Findings Of Fact At all material times, the Respondent Morris Marder was a registered building contractor, having been issued license number RB 0004509. On March 4, 1980, the Respondent Marder contracted with Erwin and Joan Ravich to convert the garage of the Ravich home into a family room. The March 4, 1980 contract between the Raviches and Marder, who was also doing business as "Home Remodeler Morris Marder", 1/ was signed by the Raviches and accepted by M. Marder. An undated addendum to the contract, which was prepared by the Raviches' attorney, was signed by the Raviches and Dan Rossman, a salesman and contract estimator for the Respondent Marder. However, no evidence was presented that the Respondent Marder had knowledge of or signed the addendum, which required completion of the project by an unspecified date. The execution of the addendum delayed beginning construction on the project until May of 1980. The Respondent Marder subcontracted the performance of work on the Ravich job to Ken Nieset, who with his brother, Steve, a licensed general contractor, was doing business as Brothers Two Construction. During the course of the project, Nieset received three of the four payments made under the contract directly from the Raviches. Although Nieset worked for the Respondent previously, he was neither Marder's foreman nor employee. When additional subcontractors were required, they were hired for the Ravich job by Nieset. The Raviches paid a total of $9,190 under the contract. The first payment of $1,190 was made directly to Home Remodeler on May 3, 1980, the approximate date that work on the project actually began. A partial release of lien was furnished by Morris Marder to Erwin Ravich on May 6, 1980 based on the first payment. The second payment was made by Erwin Ravich on June 20, 1980 for $2,500. This check was made payable to Ken Nieset per authorization of lien furnished on June 20, 1980, in connection with the second payment. 2/ On June 27, 1980 and July 11, 1980, checks were issued to Ken Nieset by the Raviches for $3,500 and $2,000, respectively. The Raviches' received a release of lien for $2,000 from Nieset, but did not obtain a release of lien for the $3,500 payment. The release of lien for the $2,000 payment executed by Nieset did not involve Home Remodeler or the Respondent Marder. After receiving payments totaling $5,500 directly from the Raviches, Nieset abandoned the project. During the course of the Ravich job, the Respondent Marder employed Jorge Gamez, a draftsman/supervisor, who he believed was supervising the Ravich job. However, Gamez' involvement with the job was limited to drawing the plans and did not include supervising construction, since he was not a licensed general contractor. King Cole Plumbing, a state licensed contractor, subcontracted with Nieset to install the plumbing and septic tank at the job site. When King Cole left the job, the rough plumbing was installed and all that remained on the job was interior finishing. The septic tank with an appropriate cover was in place and all work performed by King Cole had passed inspection. The septic tank cover originally agreed to by the parties was required to be changed to a heavier type when the Raviches altered their plans and decided to continue using their driveway. This change resulted in a $512 charge from Sun Gold Industries, who supplied the new cover. Additionally, the original contract was modified to add higher grade plumbing fixtures, lighting fixtures, and tile. In August, 1980, the Respondent Marder entered Saint Frances Hospital for treatment of phlebitis. At the same time, Rossman, Marder's employee, left for vacation in California for seven to eight weeks. As a consequence, the Ravich job was delayed and an unauthorized payment of $2,500 to Nieset was made without securing the approval of the Respondent Marder or Rossman. The Respondent Marder calculated that approximately $2,000 was due as the balance of the job and an added $1,500 was due for extras to the contract. Faced with a substantial loss, the Respondent Marder contacted the Raviches and their attorney in August, 1980, and offered to finish the job and pay for the specified extras in return for Ravich placing $4,500 in escrow with his attorney. Ravich's attorney declined the Respondent's offer and ordered him off the job site. Subsequently, Dade County cancelled the Respondent's building permits, which effectively prohibited him from completing the work at the site. Subsequently, a lien was filed against the Ravich job by King Cole Plumbing for nonpayment of monies due from Ken Nieset. The lien was determined to have been filed in violation of Florida's Mechanics Lien Law and was voluntarily removed. The work performed by the Respondent and his subcontractors prior to being ordered off the job was satisfactory and passed periodic inspection by the Dade County Building Department. The charges in this administrative proceeding formed the basis of action taken against the Respondent by the Dade County Division of Construction Trades Qualifying Board on September 11, 1981, which resulted in revocation of the Respondent's certificate as a subgeneral building contractor in Dade County. The Respondent Marder has been in the construction business since 1954 and licensed as a general contractor in Florida since 1968. Other than the instant case, the Respondent has never been forced off a job. He has been in business in South Florida for many years and has been involved in thousands of construction jobs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of six (6) months. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent undertook to act as a contractor without a license as charged in the Administrative Complaints, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 20.165, the Division of Professions is a subordinate unit of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department). The Department provides administrative support, including prosecutorial support to the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board), which is also located within the Department. Mr. Grandmont is not currently licensed as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in this state, nor has he ever been licensed by the Board. Mr. Grandmont's last known address is 355 China Berry Circle, Davenport, Florida. He was provided notice of the hearing at that address, and at 7733 Park Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28210, which is the address he used when demanding a hearing on disputed facts in two of these cases. In DOAH Case No. 06-3279, he provided no address in his demand for a hearing. All attempts by U. S. Mail to notify Mr. Grandmont of the hearing, were returned. Mr. Grandmont