Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David R. Oldham, is a registered architect in the State of Florida, holding license no. 5786. The original date of his registration is August 31, 1972. The Respondent's license is presently in a probationary status. He is a self-employed architect. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice and the practice standards of architecture and architects in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 481, Florida Statutes. COUNTS I & II Pursuant to a written contract entered into July 10, 1980, and signed on July 14, 1980, the Respondent agreed to provide architectural services to one "William D. Buck or "Bill Buck" for additions and alterations to his automobile dealership known as Bill Buck Chevrolet, Inc., located at 2324 South Tamiami Trail, Venice, Florida. The contract provided for the preparation of various plans and construction documents preparatory to construction of a new service building of approximately 5,000 square feet area, with additions and alterations to the existing office area of approximately 800 square feet, and the relocation of an existing inspection facility to provide for two entrance and exit lanes to automotive service-bays. The contract called for two service stalls to be depicted in each of four service-bays in the new building for a total of eight service stalls. A roof was to span across the driveway connecting the existing structure with the new service building to be constructed pursuant to the plans. The contract required Respondent to prepare a site plan, floor plans, elevations and necessary sections, details and schedules in order to permit the owner, Bill Buck, to invite bids and construct the project. The Respondent undertook to provide a set of plans from which he and his contractor could build the entire project. The Respondent prepared the plans for Mr. Buck and they were given to contractor David Malcolmson. Mr. Malcolmson suggested that the building be changed from a metal building to a concrete block structure because it could be built cheaper and faster. Mr. Buck agreed to that change and the Respondent made changes to his drawings to indicate that the type of construction had shifted from metal to masonry. The new building was ultimately constructed as a single story structure consisting of a poured concrete monolithic floor slab- footing, with filled masonry concrete block walls and a prestressed concrete slab roof. The Respondent prepared and issued a nine sheet set of plans, dated December 22, 1980, for the additions and alterations to the Chevrolet dealership. All nine sheets in this set of plans were signed and sealed by Respondent and ultimately filed with the Sarasota County Building Department. These plans are known hereinafter as the "permit set." On December 23, 1980, the contractor applied for a building permit, and on January 12, 1981, the building department issued the permit authorizing construction in accordance with the permit set of plans, signed, sealed and prepared by Respondent. The permit set of plans contained the entire specifications for the project, and the entire specifications filed with that building department. During construction, Mr. Buck himself, became concerned about the integrity of the foundation of the building. He questioned his contractor, Mr. Malcolmson, about the strength of the foundation since he knew that the type of construction had changed from metal to the prestressed concrete and concrete block structure having a substantially greater weight. At or near the completion of the construction, various cracks were observed in the walls and floors which caused a great deal of concern to Mr. Buck. He requested an inspection from the building department, and the building inspector became concerned upon seeing the cracks and asked the contractor to have an expert investigate and determine whether a serious structural problem existed. Thus, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the building department, the contractor hired Ardaman and Associates, Inc. (Ardaman), a firm of consulting engineers, to test the foundation. On June 1, 1981, Ardaman inspected the wall and foundation system of the new building and issued a report to the contractor in the form of a letter. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 16) Ardaman had discovered a crack in the floor slab running parallel to the north wall about three feet away from that wall extending the entire length of the building. The crack was found by Ardaman to be a "stress-relief" crack caused by settlement of the monolithic foundation. The foundation was loaded and tension stress was transmitted to the top of the slab causing a tension failure (crack) in the concrete slab. Ardaman's test revealed that the soil under the wall and foundation had a bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. The plans themselves had envisioned a 2,000 pound per square foot allowable soilbearing load. Indeed, the soil pressure compression was ultimately 5,285 pounds per square foot actual load from the weight of the building. Ardaman additionally noted two vertical cracks in that wall attributed to temperature changes. Ardaman thus recommended packing concrete under the existing foundation to prevent undermining or eroding of the soil under the foundation, since the foundation was actually above grade. The existing foundation supporting the north wall was only a half-inch from the adjacent property line, and was above the adjacent grade by 3 to 12 inches. This is a potentially serious condition since it allows erosion of the soil under the foundation and undermining and a resulting collapse of the wall could occur. The building official from the county recommended that the contractor excavate and then backfill the excavation under the foundation with concrete to bring the lower edge of the footing down below grade level to take care of possible erosion problems. Erosion could remove some of the bearing soil from under the foundation. With that recommendation, on July 14, 1981, the building department issued a certificate of occupancy. On August 26, 1981, at the request of the building contractor, Ardaman made an additional inspection of the facility. On August 27, Ardaman informed the contractor and the building department that no new conditions were observed at the site, but described for the first time the rotation of the footing which could cause concomitant rotation of the wall (leaning). Ardaman measured the movement of the foundation system and found that the footing had rotated or tilted approximately three-fourths of an inch to one inch at the point of the wall's contact with the footing. This could cause rotation of the wall which would decrease the bearing area of the prestressed roof slabs or beams bearing and supported by the top of the wall. On November 4, 1981, the building department notified the contractor of its concern that the problem with the service building had not yet been resolved. The building department was concerned that because of footing or wall rotation, a loss of roof slab bearing area might have occurred and that necessary correction should be made. Because these corrections had not yet been made, the building department recommended that occupancy be discontinued until corrections could be made to the structure. On December 15, Ardaman urged the contractor to complete the following items of remedial work: To underpin portions of the foundation, originally constructed below grade, to increase the safety factor and to comply with the Southern Standard Building Code minimum cover requirement; To retain a professional engineer to design an auxiliary bearing system that would prohibit significant wall rotation, as the wall had already rotated .085 inches in 8.0 feet; and To fill floor cracks and wall cracks. Ardaman's recommendations and findings of deficiencies regarding the structure were put in a letter filed with the building department and entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 19, corroborated by testimony of the building official, Mr. Light. It was thus established that the design of the addition to Bill Buck Chevrolet, Inc., did not comply with appropriate building code requirements related to foundation and upgrade. On approximately February 4, 1982, the attorney for Bill Buck retained Mr. William Snell, P.E., a consulting engineer. Mr. Snell was retained to review the project to determine if serious problems existed in the design or construction. Vertical cracks were observed in the north wall on both the inside and outside surfaces. Several feet inside the building a long crack parallel to the north wall had developed in the four-inch concrete floor slab. By this time, Ardaman's recommendation to pack concrete under the north footing to prevent erosion, had already been performed. The building department still had reservations about the integrity of the building. Recent measurements for instance had revealed that the north wall was leaning three-eighths of an inch north at the ceiling line. Mr. Snell reviewed a blueprint copy of Respondent's permit set of plans. This permit set of plans contains nine sheets (eight architectural and structural sheets and one electrical sheet). They contained no topographic survey and no building elevations are depicted. Mr. Snell's written opinions regarding the project are contained in his letter of February 15, 1982, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 20 and his letter of February 17, 1982, to the building official, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 21. Additionally, Mr. Snell was accepted and testified as an expert witness in structural engineering at the hearing. Mr. Snell described the project as consisting of the new service building which abuts the adjacent common property line on the west side of the property on which the building was built. The west wall of the service building is one-half inch from that property line. The building contains a series of service-bays containing a total of eight maintenance stalls next to that common property line. The building also has waiting rooms and office space. Between the original existing Bill Buck Chevrolet building and the new service building addition is a drive-through structure for cars which consists of a paved drive covered by a roof made of prestressed concrete "double-t's". One of the problems extant on the face of the plans is that they contain a number of details left over from the original steel building design before it was decided to change to a masonry structure. Changing