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.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2014),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony presented at the final hearing, exhibits accepted into evidence, and matters subject to official recognition. The Board is the state entity charged with regulating the practice of engineering, pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. FEMC provides administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. Mr. Henry obtained his professional engineering license from the state of Florida in 1992 and has been a licensed engineer for all times relevant to the issues in this case. His license number is PE 45894. In May 2014, Mr. Henry provided an estimate for engineering services to the owners of Darr Salaam Annex (“property owners”), a religious/community center in Thonotosassa, Florida. The services involved the renovation of an existing one-story building (“Project”). Initially the property owners hired another engineer who submitted the renovation plans to the appropriate agencies for a building permit: the Hillsborough County building plans review staff (“County”) and the Hillsborough County Fire Marshals’ Office (“FMO”). The County rejected the first submittal of the electrical and mechanical plans on June 26 and July 3, 2014; FMO rejected the submitted plans on June 27, 2014. The property owners retained Respondent to be the engineer of record (“EOR”) for the Project in August 2014. As the EOR, Respondent prepared, signed, sealed and submitted documentation to the County and FMO for the Project numerous times. The following is a summary of his submissions and the permitting entities’ responses. Date of Review Comments Status of Submitted Plan October 3, 2014 First resubmittal denied by FMO; second resubmittal required. October 20, 2014 Corrected electrical plan review denied by County. October 30, 2014 Building plan review denied by County. December 21, 2014 Corrected electrial plan review denied by County. December 22, 2014 Building plan review denied by County. January 2, 2015 Second resubmittal denied by FMO; resubmittal required. February 6, 2015 Third resubmittal denied by FMO. February 18, 2015 Corrected electrical plan approved by County. February 20, 2015 Building plans review denied by County. February 25, 2015 Corrected building plan approved by County. March 2, 2015 Corrected mechanical plan approved by County. March 13, 2015 Fourth resubmittal denied by FMO. March 16, 2015 Building plan approval rescinded by County. The parties presented no evidence as to whether the County and FMO ultimately approved the building plans or issued a building permit. The last plans Mr. Henry prepared and submitted to the County and FMO consisted of five illustrations including: (1) a demolition plan; (2) a lighting/safety plan; (3) wall details; (4) canopy details (structural plan); and (5) elevation drawings. The demolition plan contains a section titled “SCOPE OF WORK,” which states: THE THREE DECORATIVE CANOPIES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS PER THESE PLANS THE EXISTING 1ST FLOOR INTERIORS TO BE RENOVATED AS PER THESE PLANS THE RENOVATED BATHROOMS ARE TO BE WIRED ALL OTHER EXISTING LIGHTING TO BE RETAINED OUTLETS ON THE WALL REMOVED ARE [TO] BE DISCARDED THE EXISTING AC SYSTEMS ARE TO BE RETAINED[.] On March 20, 2015, Kevin McGuire, the Plans Reviewer for the FMO filed a complaint with the Board (“McGuire Complaint”) regarding Respondent. Mr. McGuire claimed Mr. Henry had been repeatedly told the plans were deficient and also been told how to correct them, but that Petitioner failed to address the issues raised by the FMO in the revised submittals. Mr. McGuire also stated in his Complaint that--in his opinion-- Mr. Henry lacked basic knowledge of the Florida Building Code and the Fire Prevention Code. Petitioner notified Respondent of the allegations in the McGuire Complaint. Mr. Henry responded he was not responsible for the electrical, mechanical and structural plans and that the Project was not a “straight forward situation.” After receipt of the McGuire Complaint and Mr. Henry’s response, the Board’s Probable Cause Panel authorized FEMC to initiate an investigation. These documents, as well as the final building plans submitted to the County and FMO, were provided to four FEMC consultants for review: Mr. Ooten (electrical and mechanical elements); Gerald Zadikoff, P.E. (structural elements); Mr. Jeffery (second review of the structural elements); and Sarah Maman, P.E. (fire safety and protection elements).3/ Based on the engineering reports prepared by these consultants, the Board filed the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Henry alleging deficiencies in the electrical, mechanical and structural design documents. Overall Violations As an initial matter, most of Mr. Henry’s violations (described in detail below) arise out his lack of description and specificity in the engineering documents. The overwhelming evidence establishes most of the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner could have been avoided had Mr. Henry simply provided the details required by the rules to (1) describe the specifications of the new electrical, plumbing and structural features; and (2) distinguish the existing systems more clearly from those that were being affected by the renovations. Respondent’s failure, if not refusal, to do so was one of the reasons the plans were repeatedly rejected by the County and FMO. In