The Issue Pursuant to section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes (2015), the issue is whether Respondent has unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in employment for opposing unlawful employment discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is black and originally from Trinidad. He appears to be at least 50 years of age. Petitioner failed to prove that he is a Seventh-Day Adventist, but this omission is immaterial for the reasons set forth below. At all material times, Respondent has employed Petitioner as a Heavy Equipment Operator. Several years ago, after, on three occasions, Respondent declined to promote Petitioner to Pipefitter Supervisor. Petitioner complained to Respondent and later to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation that Respondent had hired for this position three persons who lacked a Water Distribution Level III license and instead improperly used Petitioner's license to satisfy a requirement of the agency for the employment of a person holding such a license. It may be inferred that Respondent did not welcome these complaints, regardless of their merits. Petitioner's proof as to his attempts to secure a position as a Pipefitter Supervisor is sketchy, but, regardless of any evidentiary shortcomings, it appears that, at the time, he opposed Respondent's actions, not as actions of unlawful employment discrimination, but as a violation of an agency rule and improper use of Petitioner's license. The sole potentially retaliatory act identified by Petitioner occurred, several years later, when, in April 2015, Respondent refused to sustain Petitioner's appeal of a reprimand that he received for causing $25 worth of damage to a third party's mailbox while operating heavy equipment within the scope of his duties as a Heavy Equipment Operator. However, the evidence fails to prove that the refusal to sustain the appeal was retaliatory. Petitioner did not deny that his operation of heavy equipment damaged the mailbox. Although $25 is a modest amount of damage, heavy equipment is inherently dangerous and its negligent operation may require punishment, even when the damage is slight, in order to deter future negligence that might result in more serious damage or loss of life. Petitioner unpersuasively links the denied appeal of the ensuing reprimand to his job-related complaints several years earlier. Even if Petitioner had established that these complaints constituted opposition to unlawful employment discrimination, which he did not, Petitioner cannot link the evidently reasonable punishment of a reprimand for negligent operation of heavy equipment, years later, to Respondent's decisions not to promote him to Pipefitter Supervisor. As it is, Petitioner proved only that he is a member of several protected classes; several years ago, he complained that Respondent hired unqualified persons as Pipefitter Supervisors and used Petitioner's license to satisfy a state agency's rule; several years later, while operating heavy equipment for Respondent, Petitioner damaged a mailbox; and, as a consequence, Respondent reprimanded Petitioner and denied his appeal of the reprimand.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed on September 16, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert E. Meale 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 25th day of July, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William X. Candela, Esquire Dade County Attorney's Office 111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Selwyn Don Titus Apartment 601 14030 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33181 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Construction Industry Licensing Board was the state agency responsible for the licensing and certification of building contractors, and the regulation of the construction industry in this state. Respondent, Kenneth McDuff Roesch, III, was certified as a building contractor under license number CB C057040, issued initially on December 20, 1993. On March 20, 1998, he changed the status of his license from "Active d/b/a individual" to "Active qualifying Roesch Housemovers, Inc." (RHI). The evidence does not indicate exactly what the relationship between Respondent and RHI was prior to the contract in issue here. Although Respondent's name does not appear on the contract or on any of the other documentation relevant hereto, at hearing he freely indicated his participation in the management of RHI and his responsibility for actions taken by the company. In September 1996 the City of St. Petersburg advised David Maffo that because of the effects of tropical storm Josephine, he would either have to elevate his house in St. Petersburg or tear it down. On November 22, 1996, Mr. And Mrs. Maffo entered into a contract with RHI to raise by five feet their residence located at 8211 Carolyn Street in St. Petersburg and install a new solid foundation. The price for the contracted work was $23,500, with $11,500 due at the signing of the agreement. The contract form reflects that RHI had been bonded and licensed house movers since 1934, but neither Respondent's license number nor his certification number appears on the contract agreement. The contract agreement was signed by Mark Roesch, Respondent's brother, for RHI. Respondent's name does not appear on the contract form. RHI submitted plans for the work called for under the contract to the Building Department of the City of St. Petersburg on February 26, 1997. The application form was signed for the company by Mark Roesch, Respondent's brother. That same date, February 26, 1997, a permit was issued for the work called for under the contract and the application. The contractor was listed as Roesch Housemovers, Inc. on both the application for the permit and the permit. Mark Roesch was the representative of RHI who signed the application for the permit. According to Mr. Maffo, work on the project started on January 28, 1997, prior to the issuance of the permit, at which time Mr. Maffo paid $4,000 to a representative of RHI. Mr. Maffo paid RHI an additional $10,000 on January 30, 1997, and $5,000 more on March 25, 1997, for a total of $19,000. On February 27, 1997, Glenn Savell, the chief building inspector for St. Petersburg, inspected the work being done by RHI and issued a red tag because there was no footer ground and vertical steel was not tied to the footer steel. Neither Respondent nor any of his employees thereafter called the building department for a final inspection subsequent to the issuance of the red tag, and in March 1997 Respondent advised the Maffos that the work called for under the contract had been completed. Mr. Maffo immediately informed Respondent that the project had not undergone a final inspection, and as a result, the house could not be reoccupied. Mr. Savell again inspected the property on June 12, 1997, and again issued a red tag, this time demanding that Respondent obtain a certification from a structural engineer that the foundation and piers met specifications. Mr. Roesch was aware of the issuance of that red tag, but took no action to obtain the required certificate at that time. On June 25, 1997, Mr. Maffo retained Austin Engineering, Inc., to perform an inspection of the project and paid the firm a fee of $1,275.00. Austin's report, a copy of which was given to Respondent, indicated that the project as accomplished by RHI was not acceptable. Upon receipt of this report, Mr. Maffo and Respondent met to discuss it, and Respondent gave Maffo sufficient assurances so that he, Maffo, started a renovation of the interior of the home to correct the damage done by the storm. However, Maffo did not complete them because all assurances made by Respondent did not come about. At the end of July 1997, Mr. Savell's supervisor, Mr. Hill, directed Respondent by letter to hire a structural engineer of his choice to evaluate the project. It was implied that if Respondent's engineer approved the work, the final approval would be issued. More than a year later, on October 8, 1998, Benson Engineering, Inc., the structural engineering firm retained by Respondent in response to Mr. Hill's letter, visited the masonry foundation and support walls and piers done at the Maffo house, and on October 16, 1998, submitted its report approving the project. Based on this approval, Mr. Savell, for the City, issued final approval even though he did not again personally inspect the work. Petitioner contends that the lapse of time between the last work done and the notice to obtain an individual engineering report in June/July 1997 and the receipt of that report more than a year later was unreasonable. Absent any explanation or justification for the delay, it would so appear. Mr. Maffo had Austin Engineering again inspect the property on January 29, 2000. In its report, Austin took exception to the Benson Engineering evaluation of RHI's work and identified many problems still existing. The project was also examined by Wilbur Yaxley, a licensed professional engineer and expert in structural and construction engineering. He found the same defects as found by Austin. These included: The fill cells used to raise the foundation were never adequately filled with concrete as called for in the plans for the project. In at least one location there was no tie-in from the new foundation to