The Issue This case arises on an amended administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner which seeks to have Respondent's contractor licenses disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, incident to the construction of a residence near Melrose, Florida. The case originally was scheduled to be heard on July 10, 1987, but after the hearing was convened, Respondent's counsel sought a continuance based on Respondent's health problems which were supported by a doctor's statement. The motion was granted and the hearing was continued until August 25, 1987. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Evans Starke, Marion Uhl, and Robert H. Adams. Petitioner submitted eight exhibits in evidence, including the depositions of Respondent and Matthew M. Gordon. Respondent testified in his own behalf and submitted three exhibits in evidence. However, Respondent's exhibit three, which was a house plan, was retained by Respondent and a copy thereof was to be filed within 10 days after the hearing. Additionally, Respondent was provided a period of 10 days after the hearing to submit a deposition of James A. Taylor However, the deposition was not filed within the required period nor was Respondent's exhibit three. Respondent's post-hearing motion to extend the time for filing the deposition was denied. The parties were provided a period of ten days from the filing of the hearing transcript in which to file proposed recommended orders. Neither party made a timely submission. However, Respondent's post-hearing motion to extend the time period was granted. The proposed Findings of Facts submitted by both parties were considered and substantially incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joseph Rentz is licensed as a registered building contractor, roofing contractor, and mechanical contractor, and was so licensed at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In addition, he is the qualifying contractor for Alachua Association Builders. (Petitioner's exhibits 2-3) In March 1985, Evans Starke of Miami, Florida entered into an oral agreement with Respondent for the construction of a residence near Melrose, Florida. Respondent agreed to build the house on a cost-plus basis and estimated that the cost would be approximately $27.00 per square foot or less. Respondent told Starke that he would be satisfied with 10 percent of the cost of construction for his fee. The arrangement was that Starke would Periodically provide money to his aunt, Lenora Peterson, and that Respondent could make draws from that source as required to progress with construction. Starke also asked Respondent to open a checking account from which he would pay the bills for materials and labor. (Testimony of Starke) The original construction plans provided to the Respondent by Starke were for a house of approximately 4,000 square feet, but since Starke wished to expand the size of the house considerably, he informed Respondent of the various modifications which resulted in Respondent obtaining revised plans from a draftsman for a house of approximately 10,000 square feet. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent) Respondent obtained a building permit in his name and commenced construction. As work progressed, Respondent would inform Lenora Peterson of the need for progress payments for materials and labor on a weekly basis. She would then provide the necessary money in cash to Respondent and obtain a signed receipt from him. During the period March through September, 1985, Respondent signed receipts amounting to $121,360. Respondent had several checking accounts in the name of "J. & L. Properties", into which some of the draws were deposited and checks drawn thereupon to pay materialmen, subcontractors, and workmen. In other instances, Respondent paid cash to workmen, but obtained no receipts therefor. Starke visited the project site usually on a biweekly basis during the initial months of construction. On several occasions, he met Respondent midway between Gainesville and Miami to deliver cash for construction costs. Some of this money given to Respondent was not evidenced by a receipt of Respondent. Starke testified that on one occasion, he gave Respondent $3,000 to pay for the installation of a well, but Respondent had only given the well-digger $1,000, and Starke later found that he still owed the balance, plus a 25 percent rise in cost. Starke also claimed that he spent $1,000 to put a drain under the driveway to the basement because Respondent had forgotten to do so. He further stated that he had given Respondent $5,000 to purchase shingles for the house, but Respondent bought only enough to cover the garage. Consequently, Starke was obliged to expend further sums to obtain the remaining shingles. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, exhibits to deposition of Rentz (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), (Petitioner's composite Exhibit 6) During Starke's periodic visits to the job site, he requested that Respondent show him the bills and receipts for the purchase of construction material and labor payments, but Respondent evaded such request by saying that his wife was handling the business matters, and that she was ill and unable to show him the records. Eventually, Starke became more concerned because of the discrepancies in the expenditures of funds, and therefore made a special trip in October 1985 to meet with Respondent and go over the project accounts. At that meeting, Respondent's wife provided Starke with a number of canceled checks on the J. & L. Properties account, which failed to identify any specific payments for the Starke project, but which consisted mostly of apparent payments of Respondent's personal bills. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2,6) Subsequent to the October meeting, Respondent asked Starke for the sum of $1,500 for his own services, which was paid. This was the last payment made by Starke to Respondent and the last contact that he had with him. Respondent performed no further work and left the project about the third week of November 1985. Although Starke attempted to get in touch with him during the intervening period, he was unsuccessful in doing so. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On January 31, 1986, Starke obtained a new building permit to complete his residence, and hired Marion C. Uhl, a certified residential contractor, at an hourly rate to supervise the remaining work. Uhl found at that time that the house consisted of a shell with some interior partitions erected and doors in place, but without any electrical or plumbing work, except for a garage bathroom. It took him approximately ninety days to correct previous construction errors before it was ready for subcontractor work. Specifically, he found that the partition walls were out of plumb and that some of the doors were not framed properly. It was necessary for him to tear them out and redo the work. He found no backing (dead wood) for the ceilings and walls which should have been in place before the roof was sheathed. He had to take out all the windows which were out of plumb and reinstall them. It was necessary to frame out the gables of the house in order that water wouldn't accumulate in vacant areas. Water had accumulated in the garage basement due to a failure to install proper drain fields under the house. Additionally, it was discovered that there was no concrete in the tie beams which supported the floor above and could cause it to sag eventually. In Uhl's opinion, which is accepted, these problems would not have occurred if the job had been properly supervised. (Testimony of Starke, Uhl) Robert H. Adams, an expert in the residential contracting field, who owns a building inspection firm, inspected the Starke premises on May 18, 1987 at the request of