The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license to practice contracting, license number CGC 060878, based on violations of Subsection 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (2005)1, as charged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding. Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes (Count I) by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (Count II) by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor, and Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count III) by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. And, if so, what discipline should be imposed, pursuant to Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are determined: At all times material, Respondent was a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CGC 060878 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). At all times material, Respondent was the qualifier of Epic Building and Development Corporation, a Florida Corporation, with its principal place of business in the Fort Myers area. On February 22, 2005, Respondent entered into a contract with Edward Dueboay to rebuild a house owned by Dueboay and his wife, located at 22299 Laramorre Avenue, Port Charlotte, Florida, which had been distroyed some months earlier by Hurricane Charlie. The price of the contract was $150,000.00. On or about March 24, 2005, Dueboay gave Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500 payable to Contractors Marketing America, Inc. (CMA, Inc.), for the engineering plans. On May 6, 2005, Dueboay paid Respondent $5,000, as an advance on the contract. Respondent did not obtain the building permit from the Charlotte County Building Department until December 12, 2005, and work on the project did not start until January 2006. Because of the enormous damage caused by the hurricane, contractors in the area were flooded with jobs, and significant shortages in building materials also occurred. On January 13, 2006, Respondent billed Dueboay $11,000.00 for land clearing and filling, $750.00 for permit fees, and $3,200.00 for a temporary electric pole. The bill gave credit for the $5,000.00 Dueboay paid on May 6, 2005, and showed a balance due of $10,000.00. On January 20, 2006, Dueboay paid the above-mentioned invoice, by check to Respondent, in the amount of $10,000.00. Respondent paid $4,600.00 to the sub-contractor who performed the lot clearing and filling, but billed Dueboay $11,000.00. However, the contract provided for a $2,500.00 allowance for clearing and filling, and a $750.00 allowance for permit fees. Section 11.c of the contract also provided that Respondent shall provide and pay for all materials and utilities and all other facilities and services necessary for the proper completion of the work on the project in accordance with the contract documents. To pay for the remainder of the contract, Dueboay negotiated and obtained a loan in the total amount of $153,000.00 from Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union (Credit Union). On March 21, 2006, Dueboay and the Credit Union signed the construction loan agreement. On March 21, 2006, Respondent was paid $18,235.00 by the Credit Union for the pre-cast walls used in the erection of the structure. On May 11, 2006, Respondent finished Phase I of the project. On May 15, 2006, Respondent received $11,350.00 as the first draw by the Credit Union. On June 20, 2006, Respondent finished Phase II of the project. On June 20, 2006, Respondent was paid $26,335.00 as the second draw by the Credit Union. From June 2006 to November 2006, Respondent performed no work on the house under the Dueboay contract. Because the roof was not completed, mold appeared on and in the house. On August 21, 2006, Dueboay paid $109.95 to America’s Best Cleaning and Restoration, Inc., for mold removal. On or before September 13, 2006, Dueboay hired an attorney to clarify billing charges related to lot filling, permit fees and the temporary electric pole, and to prompt Respondent to resume work abandoned since June 2006. Under the Credit Union Loan Agreement, after several extensions, the completion of the Dueboay home should have taken place on or before October 17, 2006. On October 18, 2006, the Loan Agreement extension expired, and Dueboay was required to pay mortgage and interest on the loan, even though construction of the house was not completed. On November 10, 2006, Dueboay’s attorney sent Respondent a third letter advising him that the project was stagnating; that after eighteen months since the signing of the contract, the roof of the house was not yet completed; and that, under the contract, Respondent was obligated to substantially complete all work in a reasonable time after construction had started. On or about December 1, 2006, the building permit expired and had to be renewed. At some point after November 10, 2006, Respondent resumed work and finished Phase III on March 8, 2007, with the exception that some doors were not installed, including the garage door. Respondent submitted a sworn Contractor’s Affidavit stating that all subcontractors had been paid, and that there are no liens against Dueboay’s property. However, Dueboay had to pay Charlotte County Utilities $224.93 on October 29, 2007, and $240.00 to Pest Bear, Inc., on May 7, 2008, to avoid two liens being recorded against his property. From March 8, 2007, until July 2007, Respondent performed no work under the contract. David Allgood, another general contractor, was hired by Respondent to complete some of Respondent’s projects in the Port Charlotte area, including the Dueboay house. However, Dueboay was not informed of this arrangement. There was no contract directly between Dueboay and Allgood. On September 4, 2007, relying on advice from his attorney, Dueboay changed the locks to the house, with the intent to keep Respondent and his employees off his property. Shortly thereafter, employees of general contractor David Allgood broke the front lock and entered the property in September 2007, without Dueboay’s permission. Dueboay, again, following advice from this attorney, called law enforcement to eject Allgood’s employees from his property. Allgood attempted to invoice Dueboay for installing some doors on the house that Respondent had previously paid for, and which Respondent should have installed. However, following advice from his attorney, Dueboay resisted Allgood’s request to pay him for the doors. Respondent was paid a total of $122,246.03 for the Dueboay project, before the contract was cancelled. Respondent did not complete work from Phases IV and V, with the following exceptions: he did some work on the driveway, painted the interior, did some cabinet work, exterior trim and soffit, siding, stucco, and some interior trim. Therefore, Respondent completed, at best, three out of seven operations from Phase IV (interior and exterior paint, interior trim and doors, and exterior trim and soffits) and worked on, but did not complete, stucco and some cabinets. From Phase V, Respondent only worked on the driveway and sidewalks, which had to subsequently be repaired. Dueboay hired