Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based upon the stipulation of the parties. Mr. David L. Adams took the certified general contractor examination given on February 19 and 20, 1991. His score on part II of the examination was 70.00 (a passing score), and 65.00 (a failing score) on part III, the Project Management Examination. All parties agreed that instructions were given orally to candidates during the examination that only the answer which was marked on the machine readable answer sheet would be considered the answer of the candidate. Candidates were to mark the circles with a number two pencil, and blacken completely the circle corresponding to their answer. The machine readable answer sheet was completely separate from the booklet which contained the examination questions. Candidates were also orally told to read the written test instructions on the first page of the examination. Those instructions include the statement that at no time will you receive credit for an item for which you did not fill in a response on your answer sheet. (Examination, page 1 of 24). At the end of the test, candidates were also reminded orally that they should ensure that the answer corresponding to their calculations has been marked on the answer sheet, for no credit would be given for answers written in the examination booklet or on any scratch paper. The following findings were based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted during the hearing. The rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board state that the only paper that shall be graded in a certification examination is the official answer sheet. No credit shall be given for answers written in an examinee's booklet. Rule 21E-16.006, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Adams challenged the grading of question 12 on the Project Management Examination. He acknowledged during the hearing that he had marked the wrong answer on the answer sheet. Based upon the rules of the Board, the oral instructions given to the candidates, and the written instructions found on the first page of the Project Management Examination for general contractors given on February 20, 1991, Mr. Adams is not entitled to regrading of question 12. Before the examination, every candidate is provided with a list of references which is sent by regular United States mail. The approved references may be consulted by the candidate while taking the test. The reference list for the February 1991 administration of the Project Management Examination stated that the Standard Building Code to be used by a candidate should include the 1989-90 revisions to that Code. Mr. Adams studied from, and brought with him to the examination, and unrevised 1988 copy of the Code. His use of that Code accounted for the answer he gave to question 13, which dealt with the time available to challenge a decision by the building official to reject plans. The time for appeal permitted in the 1988 building code differed from the appeal time which is permitted in the 1990 revision of the Code by sixty days. Mr. Adams contends that it is obvious that he knows how to use the Standard Building Code because the answer he gave would be correct if the edition of the Code which he used were the current Code. This argument cannot be accepted. The Code itself states in its preface that it will be updated annually. It is a matter of basic competency that general contractors must use the current version of the Standard Building Code. Mr. Adams is not entitled to credit for the answer he gave to question 13. Mr. Adams has challenged his answer to question 15, which dealt with the amount of time necessary to erect steel members in a roof framing plan found in the examination booklet. The answer given by Mr. Adams was erroneous, because he did not correctly count the number of steel beams to be used in the project. The answer used by the Department in grading the examinations is the correct answer. Mr. Adams is not entitled to credit for the answer he gave to question 15. Mr. Adams has challenged the grading of question 16, which deals with the total permit fees and plan checking fees due to the building department for a project. The question specifically instructs candidates that the fees are to be computed based upon the fee guidelines in the Standard Building Code. Mr. Adams' answer was incorrect, because he used the 1988 edition of the Standard Building Code, although if that edition of the Code were in effect his answer would have been correct. Mr. Adams is not entitled to regrading of his answer to question 16, because the answer he gave is incorrect under the current edition of the Standard Building Code. Mr. Adams challenged the grading of his answer to question 17, which required the calculation of the amount due from an owner for a change order. Mr. Adams failed to take into account that the wall to be changed extended below grade, and as a consequence failed to calculate the full amount of additional concrete required for the change. Mr. Adams is not entitled to regrading of his answer for question 17. During the hearing, Mr. Adams argued that because the Department had only produced a clean, unused copy of the Project Management Examination given on February 20, 1991, and not the exact copy of the examination which he had used, it was possible that the plans which he used in answering questions 15 and 17 were not the same plans which the Department had used in calculating its answers for the test. The Department established that all plans utilized for the test are coded, and that the plans in test booklets do not vary from booklet to booklet. If Mr. Adams had been given the wrong set of plans, he would have done extremely poorly on the examination as a whole because a number of test questions are tied to the plans. Mr. Adams' contention that the plans in his examination booklet were different than the plans the Department used in developing its answers for the examination is contrary to the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the challenge filed by David L. Adams to the grade which he received for the February 1991 certified general contractor examination be rejected. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 26th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-4064 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Construction Industry Licensing Board have generally been accepted, although they have been edited. The arguments contained in the letter submitted by Mr. Adams have been incorporated in the Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas K. Equels, Esquire Holtzman, Krinzman & Equels 1500 San Remo Avenue Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33146 David L. Adams 9400 Southwest 80th Street Miami, Florida 33173 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner is eligible to sit for the Professional Engineers examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. On December 12, 1983, Petitioner, Craig S. Smith, made application to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to sit for the April, 1984 professional engineering examination. Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, reviewed Petitioner's application in their meeting on February 19, 1984 and denied his reguest to sit for the April, 1984 examination. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to qualify under the ten-year provision which requires ten years of experience in engineering pursuant to Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, and Rule chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. The Board determined that Petitioner did not satisfy the requisite experience in the areas of engineering, responsible charge and engineering design. Specifically, Respondent determined that Petitioner had 82 months of creditable service toward the 120 month requirement and no experience in the area of engineering design. Petitioner's application reveals that he was employed by Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc., 6784 Northwest 17 Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida from May, 1971 to May, 1973 in the position of a driller crew chief. His professional duties during that period include the following: subsurface investigations for foundation design; securing and classifying subsurface samples in accordance with standard procedures of ASTM and AASHTO; overall responsibility for drilling operations and sampling equipment (standard penetration tests using either split barrel sampler, shelby tube, hollow stem flight auger, steel casing, drilling mud and rock coring, when required). From May, 1973 to January, 1979, Petitioner was employed by the same employer but held the position of laboratory and field engineering technician. His specific job duties include various construction sampling, testing and inspection as follows: ASPHALT asphaltic design mixes conforming to Florida Department of Transportation and FAA criteria; quantitative extraction of bitumen from bitumen paving mixtures; bulk specific gravity of compacted bituminious mixtures; compressive strength of bituminious mixtures; sampling bituminious paving mixtures; sampling bituminious materials; (o) bituminious mixing plant inspections; coating and stripping of bitumen-aggregate; determining degree of particle coating of bituminous-aggregate mixtures: maximum specific gravity of bituminous paving mixtures; specific gravity of solid pitch and asphalt displacement; determining degree of pavement compaction of bituminous paving mixtures; resistance to plastic flow of bituminous mixtures using marshall apparatus; resistance to deformation and cohesion of bituminous mixtures by means of hveem apparatus. CONCRETE compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens; making and curing concrete compressive and flexural strength specimens in the field and laboratory; obtaining and testing drilled cores and sawed beams of concrete; flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with third point loading); slump of Portland cement concrete; weight per cubic foot, yield, and air content (gravimetric) of concrete; (q) sampling fresh concrete; measuring length of drilled concrete cores; air content of freshly mixed concrete by the pressure method; securing, preparing and testing specimens of lightweight insulating concrete; air content of freshly mixed concrete by the volumetric method; checking approximate strength of hardened concrete by the Swiss hammer method; cement content of hardened Portland cement concrete; specific gravity, absorption and voids in hardened concrete; inspection and testing agencies for concrete materials as used in construction. SOILS investigating and sampling soils and rocks for engineering purposes; dry preparation of disturbed soil and soil aggregate samples for test; particle size analysis of soils; determining the liquid limit of soils; determining the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils; determining the field moisture equivalent of soils; moisture-density relations of soils using a 5.5 lb. rammer and a 12 in. drop; specific gravity of soils; moisture-density relations of soil-cement mixture; cement content of soil cement mixture; wet preparation of disturbed soil samples for test; moisture-density relations of soils using a 10 lb. rammer and an 18 in. drop; density of soil in place by the sand-cone method; the California bearing ratio, the line-rock bearing ratio; unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil; permeability of granular soils (constant head) one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils; repetitive and nonrepetitive static plate load tests of soils and flexible pavement components, for use in evaluation and design of airport and highway pavements; determination of moisture in soils by means of a calcium carbide gas pressure moisture tester; bearing capacity of soil for static load on spread footings; density and moisture content of soil and soil- aggregate in-place by nuclear methods (shallow depth); classification of soils and soil aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes; determining the Florida bearing ratio test (Florida Department of Transportation) determining the calcium carbonate content for base course materials (Florida Department of Transportation). AGGREGATES sampling stone, slag, gravel, sand, and stone block for use as highway materials; amount of material finer than 0.075 mm sieve in aggregate; unit weight of aggregate; voids in aggregate for concrete; organic impurities in sands for concrete; sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates; mechanical analysis of extracted aggregate; sieve analysis of mineral filler; specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate; specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate; resistance to abrasion of small size coarse aggregate by use