the existing foundation. Several of the pillars used to raise the foundation were loose and able to be moved by hand, and others had fallen over. Several of the pillars used to raise the foundation were not horizontal. The foundation walls contained cracks. The interior piers were not constructed in accordance with their design. The floor of the interior had bowed in the center. The horizontal joint reinforcement was not completed as required by the plans. The project as completed does not comply with the plans approved by the City of St. Petersburg at the time of issuance of the permit. The project as completed is not as sound structurally as it would have been if it had been constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City. During the first year after retaining Respondent's firm to raise his house, while waiting for Respondent to obtain final approval on the work, Mr. Maffo continued to make his monthly mortgage payments of $1,200 even though he and his family did not occupy the property. For financial reasons he was ultimately required to cease making his mortgage payments and the property was lost to foreclosure in April 2000. The experts who examined the property have concluded that further remedial work estimated to cost approximately $17,000 would be required before it could be occupied. These experts, who are familiar with the project, suggest that a reasonable time to complete it would be four months. It is so found. Respondent's father and brother, both of whom are active in the business, indicated the company has been in business for many years without complaint. Respondent presented the testimonials of several prior clients who appear to have been satisfied with the work done for them, and no evidence to the contrary was presented by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order placing Respondent's license as a certified building contractor on probation for one year; imposing a total administrative fine of $950; requiring Respondent to pay $2,625.41 as costs of investigation and prosecution; and requiring Respondent to reimburse the Maffos such sums as can be considered above actual RHI's out-of-pocket costs related to this project. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kenneth McDuff Roesch, III 13650 66th Street North Largo, Florida 33771 Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues framed by the Amended Administrative Complaint are whether Mr. Chandwani was guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering with respect to drawings prepared for the renovation of a house, and whether he failed to obtain a certificate of authorization for a corporation which he owned which offered engineering services to the public.
Findings Of Fact The notice of the hearing was sent to Mr. Chandwani at the address disclosed on the Election of Rights form in which he demanded a formal hearing on the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation. Mr. Chandwani did not, however, appear at the hearing. Mr. Chandwani is licensed by the Board of Professional Engineers holding registration #PE0017049. Mr. Chandwani is the president of International Engineers and Builders, Inc., a Florida corporation whose Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Secretary of State on July 8, 1980. Mr. Chandwani, on behalf of International Engineers and Builders, Inc., entered into a contract on November 28, 1984, with Peter Persaud for the preparation of sealed plans for the rehabilitation of a property located at 22740 S.W. 179th Place, Miami, Florida. Mr. Persaud had purchased the property while it was in foreclosure. The property had come under the jurisdiction of the Dade County Code Enforcement Department due to defects in the structure, and Mr. Chandwani was engaged to provide drawings for the rehabilitation of the property. The plans originally delivered to Mr. Persaud by Mr. Chandwani were neither signed nor sealed. When taken to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department they were found to be deficient not only because they were not signed and sealed, but because they did not meet the criteria of the South Florida Building Code. For example, a cabana shown on the plans should not have been located on the property line. Eventually Mr. Chandwani provided signed and sealed plans, but only after a demand to do so had been made by Mr. Persaud's attorney. The testimony of James Owen Power, a consulting engineer who testified about the plans on behalf of the Board of Professional Engineers, has been accepted. The plans submitted are deficient in that they do not contain complete information on all components of the structure. For example, there is no design specified for roof trusses, nor is there any design for assembling trusses into a roof system. The plans are also confusing and contradictory in that Section A on sheet 1 of the plans appears to show a wall of a garage as part of an existing building but the plans indicate elsewhere that the garage is new, and nonexisting. There is also a confusing note with respect to a "cathedral ceiling" in the construction of the house, for there is no definition of what a cathedral ceiling is. Moreover, the drawings appear to show a level ceiling, not a cathedral ceiling. It is not clear whether the garage is to have any ceiling. Although Mr. Chandwani contracted with Mr. Persaud through International Engineers and Builders, Inc., International Engineers and Builders, Inc., has never been issued a certificate of authorization under the provision of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered finding Mr. Chandwani guilty of negligence in the practice of professional engineering and of offering engineering services through an entity which does not hold a certificate of authorization, that he be reprimanded, fined $2,000 and his licensure be placed on probation for a period of two years. The fine shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the entry of the final order. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 11th day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Arjan D. Chandwani 2560 Azalea Avenue Miramar, Florida 33025 Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seeley Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0031831. During the times of the alleged violations, the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for J & J Construction Company (the company.) The principals of the company were the Respondent and a man named James Jimenez. Both men sold jobs for the company and were responsible for overseeing some of the work of the company. The Respondent pulled permits for, and was primarily responsible for, the roofing work contracted by the company. But sometimes, when the company had more than one job going at the same time, the Respondent would be primarily responsible for overseeing one, and Jimenez would be primarily responsible for overseeing the other. The Respondent thought that Jimenez held a license of some kind that enabled him to do some kinds of minor renovation construction. The Respondent restricted his work to roofing and did not mind Jimenez doing some renovation work on the side, separate from the business of the company. But the Respondent understood that Jimenez' "side deals" would be done separately under Jimenez' own license and would not be part of the business of the company. On or about August 14, 1986, Jimenez entered into a contract on behalf of the company to build an addition, remodel and reroof the existing structure and roof the addition of the residence of Ernest and Mercedes Riccio located at 3117 West Henry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The contract price was $18,999. Jimenez telephoned the Respondent about the job but only told him about the part of the contract that called for the existing roof to be torn off and reroofed. He told the Respondent that the contract price for the job was $3,800. The Respondent pulled a permit for what he thought was the job and started and finished what he thought was the work to be done. The Respondent personally was compensated approximately $700-$800 for his part in the reroofing job. When the Respondent was finished, Jimenez continued with the rest of the contract, which was to include roofing the addition, without telling the Respondent about it. Jimenez did not get very far before a Tampa building inspector happened past and, seeing unfamiliar work in process, inspected the job site. He discovered that the building permit displayed at the site had been altered to expand the work purportedly permitted to include building, in addition to the roofing work for which the Respondent had obtained a permit. Someone other than the Respondent (probably Jimenez although he denied it) altered the permit. The Respondent knew nothing about the contract (other than the reroofing that he did), the alteration of the permit, or the work Jimenez was doing after he left the site. When he discovered the permit violations, the building inspector "red- tagged" the entire job, and work stopped. That was only the beginning of the Riccios' problems. Further investigation revealed that the job would require not only a valid permit but also zoning variances and utility easements. Although the contract had called for the company to obtain all necessary permits, Jimenez and the Riccios agreed that the Riccios