general, Mr. Henry accepted responsibility at the hearing for the Project plans, but he maintained that any departures from the FBC or rules were justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and his sound professional judgment. He did not, however, establish what those specific or special circumstances were. Both experts’ testimony and reports established that departures from the rules, even if they are justified by circumstances and the professional judgment of the engineer—-which these were not--must be documented. Again, Mr. Henry’s lack of attention to detail in the documents was his downfall; it cannot be excused by any specific circumstance or his professional judgment. Respondent also claimed he was not responsible for describing the existing elements that he did not design. Again, it is difficult to discern from the documents alone what was in place before the renovation and what would be affected by the renovation. Mr. Henry admitted, “I don’t have a list of move this bathroom or move this outlet or move this here.” Mr. Henry could have used different colors or methods to distinguish the changes from the original structure, but he did not. None of the Project documents cite to the relevant codes, rules, or ordinances that Respondent relied upon as required by rule 61G15-30.003(1)(b). The plans simply state they comply with the FBC without noting which version or year Respondent was using. Mr. Henry believed that his general citation to the FBC put the plan reviewers and contractors on notice of all of the construction code requirements. This assertion is rejected based on the testimony of Mr. Ooten and Mr. Jeffery, which established: it is common practice in the profession to make specific citations; and plan reviewers and contractors have difficulty in evaluating and interpreting building plans without citations to specific statutes, codes, and rules. Similarly, Mr. Henry testified he did not have to provide the sizing and specifications of construction materials in writing because they were known by the contractor he was working with at the time. This contention is rejected based on Mr. Henry’s own testimony that others may need this information to complete the project, and his own admission there was no guarantee that the specific contractor he was working with would complete the Project. Electrical Violations The Board alleges the electrical “Legend” section lacked sufficient symbols or explanations as required by rule 61G15-33.004. The small copies of the drawings presented by the Board were difficult, if not impossible, to read. At the hearing, however, Respondent brought actual–size copies of the drawings he had submitted to the County and FMO and was able to show that although some information was missing from the “Legend” section, this information was located elsewhere in the documents. As such, the “Legend” is compliant and does not violate the Responsibility Rules. The Board, however, provided clear and convincing evidence, primarily through the testimony and report of Mr. Ooten, that the electrical engineering drawings Mr. Henry prepared were deficient. The drawings contain an Electrical Riser Diagram, but no short circuit values and no voltage drop calculations for the feeders, as required by of rule 61G15-33.003(2)(a) and (f). The drawings do not depict any surge protective devices nor do they explain why such devices were not necessary, as is required by rule 61G15-33.003(2)(d). The drawings do not specify the type of conductor insulation that is necessary or should be used, as required by rule 61G15-33.003(2)(b). The drawings contain incomplete circuitry of electrical outlets, equipment and devices such as air handlers, water heaters, lighting fixtures and receptacles, and ground fault circuit interrupter receptacle, as required by rule 61G15- 33.003(2)(g). The grounding conductors reflected in the drawings are inadequate and insufficient to satisfy the requirements of rule 61G15-33.003(2)(i). The electrical information omitted by Respondent is necessary to assure the circuit breakers, wires, conductors and other electrical components are adequate for the power usage, because undersized components can overheat and cause fires. Likewise, the grounding information is necessary to ensure the building is safe in the event of lightning or an electrical power surge. Lighting Violations The Board also provided clear and convincing evidence that the lighting plan Mr. Henry prepared was deficient. The drawings lack any light fixture specifications, as required by rule 61G15-33.004(2)(a). The drawings fail to provide for an appropriate number of exit lights, in violation of the Florida Fire Prevention Code and rule 61G15-33.004(2)(b). The drawings show no circuiting for any lighting fixtures, no calculated values for energy usage, and do not establish that the lighting plan complies with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction, as required by rule 61G15- 33.004(2)(d) and (e). Mr. Henry claimed he was not required to make these notations because the renovation incorporated the existing lighting. Mr. Henry admitted, however, he could have labeled the existing lighting fixtures that were not going to be modified as “N/A” or “existing,” but did not think he needed to do so because “the contractor understands this.” Unfortunately, what was existing lighting and what was being changed was not apparent to the plan reviewers, Mr. Ooten, or the ALJ. Plumbing Violations The Board alleged numerous