from the steel to masonry construction added considerable weight to the structure because a precast concrete roof deck is considerably heavier than a metal building roof deck as are masonry walls compared to sheet steel walls and steel columns, etc. The change from steel to masonry as the construction mode is significant in at least two ways: First, the change created confusion in understanding tie plans. Some steel details in the plans have been voided yet others are still on the plans creating an apparent inconsistency. For instance, Sheet 2 shows steel columns and overhead framing lines, "H sections" and pipe columns, all steel components used for metal building construction. Sheet 8 still shows some walls as "non- block." Other sheets, however, such as Sheets 4 and 5, indicate only masonry for the walls. Sheet 8 indicates some steel details explicitly voided, yet others, as on Sheet 2, are only partially erased so that "ghost images" or vestiges of the "steel plan" remain. Further confusion is shown by the inconsistency between the "ghost images" on Sheets 2 and 8 which show the "H" columns and pipe columns on Sheet 2 reversed on Sheet 8. The Respondent obviously was not conscious of the impact of the change from the steel to masonry mode throughout the set of drawings. Secondly, the change from steel to masonry is significant because the additional weight was not adequately provided for structurally. Some of the structural supports for a steel building were erased, yet the remaining thickened edge floor slab was not redesigned to provide an adequate foundation for masonry. In essence, the foundation is inadequate with the great weight of the masonry construction placed on top of it. In reality, the mere thickened edge on the floor slab does not constitute an adequate footing or foundation, based on Mr. Snell's analysis of the downward loads on the foundation. The footings were eccentrically loaded by being on the edge of the foundation instead of centered. The forces exceed both the 2,000 pounds per square foot allowable soil bearing pressure that is depicted on Sheet 8 of the plans, and the 3,000 pounds per square foot that the Ardaman firm reports as acceptable soil pressure. The soil pressure compression found by Mr. Snell was 5,285 pounds per square foot. Thus, the footings were shown to be considerably overloaded, causing the thin four-inch floor slab to crack, and then to rotate, carrying the wall in rotation with it when soil eroded out from underneath it due to the footing being installed originally above grade level. The building was dangerously overstressed as designed, and should have been dismantled or strengthened by placing new footings and piers under supporting steel beams to take the roof load off the overloaded, common property line wall. Additionally, the plans depicted no "book" specifications and made no note of the proper concrete strength to be used nor the degree of compaction of soil required. They depicted no design loads for the roof, floor, nor for wind. No roof framing plans were provided and the Respondent did not adequately depict the roof span over the driveway and failed to exercise due care in drafting the roof span. The Respondent never developed a "so-called Section E-E" referred to on Sheet 3 of the plans. Nowhere in the plans were any support beams over the service stall doors shown and no reinforcement for this area was depicted. No reinforcement was specified for the concrete block wall piers between the service stall doors of the building. The east wall of the structure with its series of wall piers between the service-bay doors is actually more severely loaded than the west side of the building where the cracking occurred. The cracking occurred on the west side, however, because erosion of soil from under the foundation aggravated the problem of excessive load on the foundation. The load on the east wall of the structure, however, is 29,000 pounds per square foot for the wall piers, which also are merely sitting on the thickened slab, as is the west wall. Additionally, the Respondent failed to require a topographic survey and failed to make a grading and drainage plan for the site. The property is characterized by a downward gradient towards the west wall, and therefore, if there had been a topographic survey, the Respondent could have designed a "stepped-down" foundation to keep the foundations below grade. The Respondent, however, failed to do this, which resulted in the foundation for the west wall being above grade with the resulting erosion problems. Additionally, no crack control or expansion joints were provided for in the plans for the wall where Ardaman Engineering found the temperature cracks. After examining the plans and the building, Mr. Snell concluded that the plans were seriously deficient and that the building, as evidenced by cracking and exceptional deflection of structural members, was in a failing condition, with a total collapse being conceivable. Mr. Snell filed a complaint with the Petitioner and informed the building department on February 23, 1982. On that date, on the basis of Mr. Snell's report, the building officials suspended the certificate of occupancy. On that date the building official requested that the Respondent submit complete structural calculations, to which the Respondent never replied. After the certificate of occupancy was suspended, Mr. Snell prepared drawings for structural repairs and another contractor was retained to obtain a repair permit for the building. Thus the project was ultimately structurally corrected, and on June 14, 1982, the building department reinstated the certificate of occupancy. The Respondent never asked for any site information, topographical or otherwise from the owner, Mr. Buck, and the contractor, Mr. Malcolmson, had to establish the floor elevation for the new building. The Respondent contends that he issued the permit drawings without the topographical and grade information because Mr. Buck indicated that an engineer would separately furnish all required site information. The fact remains, however, that the Respondent allowed the drawings to be issued from his office without the grade and topographical information, thus signing, sealing and submitting an incomplete set of plans to his client. Mr. David Titsch is a registered architect and was accepted as an expert witness in the field of architecture on behalf of Petitioner. He established that it is customary for an architect to require an owner to have a topographic survey performed. The architect's responsibility is to see that the survey is performed so that he may use that information to design the project and adequately prepare drawings. If an architect requests his client to provide such information and the client or owner fails to do so, the architect should proceed no further. It is a departure from reasonable and prudent architectural practice to allow drawings to be signed, sealed and issued as final plans from an architect's office which do not depict grade information. It is particularly important to show grade information for adjacent property when proposing an addition to a structure that will abut on a property line, as in the instant situation. In addition to the failure to depict site grade, the Respondent failed to illustrate floor elevations, simply drawing a floor slab at an undetermined elevation which put the burden on the contractor to estimate where to put the floor of the building. Serious loading problems on the footing along the west property line were demonstrated based upon Mr. Titsch's calculations, as well. It is a design error to put a ten-inch deep "floating slab" foundation along a property line. This type design is insufficient because it creates a hazard along the property line where there could be erosion of the supporting soil and where the architect, contractor and the owner cannot control what use the adjacent property owner might make of his property, which could have the effect of undermining the slab-type foundation. In fact, the slab was constructed above grade and the monolithic slab footing became exposed when a washout occurred on the adjacent property. Additionally, the span over the driveway was excessive and structural support for the roof slab (24-inch "double T" prestressed concrete members) was inadequate. The foundation and vertical structural support was simply not designed to carry that load, and the span of the roof over the driveway area was bordering on failure. No beams were depicted supporting the wall and roof sections over the garage door openings. Thus, the contractor was left to guess, once again, as to how to support the building above these openings. In light of these deficiencies, Mr. Titsch opined that the plans depart from acceptable principles of professional architectural practice and could not result in a sound, safe building. Mr. Robert Dykes, AIA, testified as an architectural expert for Petitioner. Mr. Dykes reviewed the permit set of plans and testified concerning his expert opinion regarding the deficiencies appearing on the face of the plans. Thus, it was established, as to Sheet 1, the site plan, that the floor paving and site heights are not indicated, the water, sewer, electric and phone services are not shown, and the drainage for storm water is not indicated. The present and proposed buildings are poorly dimensioned. On Sheet 2 the thickness of walls and vertical reinforcing are not shown. The east-west dimensions do not correctly "add up." On the floor plan depicted on Sheet 3, the vertical structural steel is not shown in the garage stall areas. On Sheet 4, the foundation, a small rectangle is depicted, assumed to be the location of vertical reinforcing steel, but it is not shown in other floor plan depictions, rendering the various sheets inconsistent. Footing requirements for the front wall of the stalls are not depicted. On Sheet 5, the front elevations and southwest elevations of the main office area are not clear as to the span condition at the driveway between both buildings (roof span), nor is the vertical height of the front elevation and exterior building material illustrated. On Sheet 6 the type of concrete block to be used is not clearly indicated, and once again, solid rectangular squares are shown on this sheet to possibly indicate vertical reinforcing, but the exact meaning of these depicted squares was not described and they are not consistent with the foundation plan. Structural reinforcing requirements between and over the overhead doors are not indicated. On Sheet 7 the wall sections are not clear as to the sizes of the concrete beams, the reinforcing requirements and the "double-T" members and flat slab details. The wall sections are further shown to be inadequately drawn because they do not depict connection details between the flat slab and the steel or concrete beams. As to Sheet 8, no requirements for vertical reinforcement are shown and the original plans drawn for a metal building application have not been sufficiently modified to depict an adequate, safely- supported, precast concrete roof system. Finally, Sheet 9 regarding the electrical plan, does not provide any concrete information regarding the type of light fixtures, wattage, electrical circuits, air conditioning voltage or panel board locations. Mr. Dykes opined that the building failed structurally and was unsafe as designed and built. COUNT III On July 26, 1982, the Respondent signed a stipulation in DOAH Case No. 83-809, agreeing to pay a sum of money to former clients, Herman Chait and Ann R. Chait. The sum of $1,500, plus $26.55 costs, represents a judgment entered against the Respondent in favor of the Chaits by the County Court in and for Sarasota County. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the Respondent was to pay that amount in equal monthly installments over a period of 15 months, during which time the Respondent would be placed on probation by the Board of Architecture until the amount was paid in full. On September 28, 1982, the Board of Architecture entered a Final Order, incorporating in its entirety the stipulation signed by the Respondent. The final payment of the amount referred was due on December 28, 1982. On February 22, 1984, an order finding probable cause was entered by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation for the Respondent's violation of the stipulation. At the instant proceeding the Respondent admitted that he had signed the stipulation, that he had not paid the amount, and that the time limit for payment had expired. The Respondent also admitted receiving two letters from Petitioner's counsel as well as a telephone call reminding him of his obligation to pay the Chaits and the possibility of automatic suspension of his license for failure to pay. His sole defense is that his personal and financial circumstances did not permit him to meet that obligation, although he acknowledges that it is due and he intends to eventually pay it.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, School Board of Brevard County, Florida, is empowered to designated the personnel positions to be filled, prescribe qualifications for those positions, and provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees for the school district. The Respondent, Arthur Douglas Barna, has been employed by the Petitioner since the early 1970s. The Respondent has a degree in mechanical engineering, is a registered professional engineer, and has twenty years of experience in the construction field. Respondent's first position with the Petitioner was as construction manager. In 1976, Respondent's title was amended to staff engineer and construction manager. In 1981, Respondent was made Director of Facilities a position he held until February, 1991, when he was returned to the staff engineer position and John Allen was retained to be Director of Facilities. On April 23, 1991, Respondent was recommended for appointment to the position of staff engineer for the 1991-92 contract term by the school superintendent. The qualifications for appointment as staff engineer/project manager are: Graduation from a college or university with a degree in engineering. Registered as an engineer in the State of Florida. Experience (five years minimum) in educational design and facility planning administration. Experience in administration of educational construction contracts. Knowledge of Uniform Building Code and Florida School Laws and Regulations. On April 23, 1991, by a 3-2 vote, the Petitioner rejected the superintendent's recommendation to employ Respondent. Prior to April 23, 1991, Respondent had received satisfactory personnel evaluations. Prior to April 23, 1991, Respondent had not been reprimanded or disciplined for any act or omission regarding the performance of his duties. In the two years prior to April 23, 1991, Respondent had participated in numerous construction and remodeling projects for the Petitioner. Such projects exceeded $46,000,000.00 in cost to the public. One of projects Respondent was involved with during his tenure with the Board was Stone Middle School (Stone). That project originated with a bid proceeding to choose a contractor to perform the construction work. One of Respondent's duties was to represent the Board at bid openings. In the case of the Stone project, within a short time after the bid opening, the apparent low bidder on the job, Speegle Construction (Speegle), advised Respondent that an error had been made on the bid form. That error was claimed to be in the amount of $40,000.00. Speegle's bid was $90,000.00 lower than the next low bidder. Speegle had tendered a bid bond in the amount of $50,000.00. After reviewing the matter with the bidder, Respondent took the matter to his supervisor who then took the issue to the school superintendent and board staff. Among the staff who considered the issue was the school board attorney. Regardless of any dispute regarding the computation of the $40,000.00 error (such are deemed irrelevant to the essential issue), the Board was presented its options: to take the bid bond and award the contract to the next lowest bidder; to give Speegle the additional $40,000.00 and award it the contract; or, presumably, rebid the project. Since awarding Speegle the contract, with the $40,000.00 addition, still saved the public $50,000.00, over the next lowest bidder, Respondent recommended that option. His recommendation was supported by his superiors. After public discussion of the matter, the Board unanimously voted to select Speegle as recommended by staff. No evidence supports the assumption that the Board's decision, based in part on Respondent's recommendation, was found to be illegal, unethical or challenged by the other bidders on the project. The Stone project had additional problems since the architectural firm hired to complete the drawings did not meet the guidelines established by the Department of Education. On at least two occasions the plans had to be returned to comply with state standards. Consequently, the project was late commencing. Such lateness was not due to the fault or error of the Respondent. To the extent he was involved, Respondent properly supervised the Stone construction project and did not approve inferior work. All specifications of the contract were met and verified by Respondent and then assistant superintendent for facilities, Leon Cowling. Issues regarding performance of the Stone project arose between Respondent and Cliff Gordon, president of the architectural firm involved with the job. Such issues related to the lockers and an athletic field which Mr. Gordon claimed did not meet specifications. Such allegations are not supported by the record in this case. When the Stone project was not completed on time, Respondent assessed liquidated damages against Speegle in accordance with the contract terms. Respondent was not responsible for the lateness, and Speegle, in fact, made good on the damages. Respondent and Mr. Gordon did not agree on aspects of the Stone project. Mr. Gordon became disgruntled when Respondent would not approve payment to Mr. Gordon's firm for work allegedly done. Mr. Gordon attended Board meetings regardless of his claim that Respondent had advised him to stay away. Respondent was not responsible for the removal or encapsulation of asbestos found in several schools. Respondent's position placed him in a position over construction, not maintenance. Moreover, another school administrator was assigned to be responsible for overseeing issues related to asbestos at all times material to this case. Respondent did not supervise a project wherein the treatment of asbestos was at issue. Anderson Elementary School (Anderson) has a noise problem in that sound travels from one area to another. The ceiling tile used in the Anderson project was the same product used in the other schools and was the contractor's choice. At the time of installment an issue arose as to whether the tile to be used met the specifications of the contract. Ultimately, the architect signed off on the use of the tile requested by the contractor. Unfortunately, the tile used does not buffer noise. Whether the tile originally requested would more effectively buffer the noise is unknown. Whether the design of the facility contributes to the noise problems is also unknown. That there is a noise problem at Anderson is not due to an act, omission, or the negligence of the Respondent. In connection with the air conditioning system installed at Southwest Junior High School (Southwest) a problem arose as to that system's design. Respondent did not design the system. In fact, a design firm was retained to complete the work and the system was installed based upon that work. The Board does not have the personnel or the staff expertise to verify whether outside consultants perform their jobs correctly. Presumably, the Board utilizes such consultants because it does not have the internal resources to do the work requested. In the case of Southwest, the firm hired designed the system improperly. As a result, the Board made a claim, and collected, against the firm's errors and omissions insurance. Thus, the Board received damages for the design defect. Cambridge Elementary School (Cambridge) is located adjacent to a housing subdivision developed by Centex Homes. Due to drainage problems associated with the development, the homeowners' association and the developer requested that the Board execute a drainage easement on the Cambridge property so that the properties might be enhanced. The homeowners' proposal made to the Board gave the expense of preparing and maintaining the easement to the association. Respondent was approached regarding the drainage easement and considered the matter to benefit the school site. Respondent and Mr. Cowling recommended granting the easement. Such easement was to be preceeded by an agreement setting forth the homeowners' obligations to the Board. For reasons not addressed by this record, an agreement was not prepared and returned to the Board as had been directed. In fact, the Board chairman and superintendent executed the drainage easement without evidence of an agreement. Nothing in this record