The Issue The issue is whether Oliver J. Turzak violated statutes and rules governing the practice of engineering as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Clerk of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the “Board”) on October 4, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint at issue was filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (“FEMC”) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and at all times material to these proceedings has been, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 18230. Respondent’s last known address is 5405 Water Street, New Port Richey, Florida 34652. On April 20, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive, New Port Richey, Florida (“Fish Residence Project”). On June 10, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated an engineering opinion letter (“Letter”) which was addressed and sent to Champion Foundation Repair, the entity which was Respondent’s client for the Fish Residence Project. The Letter stated in material part: [Respondent], whose signature appears below, has verified placement of twenty-seven (27) exterior piers and twenty-five (25) interior jack pins as located on the drawings by the same job number. The piers all achieved sufficient load bearing characteristics to transfer the house weight to the piers and to close cracks substantially and stabilize the foundation. The remediation program was developed according to geological data supplied by Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc., dated November 2007. Similar pier reports on numerous structures with similar problems have demonstrated long term success without additional settlement. Therefore, it is the opinion of the [Respondent] that the location has been repaired and stabilized and, further, that there is no evidence of new sinkhole activity at the location. In compliance with Florida Statute 627.707, the report and remediation program was prepared under the supervision of a Registered Professional, whose field of expertise is a Geo-Technical Engineer. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (“Responsibility Rules”). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-35. Professional engineers, who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules, are required to comply with those rules. Rule 61G15-30.002(1) mandates that Respondent, as the structural engineer of record, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared for the Fish Residence Project. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing a document that complies with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record of the Structure for the Fish Residence Project as that term is defined in rules 61G15-31.002(1) and 61G15-31.003(1). As such, all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in rule 61G15-31.002(5), as mandated by rule 61G15-31.001, setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(4) provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” Rule 61G15-19.001(4) also provides that: [F]ailure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility Rules as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with this section unless the deviation or departures therefrom are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the professional engineer. Respondent’s June 10, 2008, Letter is an engineering “certification” as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-18.011(4): statement signed and sealed by a professional engineer representing that the engineering services addressed therein, as defined in section 471.005(6), F.S., have been performed by the professional engineer, and based upon the professional engineer’s knowledge, information and belief, and in accordance with commonly accepted procedures consistent with applicable standards of practice, . . . . “Certifications” are subject to the standards set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-29.001, which require that if an engineer is presented with a “certification” that “involve[s] matters which are beyond the engineer’s scope of services actually provided” that the engineer must “decline to sign . . . such certification.” Section 471.033(1)(a) provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for “[v]iolating . . . [a] rule of the [B]oard.” Section 471.033(1)(e) provides, in material part, that a professional engineer is subject to discipline for “[m]aking or filing a report or record that the licensee knows to be false” when the report is “signed in the capacity of a licensed engineer.” Rule 61G15-19.001(6) provides that: A professional engineer shall not commit misconduct in the practice of engineering. Misconduct in the practice of engineering as set forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., shall include, but not be limited to: * * * (b) Being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report, statement, or testimony whether or not under oath or omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report, statement or testimony when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, employer or the general public; . . . . The Fish Residence In 2007, the residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive in New Port Richey, Florida (the “Fish Residence”), experienced structural damage from subsidence in the ground underlying the home. As a result, a claim was made to Fish’s insurance company, and an investigation was commenced. Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. (“CFTL”), a geotechnical engineering firm, performed an in-depth analysis and found, in a signed, sealed, and dated engineering report issued on November 20, 2007, that the subsidence was likely caused by a number of factors, including sinkhole activity. As a result, the Fishes hired a contractor, Champion Foundation Repair (“Champion”) to remediate the damage. Champion hired Respondent to perform the engineering services necessary to obtain a permit for the remediation, inspect the construction, and complete a report certifying the adequate completion of the work. Respondent had a long history of providing similar services to Champion in the past, having performed engineering services in over 200 projects for Champion. Respondent created, signed, sealed, and dated on April 20, 2008, a Settlement Stabilization Plan (“Plan”), which formed the design basis for the work Champion carried out. Well into the project, the Fishes became dissatisfied with the work done by Champion. Champion was terminated as the contractor before the work was finalized and before Respondent was able to perform a final inspection of the property. Litigation was commenced and Bracken Engineering (“Bracken”), a forensic structural/civil engineering firm was engaged to perform an investigation of the work performed by Champion and Respondent for the pending litigation. Bracken issued a lengthy engineering report (“Bracken Report”), under engineering seal, on June 20, 2011. The Bracken Report found Respondent’s Plan deficient, that Respondent was not adequately knowledgeable about the site, that Champion’s implementation of the Plan, and Champion’s construction work as a whole was flawed and inadequate. Subsequent to the issuance of the Bracken Report, a complaint was filed with the Board, and these proceedings were initiated. Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence Roger Jeffery opined that the Plan failed to meet required engineering standards. The parties agree that when a structure, such as the Fish Residence Project, is initially built, the loads are directly transferred to the foundation, which then transfers the loads directly and uniformly as a continuously supported structure to the underlying soil. However, when, as occurred in this case, the structure’s loads are no longer transferred directly and uniformly to the ground through the foundation, but are transferred through pins which underlie the foundation, the foundation itself now acts as a beam or beams and is subject to the stresses applied to the beams. Respondent asserted that the foundation load would remain continuous, and therefore stable, since grouting had been poured under the Fish Residence to consolidate and stabilize the soils. However, Respondent’s plan did not call for grouting to be used. Moreover, according to the Bracken Report, no grouting was ever placed under the Fish Residence, even though it was called for in the CFTL Report to stabilize the structure. Respondent’s failure to perform a final inspection resulted in an inaccurate assumption and opinion. Respondent’s claim that grouting placed in the void under the structure reconstituted the original soil conditions is rejected, especially in light of the fact that Respondent also analyzed the pins and foundation in a beam configuration--a simple span beam. Further, Respondent’s analysis must be discounted because the calculations justifying his conclusion that the structure was adequately supported was performed in December 2013, well after these proceedings commenced and more than five years after the Plan had been created by Respondent. As a result of the changed structural support system (from ground support to pins), the position of the pins is critical to the stability of the structure. If the pins are too far apart for the strength of the foundation’s materials to accommodate the foundation, now acting as a beam or beams, the foundation will be overstressed. Cracking, at a minimum, or collapse, at a maximum, can occur. Cracking or collapse can occur because the concrete slab foundation used at the Fish Residence does not have any existing top reinforcing steel in it. When asked if perhaps reinforcing steel might have been placed within the slab itself, Mr. Jeffery stated he had never seen such use of steel in over 40 years. No evidence to support the steel within the slab theory was presented. When the newly installed pins become the structural support, a negative bending moment is introduced to the top of the foundation, now acting as a beam. The top of the foundation is made only of concrete, which has little ability to resist the induced negative moment. As a result, deflection, racking, and ultimate failure will be the result if the pin placement and the spans created by the placement are inadequately designed. Respondent’s after-the-fact calculations do not address this issue. Using a continuous beam analysis, the preferred method to evaluate the beam/pin assemblage design in structures like the Fish Residence, the spacing of the pins (usually ten feet apart) designed by Respondent coupled with the loads generated by the foundation and the lack of reinforcing steel in the top portion of the foundation would result in stress that would exceed the strength of the concrete and, at a minimum, the concrete would eventually crack. Dr. Ahmed Said, Respondent’s expert, agreed with this conclusion. Even using a simple beam analysis, the design method Respondent testified he used and that Dr. Said agreed was commonly used, movement, resulting in cracks at the foundation slab, would occur. Again, since no reinforcing steel exists at the top of the slab, as a matter of simple physics, the concrete would have to respond to the deflection that would occur at the bottom of the foundation and, concrete being weak, would likely crack or worse at the top. Respondent provided no persuasive rebuttal to Mr. Jeffery’s analysis. First, Respondent claimed that elevations taken at the site in 2013 showed minimal deflective movement, proving the Plan design was sufficient. However, Mr. Jeffery noted that subsequent elevations taken at the completed structure would have little meaning regarding the adequacy of the design since: the design stands alone and is not affected by how the contractor implemented it; and no one could know whether the design, as constructed, would withstand the required stresses until it was subjected to full design loading, which would have to include the full wind loads to which the structure was designed. There is no evidence the structure was ever subjected to such stress in the period between its construction in 2008 and the later recorded elevations. Next, Respondent claimed the 3-foot “spreaders” attached to the pins would reduce the span of the foundation acting as a beam and thus would overcome the lack of reinforcing steel in the top of the foundation and the resulting overstress. The problem with this assertion is that the Plan does not call for “spreaders” to be placed in the design by any notations that are readily and universally cognizable. Respondent admitted that the symbol regarding the use of the spreaders was agreed to only between Champion and him, and was not included in the Plan. However, even if the notations used by Respondent could be interpreted as calling for the use of the “spreaders,” the “spreaders” would not materially impact the fact that the foundation, acting as a beam, would be overstressed, since a negative moment would still exist due to the lack of reinforcing steel at the top of the foundation. Finally, Respondent asserted that Mr. Jeffery’s analysis was flawed since Mr. Jeffery had assumed the Fish Residence was a masonry structure whereas Respondent claimed the structure was a wood frame covered with a stucco exterior. This issue is confused by the fact that both the CFTL and Bracken Reports, upon which Mr. Jeffery relied, both stated the Fish Residence was a masonry structure, although the CFTL Report notes the structure was initially constructed as wood frame. In any event, Mr. Jeffery testified that regardless of the masonry versus wood frame question, the structure would still be overstressed. Changing the construction from masonry to wood frame/stucco veneer might lessen the overstress, but not materially. In addition to the overstress created by failing to address the induced negative moment at the top of the foundation, Respondent’s design also resulted in a shear load which exceeded the maximum allowable under the American Concrete Institute 318 Concrete Code; and, since that code is incorporated into the Florida Building Code (“FBC”), the requirements of the FBC as well. The shear load factor is especially relevant since Respondent did not assure that the pins would not be placed under windows and doors where this issue is critical. Respondent did not address the shear issue as it applied to windows and doors in his after-the-fact calculations. The Plan is also deficient since it did not indicate the placement of windows and doors in the Fish Residence Project. By not doing so, the pins, when put in the ground, could be placed underneath these internal spaces which do not then form a continuous roof/wall/foundation assembly. If that occurred, and it apparently did in the Fish Residence on four occasions, the shear problem described above is exacerbated, since at either side of a door or window a point load is created and the shear stress increased. The Plan also fails to include required information. While the Plan calls for the use of a “FastSteel” product, the Plan does not include any product specification number or the strength of the material to be used. Although Respondent stated that the contractor, based upon its experience, knew what was intended, ultimately Respondent admitted that the required information was not in the Plan. Similarly, the Plan did not include the design loads and criteria used in the design and provided no building codes and standards. Respondent admitted the Plan lacked this required information. The missing information is important. Only by including such information on design documents can the engineer adequately communicate to the reviewing building code plans examiner or a contractor what the design engineer intended. By not including this required information, the reviewer can be uncertain as to whether the engineer used the correct loadings or designed the structure in accordance with the correct edition of the building code. Similarly, failing to provide sufficient information concerning the products to be used may lead a contractor to utilize the wrong product during construction. The Plan was submitted to Pasco County for issuance of a