deficiencies in the plumbing plan, including that the potable water diagram shown on Sheet 3 of the drawings lacked designation of the total water fixture units, as required by rule 61Gl5-34.007(2)(c). Mr. Henry, however, clarified at the hearing that this information was contained in the documents, but not on the sheet related to plumbing. As such, the Board did not show the water diagram was insufficient. The Board, however, did present sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Henry’s plumbing drawings lack necessary data or provide incorrect information in violation of the FBC and applicable Responsibility Rules as follows: The drawings fail to designate fixture requirements, back flow prevention devices, water supply line locations or hot or cold water line locations other than sewage, as required by the FBC. The drawings lack plumbing equipment descriptions, or material specifications (i.e. sizes and strengths of the materials to be used), as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(a), (l), and (m). The drawings lack designation of storm riser and area drainage calculations, as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(e). The drawings lack piping layouts, as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(f). The drawings fail to list the applicable plumbing codes, design standards or requirements, as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(i). These omissions could result in inadequate water and sewer capabilities. The lack of drainage calculations make it difficult to assess the impact the renovations will have on the existing storm water runoff system. Again, Mr. Henry denied he was responsible for making these designations because the renovations, he claims, did not affect the existing plumbing. The testimony of Mr. Ooten, however, established: the additional bathroom features would affect the total plumbing system, and Mr. Henry should have better designated what portions would not be affected by the renovations. The Board also established that the Project plans fail to designate a handicap accessible bathroom stall as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(j). Although at the hearing, Mr. Henry showed a larger space where these bathrooms were located on the plans, they were not clearly marked as “handicap” stalls. Mr. Henry admitted as much and noted, “I could have also put a note in the [the plans that] this was a handicap bathroom, okay, but the dimensions speak for themselves. . . . I did not put a detail for the handicap bathroom. My mistake. All right. Everybody makes mistakes.” Structural Violations The Project renovations included widening the building’s doorways and adding canopies to the rooftop. These are changes affecting the structural elements of the building. Based on Mr. Jeffery’s testimony and report, the Board presented clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s structural engineering design documents were professionally and legally deficient. The structural plans fail to provide the live or dead loads for the roof, as required by the FBC and rule 61G15- 31.002(5). Although Mr. Henry testified these were not necessary because no changes were made to the roof, the plans reflect there was an addition of three decorative canopies. The structural plans do not indicate that the live or dead loads remain unchanged despite these additions. To the contrary, Mr. Jeffery’s testimony and report established that the canopies (even if decorative) coupled with the changes in doorways would affect the structural loads. Thus, the structural plans were noncompliant. There are no structural notes indicating applicable code or strength of materials for masonry, grout, reinforcing steel and wood, as required by rule 61G15-31.003(1)(a). Mr. Henry claimed that providing the size of the structure beams was enough to satisfy the rule. This contention is rejected based on Mr. Jeffery’s testimony: [Mr. Henry]: I have here a 2-by-6 ridge beam. A 2-by-6 ridge beam . . . is established what load a 2 by 6 ridge bema from the American Wood Council. The American Wood Council has a sort of table that I use. I don’t put in in every plan because I establish my own table based on information from the American Wood Council. A 2-by-6 ridge—yes [?] [Mr. Jeffery]: First of all, you haven’t even said what species of wood it is, so each species of wood has a different strength. Secondly, with any species, there’s at least five or six different grades, and each of those grades has a different strength. So you’ve got maybe 10 to 15 options that could be picked from by the contractor, and you’ve not told him which one to pick. The wind loads indicated on the diagrams are inadequate in that they do not reflect the new canopies and do not establish that the structure could withstand or resist the minimum wind speed. Although the testimony conflicted about whether the 2005 or 2010 standards were applicable, Mr. Jeffery provided sufficient testimony to establish that the calculations on the plan that showed the canopy details were insufficient under either standard. Although knowledgeable about designing the renovations, Mr. Henry failed to utilize due care in performing as the EOR and failed to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles in the preparation and submission of the engineering documents he signed and sealed for the Project. It was clearly and convincingly shown that Mr. Henry was negligent in the preparation and submission of the building plans for