Petitioner. Based upon his examination of the house, he found the following deficiencies, which had existed at the time Respondent left the project: In some areas, the brick veneer exterior walls were not properly supported on the footing in that the brick veneer protruded beyond the outside edge of the footing. Also the footing was at grade rather than being below grade. Failure to utilize solid concrete walls or pouring of concrete into concrete blocks which formed walls supporting a steel I-beam. This deviation from the plans could result in failure of the foundation walls. Improper splicing of girders under the house. Girders were butt-spliced rather than spliced with either a shep or a diagonal cut. The joints were not over a supporting pier. Settling from the floor above could cause the house floor to sag. The exterior brick roll-out window sills were level instead of being at a slight angle to permit water to flow away from the bottom of windows, thus causing the potential of water intrusion into the house. Front entry brick steps were not centered with the door opening by approximately 18 inches. An exterior garden hose bib Produced hot water instead of cold at left front of the garage. This was caused by "mis- plumbing" the cold and hot water lines. Block wall of the garage was out of plumb approximately 7/8 of an inch over a 4 foot vertical distance. One of the garage roll doors had only 9 foot, 3 inch clearance instead of 10 feet as called for by the plans. Uneven coursing of brick veneer at the ceiling of the right rear porch. Waferboard was used on roof decking rather than plywood as called for by the plans. Waferboard is not as strong as plywood. Water intrusion into the garage- basement. In Adams' opinion, which is accepted, the deficiencies noted by his inspection reflected very poor workmanship and gross negligence, in that the fundamentals of construction as practiced in the construction trade were not observed by Respondent in major areas. They were gross deviations from good building practices and a competent contractor properly supervising the job would have been aware of the deviations from good contracting practice. In addition, it is incumbent upon a contractor to keep accurate and complete financial records for a particular project. (Testimony of Adams, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) In January 1986, Starke employed Universal Engineering Testing Company, a structural engineering firm, to ascertain the cause of groundwater leaking into the garage-basement of his house and to provide remedial recommendations. Professional engineers of the firm inspected the premises and observed that groundwater was leaking at the wall-floor joint around most of the garage. They found that although a drainage system had been installed during construction, soil and groundwater conditions at the site limited the effectiveness of the existing system, due to hydrostatic pressure build up under the garage floor. It was determined that, unless the pressure was dissipated with under-slab drainage, the slab would heave, crack, and leak at the wall-slab joint They found that the situation could only be remedied by installing an under drain grid after removal of the existing slab. In their professional opinion, which is accepted, the failure of the existing slab had been caused by excessive water pressure build up and improper construction techniques. (Testimony of Gordon, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he had never constructed a house of the scope and size of the Starke residence, but that he had attempted to build what Starke desired in accordance with the plans and numerous changes required by Starke during the course of construction. Such changes, in his view, caused the difficulty in centering the brick work at the front of the house since this work was called for after the front door had already been installed. He claimed that he had waterproofed the garage-basement and put in French drains, but that water couldn't go out, and it was necessary to install a tank under the driveway to pump the water from the basement. Respondent also conceded that he did not maintain continuing records during the course of construction as to the financial aspects of the project, but intended to recapitulate all costs and payments when construction was completed. He acknowledged that receipts from the project were commingled with other funds in his bank accounts and he was unable to show the disposition of proceeds from the project. As to leaving the job, Respondent said that he left because he was threatened by Starke and also because of ill health caused by the stressful situation which came from continuing complaints by Starke concerning the workmanship, and also by the numerous changes to the construction plans. Although Respondent claimed that he notified Starke by letter of January 14, 1986, that he intended to remove his permit no later than January 27, 1986, because it appeared that Starke had decided to take charge of completing the construction, Starke denied receiving such a letter and there is no credible evidence that it was delivered. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 1) On two prior occasions in 1985 and 1986, Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to settlement stipulations of administrative complaints filed by Petitioner against Respondent. In those stipulations, Respondent admitted violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the complaints, and administrative fines of $250 and $400 were imposed. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5)
Findings Of Fact The certified general contractors examination given on February 23-24, 1993, consisted of two parts. Petitioner received a score of 71 on the first part and a score of 67 on the second part. The minimum score required to pass each part is 70. Petitioner challenged question 5 in the second part. The question related to the "angle of repose". The term "angle of repose" has been used for a number of years in the field of construction. The angle of repose is used when calculating the stability of soils for purposes of excavation. Petitioner chose answer "B" to question 5. The correct answer to question 5 is answer "D", i.e., 5 feet 6 inches. The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. Petitioner also challenged question 9 relating to the extra square feet needed for fire resistant partition walls. The problem required calculating the linear feet first and then multiplying by the height of the walls after subtracting for slab thickness. The examination was open book. Petitioner was permitted to refer to the Standard Building Code. The correct answer to question 9 was "B". Petitioner chose answer "D". The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. Petitioner challenged question 10 which required a calculation of the time to lay interior masonry walls. The correct answer to question 10 was "A". Petitioner chose answer "C". The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to his score of 67 on the general contractors examination given on February 23-24, 1993. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of December, 1993. DANIEL 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 2nd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3938 Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It is noted below which proposed findings of fact were accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they were accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which were rejected and the reason for their rejection are also noted below. No notation is made for unnumbered paragraphs. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's paragraphs 2-3 are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Respondent's remaining proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Asst. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Behzad Khazaree 142 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license Number CG C017772. On April 13, 1986, the Respondent, Richard T. Warnky, entered into a written contract with Jackson S. and Muriel Boyer to construct a home for them on Block 1244, Lots 7 and 8, Unit 19, Cape Coral, Florida, otherwise known as 2414 S.E. 28th Street for a contract price of $95,295.00. The Boyers gave Respondent a $550.00 down payment prior to signing the contract and at the time of signing, gave him an additional 10 percent of the contract price, or $9,529.50. The contract called for the payment of an additional 10 percent at commencement of construction and this payment was made at ground breaking. When the plumbing was roughed in and the slab poured, according to the contract, the Boyers paid Respondent an additional 10 percent and an additional 20 percent, or $19.059.00 when the masonry work was completed and the lintel poured. The contract called for three additional payments of 20 percent and two 15 percent payments, but for reasons subsequently to be discussed, none of these three payments was made. The contract called for the house to be completed in eight months, (240 days). According to Mr. Boyer, the Respondent left town for 8 weeks as soon as he had been paid the first 10 percent payment. Respondent claims that he was out of town for one week during which time he took ill and was physically unable to begin construction for an additional seven weeks. He also contends that he did not want construction to start without his being there to supervise it. Respondent's version of this situation is accepted. From the beginning of construction, Mr. and Mrs. Boyer had questions concerning the quality of the work being done When the slab was poured, it had holes in it and showed hills and valleys. Nonetheless, it passed inspection by the building inspector and the block work started. Pictures taken by Mr. Gogel, the licensing inspector for the City of Cape Coral at the request of Mr. Davenport, the building official, in July, 1986, reflect numerous deficiencies in the construction. They show large gaps in the vertical block joints; a lateral deflection in the tie beam poured at the top of the top course of blocks; blow out of the frame for the tie beam resulting in concrete running down the block walls; displacement of the tie beam which shows bulges and deformities; loose mortar in joints of the fifth course of blocks from the bottom; voids in joints; severe slippage in the top of the tie beam resulting in a reduction of the top; honeycombing of the concrete in the tie beam with rough attempts shown to patch it; slippage and deflection of the tie beam; and similar defects shown in the 14 pictures making up Petitioner's Exhibit 4 as well as the 15 additional pictures taken by Mr. Gogel and Mr. Davenport which were introduced as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6. On August 5, 1986, after Mr. Davenport and Mr. Gogel had visited the construction site at the request of Mr. Boyer, Mr. Davenport wrote Respondent a letter in which he discussed various items of workmanship on the property which needed Respondent's attention. In his letter, Mr. Davenport referred to the provisions of the American Concrete Institute Standards and the standards of the City of Cape Coral. He specifically pointed out that as to joints between cinder blocks, the joint should be not less than one quarter inch nor more than five eighths inch wide. His inspection indicated many of the masonry joints exceeded five eighths of an inch because the blocks were cut with a hammer rather than a block saw and in some cases, poured concrete extruded beyond the surface of the block. Mr. Davenport further addressed additional items which, he indicated, would require attention by the contractor in order for the work to meet the standards of acceptability for good residential construction in the City of Cape Coral. These included: waviness or blow out of sections of the tie beam; extrusion of concrete at the blow out patches; proper preparation of the cinder block walls for the receiving of stucco surface; honeycomb portions of the tie beam; and shimming and re-nailing of furring strips on the interior walls which had bent to follow the warped inner curve of the tie beam. These word descriptions are of the same defects shown in the photographs mentioned above. When Respondent reached that point in the construction where he felt an additional draw payment was called for, he requested it of the Boyers, but because of their dissatisfaction with the quality of the work he had done, they refused to make such payment. Mr. Warnky thereafter contacted his attorney who advised the Boyers by letter dated January 26, 1987, that their continued refusal to make draw payments as required by the contract, would jeopardize completion of the construction. No further payments have been made by the Boyers, however, since they consider the workmanship to be substandard and Mr. Warnky has done no further work on the project. The Boyers have had the work finished by another contractor at considerable additional expense. It should be noted, however, that the work done by the Respondent was passed by the building inspectors for the City of Cape Coral who did not indicate that it was below the cited code standards. Respondent is charged with gross negligence as a result of his failure to properly supervise the laying of the block walls with a resultant defect in the tie beam attached thereto. He admits that he was not present for approximately five to seven days during the ten days to two weeks that it took to lay the block on this project. Both Mr. and Mrs. Boyer contend that Respondent was not present at any time during the laying of the blocks by his employee, Mr. Sweebe. Since Mr. Boyer admits that he was not present at all times on all days that the blocks were being laid, it is impossible for him to indicate with any certainty that Respondent was never present. At best, the evidence shows that on those days when Mr. or Mrs. Boyer were present, Respondent was not present for the laying of the blocks. Based on his visit to the site and his observation of the workmanship, Mr. Davenport concluded that it was not of good quality. The materials used appeared to be suitable, but the application of the materials did not meet the criteria of the Southern Standard Building Code. These conditions are reparable, however, and it appears that Respondent did make efforts to repair some of the defects pointed out. For example, photographs taken on November 5, show an attempted "repair" of a honeycomb patch on the tie beam as does the November 19 photo. This latter picture, however, also shows that the tie beam is out of plumb and that furring strips were shimmed and covered with new furring in an attempt to comply with Mr. Davenport's letter of August 5. Further, this photo showing the waviness on a part of the tie beam indicates some grinding down in an attempt to bring it within standards. Notwithstanding, in Mr. Davenport's opinion, the workmanship by Respondent is below what is normally seen in the industry in Southwest Florida as it pertains to block masonry. These sentiments were reiterated by Mr. Verse, a certified general contractor in Sarasota for 13 years. Mr. Verse evaluated the various photographs taken by Mr. Gogel and Mr. Davenport and compared the work done by the Respondent as depicted on the pictures, against the accepted standards utilized by the building trade in Florida. He concluded that Respondent's work was not acceptable. He agreed with Mr. Davenport as to the deficiency in the joints, in the support of the tie beam, of the forming of the tie beam, and as to all masonry and concrete work. The negligence involved here was in