would apply for whatever else was necessary in their own names and that Jimenez would assist them. By the time work stopped, the Riccios already had paid the company $12,666 of the total contract price. Nonetheless, when Jimenez' minimal assistance did not resolve the Riccios' problems quickly, Jimenez decided that he already had put too much into the job, and he began to lose interest and make himself scarce. The Riccios finally got their necessary permits on January 26, 1987. They then approached Jimenez about the work to be done under the contract (and the matter of the remaining $6,333 draw). The Riccios and Jimenez agreed that the Riccios would provide the materials and supplies necessary to complete the work and the company would provide the labor. Despite these alternate arrangements, the company did not promptly finish the job. Eventually, the Riccios gave up on Jimenez and in April or May, 1987, began to deal directly with the company's former job superintendent, a man named Ray. To improve their chances of getting the job done (and reduce some of their extra expenses), the Riccios agreed to allow Ray to live in the house free of charge while they were doing the work. The job still did not get finished. Eventually, Mrs. Riccio and some of her relatives finished the job themselves. Even so, the Riccios wound up spending about $20,000, in addition to the $12,666 they had paid the company, to complete the job which the company had contracted to do for $18,999, total. The Respondent was not aware of any of Jimenez' dealings with the Riccios after the Respondent completed his reroofing work. The Respondent assumed that Jimenez had called for a final inspection and that the job had been completed satisfactorily. But in approximately February or March, 1987, the Respondent was contacted by a DPR investigator in connection with the Riccios' complaint against the company. He learned at about that time about Jimenez' other dealings with the Riccios. He also learned that the roof over the addition that had been built had failed inspection. The Respondent eventually corrected the deficiencies, and the roof passed final inspection on August 19, 1987. The Respondent attempts to excuse himself of any wrongdoing, saying that he had a right to delegate the supervision of jobs such as the Riccio job to Jimenez and that he himself was victimized by Jimenez, along with the Riccios. Respondent nonetheless negotiated with Jimenez through the end of the year 1987 in an attempt to come to an agreement to continue to do business together, but the negotiations finally failed. The Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 7, 1988, for offenses which occurred during the same time frame in which the Riccio job took place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing on him an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Donald F. Royal, pro se 8509 North 16 Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the amended administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Ronnie L. Barfield was registered as a roofing contractor and held a state contractor's license, No. RC 0039607. At some point, records reflected the license was inactive, but this was in error. In 1987, Jack Williams lived in the house at 3101 Kings Drive in Panama City, Florida. At all pertinent times the house belonged to Evelyn Rhoads, whose daughter Anna was once married to Mr. Williams. "[B]ack in 1987," (T.10) Mr. Williams contracted with respondent Barfield, on behalf of Ms. Rhoads, to re-roof the house. Doing business as Gulf Coast Roofing Co., Mr. Barfield estimated the work would cost $5,000, before seeing the house, but ultimately presented a bill for (and was paid) $13,922.56. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Respondent removed the existing shingles, replaced rotted portions of the decking near the chimney, installed four new skylights, installed a new drip edge or eave drip and put on new felt and fiberglass shingles. Any flashing there may have been around the chimney did not survive removal of the existing shingles. The eave drip, a strip of aluminum, "puckered" over the carport because the trusses were not uniform. At Mr. Williams' request, Mr. Barfield drove three nails through the eave drip into the fascia to flatten the metal out. Exposed to the elements, the heads of these galvanized nails rusted. On August 10, 1987, after Jack had moved out, Anna moved back in. She noticed "a lot of ridges, indentations and waves in the roof." T.16. (But this may have been nothing new. When a concrete slab foundation varies in height, so that the trusses are at different heights, it makes the roof uneven.) Waviness arising even after respondent's work would more likely have been because of poor attic ventilation than any dereliction by respondent. Anna Bartness, as she has been known since July of 1988, also noticed that the shingles capping the peak or ridge of the roof were loose and uneven. When inspected in January, ridge cap shingles were found attached with only a single nail, instead of two -- one on either side -- which is the industry standard. Eventually "the ridge cap came off it was in the yard." T.16. One of the skylights leaked, when it rained. Ms. Bartness sought Mr. Williams' assistance in locating respondent to tell him of the problems. Mr. Williams remembered getting "the telephone number where [respondent] could be reached." T.14. Whether Mr. Williams himself actually telephoned is not clear, but Ms. Bartness tried repeatedly to reach Mr. Barfield by telephone. Although she never succeeded, she left messages on a telephone answering machine and also left word with a secretary in Mr. Barfield's lawyer's office. A certified letter she mailed respondent was returned unclaimed. These efforts to reach Mr. Barfield may have coincided with time he spent in south Florida. Respondent had agreed "LABOR CARRIES A 5 YEAR WARRANTY." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. He did not learn of complaints about the work at 3101 Kings Drive until after Ms. Rhoads complained to the Department of Professional Regulation and the present proceedings began. But he had not offered to reimburse Ms. Rhoads or otherwise honor the warranty in any way, as of the time of the hearing. Giving up on Mr. Barfield, Ms. Bartness got estimates from two other roofers, David C. Stallnecker and Mayo= Rudd. Among other things, flanges around plumbing vents that had sustained damage from external sources required replacement, flashing needed to be installed around the chimney, wood there had again rotted, and ridge cap shingles needed removal and proper installation. Mr. Rudd charged her $710 for repairs he told her consisted of putting flashing around the chimney because there was none, reapplying tar or "bull," replacing a defective vent that was leaking into a skylight and, which she could see herself, replacing shingles on the roof ridge. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. On or about January 15, 1988, before these repairs, Mr. Stallnecker, like Mr. Rudd, found "no flashing on the chimney." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5; T. 44. When water began coming down the chimney in 1990, Ms. Bartness contracted with James Rutledge, doing business as Rutledge Roofing, to do additional work. He removed shingles around the chimney, replaced bad wood, installed a "membrane with plastic [r]oof cement for flashing against chimney," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, and replaced felt and shingles. Unless an owner instructs him not to, a reasonably prudent roofer would install flashing around a chimney that did not already have it before laying shingles there. T. 45. Testifying at hearing, Mr. Barfield never claimed that he installed flashing around the chimney. Nor did he ever say he saw flashing around the chimney. He said flashing was built in behind the brick. You couldn't see it . . . until you pulled the brick out. T. 70. On balance, however, his testimony suggested that he assumed there was flashing around the chimney, without ever seeing it. [T]he brick masons put the flashing on unless you go where they're building these 235 houses around here they would have nailed it on the side. You hardly wouldn't do that on a $200,000 house sitting on the water, I wouldn't think. I would think it would be built in. T. 71. However reasonable this assumption, and the unstated assumption that his crew had not (inadvertently) removed the flashing in taking off the existing roof, the evidence as a whole showed there was no flashing around the chimney by the time respondent's crew put down the new shingles.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board fine respondent five hundred dollars ($500). DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of January, 1991. Copies furnished to: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rowlett W. Bryant, Esquire 833 Harrison Avenue Panama City, FL 32402