Storybook Homes, Inc. (Storybook), to complete work abandoned by Respondent from Phases IV and V. Storybook was hired to complete work as follows: install cabinets and vanities, install ceramic tiles, repair stucco, install custom tub, all electrical and plumbing per code, complete exterior paint, install hardware, sinks and faucets in the baths and showers, complete floors, install all appliances, complete air conditioning and heat, and obtain the certificate of occupancy. The amount of $122,246.03 paid to Respondent at the time when Respondent abandoned the Dueboay project represents 81 percent of the total contract price of $150,000.00. Respondent completed, at best, 75 percent of the job by completing only three out of seven operations of Phase IV and working on some additional operations that needed to be redone, like the driveway, sidewalks and stucco. Due to Respondent’s failure to perform work on time, Dueboay incurred $5,116.42 in additional expenses, as follows: $109.95 on August 21, 2006 (mold removal), $360.00 on November 23, 2006 (legal fees), $175.00 on June 4, 2007 (legal fees), $375.00 on September 4, 2007 (legal fees), $224.93 on October 29, 2007 (to satisfy lien), $668.34 on November 3, 2007 (legal fees), $200.00 on April 4, 2008 (legal fees), $1,151.05 on May 7, 2008 (to correct work performed deficiently by Respondent), $390.00 on May 7, 2008 (to repair driveway), $240.00 on May 7, 2008 (to avoid lien), and $412.00 on May 12, 2008 (to install safe room door that Respondent failed to install). The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, for Petitioner’s case no. 2005-028129 was $276.18.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board render a Final Order as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. Respondent’s license to practice contracting (CGC 060878) be suspended for a period of three months, followed by a period of probation for two years, upon such conditions as the Board may impose, including the payment of costs and restitution. Requiring Respondent to pay financial restitution to the consumer, Edward Dueboay, in the amount of $5,116.42 for consumer harm suffered due to payment of additional expenses. Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, in the amount of $276.18. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 21st day of July, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, in making an award of a lease for office space, the Respondent acted according to the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact In February, 1993, the Department of Labor and Employment Security ("Department") issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Submittal No. 540:0969 ("RFP") seeking to lease approximately 18,684 square feet of office space in Jacksonville, Florida, for a period of six years. The space was to house the Office of Disability Determinations ("ODD"), which processes disability claims and determines whether claimants are eligible for Social Security and Supplemental Income benefits. The office has minimal contact with the general public. The RFP provided that all bids were subject to conditions stated within the RFP. Bids not in compliance with RFP conditions were subject to rejection. RFP Article D, General Provisions, Paragraph 8 provides as follows: The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids' to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the state, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. A pre-bid conference was conducted by the Department on February 16, 1993. Representatives from the vendors involved in this proceeding attended the conference. Bids were opened on March 5, 1993. The Department received five responses, three of which were deemed to be responsive and which were evaluated. The remaining two responses were determined to be nonresponsive and were not evaluated. On or about March 10, 1993, based on the evaluations, the Department proposed to award the bid to Koger Properties, Inc. On or about March 17, 1993, the Department notified the vendors of the intended award. The Petitioners filed timely notices protesting the intended award. TOWNCENTRE PROPOSAL Paragraph 13 sets forth conditions to which a bidder must agree in order to be awarded a bid. Subsection "a" of the paragraph states, "[i]f successful, bidder agrees to enter into a lease agreement on the Department of General Services Standard Lease Agreement Form BCM 4054 (Attachment F - Do not complete)." The copy of the Department of General Services Standard Lease Agreement Form which was included in the RFP was a poorly reproduced copy. Article III of the Lease Agreement Form provides as follows: III HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING AND JANITOR SERVICES 1.a. The Lessor agrees to furnish to the Lessee heating and air conditioning equipment and maint(illegible) in satisfactory operating condition at all times for the leased premises during the term of the lease at the (illegible) of the Lessor. b. The Lessor agrees to maintain thermostats in the demised premises at 68 degrees Fahrenhe(illegible) the heating season and 78 degrees Fahrenheit during the cooling season; and certifies that boilers the(illegible) been calibrated to permit the most efficient operation. The Lessor agrees to furnish janitorial services and all necessary janitorial supplies for the leased (illegible) during the term of the lease at the expense of the Lessor. All services required above shall be provided during the Lessee's normal working hours, whic(illegible)marily from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding state holidays. Also attached to the RFP was a copy of an addendum to the lease, also poorly reproduced. The addendum provides as follows: Article III, Paragraph III Addendum for Full Service Lease The lessor and lessee mutually agree that the described prem(illegible) leased in this lease agreement shall be available to the department (lessee) for its exclusive use twenty four (24) (illegible) per day, seven (7) days per week during the lease term. T(illegible) space to be leased by the department will be fully occupied during normal working hours from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Mo(illegible) through Friday, excluding holidays, Saturdays and Sundays, (illegible) may be fully or partially occupied during all other periods (illegible) time as necessary and required at the full discretion of th(illegible) department. Accordingly, services to be provided by the le(illegible) under the terms of the lease agreement, including electrici(illegible) other utilities, will be provided during all hours of occup(illegible) at no additional cost to the department (lessee). Although the copy of the lease agreement and addendum included in the RFP were poorly reproduced, it is clear that the addendum modifies the paragraph of the lease agreement related to provision of heating, air conditioning and janitorial services to require that HVAC services be provided throughout the premises during all hours of occupancy at no additional cost to the Department. The proposal submitted by Towncentre