the Project. There is nothing in the record to indicate Respondent has a history of discipline or has had any other complaints filed against him in his 25 years as a licensed professional engineer in Florida. The Project was a renovation of an existing building with no major changes. There was no evidence the Board interviewed the property owners or Project contractor, nor was there evidence of any actual damages suffered by the public as a result of Mr. Henry’s negligence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers: Finding Earl E. Henry engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 19.001(4); Imposing a two-year probation; and Awarding costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case as described in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 9th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The single issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to at least three more points on his response to question #121. If not, he has failed the examination.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth A. Carper graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor's degree from the University of Central Florida. In the nine years since graduation he has worked for an engineering firm primarily in the area of drainage design. Question #121 is the type of problem he deals with daily. The ultimate objective of the question is to determine whether the flow of an open channel with given specifications is subcritical or supercritical. The question required the computation of the channel's critical depth and normal depth. In the hypothetical situation described by the question, certain extraneous information was given. An appropriate answer required that this "red herring" be ignored. The ISSP is a standardized grading device by which a person subjectively grading a problem will consistently apply a score based upon specified types and numbers of deficiencies. The intent is to reduce the chance of over-leniency or an overly strict approach by different graders. The ISSP developed by the National Council of Engineering Examiners for question #121 provides in pertinent part: 10. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution, well organized, all relevant ASPECTS fully addressed. Correct approach; numerical answers correct within rounding errors; conclusion correct; adequate written records. All parts are of equal weight (3 parts). 9. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution but exces- sively conservative in choice of working values; or presen- tation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. All correct, as in 10 above, except for a single math/units error; or inadequate written record. 8. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, errors attributable to misread table or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct. All correct, as in 10 above, except for multiple math/units errors; or inadequate written record; or in combination. 7. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied. Obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable. Same as 8 above, except for more gross errors; or in combination; or a single part of three parts required completely wrong or missing, with the other two parts correct. 6. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, applicant demonstrates minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant ASPECTS of the item. Multiple math/units/records errors; or in combination; or one part completely missing or wrong, with other errors; or in combination. (Joint Exhibit 1) The grader of Carper's examination did not testify, but provided notations on the answer sheet. The solution required selection of an appropriate formula, which Carper did; it also required a trial and error mathematical computation of the value of "y." In the first part of the question Carper found "y" to be "... between 9.2 and 9.3, say 9.3'." The grader crossed out this answer with the notation,-- "not an engineering answer-Finish iteration to a close enough' final value." The grader's answer was 9.24. In the second part of the question, Carper indicated "y" was "... between 6.8 and 7.0, say 7.0'." The grader's answer was 6.99, and similar notations, were made, "not an engineering answer. Finish the iteration." It is apparent that the grader felt that the solution should be carried out to the nearest hundredth place. Yet, in a very similar question (#421), also requiring computation of normal depth, Carper's answer, 4.7' was marked "OK", and he received the full 10 points for his solution. Nothing in the instructions specifically requires a solution to the nearest hundredth. This is left to the judgement of the engineer. "Real world" engineering practice would not require a solution to the nearest hundredth place. The design of a large open channel is substantially less precise than the design of a bridge or multi-story building. In hydraulics, the practice is often to round up, for example, from a 9.8 to 10, as a conservative measure. It is also common to use estimates; for example, the roughness coefficient (resistance of the channel walls) is a textbook figure, rather than one derived from the structure itself. Given the lack of precision inherent in the formula, the computation of value beyond the tenth place serves no valid purpose. The sample solution to #121 provided by the grader specifically states "ignore backwater curve." While Carper's solution does ignore the "red herring," his