Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent has been licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida since 1964 (license number PE 0010812), having become licensed by examination in the field of mechanical engineering. He has practiced professional engineering since 1964 in and around Fort Walton Beach and Okaloosa County, Florida, as an individual practitioner and as an officer of the Royster Construction Company. The Respondent's formal education and professional experience are in the fields of civil, structural, and mechanical engineering. Although testimony indicates that the Respondent has had some contact with the field of electrical engineering, he lacks significant formal education or professional experience in that specialty. Findings regarding Count I In July 1984 plans for a proposed project to be known as the White Sands Bowling Center were prepared, signed, and sealed by the Respondent in his capacity as a professional engineer. The plans included sheets numbered 1 through 9, of which sheet number 6 and sheet number 9 depict electrical components of the proposed structure. Findings regarding Count II The electrical engineering plans (sheet number 6 and sheet number 9) contain errors and omissions including the following: The "symbol legend" necessary to define components depicted on the plans has been omitted. Fixture types and wattage specifications necessary to determine adequate and appropriate loading of circuits have been omitted. Electrical component and fixture circuit identification numbers necessary to identify such components and fixtures have been omitted. Specifications necessary to determine air conditioning connections have been omitted. Details of fire alarm circuitry required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. Emergency exit fixtures and circuitry required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. Electrical panel details necessary to complete construction have been omitted. Details of connections necessary for installation of indicated aluminum wiring have been omitted. The specification depicted for grounding of the electrical system is not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. The electrical riser depicted on the plans is incomplete and does not provide sufficient information to complete construction. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting electrical engineering for the White Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans. Findings regarding Count III The mechanical engineering plans (sheet number 7, air conditioning, and sheet number 8, plumbing) contain errors and omissions including the following: Specifications of air conditioning units and associated ducting are in conflict and do not provide details necessary to complete construction. Details showing "returns" from outside air are in conflict with known standards of design and do not provide details sufficient to complete construction. Specifications of condensation features do not provide sufficient detail to complete construction and are not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. Toilet exhaust system details are not sufficient to complete construction and are not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. Details of water supply system source and sanitary collection and disposal required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting mechanical engineering for the white Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans. Findings regarding Count IV The structural engineering plans (sheet number 3) do not contain details sufficient to complete construction, and if built as designed, there is no reasonable assurance that the structure would comply with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting structural engineering for the White Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner herein, Kristina V. Tignor, took the Professional Engineers Examination for the State of Florida in Orlando on April 9 and 10, 1987. On July 22, 1987 she was advised by the Department of Professional Regulation's Office of Examination Services that she had failed the examination and was given a cummulative score of principles and practice of 69.1 percent. In her initial request for review and reconsideration, Petitioner objected to the points assigned to her solutions for three problems on the test, Numbers 425, 421, and 124. She contended that as a working engineer, certain criteria and assumptions must be made in approaching any engineering problem and, because the portion of the examination in issue is graded subjectively, her answered should be reconsidered and evaluated in that light. At the hearing, Petitioner contested only the grading of questions number 124 and 421, thereby accepting the grade given for question 425. With regard to Question 124, Ms. Tignor was awarded a score of 5 on her solution to this problem. The National Council of Engineering Examiners, in its Standard Scoring Plan Outline awards a "qualified" evaluation to scores from 10 down to 6 on this question. Scores from 5 to 0 are rated, "unqualified." A score of 5 indicates the applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one aspect of one category. Specifically, a rating of 5 in this question indicates that the examinee displayed an inadequate knowledge of weight/volume and concrete mix design. Her computations were displayed and an incomplete or erroneous solution was arrived at which gave a generally unrealistic result. Dr. Bruce A. Suprenant a civil engineer registered in four states and who teaches engineering at the University of South Florida, reviewed the question, the Petitioner's solution, the solution proposed by the examiners, and the grading scheme for this problem and found a number of illogical items in Petitioner's solution which, to him, were difficult to understand. He found several items which had no basis and which were possibly assumed. As to Part a of Petitioner's answer, a mixture of answers, (correction for moisture), which should have been in Part b, was located in Part a. As to density, the value used by Petitioner does not appear to be reasonable based on information provided in the problem. In Dr. Suprenant's opinion, there are at least three approaches