included an "Attachment Z" which states as follows: The following represent exceptions and/or clarifications to the terms of the Request for Proposal and Bid Submittal Form ("RFP") for the referenced Lease. Except as noted herein, Bidder shall comply fully with the terms of the RFP..." Item #7 of Attachment Z states as follows: The Building in which the space is offered is serviced by central heating, ventilating and air conditioning; therefore, no separate thermostats will be provided in the space other than in the computer room. However, the required temperature standards will be maintained and satisfied. The computer room HVAC shall be available 24 hours a day. Otherwise, after-hours HVAC is billed at $80 per hour. Attachment Z also included additional exceptions to the provisions of the RFP. Contrary to the requirements set forth in the addendum attached to the lease form included in the RFP, the Towncentre proposal included additional charges for after hours uses. The Department determined that the Towncentre proposal was nonresponsive and disqualified the proposal from further consideration. Because the Towncentre proposal includes HVAC charges which are specifically prohibited under the terms of the RFP, the Towncentre proposal is nonresponsive to the RFP. Towncentre asserts that other sections of the RFP indicate that, within the leased premises, only the computer room is required to be heated or cooled on a continuous basis. Vendors had an adequate opportunity to direct questions regarding the RFP to Department officials. There is no evidence that Towncentre sought clarification from the Department related to this matter prior to submitting the bid proposal. In the notification to Towncentre that the bid had been determined to be nonresponsive to the RFP, the Department identified the other exceptions as additional reasons for the determination of nonresponsiveness. At hearing Towncentre introduced no evidence related to the remaining items included within Attachment Z. BRYAN SIMPSON JR. FOR P.V. ASSOCIATES The Simpson bid was deemed to be responsive and was evaluated. The evaluations were performed by three Department employees, Dorea Sowinski, Albert Cherry, and Tom Mahar. On March 9, 1993, the evaluators visited the physical locations of the three responsive bids. (Although the bid had been declared nonresponsive, they also visited the Towncentre site, apparently as a courtesy.) The Simpson space is located in downtown Jacksonville. After completion of the site visits, the evaluators separately and independently completed their evaluation sheets. The evaluators awarded a total of 262 points to Koger Properties and 248 points to Simpson. Page 7 of the RFP sets forth the evaluation criteria which were considered in awarding evaluation points. The RFP stated as follows: The successful bid will be the one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Rental, using Present Value methodology for basic term of lease (See D, General Provisions Items 3 and 4) applying the present value discount rate of 5.6 per cent. (Weighing: 35) Conformance of and susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization and to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighing: 20) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it on the efficient and economical conduct of the Departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighing: 20) Offers providing contiguous space within preferred boundaries. (Weighing 5) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within one block of the offered space. (Weighing 15) Availability of adequate dining facilities within one mile of the offered space. (Weighing: 2) Proximity of offered space to the clients served by the Department at this facility. (Weighing: 3) Proximity of offered space to other Department activities as well as other public services. (Weighing: 0) TOTAL POINTS: 100 Simpson asserts that the evaluators acted improperly in awarding points in categories 3, 5, 6 and 7. Category 3 relates to the effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it on the efficient and economical conduct of the Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Although Simpson asserts that category 3 is vague and ambiguous, there was no objection to the category prior to the submission of the bid responses and the announcement of the proposed lease award. Each evaluator could award up to 20 points in this category for a total of 60 available points. Koger was awarded 55 points. Simpson received 27 points. As to individual evaluators awards, Tom Mahar awarded Simpson five points, Albert Cherry awarded Simpson ten points, and Dorea Sowinski awarded Simpson 12 points. Based on the written memo dated March 10, 1993, identifying the reasons for the recommended bid award, two of the three evaluators considered the Koger space to be located in a safer area than the Simpson facility, and, at least in part, based their point awards on this factor. The two evaluators cite minimal anecdotal information in support of their opinions. The evaluators undertook no investigation related to safety issues and there are no facts to support their opinions. Their award of points for "environmental factors" is arbitrary. Category 5 relates to the frequency and availability of public transportation within one block of the offered space. Each evaluator could award up to 15 points in this category for a total of 45 available points. Both Koger and Simpson received the maximum 45 points. RFP Page Two, question 8 provides as follows: Public Transportation availability: BIDDER RESPONSE: (Check appropriate box) Taxi , Bus , Frequency of service closest bus stop . Both Koger and Simpson indicate service by taxi and bus. The Koger proposal indicates a frequency of service as "8 BUSES" and the closest bus stop as "IN FRONT OF BUILDING ON WOODCOCK DRIVE." Simpson indicates a frequency of service as "15 minutes" and the closest bus stop as "front of building." The Department asserts that the Koger level of transportation access, albeit less than that serving the Simpson site, is satisfactory and therefore entitled to an award of all points available. Simpson asserts that the greater availability of public transportation to the Simpson site should result, under the terms of the evaluation criteria, in Simpson receiving more points than the Koger site for this category. The evaluation criteria clearly requires consideration of both the frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation. Simpson asserts that in considering the transportation category, the evaluators should have reviewed local public transportation schedules. Review of such schedules establishes that the Simpson site is served more frequently by public bus transportation than is the Koger site, and further establishes that the number of bus routes directly serving the Simpson property far exceeds the routes serving the Koger site. Simpson did not include the schedules in the RFP response. The Simpson site is also located nearby the downtown public transportation transfer station at which point many, perhaps all, local bus routes