is deemed to have known of the time, date, and place of the hearing, and is deemed to have waived his appearance at the hearing. On November 11, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Robert L. Coe, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to repair his damaged mobile home. He provided a written estimate of $10,500. The estimate contained a list of 11 items requiring repair, and stated that he would accomplish the repair of them. He demanded a $4,200 down payment, which Mr. Coe provided in a draft drawn on Fidelity Cash Reserves, and dated November 11, 2005. Mr. Coe never saw Mr. Grandmont again. The repairs set forth in the written estimate were not accomplished. The draft, however, was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont. On November 12, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Joseph Webster, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to repair his damaged residence. Mr. Grandmont discussed charging $13,500 in return for repairing Mr. Webster's residence. After negotiations, Mr. Grandmont agreed to do it for $11,500. No written estimate or contract was prepared. Mr. Grandmont demanded $5,750 payment in advance. Mr. Webster rounded off the down payment to $6,000 and presented Mr. Grandmont an official check of the Taunton Federal Credit Union, of Taunton, Massachusetts, for that amount. The check was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont, but the promised repairs were not accomplished. On November 4, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Ella Arseneau, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to replace her roof. He provided an estimate of $5,500 in return for repairing Ms. Arseneau's residence. He demanded that she pay $3,500 in advance, which Ms. Arseneau provided by presenting Mr. Grandmont a check for $3,500, drawn on an account in Wachovia Bank. The check was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont, but the roof was not repaired as promised. Mr. Coe is 78 years of age, Mr. Webster is 85, and Ms. Arseneau is 77.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation impose a fine upon Clifford Grandmont in the amount of $30,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Clifford Grandmont 7733 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Simone Marstiller, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Paul K. Scapecchi, is a registered general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RG 0015926, and a registered roofing contractor, holding license number RC 0031048. The Respondent is the qualifier for Paul's Construction Company, which is the Respondent's firm. Edwin Schmid is a resident of West Germany who vacations in North Florida, and who testified by deposition which was received in evidence as Exhibit 1. He owns six parcels of real estate, or lots adjacent to each other, including Lot 19, Bon Bay Estates, in Santa Rosa County, Florida, which he purchased in approximately February, 1980. Edwin Schmid intended to have a home constructed on Lot 19 to be used as rental property. Subsequently, Edwin Schmid was introduced to the Respondent and the Respondent's father, Walter Scapecchi, by Lee and Carolyn Swigger. The Swiggers had become friendly with Edwin Schmid because Carolyn Swigger speaks German. Thereafter, Edwin Schmid contracted with the Respondent and Walter Scapecchi to have his home built on Lot 19 in Bon Bay Estates. This contract was in written form and dated March 21, 1981. Although Walter Scapecchi signed this contract "doing business as Paul's Construction Company," as contractor, the Respondent admitted that the contract was with himself, and that his father was merely an employee of the firm. The initial contract with Edwin Schmid in which the price was set at $36,000 was participated in by both the Respondent and his father. Edwin Schmid dealt with the Respondent directly on several occasions, but the business card he had been given showed Walter Scapecchi's name written in by hand over the Respondent's name. The deposit check written by Edwin Schmid was made payable to Walter Scapecchi in the amount of $8,000. Walter Scapecchi is not licensed to engage in the business of general contracting, but was so engaged, aided and assisted by his son, the Respondent. The deposit check for $8,000 was to be used to cover the digging of the foundation, the necessary fill, the pouring of the concrete foundation, a culvert for the driveway, and electrical service, which was to have been completed by April 10, 1981, pursuant to the contract. A second payment of $10,000 was to have been made on April 10, 1981. On April 10, 1981, however, no work had yet been done, and none was done until March of 1982, nearly one year later. The work done in March 1982 consisted only of placing foundation markers. The Respondent admitted that the work of placing foundation markers did not cost anything near the $8,000 paid, and that he did not request the second payment of $10,000 because the work done did not exhaust the initial payment. Nevertheless, no part of the $8,000 initial payment was refunded to Edwin Schmid. Throughout the period of time after the contract was executed in March of 1981, Edwin Schmid wanted the Respondent to complete the construction pursuant to the contract. At one point after the first year had elapsed without any substantial work being done, Edwin Schmid attempted to effect a new contract with the Respondent that required the initial work for which he had already paid $8,000 to be completed. The Respondent agreed to this, but did not perform any more work at the construction site. The Respondent admits that he has not performed as required by the contract. He contends this was due to personal financial problems. Other excuses for the Respondent's nonperformance included his underestimation of the amount of fill required, heavy rains which caused delays, and State of Florida requirements. Nevertheless, work was not begun for nearly one year after the contract, contrary to the agreement, and only a minimal amount of work was done as of the date of the hearing. The Respondent moved out of the State of Florida in February of 1982, without notifying Edwin Schmid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Paul K. Scapecchi be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(e), (f), (h), (j) and (k), Florida Statutes, and that licenses numbered RG 0015926 and RC 0031048 held by Paul K. Scapecchi be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 27th day of September, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul K. Scapecchi 133F 25th Court, N.W. Birmingham, Alabama 35215 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue This case arises on an amended administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner which seeks to have Respondent's contractor licenses disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, incident to the construction of a residence near Melrose, Florida. The case originally was scheduled to be heard on July 10, 1987, but after the hearing was convened, Respondent's counsel sought a continuance based on Respondent's health problems which were supported by a doctor's statement. The motion was granted and the hearing was continued until August 25, 1987. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Evans Starke, Marion Uhl, and Robert H. Adams. Petitioner submitted eight exhibits in evidence, including the depositions of Respondent and Matthew M. Gordon. Respondent testified in his own behalf and submitted three exhibits in evidence. However, Respondent's exhibit three, which was a house plan, was retained by Respondent and a copy thereof was to be filed within 10 days after the hearing. Additionally, Respondent was provided a period of 10 days after the hearing to submit a deposition of James A. Taylor However, the deposition was not filed within the required period nor was Respondent's exhibit three. Respondent's post-hearing motion to extend the time for filing the deposition was denied. The parties were provided a period of ten days from the filing of the hearing transcript in which to file proposed recommended orders. Neither party made a timely submission. However, Respondent's post-hearing motion to extend the time period was granted. The proposed Findings of Facts submitted by both parties were considered and substantially incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joseph Rentz is licensed as a registered building contractor, roofing contractor, and mechanical contractor, and was so licensed at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In addition, he is the qualifying contractor for Alachua Association Builders. (Petitioner's exhibits 2-3) In March 1985, Evans Starke of Miami, Florida entered into an oral agreement with Respondent for the construction of a residence near Melrose, Florida. Respondent agreed to build the house on a cost-plus basis and estimated that the cost would be approximately $27.00 per square foot or less. Respondent told Starke that he would be satisfied with 10 percent of the cost of construction for his fee. The arrangement was that Starke would Periodically provide money to his aunt, Lenora Peterson, and that Respondent could make draws from that source as required to progress with construction. Starke also asked Respondent to open a checking account from which he would pay the bills for materials and labor. (Testimony of Starke) The original construction plans provided to the Respondent by Starke were for a house of approximately 4,000 square feet, but since Starke wished to expand the size of the house considerably, he informed Respondent of the various modifications which resulted in Respondent obtaining revised plans from a draftsman for a house of approximately 10,000 square feet. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent) Respondent obtained a building permit in his name and commenced construction. As work progressed, Respondent would inform Lenora Peterson of the need for progress payments for materials and labor on a weekly basis. She would then provide the necessary money in cash to Respondent and obtain a signed receipt from him. During the period March through September, 1985, Respondent signed receipts amounting to $121,360. Respondent had several checking accounts in the name of "J. & L. Properties", into which some of the draws were deposited and checks drawn thereupon to pay materialmen, subcontractors, and workmen. In other instances, Respondent paid cash to workmen, but obtained no receipts therefor. Starke visited the project site usually on a biweekly basis during the initial months of construction. On several occasions, he met Respondent midway between Gainesville and Miami to deliver cash for construction costs. Some of this money given to Respondent was not evidenced by a receipt of Respondent. Starke testified that on one occasion, he gave Respondent $3,000 to pay for the installation of a well, but Respondent had only given the well-digger $1,000, and Starke later found that he still owed the balance, plus a 25 percent rise in cost. Starke also claimed that he spent $1,000 to put a drain under the driveway to the basement because Respondent had forgotten to do so. He further stated that he had given Respondent $5,000 to purchase shingles for the house, but Respondent bought only enough to cover the garage. Consequently, Starke was obliged to expend further sums to obtain the remaining shingles. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, exhibits to deposition of Rentz (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), (Petitioner's composite Exhibit 6) During Starke's periodic visits to the job site, he requested that Respondent show him the bills and receipts for the purchase of construction material and labor payments, but Respondent evaded such request by saying that his wife was handling the business matters, and that she was ill and unable to show him the records. Eventually, Starke became more concerned because of the discrepancies in the expenditures of funds, and therefore made a special trip in October 1985 to meet with Respondent and go over the project accounts. At that meeting, Respondent's wife provided Starke with a number of canceled checks on the J. & L. Properties account, which failed to identify any specific payments for the Starke project, but which consisted mostly of apparent payments of Respondent's personal bills. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2,6) Subsequent to the October meeting, Respondent asked Starke for the sum of $1,500 for his own services, which was paid. This was the last payment made by Starke to Respondent and the last contact that he had with him. Respondent performed no further work and left the project about the third week of November 1985. Although Starke attempted to get in touch with him during the intervening period, he was unsuccessful in doing so. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On January 31, 1986, Starke obtained a new building permit to complete his residence, and hired Marion C. Uhl, a certified residential contractor, at an hourly rate to supervise the remaining work. Uhl found at that time that the house consisted of a shell with some interior partitions erected and doors in place, but without any electrical or plumbing work, except for a garage bathroom. It took him approximately ninety days to correct previous construction errors before it was ready for subcontractor work. Specifically, he found that the partition walls were out of plumb and that some of the doors were not framed properly. It was necessary for him to tear them out and redo the work. He found no backing (dead wood) for the ceilings and walls which should have been in place before the roof was sheathed. He had to take out all the windows which were out of plumb and reinstall them. It was necessary to frame out the gables of the house in order that water wouldn't accumulate in vacant areas. Water had accumulated in the garage basement due to a failure to install proper drain fields under the house. Additionally, it was discovered that there was no concrete in the tie beams which supported the floor above and could cause it to sag eventually. In Uhl's opinion, which is accepted, these problems would not have occurred if the job had been properly supervised. (Testimony of Starke, Uhl) Robert H. Adams, an expert in the residential contracting field, who owns a building inspection firm, inspected the Starke premises on May 18, 1987 at the request of Petitioner. Based upon his examination of the house, he found the following deficiencies, which had existed at the time Respondent left the project: In some areas, the brick veneer exterior walls were not properly supported on the footing in that the brick veneer protruded beyond the outside edge of the footing. Also the footing was at grade rather than being below grade. Failure to utilize solid concrete walls or pouring of concrete into concrete blocks which formed walls supporting a steel I-beam. This deviation from the plans could result in failure of the foundation walls. Improper splicing of girders under the house. Girders were butt-spliced rather than spliced with either a shep or a diagonal cut. The joints were not over a supporting pier. Settling from the floor above could cause the house floor to sag. The exterior brick roll-out window sills were level instead of being at a slight angle to permit water to flow away from the bottom of windows, thus causing the potential of water intrusion into the house. Front entry brick steps were not centered with the door opening by approximately 18 inches. An exterior garden hose bib Produced hot water instead of cold at left front of the garage. This was caused by "mis- plumbing" the cold and hot water lines. Block wall of the garage was out of plumb approximately 7/8 of an inch over a 4 foot vertical distance. One of the garage roll doors had only 9 foot, 3 inch clearance instead of 10 feet as called for by the plans. Uneven coursing of brick veneer at the ceiling of the right rear porch. Waferboard was used on roof decking rather than plywood as called for by the plans. Waferboard is not as strong as plywood. Water intrusion into the garage- basement. In Adams' opinion, which is accepted, the deficiencies noted by his inspection reflected very poor workmanship and gross negligence, in that the fundamentals of construction as practiced in the construction trade were not observed by Respondent in major areas. They were gross deviations from good building practices and a competent contractor properly supervising the job would have been aware of the deviations from good contracting practice. In addition, it is incumbent upon a contractor to keep accurate and complete financial records for a particular project. (Testimony of Adams, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) In January 1986, Starke employed Universal Engineering Testing Company, a structural engineering firm, to ascertain the cause of groundwater leaking into the garage-basement of his house and to provide remedial recommendations. Professional engineers of the firm inspected the premises and observed that groundwater was leaking at the wall-floor joint around most of the garage. They found that although a drainage system had been installed during construction, soil and groundwater conditions at the site limited the effectiveness of the existing system, due to hydrostatic pressure build up under the garage floor. It was determined that, unless the pressure was dissipated with under-slab drainage, the slab would heave, crack, and leak at the wall-slab joint They found that the situation could only be remedied by installing an under drain grid after removal of the existing slab. In their professional opinion, which is accepted, the failure of the existing slab had been caused by excessive water pressure build up and improper construction techniques. (Testimony of Gordon, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he had never constructed a house of the scope and size of the Starke residence, but that he had attempted to build what Starke desired in accordance with the plans and numerous changes required by Starke during the course of construction. Such changes, in his view, caused the difficulty in centering the brick work at the front of the house since this work was called for after the front door had already been installed. He claimed that he had waterproofed the garage-basement and put in French drains, but that water couldn't go out, and it was necessary to install a tank under the driveway to pump the water from the basement. Respondent also conceded that he did not maintain continuing records during the course of construction as to the financial aspects of the project, but intended to recapitulate all costs and payments when construction was completed. He acknowledged that receipts from the project were commingled with other funds in his bank accounts and he was unable to show the disposition of proceeds from the project. As to leaving the job, Respondent said that he left because he was threatened by Starke and also because of ill health caused by the stressful situation which came from continuing complaints by Starke concerning the workmanship, and also by the numerous changes to the construction plans. Although Respondent claimed that he notified Starke by letter of January 14, 1986, that he intended to remove his permit no later than January 27, 1986, because it appeared that Starke had decided to take charge of completing the construction, Starke denied receiving such a letter and there is no credible evidence that it was delivered. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 1) On two prior occasions in 1985 and 1986, Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to settlement stipulations of administrative complaints filed by Petitioner against Respondent. In those stipulations, Respondent admitted violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the complaints, and administrative fines of $250 and $400 were imposed. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5)