work sheet does not affirmatively note that he did. Respondent claims that the grader could not know whether the back water curve was properly ignored, or just overlooked. At worst, this minor deficiency constitutes an inadequate written record. The appropriate score, based on the ISSP table reflected in paragraph 4, above, is "9." Carper selected the proper formula, performed the mathematics and arrived at answers reflecting acceptable engineering practice. The descriptions of deficiencies for the scores of less than 9 do not apply to Carper's solution for this question. Respondent's expert conceded that the solution did not contain a mathematics error. In making these findings I have considered and weighed the opinions of the three experts who testified in this proceeding. Both experts presented by Petitioner were qualified, without objection, in the engineering fields of hydraulics, hydrology and water resource management. They both have over 30 years of extensive practical experience in those fields, and they both have lectured or taught in colleges and universities. The weight of their testimony is tempered by their personal knowledge of Petitioner for eight or nine years and by their knowledge of the score he needed to pass the examination. Nothing in the substance of their testimony, however, revealed a bias in favor of their colleague, and their testimony was considered candid and forthright. They would have scored #121 as "9" or "10". Respondent's expert, a consulting engineer, employed as an Associate Professor in the University of Florida Civil Engineering Department did not know Carper, nor was he advised of the score he would need to pass. He would have given Carper a "6" or "7" on question #121, but more likely a 7, based on Carper's failure to carry his answer to "three significant figures." This opinion was not adequately explained in terms of acceptable engineering practice, but rather was based on acceptance of the test grader's judgement. (Joint Exhibit #2, Deposition, p. 29) Respondent's expert was less qualified than Petitioner's experts. His primary experience as a consulting engineer has been in review of the work of others, rather than active design.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, awarding Kenneth Carper 9 points for question #121, thereby providing a passing grade for the engineering examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4979 The following constitute my rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner 1-5. Addressed in Background. 6-7. Adopted in paragraph #11. 8. Addressed in Background. Respondent Addressed in Background. Adopted in substance in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #10. Adopted in substance in paragraph #10. Adopted in paragraph #9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. Rejected as unsubstantiated speculation. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian E. Currie, Esquire SANDERS, McEWAN, MIMS & MARTINEZ, P.A 108 East Central Boulevard Post Office Box 753 Orlando, Florida 32802-0753 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neal, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' February 7, 2005 Joint Prehearing Submission2: Respondent and his father are the principal owners of J.G.P. Engineering Group P.A. (JGP), an engineering firm specializing in the design of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. JGP does mainly "high end projects." It has offices in Miami, Florida, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Respondent is in charge of JGP's Miami office. The office is located at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 207. Before moving to this location, JGP occupied Suite 210 in the same building. In or around the mid-1990's, Orlando Naranjo was invited to work as an electrical engineer for JGP in its Miami office. Mr. Naranjo wanted to remain self-employed, so he turned down the offer; however, his firm and JGP subsequently worked collaboratively on "quite a few projects." Mr. Naranjo's firm and JGP were "doing so much work [together] requiring significant coordination" that in or around 1998, Mr. Naranjo decided "to move [his office to 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209] next to [JGP's office]." Mr. Naranjo's office was at this location (9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209) at all times material to the instant case. On September 20, 2001, Mr. Naranjo's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida (which was then under suspension) was revoked by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (Board). The suspension and revocation resulted from Mr. Naranjo's having failed to have taken the necessary steps to renew his license in a timely manner. Mr. Naranjo did not become aware of the Board's revocation action until "some time later," around or before the Thanksgiving holiday (that same year). Upon learning that his license had been revoked, Mr. Naranjo began the process of attempting to become relicensed. Mr. Naranjo's office (at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209) remained open, and his firm continued to engage in business, following the revocation of his license and during the time that he was seeking relicensure. Mr. Naranjo recognized that, until he got his license back, he would be unable to sign and seal documents and otherwise act as the "engineer of record" on projects. Mr. Naranjo therefore asked Respondent to help him by assuming the role of "engineer of