letting this type of work go on when it was not up to code. A prudent general contractor would have stopped any subcontractor when he saw this type of work being done. If Respondent was not present to do so, then he failed to properly supervise. If he was present and allowed this substandard work to continue, he was grossly negligent. Mr. Verse rejects Respondent's excuse for washed out mortar joints, attributing them to rain, as unsatisfactory and unacceptable because a careful contractor will generally cover his work with a plastic sheet in the event rain is imminent. Respondent states that in his years as a contractor, he has never seen this done. Neither did Mr. Mahlmeister. In any case, a prudent contractor would make some provision to protect his work against any outside factor which might reasonably tend to threaten it. Respondent's failure to do so does not excuse the result. The honeycombing and bulging of the tie beam could occur from either improperly formed concrete or properly formed concrete which was improperly vibrated. Based on his examination of the photographs, Mr. Verse concluded it was probably improperly formed. Supports for the forming were not used. Had they been, they would have prevented the bulges that are seen. Even if the form work was properly braced and formed, if the concrete in the tie beams was improperly poured, the tie beam could bulge out at the bottom. Mr. Dililch, the individual who poured the concrete for Mr. Warnky, indicated that the procedure was accomplished at the very hottest part of the day in the hottest part of the year, which caused the concrete to dry out too rapidly and necessitated adding additional water to the mixture in order to keep it pourable throughout the process. Mr. Dililch indicates that though those abnormal steps were necessary, nonetheless, the concrete was poured in one session without any necessity to layer it. There appear to be no joints in the beam, the major defects being the honeycombing and bulging. Mr. Dililch recognizes there were blow outs where the concrete oozed out from under the framing, but contends that these are relatively common and occur on many different jobs by different contractors. Numerous factors could cause a blow out including loose braces, loose clamps, and things of that nature. Prior to pouring the concrete here, Mr. Dililch examined the form carefully and was satisfied it met standards and was safe. Nonetheless, the tie beam contained several examples of honeycombing. Blow outs are difficult to see before the concrete is formed. Older rental clamps quite often come loose and the looseness shows up only when the concrete is poured into the form generating the stress which forces the "mud" out through the joint. On every house he has worked on, there has been at least one blowout. It is, in his opinion, a common occurrence. His self-serving testimony is of little probative value here. The forming for the tie beam was inspected by Mr. Mahlmeister before the beam was poured and determined to be safe. Mr. Verse was shown pictures of work accomplished by other contractors which show similar defects to those attributed here to the Respondent and he admits that other contractors do, from time to time, substandard work. However, based on the opportunity he had to examine Respondent's work in this instance, the Respondent's performance showed defects throughout the entire project, not merely in isolated instances. The deficiencies in Respondent's work are broad based and wide spread. While all contractors make mistakes, the number of Respondent's mistakes take his performance beyond the realm of accident and indicate substandard work in general. Respondent is a small-contractor who does most of the work on his projects by himself and supervises the rest. It is his practice to be present on the construction scene every day but in this case, he admits he was not present all of every day. He has been a contractor in Florida for seven years, building approximately two houses per year. Prior to coming to Florida, he was a builder up north. He takes a great deal of pride in his work and has had very few complaints concerning the quality of his construction. In fact, he got the Boyer job because he had built a house for the Boyer's daughter who was happy with the quality of his construction. He believes his work is equal to the standards of most Cape Coral builders. Respondent admits that he makes mistakes, but he strongly contends that none of the deficiencies here were serious or would make the house unsafe. With all the complaints against it, the tie beam poured under Respondent's supervision, was never changed or altered. Most of the defects cited were cosmetic in nature and would have been corrected by him when the house was stuccoed. Respondent has been disciplined by the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, previously, in 1984, when he was fined $250.00. It would appear that action was based on similar grounds to those in the instant action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor be suspended for six months, that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00, and that he be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 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 28th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1718 The following constituted 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. BY THE PETITIONER Petitioner failed to number Findings of Fact submitted and included them in a section entitled FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. However, as best as can be determined: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Accepted. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. Accepted as evidence of prior disciplinary action. BY THE RESPONDENT None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard T. Warnky 4924 S. W. 11th Court Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating building code administrators and inspectors. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed standard building inspector, license number BN 0001750. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Martin County Building Department as a Building Inspector. Harriet R. Edwards owns a residence located at 2595 Hickory Avenue, Jensen Beach, Florida. This home is located in Martin County, Florida. At some point in early 1996, it became Ms. Edwards' desire to construct an addition to the residence. She retained a contractor to perform the work and returned to her second home in Ohio during the time of the construction. When Ms. Edwards returned to Florida in December of 1996, she was dissatisfied with the quality of the construction work performed on her home. Mr. Joyce, Ms. Edwards' friend, stated that they had expressed a desire for, and had requested, a high quality of work for the addition to Ms. Edwards' home. Upon investigation it was discovered that the permit card located at the construction site had been initialed by an unlicensed building inspector, James L. Brown. This led the homeowner to suspect that the work performed did not meet inspection code standards. Building code inspections are to verify that the work performed by contractors meets certain minimum standards set forth in adopted building code regulations. By implication the highest quality of construction performance would generally exceed code requirements. One inspection item in particular concerned Ms. Edwards' friend, Mr. Joyce. This homeowner believed the new addition did not have a proper footer. All of the inspections listed on the permit card for this project occurred prior to December 17, 1996. The footer/slab inspection was performed on October 4, 1996. The Respondent asserts that at the time he performed the footer/slab inspection, the structures were in place to assure that the poured