suggests Respondent had anything to do with the execution of the easement or the failure to obtain a written agreement regarding it. Moreover, these events occurred in May and November, 1988, some three years prior to the nonappointment of Respondent. The construction of the educational services facilities at Viera posed many novel and complicated construction issues for the Board and its staff. For one thing, the Board had not utilized a "design/build" format in construction before. Based upon the record in this case, it is unlikely that the format will be used again. The design/build format requires the construction of some phases of a project while the design is still occurring. As a result, unlike situations where a contractor has a determined set of plans to follow, the builder in the design/build format is in a constant state of flux and change. As may be expected, the owner is tied to the same constant amendment to plans. In the case of Viera, Respondent served as the owner's representative on the project. By contract, all notices and changes went through Respondent who was then responsible for coordinating with the Board staff. At all times material to the Viera project, Respondent kept his supervisor aware of the progress of the project and of the changes to plans or specifications. It was not Respondent's responsibility to report directly to the Board regarding the Viera project (or any other for that matter). Respondent routinely made reports to his supervisor who then coordinated matters with finance and the superintendent. Respondent was available to the Board for any matters that might require his input. Early on in the Viera project Respondent advised his supervisor and the Board that they had little control over how the building was constructed. As long as the project stayed within the general design concept, the specifications were fairly open. Respondent's first priority was to try to keep the Viera project on budget as to the changes that occurred. To that end, items such as the carpet allotment were reduced to capture more funding for other requested items. In each such case Respondent made his superior aware of the changes. Ultimately, the changes requested by Respondent, the superintendent, or John Forbes were placed before the Board as change order #1 and approved. While some of the changes had already occurred, there is no evidence that the Board took action to prohibit Respondent and the administration from making the day-to-day decisions on the project. In fact, the contractor make changes on the Viera project without authorization from any Board administrator. Presumably, necessity caused the Board to accept such work. There is no evidence that the changes authorized by Respondent on the Viera project were arbitrary or in violation of the contract. Respondent did not fail to abide by the contract terms. Respondent did not act improperly regarding the Viera project and is not responsible for the quality of the workmanship of the job. As energy costs became a concern to the Board, the Respondent participated in a conservation effort whereby energy firms were solicited for proposals as to how the Board might save on energy expenses. Initially five contractors showed interest in the project but only three filed proposals with the facilities department. To evaluate the proposals, which was deemed a "win/win" deal by the Board, an outside consultant was hired to review each of the submittals. The proposals, along with input from the consultant, was then heard and considered by a committee of eleven school board employees. The Respondent was not a voting member of the group. After receipt of the proposal and the foregoing review, the committee and Respondent recommended to the Board that Facility Masters Incorporated (FMI) be selected for the contract. The Board also reviewed the proposals and recommendations and approved the recommendation to hire FMI. The contract between FMI and the Board was reviewed by the school board attorney. The scope and terms of the project were outlined to the Board and the administrative staff. The concept of the proposal was to replace, at no initial cost to the Board, the outdated and inefficient equipment with new, efficient units so that the energy savings would actually pay for the equipment. None of the persons who reviewed the FMI project was aware that the proposal might require a performance bond. Respondent and others aware of the project were familiar with bonds and the necessity to have same on certain types of projects. In this instance, the superintendent, the assistant superintendent for facilities, the school board attorney, and Respondent did not request a bond for this job. No Board member questioned whether a bond should be requested for the project. All of the foregoing operated under the assumption that the replacement of equipment and the construction incidental to that did not require a bond. The principals employed at FMI had a satisfactory work history on similar projects. Their qualifications were investigated by Mr. Cowling, the assistant superintendent. No prior poor work performance was discovered. Under the terms of the FMI contract, the Board was to receive and approve a list of subcontractors before FMI was to "commence the installation of the System." There was no requirement that FMI submit a list for subcontractors of subcontractors. After commencement of the installation of the system, the Board and several of its individual members were sued for amounts allegedly owed Miller Electric, a subcontractor of a subcontractor on the FMI project. That suit brought to light the issue of the performance bond, or lack thereof, and the discovery that an individual, identified in the record as Armondo Diaz, had somehow obtained the balance of $167,000 from the Shawmut Bank. Such monies represented the final draws due on the FMI project. Respondent, however, did not authorize the final draw from the bank nor is there any evidence that he supported Mr. Diaz in that matter. Subsequently, the Board sued the bank over the release of the funds and settled the suit with Miller. Whether the $167,000 (quickly released) would have settled Miller Electric's claim is unknown. Certainly, it would have greatly reduced it. At the time of Respondent's departure from employment, the FMI system was operating in seven of the twelve schools in an acceptable manner. The other five schools were operational but not to the efficiency level anticipated. The Respondent acted reasonably in the selection and award of the contract to FMI, the administration of the project, and is not responsible for the improper release of the final draw. Three Board members testified that they have lost confidence in Respondent's ability to perform the duties of staff engineer/project manager. None of the three had registered complaints regarding his work performance with Respondent or his supervisor, Mr. Cowling, prior to the Board meeting April 23, 1991. None of the three Board members was able to articulate the factual basis for her lost confidence when asked to do so in December, 1991. The Respondent meets all of the qualifications for employment as staff engineer/project manager as that job title is described by the Board. The Respondent acted appropriately and within the scope and description of his job duties on each of the following projects: Stone Middle School; asbestos; Anderson Elementary School; Southwest Junior High School; Cambridge Elementary School; Viera; and FMI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered appointing Respondent to the position of staff engineer/project manager with all back pay and benefits withheld him from the date of his termination. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-5645 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, THE SCHOOL BOARD: It should be noted that Petitioner did not number the paragraphs in its proposed findings of fact. The numbers indicated below were assigned as follows: paragraphs 1 through 20 related to Respondent's general job description and responsibilities; paragraphs 21 through 31 are under the heading related to Viera; paragraphs 32 through 53 are under FMI; paragraphs 54 through 66 are under the Stone Middle School heading; paragraphs 67 and 68 are under Southwest Jr. High School; paragraphs 69 through 73 are under the asbestos heading; and 74 through 79 are under Cambridge Elementary School heading. No proposed findings of fact were submitted for the allegations related to Anderson Elementary School. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted but do not necessarily reflect accurate quotes of the cited material as there are minor, insignificant irregularities. Paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While it is accepted that three board members testified they had lost confidence in Mr. Barna, it is not concluded that they had objective reasons for that opinion prior to the vote on the Superintendent's recommendation. Paragraph 18 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 19, it is accepted that the job description had been held by Mr. Barna prior to the Board decision and would have been afterwards had they accepted the Superintendent's recommendation. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 26, it is accepted that some, but not all, of the changes addressed by change order 1 were completed prior to the submission of the item to the Board. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, and contrary to the facts established at hearing. Mr. Barna did not authorize changes without making his superiors aware of the items to be considered. The contract speaks for itself as to his authority. Paragraph 28 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; see also comment re: paragraph 27 above. With regard to paragraph 29, it is accepted that change order 1 represented an increased cost to the project; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 30 is accepted but is irrelevant since evidence established that Mr. Barna did not approve some of the changes to the project and that they were done without any authorization. Paragraph 31 is accepted but is irrelevant; Mr. Barna did not stand as the guarantor on the work performed by others. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as not supported by the record cited; weight of the evidence supports the fact that Miller Electric was a subcontractor for a subcontractor and that the contract did not require the disclosure of subs of subs. Paragraph 37 is rejected as contrary to weight of the evidence; see comment paragraph 36 above. Paragraph 38 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 42 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as not supported by the evidence; to the extent that the paragraph suggests Mr. Barna was generally familiar with bond requirements and that he compiled "boiler plate" forms it can be accepted, otherwise must be rejected since no evidence that Mr. Barna prepared or drafted documents. The bond form on its face shows it is an AIA document A310 form. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 45 is rejected as a conclusion of law. The facts of this case establish that no one associated with the School Board side of the project realized it was, or should have been, a bond job until the lawsuit was filed. Had anyone suspected a bond should be required, it would have been requested. Mr. Barna was not at fault for not requesting a bond anymore than Mr. Walker was, or Mr. Cowling, or Mr. Collingsworth, or the individual Board members who know when bonds are required. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as it suggests Mr. Barna knew a bond was required (as it was a construction job); clearly, neither he nor anyone else realized a bond would, or should, be required. Paragraph 48 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 50 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is accepted. Paragraph 52 is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 53 is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 57 are accepted. Paragraph 58 is rejected as a conclusion of law not supported by the record and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as a conclusion of law not supported by the record and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 60 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraphs 61 through 66 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or assuming facts or conclusions of law not evidence. Paragraph 67 is accepted. Paragraphs 68 through 73 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, conclusions based upon facts not in evidence, or irrelevant. Paragraph 74 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 75, it is accepted that Mr. Barna represented that drainage would be improved by the proposed easement drainage; as to the suggestion that Mr. Barna assured "no water" would be drained unto the property, such proposed fact is rejected. Paragraphs 76 and 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The Board's decision to accept the concept was not solely based upon Mr. Barna's recommendation. Paragraph 78 is accepted. Paragraph 79 is rejected as irrelevant, beyond the scope of this proceeding, and to the extent it suggests Mr. Barna to be at fault, is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mr. Barna was not responsible for drainage problems at the school. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, BARNA: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 7 through 18, 20, 22, 23, 25 through 38, 41, 43, 46 through 56, 58 through 61, 66 through 71, 77 through 79, 93 through 97, 101, 102 through 105, 109 through 111, 113, 114, 116, 120, 123, 124, 127, 129, 130, 132, 135 through 146, 148, 149, 151 through 157, 159, 160, 162 through 165, 167 through 169, 171, 172, 174, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 are accepted. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant; reiteration of charges, not fact; or argument. With regard to paragraph 21, it is accepted that projects described in statement of cause were extent of Board consideration (if that); otherwise, not supported by record cited. 5. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant and argument. 6. Paragraph 39 is rejected as repetitive or argument. 7. Paragraph 40 is rejected as argument. 8. Paragraph 42 is rejected as conclusion of law. 9. Paragraph 44 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. 10. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument or comment. 11. Paragraph 57 is rejected as restatement of document not fact and argument. Paragraph 62 is rejected as hearsay not supported by direct evidence. Paragraph 63 is rejected as restatement of document not fact and argument. Paragraph 64 is rejected as comment, not fact. Paragraph 65 is rejected as hearsay not supported by direct evidence. Paragraphs 72 and 73 are rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 82 is rejected as restatement of document not fact and irrelevant. Paragraph 83 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 84 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraphs 85 and 86 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 87 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 88 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 89 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 90 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraphs 91 and 92 rejected as argument and recitation of testimony. Paragraph 98 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 99 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 100 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 106 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraphs 107 and 108 are rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 112 is accepted to the extent that the terms outlined were Mr. Barna's understanding but such terms were not reduced to writing in accordance with the Board's directive. Why the easement was signed prior to an agreement being drafted and approved by the Board is unknown. No evidence suggests Mr. Barna was responsible for the oversight. With regard to paragraph 115, see comment regarding paragraph 112 above. Paragraph 117 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 118 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 119 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 122 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 128 is rejected as not supported by evidence cited. Paragraph 131 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 133 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 134 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 147 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 150 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. With regard to paragraph 155, the phrase "which ultimately recommended" should be added before "FMI" to clarify the statement instead of "recommending." Paragraph 158 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. Paragraph 161 is rejected as restatement of document not fact. With regard to paragraph 166, it should be added that at all material times to the review of the project before the letting of the job, the FMI project was considered as described. Paragraph 170 is accepted with the substitution of the word "acceptably" for "perfectly." It is the view of the trier of fact that no system can be perfect. Paragraph 173 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. From this record it would appear that Mr. Walker gave no definitive statements regarding the FMI project. Paragraph 175 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is accepted that Mr. Barna and Mr. Walker, together with other persons in authority, discussed the FMI project. Paragraph 178 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 180 is rejected to the extent it concludes funds were obtained by fraud; clearly that is the Board's position as no one authorized the final draw. Paragraph 183 is accepted but is irrelevant to this case. Paragraph 184 and 185 are rejected as argument not fact. Paragraph 187 is rejected as irrelevant and argument. Paragraphs 192 through 196 are rejected as argument, conclusion of law, or not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley Wolfman David J. Wolfman STANLEY WOLFMAN, P.A. 200 W. Merritt Island Causeway Post Office Box 540513 Merritt Island, Florida 32954-0513 Louis V. Cianfrogna James H. Earp CIANFROGNA, TELFER, REDA & FAHERTY, P.A. Suite 102 1990 West New Haven Avenue Melbourne, Florida 32904 Abe Collingsworth Superintendent of Schools Brevard County School District 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940
The Issue Based upon the stipulated facts, only one issue, a legal one, must be resolved. The issue is whether Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is properly applied by the Board which interprets this section to require a minimum of four years of experience as a certified contractor. Having considered the statute and the Board's position in applying the interpretation above, it is concluded that the Board's interpretation is erroneous.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Margaret K. Roberts, was licensed as a Certified Building Contractor October 19, 1984. Petitioner filed an application to take the State Certified General Contractor's Examination on or about December 19, 1984. At the time Petitioner applied to take the Certified General Contractor's Examination, she held Certified Building Contractor's License No. CB C031970 and she had four years of proven experience in the Certified Building Contractor's field, although she had only been certified as a building contractor since October 19, 1984. One may obtain experience in an area of contracting without being certified. Petitioner is not qualified by virtue of holding a baccalaureate degree or experience as a residential contractor. Petitioner was not certified as a building contractor for four years prior to applying for the general contractor's examination. Petitioner's only basis of claimed eligibility to take the General Contractor's Examination is Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's application to take the certification examination because of insufficient time as a certified building contractor in accordance with Florida Statutes 489.111(4)(c). Other than the issue of requisite experience as a certified contractor, Petitioner meets all other statutes and Board Rules regarding eligibility for the Certified General Contractor's Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the stipulated facts and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, be interpreted to include qualifying service in a non-certified capacity and that Petitioner's application to take the building contractor's examination be approved. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1986 COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maxwell G. Battle, Esquire 8204-A West Waters Avenue Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33615 Arden Siegendorf, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD MARGARET K. ROBERTS, License No. CB-C031970 Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 85-2240 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Respondent. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Ramiro Palma, be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 31, 1981. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registered building contractor's license be suspended for one year after the date of the final order entered in this proceeding and that Respondent pay a $1000 administrative fine. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1982, 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 3rd day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C000942. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Twenty First Century Construction Management, Inc. On September 5, 1992, Willie Janes, doing business as Janes Roofing Contractor, entered into a contract with Debourah Benjamin to replace the roof at her residence located in Margate, Florida. The contract price was $6,748, but Janes later agreed to do the work for $6,248, which was all Benjamin's insurance company would pay. On November 26, 1992, Benjamin gave Janes a check in the amount of $2,200 as a down payment on the work. The check was payable to Willie Janes. At the time Janes entered into his contract with Benjamin, his local roofing license had expired, and he was not licensed as a roofing contractor by the State of Florida. Respondent applied for the roofing permit for the Benjamin job. The City of Margate Building Department issued permit number 11525-R by and through Respondent's licensure on December 3, 1992. Janes commenced work on the Benjamin project on November 26, 1992. On December 8, 1992, the City of Margate Building Department performed a tin tag inspection of the work done by Janes. The work failed the inspection that day but passed two days later. On January 11, 1993, Benjamin issued a second check, in the amount of $2,300, payable to Willie Janes, for the purchase of roof tile. Janes did not order and did not pay for the roof tile until approximately June 25, 1993. The tile was delivered to Benjamin's residence a few days later and placed on the roof for installation but Janes did not return to the project site. The amount of tile delivered to Benjamin's residence was not sufficient to cover the entire roof. On approximately June 25, 1993, Benjamin noticed for the first time that the name of the company on the permit posted at her residence was Twenty First Century Construction. Neither the Respondent nor Twenty First Century Construction Management, Inc., had any involvement in Benjamin's project other than obtaining the building permit. Benjamin contacted the building department which issued the permit and was referred to Petitioner. An employee of Petitioner advised her that the qualifier for Twenty First Century Construction was Respondent. Benjamin had never heard of Respondent at the time. Benjamin contacted Respondent by telephone several times about completing the work commenced by Janes. Respondent repeatedly promised to finish the roof but never did. Benjamin next contacted the Margate Police Department to report the activities of Respondent and Janes. On September 3, 1993, Officer Liberatori of the Margate Police Department spoke to Respondent by telephone, and Respondent promised to complete the work within 30 days. However, Respondent did nothing to complete the work. The last inspection performed on the Benjamin project under permit number 11525-R was the dry-in inspection performed on February 8, 1993. Permit number 11525-R expired on July 8, 1993. In December 1993 Benjamin had the project completed by another contractor. On November 16, 1992, Delos and Barbara Johnson entered into a written contract with Respondent to remodel a porch enclosure at the Johnson residence in Coral Springs, Florida, for a contract price of $10,250. The Johnsons made three payments to Respondent: $1,000 on September 28, 1992; $5,000 on November 17, 1992; and $3,000 on December 2, 1992. On October 12, 1992, Respondent applied for a building permit from the City of Coral Springs for the Johnson remodeling. The City of Coral Springs issued permit number 920004472 by and through Respondent's licensure on November 30, 1992. When the City of Coral Springs issues a building permit, it provides with the permit a list of the required inspections. Respondent proceeded with the construction until December 2, 1992, when he received the third payment. Thereafter, Respondent ceased all construction activities on the Johnson project. Shortly thereafter, the Johnsons learned from the Coral Springs Building Department that their remodeling project had failed to pass the required inspections. When they confronted Respondent regarding his failure to obtain the required inspections, he represented to them that he had made a videotape of all the work he performed, that he himself was a building inspector and could inspect his work, and that he could get a special inspector to inspect the project from the videotape. At no time material hereto was Respondent a certified building inspector. Videotaping a construction project in lieu of obtaining required inspections is not permitted under the South Florida Building Code nor is it permitted by the City of Coral Springs Building Department. Of the required nine inspections for the project, Respondent only obtained three inspections. Of those three, he only passed two. Respondent's failure to obtain the required inspections constitutes a violation of the South Florida Building Code, the minimum standard required for any type of building construction in South Florida. A contractor's failure to adhere to that minimum standard causes harm to the public from deteriorating construction. The Johnsons and the City of Coral Springs Building Department gave Respondent an opportunity to obtain and pass the required inspections and complete the construction project. When Respondent declined to do so, the attorney hired by the Johnsons discharged Respondent. The Johnsons had paid approximately 90 percent of the money they had saved for the porch enclosure to Respondent, and they could not afford to continue with the construction project using the services of another contractor until November 1994. Rick Hugins of Hugins Construction Corp., the remedial contractor, needed to pass the required inspections that Respondent had neglected in order to be permitted by the City of Coral Springs Building Department to complete the project. Work that needed to be inspected was concealed by subsequently- installed construction materials which had to be removed in order that the required inspections could be performed. Numerous code violations were discovered in the concealed work. The work performed by Respondent was below industry standards. The Johnsons paid Hugins Construction Corp. $10,000 to correct the code violations, to pass the required inspections Respondent had missed, and to complete the project. Hugins completed the project by January 23, 1995. Respondent has been previously disciplined by Petitioner on charges of assisting unlicensed activity and of failing to notify Petitioner of his current mailing address and telephone number. That discipline included the payment of an administrative fine and an assessment of costs associated with that investigation and prosecution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 97- 1365, finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 97-1368, requiring Respondent to pay restitution to the Johnsons, assessing against Respondent the costs of investigation and prosecution through the time the final order is entered, and revoking Respondent's certification as a general contractor in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, No. N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Edward Conrad Sawyer, Esquire 1413 North 58th Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact During 1981, a five-story, ninety-eight unit condominium was constructed in Deerfield Beach, Florida. This condominium was called the "Beach House". The prime contractor on the Beach House project was "Morelite Construction Company." The licensed general contractor who qualified Morelite Construction Company at the time of the Beach House project and who was closely involved with that job was Mr. Raymond Orsi. The engineer who designed the Beach House was Mr. Alan Reese. Morelite Construction Company hired as a subcontractor "General Contractors of Florida, Incorporated," which firm was qualified by Respondent at the time of the Beach House project. At the time of the Beach House project and final hearing in this case, Respondent was licensed as a contractor as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, was qualifying agent for General Contractors of Florida, Inc. (hereafter GCOF) and responsible for that firm's work. GCOF was hired by Morelite as the "shell contractor." GCOF's contract called for GCOF to do all the concrete and masonry work in building the Beach House. GCOF was to build the structural shell of the building, leaving all plumbing, electrical, and finish work to be done by other parties. More specifically, GCOF was to construct all the plywood frames for the numerous concrete beams and columns for the Beach House, to assemble the steel reinforcing rods inside those forms, and then pour the concrete into the forms. The steel and concrete was supplied by Morelite. GCOF was also responsible for constructing the numerous concrete block walls throughout the condominium and pouring the concrete floors on each of the five levels of the condominium building. The floor joists and floor form work were done by other firms, and GCOF's responsibility was to pour concrete slabs on top of those joists and to assure proper thickness of the slabs. GCOF's contract called for the firm to construct plywood forms for the various concrete beams and columns on the Beach House, to assemble inside those forms the steel in reinforcing rods, and to pour the concrete into the forms. The steel and concrete was supplied by Morelite, but all labor and know-how was supplied by GCOF. As admitted by Respondent, after removing the plywood forms on numerous beams that had been assembled and poured by GCOF, it was discovered that extensive honeycombing on the bottom of the beams had occurred. Irregular void and pitted areas at the bottom of the beams were found where there should have been solid concrete. It was apparent that the honeycombing was caused by the failure of the concrete to reach the bottom of the forms. Although the