to this problem. One is the water/cement ration method. Another is the weight method. The third is the absolute volume method. The water/cement ratio method would be difficult to apply here and neither Petitioner nor the examiners used it. As to the weight method, much the same problem exists. There is insufficient information provided to satisfactorily apply this method and while the examiners did not use it, Petitioner did. Petitioner's answer has a correction for moisture in the absolute volume method on the first page of the solution form at the top. The calculations by Petitioner are assumed information not known, (volume). In addition the correction for moisture in the second part of page one is included on the top of page two. It is not a part of the solution for subpart a and should not be there. Petitioner used 150 pounds per cubic foot for concrete density in her solution and this choice is not explained. Most publications utilized by engineers suggest using tables which were not provided to the examinees and it is, therefore, illogical to assume concrete density with no history for that assumption. Petitioner's answer of 5.41 cubic yards is only slightly off the suggested answer of 5.44 cubic yards but the fact that the answers are close does not justify her assumption. It might well not come so close in other cases. As to Part b of the question calling for the water/cement ratio, the corrections for moisture of fine and coarse aggregate on page one are acceptable. On the second page, a problem arises in when the correction for moisture should decrease. Petitioner got the right factor but applied it in the wrong manner. As a result, her answer to Part b of the examination question is wrong. Her answer was 4.40 as opposed to the correct answer of 4.34. This small degree of error can be attributed to the smallness of the amount in question. Were the amounts greater, the error would be greater. As to part c of the question, which deals with the cement factor in a yard of concrete, Petitioner's approach of dividing sacks of cubic yards is correct, but the cubic yard content was determined from Part a of the question, and Dr. Suprenant does not agree with how she got her solution. He therefore questions her carryover. The standard weight of a sack of concrete is 94 pounds. The individual grading Petitioner's response to Question 124 indicates she displayed inadequate knowledge and reached a solution which gives "unrealistic results." Dr. Suprenant agrees, contending that Petitioner's performance in regard to this question indicates inadequate knowledge of weight/volume relationship. She made inadequate assumptions in formulating her answer to the question. The fact that in this problem she arrived at a solution close to the correct one does not indicate that in other problems, she would achieve the same closeness using the same procedure. In his opinion, Petitioner showed some confusion regarding the basis for solving this problem and Dr. Suprenant believes that a grade of 5 as awarded by the examiner is correct. Petitioner questioned the fact that the various technical weights and volumes, such as 94 pounds in a sack of concrete, 8.33 pounds for a gallon of water, and 27 cubic feet in a cubic yard do not appear in the problem statement. This, in the opinion of Dr. Suprenant, compounds the gravity of Petitioner's deficiency. They are routine "givens" generally accepted in the practice by engineers and it would be difficult to assume that anyone familiar with the practice of engineering would use different "givens" for these specifics. Petitioner's employer, Mr. Bishop, himself a registered civil engineer in Florida since 1958, also reviewed Petitioner's solution to Question 124. He admits that on the first page of the answer sheet, Petitioner began solving the problem in an inappropriate way. Her calculations for moisture content were correct, however. On the second paged the correction factor was put in with the wrong sign and the aggregate was given the wrong factor. As a result, the answer was off. In his practice, however, the error committed by Petitioner in these regards is both minimal and acceptable. Her choice of 150 pounds per square foot is reasonable and produced a close result, and while it is true that if the project were of a greater scale, the error might be significant for a test question, as here, the error, in his opinion, is insignificant. He feels much the same way regarding the error in Part c of the examination question. While the factors used by petitioner were wrong, the process used was correct and the answer was not unreasonably incorrect for a test solution. In an examination situation, the calculations are not being done on a continuous basis, and he feels the grade of 5 awarded is unduly harsh since the error was numerical rather than operational. In his opinion, a more reasonable grade would have been a 6 or 7. Petitioner began her solution to this problem by using one similar to that used by the examiners in their publications. Shortly, however, she realized she would not get the answer she needed by doing so and abandoned her solution. She forgot to cross it out, however, and now recognizes she should have done so. She thereafter began to accomplish a series of new calculations on the first page of the answer sheet but did not necessarily utilize that data for her solution to Part a. She admits she made an error in calculation for moisture on the second page. In that calculation, she used the study manual and admits now that she should have cited the figure she used. As to Parts b and c, her use of some figures from Part a may have thrown her answer off somewhat. However, the 5 awarded her, indicating her solution was unrealistic, is, in her opinion unfair as she considers her answer to be quite realistic. The problem did not state what solution method to use and she feels her use of givens from recognized manuals such as the 150 pounds, should not be held against her. 94 pounds for a sack of cement used by the grader was also not given and her use of other accepted numbers should not, she contends, be held against her. Petitioner believes a grade of 7 would more accurately describe the quality of her answer. A 7 means that the examinee obtained an