of the Los Angeles abrasion machine; soundness of aggregate by use of sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate; clay lumps and friable particles in aggregates; lightweight pieces in aggregate; surface moisture in fine aggregate; reducing field samples of aggregate to testing size; total moisture content of aggregate by drying. MISCELLANEOUS percent of elongation, yield and tensile strength of steel members; compressive strength of hollow load bearing masonry units; inspection tests, including the inspection of pressure grout to insure proper distribution for foundation design; inspection and testing agencies for reinforced concrete culvert, storm drain and sewer pipe as used in construction; inspection and testing amenies for precast and prestress oiling members; From January of 1979 through January of 1982, Respondent held the position of supervisor for the same employer, Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc. During that period, he was in charge or was otherwise overall responsible for field and laboratory operations, prepared engineering reports, analyses, recommendations and design for various construction projects; Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport-Resurface Requisition No. 14905 and No. 29019 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport- ADAP No. 06-12-0025-10 R/W and T/W Improvements and Resurfacing Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport - ADAP No. 06-12-0025-11 R/W and T/W Improvements and Resurfacing Key West International Airport - ADAP No. 06-12-0037-08 Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Project No. 7155 City of Fort Lauderdale Parking Garage Project No. 7071 City of Fort Lauderdale 5 Ash Waste Water Treatment Plant Project No. 7642 From January of 1982 to the present time, Respondent formed his own company and holds the position as President of that firm (Eastcoast Testing and Engineering, Inc., 430 Northwest Flagler Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301). Respondent is responsible for all phases of construction materials, testing, analysis, inspections, evaluations, quality control and quality assurance. The laboratory personnel and facilities of Eastcoast Testing and Engineering, Inc. has been inspected by the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards. It is accredited by the Department of Commerce, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for selected test methods of freshly mixed field concrete. Eastcoast was awarded the annual testing contract for the City of Fort Lauderdale during its first year of operation. During his tenure as an employee of Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc., Petitioner planned and implemented testing programs for the purpose of developing design criteria; implemented investigation and testing programs for the purpose of determining the cause of failures; prepared reports documenting material test data; and assisted in the preparation of reports for engineering evaluation under the guidance of a professional engineer. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) For Petitioner's experience at Florida Testing during the period 1971 to 1973, Respondent determined that "zero time" was credited for that experience based on the Board's determination that Petitioner's work was more a "technician's job than engineering-related job." (Testimony of Board member William B. Bradley, Tr. page 16.) For Petitioner's experience during the period Nay, 1973 to January, 1979, Respondent allotted fifty percent or 34 of the 68 months experience that Petitioner served in that position. The Board determined that the "in-house testing" would have a lot more association with normal engineering procedures than Petitioner's earlier work. (Tr. 17.) The Board considered the technical testing and reporting thereof that took place in the laboratories was more responsible for engineering and, therefore, creditable as opposed to Petitioner's field work. (Tr. 17-18.) Again, for the period 1979 through 1992, Respondent gave Petitioner 59 percent credit for a total of 18 months of the 3 years in question. For the period 1979 through 1982, the Board determined that Petitioner was not essentially doing anything different but, rather, that he was "in charge of people now; he is preparing engineering reports here which I assume Mr. Winterholler signed." For that service, Petitioner was given credit for 18 of those 36 months. From the period of January, 1982 to the present time, the Board gave Petitioner 199 percent credit because, as President of his own firm, he would be more involved and would have more responsibility for the actions of his testing laboratory and, therefore, entitled to full credit for that time. (Testimony of Bradley at Tr. page 21.) Finally, Mr. Bradley determined that be saw no design engineering in the Petitioner's submissions because designing is "actually putting onto paper what's going to be there." (Tr. page 29.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding Petitioner eligible to sit for the next regularly scheduled Professional Engineers examination based on his compliance with the ten (10) year requirement of Subsection 471.013(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1984.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether certain questions within the June 2002 construction building contractor examination are invalid, and whether Petitioner should receive credit for certain answers scored as incorrect.