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts I, II and IV of the amended administrative complaint, and guilty of misconduct by affixing his signature and number to air-conditioning plans in Count VI. All other charges should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be given the penalty set forth in paragraph 45 of this recommended order. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1983, 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, 1983.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1986, the Respondent, James A. Campbell, and his associate, David Ritchie, were operating a construction business known as Town & Country Construction Corp. of Tampa. Campbell was the company's qualifying contractor. At the same time, Campbell and Ritchie were in the process of starting a new company to be known as Bay City Builders, Inc. In the application for state registration of the new business, Campbell also was listed as the qualifying contractor. Campbell and Ritchie had business forms, including contract forms, printed in the name of Bay City Builders, Inc., so as to be ready to do business upon approval of the pending application. On December 5, 1986, an employee of Campbell's company, a Mr. Earl Mills, responded to a telephone inquiry from a Mrs. Josefina Rodriguez, who was interested in having a room added and some other renovations done to her home at 551 South Lois Avenue in Tampa. Mills erroneously committed Bay City Builders to a bid on the job before its application was approved. In addition, the bid was seriously low and committed to completion of the job in just 60 days, an overly optimistic time frame even on a reasonable bid. Rodriguez accepted the bid, and Mills obligated Bay City Builders to a contract with her on December 5, 1986, with an addendum dated December 18, 1986. When Campbell, who was out of town at the time, and particularly Ritchie found out what Mills had done, they fired Mills. But they decided to honor the contract. Work began timely during the last week of December, 1986. At the outset of the work, the plumbing subcontractor discovered seriously deteriorated pipes all the way to the street. It was agreed that the pipes would be excavated and replaced outside the contract, to be paid directly by Rodriguez. This delayed the performance of the contract for a limited period of time. Nonetheless, work progressed in a timely fashion through January, 1987. By January 12, 1987, Rodriguez had paid $7859 of the $12,300 due under the contract. By some point in January, 1987, the foundation footers for the 15' by 24' addition had been dug and put in, the rough plumbing had been done, the concrete slab for the addition had been poured, the concrete block walls had been laid, and the framing for the roof had been built. But then work stopped for several weeks. Mrs. Rodriguez became very concerned for several reasons. First, she was planning a trip to Puerto Rico from June to August, 1987, and, as she had explained to Mills and Ritchie, she wanted the work done before she left. Second, without a roof over the addition, water began to pool in the addition during rains and leak into the main part of the house. Third, she had had difficulty contacting the entity that had taken her money. Mills was gone, and Bay City Builders seemed to her not to exist. Campbell and Ritchie had withdrawn the application to qualify it after the Rodriguez fiasco, and it never did any business before or since. There never was a telephone listing for it. As early as February, 1987, Rodriguez sought help from the Better Business Bureau, which could not even find Bay City Builders, and filed a complaint with the Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, that the contractor had abandoned the job. In mid-February, 1987, a crew returned to the job site and put plywood and tar paper roofing material on the roof. This stopped the water leakage into the main house. But then work came to a virtual standstill. All of the $7859 had been spent, and work had not progressed far enough for the next draw, $2000, under the contract. Ritchie tried to explain the situation to Rodriguez, starting from Mills' unrealistic bid. As it was, Ritchie explained, the work would be done but it was going to be long and slow. Ritchie wound up having to borrow money personally and prevailed upon sympathetic subcontractors to forebear in collecting their due in order for Ritchie to finish the project. Practically no work was done during the rest of February, any of March or the first part of April, 1987. In late April, 1987, without any prompting from the DPR or the Better Business Bureau, Ritchie managed to get workers to the job site to finish the dry wall in the addition, which would trigger the next $2000 draw under the contract, and to shingle the roof of the house (addition and pre-existing roof.) When this work was finished in May, 1987, Ritchie contacted Rodriguez to ask for the $2000 draw. Mrs. Rodriguez asked to be assured that the work would be finished before she left for Puerto Rico in June. Ritchie apologized but said it would be impossible under the circumstances. He asked her to allow the work to continue in her absence. Rodriguez refused and also refused to pay the $2000. She said if Ritchie couldn't finish the work before she went to Puerto Rico, she would get someone else to do it. That was the last Ritchie or Campbell heard about the Rodriguez job until DPR initiated this proceeding. Rodriguez did not contact another builder about finishing the work until the end of October, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, James A. Campbell. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 7th day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 James A. Campbell 719 South 50th Street Tampa, Florida 33619 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the challenged portions of Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined by Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Respondent The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of building and maintaining the state’s transportation system. Each year the Department lets out hundreds of road and bridge construction projects totaling over one billion dollars. The projects range from sidewalk improvements to major bridge construction. Accordingly, there is a wide range of expertise and qualifications necessary for the different kinds of projects let by the Department in Florida. Section 337.14(1), Florida Statutes, requires any person desiring to bid on any Department construction contract in excess of $250,000 to first be certified by the Department as qualified to perform the work to be let. Pursuant to Section 337.164, Florida Statutes, the Department qualifies contractors to preserve the integrity of the public contracting process, to ensure an open and competitive environment for the benefit of the taxpayers, and to ensure a quality project in terms of public works. Pursuant to Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, persons seeking to bid on contracts in excess of $250,000 must first file an application for a Certificate of Qualification with the Department. The statute specifically authorizes the Department to enact rules addressing the qualification of persons to bid on contracts in excess of $250,000, including requirements with respect to competency, responsibility, equipment, past record, experience, financial resources, and organizational personnel of the applicant. Gregory Xanders is the State Construction Engineer. His duties include setting policy and reviewing contractor responsibility and qualifications under Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code. In conjunction with reviewing a contractor’s qualifications, the State Construction Engineer’s Office receives input from other personnel, including contract managers in the field, the Department General Counsel’s Office, the Department Inspector General’s Office, and other cities and counties who may work with the contractor. The State Construction Engineer’s Office also reviews any intended decision to deny, suspend, or revoke a contractor’s Certificate of Qualification with the Assistant Secretary of the Department. When the State Construction Engineer’s Office makes a preliminary determination that a contractor’s Certificate of Qualification should be suspended, revoked, or denied, the contractor is notified and informed of its rights to an administrative hearing to contest the intended decision under Section 120.569, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner MBI is a company which engages in road building and asphalt paving. Since the early 1980s MBI has been qualified to bid on and awarded several Department projects. Approximately 80 percent of MBI's workload involves Department projects. Pursuant to Department rules, MBI annually submits an application to renew or obtain an updated Certificate of Qualification in order to continue bidding and performing Department projects. In 1997, MBI was denied qualification to bid on Department projects for approximately ten months. However, MBI was subsequently qualified by the Department during calendar year 1999. On or about March 31, 2000, MBI filed an Application for Qualification with the Department. By letter dated May 18, 2000, the Department gave MBI notice of its intent to deny MBI’s Application for Qualification, and stated that any subsequent application would not be considered for a period of two years. The Department’s letter advised MBI that the denial of the application constituted "a determination of non-responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract" for the same period. Specifically, the letter provided: Please be advised that pursuant to Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14- 22, Florida Administrative Code, it is the intent of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter Department) to deny Mitchell Brothers, Inc.’s (hereinafter Mitchell Brothers) Application for Qualification dated March 31, 2000. This denial shall preclude consideration of any subsequently submitted Application for Qualification for a period of two (2) years. Additionally, this denial shall constitute a determination of non- responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract and shall prohibit Mitchell Brothers from acting as a material supplier, contractor, or consultant on any Department contract during the period Mitchell Brothers is not qualified by the Department. The Department’s Notice of Intent denied MBI’s Application based upon a determination that MBI had demonstrated "a pattern of exorbitant and false, deceptive or fraudulent statements, certifications, or materials in claims for payment," and "a lack of management expertise and continuity." By Petition for Formal Hearing dated May 30, 2000, MBI challenged the Department’s Notice of Intent to Deny MBI’s Application for Qualification. MBI’s Petition for Formal Hearing was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 00-2431. On September 18, 2000, the Department served on MBI a Modified Notice of Intent to Deny MBI’s application. The Modified Notice gave additional grounds for the Department’s decision to deny MBI’s Application for Qualification. Among the additional grounds for denying MBI’s Application were the following: MBI submitted false, deceptive, fraudulent, erroneous or unreasonable statements, certifications, or materials in its claims for payment to the Department, the City of Tallahassee, the Leon County School Board, and other owners; MBI submitted claims or statements for services not performed or expenses not incurred; MBI failed to avoid, diminish or otherwise mitigate the effects of construction delays; and MBI failed to reasonably cooperate with the Department’s efforts to investigate the accuracy of MBI’s delay claims and statements. On October 13, 2000, MBI filed it’s Petition Seeking Administrative Determination that Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority (DOAH Case No. 00-4234RX). Specifically, in paragraph 11 of its Petition, MBI alleges that the Rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes specific provisions of the law implemented, and that the Rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. MBI later alleged that the Department had also exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority. A three-week final hearing was scheduled to commence in DOAH Case No. 00-2431 on October 26, 2000. Shortly prior to hearing, Petitioner filed a Motion to consolidate DOAH Case Nos. 99-2431 and 00-4234RX. The Department opposed the motion based on their counsel's inability to be adequately prepared for the 00-4234RX rule challenge proceeding. In lieu, the parties agreed to temporarily break from the 00-2431 hearing during the second week and commence the rule challenge. However, on the morning of October 26, 2000, MBI filed a Notice of its Withdrawal of its Petition for Formal Hearing in DOAH Case No. 00-2431. Consequently, DOAH Case No. 00-4234RX was scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2000. Based on MBI’s Notice of Withdrawal of its Petition, an Order Closing File was entered in DOAH Case No. 00-2431 on November 1, 2000. On November 2, 2000, the Department entered a Clerk’s Order of Dismissal of MBI’s Petition challenging the denial of its Application for Qualification. "Good Cause" Defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, provides: For reasons other than delinquency in progress, the department, for good cause, may determine any contractor not having a certificate of qualification nonresponsible for a specified period of time or may deny, suspend, or revoke any certificate of qualification. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, circumstances in which a contractor or the contractor’s official representative: Makes or submits to the department false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements or materials in any bid proposal to the department, any application for a certificate of qualification, any certification of payment pursuant to s. 337.11(10), or any administrative or judicial proceeding; Becomes insolvent or is the subject of a bankruptcy petition; Fails to comply with contract requirements, in terms of payment or performance record, or to timely furnish contract documents as required by the contract or by any state or federal statute or regulation; Wrongfully employs or otherwise provides compensation to any employee or officer of the department, or willfully offers an employee or officer of the department any pecuniary or other benefit with the intent to influence the employee or officer’s official action or judgment; Is an affiliate of a contractor who has been determined nonresponsible or whose certificate of qualification has been suspended or revoked and the affiliate is dependent upon such contractor for personnel, equipment, bonding capacity, or finances; Fails to register, pursuant to chapter 320, motor vehicles that he or she operates in this state. Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, or revoke an Application for Qualification based upon a determination of "good cause." "Good cause" is defined by six examples specified in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, but the statute further provides that "good cause includes, but is not limited to" the six circumstances specified in the statute. "Good Cause" Defined in the Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled: "Suspension, Revocation, or Denial of Qualification." Subsection (1) of this Rule provides in pertinent part: (1) The Department will, for good cause, as that term is defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, suspend, revoke, or deny any contractor’s qualification to bid. A suspension, revocation, or denial for good cause pursuant to this rule shall prohibit the contractor from bidding on any Department construction contract for which prequalification is required by Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, and shall constitute a determination of non- responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract and from acting as a material supplier, subcontractor, or consultant on any Department contract or project during the period of suspension, revocation, or denial. As provided in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, such good cause shall include, but shall not be limited to, the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (e) below. When a specific period of revocation, denial, or suspension is not specified by this rule, the period shall be based on the criteria of Rule 14-22.0141(4), F.A.C., as well as Department contractor certification activities. (a) The contractor’s Certificate of Qualification shall be denied or revoked for at least one year when it is determined by the Department that any of the following has occurred: One of the circumstances specified under Section 337.16(2)(a), (b) or (d), Florida Statutes, has occurred. Affiliated contractors submitted more than one proposal for the same work. In this event the Certificate of Qualification of all of the affiliated bidders will be revoked or denied. All bids of affiliated bidders will be rejected. The contractor made or submitted to the Department false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements, certifications, or materials in any claim for payment or any information required by any Department contract. The contractor defaulted on any Department contract or the contract surety took over any Department contract from the contractor. Rule 14-22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, or revoke a contractor’s qualification to bid based on a determination of "good cause" as that term is defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes. The term is defined by examples contained in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and in the Rule, but it is not exhaustive. In addition to the list of examples of "good cause" specified in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14- 22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, the Department consistently considers other criteria contained in Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, which relate to the qualifications of a contractor. Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, requires the Department to consider a contractor’s equipment, past record, experience, financial resources and organizational personnel. Other factors considered are contained in Rule 14-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, which addresses the rating of the applicant, work performance record, quality of work performed, history of payment, timeliness of completing projects, cooperative attitude, contract litigation, claims, defaults, integrity, and responsibility. Both Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, provide the industry with sufficient guidance as to the criteria for "good cause." Responsibility A contractor bidding on projects of less than $250,000 is presumed to be responsible unless one of the circumstances specified in Rule 14-22.0141, Florida Administrative Code, occurs, in which case the contractor may be deemed "non- responsible." In addition to being "qualified," a contractor seeking to bid on projects over $250,000 must also be deemed to be "responsible." By statute, a contractor must be "responsible" as a prerequisite to being "qualified." Section 337.14(3), Florida Statutes, provides: (3) Upon the receipt of an application for certification, the department shall examine it, verify its statements when necessary, and determine whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work. The Department must consider the responsibility of the contractor during the review of its Application for Qualification. If a contractor’s qualification has been denied, suspended, or revoked for "good cause," then the contractor is deemed to be non-responsible and not allowed to bid on any project. Under Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, the Department may determine the time period in which a contractor is deemed to be non-responsible. Period of Disqualification As to the period of disqualification, Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provide a framework of guidelines and, in some instances, detailed timeframes relating to specific circumstances. For example, Section 337.165(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes, specifically requires the Department to deny or revoke a contractor's certification for a period of 36 months when the Department determines that the contractor has been convicted of a contract crime. This statute provides a frame of reference for the Department in establishing the period of disqualification. Within the framework provided by Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, the Department considers a period of disqualification ranging from 0 to 36 months. Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, states that when a Certificate of Qualification is denied or revoked for any of the specified reasons in Rule 14-22.012(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the denial or revocation is "for at least one year." This revocation period only provides a lower limit. Rule 14-22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, further provides: "When a specific period of revocation, denial, or suspension is not specified by this rule, the period shall be based on the criteria of Rule 14-22.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Department contractor certification activities." Rule 14-22.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a contractor will be "ineligible to bid on Department contracts for a period of time based on the seriousness of the deficiency." Rule 14022.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides examples of factors affecting the seriousness of the deficiency. Under the Rule, the examples of factors affecting the seriousness of the deficiency include impacts on project schedule, cost, quality of work, unsafe conditions allowed to exist, complaints from the public, delay or interference with the bidding process, and the potential for repetition. It is not possible to codify in a rule the precise time period of disqualification for every single instance. Because the facts and circumstances supporting a determination of "good cause" vary, it is impracticable to compile an exhaustive list for each instance.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's engineering license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Michael V. Carr, P.E. is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, holding license number PE0026675. He has been engaged in the practice of engineering for more than 15 years. Mr. Carr's area of expertise is in civil and structural engineering. He is not experienced in electrical or mechanical engineering. In 1989, Mr. Carr was employed as a full-time engineer and construction project manager by a local development and construction company. He also operated, on a part-time basis, an engineering business. The purpose of his part-time business was to offer engineering services to people who are experienced in the construction industry or are working with someone who is experienced in the construction industry and have to varying degrees developed their own plans. Respondent also would serve as the construction manager on those projects. During 1989, Respondent performed engineering services on four buildings owned by four different owners. All four buildings, involved relatively simple construction. Three of the buildings, Dr. Zummarraga's office, the Raulerson/Liberty National building, and Bay Podiatry Center, were designs comparable to residential structures. The Eleventh Street Office Park, while a larger structure, was a shell building and a simple structure, as well. Respondent was not retained to provide engineering for the construction of the interior of the Eleventh Street Office Park. In regards to all four buildings, the Respondent was not retained to provide plumbing, electrical or mechanical engineering services. Those items were left to the respective trades involved in the construction of the project. The limited plans submitted for the plumbing, electrical and mechanical aspects of the four buildings met the standard of practice in the Bay County area and were sufficiently complete for the various trades to perform its respective part of each project. Moreover, the simplicity of the construction plans for these four buildings meant that standard construction methods are provided in the Standard Building Code and/or are known in the industry. Such standard construction methods include detail on roof systems, spacing and connections, as well as live load requirements. Therefore, not as much detail needed to be provided on the plans for these projects. It was standard engineering practice in the Bay County area not to include such detail if it was adequately covered in the building code. In each instance, the owners of the buildings contacted Respondent to perform limited engineering services and to act as the construction manager on each project. Except for Mr. Raulerson, each owner had, prior to the time Respondent was hired, worked out some rough plans with a person qualified to create such plans and had a general idea of what type of building they wanted. Mr. Raulerson had drafted a fairly complete set of building plans. The goal of each owner of the four projects was to obtain a set of plans from what the owner already had developed which would at least minimally meet the local building code requirements sufficiently to allow a building permit to be issued for the construction project. In each instance, the Respondent's plans were submitted to the local building code enforcement agency which reviewed and accepted the plans. A building permit was issued for each building project. During the construction of each building, Respondent provided engineering inspections on each project. The plans submitted to the Bay County building department were not as-built plans and were never intended to be 100% complete plans since several of the owners had not made final decisions on a number of details such as roof line or plumbing facilities. 1/ Such open-ended plans were justified by the specific circumstances of each case and the professional judgment of Respondent, especially since Respondent acted as the project manager of the construction project. For purposes of clarity the facts and circumstances surrounding each building and any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to each building will be outlined individually. No alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, were established by the evidence unless it is specifically noted below. Zummarraga Building The plans for the Zummarraga building were signed and sealed by Respondent on October 24, 1989. Dr. Zummarraga had contacted Rich Koehnemann of Koehnemann Construction Company to build an office building for him. Mr. Koehnemann sent the doctor to Jeff Robinson, a draftsman in the Bay County area, to work up a draft of the office plans the doctor desired. The doctor or Mr. Koehnemann gave Mr. Robinson a rough sketch of the office building. Mr. Robinson informed the doctor that a structural engineer would have to be involved since the County would require the plans to have the signature and seal of an architect or engineer in order to obtain a building permit. At that point, Respondent was retained to help develop a set of plans for Dr. Zummarraga. Mr. Carr was hired to draft plans for an office building. He was not hired by Dr. Zummarraga to design a building for a specific site. Therefore, no substantial site information, site work, grading or contouring details were provided on the plans for the Zummarraga project. By passing drafts of plans back and fort, a set of plans was devised by Mr. Robinson under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to the plans for the Zummarraga project. Later, after the structure's plans were finalized, the contractor determined that a detention pond would have to be designed for the site and a DER permit obtained for the pond. Respondent was retained to design a detention pond for the site and worked with DER to meet its extensive permitting requirements for such a pond. See Chapter 17-4, 17-25 and 17-512, Florida Administrative Code. That design was submitted to DER and a permit was issued for the detention pond. The original unsealed set of plans was amended for the building department. The specific details of the more rigid DER requirements, such as site work, grading and contouring, were not included on the plans filed with the building department and the owner did not contract with Respondent to include redundant detail on the building department's plans. Essentially, the building department's plans reflected the location of the detention pond and the area of the wetlands on the property which were subject to DER jurisdiction. Additionally, the plans contained some specifications which guided the contractor on pond requirements and in grading and contouring the site. These notes in conjunction with the DER permit requirements were sufficient to accomplish the building of the detention pond. Therefore, the desire of the owner and the avoidance of unnecessarily redundant detail between the DER permit and the building department's plans justified the lack of any extensive site work detail on the building department's set of plans for the Zummarraga project. The plans devised by Mr. Carr did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering work he performed. 