Respondent asserted that the honeycombing was caused by an improper concrete mix which was supplied to him, slump tests performed by an independent testing laboratory from concrete as it as being delivered and used by Respondent, show that the concrete Respondent was using was in the range that would be required to properly form the beams. Acceptable construction practice calls for a contractor doing concrete work such as Respondent's firm to repair honeycombing within several days of removing the plywood forms in order to minimize rusting of reinforcing steel. The honeycombing was obvious to the naked eye and with a minimal degree at supervision by GCOF, it would have been immediately corrected. The honeycombing occurred because of Respondent's failure to sufficiently "vibrate" the concrete during the pour. Concrete is vibrated by placing a rapidly vibrating cylinder in the concrete as it is being poured into the form. The vibration tends to cause the crushed aggregate in the concrete to work its way around obstacles such as reinforcing bars and down to the bottom of the form. The honeycombing problem on this project was approximately ten times worse than would normally be expected on similar jobs of similar design and complexity. Ten percent of the concrete on this job was effected with honeycombing, whereas, normally only one percent of the concrete is affected. These voids and honeycombs constitute a violation of Section 2506.4 and 2506.6 of the South Florida Building Code which was in effect in Broward County, where the Beach House is located, when the project was being built. The Respondent received some off-color defectively mixed concrete and for one day concrete delivery was prematurely stopped. However, this occurrence was limited to one or two particular beams, and in any event did not involve the honeycombing problems, unfilled wall cell problems, or other problems alleged in the Administrative Complaint. GCOF's contract called for GCOF to place reinforcing steel in the concrete block walls throughout the project at a spacing of approximately four feet, and then to fill each such cell with concrete. Concrete block walls divided the condominium apartments from one another, and also constituted the exterior walls of the condominium building. The concrete block walls rested on the poured concrete beams for each floor. The walls were of the common variety of concrete blocks commonly seem throughout South Florida. Each such block contains holes or cells. The design called for having, approximately every four feet, a vertical series of blocks in which tee-holes were vertically aligned with one another from top to bottom of the wall. A long piece of reinforcing steel bar was then placed in the vertical series of block cells and the entire vertical series of cells was filled with solid concrete poured from above. There was a failure, however, to comply with the requirement concerning these reinforced masonry cells. On a typical section of this job, approximately 30 or more such vertical cells could be expected to be unfilled. In the same typical section of a comparable job where solid construction practices were being observed, approximately four or five cells could be expected to be unfilled. The cell problem on this project, as stated by one expert, was "grossly out of line." Moreover, in numerous cases the "cleanout holes," which were required by contract, were not present. There was a significant occurrence of instances in which reinforcing steel was not placed in the cells as required. The failure to fill the cells constituted a violation of Section 2704.10(d) of the Broward County Building Code in force when the Beach House was built. The honeycombing and unfilled cell errors occurred in GCOF's work over the course of approximately five months during which several floors of the building were being built and were seen throughout all three floors of the structure. GCOF's contract required that firm to pour the cement for each floor built. The concrete slabs should have been three inches thick, but varied in thickness from 1.75 inches to five and a half inches. It was Respondent's assertion that this variation was caused by a bow in the "Hambro" joists that were used on the Beach House. The "Hambro" joists refers to joists manufactured by the Hambro Company. Each joist has built into it a slight upward bow. The joists are supported an each end of the poured concrete beams. The joists are then covered with forms, and concrete is poured over the forms to constitute the floor of each level of the building. The weight of the concrete presses the bow out of the Hambro joist. It was Respondent's assertion that the thickness variation was caused by a design error in that the concrete weight was insufficient to press out the bow. Thus, Respondent asserted that the pattern of variation in thickness was that the concrete slabs were thickest at each side corresponding to the ends of the Hambro joists, and grew steadily thinner toward the center of the slab, where the joist bow brought the joist and subflooring to their highest point. However, field observations demonstrated that the thickness variations occurred randomly about the slabs as seen through the numerous plumbing holes routinely cut through the slabs. There was no pattern of the slabs being thinnest down their center lines. The variation in slab thickness was excessive as compared to acceptable practice in the industry, and deviated from what could be expected to be found on a similar job. The slabs were at times half as thick as required, and at other points they were twice as thick as required. These variations constitute violations of Broward County Building Code Sections 301.1, 301.2 and 301.4, in force when the Beach House was built. GCOF's duties on the job included placing certain corner steel. The corner steel was made of pieces of reinforcing steel rod, bent in an "L" shape, and placed in the beam forms at each corner of the building before any of the corner beams were poured with concrete. Their purpose was to tie the walls together where they met at 90-degree corners. The corner steel was required by the engineer's drawings and notes, and personnel of GCOF should have noted the requirement for placing said steel. None of the corner steel was placed as required. The absence of the corner steel was noted by other parties when the Beach House was approximately one-third complete. That entire one-third of the job had been done without placing any of the corner steel bars as required. The omission of the corner steel was a serious safety hazard and a violation of the Broward County Building Code Sections 302.1(e), 302.2 and 302.4. Voids in concrete columns existed underneath the beams on the project in at least two places. These vertical columns, which were formed, reinforced, and poured by GCOF were on the lower floor, and across their top ran an important horizontal beam. Upon inspection, it was noted that at the top of each column, which was designed to support the horizontal beam, the concrete had significant voids or empty spots. As a result, the load capacity of the columns was seriously weakened. These voids were critical and severely affected the structural integrity of the building. It was shown that they were visible to the naked eye and were of such a key nature that experienced construction personnel should have noted the problem immediately. Nevertheless, GCOF had removed the forms and had said nothing about the problem, allowing work to go on above without correction, adding another floor on top of the defective columns. When the problem was discovered an immediate temporary shoring all around the affected columns was ordered by the project engineer until repairs could be made. These voids constituted a violation of Broward County Building Code Section 2506.4. On July 22, 1981, the Deerfield Beach Building Department, which had jurisdiction of the Beach House job issued a stop work order on the project. The causes of the stop work order were the same deficiencies alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and described above. A series of meetings between the building department design engineer, the prime contractor, the owner and GCOF, concerning necessary remedial work was necessary. Certain repairs were done, and on August 7, 1981, the building department allowed work to resume. In July of 1981, Morelite Construction Company fired GCOF from the job due to dissatisfaction with the quality of GCOF's work. GCOF entered into its contract for the Beach House job on March 19, 1981, began work in March, and had been on the job approximately five months prior to being fired. The competency of GCOF's personnel on the job and the quality of supervision provided by Respondent and Respondent's personnel were constant problems throughout the job, and this was repeatedly brought to Respondent's personal attention. After the building department issued its stop work order, a series of meetings were held between the building department, the owners, the general contractor, Mr. Reese, and representatives of GCOF concerning necessary remedial work. Respondent did not attend any of those meetings, despite the fact that it was GCOF's work that was in issue. During the five months that Hector Vergara, the project engineer, inspected GCOF's steel placement, he never saw Respondent in the building. It was the Respondent's standard procedure to check on the job by stopping his car outside the site end asking an employee via mobile radio how the job was going. On occasion, Respondent would go to the construction shack on the job, but never ventured into the project. The failure to reinforce the masonry block walls resulted from insufficient supervision by GCOF on the job. GCOF never inspected the placement of steel reinforcing prior to the engineer' inspection. The problems cited in the Administrative Complaint were caused by a lack of supervision by the workmen of GCOF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Petitioner Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent's license for six months. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1984, 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 30th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ira L. Varnum Post Office Box 3100 Deland, Florida 32720 Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent's proposed award for ITB 09-22 for Building 14B renovation is contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid.