foundation would meet minimum code requirements. The Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Brown, an unlicensed inspector in training, initialed the permit card and transmitted by radio the inspection results. Mr. Brown was assigned to work with the Respondent during his training period prior to receiving licensure from the state. Mr. Brown ultimately received his provisional license on or about December 17, 1996. The Respondent asserts that a final inspection was not performed on Ms. Edwards' home. Consequently, no final verification was completed to assure the home addition was constructed in accordance with the plans and the forms on the ground for the footer/slab foundation. In this case there is no allegation that the construction plans for the addition for the Edwards' home failed to meet minimum code requirements. Presumably the footer/slab foundation as reflected on the plans would have specified at least a minimum compliance with code mandates. The footer/slab inspection was performed with the forms and reinforcements in place according to the approved plans. The Respondent maintains that the forms and reinforcements met minimum code requirements and that if such forms were altered after inspection he would not have known. Typically, once the footer/slab foundation forms and reinforcements are approved by an inspector the contractor calls for the delivery of concrete to be poured into the foundation forms. The date the concrete was poured for the subject footer/slab is unknown. Whether there was a delay between the footer/slab inspection date and the construction date is unknown. In any event when Ms. Edwards and Mr. Joyce returned from Ohio to view the addition the foundation did not appear adequate. Efforts were then pursued to attempt to ascertain whether the footer/slab did meet code. In this case the record is inconclusive as to whether the footer/slab foundation as constructed at Ms. Edwards' addition meets minimum code requirements. The pictures in evidence do not clearly establish the depth of the slab. Some of the photographs suggest that the minimum depth was achieved. A visual inspection performed at the site did not verify the depth nor compare the interior finished grade with the exterior measurements. The final grading of the exterior of the home around the addition was never completed. As a result the photographs may have a distorted view of the foundation and portions should have been back-filled along the edge of the slab. In any event, no definitive measurements have been offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Building Code Administrators and Inspectors enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bobby T. Chambers 3520 Northeast Linda Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Frank H. Suesz is a licensed general contractor having been issued certificate number CG C020463. On July 21, 1981, the Respondent Suesz submitted an application to the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation to take the certified contractors' examination as a general contractor. On the application, the Respondent Suesz stated that he had four (4) years of construction experience, one (1) year of on-the-job-supervisory experience, and some experience in the construction of buildings in excess of three(3) stories in height. The Respondent's work experience' was verified by Ethel C. Douglas, his mother-in-law and a building owner. Douglas' verification on the Respondent's application was notarized. The experience claimed by the Respondent on his application involved his prior position with Steel Systems Construction Company, a seller and erector of pre-engineered metal buildings. Steel Systems is owned by Richard Spinnenweber, who is also the Respondent's cousin and the complainant in this case. Steel Systems holds the franchise for American Steel Buildings while the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc., has acquired the franchise for Pre-Engineered Steel Buildings. Since the Respondent's resignation from Steel Systems, his relationship with his cousin has been anything but cordial. The Respondent and Spinnenweber have engaged in litigation concerning the termination of their former relationship and are now active business competitors through their respective companies. 1/ The Respondent's company sells and erects pre-engineered, prefabricated steel buildings that are built in a factory, shipped to the job site and erected. One witness for the Petitioner analogized the construction of these buildings to "erector sets". (See Tr. at 43) Since being certified in 1981, the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc. has successfully completed approximately 40 construction projects including a 45,000 foot roof for Pan Am at Miami International Airport, a 10,000 square foot marina warehouse in Key Largo, and has worked for the U.S. Customs Service and the Air Force. No evidence was presented that any of the Respondent's jobs completed since he became certified, were substandard or present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Permits were pulled on these projects and building inspections were passed when required. Prior to moving to Florida, the Respondent Suesz had varied construction experience which including supervising the construction of building additions, a shipping storage warehouse and a factory for Beckley Perforating Company, which is headquartered in Garwood, New Jersey. This testimony is corroborated by a letter dated May 13, 1982, from Frank P. Marano, President of Beckley, which also noted the Respondent's ". . .unusual competency in all areas of responsibility as to construction, maintenance and expansion." [See Petitioner's Exhibit 3(x).] Additionally, the Respondent has some construction experience in excess of three stories, which dates from his work with his father on apartment buildings located out of state. The extent of the Respondent's experience which dates from the 1940s, is set forth in detail in Respondent's Exhibit 2. Although his position at Steel Systems was primarily sales, the Respondent Suesz also worked in the field when necessary. 2/ While employed by Steel Systems, the Respondent supervised construction of two large dock roofs in 1978 and 1979, plus three buildings in 1980 and 1981 for the Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. By letter dated May 13, 1982, Rosario Strano, company owner, commended the Respondent for his work and stated that he intended ". . .to negotiate with him for all future requirements for buildings, dock roofs, etc." [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(y).] In early 1989, the Respondent Suesz built an addition to the Hialeah factory of Brice-Southern, Inc. His supervision of the project included pouring and finishing the floor slab. Philip H. Brice recommended the Respondent's work via letter dated May 13, 1982, and stated ". . .that he would give him the opportunity to do our future requirements." Petitioner's Exhibit 3(z).] According to Gerald Antel, Trustee, Sunshine Skateway, the Respondent supervised the construction of a $250,000 roller rink. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(aa).] Finally, in late 1980 and 1981, the Respondent supervised construction of a 16,800 square foot building for Woal Wholesale Plumbing Supply, Inc. His work on this project was observed and recommended by Randy S. Woal. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(bb).]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Frank H. Suesz, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jorge L. Garcia, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida is of seven parts, part of which is the written examination and the rest of which is a site and design examination, which is given in June of each year. Petitioner took the building design portion of the Architecture Registration Examination in June, 1985. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant which meets specific requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross- sections, facades, and floor plans. The program for the 1985 examination called for the design of a city administration building. Information supplied to the applicant includes a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Applicants also may study a series of solutions proposed by previous successful and unsuccessful applicants so that they may anticipate and apply successful solutions when taking their own examination. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a building design solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination therefore, allows the national testing service grading the examination, and through it, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy, and legal requirements. The grading of the building design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's proposed examination solution by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competency required for a passing grade. Each architecture grader is then asked to review various solutions by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration various criteria as set forth in Rule - 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code. Graders are instructed to make notations or areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then to determine, based upon an overall conception of each applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade of 3 or 4 as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code, has been earned. A method used to ensure independent and confidential grading of a solution is the folding of a single score sheet in such a way as to not allow subsequent graders to see the previous score. Approximately 3 and one-half minutes is utilized as the time in which each grader has to grade each applicant's exam. Page 7 of the Juror's Manual (graders manual) points out: Examinees are entitled to make some mistakes. The program analysis, design , development and drafting are hurriedly executed in a tense situation, without recourse to normal office reference materials (Sweets catalogs Architectural Graphic Standards, etc.) and without customary time for deliberation and critique by others. Jurors (graders) are permitted to recommend changes to an applicant's submission to bring it up to passing. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the at least three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant case, the Petitioner received three 2's (which are failing grades) and one 3 (which is a passing grade). Petitioner's exam solution presented a borderline case since one of the three graders who originally graded his exam gave him a passing grade. His response to notification of failure to pass this portion of the exam was a timely request for a Section 120.57(1) hearing and this proceeding ensued. While Petitioner attempted to comply with the instructions as set forth in the examination and pre-examination booklets, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve requisite minimal competency necessary to receive a passing score on the examination. The testimony of Arnold Butt, Registered Architect, former chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida and a master grader in the building design examination, is the only expert testimony of record. In Butt's opinion, Petitioner's submission contained several material departures from specific program requirements applicable to the 1985 examination. Specifically, Petitioner failed to place in his submission a delivery system, thus failing to meet program requirements, and showed no method of entry or egress. Further, there was no method of entry or egress from the river walk. Although Butt complimented Petitioner in overcoming one type of circulation problem that was overlooked by many other applicants at the same examination, Petitioner's circulation design was still full of many errors described by Mr. Butt, including life safety factors. Mr. Butt admitted that the graders had not marked life safety as a weakness present in Petitioner's exam. However, Butt's critique of Petitioner's circulation problems shows circulation overlaps into the area of "design logic." For other reasons, including but not limited to Petitioner's showing of certain features such as windows only upon the elevation sheets (as opposed to upon other sheets as well) and failure to show all of an access road, his errors and omissions also overlap into the evaluation criteria of "clarity and completeness of presentation." While Petitioner attempted to show, through use of the publication of NCARB which contains within it samples of various passing and failing examinations, that his examination submission was similar to those which had been recorded as passing grades, he was unsuccessful in discrediting the overall perception of Butt that there were significant difficulties in Petitioner's design solution which, taken as a whole, were much more numerous than the various solutions (both passing and failing) which were compared with Petitioner's solution. In a review of the sample solutions, Butt conceded that some of the errors that Petitioner made were also made by some of the candidates who achieved passing scores. However, Petitioner's examination submission contained a combination of many errors in one paper, which same errors may have existed only individually in some of the passing examples. In short, Petitioner's reliance on the NCARB-produced review booklet is misplaced in that his submitted solution to the problem presented a conglomeration of many of the errors which may have been passing if presented individually in various of the examples contained in the NCARB manual. Petitioner, who has the burden of proof in these de novo proceedings, has therefore failed to demonstrate that his examination solution exhibits minimal competency within the criteria necessary for a passing score.
Recommendation Therefore, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order affirming that Petitioner has failed the licensure examination for 1985. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1987, at 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 12th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2195 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Covered in Recommended Order FOF 1-3. 3-4. Covered in FOF 10. 5-7. Those portions not accepted are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence as a whole as set forth in FOF 11-12. Further, Mr. Butt testified that once the Petitioner's solutions to the problem were utilized, it was probable the graders would not give him the benefit of the doubt to recommend changes to his submitted because any reasonable solutions they might propose would require almost total redesign of his proposed building instead of the minimal changes they might be permitted to recommend. Rejected as not supported by the competent substantial evidence as covered in FOF 7. Three and 1/2 minutes was given as a fair estimate of the time actually used, not the time permitted. Covered in FOF 9; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Covered in FOF 10; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Accepted but immaterial and not dispositive of any issue at bar. The graders were not precluded from making more than three recommended marks. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Covered in FOF 1; that which is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOE 2. Covered in FOE 4 and 6. Covered in FOF 7 and 10. Covered in FOE 10. 