appropriate solution but chose a less than optimum approach. The solution is, therefore, awkward but nonetheless resonable. Ms. Tignor believes that while her approach may have been awkward, she achieved reasonable solution demonstrated by the fact that it was only slightly off the correct figure. Therefore, she believes a grade of 6 would be appropriate. This examination was an open book examination and Petitioner had her manuals with her. She could have easily determined the appropriate weights an "givens" from these manuals without choosing those she used. Ms. Tignor's conclusions that her results are realistic are contradicted by the Board's expert. Realistic results are, in engineering practice, not only the figure reached but also the method used in arriving at that figure. Here, though Petitioner's results are close, the approach utilized in arriving at her solution is unrealistic. Her approach showed an inadequate knowledge of weight/volume and calculations. Consequently it is found the grade is valid and was not arbitrarily assigned. According to the Standard Scoring Plan Outline, each score from 10 through 6 has an indispensable criteria that all categories must be satisfied. Since Ms. Tignor's examination response did not satisfy all categories, the best she can be given is a 5 and that award appears to be justified by the evidence presented. Question 421 was a four part drainage problem. Petitioner used as a part of her solution calculations based on a 100 year storm and this was determined by the examiners to be inappropriate. Ms. Tignor was awarded a grade of 8 and contends she was not given appropriate credit. She relates that even Mr. Smith, the Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers, advised her she may not have been given full credit for her answer. She was given full credit for Part a but lost two points for part c which included a calculation error to which Petitioner admits. She contends however, it was so minor, only one point should have been deducted. Were Petitioner to receive an additional one point on this question, she would pass the examination which she failed by only one point. However, this issue must be resolved on the basis of lawfully admitted evidence and Mr. Smith's comment, being unsupported hearsay evidence, cannot itself sustain the rasing of the grade. The Standard Scoring Plan Outline for this question reflects that to receive an 8, the examinee must demonstrate that all categories are satisfied, that errors are attributable to misread tables or calculating devices, and that errors would be corrected by routine checking. The results must be reasonable if not correct. For a 9, the examinee must demonstrate that all categories are satisfied; that a correct solution is arrived at but the examinee has been excessively conservative in the choice of working values; and that examinee's presentation is lacking in completeness or equations diagrams or orderly steps in solution, etc. Subqualifications for a 9 indicates that the answer is correct but that the organization of the solution is not logical. One error in calculation in any of the Parts from a to d, which does not affect the other parts of the solution, is acceptable. Mr. Kenneth Weldon, the Assistant State Drainage Engineer for the Department of Transportation, an expert in the area of drainage to which this problem relates, reviewed the question and the Petitioner's answer thereto and would award a grade of 8 to her answer. He found various numerical mathematical errors which led to the wrong solution. In addition, Petitioner made various assumptions that, though supposedly supported, were, he felt, in error through her misinterpretation. In general, none of the actual solutions she arrived at were correct. Specifically, that portion of the problem to determine the cross sectional area of the waterway for establishing normal depth flow was done incorrectly. Because the Petitioner used incorrect equations throughout the problem, the depth flow computed is high. Petitioner did no analysis to determine whether or not any of the several situations relating to flow control were pertinent. Mr. Weldon initially felt Petitioner's answer to the question merited a grade of 6. This means that the examinee knew all the proper steps but failed to interpret some of the criteria properly. He could not award her a grade of 9 which would indicate all categories were satisfied and the solution was correct, if conservative. Petitioner's solutions were incorrect. He subsequently changed his award to an 8, however, on the basis that the Petitioner's errors were attributable to a misread table or calculating device and would be corrected by routine checking. The result was reasonable, though not correct. Mr. Weldon did not like this question even though he believed it appropriate for a one-hour exam. As written, it involves establishing and making judgements beyond what someone minimally competent would be expected to do. It requires materials that are beyond what are normally available to someone taking the exam. However, Petitioner failed to make proper provision to protect herself in a case where the question is inappropriate or incomplete. If she felt something was wrong with the question, she should have clearly stated the assumption she was making to solve the problem. This was her responsibility and she failed to do so. In Mr. Weldon's opinion, Petitioner's answer might merit a grade slightly higher but not significantly higher. His reasoning is that Petitioner misinterpreted the criteria she stated for writing the problem. Her comment that the Department of Transportation uses 100 year storm criteria was incorrect even though that statement is made in outdated Department of Transportation publications. The basis for her answer is not well established or correct, or based on engineering calculations or judgement, and at best he could award no more than an 8.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 124 and 421, respectively, of the Civil Engineering Examination administered to her in April, 1987. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5110 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner None For the Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated except for the characterization of several assumptions as guesses. No evidence exists to support such a characterization even though they are incorrect. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristina V. Tignor, pro se 2160 North Oval Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director DPR, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0039352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for Ken and Rick's Roofing, Inc. of Mami, Florida. On May 16, 1986, Ken and Rick's Roofing, Inc. contracted to repair roof leaks for a Victor Krauthaner of 18441 Northeast 21st Place, North Miami Beach, Florida. The contract, signed by Respondent and Mr. Krauthaner, contained a six (6) month warranty on repairs. The contract price was $215.00. Mr. Krauthaner paid the full amount by a check which was cashed by Respondent. On May 17, 1986, David J. Godfried, an employee of Ken and Rick's Roofing, Inc. was dispatched by Respondent to repair Mr. Krauthaner's roof. Godfried removed tiles from the affected portion of the roof and installed new tar paper. The old tiles could not be re-used and Godfried did not have appropriate tiles in stock, so he left the tar paper exposed and promised Krauthaner that he would return with new tiles within a week. No one from Ken & Rick's Roofing, Inc. returned after May 17, 1986 to replace the tile and Krauthaner began experiencing new leaks. Mr. Krauthaner made repeated attempts by telephone and letter to encourage Ken & Rick's Roofing, Inc. to complete the repairs. Representatives of the company repeatedly assured Krauthaner that someone would respond to repair the leaks, but no one ever did. Mr. Krauthaner repaired the leak himself in June of 1987. Chapter 10 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County requires that roofing contractors working within the county be either certified by the State of Florida or possess a certificate of competency in roofing issued by the county. Respondent's registered roofing license was suspended by The Construction Industry Licensing Board in March 1985 for failure to pay a fine assessed as the result of a previous disciplinary action. The suspension was in effect at the time Respondent contracted to repair the Krauthaner residence. Respondent does not possess a certificate of competency from Dade County, nor did he possess one at the time the contract was executed. Respondent has been disciplined on three prior occasions by The Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 23, 1984 (DPR Case Number 33028); May 21, 1984 (DPR Case Number 42963); and, June 6, 1985 (DPR Case Number 49942). The complaint in Case Number 42963 alleged that Respondent had exceeded the scope of his license by contracting in Dade County without first meeting local competency requirements.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent George W. Morrison was a registered residential contractor holding license number RR 0021945. On April 28, 1979, respondent entered into a contract with T. Joseph Feeney to construct a residence and pool on Sanibel Island "according to plans and specifications approved and signed by both parties" for the sum of $100,200.00. Construction on the residence was begun by respondent in late August, 1979. In January, the Feeneys desired to move into the home because they were having difficulty locating rental property. At that time, construction was not completed and neither a final inspection nor a Certificate of Occupancy had been obtained. Although construction had not yet been completed and respondent advised Mr. Feeney that it would be against the law to move into the house before a Certificate of Occupancy was obtained, Mr. Feeney and his family moved into the house on or about January 12, 1980. During the first week of occupancy, Mr. Feeney noticed that there was a sag in the bearing wall of the kitchen and that the house "swayed considerably." According to Mr. Feeney, after he was advised by Mr. Benson, a structural engineer, to either move out of the house or to "shore the house up, he attempted to contact the respondent. Mr. Feeney could not recall whether this occurred in late January, February or March of 1980. Being unable to contact the respondent, Mr. Feeney found his carpenter, Doug Hale, and explained the problem to him. Hale saw respondent that same day and respondent instructed Hale and his crew to go out to the Feeney residence that afternoon and shore the house up. Mr. Hale did notice a deflection and observed that one span was sagging down a small amount. He observed that the bridging work had been nailed from the top and recalled that the bottom nailing was to be performed after the house had settled. When performing the preventive shoring, Mr. Hale noticed that the bolts had been properly installed with washers. The bolts would have been retightened after the wood had dried and before calling in for a final inspection. Upon learning of the structural deficiencies in the Feeney residence, respondent hired his own structural engineer, Charles Wunder, and took the plans and specifications for the Feeney residence to him. Mr. Wunder found that the original drawings, plans and specifications caused the deflection problem in that the framing members used for the ledger beams were not of sufficient strength to hold up in the area where they were placed. Wonder's remedial plan was to use additional beam supports and steel flitch plates. He so advised the respondent by a letter dated February 12, 1980 and an attached sketch for the remedial work. After receiving Mr. Wunder's plans to remedy the structural defects, respondent ordered the steel plates and had them delivered to the Feeney residence. When respondent went there to perform the work, Mr. Feeney informed him that he wanted the work performed according to Mr. Benson's plans and blueprints. Benson's plans were much more involved and extensive, and respondent did not have the materials available to perform the work. Thereafter, an impasse occurred between Mr. Feeney and the respondent as to the manner in which the structural remedial work should be performed, and respondent was terminated by Mr. Feeney on or about April 13, 1980. Both respondent and his engineer, Mr. Wonder, believed that Mr. Benson's plans were "overdesigned" and massive compared to what needed to be done to make the residence structurally sound. Respondent testified that his engineer's plans for remediation would result in a cost of about $1,000.00. Mr. Feeney testified that he incurred costs of approximately $21,000.00 to have the remediation work performed according to Mr. Benson's plans. There was evidence that at least a portion of this figure was attributable to decorative and swimming pool work, as opposed to structural work. In late February or early March, 1980, after the preventive shoring had been completed by Doug Hale, the Building Official for Sanibel, George E. Blain, inspected the Feeney residence at Mr. Feeney's request. Mr. Blain found that the flooring and joist system had been installed according to the plans and specifications submitted and approved for the building permit. He could not give an opinion as to the cause of the deflection of the beams, but felt that there appeared to be a problem with the construction which could be corrected in the normal construction phase. A violation of the Southern Standard Building Code would occur only if the problem were not corrected at the time of final inspection, and this project had not yet been called up for such final inspection. While Mr. Blain found that some of the bolts were not properly placed or tightened at the time of his inspection, he found nothing to indicate that the required number of nails were not in place. After his inspection, Mrs. Blain wrote a letter to the respondent expressing his opinion that extensive remedial work was necessary to stabilize the floor support system of the Feeney residence. Respondent was instructed to have a registered engineer examine the floor support system and submit a report detailing the requirements necessary for loads stability. This report was to be received by Mr. Blain's office prior to the commencement of any corrective work by the respondent. Mr. Blain never received a response from the respondent to his March 5, 1980 letter. Respondent explained that he did not receive this letter from Mr. Blain until some time near the time that he and Mr. Feeney had reached an impasse situation with regard to the manner in which the remedial work was to be done. He therefore did not respond to Mr. Blain's letter because he did not believe that he would be performing the work.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against George Morrison on March 8, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 10th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street (Suite 204) Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allan T. Griffith, Esquire Griffith & Griffith, P.A. 9150 S. Cleveland Ave. (Suite 1) Ft. Myers, Florida 33907 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent's License as a general contractor should be revoked for alleged violation of Sections 468.112(2)(a) & (c), Florida Statutes. Respondent was not present at the hearing although notice of hearing had been provided him under date of February 17, 1976. Accordingly, the hearing was conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact E.J. Lamberth, III, holds general contractor certification number 006734. Addition Builders, Inc., Miami, Florida was registered as a certified general contractor on July 16, 1974 with Respondent as the qualifying individual thereon (Exhibits 6 & 7). On August 16, 1975, Respondent applied for a building permit from Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, for the purpose of adding a den to the home of Mr. and Mrs. S.A. Cohen, 7525 Southwest 77nd Court, Miami, Florida. The contractor for the job was listed as Addition Builders, Inc. Permit Number BS15057 was issued on August 19, 1974 (Exhibit 1.) On August 6, 1974, Respondent applied for a building permit from the City of North Miami, Florida for the addition of a bedroom and bath at premises owned by Mr. & Mrs. Michael J. Retter, 416 N.W. Opa Loka Boulevard, North Miami, Florida which showed Addition Builders, Inc. as the contractor. Permit A2860 was issued on August 20, 1974 (Composite Exhibit 2.) The work to be performed as set forth in the above permits was pursuant to contracts between the owners and Addition Builders, Inc. as contractor (Exhibits 5 & 8.) Acting upon complaints filed by the owners of the property involved in the above two contracts, Mr. William F. McDonald, a field investigator for Petitioner, met with the Respondent on February 21, 1975. In a voluntary statement made to Mr. McDonald and Mr. James Brooks, another investigator, at that time, Respondent admitted that he had not actually supervised either job but had depended upon Addition's superintendent to do so, and that he became the qualifying general contractor for Addition as a result of a newspaper advertisement. As part of his investigation, Mr. McDonald established that Respondent had been employed as a recreation supervisor by Metropolitan Dade County since January 9, 1963. McDonald also visited both of the homes in question and observed that the work under the contract was incomplete in February, 1975 (Testimony of McDonald, Exhibits 4, 5 & 9.) Respondent was never seen by owner Retter during the course of the work. Approximately 60 percent of the work was completed by Addition on this job, but the owner was obliged to complete the remainder himself (Testimony of Michael Retter.) Respondent advised Addition by letter that, effective December 24, 1974, he was resigning as general contractor for the firm. On February 20, 1975, the building official of the City of North Miami wrote to Respondent advising that they had received complaints on the stoppage of work at the Retter residence and requesting expedition of completion. Respondent answered that he had disassociated himself from Addition Builders, Inc. (Testimony of Lindblad, Composite Exhibit 3A & B.)
Recommendation That the certification as a general contractor of E.J. Lamberth, III, Number 0006734, be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire Blackstone Building Suite 1010 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. E.J. Lamberth, III Addition Builders 7251 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33138