Findings Of Fact In June 2002, Petitioner sat for the construction building contractor examination. Shortly following the exam, Petitioner was advised that he incorrectly answered 17 of the 50 exam questions and did not attain the minimum passing score of 70 percent, but received a failing scaled score of 66 percent. Petitioner timely challenged the validity and scoring of eight questions, including questions 8, 14, 17, 33, 34, 38, 43, and 44. In order for Petitioner to acquire a passing score, Petitioner must prove that certain challenged questions are invalid or demonstrate that he is entitled to receive credit for his answers. Specifically, Petitioner must demonstrate that either three questions should be stricken from the exam providing Petitioner with 70.2 percent, two questions should be stricken and one answer scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70.8 percent or two answers should scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70 percent. QUESTION 8 Exam Question 8 asks, "According to AIA-A201, who determines the interest rate that the contractor can charge on due and unpaid payments?" Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, argues that the parties to the contract are not defined within the question and it is therefore misleading. However, the credited answer D, "all the parties must agree on the rate" is within the provided reference material and is clearly the best answer. It is not misleading and Petitioner's argument lacks merit. In addition, 89.47 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 8. QUESTION 14 Exam Question 14 is wordy and involves computations. It requires the test-taker to calculate the number of "labor" hours required per 100 pieces to build a wall, given certain pricing and wall construction information. Question 14 is ambiguous and confusing on its face. While the question asks for labor hours, the facts provide a fixed combined hourly cost for a mason and laborer's hour. There is no distinction made between "labor" hours and a "laborer's" hours. Mr. Collier admitted that there is some apparent confusion between "labor" costs and the "laborer's" costs. Mr. Palm further agreed and indicated that he fully understood Petitioner's rationale to divide the labor costs in half and choose answer A. Furthermore, it is clear that Petitioner's perception of the question was not unique. In fact, only 46.62 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 14. QUESTION 17 Exam Question 17 asks, "During the bid process, which document has priority in the event of conflicting information?" Clearly, the correct answer is B, "addenda." Petitioner's argument regarding "competitively bid projects" is without merit. Mr. Palm succinctly explained that Petitioner's selection was obviously incorrect because "plans don't change during the bid process unless there is an addenda issued." Moreover, 75.56 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 17. QUESTION 33 Exam Question 33 identifies a situation that where drawings differ from written specifications and where there is no legal precedent that one is more binding than the other. The question specifically calls for the best procedure according to the listed and available reference. While Mr. Uman argues that the answer does not appear within the reference material in a clear manner, the exact text of the question and answer are in fact within the material. Petitioner's argument lacks credibility. QUESTION 34 Exam Question 34 asks the test-taker "what is the EARLIEST workday for completing the masonry work?" given the number of crew, the number of hours required, and the ratio constant of the crew. Although 80.45 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 34, Mr. Uman argues that the question could have been answered without reference to the Builder's Guide to Accounting material and therefore, was misleading. Petitioner's argument is devoid of common sense. QUESTION 38 Exam Question 38 asks the test-taker to identify the activity that "a specialty structural contractor is qualified" to perform. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, again argues that the question is misleading since the credited correct answer "perform non-structural work" is not written verbatim in the provided reference material. To the contrary however, all of the alternative choices are clearly listed in the reference material as activities specifically prohibited by specialty structure contractors. Furthermore, page 2B17 to 61G415.015 of the Contractor's Manual specifically states that: The specialty structure contractor whose services are limited shall not perform any work that alters the structural integrity of the building including but not limited to roof trusses. Respondent's experts, Mr. Collier and Mr. Palm, agree that Question 38 is clear. Moreover, 53.38 percent of test- takers correctly answered the question. While the question appears to require enhanced reasoning skills and is generally more difficult, it is not misleading. Petitioner's assertions are without merit. QUESTION 43 Exam Question 43 asks, "Which accounting method should be used by a contractor if the contractor is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of progress to date on a job or the total costs remaining to fulfill the contract?" Mr. Uman argues that the question is ambiguous and the reference material is "not terribly clear." He further alleges that when a contractor cannot estimate progress, the contractor cannot establish a "completed contract method," the credited correct answer. Respondent's experts disagree. While it is true that Mr. Palm agreed that all of the choices are accounting methods which is inconsistent with Mr. Collier's testimony, the reference material is clear. In fact, 58.65 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 43. Petitioner presented insufficient evidence that he should receive credit for his answer or that Question 43 should be invalidated. QUESTION 44 Exam Question 44 provides detailed information regarding a standard form contract and asks, "Based ONLY on the information given above, what is the amount of the current payment due?" In addition, however, as Mr. Uman points out, the standard form referred to in the problem was mistakenly misidentified as Form 201 instead of Form 702. While it is clear that the referenced form was mislabeled, the precise form number was incidental, unrelated to the question, and unnecessary to compute the answer. In fact, Mr. Palm explains that the problem was "just a mathematical exercise." According to Mr. Collier, the question was not misleading, and the incorrect reference was irrelevant. "It's simple math, industry knowledge." Furthermore, Petitioner's answer is clearly incorrect because "he failed to deduct the retainage." Finally, 54.89 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 44.