6-7. Covered in FOF 11 and 12 but substantially modified for independent clarity of expression. COPIES FURNISHED: Pat Ard, Executive Director DPR-Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jorge L. Garcia 1744 Southwest First Avenue Miami, Florida 33134 Jorge L. Garcia 231 Southwest 52nd Avenue Miami, Florida John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact King Royer, Inc., the Petitioner, and the State of Florida, Department of General Services, entered into a contract dated October 15, 1974, for the construction of vocational facilities at the Union Correctional Institution at Raiford, Florida. A copy of the contract agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the plans for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and the specifications for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, all admitted into evidence. The contract has been completed and a certificate of contract completion issued by the Department of General Services as reflected in the copy of that certificate which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence. The certificate of contract completion is attended by a letter of explanation from the architectural firm in charge of the project which letter is Respondent's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This certificate of contract completion makes reference to change order No. 2, and a copy of change order No. 2 has been admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This cafe is brought pursuant to Article 8.5 of the contract document, Form of Agreement Between Contractor and Owner for Construction of Buildings, which calls for claims and disputes to be appealed to the Department of General Services for hearing. Those specific claims of appeal are promoted by two documents. The first document is the letter of July 16, 1975, by King Royer as president of the Petitioner corporation. This letter is addressed to the Director of the Department of General Services and is treated as the appeal document. There are five items within this element of the appeal which are listed as follows: "(1) Extension of tire for completion of the project, due to late delivery of the engineered metal building, and delays in completing corrective work of which we were informed only a few days before scheduled completion of the project. Removal of concrete floor which we believed to be 4" thick on the plans, but for which the Architect contends 6" thickness is required. Removal of approximately 2,500 square feet of slab which we contend was substantially in accordance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. Temporary bracing for the building, not necessary for any possible loads on such bracing, during removal of the concrete slab. Painting of interior metal structure, not required by the plans and specifications." Paragraphs one and four of this letter/petition will not be considered in substance, for reasons which will be set forth in the section of this recommended order, entitled Conclusions of Law. The second element of the appeal concerned an amendment to the appeal for purposes of considering change order No. 2, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This amendment was entered into by stipulation and agreement of counsel for the parties. The stipulation and agreement, indicated that the appeal could consider the elements of the change order to this extent: (1) The element on extension of time due to inclement weather; (2) liquidated damages, only those elements where the liquidated damages pertain to delays associated with the removal of the concrete floor slabs reflected in paragraphs two and three of the original appeal and the painting of interior metal structures as indicated in paragraph five of the original appeal; (3) additional testing shown in the change order; (4) additional services of the structural engineer shown in the change order; and (5) additional services, of the architects and engineering firm, shown in the change order. The first it ruled to be a proper subject for consideration in this appeal, was item two of the July 16, 1975, appeal. As mentioned before this item deals with the removal of a concrete floor which the Petitioner contends was supposed to be 4" thick in accordance with the plans and for which the architect in speaking for the Respondent claims should have been 6" thick to comply with the plans. This area is shown at page 2 of 27 in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which is to plan of the project. The area is found between column line A as a southern boundary and it's northern boundary is a common line extended from the northern wall of the auto mechanics shop. Its eastern boundary runs along column line 5, than proceed through an area approximately 4' 10" wide from column line 5, west to the eastern most wall of classroom 1, and then inset to the eastern wall of the instructor's office No. 1, and then inset to the small closet like area identified as No. 1, these latter dimensions making up the western boundary of the disputed area. In the initial pour of the concrete in that area, the depth of the pour was 4" and was so intended by the Petitioner. The architect of the project discovered that the depth was 4" and not 6" and ordered that this section of the concrete slab be removed. The removal was effected and the cost of that removal and reinstallation is at issue in the appeal. Sheet 5-2, which is at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, calls for a 6" concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop and this auto mechanics shop is that area identified on Sheet 2 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and includes the disputed area previously described before. Since the initial pour was 4" instead of 6" in the area as described, the Petitioner was not in compliance with the plans and the architect was correct to cause the removal of the initial pour and the substitution of the 6 " pour. Item three in the appeal, set forth on July 16, 1975, questions the requirement for the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of slab which the Petitioner contended was in substantial compliance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. This area would be constituted of the remaining aspect of the auto mechanic shop which has not previously been identified in discussing item No. 2. Its southern boundary begins at the intersection of column line A and 1, thence along column line A to the intersection with column line five; go dawn column line 5 from that point to the intersection with the first wall encountered to locate the western boundary; then along that wall east to an intersection of the wall and column line 1 to locate the northern boundary; and then south along column line 1, to the intersection of column line 1 and column line A, to locate the eastern boundary. When the Petitioner initially poured the concrete slab in this area it placed the welded wire fabric by such a method that fabric sunk to the bottom or near bottom of the concrete slab, in violation of Division 3.2C. of the specifications, which call for the welded wire fabric to be placed in the center of the slab. Approximately a week after the floor was poured a Case No. 584 diesel forklift which weighs 10,000 pounds was driven onto the newly poured slab in the auto mechanics area, 100 to 150 times carrying approximately 1500 pounds of structural members on each run. Subsequent to the time that the mesh sunk to the bottom or the near bottom of the concrete floor slab, cracks were discovered in the surface of the floor of the auto mechanics shop and these cracks are determined to be structural cracks. These structural cracks were promoted in part by the location of the mesh in the concrete slab and by the traffic of the fork lift. The location of the mesh may be seen in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 which is a photograph of the auto mechanics slab when it was being removed and also