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, School Board of Brevard County, Florida, is empowered to designated the personnel positions to be filled, prescribe qualifications for those positions, and provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees for the school district. The Respondent, Arthur Douglas Barna, has been employed by the Petitioner since the early 1970s. The Respondent has a degree in mechanical engineering, is a registered professional engineer, and has twenty years of experience in the construction field. Respondent's first position with the Petitioner was as construction manager. In 1976, Respondent's title was amended to staff engineer and construction manager. In 1981, Respondent was made Director of Facilities a position he held until February, 1991, when he was returned to the staff engineer position and John Allen was retained to be Director of Facilities. On April 23, 1991, Respondent was recommended for appointment to the position of staff engineer for the 1991-92 contract term by the school superintendent. The qualifications for appointment as staff engineer/project manager are: Graduation from a college or university with a degree in engineering. Registered as an engineer in the State of Florida. Experience (five years minimum) in educational design and facility planning administration. Experience in administration of educational construction contracts. Knowledge of Uniform Building Code and Florida School Laws and Regulations. On April 23, 1991, by a 3-2 vote, the Petitioner rejected the superintendent's recommendation to employ Respondent. Prior to April 23, 1991, Respondent had received satisfactory personnel evaluations. Prior to April 23, 1991, Respondent had not been reprimanded or disciplined for any act or omission regarding the performance of his duties. In the two years prior to April 23, 1991, Respondent had participated in numerous construction and remodeling projects for the Petitioner. Such projects exceeded $46,000,000.00 in cost to the public. One of projects Respondent was involved with during his tenure with the Board was Stone Middle School (Stone). That project originated with a bid proceeding to choose a contractor to perform the construction work. One of Respondent's duties was to represent the Board at bid openings. In the case of the Stone project, within a short time after the bid opening, the apparent low bidder on the job, Speegle Construction (Speegle), advised Respondent that an error had been made on the bid form. That error was claimed to be in the amount of $40,000.00. Speegle's bid was $90,000.00 lower than the next low bidder. Speegle had tendered a bid bond in the amount of $50,000.00. After reviewing the matter with the bidder, Respondent took the matter to his supervisor who then took the issue to the school superintendent and board staff. Among the staff who considered the issue was the school board attorney. Regardless of any dispute regarding the computation of the $40,000.00 error (such are deemed irrelevant to the essential issue), the Board was presented its options: to take the bid bond and award the contract to the next lowest bidder; to give Speegle the additional $40,000.00 and award it the contract; or, presumably, rebid the project. Since awarding Speegle the contract, with the $40,000.00 addition, still saved the public $50,000.00, over the next lowest bidder, Respondent recommended that option. His recommendation was supported by his superiors. After public discussion of the matter, the Board unanimously voted to select Speegle as recommended by staff. No evidence supports the assumption that the Board's decision, based in part on Respondent's recommendation, was found to be illegal, unethical or challenged by the other bidders on the project. The Stone project had additional problems since the architectural firm hired to complete the drawings did not meet the guidelines established by the Department of Education. On at least two occasions the plans had to be returned to comply with state standards. Consequently, the project was late commencing. Such lateness was not due to the fault or error of the Respondent. To the extent he was involved, Respondent properly supervised the Stone construction project and did not approve inferior work. All specifications of the contract were met and verified by Respondent and then assistant superintendent for facilities, Leon Cowling. Issues regarding performance of the Stone project arose between Respondent and Cliff Gordon, president of the architectural firm involved with the job. Such issues related to the lockers and an athletic field which Mr. Gordon claimed did not meet specifications. Such allegations are not supported by the record in this case. When the Stone project was not completed on time, Respondent assessed liquidated damages against Speegle in accordance with the contract terms. Respondent was not responsible for the lateness, and Speegle, in fact, made good on the damages. Respondent and Mr. Gordon did not agree on aspects of the Stone project. Mr. Gordon became disgruntled when Respondent would not approve payment to Mr. Gordon's firm for work allegedly done. Mr. Gordon attended Board meetings regardless of his claim that Respondent had advised him to stay away. Respondent was not responsible for the removal or encapsulation of asbestos found in several schools. Respondent's position placed him in a position over construction, not maintenance. Moreover, another school administrator was assigned to be responsible for overseeing issues related to asbestos at all times material to this case. Respondent did not supervise a project wherein the treatment of asbestos was at issue. Anderson Elementary School (Anderson) has a noise problem in that sound travels from one area to another. The ceiling tile used in the Anderson project was the same product used in the other schools and was the contractor's choice. At the time of installment an issue arose as to whether the tile to be used met the specifications of the contract. Ultimately, the architect signed off on the use of the tile requested by the contractor. Unfortunately, the tile used does not buffer noise. Whether the tile originally requested would more effectively buffer the noise is unknown. Whether the design of the facility contributes to the noise problems is also unknown. That there is a noise problem at Anderson is not due to an act, omission, or the negligence of the Respondent. In connection with the air conditioning system installed at Southwest Junior High School (Southwest) a problem arose as to that system's design. Respondent did not design the system. In fact, a design firm was retained to complete the work and the system was installed based upon that work. The Board does