Findings Of Fact The University of North Florida published its Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal in reference to ITB #09-22 entitled "GC's for Building 14B Renovation" on December 19, 2008, with a submission deadline of January 27, 2009. The opening date was eventually extended to January 30, 2009. There were four addendums to the ITB #09-22 Project. The Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal document contained the following provisions: This project consists of the following scope of work: The work includes all labor, supervision, equipment, and materials required to execute the Contract Documents in two phases for the tenant build-out of the existing UNF Building 14-B (approximate square footage 9742). The work includes, but is not limited to, demolition of all interior walls, finishes, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and communication components as well as a new exterior curtain wall system. Exterior construction will include new glazing in aluminum curtain wall. Interior construction will include new gypsum wallboard partitions with metal stud walls, millwork, suspended acoustical and gypsum wallboard ceilings, wood and metal doors in hollow metal frames, coiling overhead grilles, toilet partitions and vanities. Interior finishes include carpeting, resilient tile, ceramic tile, painting, and window treatments. Mechanical work includes installation of new Owner provided HVAC units with ductwork and all necessary connections to the UNF Central Plant chilled water system. Plumbing includes new piping and fixtures for the tenant build-out and renovation of the group male and female restrooms. Electrical work includes new wiring, devices and lighting for the new tenant build-out. Successful bidders must have demonstrable previous experience with the described systems and technical requirements. All bidders must be qualified at the time of the bid opening in accordance with the Bidders Qualification within the ITB 09-22 Bid documents. . . Article I, Section 2 includes a heading in bold stating "Qualification Criteria." This section states: Participants must qualify to bid on this project. UNF will utilize the following criteria to qualify the general contractors within this ITB. The information must be completed on the UNF Qualifications Form provided (page 10-11): Bonding: Demonstrates a bonding capacity of at least $2 million dollars and has an A.M. Best Rating of "A-V" or better. Licenses: Company is licensed to do business in the state of Florida and approved by the US Department of Treasury listing as an acceptable surety. Project references: Company has successfully completed at least 3 commercial construction projects of more than $1 million dollars each in the past three (3) years. List 3 such projects to include project name, client name, completion date, location, project value, role in project. Reference: Project name, owner, owner's representative name/phone number, completion date and construction cost. Years of experience: Company has a minimum five (5) years of GC experience under the current company name. The directions for the General Contractor's Qualification Summary, under Related Experience, reiterated that the bidder was to list "No more than 4 projects of comparable type, size and complexity. (1) Project must be for a college/university)." Addendum I for the Project, issued January 9, 2009, clarified that the requirement for having completed successfully a project of similar size and scope at a Florida University in the last three years is a qualification factor for this project. Addendum II, issued January 12, 2009, removed the requirement for bidders to have completed one project for a college or university. The other two addenda did not address contractor qualifications. Petitioner, Core Construction Company (Core Construction or Petitioner) bid in response to the ITB. Approximately 19 other bidders also responded. Core Construction was the apparent low bidder on the project, with a bid of $1,073,000. There was some concern expressed by the architect reviewing the bids because the bids were all within ten percent of each other for the top bidders, with the bidders 2-10 being within six percent of each other. In an e-mail to Dianna White, the Senior Buyer for UNF purchasing, Mr. Norman stated: Overall there was a 20% range in bid prices which I attribute to a significant difference in the size, quality and abilities of the contractors that bid this project. The apparently low bidder was $60,516 below the second low bidder and $83,000 below the third low bidder. This is a significant concern since there is only $46,484 between the second and fifth low bidders. I suggest the apparent low bidder be contacted and asked if they feel comfortable with their bid, because it appears to me they are missing something significant in their pricing. Purchasing should also carefully review their current financials and current bonding capacity if this is allowed. Project reference checks, price verification against the architect's construction estimate and bonding checks were performed with respect to the four lowest bidding companies: Core Construction, Pooley Contracting, Rivers & Rivers and Warden Construction. Pooley Contracting, the second-lowest bidder, was disqualified as non-responsive because its bid package did not include a bonding letter. Core provided the names of three completed projects that were valued at over one million dollars. Dianna White called each of the references provided, not only for Core but for three of the four lowest bidders. The same questions were asked of each reference for each company: 1) Was the project on time and within budget; 2) Did the project run smoothly; 3) Were project issues handled; and 4) Would you use the contractor again. Calls related to Pooley Contracting were not completed because it was disqualified as non-responsive. While the references for Rivers & Rivers and Warden were consistently good, two of the three references received for Core were not. Ms. White described them as the most "strongly negative" references she had ever received. In particular, the references indicated difficulty in completing jobs within budget and on time, which the Respondent viewed as the basis for determining whether a contractor had successfully completed a project. Two of the references indicated that they would not use the contractor again, or as one put it, "not if there was any way around it." Based on the recommendations received, the Purchasing Office for the University recommended that Core Construction be disqualified for failing to demonstrate successful completion of three projects over one million dollars that were similar in scope. Because Pooley Construction was also disqualified, the Purchasing Department recommended that the Project be awarded to the third-lowest bidder, Rivers & Rivers. The recommendation to award the project to Rivers & Rivers was accepted by the Vice President of Administration and Finance, and on February 18, 2009, a Notice of Award issued identifying Rivers & Rivers as the company receiving the award. On February 19, 2009, Core Construction notified Respondent that it intended to protest the award of the Project to Rivers & Rivers. On February 24, 2009, Core Construction provided a $10,000.00 surety bond and a written protest of the award. The basis of the protest was two-fold. First, Core Construction contended that Rivers & Rivers did not meet the qualification criteria set out in the ITB, because it was did not have a minimum of five years of general contractor experience under the current company name. Second, Core felt that the poor references received should not be a basis for disqualification. Upon receiving the bid protest, Respondent contacted Rivers & Rivers to verify its licensure status. Upon inquiry, it was determined that while the principals of the company had over 30 years of experience, the Rivers & Rivers entity had not been licensed under that name for the requisite five years. While no action has been taken while this bid protest is pending, Respondent indicated its intention to withdraw the award from Rivers & Rivers and award the contract instead to the next lowest bidder. The procedures used by the University in determining the appropriate award were not contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid. It was consistent with University policy to check references for projects of similar scope and size. Therefore, it was appropriate to ask for and check references for projects of over one million dollars. There is no indication that any bidder questioned what the University would consider as successful completion of a project. The time for questioning this issue would have been when the specifications were issued, consistent with Article I, Section 7 of the ITB. Having a project come in on time and within budget is a reasonable measure of successful completion. It is not the same as "substantial completion," which generally refers to a point of time in the construction process, not the final completion of the project.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the President of the University of North Florida, pursuant to his authority under Board of Governor's Regulation 18.002, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's written protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay H. Chung Core Construction Company, Inc. 4940 Emerson Street, Suite 205 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Paul Christopher Wrenn, Esquire University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2100 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224 John A. Delaney, President University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2800 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified general contractor, violated the construction industry licensing law, by: (1) willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the State or any municipalities, cities or counties thereof; (2) diverting construction funds resulting in his unwillingness or inability to perform pursuant to a construction contract; and (3) abandoning a construction project; and if the Respondent is guilty of such violations, the appropriate disciplinary penalty which should be imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation That Respondent's certified general contractor's license No. CGC005174 be suspended until such time as Respondent furnishes the Board satisfactory evidence of having made restitution to Simon H. and Alexandra U. Ramos in the amount of $2,515 for monies expended by them to pay for lumber, electric and plumbing charges arising out of their construction contract.