permit. The county building department issued a permit for the work to be performed. Mike Mosher of Champion believed the Plan included all the specifications he needed to identify the components to be used and the manner in which the work was to be performed. He also testified the work was completed consistent with the Plan. The June 10, 2008, Certification Letter Respondent issued the June 10, 2008 Certification Letter (“Letter”) under seal to his client before he completed the inspections necessary for the conclusions in the Letter to accurately reflect the opinions contained in it. Both Respondent and his client, Champion, agree that since the client had been denied access to the Fish Residence Project, no final inspection of the site by Respondent ever occurred. As a result, Respondent admitted that, when he signed, sealed, and issued the Letter, the engineering services, upon which the certification in the Letter was based, had not yet occurred. The evidence proved that Respondent’s last appearance at the Fish Residence Project occurred on or about May 5, 2008, and that most of the work done at the site occurred after that date with the final construction finishing on or about May 30, 2008. As a result, the conclusions and opinions contained in the Letter were not based upon accurate and contemporaneous engineering analysis. Since the Letter purports to be grounded in engineering inspections, the statements in the Letter were not fully based upon the services Respondent actually provided. While not entirely clear from the evidence and testimony, had Respondent had the ability to perform a final inspection, he would have had the opportunity to discover several deficiencies in the construction. The Bracken Report detailed several deficiencies and non-conformances with the Remediation Plan. These deficiencies included: 1) failure to drive 5/6ths of the pilings to the depth prescribed by the notes to the Plan; a large number of pins found beneath door and window openings; mis-installation of pins and pin assemblages; and 4) no grouting placed in the ground although Respondent intended that grouting be used. Respondent agreed that at least some of the Bracken Report conclusions were warranted. Respondent asserts that, although the Letter was issued prematurely, Respondent should not be held accountable since the Letter “never went public.” This contention is rejected. The Letter was a final engineering report/certification and, upon issuance to Respondent’s client, Champion, was fully subject to all engineering standards, rules, and statutes. Since the Letter contained conclusions that were inaccurate and based upon information that was not collected under Respondent’s direct supervision, issuance of the Letter constituted negligence and misconduct in the practice of engineering. Respondent’s Prior History of Discipline Respondent has previously had discipline imposed. The instant case is the first in more than 40 years of Respondent practicing engineering that involved a subsidence remediation plan. Respondent’s first prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 00-0086. In that case, Respondent was hired to correct building code issues identified by a county building department. The drawings he made violated the building code requirements, contained deficiencies, and were not in compliance with the standard practice of engineering. Respondent proceeded to hearing without benefit of legal counsel. A final order was entered by the Board reprimanding his license, fining him $1,000, plus costs of $302.93, placing him on probation for one year, and requiring he complete a course in professionalism and ethics while on probation. Respondent’s second prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 01-0079. That matter was based upon drawings that were dated February 16, 2001. Respondent was not represented by counsel in that proceeding. In that proceeding, no proof was presented that the structure depicted in the plans by Respondent was ever built. Therefore, no direct risk of harm to the public was proven. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that matter which was approved by the Board of Professional Engineers. He agreed to pay a total administrative fine of $7,000, plus $316.67 in costs and receive a reprimand on his license. He also received a one-year suspension of his license, followed by two years’ probation, and continuing education requirements. The other instance of discipline imposed against Respondent was in FEMC Case No. 2004037005. That complaint arose from plans that were signed by Respondent in June 2004. He was charged with signing plans he had not personally prepared or were not prepared under his supervision. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that case that was approved by the Board. He paid a $5,000 administrative fine and costs of $750; received a reprimand on his license; received two years of probation; and was required to make detailed reporting to the FEMC during the probationary period. No additional evidence of prior disciplinary matters was offered other than the three cases described above.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Oliver Turzak’s Professional Engineer license be reprimanded, and that the license shall be suspended for a period of one year. Upon termination of the suspension, Respondent shall be reinstated under terms and conditions of reinstatement as the Board determines are appropriate, including two years of probation with terms the Board deems appropriate. Respondent shall also be fined $1,000 per count ($2,000 total fine). Finally, Petitioner shall be entitled to assess costs which are related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs or fees associated with an attorney’s time, as provided in section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David P. Rankin, Esquire Law Office of David P. Rankin, P.A. 18540 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33548 John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Subhash C. Jethi, was a candidate on Division C of the national professional architectural examination given in June, 1984. The test is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is administered by the Educational Testing Service in Berkeley, California. Florida candidates take the national examination pursuant to an agreement between NCARB and respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Board of Architecture (Board). The examination consists of nine divisions administered over a four day period. Division C relates to building design and contains one graphic or sketch problem to be solved by the candidate in not more than twelve hours. The purpose of the examination is to require an applicant to prepare a design solution in response to the program submitted by the NCARB. Prior to the examination, the candidate is given a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements expected of the candidate to receive a passing grade. Each graphic solution to Division C is blind graded by three examiners (architects) designated and approved by the NCARB. The examiners are drawn from a pool of architects who have been selected by the various architectural registration boards of some twenty states. They are given training by NCARB prior to the examination to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Among other things, they are instructed to grade holistically, that is, to review each solution quickly for an overall impression and to score on the basis of that first impression. They do not regrade solutions or analyze specific points of presentation. The examinee is always given the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Candidates may receive a score ranging from 0 to 4. These numbers represent the following grades: 0-totally blank solution pad (fail) 1-incomplete (or extremely poor solution)(fail); 2-poor(fail); 3-minimally acceptable (pass): 4- good (pass). In order to pass, a candidate must receive at least two pass grades from the examiners. In Jethi's case, three examiners graded his solution and gave scores of 