing any construction work or supervision for C & M. The decision to hire Mr. Farrell was a joint one by both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik. His direct supervisor was Mr. Chentnik, although both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik had supervisory authority over him. In any event, Mr. Chentnik's license is now the license qualifying the company as a construction contractor for purposes of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and the authority of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Chentnik does the estimating for the company, prepares bids for jobs, is responsible for supervision of the construction details of the business, as well as for construction site management. On those bidding situations when he does not prepare the entire bid, he generally prepares the cost estimate portion of it and the remainder of the bid, concerning the addition of "overhead", and profit increments, are prepared jointly with Mrs. Chentnik. He also deals with the architects, engineers, and subcontractors, especially at the job site, and, since Mr. Farrell's departure, has taken over his job site supervision responsibilities. Mr. Chentnik has signed contracts for the company, executed change orders, pay requests, contract amendments, purchase orders and has prepared and submitted bids on behalf of the corporation. Mr. Chentnik signed the Department of Transportation contract in June, 1988 and an amendment to that contract in December of 1988. He also signed signed certain change orders to the Florida Bar contract in both September and November, 1988. The Carlton Building computer room bid was signed by Mr. Chentnik in September, 1988, as well as a change order for the Florida A & M University project which he signed in November, 1988. Mrs. Chentnik does not hold a contractor's license herself. She does all the bookkeeping for the company, pays the bills, and deals with the banks; in terms of checking and savings account deposits, withdrawals, as well as arranging credit. She has signed certain notes and lines of credit herself. She orders supplies and takes care of the insurance needs of the business and monitors which construction projects are coming up for bid, and obtains plans for them for the company to consider. She also contacts subcontractors for prices, attends bid openings, and arranges for bonding for the company for the jobs it undertakes. She assists in preparation of bids, especially the supplying of figures for overhead and profit on bids the company submits. She shares in the supervision of employees with her husband and directly supervises one employee, a part-time clerical helper. The company secures a great deal of its business by competitive bidding. Cost estimating is an important part of the bidding process. This estimating is performed primarily by Mr. Chentnik. Mr. Chentnik also developed the computer program to assist the company in its bidding efforts. The bidding program contains a range of percentages of overhead and profit which the company can add to the cost estimates on its bid to arrive at its most advantageous bid price. Mrs. Chentnik typically chooses a percentage for overhead and profit from the ranges set by the computer program. Mrs. Chentnik does not prepare entire estimates or bids herself. In all nearly cases her husband has assisted her. Mrs. Chentnik did prepare an entire bid for a flagpole project, valued at approximately $3500. In essence then, the decisions concerning which projects the company bids and which it declines to bid on have been joint decisions of Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik. They have usually jointly prepared bids, with Mr. Chentnik doing the greater part of that effort in providing the cost estimates. Both of them have historically negotiated prices with subcontractors in order to obtain figures for costs for a given project, in the course of preparation of a bid, however. The company has a checking account, a money market account and holds certificates of deposit. Both the Chentniks have equal drawing rights on all the accounts. The decision as to what amount of money to be placed in certificates of deposit is usually a joint decision. Both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik have previously signed as personal guarantors on debt instruments for the company. Although Mrs. Chentnik does most of the banking business on behalf of the company, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Chentnik has sole control or authority over the bank accounts and the banking relationships of the corporation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the request for certification as a minority business enterprise of C & M Building Systems, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2758 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact (The rulings below relate, by number, sequentially, to the unnumbered paragraphs of the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact) Accepted Accepted Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely comporting with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not, in itself, dispositive of material issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted Rejected as unnecessary and not dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 25-29. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James O. Shelfer, Esquire Gardner, Shelfer & Duggar 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Susan B. Kirkland General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a certified building contractor’s license should be granted, and whether Respondent relied upon an unadopted rule in formulating its intended decision to deny Petitioner’s application, in violation of section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Respondent or Board), is charged with administering chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes, relating to construction contracting, and issuing licenses to certified building contractors. Petitioner, Tony L. Phillips, applied to the Board for a certified building contractor’s license, pursuant to section 489.111, on March 3, 2015. Petitioner passed the required written examination and his application was scheduled for hearing before the Board on May 14, 2015. Building contractors are licensed to construct commercial buildings, and single-dwelling or multiple-dwelling residential buildings, not exceeding three stories in height. See § 489.105(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Section 489.111(2)(c)2. provides eligibility for licensure as a construction contractor. An applicant is eligible for licensure by examination if he or she has a total of at least four years of active experience as a worker who has learned the trade by serving an apprenticeship as a skilled worker who is able to command the rate of a mechanic in the particular trade or as a foreman who is in charge of a group of workers and usually is responsible to a superintendent or a contractor or his or her equivalent, provided, however, that at least 1 year of active experience shall be as a foreman. (emphasis added). Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.001(2)(a), provides the qualifications for certified building contractors, in pertinent part, as follows: In the case of applicants for certification in the general or building contractor categories, the phrases ‘active experience’ and ‘proven experience’ as used in Section 489.111(2)(c)1., 2., or 3., F.S., shall be defined to mean construction experience in four or more of the following areas: Foundation/Slabs in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. Masonry walls. Steel erection. Elevated slabs. Precast concrete structures. Column erection. Formwork for structural reinforced concrete. (emphasis added). In his application, Petitioner listed his experience as a foreman with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs), to meet the statutory and rule requirements for active experience in the trade. At all times relevant hereto, Jacobs was a construction engineering inspection consultant for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Jacobs performed the inspection of various design-build roadway projects undertaken by construction contractors on behalf of FDOT. Petitioner’s application included three specific projects to demonstrate Petitioner’s relevant experience: Wekiva Parkway, John Young Parkway Extension, and Baseline Road. The Wekiva Parkway project consisted of a four-lane highway, three category one bridges, a toll gantry, and equipment enclosure. The general contractor charged with construction of this project was the De Moya Group. Jacobs performed the construction engineering inspection role for FDOT. Jacobs’ role was quality control and inspection. Petitioner indicated in his application that he was the foreman “charged with overseeing the construction of the work on the bridges, roads and related structures.” Jacobs employed Petitioner as a foreman of Jacobs’ employees, who conducted inspections of construction work performed by the De Moya Group. Petitioner’s duties on the Wekiva project were to perform inspections. Petitioner did not perform construction duties, but rather inspected the construction performed to ensure compliance with the applicable FDOT and contractual requirements. While Petitioner’s inspection duties were vital to ensure the soundness of the facilities under construction, he did not perform construction work. The John Young Parkway project consisted of a flyover over State Road 441, including a large steel girder with integral pier box flyover bridge, sound walls, signalization, sidewalks, asphalt, and reinforced earth walls. The general contractor charged with construction of this project was Southland Construction. Jacobs performed the construction engineering inspection role for FDOT. Petitioner was project foreman for Jacobs on the John Young Parkway project. As such, Petitioner was responsible to ensure that the work was performed in accordance with the contract documents. Petitioner did not perform any construction work or supervise the construction workers employed by Southland Construction. As senior roadway inspector on John Young Parkway, Petitioner had the authority to question the work of the construction crew, and redirect work if it was not being performed per the contract documents or FDOT specifications. If necessary, Petitioner, through the chain of command at Jacobs, could stop work on the project in order to conform work to specifications. However, Petitioner did not perform any construction work on the project. The Baseline Road project consisted of small bridges, small animal crossings, noise walls, drainage structures and gravity walls, signalization, curb gutters, and sidewalks. The general contractor charged with construction of this project was C.W. Roberts Contracting. Jacobs performed the construction engineering inspection role for FDOT. On the Baseline Road project, Petitioner supervised the inspection of all animal crossing structures, as well as the relocation and installation of utilities, and the movement of traffic through the construction site. Petitioner admitted that all of the technical qualifications listed in his application were earned as a Jacobs’ employee performing the task of construction engineering inspection on these three projects. All of the experience Petitioner listed in his application was in the execution of projects performed on behalf of FDOT. None of the job descriptions which Petitioner listed in his work experience as road inspector, bridge inspector, utility coordination facilitator, environmental monitoring personnel, and administrator of