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered invalidating only Question 14, re-computing Petitioner's examination score, and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nickolas Ekonomides, Esquire 791 Bayway Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33767 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Count II of the administrative complaint and that his licenses be suspended for a two year period; Count I should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Raylin Steel Erectors, Inc., employed persons in the State of Florida without obtaining workers' compensation coverage meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. If Respondent failed to obtain the required insurance, the subsequent issue is whether the penalty in the amount of $140,975.32, was properly assessed by Petitioner, Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. The Division maintains records of all Notices of Coverage for workers' compensation reported to it. Insurers are required by law to report all Florida workers' compensation policies to the Division. Respondent is a Georgia corporation located in Adel, Georgia. Respondent is in the business of erecting pre- engineered metal buildings not exceeding two stories in height. Respondent, at all times involved in this matter, was engaged as a subcontractor to various general contractors for construction work performed in the State of Florida. All of the work performed in Florida for purposes of these proceedings was actually performed by sub-subcontractors of Respondent. Respondent testified that it did not use any of its own employees to perform work at any of the sites involved in these proceedings. Petitioner, based upon field interviews, determined that at least some of the employees working at Respondent's job site in Jacksonville, Florida, claimed to be employed by Respondent. Respondent had obtained workers' compensation coverage in Georgia which provided for out-of-state coverage for Florida under Section 3C of the policy, but no listed coverage for Florida under Section 3A. Four of the sub-subcontractors used by Respondent to perform work in Florida, Celaya Steel Co., DC Construction, Ronald Weeks, d/b/a RTW Construction, and JCB Steel Erectors, Inc., had "other states coverage" in force, including Florida, in Section 3C (but not 3A) of their workers' compensation policies. Two companies used by Respondent to perform work in Florida, Edward Leggett and Southern Steel Erectors, were not covered by the "other states coverage" provision of Georgia workers' compensation policies. On September 16, 2004, Edward Leggett, as a sub- subcontractor to Respondent, was engaged in the construction of a pre-engineered metal building located at 3615 Dupont Center, Jacksonville, Florida. The general contractor on this job was BEKKA Corporation. Allen DiMaria, Petitioner's investigator, observed the type of work being performed on the project, patch work on the roof. No steel erection, or any other type of work was observed being performed on this project. Respondent's workers' compensation code as its principal business is listed under sheet metal work, NCCI Code No. 5538. Petitioner admitted that this was the most appropriate code classification to describe Respondent's principal type of work. The type of pre-engineered metal buildings erected by Respondent's sub-subcontractors required various types of work. The first phase of the work is steel erection, also known as "red iron work." The next phase is erecting walls and performing various types of trim work involved with sheet metal. The third phase is roof work, and the final phase is trim work and any punch list work required to complete the project. Respondent's standard payment draw requests to its customer, the general contractor, follows a sequencing under which 25 percent is paid for steel erection, 50 percent for sheet metal work and trim out, and 25 percent for roofing. Respondent's sub-subcontractors are also paid in this same manner. Further, Respondent's sub-subcontractors, who all were out-of-state Georgia employers, generally provide per diem travel expenses to their employees and account for overhead and profit. On September 17, 2004, after conducting a CCAS database search which resulted in his finding no record of workers' compensation coverage for either Respondent or Edward Leggett, Mr. DiMaria issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Order required Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. After the Stop Work Order was issued, Mr. DiMaria sent a request for business records to Respondent. Linda Rowan, Respondent's secretary/treasurer, responded that Respondent had no employees doing any work at any job sites in Florida, and that all work was being performed by sub-subcontractors of Respondent. Mr. DiMaria then requested that Respondent send copies of any subcontracts, payment records, and insurance information regarding work performed in Florida by Respondent's subcontractors from 2002 to September 17, 2004, the date of the Stop Work Order. In response to this request, Ms. Rowan mailed copies of all subcontracts Respondent had with its sub- subcontractors, all payment records related to these contracts, and insurance certificates furnished by the sub-subcontractors. Because Respondent had no employees performing any of the work, it had no payroll records to send to Petitioner. Petitioner requested no business records from Respondent's sub-subcontractors to determine what actual payroll was performed on the jobs in question. Once the information was furnished to Petitioner, Respondent heard nothing further from Petitioner until the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued in the amount of $150,598.05. Petitioner, on the eve of hearing, further amended the penalty assessment to the amount of $140,975.32. In calculating the further Amended and Final Penalty Assessment, Petitioner asserted that it utilized the total payments made by Respondent to its sub-subcontractors in lieu of any payroll records, as the calculation of gross payroll. The actual amounts paid to DC Construction on the BEKKA Corporation job, performed from June 18, 2004 to August 19, 2004, and from July 29, 2004 to September 23, 2004, were overstated by $5,518.00. The amount of assumed payroll for the work performed by Southern Steel from April 12, 2002 to April 30, 2002, was understated by $800.00, based upon the actual payments received. These assumed payroll amounts were then multiplied by the NCCI classification code rates for steel erection for all work performed by Respondent's sub-subcontractors in Florida during 2002, 2003, and 2004. That figure was then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty assessment. Celaya Steel performed work in Florida between August 28, 2003, and September 30, 2003, for which it was paid $7,602.00, by Respondent. On a separate job, Celaya Steel was paid $7,000.00, for work performed between September 