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated an order of the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) previously entered in a disciplinary proceeding, and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed professional engineer in Florida and holds license PE 20638. He has held the license continuously since 1979. In 2000, Petitioner brought a disciplinary action against Respondent, styled FEMC v. John B. Benson, III, P.E., Department of Business and Professional Regulation Case No. BPR- 2000-04871, for alleged negligence in preparing a deficient electrical plan and related misconduct in connection with the construction of an addition to a church. The case terminated with the Board's Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation ("2000 Final Order"). In the parties' Settlement Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine and to be permanently prohibited from practicing electrical engineering. On September 17, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for electrical inspection of the "rough-in"2 electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building A, in Bradenton, Florida. On September 17, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for electrical inspection of the rough-in electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building J. On December 1, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for final electrical inspection of the electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building A. On December 3, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for final electrical inspection of the electrical work associated with construction at 13411 Blythfield Terrace, Bradenton, Florida. No allegation was made, or evidence introduced to show, that the inspection reports referred to in paragraphs 4 through 7 contained errors or that the inspections were deficient. Mr. Ooten, an expert in electrical engineering and building inspections, testified that building officials usually require an electrical plan to be included in building plans, but the electrical plan does not have to be signed and sealed by an electrical engineer. On December 17, 2004, the Board received a complaint from the chief building official for Manatee County, regarding Respondent's signing and sealing electrical inspections in 2004, contrary to the Board's 2000 Final Order prohibiting Respondent from practicing electrical engineering. This complaint and the Board's subsequent investigation led to the Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this case. Respondent's defense to the charges in the Administrative Complaint is that he understood the Board's 2000 Final Order to prohibit him from designing an electrical plan. He did not think he was prohibited from signing and sealing electrical inspections, or from signing and sealing construction plans that included electrical components. On March 25, 2005, the Board received another complaint from the chief building official for Manatee County, who claimed that Respondent signed and sealed an electrical plan for a building for the Lemur Conservation Foundation. In response to this second complaint, Respondent informed the Board that he had placed a disclaimer statement on the building plans that "These plans have been reviewed for adequacy of structural components and systems only in compliance with FBC 01 Section 1606 130 MPH." Respondent placed this statement only on the first page of the building plans. As a consequence of this second complaint and investigation, Respondent was issued a "Letter of Guidance." No Letter of Guidance, clearly identified as such, is contained in the record. Respondent's Exhibit 1 includes a "Closing Order" of Petitioner, dated August 8, 2005, which may constitute the Letter of Guidance. It contains a statement directed to Respondent: The panel cautions the Subject that when he signs any page of plans he is responsible for all engineering depicted on the page unless the limitation of his analysis and approval appears clearly on the same page. Respondent asserts that, until the Letter of Guidance was issued, he did not understand that his inspection of electrical components and systems was the practice of electrical engineering. The Letter of Guidance, however, did not address the issue of the propriety of Respondent's four electrical inspections. The Letter of Guidance was a response to the second complaint about Respondent's signing and sealing an electrical plan, and his defense that he used a disclaimer statement to indicate that his signature and seal was not a representation about the electrical plan. The essence of the Board's "guidance" to Respondent was to make his disclaimer regarding the electrical components more explicit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 471.031(1)(k), Florida Statutes, for violating an order of the Board previously entered in a disciplinary proceeding, and imposing a penalty of license suspension for a period of four months and a fine of $4,000, plus the costs of these proceedings, as determined by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 9th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Joseph Davidow, was licensed as a general contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On August 3, 1978, the Respondent entered into an agreement with Rubin Zimmerman, Vice-president of Gilbert's Fish Camp, Inc., located in Monroe County, to construct an addition and make alterations to an existing motel. The contract specified the work to be done, for which the Respondent was to receive $190,000 with a completion date within 90 days of the contract. The Respondent was recommended to Mr. Zimmerman, the complainant in this case, by Mr. Zimmerman's architect on the project, Seymore Drexler, AIA. The Respondent originally bid the project at $210,000 of which $19,000 was allocated for electrical work to be performed by a qualified sub-contractor. The complainant believed that the original bid for electrical work was too high and suggested that the Respondent contact Mr. Charles Katzman of Kay Electric, a long-time friend of the complainant. Mr. Katzman was able to obtain his permits on the project despite being unlicensed in Monroe County, a fact which was not known by either the Respondent or the complainant at the