Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert Powers Wheeler is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination allows the national testing service grading the examination and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine if an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states, who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis, that is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. Further, the grader does not know the grade assigned to any applicant's solution by any other grader. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and are required to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's solution, whether a passing grade of "3" or "4" should be assigned to each applicant's solution. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's solution. Petitioner received a grade of "2," which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination. Although the Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, who is also an architect, testified that Petitioner made a valiant effort to pass the examination, he identified several material areas wherein Petitioner failed to achieve minimal competency in his presentation or wherein Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. Petitioner failed to meet the owner's goals in that he approached the minimum square footage requirement while failing to provide amenities, which was a prime directive in the examination program. Petitioner had difficulty with regard to the pedestrian traffic flow on his third-floor plan. Petitioner had difficulty with his parking solution as well as with fulfilling the requirement of keeping the building architecturally compatible with surrounding structures. The Board's Executive Director, who has many years' experience in grading Site Planning and Design Tests, would have also given to Petitioner an overall grade of "2." The graders of Petitioner's examination were not uniform in identifying areas of concern regarding Petitioner's weaknesses in his solution. However, the procedure to be utilized by graders is set forth in the Grader's Manual and specifies that under the holistic grading system each grader is to determine his overall impression of a candidate's submission in order to assign a passing or a failing grade. After making his determination based upon the overall project, the grader then returns to his areas of special concern. Although the different graders may have identified different areas of concern, all graders found Petitioner's submission to be below minimal competency requirements. Although Petitioner disagrees with his grade, he presented no evidence to show that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June, 1981, architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Powers Wheeler 5501 South West 147th Terrace Miami, Florida 33158 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In June, 1987, petitioner, J. Frank Smith, was an examinee on Division (C) of the professional architectural examination. Successful completion of the examination is a prerequisite to the issuance of a license as an architect by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture (Board or Department). Petitioner had previously received passing grades on all other parts of the examination. By notice dated October 9, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Department's Office of Examination Services that he had received a "Fail" score on Division (C). After participating in an informal grade review session concerning his examination score, 1/ Smith requested a formal hearing by letter dated December 2, 1987. Although the letter did not identify any alleged errors in the manner in which the examination was graded, Smith's concerns were brought out during final hearing. Division (C) is a twelve hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. On the examination in question, the candidates were required to design a downtown athletic club including a site and first floor plan, a second floor plan, elevations and building section. To receive a passing score, the candidate had to prepare "minimally acceptable solutions" in the following major categories: (a) program requirements, (b) design logic, (c) code compliance, (d) technical aspects, and (e) completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. By rule, the Board has established a passing score to be a 3 or 4 while a fail score is 2, 1 or 0. In order to pass, a candidate is required to receive at least two passing scores from the graders. For the June, 1987 examination, approximately 150 professional architects were used to grade the candidates' examinations in two regional locations. The graders were experienced architects who had graded examinations in prior years. Before actually grading the solutions, the graders were given one-half day training sessions which consisted of receiving instructions in the grading process, reviewing the grading criteria and practicing on sample solutions that had already been graded by master jurists. The instruction was given by the director of examinations development for the National Council of Architecture Registration Boards (NCARB). The NCARB is the organization that prepares the examination questions. The live grading began on the afternoon of the first day of the examination. The graders used a holistic grading approach which meant they reviewed the entire examination and made a pass-fail judgment. If a failing grade was assigned, the grader was required to check up to three so-called "weakness boxes" on the grading sheet to indicate in which areas the grader found the candidate to be deficient. A grader was also allowed to make brief written comments next to the checked boxes to elaborate on the perceived weaknesses. After being graded by the first grader, the examination was given to a second and third grader, both of whom were unaware of the scores assigned by the others. If a mixed score occurred, that is, two 2's and a 3 or two 3's and a 2, a master jurist then graded the examination. Therefore, it was possible for the same examination to be graded four times before a final score was assigned. In Smith's case, he initially received two 2's and a 3, or an overall fail score. A master jurist reviewed the solutions and assigned a grade of 2. Thus, Smith did not pass Division (C). Grader 1217-153 assigned a score of 2 and noted that Smith was weak in category M, or completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. Grader 1232-155 assigned a score of 2 and checked off areas A, G and K which meant Smith was weak in the areas of program requirements, code compliance and technical aspects, respectively. Finally, Grader 9929-075 concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate since he believed Smith was weak in areas D, E and G. Areas D and E pertained to design logic (circulation) and design logic (spatial relationships/ proportions/adjacencies) while Area G, as noted above, related to technical aspects. The fourth grader assigned a passing score of 3. At hearing, Smith testified on his own behalf and generally reviewed his solution pointing out what he perceived to be his strengths and weaknesses. As he saw it, he attained a passing score. Smith is a graduate, with high honors, of the University of Florida School of Architecture in 1976 and received a master's degree in architecture from the university of Illinois in 1983. He is president of a construction firm in Fort Lauderdale that designs and constructs various projects, both large and