connect. Simpson did not denote the location of the transfer station in the RFP response While the evaluation committee is not required to consider the bus schedules in reviewing bid proposals, the evaluation committee failed to consider the substantially greater frequency and availability of public transportation to the Simpson site relative to the Koger site, as set forth in the respective RFPs. The Department's position is contrary to the specific criteria identified in the RFP. The award of equivalent points for transportation access to both Simpson and Koger is unsupported by fact or logic and is arbitrary. Category 6 relates to the availability of adequate dining facilities within one mile of the offered space. Each evaluator could award up to two points in this category for a total of six available. Koger was awarded six points. Simpson received one point. When the evaluators rated the adequacy of dining facilities, they considered only those dining facilities which were located within two blocks of the offered space. Such is contrary to the clear terms of the RFP. The Department offered no rationale for the decision to amend the RFP criteria after submission of the proposals. The Simpson RFP response states only that there are adequate dining facilities within walking distance of the offered facility. The Koger response states that there are "three (3) sandwich shops within walking distance in the Koger center and other numerous restaurants within one (1) mile." As to individual evaluators awards, Tom Mahar awarded Simpson one point, while both Albert Cherry and Dorea Sowinski awarded Simpson zero points. Mahar's award was based on his opinion, again based on alleged safety concerns, that employees would be hesitant to walk to nearby restaurants and that driving and parking presented a problem in the downtown location. Cherry voiced a similar opinion. As to alleged safety concerns, Mahar and Cherry again based their opinions on minimal anecdotal information, supported by neither fact nor logic. Neither evaluator undertook any factual analysis of the safety issues relative to the proposed site. Their award of points for this category is arbitrary. On the other hand, Sowinski did not see any restaurants close to the Simpson site during the site visit. In excess of 40 restaurants are located within one mile of the Simpson site. The restaurants provide a variety of dining options both as to expense and fare. Sowinski's failure to observe restaurants located across the street from the Simpson site is, although difficult to understand, apparently a simple mistake on her part. Category 7 relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients served by the Department at this facility. Each evaluator could award up to three points in this category for a total of nine available. Simpson offered no evidence that the determination of points awarded for category 7 was inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order DISMISSING the protest filed by Towncentre Venture, and WITHDRAWING the proposed award of lease contract based on the Request for Proposal and Bid Submittal No. 540:0969. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASES NO. 93-2015BID and 93-2106BID The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Towncentre Venture Towncentre Venture's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected, second sentence is irrelevant. 5-7. Rejected, irrelevant. Taken as a whole, the RFP indicates that HVAC services are to be provided throughout the leased premises during all hours of occupancy at no additional cost to the Department. The evidence fails to establish that the vendors were confused about the terms of the RFP. There were apparently no related questions addressed to Department personnel during the pre-bid conference or at any time subsequent to the conference and prior to the bid opening. 10. Rejected. Not supported by the document cited which does not identify the attachment by letter. 13. Rejected, irrelevant. The standard form lease included in the RFP was a sample document. None of the blank spaces were completed. 16. Rejected, irrelevant. The attendees at the conference were provided an opportunity to inquire as to all matters. There were apparently no questions asked related to the RFP's requirement that HVAC services be provided throughout the facility during all hours of occupancy at no additional cost to the Department. 17-18, 20-21. Rejected, irrelevant. The terms of the RFP are clear. 19. Rejected, irrelevant. The terms of the addendum for full service lease clearly indicate that such HVAC services were to be provided at no additional charge, not just in the computer room, but throughout the entire leased facility. 22. Rejected. The Towncentre bid was nonresponsive to the terms of the RFP. Petitioner Bryan Simpson, Jr., for P. V. Associates P. V. Associates' proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the RFP was issued seeking space for the Jacksonville Office of Disability Determinations. 4, 23, 24. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Labor and Employment Security The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 17. Rejected. The decision to award equivalent points for public transportation access fails to reflect the substantially greater access provided to the Simpson site and is arbitrary. 20-21. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of evidence which establishes no evidence that safety concerns were based on a reasonable evaluation of facts. There are no facts to support the conclusion that the Simpson location if less safe than the Koger site. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Gooding, Acting Secretary Suite 303, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Thomas M. Jenks, Esquire Pappas and Metcalf, P.A. 1 Independent Drive, Suite 3301 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Nathan D. Goldman, Esquire Marcia Maria Morales, Esquire 200 Laura Street Post Office Box 240 Jacksonville, Florida 33202 Edward Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue May Respondent's contracting license be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined? EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Randall F. Patterson; Bob R. Pope; Roberta Ballenger; Joel A. Dean; and Victor F. Boucher. Petitioner's exhibits number one through fourteen were admitted into evidence. Respondent was not present, put on no evidence, and submitted no after- filed proposals. Petitioner filed the transcript of proceedings on October 17, 1985, and filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law styled "Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order" on November 8, 1985. Although additional time for filing proposals was neither applied-for nor granted, these proposals have been considered, and are ruled on within the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, was a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0032683. On August 7, 1982 Respondent d/b/a Future Homes of America Construction Company, Inc. contracted with Victor Boucher for the construction of a single