time. Mr. Katzman bid $13,500 on the project which was $5,500 under the lowest bid received by the Respondent and was, therefore, awarded the project. During the course of the construction, numerous problems arose which affected the progress on the site. The complainant and his business partner, Harry Gilbert, made numerous requests for changes in the original plans and specifications. The "extras" requested by the complainant and/or his business partner were generally done orally on the site and at times through direct negotiations between the complainant and the Respondent's sub-contractors or workmen. The changes in the specifications included modifications to the flooring, patio, laundry and storage room, grade beams, pilings, walkways, stairs, patio wall, diningroom walls, linen closet, bathroom windows and walls, outside planter, doors and support system for electrical cooling. A dispute arose between the Respondent and the complainant and Mr. Gilbert over the cost and the extent of the change orders. Additionally, the Respondent was concerned because the extras requested by the complainant diverted his sub-contractors and/or workmen from the basic project to areas not contemplated by the contract. Certain of the electrical work performed by Mr. Katzman was negotiated separately from the original contract. Romex an illegal electrical wire was used on the project, but this was not known by the Respondent nor was Romex used in any of the electrical work specified in the original plans. Due to the continuing dispute over the cost of the extras and the diversion of workers for additional "extras," the Respondent sent the Monroe County Building and Zoning Department on April 12, 1979, a notice of withdrawal as general contractor on the subject project. Since that time liens have been filed against the project by suppliers of materials and/or labor which have been satisfied by the corporation. Civil litigation involving Kay Electric also has been instituted. The building inspection reports maintained by Monroe County concerning this project are incomplete.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department dismiss the complaint filed against the Respondent, Joseph Davidow. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Arthur W. Karlick, Esquire 1454 NW 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 80-382 JOSEPH DAVIDOW, CG C007463 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Mr. George O'Green hired Len Berlin, who he thought was a registered architect, to prepare plans for a commercial building he desired to erect at Naples, Florida. After the plans had been completed O'Green learned that Berlin was not registered and the county would not accept his plans. Berlin thereafter presented O'Green with the same plans containing the seal and signature of Respondent. In his answer to the Administrative Complaint Respondent admitted that he checked, corrected, and signed the plans brought to him by O'Green so O'Green could get his building permit, although the plans were not prepared by Respondent or prepared under his supervision or control. O'Green testified that he did not meet Respondent until after the permit had been obtained. Martin Waxman, a draftsman, is a member of the First Assembly of God Church in Ft. Myers and volunteered to prepare certain plans as a contribution to the church for the proposed addition to the church. Waxman prepared Site Plan, Foundation Plan, Elevations, kitchen cabinet elevations and three wall sections. Waxman had no connection with Kimball and after preparing the plans be gave them to the pastor of the church. Thereafter Kimball, after checking the plans and making some minor changes, placed his seal and signature on these plans. In his testimony given before the Board (Exhibit 8) Respondent admitted that the structural plans for Pointe South Condominiums signed by him had been prepared by a draftsman who contacted Respondent to get his seal and signature on the plans, and that he was not contacted directly by the owners of the building. He further admitted that the foundation plans were done by a structural engineer not registered in Florida since he did not consider himself fully qualified in this field. However, these plans all contained Kimball's seal and signature. Respondent obtained his degree in electrical engineering and worked for a power company for 17 years before going into business for himself in 1968. He has had no training in structural design but has acquired certain experience erecting small waste treatment plants and two-story dwellings. He is familiar with various engineering manuals which contain tables used by engineers in determining design criteria for various structures. The Pointe South Condominium is a precast concrete masonry six-story structure containing 6500 square feet per floor with reinforced masonry bearing walls. The plans did not contain roof construction detail, provide design load for which the roof was to be designed, or indicate horizontal loads for which the roof was to be designed. Similarly the plans for the precast floor construction was lacking information on design requirements in that horizontal load requirements were not shown. Of more serious import in this building is the foundation details which show foundation to be less than 50 percent adequate. The gravity loads alone amount to more than the foundation was designed for and a safety factor of 2.5 to 4 is normally used in this type structure. The design plans for the church addition were also inadequate. There the second floor is supported by steel joists 4 feet apart without any bridging to increase the stability. The spacing of these joists is such that additional details are required on the plans approved by Respondent. Although designated as classroom on the plan it is large enough for an auxiliary assembly area and the plans do not provide adequate strength for this purpose, thus creating a hazardous condition. The roof design is not complete as to detail in the same manner as noted above for the condominium. A canopy attached to the building wall covering a walkway is inadequately supported by the 4" x 3/8" lag bolts provided on the plans to secure this canopy. Nothing in the canopy design was provided to resist distortion of the canopy in high winds. The additional stresses thereby created results in a hazardous situation. With respect to Charge III that Respondent was performing work constituting the practice of architecture, one witness opined that the plans for the Pointe South Condominium involved the practice of architecture as architects have traditionally performed this type of work. This witness considered it unauthorized practice of architecture for any engineer to design, plan, and build any church, multiple family housing or multiple storage structure. Respondent acknowledges that approximately 25 percent of the design of this condominium involves architecture but considers this as incidental to the major structural design that is performed by engineers.