3, 2 and 2, respectively. Because the first grader gave him a 3, a fourth grader (also known as a coordinating grader) independently reviewed his examination and assigned a score of Therefore, he received an overall score of 2 which is a failing grade. This proceeding arose as the result of Jethi's request for an administrative hearing to contest that grade. Jethi's solution to Division C was introduced into evidence as respondent's exhibit 2. In support of his claim that he was entitled to a passing grade, Jethi presented the testimony of a registered architect, Miles A. Price, Jr., who reviewed Jethi's solution and found it to be acceptable and consistent with the requirements of the problem. However, Price had no experience in grading the national examination, and his comments were given in the context of a practicing architect rather than as a grader. Petitioner also offered a letter from an architect essentially adopting the position of Price. Jethi testified at length on his own behalf, and basically disagreed with most of the criticisms given by the examiners. He also attempted to show that his solution was better in certain respects than a sample solution to the problem which was deemed to be minimally acceptable for a passing grade. Respondent presented the testimony of Professor Arnold Butt, who was accepted as an expert in grading architectural examinations. Professor Butt was chairman of the University of Florida department of architecture for some fourteen years, has graded the examination in question since 1970, and is presently the chairman of the master jurors committee which performs the fourth grading on these examinations when required. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and persuasive than that presented by petitioner, and is hereby accepted as dispositive of the issue of whether petitioner's solution to Division C should receive a passing score. In this regard it is noteworthy that three of the four graders reviewing petitioner's examination, including Professor Butt, found the examination to be below the minimum requirements. On this particular examination, Division C required candidates to design a two-story architectural pavilion for a world's fair site in Chicago, Illinois. The candidates were specifically told the structure was to be an "architectural gem" and was to take maximum advantage of a scenic overlook of Chicago's downtown loop area. The primary deficiency in petitioner's solution was his failure to make maximum use in his design of the scenic overlook relating to Chicago's loop area as required by the problem. In addition, his solutions as to the location of service access, book store and restrooms, structural system, pedestrian circulation, and building site were shown to be deficient. Taken as a whole, they rendered his solution to Division C less than minimally acceptable for passing. Therefore, the overall score of 2 should not be changed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's failing grade received on Division C of the June, 1984 national architectural examination not be changed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22 day of October, 1985. APPENDIX* 1. Proposed findings 1 through 7 have been essentially incorporated in the findings of this Recommended Order. *Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Subhash C. Jethi 1101 Oriole Avenue Miami Springs, FL 33166 John J. Rimes, III, Esq. The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Raymond E. Hirst, Jr., professional engineer, was licensed as such by the State of Florida under license number PE 0017307. Prior to March 22, 1983, the Respondent, for Mech-Mar Engineering Company, Inc., designed a storage bay and mini- warehouse project to be built by Ruth Stein Construction for William M. Kwasniki, to be located on South Babcock Street in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner designed the facility and signed the plans for construction on March 22, 1983. A note clearly marked on the sheet index on the upper right hand corner of the first page of the plan set reflects, "The engineer's services do not include supervision of the construction of this project." The plans consist of three sheets of drawings, each of which is sealed and signed by the Respondent. The first sheet reflects the foundation plan. The second shows the electrical riser and firewall detail, and the third reflects the elevations. On or about April 3, 1983, the contractor, Ruth Stein, submitted these plans to the City of Palm Bay building department. The plans were approved for construction by the office of the chief building official, Paul Olsen, and formed the basis for the issuance of the construction permit. Neither the engineer's specifications nor calculations were submitted and filed with the plans. However, calculations were not required by the City of Palm Bay at that time. Two amendments to the plans were filed by the Respondent on May 31, and August 10, 1983. No revised drawings were submitted, however. The drawings that were submitted by Ms. Stein, but drawn by Respondent, were used to insure that the plans conformed to standard building codes, zoning codes, etc., but were not reviewed by the city for compliance with engineering standards and no engineering analysis was done by the city on these or any other plans at that time. The need to do so was apparently recognized later, however, as such analyses are now done on a routine basis. The plans were also to be used by the city's inspection staff to compare work being done by the contractor with the plans to insure that the work conforms to them. During construction, the building being erected according to Respondent's plans, a concrete block structure, collapsed. This collapse occurred sometime prior to May 20, 1983. After the structure collapsed, the city building office again approved the plans drawn by Respondent for reconstruction. The contractor was told to clean up the site and was then allowed to rebuild. Not only the original plans but the amendments referred to above, including that dated August 10, 1983, called for partitions within the building. After rebuilding, the structure was inspected by the city and a certificate of occupancy was issued in August, 1983. No complaints have been filed regarding this construction since that time. After the collapse, an inspection of the collapse site revealed that in some areas on the west part of the structure, cells of the concrete blocks being used to form the walls had not been filled with concrete as was required by the design submitted by Respondent. In the opinion of Mr. Olsen, this defect was a fault not of the Respondent but of the contractor. No determination was made by the city as to: whether the block walls as designed by Respondent met Standard Building Code (SBC) requirements; whether the walls were supported laterally as required; whether anchorage of the roof trusses to the walls was accomplished; whether Respondent properly, or at all, designed a roof diaphragm for this project; whether the walls were adequate to meet the wind load requirements (the SBC suggests that maximum wind velocity standard is 90 mph.); whether the lentils were adequate; and whether the truss anchorage limits were satisfactory. (According to Mr. Olsen, this decision is left up to the engineer who designs the structure.) The city found, however, that a part of the reason for the collapse of this structure was that the trusses for the roof were set too soon, were not adequately braced, contained questionable materials, and wore questionably fabricated. Though the city was not critical in its analysis of Respondent's performance, the experts retained by Petitioner to evaluate his drawings were. Mr. James O. Power, who has been a registered structural engineer since 1947 did not examine the building site but is aware of the project in question. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Respondent, photos taken of the site, the investigative report, letters and correspondence from Respondent with calculations contained therein, and the Respondent's amendments to the original drawings. On the basis of this evidence, he formed an opinion as to Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project and prepared several letters on the subject dated July 6 and October 21, 1983, and January 30 and September 7, 1984, all of which constitute his opinion as to Respondent's performance. In substance he concluded that Respondent's engineering performance on this project was unsatisfactory showing basic negligence and lack of due care as well as a lack of understanding of the basic engineering requirements for the job. In his opinion, overall, the drawings lack sufficient detail. For example, they, (a) show no interior partitions (partitions were defined in an amendment to the drawing filed after the collapse); (b) show that while the southern wall has few openings, the north wall has many, (this is significant in that because of the lack of partitions, the walls must resist the winds playing upon them as vertical cantilevers); (c) show that the number 5 vertical bars in the fill cells are 12 feet apart, (to serve as reinforced masonry, they should be 4 but no more than 8 feet apart depending on the circumstances); (d) reflect a ceiling height of 14 feet whereas later drawings show a difference in elevation; (e) show that the tie beam is to be constituted of inverted masonry U-beam 16 inches deep filled with concrete and reinforcing steel without providing for any obvious way to insert the concrete within the beam; (f) failed to show with detail the strap makeup or method of connection for the hurricane straps to be used to hold down the roof trusses to the walls, (the drawings show that the strap is to loop over the truss and if the straps do not do so, the connection is weak); (g) reflect that the door height at the openings on the north and south side doors are different than the tie beam height but there is no showing of how the weight of the roof is to be distributed over the door head only 8 inches below the tie-beam (this could contribute to the collapse of the building); and (h) failed to show drawings of trusses by the Respondent. In this regard, the truss company's drawings and specifications are insufficient. Since the Respondent's drawings do not define with particularity how the trusses are to be constructed, the truss fabricator must make assumptions as to the stress and load to be applied. With regard to the pre-engineered and pre-manufactured roof trusses, Mr. Power is of the opinion that the designer, Respondent, should have: (1) stated his criteria for the design of the truss (Respondent did not do this); (2) stated the qualifications of the designer (Respondent did not do this); (3) submitted clear instructions regarding his design (Respondent's are unclear and unsatisfactory). Mr. Power also indicates that in his experience, bracing for the trusses is installed at the building site and that only the basic truss is constructed at the truss company's plant. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the practice in Brevard County is for the building designer, as here, to give the basic specifications needed for the truss, and thereafter, the truss designer, working for the truss company, designs and builds the complete truss for delivery to the site. If Mr. Power's position is to be believed, personal supervision of the designer would be required at the site once the basic truss was delivered. Here, however, Mr. Power operates out of Miami and Petitioner has failed to show that he is familiar with the trade practice in the area involved in this dispute. Respondent's position is somewhat supported by the fact that his plans contain a disclaimer of supervision and no issue was made that this is a forbidden or unaccepted practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that Respondent's design of the trusses in this case was faulty. Mr. Power also identified several "design deficiencies" in Respondent's work. Among these were that there was no requirement for the use of reinforced masonry which is different from concrete and that Respondent's drawings provided no details or standards for the mortar or grout, the substance used to fill the holes in concrete blocks which should have a minimum slump of 8 inches. (If one tried to fill these cells from the top of a 14 foot wall, it is most likely that the cell, the hole within the blocks, would not be filled.) Further, the formulae used by Respondent in his calculations are for solid materials in the walls -- not for cinder block which was the material called for here. On the basis of the above discrepancies, it appeared to Mr. Power that Respondent did not understand the difference between the requirements for construction with concrete block and those for construction with reinforced masonry. In addition, according to Mr. Power, the reinforcing walls inserted in the design by the Respondent after the collapse of the building are of materials not permitted by the SBC. Also the SBC requires that the ratio of length to width of roof diaphragm should be no more than 4. The purpose of this is to provide support to the top of the wall so as to resist loads placed upon it by the force of wind. Here, Respondent's design has not adequately provided this reinforcement, in Mr. Power's judgment, and the design does not meet the SBC requirement. The SBC also requires designs of buildings to be constructed in the Palm Bay area to be able to withstand 90 mph winds. Mr. Power's calculations based on Respondent's plans and drawings show it is questionable that a building built pursuant to Respondent's plans would sustain 90 mph winds. The fact that the chances are only one in fifty that in any given year winds of this speed would be reached is immaterial. As to the filling of the holes (cells) in the concrete block, Mr. Power contends that it is a good practice to show in the drawing a breakout in the block at the bottom of the wall so that the builder can see that the concrete has in fact gone all the way down to the bottom as it should. Here, however, the building code does not require this to be done. Again, considering the Respondent's use of cement instead of grout to fill the cells, the Respondent followed county practice and the SBC does not specifically require the use of grout. Nonetheless, Mr. Power is of the opinion that even though Respondent's drawings indicated that he would not inspect at the site, it was unreasonable for Respondent to expect the cells to be filled since it is well known that many contractors do not inspect to insure that the cells are filled as called for. Mr. Power is also of the opinion that the lintels as described in one of the amendments to the basic drawings, though permissible for use, are inadequate to handle the indicated roof load and the drawings prepared by Respondent did not show the lintel capacity. Mr. Power contends that the SBC requires drawings to show sufficient detail to indicate the intent of the designer to allow the contractor using the drawings to conform to code standards. Admittedly, this is subjective criteria, not an objective one, as to what constitutes sufficient detail. The amendments added to the original designs helped somewhat to correct the deficiencies, but do not make them adequate. Taken as a whole, the drawings are not adequate, in the opinion of Mr. Power, to comply with the SBC. They are not adequate to pass on the designer's intent to the contractor and they are not adequate to show the designer's understanding of design elements. These errors and deficiencies described above are, in the opinion of Mr. Power, significant and not minor. Based on his analysis of the overall drawings and situation, he concluded that Respondent has not demonstrated his capability to handle this particular task which, in the opinion of Mr. power, is relatively simple. Respondent's drawings and the other documents pertinent to the project in issue here including calculations, correspondence, photos, and the investigative report, were also reviewed by Ernest C. Driver, a Florida licensed consultant engineer operating in Cairo, Georgia. Mr. Driver