small, and his partner is a registered architect. In addition to his own results, Smith offered into evidence the solutions prepared by five other candidates who received passing scores on the June, 1987 examination. Smith then attempted to point out that, even though their solutions contained various flaws, the candidates nonetheless received passing grades. Expert witness Butt, who is a registered architect, was a long time professor and former chairman of the School of Architecture at the university of Florida. He continues to do consulting work for the Board. Butt has been a grader on many examinations and was a master jurist as recently as 1987. Butt regraded Smith's examination and concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate. This was because he noted major deficiencies in the areas of design logic (circulation), code compliance, and completeness, clarity and presentation of the solution as to the structural system. More specifically Smith failed to adequately address certain public circulation questions on the building's first floor. This raised serious concerns as to petitioner's design logic and compliance with building codes. In addition, the structural system, which was required to be shown as part of the transverse section, was incomplete and contained several errors. Further, no structural system was shown on the west side of the building. Other difficulties included poor circulation around the monumental staircase, questionable design logic as to fire safety requirements in front of the building and the use of two hour rated firewalls throughout the entire building even though the fire code required only one hour rated firewalls. Butt's testimony as to the appropriate grade to be assigned Smith's examination is found to be more credible than that of Smith and is hereby accepted. Although several errors were noted on the other solutions of passing candidates, those errors were not so serious in nature as to require a failing grade. Further, such errors were solvable without major modifications in the design intent of the subject, and the candidates had completed all program requirements on the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of J. Frank Smith to receive a passing score on Division (C) of the June, 1987 professional architectural examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to comply with specified provisions of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61G15-30.001(4), 61G15- 30.002(5), and 61G15-30.003(1), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Florida Board of Professional Engineers, regulates the practice of engineering pursuant to chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a board within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), created pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes. The Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to subsection 471.038(4), Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a licensed professional engineer, holding License No. PE 31542. Engineering involves analysis and design. Analysis is the process of applying load to a structure and using engineering principles to determine the resulting forces or stresses in the elements of that structure. In design, an engineer applies the forces or stresses to the materials and elements used in the structure to determine whether the material and connections are capable of withstanding the load. The intent of an engineer is determined by his or her drawings. It is those drawings that establish what the contractor has to build in the field. Two engineers can review a set of engineering drawings, make different assumptions, arrive at different conclusions, and have both conclusions meet engineering standards. It is well established that different engineers make different assumptions about connectivity of the members of a structure that materially affect how the structure will react, and that engineers do not design structures in the same way. This case involves an Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner alleging that Respondent prepared and certified plans for two aluminum structures that failed to meet the standards imposed by the FBC, thus constituting negligence in the practice of engineering. In general, engineering principles are not dependant on the materials used to build a structure. Although aluminum members used in construction are typically of a thinner gauge than, for example, steel members, the structural engineering principles and designs are not unique. In 2009, Petitioner and Respondent settled a disciplinary action involving Respondent by entry of a settlement stipulation. Pursuant to the stipulation, which was incorporated in a Final Order, Respondent agreed to periodically submit a detailed list of all completed projects that were signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent. From that list, two projects were to be selected for review by the FEMC. The Final Order was not appealed. Respondent submitted the list of projects from which the FEMC selected two for further review. Those two projects form the basis for the Administrative Complaint. Respondent was the engineer of record, as that term is used in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-31, and signed and sealed the last iteration of the structural engineering plans for the two projects. Those projects are: The Shank Residence Project, an aluminum-framed, composite roof patio project; and The Emilion Court Residence Project, an aluminum- framed screen pool enclosure. The plans were filed with the building department for St. Johns County, Florida, as part of the application for a building permit. The plans were reviewed by a county plans examiner, and a building permit was issued. The issuance of the building permit demonstrates that St. Johns County found that the proposed project did not violate the FBC. The Certificate of Completion for the Shank Residence project was issued on January 14, 2010. The Certificate of Completion for the Emilion Court Residence project was issued on March 30, 2010. The purpose of Petitioner’s review was to review what Respondent did, with the review of documents similar to that conducted if Respondent were seeking a permit. The purpose was not to find an alternative analysis. The files were originally assigned to Michael E. Driscoll, a professional engineer assigned by FEMC to review the plans and documents submitted for the two projects. On August 13, 2010, Mr. Driscoll, through his firm, Driscoll Engineering, issued a Project Review Report for the two projects. On January 27, 2011, Mr. Driscoll issued a Supplemental Structural Report. Respondent filed a response and objections to Mr. Driscoll’s report. In order to avoid Respondent’s objections from becoming an issue, the FEMC reassigned the review to Joseph Berryman, a professional engineer who is frequently retained by the FEMC for such purposes. Mr. Berryman reviewed and responded to many of Mr. Driscoll’s conclusions, but provided his own independent analysis as to whether the plans for the two projects complied with sound engineering principles. Mr. Berryman prepared a report, dated June 7, 2011, in which he concluded that Respondent “failed to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity and has failed to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles” with respect to the plans for the Shank Residence and Emilion Court Residence, and as a result was negligent within the meaning of section 471.033(1)(g) and rule 61G15-19.001(4). Neither Mr. Driscoll nor Mr. Berryman performed a failure analysis on the Shank or Emilion structures. Mr. Berryman testified that, in his opinion, whether an engineer’s signed and sealed plans have been approved by a local building official does not affect an analysis of whether those plans meet the standards for the practice of engineering established by the Board of Professional Engineers. The FEMC presented its findings to a Probable Cause Panel convened by Petitioner to hear cases involving alleged violations of chapter 471 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The panel found probable cause to proceed against Respondent. On July 25, 2011, Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for this case. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent's structural engineering plans for each project were deficient and failed to comply with acceptable standards of engineering practice. Shank Residence Project The Administrative Complaint alleged five separate counts related to alleged deficiencies in the Shank Residence Project. The deficiencies were limited to whether required information was shown on the plans sufficient to allow a contractor to construct the project, and not to whether elements of the project were overstressed or otherwise failed to meet safety standards. The Counts were identified as Counts 6.A. through 6.E. Count 6.A. Count 6.A. alleged that Respondent failed to indicate the roof design live load, the enclosure classification, and internal pressure coefficient. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the FBC requires that roof design live load, the enclosure classification, and internal pressure coefficient be shown on building plans. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the information was not on the design document for the Shank project. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.A. Count 6.B. Count 6.B. alleged that Respondent failed to indicate the column spacing at the fourth wall, the overall dimension of the canopy at the fourth wall, the column spacing at the intermediate roof beam, and the dimensions of the knee brace elements. As to the column spacing at the fourth wall and the intermediate roof beam, Mr. Berryman opined that the drawing did not contain sufficient information regarding those elements of the plans. Mr. Martin indicated that column spacing was on the plan front view, but because the columns were in alignment, the front measurement was sufficient to convey the information as to column spacing at the fourth wall to the local building officials and the contractor. However, Mr. Martin admitted that the drawings contained no information regarding the spacing of one non-aligned beam at the fourth wall. Although the full side span length from the fourth wall to the front of the patio structure is provided, the spacing of the intermediate beam is not.1/ Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.B. regarding Respondent’s failure to indicate the non-aligned column spacing at the fourth wall and the spacing of the intermediate roof beam. As to the dimensions of the canopy at the fourth wall, while the dimension of the canopy is not written in at the fourth wall overhead view, it is depicted in the front view. There was no evidence that a front view measurement is contrary to FBC requirements. Mr. Martin testified that such a measurement provided sufficient information to the local building officials and the contractor, and was therefore acceptable. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.B. regarding Respondent’s failure to indicate the dimensions of the canopy at the fourth wall. The posts and beams on the Shank project were buttressed with knee braces. The effect of the knee braces is to shorten the span length between posts, which reduces the stresses on the beams. The locations of the braces were depicted on the drawing. The detail for the 2x3 knee braces was included in a detail sheet that accompanied the drawings. Petitioner discounted the detail sheet due to a statement at the bottom of the sheet that “[c]ertification extends only for the span tables specified for the structural shapes listed.” Petitioner asserted that language had the effect of nullifying any reliance on the information contained in the detail sheet, a position that the undersigned finds to be unreasonably and unnecessarily restrictive. In addition, such a construction would also nullify the remaining language along the border of the detail sheet that “[d]rawing valid with raised impression engineer seal.” The drawings provided by Respondent, read in conjunction with the details, establish the dimensions of the knee brace elements on the drawings. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.B. regarding Respondent’s failure to indicate the dimensions of the knee brace elements. Count 6.C. Count 6.C. alleged that Respondent failed to detail the anchorage of the patio cover posts at the fourth wall and other locations where the posts do not align with an existing 4x4 railing post, and therefore neglected to provide a complete load path capable of transferring loads from their point of origin to the load resisting elements. Mr. Berryman noted that the detail provided regarding the connection of the posts to an existing rail would not apply to the fourth wall since there is no rail at that location. The drawings confirm Mr. Berryman’s testimony as to the existence of a railing at the fourth wall. Mr. Martin testified that he was “interpreting that to be a connection to the existing wood rail structure that’s back here at the fourth wall.” Mr. Martin’s testimony on that point is not accepted, since the detail clearly depicts the post and rail structure at the front of the existing deck, and not at the point at which it connects to the building. Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.C. regarding Respondent’s failure to detail the anchorage of the patio cover posts at the fourth wall to provide a complete load path capable of transferring loads from that point to the building. Mr. Berryman also noted locations where the supporting column did not align with an existing deck post, thereby providing no direct pathway of the load of the structure to the foundation element. His testimony finds support in the drawing. Mr. Martin agreed that the FBC requires a direct load path from the point of application of the load to the ground. He noted that the detail provided a load path to the posts, “provided they align.” Where the column and post did not align, one cannot ascertain the attachment point for the column. The drawings, including the attached detail sheets, are insufficient to demonstrate that the columns and the deck posts align to provide the load-to-ground pathway and, in fact, demonstrate the opposite. Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.C. regarding Respondent’s failure to provide a complete load path capable of transferring load to the foundation elements of the structure. Count 6.D. Count 6.D. alleged that Respondent failed to set forth the material thickness/section and alloy for the 3x3 fluted posts and beams. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the FBC requires the material thickness, section, and alloy for structural members to be set forth in the construction documents. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the drawings gave the general dimensions of the posts and beams, but provided no information as to the gauge, thickness, or alloy of those structural members. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.D. regarding Respondent’s failure to set forth the material thickness and alloy for the 3x3 fluted posts and beams. Count 6.E. Count 6.E. alleged that Respondent failed to describe and define required roof panel components. Mr. Berryman indicated that the identification of “generic” roof panels, without information as to the thickness of the aluminum cladding, did not provide sufficient information that the panels met the FBC strength requirements. Mr. Martin agreed that Respondent did not identify a particular product, that the drawings provided no other information as to the thickness of the aluminum sheets that covered the foam core, and that the information provided regarding the roof panels was therefore “incomplete.” In the absence of a specific product, an engineer “should specify what the thickness of that skin is.” No such specificity as to the thickness of the aluminum skin, or of the brand name of the product used was provided with the plans for the Shank project. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 6.E. regarding Respondent’s failure to describe and define required roof panel components. In general, Mr. Martin’s description of Respondent’s plans for the Shank project as “sloppy” understated the lack of information provided. A covered patio structure may not rank among the most complex or difficult structures for an engineer, but the simplicity of the project does not excuse a lack of care and precision that is required to ensure that projects meet applicable standards. In the case of the Shank Residence project, Respondent failed to exercise that requisite degree of care and precision. Emilion Court Residence Project The Administrative Complaint alleged 11 separate counts related to alleged deficiencies in the Emilion Court Project. The Counts were identified as Counts 7.A. through 7.K. Count 7.A. Count 7.A. alleged that Respondent failed to adequately dimension his permit drawings. Mr. Berryman testified that the deficiency that formed the basis for Count 7.A. was related to a failure to establish the “overhang” of the existing structure, inasmuch as the aluminum pool enclosure was to be attached to that overhang. The drawings submitted indicate that the structure was to be attached to the host structure at the “super gutter.” The super gutter is depicted on the structure specific plans, and the attachment details are provided on that section of the detail sheet entitled “Typical Super Gutter Attachment Schematic Plan and Detail.” Mr. Martin indicated that he was able to determine the dimensions of the structure with the exception of a 2x2-inch “girt 1” which was akin to a chair rail around the enclosure. However, the location of “girt 1” was not identified as a basis for the allegations in Count 7.A. The drawings provided by Respondent, read in conjunction with the details, establish that Respondent adequately dimensioned his drawings. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.A. that Respondent failed to adequately dimension his permit drawings. Count 7.B. Count 7.B. alleged that Respondent failed to show the size, section, and location of the framing elements and to define and detail the connections of the transom wall. Mr. Martin testified that that he had no difficulty in determining the dimensions of any of the columns or beams that made up the pool enclosure. He had one question regarding the dimension of an eave gutter at the point at which the structure would attach to the host, but it was a question of a few inches difference. Mr. Berryman’s testimony was limited to the lack of detail regarding the transom wall, not to other framing elements for the pool enclosure. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.B. that Respondent failed to show the size, section, and location of the framing elements. Occasionally, a structure like a pool enclosure is higher than the eave of the host structure. A transom wall is a short wall that extends from the eave of the host structure to the framing members to support the spans from the screen pool enclosure. The evidence in this case demonstrates that Respondent did not include a transom wall in his design. Petitioner’s expert assumed the existence of a transom wall because the pool enclosure extended to a height greater than that of the connection to the house. The side view of the structure shows a vertical element extending up from the eave of the house at the nine-foot elevation, but provides no direct information of any structure associated with that vertical element. Respondent argued that the transom wall was, in essence, a structure that was made up by Mr. Driscoll, and that since it did not appear as part of Respondent’s drawings, it could not form the basis for a violation. Mr. Martin stated that the drawings included no transom wall, whereupon he assumed that the vertical line on the “side view” drawing depicted a sloping gabled roof or some other unspecified feature of the host structure that was not clearly depicted. Mr. Martin further testified that the drawings did not provide the details for attaching that portion of the structure to the host structure, regardless of whether it was being attached to a gabled roof or to a transom wall. Contrary to Respondent’s assertion that there was no transom wall was his reply to the Project Review Report prepared by Driscoll Engineering, Inc. In his report, Mr. Driscoll noted the plans prepared by Respondent: Do not establish or define the height of the connection between the screen enclosure roof and the host roof perimeter (eave). A note on the Plan View (Exhibit B-1) suggests that “2X4 SMB Vert.” are present along one fascia segment, but their height is not shown, nor does Sheet 2 (B-3) depict an elevation of this assumed transom wall.” (emphasis added). In his response, Respondent, through his authorized agent, did not deny the existence of a transom wall, and made no suggestion that the structure tied into the existing host structure, but rather stated that “the transom wall is not shown; however [Respondent] assisted in the field with the installation of the transom wall.” Thus, by virtue of Respondent’s admission, the evidence is clear and convincing that a transom wall was part of the required design of the pool enclosure as constructed. During the course of the hearing, a suggestion was made that Respondent went back to the project site, after-the- fact, and constructed a completely unnecessary transom wall “in good faith to try to participate in this process.” That explanation is neither supported by the record, nor is it a reasonable or logical explanation for a transom wall having been constructed and attached to the host structure. Regardless of whether the vertical line depicted the host structure or a transom wall, the drawings failed to define and detail the connections of the structure to the host structure. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.B. that Respondent failed to detail the connections of the transom wall, or other such framing element necessary to connect the pool enclosure to the Emilion Court residence. Count 7.C. Count 7.C. alleged that Respondent failed to show the section and therefore to define and detail the “2x3 Special” eave rail. A “special” structural component is one that does not have four 90-degree corners. Rather, one or more of the corners may be something other than 90 degrees. Both Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin agreed that the section of the special eave rail was not shown in the plans. Mr. Martin acknowledged that the section of the eave rail should have been on the plans. Mr. Berryman indicated that by not specifying the section, the contractor may “interpret the plan, and put whatever he wants.” Though not a “major issue,” Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.C. that Respondent failed to show the section and therefore to define and detail the “2x3 Special” eave rail. Count 7.D. Count 7.D. alleged that the 2x6 SMB post element and the 2x7 SMB beam element of Frame A are overstressed at code- prescribed design loading, and that the 2x6 SMB post element of Frame B is overstressed, and that Respondent therefore failed to proportion the subject framing elements in compliance with FBC strength standards. In general, the evidence elicited from the experts was contradictory, including evidence of the standard for measuring stresses; the assumptions relied upon for determining the manner in which structural elements were connected, and other elements of the analysis. The testimony of the witnesses, both of whom were credible, failed to establish a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Thus, except as set forth in the following paragraph, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.D. that the structure elements were overstressed, and that Respondent failed to proportion the subject framing elements in compliance with FBC strength standards. This finding is not one that the elements identified in the allegation were actually compliant, but is one based on a failure of proof. As to one connection at which the Frame A beam attached to the carrier beam, which was identified by Mr. Martin as ID 3028, the evidence was clear and convincing that the applied bending moment, assuming that all of the connections of Frame A were fixed, was 27,201.9 inch-pounds, which exceeded the allowable bending moment calculated by Mr. Driscoll. There was no evidence that the allowable bending moment used in that analysis was unsupported by sound engineering principles. Thus, at the ID 3028 location where the Frame A beam attached to the carrier beam, Frame A was overstressed. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.D. that Frame A was overstressed at code-prescribed design loading and that Respondent therefore failed to proportion the subject framing elements in compliance with FBC strength standards. Count 7.E. Count 7.E. alleged that Respondent failed to provide a foundation plan for the specific construction proposed. Mr. Martin testified that documents sealed and submitted by Respondent were sufficient to establish the foundation plan for the Emilion project. In Mr. Martin’s opinion, the details, including the “Typical Post Base Detail” and “Typical Foundation Details,” were adequate to enable a contractor to construct the project in accordance with the engineering design document. Mr. Berryman did not agree that the foundation elements depicted in the detail sheet were sufficient to establish a foundation plan. However, his opinion in that regard was largely predicated on his presumption that the preprinted disclaimer that “certification extends only for the tabulated spans of the structural shapes listed” meant that the entire detail sheet was to be disregarded except for the span table. In Mr. Martin’s opinion, the limitation or “disclaimer” language related only to beam spans, and did not serve to disclaim Respondent’s responsibility for the information contained in the certified detail sheets. It is common for an engineer to incorporate standard details into a design when appropriate. When a document is sealed, whether an original drawing or a standardized detail sheet, that seal represents the certification that the engineer is taking responsibility for the document. As indicated previously, the construction of the disclaimer applied by Mr. Berryman has the effect of nullifying the detail sheet in its entirety, except for the span table. The undersigned finds that a more reasonable construction is that the limitation serves to ensure that the span table does not apply to shapes, sizes, and spans not set forth therein. By applying his seal to the detail sheet, the undersigned finds that Respondent incorporated those details into his plans, and took responsibility for the plans incorporating those details. For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned accepts that the detail sheet has been properly incorporated into Petitioner’s plans for the Emilion Court project. That does not end the inquiry. The section entitled “Typical Foundation Details” does not specify a particular foundation plan. As noted by Mr. Berryman, the sheet provides detail for four different types of foundations. Petitioner failed to specify which foundation was applicable, and therefore gave the contractor no useful information as to which foundation type was appropriate for the project. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.E. that Respondent failed to specify a foundation plan for the Emilion Court project. Count 7.F. Count 7.F. alleged that Respondent failed to address the design of the structure’s foundations and failed to verify that the foundations meet the FBC strength requirements. The basis for Count 7.F. is generally the same as that given for Count 7.E. For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned accepts that the foundation detail sheet has been properly incorporated into Petitioner’s plans for the Emilion Court project. As set forth in the analysis of Count 7.E., the typical foundation details do not specify a particular foundation plan. Petitioner failed to specify which foundation was applicable and, therefore failed to address the design of the structure’s foundations and failed to verify that the project-specific foundation met the FBC strength requirements. Thus, Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.F. Count 7.G. Count 7.G. alleged that Respondent failed to indicate the size, section, location, and configuration of the typical diagonal roof bracing and all wall-bracing components for a lateral bracing system. As to the size, section, location, and configuration of the typical diagonal roof bracing, Mr. Martin testified that “I do not see any diagonal bracing whatsoever. It’s all purlins and there’s no diagonal bracing.” However, Mr. Martin was not able to tell whether Respondent determined that diagonal bracing was not required in the roof section, and in that regard testified that “since this has an L-shaped plan to it and it has host walls in both directions to connect to, then the roof bracing may not be required.” Mr. Berryman’s testimony as to the diagonal roof bracing was fairly conclusory, and failed to establish the fundamental element that diagonal roof bracing was necessary for the Emilion Court project. Although the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to include roof-bracing details, the fact that it was not proven that roof bracing was necessary leads the undersigned to find that Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the lack of roof-bracing detail in this case constitutes a violation as alleged in Count 7.G. Mr. Berryman’s testimony as to the deficiencies in the description of the cable wall-bracing system was predicated on his opinion, previously discussed herein, that the typical cable bracing details contained on the detail sheet submitted with the plans must be disregarded due to the “span table” limitation. For the reasons previously discussed, the undersigned finds the limitation does not serve to negate the detail, nor was that Respondent’s intent. Furthermore, Respondent modified the detail in his drawings by specifying the use of 3/16” cable, rather than the standard 3/32” cable provided in the detail. Therefore, Respondent separately acknowledged and certified that detail. Mr. Martin testified that the plans, when read in conjunction with the certified details, provide sufficient information as to the wall-bracing components. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.G. that Respondent failed to indicate the size, section, location, and configuration of the wall-bracing components. Count 7.H. Count 7.H. alleged that Respondent failed to address the design of the structure’s bracing elements and failed to verify that the structure’s bracing elements meet the FBC strength requirements. For the reasons set forth in the analysis of Count 7.G., Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.H. that Respondent failed to address the design of the structure’s bracing elements and failed to verify that the structure’s bracing elements meet the FBC strength requirements. Count 7.I. Count 7.I. alleged that in the column of the table for 5’0” Post Spacing and Exposure Category B in “Drawing 1 of”, the 2x4 SMB, 2x5 SMB, 2x6 SMB, 2x7 SMB, 2x8 SMB, 2x9 SMB, and 2x10 SMB posts, and the 2x7 SMB beam element of Frame A are overstressed at the listed span and loading, and that in the column of the table for 7’0” Post Spacing and Exposure Category C, the 2x4 SMB, 2x5 SMB, 2x6 SMB, 2x7 SMB, 2x8 SMB, 2x9 SMB, and 2x10 SMB, posts are overstressed at the listed span and loading. The calculation of whether a support member is overstressed varies greatly depending on the means by which the support members are fastened to one another. In general, measurements are taken at the base, at the shoulder, and at the carrier beam or other fixed structure to which a member is attached. If members are fastened by means of a single fastener, they are characterized as “pinned” connections. Pinned connections have greater stresses exerted by rotation and bending. If members are fastened together with multiple fasteners, they are generally characterized as “fixed” connections, with the degree to which they are fixed somewhat dependant on the number of fasteners per connection. Mr. Berryman determined that Respondent assumed that the mansard roof had pinned connections at the base, at the shoulder, and at the connection to the supporting structure. In making that determination, as with regard to other counts, Mr. Berryman disregarded the detail sheet that accompanied Respondent’s drawings due to General Notes and Design Criteria, #12, that “[c]ertification extends only for the tabulated spans of the structural shapes listed. The engineer of record shall verify all other details including overall stability.” Therefore, despite Respondent having included the detail sheet that clearly showed connections with multiple fasteners as part of his engineering package, Mr. Berryman opined that the disclaimer “specifically excluded all of the details in the project from his certification. Then there was nothing for me to consider regarding those details. They’re not part of his work.” As a result, Mr. Berryman concluded that Respondent “didn’t design any connections. And actually, I found an issue with his work because he didn’t design any connections.” The detail sheet provided demonstrates the typical post to beam connections by the dimensions of each of the structural members being connected. Each of the typical joints called for multiple screws. Therefore, the joints were not pinned, as assumed by Mr. Berryman, but were closer to fixed joints. Thus, the assumption used by Mr. Berryman that joints were pinned -- an assumption that would be expected to materially affect the conclusions as to the stability and strength of the structure -- was incorrect. In general, the evidence elicited from Mr. Berryman and Mr. Martin was contradictory, including evidence of the standard for measuring stresses, the assumptions relied upon for determining the manner in which structural elements were connected, and other elements of the analysis. The testimony of the witnesses, both of whom were credible, failed to establish a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.I. This finding is not one that the elements identified in the allegation were actually compliant, but is one based on a failure of proof. Count 7.J. Count 7.J. alleged that Respondent failed to address the design and verify the structure’s connections, bracing and anchorage, and failed to verify that they meet the FBC strength requirements. The basis for the allegation is that the certification of the generic details and specifications is limited to the tabular span data listed on the generic details and specifications drawings. Therefore, Count 7.J., on its face, requires that the details submitted by Respondent with his drawings be disregarded. As discussed several times previously, Mr. Berryman has expressed his opinion that the detail sheets submitted with the plans must be disregarded due to the “span table” limitation. For the reasons previously discussed, the undersigned finds the limitation does not serve to negate the details, nor was that Respondent’s intent. Thus, since Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the information conveyed in the details did not comply with the FBC, and for the reasons otherwise expressed with regard to other similar counts, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.J. Count 7.K. Count 7.K. alleged that the beam span table in “Drawing 2”, the 2x4, 2x5, 2x6, and 2x8 beam elements are overstressed at the listed span and loading in frame configurations allowed by the table, and that the 2x2 snap beam element is overstressed for all spans listed. Mr. Berryman’s opinion that the structure was overstressed is, again, largely predicated on his assumption that the structure had pinned connections. The evidence is more persuasive that the connections were fixed. For the reasons set forth in the analysis of Count 7.I., including the contradictory testimony of the two generally credible witnesses, the evidence failed to establish a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of Count 7.K. This finding is not one that the elements identified in the allegation were actually compliant, but is one based on a failure of proof.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding that Respondent is guilty of violating section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001 for the counts identified herein. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded, that he be placed on probation for two years, that his license be restricted from practicing structural engineering involving the design of aluminum structures until such time as he passes and submits proof of passing the NCEES Structural Engineering Examination, that he be fined $2,000, and that costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case be assessed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. E. GARY EARLY 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 November, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the licensure examination for architects administered in June of 1994. The examination consisted of various divisions. Division A covered the subject of pre-design. The questions in this division of the examination were machine-graded, multiple choice questions. Petitioner received a failing score of 72 on Division A. Question 6 of Division A asked the examinee to identify the term used to describe the separate management units formed by ridge lines that divide the land and determine regional drainage patterns. These management units are called watersheds. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 6 of Division A was "D." Petitioner selected "A," "swales," as his answer to the question. Swales, however, while they are used as drainage areas, are not, unlike watersheds, regional in character. Petitioner's answer to Question 6 of Division A therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 8 of Division A asked the examinee to identify which of the four drawings shown on the question sheet depicted a symmetric, hierarchal pattern of land use. The correct answer to the question was "B." Petitioner selected "C" as his answer to the question. "C," however, depicted an axial, rather than a hierarchal, pattern. Petitioner's answer to Question 8 of Division A therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 13 of Division A tested the examinee's knowledge of the impact the increase in the number of young, professional dual-income families has had on residential neighborhoods. The increase in the number of young, professional dual-income families has increased property values in older established neighborhoods, led to the building of large new suburban tracts, reduced the availability of residences that moderate income families can afford and accelerated the restoration of older neighborhoods. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 13 of Division A was "D." Petitioner selected "B" as his answer to the question, which was clearly incorrect. Question 20 of Division A tested the examinee's knowledge of the possible components of a market study. A market study might include a windshield survey, data obtained from questionnaires and/or an analysis of competing projects. A detailed financial package, however, would not be part of a market study. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 20 of Division A was "C." Petitioner selected "A" as his answer to the question, which was clearly incorrect. 1/ Question 28 of Division A tested the examinee's knowledge of the requirements of the national building code relating to multistory buildings. The code allows, in a multistory building, two fire exits on one corridor, fan coil units utilized in office space and a fire exit that intersects two corridors. A corridor utilized as a return-air plenum, however, is not permitted under the code. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 28 of Division A was "C." Petitioner selected "D" as his answer to the question, which was clearly incorrect. Question 53 of Division A asked the examinee to identify the most dominant design feature of the structures depicted on the question sheet. The correct answer to Question 53 of Division A was "C," "facade rhythm." The structures depicted did not display vertical harmony inasmuch as their facades were different. Accordingly, the answer selected by Petitioner, "A," "vertical harmony," was clearly incorrect. Division E of the examination covered the subject of lateral forces. The questions in this division of the examination were machine-graded, multiple choice questions. Petitioner received a failing score of 73 on Division E. Question 14 of Division E tested the examinee's knowledge of the factors which determine the maximum lateral-load and shear capacity of a plywood roof diaphragm. These factors include nail size, nail penetration, plywood thickness and plywood species. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 14 of Division E was "D," not "C," the answer Petitioner selected. 2/ Division H of the examination covered the subject of materials and methods. The questions in this division of the examination were machine-graded, multiple choice questions. Petitioner received a failing score of 74 on Division H. Question 21 of Division H tested the examinee's knowledge of the requirements of the model building code relating to the dimensions of a Class A interior stairway in a newly constructed multistory building serving an occupant load of 100. The correct answer to the question was "D," "60 inches." Petitioner selected "C," "48 inches," as his answer to the question. Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that Class A interior stairways in multistory buildings have a minimum clear width of 48 inches between the handrails, question 21 of Division H was based upon the requirements of the model building code, not the requirements of the ADA. Accordingly, Petitioner's answer to the question was clearly incorrect. Questions 121 through 123 of Division H tested the examinee's knowledge of the components of an inverted (IRMA) roof system. There were two correct answers to Question 123, "F-9" ("membrane") and "K-7" ("vapor barrier"). Petitioner selected one of these answers, "F-9," and received credit for answering the question correctly. Each of the foregoing questions (Questions 6, 8, 13, 20, 28 and 53 of Division A, Question 14 of Division E, and Questions 21 and 123 of Division H) was clearly and unambiguously worded, provided sufficient information to select a correct response and required the application of knowledge that a qualified candidate for licensure as a registered architect should possess.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing scores he received on Divisions A, E and H of the licensure examination for architects administered in June of 1994. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of April, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of April, 1995.
The Issue The issues presented here concern the questions of whether Intervenor's response to Request for Proposal (RFP) number 700:0561, for the lease of office space was responsive to the RFP; whether the Respondent in rating the responses to the proposal made a reasonable application of the rating formula and which prospective lessor should be awarded the contract, if anyone.
Findings Of Fact Respondent through RFP number 700:0561, solicited responses for the lease of office space for its employees working in the Daytona Beach, Florida, area. A copy of that solicitation may be found as Joint Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Respondent received timely responses from the Petitioner and Intervenor. Those responses were in keeping with the requirement to submit sealed bids on or before 11:00 a.m. April 19, 1990. Prior to the deadline for submitting bids a preproposal conference was conducted on April 5, 1990. A copy of the minutes of that conference may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Among the highlights in this conference, as commented on in the minutes, was a discussion concerning the requirement for the provision of restrooms. The specific requirement for restrooms is set forth in the RFP at page 5 under B.6. and identifies the fact that the restrooms must meet standards for special facilities for physically disabled and calls for public restrooms for men and women and staff restrooms for men and women, describing the conveniences for each of those facilities. No indication is made concerning the placement of those restrooms. On the other hand, in the course of a suggested floor plan, Attachment H to the solicitation document, public restrooms are depicted in the reception area and staff restrooms are shown in the staff service area. This Attachment H is under the auspices of the space requirement criteria announced at B.1. on page 4 of the solicitation document, in which the comment is made "see floor plan, Attachment H, for suggested configuration