2/ Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside of his field. In every instance, the plans of Dr. Zummarraga's office building were of sufficient detail to meet the building department's requirements for the issuance of a building permit, to allow the contractor to construct the project according to the Standard Building Code and to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the building department. Obviously, on these facts, the plans met the standard of practice in the community for the engineering services Respondent was hired to perform. Moreover, the lack of code related, electrical or mechanical details was justified under the facts and circumstances of the Zummarraga project and it was well within the professional judgment of the Respondent to omit such details given the standards of practice in the Bay County area. Raulerson/Liberty National Building The plans for the Raulerson/Liberty National building were signed and sealed by Respondent on July 31, 1989. Mr. Raulerson is an experienced developer in the Bay County area and acts as a general contractor on his own projects. Prior to hiring Respondent, Mr. Raulerson had been working with a local draftsman and Liberty National's architect to create a set of plans for the construction of Liberty National's office building in Bay County. Mr. Raulerson contacted Respondent on the advice of Bayne Collins, a local architect. Mr. Collins advised Mr. Raulerson that his plans were complete and all he needed was an engineer to check the wind loads. 3/ Mr. Raulerson gave Respondent the plans he had developed in conjunction with Liberty National's architect. Mr. Raulerson asked Mr. Carr to go through the plans and do a structural analysis to make sure that wind load requirements were met, that the building was structurally sound and that the building met the requirements for issuance of a building permit. Mr. Carr reviewed the plans and determined that they were an excellent set of plans for a very simple, sound and over-designed structure. He calculated the wind loads for the building and completed a structural analysis of the building. He also made one minor correction to the plans. Mr. Carr thought it ridiculous to put Mr. Raulerson to the expense of copying the Liberty National plans and essentially adopted the plans as his own. In this case, the fact that the plans were not drawn under Respondent's supervision is immaterial since the specific circumstances of the project did not call for such supervision in that the plans were drafted by experienced individuals. The plans were under Respondent's control at the point in time he was hired by Mr. Raulerson and the plans submitted to him for his review and approval, disapproval or amendment. Since copying the plans would be an unnecessary duplication of effort and Respondent did in fact exercise control over the plans by reviewing them before he affixed his seal to them, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to construction plans. The Raulerson/Liberty National plans did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. Anything in the plans which may be construed as "architectural work" was requested and specified by the owner to be in the plans. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside his field. The plans did contain a roofing plan which called for pre-engineered trusses. The detail on the plan simply read "pre-engineered trusses." The plans did not contain any requirements relating to who was to design the pre- engineered trusses or requirements for structural submittals on the trusses. In the Bay county area "pre-engineered trusses" means trusses from Fagans, the local truss manufacturer. It is common knowledge, that Fagan's has a licensed engineer on staff who designs all of its pre-engineered trusses from the plans submitted to him. The pre-engineered trusses all have pre-construction documentation available. Also, submittals for the trusses accompany the trusses at the time of their delivery. With such knowledge, it is unnecessary to specify any more information or requirements regarding the truss manufacture on the Liberty National plans. Similarly it was unnecessary to detail that submittals be given to the engineer since such submittals accompanied the trusses. The absence of any more detail was justified by the specific circumstances of the Liberty National project and well within the professional judgment of the Respondent given the nature of the pre-engineered truss market in the Bay County area and the fact that Respondent was the construction manager on the project. As indicated, Respondent also acted as the construction project manager and would visit the construction site about once a week. At the point in time Mr. Raulerson was going to order the trusses, he decided to change the pitch of the roof, Mr. Raulerson did not advise Mr. Carr of his decision. Mr. Carr discovered Mr. Raulerson's change when he visited the construction site. Fortunately, Respondent had the project file with him. With the project file information and the submittals from the truss manufacturer, Respondent checked the load conditions for the changed pitch. No structural concerns were presented due to the change in pitch of the roof. The Liberty National plans were not amended because Mr. Raulerson did not contract for them to be amended. The plans were not required to be amended under Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. Respondent did not commit any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to his actions outlined above. Bay Podiatry Center The plans for the Bay Podiatry Center were signed and sealed by Respondent. However, the date the plans were signed and sealed was not included on the plans. It was inadvertently omitted by Respondent. The absence of the date is a de-minimis violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statues, and does not justify the imposition of any formal penalties. However, Respondent should be given a letter of guidance for the violation. Respondent was not brought into the Bay Podiatry Center project until the final draft of the plans was to be done. Up until that time, Dr. Wilkerson, the owner of the project, had worked up preliminary drafts of the project in conjunction with his contractor and a local draftsman. They had developed a building with an attached carport. Mr. Carr did work directly with the draftsman on the final plan. Therefore, the plans were created under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Since Respondent supervised and controlled the finalization of the project's plans at the crucial time and since the people involved in drafting the plans did not need more supervision and control, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. There was no clear and convincing evidence which demonstrated that Respondent performed any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. At the time Dr. Wilkerson desired to begin construction and obtain a building permit, he had not decided on a final roofing system. Therefore, the final plans called for the use of pre-engineered trusses and did not have a great amount of detail on a roof framing plan. There was some detail provided on the page of the plans detailing the wall section of the building. This page provided sufficient detail for a competent contractor to construct the building according to code. In fact, the building was so constructed and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the building upon its completion. Again the trusses would come from Fagans. Petitioner did in fact review submittals from Fagan's truss engineer for the pre-engineered trusses used on the Bay Podiatry Center. Included in those submittals was a roofing plan in which the trusses were numbered to fit the sequence shown in the roofing plan. Respondent made sure the trusses and roof system were structurally sound. However, the owner did not contract with Respondent to amend the building department's plans. Chapter 471, Florida Statutes does not require such an amendment. Given the truss market in the Bay County area, the knowledge of Respondent regarding that market, the fact that a decision