not have the personnel or the staff expertise to verify whether outside consultants perform their jobs correctly. Presumably, the Board utilizes such consultants because it does not have the internal resources to do the work requested. In the case of Southwest, the firm hired designed the system improperly. As a result, the Board made a claim, and collected, against the firm's errors and omissions insurance. Thus, the Board received damages for the design defect. Cambridge Elementary School (Cambridge) is located adjacent to a housing subdivision developed by Centex Homes. Due to drainage problems associated with the development, the homeowners' association and the developer requested that the Board execute a drainage easement on the Cambridge property so that the properties might be enhanced. The homeowners' proposal made to the Board gave the expense of preparing and maintaining the easement to the association. Respondent was approached regarding the drainage easement and considered the matter to benefit the school site. Respondent and Mr. Cowling recommended granting the easement. Such easement was to be preceeded by an agreement setting forth the homeowners' obligations to the Board. For reasons not addressed by this record, an agreement was not prepared and returned to the Board as had been directed. In fact, the Board chairman and superintendent executed the drainage easement without evidence of an agreement. Nothing in this record suggests Respondent had anything to do with the execution of the easement or the failure to obtain a written agreement regarding it. Moreover, these events occurred in May and November, 1988, some three years prior to the nonappointment of Respondent. The construction of the educational services facilities at Viera posed many novel and complicated construction issues for the Board and its staff. For one thing, the Board had not utilized a "design/build" format in construction before. Based upon the record in this case, it is unlikely that the format will be used again. The design/build format requires the construction of some phases of a project while the design is still occurring. As a result, unlike situations where a contractor has a determined set of plans to follow, the builder in the design/build format is in a constant state of flux and change. As may be expected, the owner is tied to the same constant amendment to plans. In the case of Viera, Respondent served as the owner's representative on the project. By contract, all notices and changes went through Respondent who was then responsible for coordinating with the Board staff. At all times material to the Viera project, Respondent kept his supervisor aware of the progress of the project and of the changes to plans or specifications. It was not Respondent's responsibility to report directly to the Board regarding the Viera project (or any other for that matter). Respondent routinely made reports to his supervisor who then coordinated matters with finance and the superintendent. Respondent was available to the Board for any matters that might require his input. Early on in the Viera project Respondent advised his supervisor and the Board that they had little control over how the building was constructed. As long as the project stayed within the general design concept, the specifications were fairly open. Respondent's first priority was to try to keep the Viera project on budget as to the changes that occurred. To that end, items such as the carpet allotment were reduced to capture more funding for other requested items. In each such case Respondent made his superior aware of the changes. Ultimately, the changes requested by Respondent, the superintendent, or John Forbes were placed before the Board as change order #1 and approved. While some of the changes had already occurred, there is no evidence that the Board took action to prohibit Respondent and the administration from making the day-to-day decisions on the project. In fact, the contractor make changes on the Viera project without authorization from any Board administrator. Presumably, necessity caused the Board to accept such work. There is no evidence that the changes authorized by Respondent on the Viera project were arbitrary or in violation of the contract. Respondent did not fail to abide by the contract terms. Respondent did not act improperly regarding the Viera project and is not responsible for the quality of the workmanship of the job. As energy costs became a concern to the Board, the Respondent participated in a conservation effort whereby energy firms were solicited for proposals as to how the Board might save on energy expenses. Initially five contractors showed interest in the project but only three filed proposals with the facilities department. To evaluate the proposals, which was deemed a "win/win" deal by the Board, an outside consultant was hired to review each of the submittals. The proposals, along with input from the consultant, was then heard and considered by a committee of eleven school board employees. The Respondent was not a voting member of the group. After receipt of the proposal and the foregoing review, the committee and Respondent recommended to the Board that Facility Masters Incorporated (FMI) be selected for the contract. The Board also reviewed the proposals and recommendations and approved the recommendation to hire FMI. The contract between FMI and the Board was reviewed by the school board attorney. The scope and terms of the project were outlined to the Board and the administrative staff. The concept of the proposal was to replace, at no initial cost to the Board, the outdated and inefficient equipment with new, efficient units so that the energy savings would actually pay for the equipment. None of the persons who reviewed the FMI project was aware that the proposal might require a performance bond. Respondent and others aware of the project were familiar with bonds and the necessity to have same on certain types of projects. In this instance, the superintendent, the assistant superintendent for facilities, the school board attorney, and Respondent did not request a bond for this job. No Board member questioned whether a bond should be requested for the project. All of the foregoing operated under the assumption that the replacement of equipment and the construction incidental to that did not require a bond. The principals employed at FMI had a satisfactory work history on similar projects. Their qualifications were investigated by Mr. Cowling, the assistant superintendent. No prior poor work performance was discovered. Under the terms of the FMI contract, the Board was to receive and approve a list of subcontractors before FMI was to "commence the installation