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice as building contractors. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed individually as a Certified General Contractor pursuant to license number CG C 0055328 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board"). Respondent has never been licensed by the Board as the qualifying agent for Mr. Gary Butler ("Butler"), an unlicensed contractor. In 1993, Respondent entered into an agreement with Butler who has never been licensed by the Board. The terms of the agreement require Respondent to pull permits for construction projects entered into by Butler. Butler pays Respondent for each permit or weekly. Respondent supervises some, but not all, of the projects undertaken by Butler. In August, 1993, Mr. Lynn Kyler ("Kyler"), the owner of a residence constructed by Ms. Denise Pyke ("Pyke"), a Certified Residential Contractor, asked Pyke to find a contractor to build a new dock and boat house at Kyler's residence. The Kyler residence is a lake front home located at 10250 State Road 561 A, Clermont, Lake County, Florida. Kyler authorized Pyke to act as Kyler's agent for construction of the dock and boat house. Kyler resided in Indiana from August through late fall of 1993. Pyke obtained recommendations of various candidates including Butler. Butler represented himself as a licensed and insured builder of docks and boat houses. Butler provided Pyke with a business card representing that Butler is licensed and insured. Pyke obtained cost and design proposals from Butler and Norquist Construction Company and communicated the proposals to Kyler. Kyler chose Butler. Butler agreed to demolish the existing dock and construct a new dock and boat house (the "project"). Kyler paid Butler the full contract price of $6,897.60. Prior to the completion of the project, neither Respondent nor Butler disclosed to Pyke or Kyler that Butler was unlicensed. Nor did they disclose that Butler would use Respondent's license to pull the permit for the project. Respondent knew that Butler is not licensed as a contractor, in any capacity. On August 25, 1993, Respondent and Butler went to the Lake County Building Department. Respondent used his license to pull Permit Number T93- 04793 for the project. The permit was issued to Respondent, listed Respondent's license as the certified general contractor, and was maintained in the official records of the Lake County Building Department. Respondent listed himself on the permit as the contractor for the entire project without limitation and without reference to Butler. Respondent was not authorized by Pyke or Kyler to pull the permit or to participate in the project. At the time, neither Pyke nor Kyler were aware of Respondent's existence or his role in the project. Respondent did not participate and had no involvement in the project except pulling the permit. The project was commenced by Butler in August, 1993, and completed shortly thereafter. Respondent did not supervise or participate in the construction of the project. Butler began the project without first filing a Notice of Commencement. Butler constructed the project with only a 10 foot setback in violation of the 25 foot setback required in Lake County Code Ordinance 10.0401(3)(d). Butler also failed to obtain an electrical permit in violation of Standard Building Code, Section 103.1.1. (1991). The project, as built by Butler, has no value to Kyler. The project failed final inspection for violation of the 25 foot setback and failure to obtain an electrical permit. The roof tiles on the boat house had to be removed because they were falling off the roof. The project itself is coming apart. It will cost between $10,000 and $12,000 to bring the project into compliance with local code requirements and to make it usable. Respondent was aware of the 25 foot setback when he pulled the permit for the project. The project plans submitted for the permit reflect the 25 foot setback. Lake County allows contractors to withdraw permits that have already been pulled. Respondent never withdrew the permit for the project. Butler was unable to obtain a final inspection because he failed to file a Notice Of Commencement at the outset of the project. Pyke and Kyler filed the Notice Of Commencement in order to obtain the final inspection. As the contractor of record, it was Respondent's responsibility to ensure that a Notice of Commencement was filed and that the project passed final inspection. While obtaining the information necessary to file the Notice Of Commencement, Pyke and Kyler learned that Butler was unlicensed and uninsured and that Respondent had used his license to pull the permit. When confronted by Pyke, Respondent did not deny knowledge of the project and assured Pyke that the problems with the project would be corrected. Despite Respondent's assurances, the code violations have not been corrected. Nor have the defects in construction been corrected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating: Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a); and Sections 489.129(1) (e), (f), (n), and (p). It is further recommended that the Board place Respondent on probation for three years, subject to reasonable conditions, impose an administrative fine of $5,000, and assess costs of $717.50 plus reasonable costs incurred by Petitioner subsequent to the date of this Recommended Order to investigate and prosecute this proceeding to its conclusion. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 March 1996.