regarding a roof line had not been made when the plans were sealed, and that it was appropriate to leave such a decision for later in the construction process, no further detail was required in specifying the roof system for this project. No clear and convincing evidence was presented that demonstrated Respondent was negligent in his specifications on the roof system. The only exception to the above was that Respondent did not specify the material of the trusses over the carport. Such information is not supplied by the Code and therefore must be supplied by the engineer. The oversight was caught by the contractor when he was preparing to order the trusses. The contractor contacted Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr determined what the appropriate truss material should be and informed the contractor. The inadequacy of the plans was resolved in less than ten minutes. The omission of such a detail is negligent on the part of Respondent and is a violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. However, on these facts, the omission of the detail is minor. Most of the light, plumbing and mechanical fixtures were prelocated by the owner prior to the time Respondent was hired. Respondent did not purport to draft plumbing, electrical or mechanical plans in detail in the final plan. Except in one respect, the detail was sufficient to guide the respective trades in the performance of their work and no more detail was required. The only exception was that Respondent approved a special detail of the hub drain/trap primer which was not in accordance to code. Since Respondent provided a special detail which did not meet the code requirements and which was not demonstrated to be justified by the circumstances of the Bay Podiatry project, he is guilty of negligence in the drawing of the Bay Podiatry plans in that aspect. Given the fact that this is a very small error in a larger project and that the drain was put in according to code during the construction of the building, Respondent's violation is a minor one. Finally, the draftsman, without instructions from Respondent, put some plumbing and mechanical notes in the plans which clearly did not relate to the project. Respondent did not catch the inclusion of the notes and sealed the plans with the superfluous notes in them. However, it was obvious that the notes did not relate to the project and the trades involved ignored them. The notes did not cause any problems during the construction and were not shown to be inimical to the public health and safety. Therefore, while the inclusion of the notes was sloppy work, there was no negligence shown on the part of Respondent. Eleventh Street Office Park The plans for the Eleventh Street Office Park were signed and sealed by Respondent on January 31, 1989 The Eleventh Street Office Park project demonstrates best the dynamism involved in an evolving construction project. Often, as with the Eleventh Street project, an owner is not sure of the best method or design (usually determined by lowest cost) to utilize prior to construction or whether he wants to go forward with the expense of construction of a building given certain designs. On the Eleventh Street project three plans were developed, beginning with a three story structure with structural steel and precast walls, and ending with a large, one story, cement block structure on a cement slab. All the plans were for a shell building and did not include any floor plan. Preliminary rough drawings were completed by a draftsman who was hired by the project's owner. Respondent reviewed these rough drafts and over the course of several weeks made numerous structural changes. After the plans were re-drawn to Respondent's satisfaction, he submitted them to the building department in order to obtain a building permit. There is no question that the plans for the Eleventh Street project were drawn under Respondent's direct supervision and control. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. The plans submitted to the building department were not intended to be complete. For instance, the owner had not decided where to locate the restrooms in the building. However, the owner, for unspecified reasons, wanted to proceed with obtaining a building permit. With that decision open, the detail for the plumbing aspects of the plan were not intended to be complete or to match as to specifics. Such limited detail was intended only to place the building department and the contractor on notice that some consideration had to be given to the upcoming plumbing. The same considerations applied to the electrical and mechanical aspects of the plans. All of the evidence concerning deficiencies in the electrical design of the Eleventh Street Office Park was based on Petitioner's expert's review of a single sheet of plans obtained from the building Department. This sheet is mysterious as to its origins and relationship to the Eleventh Street project. The sheet was not prepared by Respondent, did not bear his seal, lacked the fire department's approval which was present on other pages of the project's plans, and was a different size paper than those sealed by Respondent. There was no substantial evidence which demonstrated Respondent had prepared this sheet or that the sheet reflected the electrical plans used in the Eleventh Street project. The absence of extensive detail or the provision of extraneous notes on the electrical, mechanical and plumbing aspects of the plans were justified by the fact that the owner of the project had not made up his mind in regards to those details, such decisions could be determined later in the construction process, the Eleventh Street project was a shell building and there was sufficient detail for the licensed trades to perform their tasks when the time came and the decisions were made. The incompleteness of these plans in that regard was clearly justified by the specific circumstances of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. As with the Bay Podiatry project, the only exception to the above was that the hub drain/trap primer detail was not in accordance with the building code. For the reasons stated in regards to the Bay Podiatry project, the provision of the hub drain detail constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Again the violation is a minor one. Similarly, as with the other three projects, no substantial evidence was presented that Respondent performed any architectural services in relation to the Eleventh Street project which were not incidental to the engineering services he performed. There was a great deal of debate among the experts as to the adequacy of the structural aspects of the Eleventh Street Office Park and whether they met the standards of practice for engineers. Most of the debate centered on how much detail needed to be placed on the plans and whether the detail provided was sufficient for a contractor to build a safe building. The better evidence demonstrated that the amount of detail on the plans was sufficient to enable a contractor to build a safe building. The detail which was not contained on the plans was contained in the building code and did not need to be included on the plans. Such a practice comports with the standard of practice in the Bay County area and is a specific circumstance of a project which would enable a professional engineer to exercise his judgment and not include such detail. 4/ Moreover, although the calculations were not contained on the plans, Respondent did, in fact, determine the structural soundness of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The only exception to the above is that Respondent was negligent in specifying the type of mortar to be used in the concrete walls. In essence Respondent specified three different types of mortars. These mortars significantly differed as to each mortar's respective strength. Use of an improper mortar in the concrete walls can effect the strength of the wall and cause them to be unsafe. This inconsistency in detail or specifications differs from the inconsistency in details or specifications where such details or specifications obviously do not apply to the project or where such details or specifications have no contrary reference in the plans. The latter two cases while showing sloppy work are not necessarily indicative of negligence and depend greatly on the surrounding facts and circumstances before a finding of negligence can be made. The inconsistency with the mortar is indicative of negligence since a contractor may very well use the wrong mortar on a project. In this case, the inconsistency did not become a problem and Respondent was present as the project manager to handle any problem which may have arisen. Therefore, the violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, is moderate to minor.
Recommendation That the Department enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of five violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, assessing a total fine of $750.00 and placing the Respondent's license on probation for a period of one year, during which Respondent should be required to take and pass a course or courses on the proper methods of plan drafting for the four violations involving negligence; and issuing a letter of guidance for the violation involving the date. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1991.