in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 which is a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area. The nature of the structural cracks is shown by hand drawn lines placed on number 5-2, at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, the pencil lines being drawn by Villany Hausner, the structural engineer on the project and the red lines being drawn by Jeff Hoxie, the project architect. This floor slab in the auto mechanics area was also dusted in contravention of Division 3.11A of the specifications which prohibits dusting of the exposed slab. The Petitioner tried to demonstrate that the cracks found on the surface of the concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop were not structural in nature by driving a 38,000 pound concrete truck onto the slab in the auto mechanics area in excess of two months after the pour. This test is found to be inadequate to overcome the conclusion that the cracks were structural in nature in that the test was not properly designed. The Petitioner was offered an opportunity for utilizing a properly designed test at its expense, as prescribed by the architect but the Petitioner did not respond to this offer. There was conflicting evidence about the depth of the initial pour in the area of the 2500 square feet. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 seems to indicate that a test performed by the Petitioner showed the depth to be substandard but other Exhibits by the Petitioner, namely Petitioner's Exhibits No. 11 and No. 12 show photographs of the concrete slab being torn out indicating that the depth approximated 7". There is also an Exhibit, Respondent's No. 9 which was a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area, but it is not clear what section of the auto mechanics area it was taken from, whether in the 2500 square foot area or in the narrow area 4' X 10" which was mentioned in the point No. 2 of the appeal of July 16, 1975. After reviewing the evidence on the depth of the slab, it is not clear what the true depth was on an average, in the 2500 square foot section. Nonetheless, based on the structural cracks, as explained by the mesh location and to a lesser extent by the driving of the fork lift truck onto the slab, the initial pour of to 2500 square feet was not in compliance with the contract and tie architect was correct in having the slab removed when the Petitioner failed to respond to his offer to have the slab tested. Item No. 5 in the July 16, 1975 appeal pertains to the painting of the interior metal structures and the Petitioner claims that these metal structures are not required by the plans and specifications to be painted. The Petitioner promotes his argument by reference to Division No. 9 of the specifications, particularly 3.7A of Section 9F, which is found on page 9F-8. This part, 3.7A says, "do not paint . . . pre-finished item as specified under Division 13- special construction." Therefore, it is the Petitioner's contention that any item found in Division 13 should not be painted. However, Division 13 in its Section 13B, 3.1C found at page 13B-2, says, "give one shop coat of paint as specified herein to all steel surfaces . . ." This statement is further supported by Division 9, Section 9F, 3.6B(3) at page 9F-7, which says that ferrous metals, including shop painted items will have one coat of rust inhibiting primer and one coat of interior gloss oil house paint. Therefore, the reference 3.7A in Section 9-F of Division 9 does not exclude all so called pre-finished items as specified under Division 13 from painting and the architect was correct in insisting that all interior metal structures which were not in fact pre-finished be given a shop coat, one coat of rust inhibiting primer, and one coat interior gloss oil house paint, as necessary. The second aspect of the appeal concerns change order No. 2. The parties agreed that the 20 day extension of time due to inclement weather should be awarded to the Petitioner at $50 a day for a total amount of $1,000. The second item of the change order concerning liquidated damages in the amount of $1,800 is sustained in view of the fact that only those items pertaining to the removal of the floor slab and painting of the structural members could be considered in addressing the liquidated damages, because of the prior stipulation. Therefore, the architect being found correct in his actions, the liquidated damages should stand. Items 3-5 in the change order concerning additional testing, additional services of the structural engineer and additional services of the architect and engineering firm are proper cost items in view of the problems associated with the floor slab and the appeal of their assessment should be rejected.
Recommendation It is recommended that those items found in the July 16, 1975 letter of appeal offered by the Petitioner not be allowed. It is further recommended that the matters as set forth in the amendment to the petition as found in change order No. 2 be allowed only to the extent of an award of $1,000 for extension of time due to inclement the technique considered acceptable far reimbursement of the amount of $1,000, regardless of the decision on the other matters of the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room 115, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John F. Roscow, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 489, F.S., regulating the practice of contracting, by failing to complete a roofing job which he had agreed to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Michael W. Ballans was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor, holding License Number CB C036542. He qualified as an individual doing business at 1107 Oregon Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida 32769. On April 6, 1988, H. Earl Fisher signed his acceptance of a written proposal by Michael Ballans for Ballans to install a new roof on Fisher's double-wide trailer at 7650 E. Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway, in St. Cloud, Florida. The price for the job was $1,575.00, for supplies and labor. Fisher made an initial payment of $1,018.00 on June 6, 1988. Materials were delivered to the job site, but Ballans never commenced work. Fisher contacted Ballans four or five times to try to get him to do the job or to get someone else to do it. Ballans never returned the funds and at one point told Fisher that he could not do the work because he lost his insurance. Fisher did not agree to do the work himself and told Ballans he wanted the money back and the materials removed from his property. Stanton Alexander was qualified as an expert in construction industry contracting, including roofing. He has practiced in the profession for approximately thirty years. He served two terms on the construction industry licensing board, including a term as chairman. He has testified in the past as an expert in construction industry practices. A contractor terminates his responsibility under a contract after payment and final inspection and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Until then, he is responsible for completion of the job. Proper procedure when a contractor becomes unable, to complete a job is to refund the money and remove the materials or to get permission from the building department and owner to bring in another contractor to complete the work. Michael Ballans did neither, and simply abandoned the job. This deviation from the standards of construction industry practice constitutes incompetency or misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding Michael W. Ballans guilty of violations alleged in Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 16th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael W. Ballans 2314 Knob Hill Drive, Apt. #12 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