24, 2003, and September 30, 2003. These precise breakdowns by job performed by Celaya Steel are not included in the further Amended Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment, but were included in the original Penalty Assessment dated October 14, 2004. After deducting amounts paid for equipment rentals, the cost of work performed by Celaya Steel after October 1, 2003, is $13,528.00. Southern Steel Erectors performed work as a sub- subcontractor of Respondent from April 12, 2002, to April 30, 2002, for which it was paid $7,300.00. Ronald Weeks, d/b/a RTW Construction, performed work on May 14, 2004, with a gross payroll of $1,420.00. JCB Steel Erectors, Inc., performed work from October 30, 2003 to December 04, 2003, with a gross payroll of $5,873.00. Based upon insurance certificates received from its sub-subcontractors, Respondent believed that its sub- subcontractors' workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance. Petitioner calculated its original and final Amended Penalty Assessments using Florida premium rates and the class code for steel erection only. In the Final Penalty Assessment, the penalty was revised slightly due to equipment charges that were offset against the sub-subcontract amounts so that the assumed payroll was calculated based upon actual payments received by the sub-subcontractors, not the original subcontract amounts, except as to DC Construction where the subcontract amount, not the actual payments made to DC on the BEKKA Corporation job were used. Celaya Steel started this job, was later replaced by DC Construction, which was further replaced by Edward Leggett which finished the remaining roof-patching work on the project and was paid $4,000.00 for its work.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation issue a further and final Amended Penalty Assessment Order as follows: Edward Leggett. The gross payroll of $4,000.00 should be multiplied at the rate of 40 times the Roofwork NCCI approved manual rate of $46.17 per hundred, then times 1.5 for a revised final penalty of $2,770.20. DC Construction. The actual payments made to DC Construction were $43,321.58 which should be applied at the rate of 25 percent of the payment times the NCCI steel erection code 5059 rate, 50 percent of the payment times the sheet metal and trim NCCI code 5538 rate, and 25 percent of the payment times the roofing work NCCI code 5551 rate. This results in a revised penalty for the DC Construction work of $28,971.32. Celaya Steel Co. Only the amounts for work performed after October 1, 2003, $13,528.00 shall be applied for assessment purposes. Applying the appropriate codes as used for the DC Construction work (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent roofing) yields a final revised penalty of $9,047.07. Southern Steel. No work was performed by Southern Steel Erectors after October 1, 2003. Accordingly, no penalty is to be assessed for any work performed by Southern Steel Erectors. Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction. Applying the same NCCI codes as applied to the work performed by DC Construction and Celaya Steel Co. (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent roofing), yields a final revised penalty of $768.33. JCB Steel Erectors. Applying the same NCCI codes as applied to the work performed by DC Construction, Celaya Steel Co., and Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, 25 percent roofing) yields a final revised penalty of $2,883.73. The total revised penalties and assessments (Items 1-6 above) are $44,440.65. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Allen P. Clark, Esquire Foley & Lardner, LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. On or about April 28, 1988, Florida State University mailed its Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. K-1193-6, to prospective bidders. According to the elevator maintenance specifications attached to ITB No. K-1193-6, the stated purpose of the ITB was was to secure bids for the continuous maintenance of all elevators and dumbwaiters as per the attached list in accordance with the conditions, specifications, and terms listed herein." Responses to the ITB were submitted by Miami Elevator Company in the amount of $289,861.00, by Montgomery Elevator Company in the amount of $192,356.00, and by Mowery Elevator Company in the amount of $137,967.00. Section VI of the ITB requires each bidder to submit the following documentation with its bid. A statement indicating the address of the service center from which the bidder proposes to serve the University. To be acceptable the service center must be located within a ten (10) mile radius of the University campus to minimize travel time in securing parts and supplies. A statement certifying that the local service center from which he will service this contract will contain and maintain an inventory of a least $45,000.00 in parts and materials specifically intended for the elevators to be repaired and maintained under this contract. This inventory is to be available in the Tallahassee service center for inspection upon the request of authorized University officials. A list by name of the type and number of employees who will be assigned to the University under this contract detailing their education, training and experience record. To be acceptable the employees assigned must meet the following requirements in terms of quantity and qualifications. A minimum of two (2) full time, fully qualified and certified master elevator mechanics MUST be assigned to service this contract. Both must possess a "certificate of competency" from the Dept of Business Regulation, Division of Elevator Inspection. Copies of these certificates are to accompany the the (sic) vendors bid. At least one (1) of these two mechanics MUST BE ASSIGNED EXCLUSIVELY to servicing this contract at all times. The contractor may designate one of the two mechanics to be the primary mechanic to service this contract and he will devote his time exclusively to this contract. In the event this mechanic is ill or for other reasons cannot service the contract, the second mechanic designated under this paragraph will assume the duties of EXCLUSIVE service to this contract. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT. An additional, fully qualified mechanic holding the above required "certificate of competency" and at least one (1) helper will also be listed and be available to render immediate support to the two primary mechanics to maintain and repair the elevators and dumbwaiters covered by this contract. * * * The ITB specified that bids would be opened at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 1988. On or about May 26, 1988, Florida State University posted its Bid Tabulation rejecting all bids for failure to meet various specifications. The reason for the rejection of each bidder was listed on the Bid Tabulation as follows: As to Mowery the rejection was based on Mowery's failure to provide a certificate for additional mechanic; no proof of experience on other than Mowery Elevators; and no mention of traction elevators. As to Montgomery the bid was rejected for failure to provide certificates for mechanics; As to Miami the bid was rejected for failure to meet inventory requirements. Paragraph 9, entitled "Awards," of the ITB reserves the right of the University to reject any and all bids as the best interest of the University may require. The Miami Elevator Company bid included a letter of certification. Pertinent portions of that certification are as follows: Address of service center from which we propose to serve the University: 850 Blountstown Highway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 576-0161 We hereby certify that the Miami Elevator Company local service center has an inventory equal or greater than 10 percent of the total bid amount and have parts inventory greater than $45,000.00 in our nearest supply warehouse. In 1985, Florida State University issued bid specifications for elevator maintenance services. The 1985 bid specifications contained a certification requirement which included the following language: A statement certifying that the local service center has an inventory equal to at least ten percent (10 percent) of the total bid amount and is supported by a parts inventory of parts required to service the elevators and dumbwaiters covered by this contract, of at least $45,000.00 in the bidder's nearest supply warehouse. The local inventory, shall be available in the bidder's Tallahassee service center for inspection by authorized University personnel before the bid award. The successful bidder is to provide the University, by 7/31/85, with the parts list of the $45,000.00 inventory he is required to maintain. Experience has shown that inventories in the above amounts are necessary to provide support for an installation with the number of elevators and dumbwaiters located at the University. In 1988, prior to the preparation of the bid specifications at issue here, representatives of Miami Elevator Company met with representatives of Florida State University and suggested that the latter make certain changes to the above- quoted language from the 1985 bid specifications when they prepared the 1988 bid specifications. The University representatives followed the suggestions and when the 1988 specifications were issued, the certification requirements regarding inventory read as set forth above in paragraph 2 of these findings of fact. When Miami Elevator Company prepared its bid response to the 1988 ITB, the company representative preparing the bid used the company's 1985 bid response as a model. When he came to the portion of the certification that addressed inventory, he forgot that he and one of his company colleagues had prevailed upon the University to change that requirement. Because of his failure to remember the change, the Miami Elevator Company representative simply copied the inventory certification statement that appeared in the company's 1985 bid response. That statement was responsive to the 1985 bid specifications regarding inventory certification, but was not responsive to the 1988 bid specifications regarding inventory certification. The representative of Miami Elevator Company intended to submit an inventory certification that complied with the requirements of the 1988 bid specifications, but simply made a mistake and copied the language from the company's 1985 bid response. The inventory certification requirement is in a mandatory portion of the bid specifications. It is a material requirement because the availability of a sufficient parts inventory is critical to the timely and efficient maintenance and repair of the elevators and dumbwaiters. The pricing portion of the Miami Elevator Company bid appears to have been prepared with a lack of much attention to detail. The total contract price of $289,861.00 was calculated by one of the company's regional managers. The individual who calculated that total price had not inspected any of the elevators at the university, had no current personal knowledge of any specific elevator, and did not possess a certificate of competency from the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Elevator Inspection. Further, he appears to have misconstrued the significance of a report regarding the condition of some of the elevators and also appears to have made some unwarranted assumptions about the scope of the work required under the bid specifications. Another representative of Miami Elevator Company inspected some of the elevators, but he did not participate in the calculation of the bid amount. As a result of what appears to have been a rather broad-brush approach to the bid calculation process, the Miami Elevator Company bid was more than $100,000.00 over what the university expected the bids to be and was almost $100,000.00 over the second highest bid. The base price of the prior contract awarded in 1985 was $105,344.00. The Miami Elevator Company bid of $289,861.00 represents an increase of approximately 175 per cent of the 1985 price. The university expected that there would be a significant price increase due to such matters as the inflation rate over the past three years, inflation projection for the next three years, and some of the differences between the 1985 and the 1988 bid specifications, but it did not expect an increase of 175 per cent. The university has estimated that a reasonable bid would represent approximately a 75per cent increase in the 1985 price. The factors on which the university estimate are based appear to be reasonable and logical. The Miami Elevator Company facility located at 850 Blountstown Highway includes a separate warehouse on the property which contains inventory valued at approximately $70,000.00. That inventory would be available to service the university elevators. The subject ITB specifically required that each bidder certify that it agreed "to abide by all conditions of this bid." Miami Elevator Company made such a certification when its representative signed the first page of the ITB.