family residence at 822 Fairview Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Section 14.5 of the Fixed Price Construction Agreement provided: The owner will, as agreed to by the contractor, request the contractor to obtain payment and performance bonds, issued by a surety and in amounts acceptable to owner, guaranteeing the full performance of contractor's payment and performance obligations hereunder. (Pet. Exh. 1, Pet. Exh. 9). Article 14.5 of the construction contract required Respondent to obtain a payment and performance bond. Respondent failed to obtain a payment and performance bond. During the construction of the home, Boucher asked Respondent whether a payment and performance bond had been obtained. Boucher wanted to see the bond because he was concerned about Respondent actually finishing the project. In response to Boucher's request, Respondent indicated a bond had not been obtained; however, Respondent assured Boucher that a payment and performance bond would be obtained. On April 7, 1953 Respondent and Boucher obtained a construction loan in the amount of $54,400.00 from the American Savings and Loan Association of Florida, Winter Park, Florida. The construction loan was secured by a mortgage on the property located at 522 Fairview Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The proceeds of the construction loan were paid out in draws. American Savings and Loan Association of Florida paid the contract draws directly to Respondent. On August 29, 1953 Respondent executed an affidavit in support of final construction draw. American Savings and Loan Association of Florida required the affidavit as a precondition to making final disbursement to Respondent of the $4,338.50 remaining on the construction loan. The affidavit provided in pertinent part: 4. The undersigned swears that construction of the improvements to the PROPERTY has been fully completed in accordance with the plans and specifications therefore,...that all persons furnishing labor or materials, engaged as subcontractors or contracting directly with the owner of the PROPERTY in connection with said improvements, except the following, identified by name, address and amount due: [none known] have been paid in full and no person, firm or corporation has or holds any claim or lien against the PROPERTY for labor or material in connection with said improvements. Boucher was also required to sign the affidavit referred-to in Paragraph 5, above, in support of the final construction draw. Boucher's signature was required in support of the affidavit for final construction draw because Boucher had previously contacted the savings and loan association with regard to freezing the disbursement of construction funds. His request to freeze disbursements was made because Boucher was under the impression Respondent had moved to Miami and Boucher's attempts to contact Respondent had proven unsuccessful. Prior to executing the affidavit, Respondent told Boucher that certain subcontractors had not been paid. Nonetheless, Boucher, contrary to advice of legal counsel signed the affidavit knowing that certain subcontractors had not been paid and therefore knowing he was making a false affidavit. Respondent convinced Boucher that the final draw would be utilized to satisfy the remaining subcontractors and materialmen. Respondent's Answer pleads accord and satisfaction as an affirmative defense that Boucher agreed to pay off all bills of Overhead Door Co., Future Plumbing, Quality Fiberglass, and Patterson Well Drilling but Boucher's testimony that he, Boucher, insisted Respondent meet him to pay off all subcontractors out of the final draw and Respondent did not do so, overcomes any burden of proof problems raised by this affirmative defense. (See "Conclusions of Law.") On November 29, 1983 Patterson Well Drilling Company filed a claim of lien against Boucher's property. The claim of lien represented materials and labor furnished to Respondent in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. The claim of lien was in the amount of $1,510.00. Although the claim of lien under oath of President Randall F. Patterson states that the services were provided between September 9 and September 12, 1983, Boucher testified that Patterson's services were actually provided prior to the August 29, 1983 execution of the affidavit in support of final construction draw. Randall F. Patterson's testimony tends to support this timeframe set out by Boucher, and although the difference in dates between Mr. Patterson's affidavit within the claim of lien and his oral testimony at formal hearing might otherwise present a credibility issue, his explanation at hearing coupled with Boucher's explanation of how he relates the dates persuade the undersigned that Patterson Well Drilling Company installed the well prior to August 29, 1983. Respondent failed to pay Patterson prior to executing the bank affidavit. Respondent also failed to pay Patterson from the funds received in the final construction draw. Boucher paid Patterson Well Drilling Company for the services represented by the claim of lien. A check substantiates that Boucher actually paid Patterson the amount of $1,562.40. Respondent contracted with Quality Fiberglass Industries to provide materials and services in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. Respondent failed to fully reimburse Quality Fiberglass for the services and materials provided. On August 19, 1953 Quality Fiberglass Industries filed a claim of lien against the Boucher property for $219.00. Mr. Pope, Quality's representative, testified he was actually owed $325.00 and he has never been paid. Boucher testified he was required to pay the Quality Fiberglass lien prior to the closing on the home. There is no documentary evidence to reconcile this issue and in the absence of clear evidence that Boucher paid the fee, payment of the lien or the difference in amount is not proved. Overhead Door Company provided services to Respondent d/b/a Future Homes of America, Inc. in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. On July 11, 1983 Overhead Door Company installed a garage door. Although contacted on several occasions, Respondent failed to pay Overhead Door Company $356.00 for the services provided. Overhead Door Company has not otherwise been reimbursed for the services provided. The construction plans for the Boucher home indicated a tar and gravel roof would be constructed over the patio. However, with the acquiescence of Mr. Boucher, Respondent placed rolled roofing rather than tar and gravel roofing on the patio. The construction plans were submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. According to Joel A. Dean, the county building department currently relies upon the construction plans in issuing the building permit. A contractor currently is required to notify the building department of any change or deviation from the submitted plans. This requirement enables the building department to control the type of building construction, the occupancy and use of the building, and ensures the buildings are constructed safe and watertight. Respondent did not notify the building department concerning the agreed roofing change as would be required by current requirements and requirements at the pertinent times under Section 114 of the Standard Building Code.