also reviewed Mr. Power's reports and is in complete agreement with his conclusions. He did some calculations on his own and on the basis of them, formed an opinion of Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project. He found that the reinforcing of the cinder block cells on the walls were too widely spaced at 12 foot centers instead of 4 to 8 foot centers. In addition, he did not agree with the engineering conclusions drawn by the Respondent. The calculations performed by Respondent were, in his opinion, improper and as a result, the design is over-stressed by approximately 215 percent. This came about, apparently, because Respondent designed a wall as though there were no doors in it. In addition, the way the tie beam is designed, it is impossible to get the reinforcing concrete into the "U." Further, the hurricane straps required to affix the roof trusses to the tie beam cannot be attached to the beam itself. Also, the design called for concrete block to be installed above the doors. This procedure placed as much as four times the load the lintel should carry. Mr. Driver also found that the diaphragm used by Respondent was of gypsum board which, in his opinion, is not a proper material for diaphragms. Also, according to Mr. Driver's interpretation of Respondent's plan, there is no way that the wind shear force applied to the diaphragm can be transmitted to the side wall and thence down to the earth. This is a definite deficiency and Respondent's drawings and notes are not complete enough to allow a clear determination of what is required as to materials to be used and how the work should be accomplished. Other deficiencies are seen in that the drawings show a 230 foot long building without an expansion joint. In Mr. Driver's opinion, this is far too long for construction without such a joint. In addition, the 26 foot high end wall is not addressed in the design which has no indication of how the roof is to be attached to it. Mr. Driver concurs with Mr. Power's opinion regarding the insufficiency of the plans and specifications offered by Respondent for the roof trusses in that there is no framing plan nor are there specifications identified for the trusses. Shop drawings should have been provided instead of only a cut sheet. While this witness does not know what the current Brevard County practice regarding the design and construction of trusses is, he is convinced that it is as Respondent says it is, to wit: that they are completely fabricated at the shop and delivered completed for installation to the job site, this is a poor practice. Connected to the issue of roof trusses is that regarding the metal hurricane straps which Respondent indicated his plans called for. These metal straps, which can easily be bent by hand are, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, a poor method of affixing the trusses to the tie beam. There are too many things that can go wrong such as hinging, the lack of a firm seating for the strap in the concrete, the bending of the metal, and the pulling of the affixing nails through the holes in the strap thereby resulting in no grip. In addition to his dissatisfaction with the use of concrete to fill the cells in the cinder blocks, Mr. Driver also feels that the use of concrete to fill a continuous 14 foot cell is improper. In his opinion, the drawings should call for a solid block every 4 feet and for weep holes through which compaction can be noted periodically throughout that distance. All of this should be in the engineer's notes. The notes by Respondent do not identify these areas. Even though Respondent's notes called for the 14 feet to be filled, his plans failed to provide methods to insure that complete filling was accomplished. Examination of the pictures of the wall after the collapse reveals that complete filling was not accomplished and this failure on the part of Respondent to provide a reasonably foolproof method of insuring complete compaction cannot be excused and responsibility shifted to the contractor by the mere statement by Respondent on the plans that he would not inspect. Engineering practice is made up of judgment as well as the specific formulae which can be obtained from engineering textbooks. There are assumptions which may be made -- some good and some bad. In the opinion of Mr. Driver, the defects described above indicate that Respondent's assumptions were bad. As a result, his judgment was bad. He feels that, in light of all the evidence, Respondent was negligent, failed to use due care, failed to conform to accepted engineering principles, failed to accomplish drawings sufficiently detailed to instruct the contractor as to exactly what needed to he done, and failed to provide drawings which, if followed exactly as presented, would by themselves, enable a builder to construct a safe structure. Here, based on the drawings prepared and submitted by Respondent, a builder would have to demonstrate a high and exceptional degree of expertise in order to fill in the omitted details required to make the building safe. Acceptable drawing standards are not defined with specificity in the SBC. Much is subjective rather than objective. For example, nothing in the SBC prohibits the use of gypsum board as a horizontal diaphragm, but, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, it is not common practice to use it for such. This goes to the question of judgment. In any event, the code may be erroneous in some particulars and not all answers are contained in it. It is for this reason that the law requires the use of a licensed engineer whose judgment fills in the gaps left by the code. Here all the defects identified in Respondent's drawings are within the province of an engineer. These are the items an engineer is needed for to accomplish. Here, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, there are too many defects and Respondent's work does not conform to any of the standards used in the engineering community as to schooling, information gained from working with other engineers, or the witness's personal experience. In rebuttal to the above, Respondent presented no experts of his own, but testified as to his disagreement with the analyses of Petitioner's experts. The testimony by Mr. Power and Mr. Driver is found to be accurate and descriptive of the defects in Respondent's performance. There are a few exceptions such as where local Brevard County practice differs from the experience of these experts, however, taken as a whole, the evidence clearly indicates Respondent's shortcomings for the most part. The testimony of the experts has established a series of defects in Respondent's performance which he has failed to satisfactorily rebut.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, RAYMOND HIRST, be placed on probation for one year, that he be reprimanded, and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1985 in 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 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Raymond Hirst 379 Franklyn Avenue Indiatlantic, Florida 32903 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Board of professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
The Issue It is necessary to resolve the following issues in this proceeding: Whether Mr. Taft violated Section 471.025(3), F.S. and thereby violated Section 471.033(1)(a), F.S., by signing and sealing plans depicting work that he was not licensed nor qualified to perform; Whether he violated Section 471.033(1)(j), F.S., by signing and sealing plans that had not been prepared by him or under his supervision, direction or control; and Whether he violated Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., by misconduct in the practice of engineering for the same acts alleged in a) and b), above.