of offices and rooms." The remarks concerning restrooms that were made in the course of the preproposal conference show that by the discussion in that conference it was determined that two male restrooms and two females restrooms, one each for the public and one each for the staff were contemplated and that they must meet handicapped standards. According to the minutes Petitioner asked if there was a requirement for the men's restroom to have urinals or would an additional water closet suffice and he was told that a water closet would suffice. No other discussion was held about the restrooms. The space requirement criteria, to include the discussion of the requirements for restrooms, do not contemplate that in order for a prospective lessor to be successful in responding to the solicitation, that it would be necessary for that prospective lessor to present a design which closely approximated that set forth in Attachment H. It could be expected that a submission which more closely resembled the suggested configuration would be entitled to receive a higher score under the evaluation criterion set out at C.2. Similarly the score under evaluation criterion C.2. would be greater for the prospective lessor who most closely approximated the number and size of spaces that are described at B.1. wherein it is stated: Approximate number/size a) 0 offices not to exceed 220 sq.ft. each 0 b) 3 offices not to exceed 150 sq.ft. each 450 c) 25 offices not to exceed 120 sq.ft. each 3000 d) 13 offices not to exceed 150 sq.ft. each 1170 e) 3 offices or open clerical areas not to exceed 60 sq.ft. each (Computer area) 220 f) Internal circulation 1202 g) File area 466 h) Reception area sq.ft. 400 i) Conference Room 800 j) Storage Area 345 k) Copier machine area 250 l) Employee lounge 240 m) Mail room (inc'l) with k above) 0 n) Other requirements (Automation Equipment) 240 o) Urinalysis Lab Area 72 The critical item concerning space requirements is announced at A.1. on page 1 of the solicitation document. Therein the net square footage is estimated to be 8,855 feet plus 3 percent measured in accordance with the Standard Method of Space Measurement as identified in Attachment A. Both prospective lessors met the net square footage requirement. Both prospective lessors achieved substantial compliance with the more specific requirements set forth in B.1. as to approximate number and sizes of offices and other spaces. Petitioner did the better job in that sense as shown in the comparison of the spaces that are contemplated by the Petitioner's proposal contrasted with that of the Intervenor. That comparison is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. It can also be seen in the comparison of the rough sketches of floor plans submitted by the prospective lessors. Joint Exhibit 2 describes the prospective floor plan for Petitioner and Joint Exhibit 3 describes the prospective floor plan for the Intervenor. The Intervenor's submission is a recapitulation of the spaces associated with its most recent tenant, the State Attorney for the Daytona Beach, Florida, Circuit. No special emphasis has been placed on having this floor plan approximate suggested design of Attachment H. Petitioner's attempt is one which more closely approximates Attachment H, at least as to specific spaces contemplated in B.1. to the solicitation document. At the preproposal conference of April 5, 1990, the prospective lessors were told that the support staff offices could be open space or be separated with half-wall partitions as opposed to being fully enclosed offices. The spaces that are offered by the Intervenor correspond to this opportunity. Both proposals responded adequately to all other criteria as well as the space requirement criterion. In examining the proposals by the competitors, Joint Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence for the Petitioner and Joint Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence for Intervenor, Respondent used the evaluation criteria set out in C. at page 7 of the Solicitation Document. Three people constituted the review committee. The evaluation by the committee members was through independent consideration of the proposals. Their aggregate scores were 252 points for Petitioner and 290 for the Intervenor of a possible 300 points. The scoring in the aggregate and through individual observations of the committee members may be found in Joint Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence, a composite. Over the period of the lease and the option period, Intervenor's proposal is much more economical. Therefore, under Criteria C.1. the scores that were given individually by the committee members and the aggregate scoring, which the committee members continue to urge in the course of the final hearing were reasonable. All other scores were reasonable in the aggregate and individually with the exception of the scores under C.2.; the scores for Petitioner under C.4. assigned by two committee members, which were three points low in the aggregate, and the scores assigned by two committee members for criterion C.11 which were four points low in the aggregate. Concerning the scores under C.2., having considered the testimony at hearing, scores assigned should be reversed. These adjustments would increase Petitioner's score to 267 and lower Intervenor's score to 282. Intervenor would still win with these adjustments. Petitioner timely filed its protest of the decision to award a contract to Intervenor. Intervenor timely filed its request to intervene in this action.
Recommendation In consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's Formal Written Protest and finds that the Intervenor submitted the lowest and best proposal for provision of lease space under RFP 700:0561. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARMS C. ADAMS, 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 25th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-3007BID The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts set out in the proposed recommended orders of the parties: Petitioner' s Facts Paragraphs A-D are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph E.1 is contrary to facts found. Concerning Paragraph E.6., sufficient description has been given of the present configuration of space in relationship to net rentable square footage. Paragraph E.7 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph E.8 is contrary to facts found. The remaining sentences of Paragraph E. are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph F is contrary to facts found. Concerning Paragraph G, although the performance by the committee members was not entirely acceptable, their determinations have been modified. The adjustment did not change the outcome. Concerning Paragraph H, see remarks concerning Paragraph G. Respondent' s Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 8 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 9 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 10 is accepted and no finding has been made to the effect that public restrooms must be placed in the lobby area. Paragraphs 11 through 17 are subordinate to facts found. Intervenor has joined in the proposed recommended order of Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Glenn D. Storch, Esquire STORCH & HANSEN, P.A. Suite 300 1620 South Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32119 Perri M. King, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lawrence W. Borns, Esquire 312 North Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