record" on projects that Mr. Naranjo had been working on but had not yet completed. As a favor to Mr. Naranjo, Respondent agreed to do so without compensation. Among the projects of Mr. Naranjo's that Respondent undertook responsibility for were (what the parties have referred to in their February 7, 2005, Joint Prehearing Submission as) the Toras Emes project (TE Project) and the Manatee Village at Ruskin project (MV Project). "[C]ompared to the jobs that [JGP] had done with [Mr. Naranjo] in the past, these two jobs . . . [were] relatively straightforward." The TE Project involved design work for a dormitory facility consisting of "individual dormitory rooms, a hallway [connecting] them, and a common bathroom [with] showers and stalls for the people [living] in the dormitory." The architectural firm that hired Mr. Naranjo to work on the TE Project was Gustavo J. Ramos and Associates, Inc. (Ramos). Ramos had a contractual relationship with, and paid, Mr. Naranjo, not Respondent, for the work done on the TE Project. The MV Project involved design work for a residential housing development consisting of four types of "small apartment units [having] one or two bedrooms." The architectural firm that hired Mr. Naranjo to work on the MV Project was R.E. Chisholm Architects, Inc. (Chisholm). Chisholm had a contractual relationship with, and paid, Mr. Naranjo, not Respondent, for the work done on the MV Project. The MV Project required "relatively little" work since approximately "99% [of the plans that had been developed for use in a previous project] were reused" for this project. Assisting in the preparation of the plans for the TE Project and the MV Project were Mr. Naranjo's employees, Pablo Viteri and Antia Rodriguez, who (unlike Respondent) were paid by Mr. Naranjo for their efforts in connection with the projects. Mr. Viteri and Ms. Rodriguez served as draftspeople on these projects, drafting in accordance with the directions they received, as did Mr. Naranjo after he had relinquished his role as "engineer of record" on these projects (and Respondent had started "running the show"). In addition to the drafting work he did, Mr. Viteri was regularly "in touch" with the "people who were involved [o]n the architectural side" of the projects to "coordinate" with them. Mr. Viteri became a Florida-licensed professional engineer in the "beginning of 2003." (He is currently employed by JGP as an electrical engineer and computer-aided design manager.) Ms. Rodriguez was an engineer in her native country, but has not obtained a license to practice engineering in the State of Florida. Mr. Viteri, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Naranjo, at all times material to the instant case, worked (on the TE Project and the MV Project ) out of Mr. Naranjo's office at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209, which outside its front door had a sign which read: N+A NARANJO+ASSOCIATES Mechanical·Electrical Consulting Engineers #209 The sign had been there since the time Mr. Naranjo had moved into the office. It remained on the door even though Mr. Naranjo's license had been revoked and he was no longer authorized to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Florida. The purpose of the sign was not to advertise, but to identify who occupied the office. Following his agreement to help Mr. Naranjo, Respondent exercised complete supervision, direction, and control of all engineering aspects of the TE Project and the MV Project, including the preparation of the engineering plans for these projects (that he signed and sealed). Upon assuming the role of "engineer of record" on these projects, Respondent first reviewed the design work that had been done prior to his involvement in the projects to determine if the "quality and validity" of the work met his satisfaction. After completing this review, Respondent oversaw the completion of the design work, making all necessary engineering decisions. Respondent had discussions with Mr. Viteri, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Naranjo about the remaining work that needed to done and gave them instructions and directions on the drafting they were to do. Respondent reviewed their finished work product to make sure that it was consistent with the instructions and directions he had given them. Only after he was satisfied that there was such consistency and that the drafting that had been done accurately reflected the engineering decisions he had made did Respondent sign and seal the plans for the projects. The title block on these plans identifying Respondent as the projects' mechanical engineer listed his address as 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209, Miami, Florida (which was the address of Mr. Naranjo's office) and his telephone number and fax number as (305) 599-9447 and (305) 599-9427, respectively (which were the telephone number and the fax number for Mr. Naranjo's office). All engineering documents related to the projects were kept, not in Respondent's office, but in Mr. Naranjo's office (where Mr. Naranjo, Mr. Viteri, and Ms. Rodriguez worked) so as to not inconvenience Mr. Viteri, who needed to have ready access to these documents on a regular basis given that he was the "person who had the direct day-to-day contact" with the project architects. Likewise, the calculations done for the TE Project were on a computer in Mr. Naranjo's office. Any documents or information that Respondent needed to fulfill his responsibilities as the "engineer