maintenance of traffic contracts is considered “construction” by the Board. In fact, contracting work on roads, bridges, streets, and highways is exempt from regulation as construction contracting. See § 489.103(1), Fla. Stat. Thus, even the work performed by the FDOT contractors on those three projects was not “construction” subject to regulation by the Board. The single building or enclosed structure of any kind that Petitioner had any involvement with over the four years of work experience offered in his application was a one-story concrete enclosure to house toll-reading equipment. Petitioner did not supply any further information on this structure. It is clear from the record that Petitioner did not perform any of the construction work himself nor was he a foreman on any of the construction crews. All of the work that he performed concerned the inspection of work performed by construction contractors. Petitioner admitted that he has never built, or supervised the construction of, a single, two, or three-story, habitable, commercial, or residential building. Unadopted Rules Petitioner alleges that Respondent relied upon non- rule policy in formulating its decision to deny Petitioner’s application, in violation of section 120.57(1)(e). Section 120.57(1)(e)1. prohibits agencies from basing agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule. The denial of Petitioner’s application for a building contractor’s license affects Petitioner’s substantial interests. A “rule” is “an agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy.” § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. Agencies are required to adopt each agency statement defined as a rule by rulemaking procedures set forth in section 120.54. See § 120.54(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner alleges Respondent maintains three statements which constitute rules, pursuant to section 120.52(16), but which have not been adopted as rules, pursuant to section 120.54, and relied on those statements in formulating its decision to deny Petitioner’s application, in violation of section 120.57(1)(e). First, Petitioner maintains the Board denied his application because, on the jobs he submitted to demonstrate his relative experience, he could not “hire or fire” contractors and did not control the “means and methods” of construction. Because these terms are not used in the controlling statute or rule, Petitioner argues that the Board relied upon statements of general applicability which have not been adopted as rules.2/ During the hearing on Petitioner’s application, two of the seven Board members, Mr. Boyette and Mr. Cathey, questioned Petitioner about whether he had control over the “means and methods” of construction on the projects he listed in his application. Both Board members concluded that, on the projects Petitioner listed as experience relevant to the building contractor’s license, he did not control the “means and methods” of construction. “Means and methods” of construction is a term of art in the construction industry referring to the plans for executing the work on a particular project. The term encompasses scheduling different aspects of a project and directing the work of a construction crew and, sometimes, subcontractors. A construction foreman has the ability to direct a construction crew and subcontractors. Thus, having control of the “means and methods” of construction is integral to the job of a construction foreman. At the hearing on Petitioner’s application, one of the members, Mr. Boyette, questioned whether Petitioner had authority to hire and fire C.W. Roberts, the prime contractor on the Baseline Road project. A construction foreman may have the authority to hire and fire members of a construction crew, depending on the size of the job. The record reflects that Petitioner’s application was denied because he did not meet the requirements for “active experience” in construction, as defined in the rule, not because he was not empowered to hire and fire members of the construction crew. Second, Petitioner contends that the Board refused to accept an affidavit certifying his construction experience, which is contrary to the rule requirements, thus applied an unadopted rule in reaching its decision to deny his application. Rule 61G4-15.001(1)(a) provides that “[a]ctive experience in the category in which the applicant seeks to qualify shall be verified by affidavits prepared or signed by . . . an architect or engineer . . . who is licensed in good standing . . . listing chronologically the active experience in the trade, including the name and address of employers and dates of employment (which may be corroborated by investigation by the Board). Petitioner did not submit an affidavit with his application. Respondent does not contend Petitioner’s application was denied for failure to include the affidavit with his application. At hearing, Petitioner introduced an affidavit from Anthony Caruso, Petitioner’s supervisor at Jacobs. In the affidavit, Mr. Caruso certified that Petitioner “has more than four years proven experience as a foreman” in the following areas of construction work: [f]oundation/slabs in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, [s]teel erection, [e]levated slabs, [p]recast concrete structures, [c]olumn erection, and [f]ormwork for structural reinforced concrete (six of the seven criteria listed in rule 61G4-15.001). At hearing, Respondent’s expert, Paul Del Vecchio, a certified general contractor and former 12-year member of the Board, testified that the Board does not rely on affidavits to verify an applicant’s active experience. Mr. Del Vecchio related that the Board had been advised it had no statutory authority to require an affidavit and had discontinued accepting affidavits pursuant to the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 10th day of March, 2016.