Recommendation That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending Respondent's contracting license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, provided, however, if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of payment to Overhead Doors Co. of $356.00 and payment to Quality Fiberglass of $219.00, the period of suspension shall be reduced to one (1) year. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 31st day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3835 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact According To the Paragraph Number assigned by Petitioner. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set out more fully in Finding of Fact Paragraph 9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Anguelo James Linnan 1415 West 28th Street Executive Director Apartment 4 Construction Industry Hialeah, Florida 33010 Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Cobo Company, Inc., is a mechanical contractor located in Miami, Florida, whose qualifying agent, Jose Cobo, is certified in that capacity pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. By letter of August 18, 1980, Respondent Department of General Services confirmed Petitioner's annual prequalification as a potential bidder for building construction contracts pursuant to Section 255.29, Florida Statutes, for the "type or class as defined in your license." (Testimony of Cobo, Exhibit 1) At an undisclosed date, Respondent published an advertisement for bids for Project No. DGS-7969-C, "Major Repairs-Chiller Replacement, Graham Building, Miami, Florida." The advertisement required all bidders to submit prequalification data of their eligibility to submit proposals if not previously qualified for the current fiscal year. The advertisement and invitation for bids stated that bids must be submitted in full in accordance with the requirements of the drawings, specifications, bidding conditions, and contractual conditions, and that sealed bids would be opened on September 30, 1980. Section B-2 of the specifications required that the bidder present evidence that he was "authorized to perform the work required in these documents in accordance with the applicable provisions of Florida Statutes governing contractors." (Exhibit 4) Respondent's Instructions to Bidders further required that bidders submit evidence of ability to provide necessary performance and labor and material payment bonds, and that bids should be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than 5 percent of the amount of the bid. The instructions also required bidders to submit a list of previous contracts involving similar work which had been satisfactorily completed, and to list those qualified subcontractors which the bidder intended to be employed on the contract. They further required a bidder to indicate bid prices on the proposal form for the entire work and for any alternates on which he bids. The instructions stated that if the base bid was within the amount of funds available to finance the contract and the owner (Respondent) wished to accept alternate additive bids, contract award would be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low combined bid, consisting of the base bid plus alternate additive bids. Section B-24 of the contract document reads in part as follows: B-24 CONTRACT AWARD The Contract will be awarded by the Executive Direction, Department of General Services, as soon as possible, to the lowest qualified bidder provided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality on bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The Agreement will only be entered into with reasonable contractors, found to be satisfactory by the Owner, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Section 01010 of the specifications provides in part as follows: SECTION 01010 - SUMMARY OF WORK 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The project in general consists of the construction of the contract entitled Major Repairs-Chiller Replacement, Graham building, Miami, Florida, State Project NO. DGS-7069-C. A general description of the project and its scope include the following: Replacement of chiller for central air conditioning system. Install new cooling towers and pump. The contract drawings and specifications provided for the removal of a portion of an interior wall, and removal of an exterior wall window and masonry work below the window to provide access for removal of the existing chiller and its replacement with new equipment. In addition, the contract included electrical work incident to the installation of the chiller, removal of an existing hand rail for clear access to the equipment and later replacement, installation of pitch pans for pipes and other openings on the roof, and the erection and installation of structural steel cooling towers. The specifications call for painting, plaster work, replacement of flooring and ceiling, and installation of a window wall panel, as required in restoring the demolished area. They further called for a replacement demountable interior wall partition to provide future access to the air conditioning equipment, as an alternate portion of the project. Section 01021 of the specifications described the bid items as a Base bid, Additive Alternate No. 1 for using higher efficiency chiller, and Additive Alternate No. 2 for installation of the demountable partition. However, the specifications had been altered prior to the issuance of the bid invitation to provide for the higher efficiency chiller as part of the base bid, but Section 01021 had not been changed accordingly. Respondent's proposal form for use by bidders, however, had provisions for entry of only a Base bid and Alternate No. 1 for the installation of the demountable partition. (Testimony of Karagianis, Exhibits 4-6) Petitioner submitted its bid for the project on September 30, 1980. Its base bid was $225,440. It also bid on the alternate for installation of demountable partitions in the sum of $1,170, and added to the bid form an alternate for the use of higher efficiency chiller in the amount of $1,150. Seven other bids were submitted on the proposal ranging from $239,300 by Sam L. Hamilton, Inc., to a high bid of $430,624. Hamilton's additive bid for the alternate partitions was in the amount of $1,950. Petitioner enclosed with its proposal the required contractor's qualification statement showing previous experience as a mechanical contractor, bid bond, and other required information. It listed L. Milton Construction, Inc., as a general construction subcontractor and Sparta Insulation as an insulation contractor. Although Petitioner intended that Lloyd N. Jones perform the electrical work on the project, he was not listed as a subcontractor because Petitioner did not know at that time whether he would be a subcontractor of Milton or of his own firm. Petitioner included