of record" on the TE Project and the MV Project he could retrieve with relative ease from Mr. Naranjo's office, which was just a short distance from his office. At no time did Respondent attempt to conceal from anyone the nature and extent of his involvement in the TE Project and the MV Project, nor did he have any intent to assist Mr. Naranjo in the unlicensed practice of engineering. Respondent has never before been disciplined by the Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing all four counts of the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate for the General Contractor Examination given in February, 1990, (the "examination"). Petitioner passed part three but failed parts one and two. Petitioner subsequently passed part one in June, 1990. Petitioner received a score of 69 percent on part two of the examination and needs only one point to pass part two and the entire examination. 1/ Question 37 is worth one point. Respondent gave credit for answer "(D) 10" in response to question 37. Petitioner selected answer "(A) 0" in response to question 37. Question 37 requires a candidate to apply Section 713.12, Florida Statutes, to the facts provided in the stem to question 37. Section 713.12, in relevant part, gives a spouse 10 days after learning of a contract to object to the signing of a contract by his or her spouse. Question 37 requires a candidate to determine how many days a wife has to object to a contract entered into by a contractor and both spouses but signed only by her husband with her knowledge. Question 37 is not ambiguous. There is only one correct response to the question challenged by Petitioner. The correct response to the question is answer "(D) 10." Petitioner did not choose the correct answer for question 37. The wife is not deemed to waive any objection she has if she does not make it at the time of the signing. The time that the wife learned of the contract and its signing is clear and unambiguous from the facts in the stem of the question. The contract was entered into by both the husband and wife and was signed by the husband with the wife's knowledge. The ordinary and plain meaning of the term "with" connotes "at the same time as." The only type of property that is reasonably contemplated in question 37 is real property. Of the 649 candidates who took the examination, 81 percent selected answer "(D) 10." Of the candidates who scored in the upper 27 percent on the examination, 92 percent selected answer "(D) 10." Only two percent of the candidates selected answer "(A) 0."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to question 37. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of April 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administration 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 8th day of April 1991.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner should receive credit for any of the 15 challenged questions in two parts of the certified general contractors examination given in June, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the general contractors examination given on June 29- 30, 1993. The examination consisted of three parts. The minimum score required to pass each part was 70. Petitioner passed the Business and Finance part of the examination with a score of 70. Petitioner failed the other two parts of the examination. He received a score of 61 on the Contract Administration part of the examination and a score of 67 on the Project Management part of the examination. Petitioner challenged eight questions on the Contract Administration part of the examination and seven questions on the Project Management part of the examination. The part of the examination on which each question appeared, the question number, the correct answer, and the answer chosen by Petitioner are as follows: EXAM PART QUESTION CORRECT ANSWER PETITIONER'S ANSWER Contract Admin. 2 B C Contract Admin. 5 D A Contract Admin. 10 D C Contract Admin. 11 C D Contract Admin. 13 C B Contract Admin. 20 C D Contract Admin. 22 C D Contract Admin. 37 B D Project Mgmt. 7 C D Project Mgmt. 9 D C Project Mgmt. 10 C A Project Mgmt. 11 B C Project Mgmt. 13 B A Project Mgmt. 23 D A Project Mgmt. 37 A D For each of the foregoing questions, the correct answer was the answer identified by Respondent and not the answer chosen by Petitioner. Petitioner presented no competent and substantial evidence to support his answers. The challenged questions were clearly and unambiguously worded. The challenged questions contained enough correct information to allow the candidate to select the correct response. The correct response for each of the challenged questions was supported by approved reference materials. The correct response did not require knowledge which was beyond the scope of knowledge that reasonably could be expected from a candidate for licensure. All current techniques were taken in account when the correct response was determined by Respondent. The examination was open book. Petitioner was allowed to refer to the Standard Building Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein DENY Petitioner's challenge to the questions at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 1994. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire William M. Woodyard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Behzad Khazraee 142 Tollgate Trail Longwood, FL 32750
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 Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