of the System." There was no requirement that FMI submit a list for subcontractors of subcontractors. After commencement of the installation of the system, the Board and several of its individual members were sued for amounts allegedly owed Miller Electric, a subcontractor of a subcontractor on the FMI project. That suit brought to light the issue of the performance bond, or lack thereof, and the discovery that an individual, identified in the record as Armondo Diaz, had somehow obtained the balance of $167,000 from the Shawmut Bank. Such monies represented the final draws due on the FMI project. Respondent, however, did not authorize the final draw from the bank nor is there any evidence that he supported Mr. Diaz in that matter. Subsequently, the Board sued the bank over the release of the funds and settled the suit with Miller. Whether the $167,000 (quickly released) would have settled Miller Electric's claim is unknown. Certainly, it would have greatly reduced it. At the time of Respondent's departure from employment, the FMI system was operating in seven of the twelve schools in an acceptable manner. The other five schools were operational but not to the efficiency level anticipated. The Respondent acted reasonably in the selection and award of the contract to FMI, the administration of the project, and is not responsible for the improper release of the final draw. Three Board members testified that they have lost confidence in Respondent's ability to perform the duties of staff engineer/project manager. None of the three had registered complaints regarding his work performance with Respondent or his supervisor, Mr. Cowling, prior to the Board meeting April 23, 1991. None of the three Board members was able to articulate the factual basis for her lost confidence when asked to do so in December, 1991. The Respondent meets all of the qualifications for employment as staff engineer/project manager as that job title is described by the Board. The Respondent acted appropriately and within the scope and description of his job duties on each of the following projects: Stone Middle School; asbestos; Anderson Elementary School; Southwest Junior High School; Cambridge Elementary School; Viera; and FMI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered appointing Respondent to the position of staff engineer/project manager with all back pay and benefits withheld him from the date of his termination. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-5645 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, THE SCHOOL BOARD: It should be noted that Petitioner did not number the paragraphs in its proposed findings of fact. The numbers indicated below were assigned as follows: paragraphs 1 through 20 related to Respondent's general job description and responsibilities; paragraphs 21 through 31 are under the heading related to Viera; paragraphs 32 through 53 are under FMI; paragraphs 54 through 66 are under the Stone Middle School heading; paragraphs 67 and 68 are under Southwest Jr. High School; paragraphs 69 through 73 are under the asbestos heading; and 74 through 79 are under Cambridge Elementary School heading. No proposed findings of fact were submitted for the allegations related to Anderson Elementary School. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted but do not necessarily reflect accurate quotes of the cited material as there are minor, insignificant irregularities. Paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While it is accepted that three board members testified they had lost confidence in Mr. Barna, it is not concluded that they had objective reasons for that opinion prior to the vote on the Superintendent's recommendation. Paragraph 18 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 19, it is accepted that the job description had been held by Mr. Barna prior to the Board decision and would have been afterwards had they accepted the Superintendent's recommendation. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 26, it is accepted that some, but not all, of the changes addressed by change order 1 were completed prior to the submission of the item to the Board. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, and contrary to the facts established at hearing. Mr. Barna did not authorize changes without making his superiors aware of the items to be considered. The contract speaks for itself as to his authority. Paragraph 28 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; see also comment re: paragraph 27 above. With regard to paragraph 29, it is accepted that change order 1 represented an increased cost to the project; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 30 is accepted but is irrelevant since evidence established that Mr. Barna did not approve some of the changes to the project and that they were done without any authorization. Paragraph 31 is accepted but is irrelevant; Mr. Barna did not stand as the guarantor on the work performed by others. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as not supported by the record cited; weight of the evidence supports the fact that Miller Electric was a subcontractor for a subcontractor and that the contract did not require the disclosure of subs of subs. Paragraph 37 is rejected as contrary to weight of the evidence; see comment paragraph 36 above. Paragraph 38 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 42 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as not supported by the evidence; to the extent that the paragraph suggests Mr. Barna was generally familiar with bond requirements and that he compiled "boiler plate" forms it can be accepted, otherwise must be rejected since no evidence that Mr. Barna prepared or drafted documents. The bond form on its face shows it is an AIA document A310 form. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 45 is rejected as a conclusion of law. The facts of this case establish that no one associated with the School Board side of the project realized it was, or should have been, a bond job until the lawsuit was filed. Had anyone suspected a bond should be required, it would have been requested. Mr. Barna was not at fault for not requesting a bond anymore than Mr. Walker was, or Mr. Cowling, or Mr. Collingsworth, or the individual Board members who know when bonds are required. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as it suggests Mr. Barna knew a bond was required (as it was a construction job); clearly, neither he nor anyone else realized a bond would, or should, be required. Paragraph 48 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 50 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is accepted. Paragraph 52 is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 53 is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 57 are accepted. Paragraph 58 is rejected as a conclusion of law not supported by the record and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as a conclusion of law not supported by the record and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 60 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraphs 61 through 66 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or assuming facts or conclusions of law not evidence. Paragraph 67 is accepted. Paragraphs 68 through 73 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, conclusions based upon facts not in evidence, or irrelevant. Paragraph 74 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 75, it is accepted that Mr. Barna represented that drainage would be improved by the proposed easement drainage; as to the suggestion that Mr. Barna assured "no water" would be drained unto the property, such proposed fact is rejected. Paragraphs 76 and 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The Board's decision to accept the concept was not solely based upon Mr. Barna's recommendation. Paragraph 78 is accepted. Paragraph 79 is rejected as irrelevant, beyond the scope of this proceeding, and to the extent it suggests Mr. Barna to be at fault, is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mr. Barna was not responsible for drainage problems at the school. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, BARNA: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 7 through 18, 20, 22, 23, 25 through 38, 41, 43, 46 through 56, 58 through 61, 66 through 71, 77 through 79, 93 through 97, 101, 102 through 105, 109 through 111, 113, 114, 116, 120, 123, 124, 127, 129, 130, 132, 135 through 146, 148, 149, 151 through 157, 159, 160, 162 through 165, 167 through 169, 171, 172, 174, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 are accepted. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant; reiteration of charges, not fact; or argument. With regard to paragraph 21, it is accepted that projects described in statement of cause were extent of Board consideration (if that); otherwise, not supported by record cited. 5. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant and argument. 6. Paragraph 39 is rejected as repetitive or argument. 7. Paragraph 40 is rejected as argument. 8. Paragraph 42 is rejected as conclusion of law. 9. Paragraph 44 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. 10. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument or comment. 11. Paragraph 57 is rejected as restatement of document not fact and argument. Paragraph 62 is rejected as hearsay not supported by direct evidence. Paragraph 63 is rejected as restatement of document not fact and argument. Paragraph 64 is rejected as comment, not fact. Paragraph 65 is rejected as hearsay not supported by direct evidence. Paragraphs 72 and 73 are rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 82 is rejected as restatement of document not fact and irrelevant. Paragraph 83 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 84 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraphs 85 and 86 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 87 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 88 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 89 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 90 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraphs 91 and 92 rejected as argument and recitation of testimony. Paragraph 98 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 99 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 100 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 106 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraphs 107 and 108 are rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 112 is accepted to the extent that the terms outlined were Mr. Barna's understanding but such terms were not reduced to writing in accordance with the Board's directive. Why the easement was signed prior to an agreement being drafted and approved by the Board is unknown. No evidence suggests Mr. Barna was responsible for the oversight. With regard to paragraph 115, see comment regarding paragraph 112 above. Paragraph 117 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 118 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 119 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 122 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 128 is rejected as not supported by evidence cited. Paragraph 131 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 133 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 134 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 147 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 150 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. With regard to paragraph 155, the phrase "which ultimately recommended" should be added before "FMI" to clarify the statement instead of "recommending." Paragraph 158 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 161 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. With regard to paragraph 166, it should be added that at all material times to the review of the project before the letting of the job, the FMI project was considered as described. Paragraph 170 is accepted with the substitution of the word "acceptably" for "perfectly." It is the view of the trier of fact that no system can be perfect. Paragraph 173 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. From this record it would appear that Mr. Walker gave no definitive statements regarding the FMI project. Paragraph 175 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is accepted that Mr. Barna and Mr. Walker, together with other persons in authority, discussed the FMI project. Paragraph 178 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 180 is rejected to the extent it concludes funds were obtained by fraud; clearly that is the Board's position as no one authorized the final draw. Paragraph 183 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 184 and 185 are rejected as argument not fact. Paragraph 187 is rejected as irrelevant and argument. Paragraphs 192 through 196 are rejected as argument, conclusion of law, or not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley Wolfman David J. Wolfman STANLEY WOLFMAN, P.A. 200 W. Merritt Island Causeway Post Office Box 540513 Merritt Island, Florida 32954-0513 Louis V. Cianfrogna James H. Earp CIANFROGNA, TELFER, REDA & FAHERTY, P.A. Suite 102 1990 West New Haven Avenue Melbourne, Florida 32904 Abe Collingsworth Superintendent of Schools Brevard County School District 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940