the alternate bid for the higher efficiency chiller because it was required under Section 01021 of the specifications. Milton's bid to Petitioner for the construction work on the contract was in the sum of $7,000. (Testimony of Cobo, Exhibits 2-3) By letter of October 7, 1980, Respondent informed Petitioner that it intended to contract with Sam L. Hamilton, Inc., which had been determined the qualified low bidder meeting the requirements of the specifications. The letter advised the Petitioner that is bid was rejected because it was not a certified or registered general or building contractor as required by Section 489.105, Florida Statutes. Attached to the letter was a copy of a letter of William J. Roberts, attorney for the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, to Respondent, dated October 18, 1977, setting forth a legal opinion that a mechanical contractor could not be the prime contractor on a state contract in which the bulk of the work is mechanical in nature, but the remaining portion is to be subcontracted to a general contractor. Roberts testified at the hearing that he had drafted legislation which changed the definition of "contractor" previously found in subsection 478.102(1), and in his view, under such definition, a mechanical contractor would not be authorized to become a prime contractor is it were necessary for him to subcontract any non-mechanical work called for under the contract provisions which he was not qualified to perform. (Testimony of Roberts, Exhibit 7) Respondent's project director estimates that the chiller replacement project was approximately 90 to 93 percent mechanical in nature, and 7 to 10 percent requiring general construction and electrical work. It was his understanding of departmental policy that if any portion of a contract involved general construction work, only a general contractor would be eligible to receive the award and that, in this case, Petitioner could not therefore be accepted as a prime contractor. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Construction has instructed Bureau personnel not to award contracts to mechanical contractors which involve non-mechanical work unless the contractor is certified in the non-mechanical area for which the work is required. Several contracts awarded by Respondent to mechanical contractors in 1980 which involved non-mechanical work were "incorrect" awards, in the view of the Chief of the Bureau of Construction. (Testimony of Karagianis, Scaringe, Composite Exhibit 8) General contractors and mechanical contractors are required to be licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Any person who desires to be certified statewide in a particular contracting area must establish his competency and qualifications by a combination of education and experience, plus the successful completion of an appropriate examination. The general contractor's examination and mechanical contractor's examination have similar portions relating to applicable federal and state laws and regulations in the contracting field. The remaining and major portion of the mechanical contractor's examination deals with subjects of that specialty such as air conditioning, refrigeration, heating, and the like. The general contractor's examination primarily covers matters relative to construction, such as site work, excavation, structural steel, masonry walls, piles, columns, and form work. (Testimony of Allen, Composite Exhibits 9-10) In the opinion of an expert in the field of architecture, there are no parts of the chiller replacement project which require the services of a general contractor. The demolition of the interior partition and the window wall properly may be accomplished by a mechanical contractor and installation of demountable partitions in lieu thereof can be obtained from speciality suppliers. Other aspects of the project, such as concrete pads, installation of cooling tower, pitch pans, and painting similarly are all considered to be incidental work to a project that is basically mechanical in nature. Certain large mechanical contractors customarily employ qualified individuals to perform specialty tasks such as painting and demolition work, but smaller contractors accomplish such portions of a job by subcontract. (Testimony of Coxen) A recent contract award was made by Dade County to a mechanical contractor for a project similar to the one here in controversy. In that case, the mechanical contractor had listed a general contractor as a subcontractor for the project. (Exhibit 11)
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty of prosecuting administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and was, at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate salesperson. He holds license number 0487661. Respondent was working as a real estate salesperson in association with Global Realty of Volusia, Inc. (Global Realty) in Deltona, Florida, when he received his current license. In 1993, Paul Costello owned a residence (hereinafter "the property") in Deltona, Florida. Mr. Costello lived in Miami, Florida. He rented the property to tenants who informed him that cracks were developing in the property's driveway. Additionally, the house was settling and cracking. Mr. Costello subsequently made a claim for the property's reported distress on his homeowner's insurance policy with Republic Insurance Company. The insurance company retained a geotechnical engineering firm to determine the cause of the reported distress. The engineering firm made a site visit to the property on August 22, 1993. A visual inspection revealed cracks up to one and one-half inches wide in the exterior walls of the garage. The engineering firm completed its investigation in September 1993 and concluded that the property was subject to sinkhole conditions/activity. Based on the recommendations of the engineering firm, the insurance company hired a grouting contractor. Deep cement grout injections and shallow grouting (mudjacking) were performed in an attempt to stabilize the loose soil conditions on the property. Steel piles were used to raise and support the structure's footing. The stabilization effort took approximately two months to complete. In 1995, Shawna Lee Christenson and Janice Beery worked as licensed real estate salespersons for Choice Properties, Inc., (Choice Properties) in Deltona, Florida. Jean Gillian, a licensed real estate broker and owner of Choice Properties, gave Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery their first employment as real estate sales associates. Because they were new to the real estate profession, Ms. Gillian directed Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery to work as partners. Respondent was also working at Choice Properties when Ms. Gillian hired Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. He worked for Choice Properties for several weeks before returning to Global Realty as a sales associate. Sometime prior to October 22, 1995, Ms. Christenson received a call from a woman in Orlando. The woman, a friend of Mr. Costello's, requested Ms. Christenson to perform a market analysis on the property. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery performed the market analysis on the property. Subsequently, they received permission from Mr. Costello to list the property for sale as a multiple listing. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery signed a listing agreement with Mr. Costello. About that time, or soon thereafter, Ms. Christenson had a telephone conversation with Mr. Costello. During the conversation, Mr. Costello informed Ms. Christenson about possible prior sinkhole activity on the property. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery discussed the problem with Ms. Gillian. Everyone at Choice Properties thought the situation was humorous because the property was the first listing for Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. Later, Mr. Costello sent Ms. Christenson a document with the name of the geotechnical engineering firm. Ms. Christenson then contacted Mike Wilson, a friend who worked in soils engineering. Mr. Wilson contacted the engineering firm and requested that a copy of its settlement claim evaluation report be sent to Ms. Christenson. Ms. Christenson placed a copy of the engineering firm's report in the property's file at Choice Properties. She disclosed the possible sinkhole activity to everyone who called about the property. She advised all callers that the report was in the file. After learning about the possible sinkhole activity, real estate agents would not show the property to their customers. Sometime in October 1995, Barbara Redding, a single disabled female, contacted Respondent after seeing an advertisement in the newspaper. Respondent was aware that Ms. Redding was a recipient of Social Security benefits. On or prior to October 22, 1995, Respondent telephoned Ms. Christenson to inquire about the property. He told Ms. Christenson that he had a client (Ms. Redding) who was a Social Security recipient and really needed a home. Respondent was interested in the property because it was within Ms. Redding's price range and had an assumable mortgage. Ms. Christenson disclosed the possible sinkhole activity to Respondent. She told him that the engineering firm's report was in the file. Respondent declined Ms. Christenson's offer to fax the report to him. Ms. Christenson was surprised to learn that Respondent intended to show the property to Ms. Redding despite the disclosure about the sinkhole activity. Sometime after the initial phone call, Ms. Beery was outside the office of Choice Properties smoking a cigarette. Ms. Christenson was with Ms. Beery when Respondent arrived. As he walked into the office, Respondent joked about the fact that Ms. Christenson's and Ms. Beery's first listing was on a sinkhole. Respondent showed Ms. Redding four or five houses, including the subject property. After seeing the property, Ms. Redding contacted Respondent to make an offer to purchase it. Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase, which Ms. Redding signed on October 22, 1995. Respondent was acting as buyer's agent for Ms. Redding. The contract states that a deposit in the amount of $100 was held in escrow by "Associated Land Title upon acceptance by October 30, 1995." Respondent included the following language in the contract as an addendum: Seller agrees to remove branch from roof and repair roof and soffit where branch is presently lodged. This offer is contingent on Buyer receiving settlement from Social Security that has already been awarded. Seller agrees to close at Associated Land Title contingent on all payments being up to date. Regardless of principal balance, cash to mortgage [sic] will be $6,000 (six thousand dollars.) Respondent hand-delivered the contract for sale and purchase to Choice Properties. Mr. Costello, through Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery, made a counter offer for a higher purchase price and a $500 deposit. The counter offer eliminated language in the contract addendum related to removal of the branch and repair of the roof. It also deleted the language related to $6,000 cash payment. The offer included an additional addendum to the contract that stated as follows: Buyer acknowledges that there has been disclosure regarding the driveway and previous activity affecting it. Seller reserves the right to leave property on market to entertain offers. Buyer acknowledges property is being sold "AS IS." Ms. Christenson and Ms. Berry asked Ms. Gillian to review the language in the contract addendum before they returned the contract to Respondent. After Ms. Gillian approved the statement, Ms. Christenson and Ms. Berry returned the contract to Respondent. Ms. Redding only had $100 in cash for a deposit. Respondent offered to loan her the other $400. Ms. Redding accepted Respondent's offer and signed a promissory note to that effect. Ms. Redding subsequently paid Respondent the $400 that she owed him. When Ms. Redding reviewed the counter offer, she asked Respondent about the additional language in the contract addendum stating that the buyer acknowledged disclosure about the driveway and previous activity affecting it. Respondent told Ms. Redding that the driveway had been cracked and that a new driveway had been put in. Respondent never discussed possible sinkhole activity with Ms. Redding. The contract closed in November 1995. After painting the house, Ms. Redding moved in on January 20, 1996. Sometime in March or April of 1996, a friend of Ms. Redding's asked her if she knew she had purchased a home on a sinkhole. Ms. Redding then discovered that all of her neighbors were aware of the problem. Ms. Redding contacted Richard Meyer, a professional geologist who works for the Volusia County Environmental Management Department. Mr. Meyer inspected the property in August 1996 and on three subsequent occasions. In the meantime, Ms. Redding contacted Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. They told Ms. Redding that they had advised Respondent about the sinkhole activity prior to Ms. Redding's purchase of the property. Ms. Gillian showed Ms. Redding a copy of the engineering report from the property's file at Choice Properties. Ms. Gillian gave Ms. Redding a copy of the report. Ms. Redding showed the engineering report to Mr. Meyer on one of his visits. Mr. Meyer determined that the property definitely was subject to sinkhole activity. He concluded that the property was a "slow sinking hole." Ms. Redding did not contact Respondent after she learned about the sinkhole on the property. At that point in time, Ms. Redding felt intimidated by Respondent. One day Ms. Redding heard a loud crunch as she was going into her garage. She asked the fire department to inspect the property to determine whether it was safe as a dwelling. The fire department determined that the property was not safe for habitation. Ms. Redding moved out of the house and had it demolished in October 1996 after the fire department condemned it. Ms. Redding's insurance company "totaled" the property.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 day of June, 1999.
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