Findings Of Fact Barrett L. Taft, P. E. has been licensed in the State of Florida as a professional engineer since 1968, holding license number PE 0013208. Mr. Taft graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1940 with a degree in metallurgical engineering. For the first 27 years he practiced mostly metallurgical engineering, with some, but admittedly very little building experience. After moving to Florida he took the engineers' exam in metallurgical engineering and was licensed. Since being licensed in Florida, he has worked as a sole practitioner in the Maitland-Central Florida area. His primary business activity since 1968 has been the operation of a metal die casting business with a die casting machine that he invented and patented. The contractor who built Taft's plant in Casselberry, a pre-engineered metal building, asked Taft to help him work on foundations for metal buildings. In this way Taft started doing building projects, primarily metal buildings. Harvey Spears was one of the contractors Taft worked with. Spears is a licensed contractor who owns Spears General Contractors, Inc. in Eustis, Florida. J. C. Woliver is an employee of Spears, Inc. He is a draftsman and prepares estimates for the company. Neither he, nor Harvey Spears, nor the company are licensed in architecture or engineering. Sometime in 1985 and 1986, J. C. Woliver prepared drawings for two buildings to be constructed in Eustis by Spears. One was a 2,567 square foot insurance company building, the Talmadge Building; the other was a small strip shopping plaza, Bay Street Plaza. After the drawings were completed and approved by the owners, Harvey Spears took them to Taft's office for his review. Taft reviewed and sealed the drawings. Building permits were obtained; both projects were constructed and they are now occupied by the owners' businesses. Barrett Taft never met with the owners prior to sealing the drawings, nor did he ever meet or talk with J. C. Woliver during preparation of the drawings. Neither Woliver nor Spears were employed by Barrett Taft and he had no supervisory relationship with these individuals. Taft did not do engineering calculations for these two projects, as in his view they were very simple. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Woliver and checked them against the standard building code. No changes were made prior to Taft's application of his seal and return of the drawings to Spears. The plans for the Bay Street Plaza were signed, dated and sealed by Mr. Taft in his capacity as a professional engineer on August 5, 1985. The Talmadge Building plans were signed, dated and sealed by Mr. Taft in his capacity as a professional engineer on May 6, 1986. The drawings sealed by Taft for both projects are very sketchy and lack essential detail. No engineering calculations are included, and it is impossible to review the drawings to determine compliance with fire and life- safety codes. Because these buildings are used and inhabited by the public, they should have been designed by an architect. Architects, not engineers, are trained and tested in the requirements of the various building codes, including the fire and life-safety codes. Barrett Taft is not a licensed architect. Taft argues that he was providing a service to the public and the customers are satisfied. His arrangement with Harvey Spears with regard to sealing Woliver's drawings was that he would not handle anything complicated and the contractor would follow the building code. He felt that the buildings were little more than house-like structures which would not require an engineer's calculations or a seal. Barrett Taft was disciplined previously by the Board of Professional Engineers. In an Order dated May 25, 1984, and amended July 31, 1984, the Board imposed a fine of $1,000.00 and one year probation. The order was entered after an informal hearing requested by Mr. Taft. The Board found in that case (DPR #0034220) that Mr. Taft was guilty of negligence; that he lacked training, experience and education to perform the services provided; and that he affixed his seal and signature to drawings that were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervision or direction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Barrett L. Taft, P.E., guilty of violations of subsections 471.025(3), 471.033(1)(a), (g) and (j), and imposing the following discipline. Reprimand. (b) $1,000.00 fine. One year suspension. Two years probation, following suspension, under conditions to be determined by the Board, relating to limiting Mr. Taft's practice to a field in which he is qualified to work and limiting the use of his seal to his own work. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Barrett L. Taft 2940 Cove Trail Maitland, Florida 32571 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a structural engineer should be approved. This case arose as a result of a determination by Respondent that Petitioner had not passed the reexamination for licensure as a structural engineer which was held on October 25, 1985. Petitioner contends that he was disadvantaged by the time allowed to study for the examination, the time taken to publish the results of the examination, the esoteric nature of a steel beam problem, and the design method required for a reinforced concrete structure. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner was not so disadvantaged, but that even if he were, it is not sufficient to increase his grade to a passing score. The respective contentions of the parties were embodied in a pre-hearing stipulation which was received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. Petitioner appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel and was therefore advised of his rights and the procedures to be employed in the administrative proceeding. He indicated that he understood his rights and such procedures, and elected to represent himself. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted six exhibits which were received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of James A. Power, a consulting structural engineer and Allen R. Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. In addition, Respondent submitted six exhibits in evidence, which were admitted. Petitioner's application for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. The parties were given until September 2, 1986, in which to file any posthearing submissions. However, Respondent failed to file any such submission and Petitioner's written argument was untimely filed on September 3, 1986.
Findings Of Fact By application received by Respondent on August 13, 1985, Petitioner Max E. Lambie applied for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination to be held on October 25, 1985. The application reflected that Petitioner had previously passed the "Fundamentals" part of a previous examination on April 19, 1985, and that his application was to take the "Principles and Practice" part for reexamination in the discipline of structural engineering. By a letter dated August 21, 1985, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the application and applicable fees. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Petitioner thereafter received from Respondent's Office of Examination Services, a "Notice to Appear for October 24-25, 1985, Professional Engineer (PE) Examination." The notice included information that Part II of the examination was to be based on Professional Principles and Practice, and devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of the candidate's discipline. It further stated as follows: In the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, candidates are required to solve eight (8) problems; four (4) in the morning session and four (4) in the afternoon session, drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (H) STRUCTURAL: Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces. The notice also stated that a passing grade on Part II of the examination was defined as a grade of seventy (70) or better, and that within approximately three (3) months after the examination date, the applicant would receive written notification of the examination results. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) By a Memorandum from Allen R. Smith, Jr., Director, Board of Professional Engineers, dated September 20, 1985, applicants applying for licensure by examination in the structural engineering discipline were advised that the examination was now given once a year and that the schedule was October 24 and 25, 1985, and October 23 and 24, 1986. The Memorandum further noted that the Board of Professional Engineers had amended Rule 21H- 21.02, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to the discipline of structural engineering to require that applicants were required to answer questions dealing specifically with structural engineering, and that applicants must answer four out of six questions on the a.m. and four out of six questions on the p.m. portions of the Principles and Practice examination. Enclosures to the Memorandum reflected the subject matter and numbers of the examination questions. A copy of Chapter 21H- 21 of the Respondent's Rules, dated July, 1985, was attached to the Memorandum. Rule 21H-21.02(2) provided in part as follows: Part two of the examination shall be based on Professional Practices and Principles and shall be devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's finding solutions to problems designed to test the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of his discipline. Applicants for registration must select one of the listed specializations in which to be examined. . . . In Part Two of the examination the applicant will usually be required to solve from seven to ten problems which the applicant may choose from approximately twenty problems drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (h) STRUCTURAL--"Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces." Finally, the Memorandum included an enclosure entitled "Design Reference Codes, Standards and Manuals" which listed various manuals and codes to be used as references for the review and use of applicants. The Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and Basic Building Code, had an asterisk after their listings. A note at the bottom of the listing stated "Use code with which you are familiar and/or currently using in your practice." One of the listings also was "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318- 83." It was not followed by an asterisk on the listing. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Petitioner took the October, 1985, examination which was a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) and available for certification or licensure throughout the United States. Respondent's Rule 21H-21.01 provides that the examination "shall be provided by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE)." (Stipulation (Joint Exhibit 1), Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Testimony of Petitioner) Petitioner did not receive his examination grades until March, 1986. The uniform grade notice, dated March 21, 1986, advised him that his examination grade was 66.3 which was failing and that a minimum passing score was 70. The reason for the delay in mailing the examination scores was that one of Respondent's graders for a specific portion of the examination was unavailable due to illness or accident. (Testimony of Smith, Respondent's Exhibit 5) At the hearing, Petitioner testified that the late notification by Respondent that only questions on structural engineering would be on the October examination disrupted his preparation and left him insufficient time to adequately prepare for the examination. He testified that in prior examinations it was possible for a candidate to select questions not specifically related to structural engineering, such as economics, and that he had to "scramble" to obtain texts to study for new subjects. He also claimed that the note at the bottom of Respondent's Design Reference Codes, Standards and Materials (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) which had accompanied Respondent's September 20, 1985 Memorandum to applicants (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) was misleading in that he construed the note to permit him to use whatever building code he was familiar with, and that it was not until he arrived at the examination that he found out that he had made the wrong assumption in that regard. The facts show, however, that the prior examination taken by Petitioner was not solely in the structural engineering discipline, but was a Civil/Sanitary/ Structural examination. Further, Respondent's note on the listing of reference manuals clearly indicated that it applied only with respect to the Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and the Basic Building Code, and not to the other codes and manuals listed therein. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 2- 3, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner claimed that the examination contained questions requiring the application of building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318- 83, which had only been in effect for the past two years and was not familiar to applicants of his age group and past experience. He contended that he had to hurriedly prepare himself utilizing unfamiliar texts that had become available only a few months prior to the examination. ACI 318-83 deals with a concept called "ultimate strength design," but Petitioner was familiar with an older concept called "working strength design." He further claimed that the South Florida Building Code was based entirely on the latter concept. However, expert testimony presented by the Respondent showed that the ultimate strength design concept had been part of the ACI code since 1956 and always had been required in designing prestressed concrete members. He also testified that working strength design is still permitted as an alternative concept in ACI 318-83, that both the South Florida Building Code and Standard Building Code require conformance to ACI 318-83, and that such requirements have been in both codes for at least 25 years. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioner's claims that he was prejudiced by the use of ACI 318-83 in problems on the examination are without merit. In this regard, it is also noted that the April 19, 1985 examination required the use of the latest ACI code and one question required the use of the ultimate strength method. (Testimony of Petitioner, Tower, Respondent's Exhibits 1-6) Respondent also contended at the hearing that question no. 275 of the October, 1985 examination contained a typographical error which required assumption of a different criterion for the solution, and that his expenditure of time in resolving the situation resulted in a score of five out of a possible ten. However, no evidence was presented that his solution was incomplete or that the score awarded by the graders was incorrect. Petitioner brought the typographical error to the attention of the Board by a letter stating that the error induced "extraordinary anxiety which contributed to a loss of concentration" and asked that his observation be passed on to the NCEE. At the hearing, he claimed that past typographical errors on examinations had resulted in adjustment of score points and that such should have been done with regard to the error which he pointed out to Respondent. Again, however, it is found that there was insufficient evidence presented to establish that the error noted by Petitioner had affected the grading of his solution. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 6.) Petitioner's claim that the late grading of the examination precluded him from applying for the Spring, 1986 examination is found to be irrelevant to the question of his failure of the October, 1985 examination. Further, his complaint that the new structural examination is used only in six states and that Florida was one of the first states to adopt the new examination provides no grounds for relief. The Board's purpose in changing the examination format was due to the belief that structural engineers should be more qualified in that particular discipline. In any event, the new Board rule established such format and no challenge to the rule was filed by Petitioner. (Testimony of Petitioner, Smith)
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