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Florida State University issue a final order in this case rejecting all bids. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 26th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2960BID The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner, Miami Elevator Company Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted, with some additional details for clarity. Paragraph 6: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 7 and 8: Accepted, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 9: First sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, irrelevant. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 10 and 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting argument regarding legal conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the legal conclusion asserted is not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 13: Rejected as statement of another party's position rather than proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 14 and 15: These two paragraphs have for the most part been rejected as constituting unnecessary details. Further, a number of the details proposed are not supported by persuasive testimony, because I am not persuaded that Mr. Herbst did a very careful job of informing himself about the requirements of the bid specifications or about the condition of the subject elevators. Paragraph 16: All but last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Last sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 17: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details, in part as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 19: Most of this paragraph is rejected as constituting a statement of another party's position and as argument about that position. Findings are made that there are differences between the subject invitation to bid and the immediately preceding invitation to bid. Paragraphs 20 and 21: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 22 and 23: Rejected in part as argument rather than proposed findings, in part as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 24: First two sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of this paragraph (dealing with Mowery) is rejected as irrelevant. First Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Second Paragraph 25: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: Rejected as for the most part constituting argument rather than proposed findings; to the extent findings are proposed, they are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence or as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent, Florida State University Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting discussion of legal conclusions rather than findings of fact. (The conclusions are essentially correct, but they do not belong in the findings of fact.) Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance, but with numerous unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 7: First two sentences rejected as cumulative and repetitious. Last sentence accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details dealing more with legal conclusions than with facts. Paragraph 10: First two sentences rejected as cumulative and repetitious. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 13: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting argument about legal conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. (Again, the conclusions are essentially correct, but they do not belong in the findings of fact.) Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Rejected as irrelevant because these proposed findings all relate to issues that were not raised in prehearing pleadings and were not raised in the prehearing statement. Paragraph 20: Rejected as procedural details that do not need to be included in the findings of fact. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 22: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary generalities. Paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 29, 30, 31: Accepted in substance, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35: The essence of the findings proposed in these paragraphs has been found, but most of the details proposed have been omitted as subordinate and unnecessary. Findings proposed by Intervenor, Montgomery Elevator Company Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substantial part, but with irrelevant portions of the specifications omitted. Paragraphs 3 and 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted in large part, but some irrelevant information has been omitted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence rejected as constituting discussion of legal conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. Second sentence accepted in substance by quotation of Miami Elevator Company's certification. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13: Rejected as irrelevant because these proposed findings all related to issues that were not raised in prehearing pleadings and were not raised in the prehearing statement. Paragraph 14: Bid amount is accepted; remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: The essence of this paragraph has been included in the findings, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Associate General Counsel Office of the General Counsel The Florida State University 311 Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 S. Grier Wells, Esquire Brant, Moore, Sapp, MacDonald & Wells 121 West Forsyth Street, Suite 900 Post Office Box 4548 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Colin Spruce, was issued a certified residential contractor's license, No. CR-COI5679, in an active status, in June, 1930, as an individual. This license was renewed, as an individual, for the 1981-83 licensing period, which expired on June 30, 1983. This license has not been renewed and is in a delinquent status. Respondent at no time qualified Angle Enterprises, Inc., to engage in contracting in Florida. James D. Roland and his wife own nine low-income family apartment buildings in Melbourne. On November 2, 1981, the Rolands signed a contract with Respondent to rehabilitate these apartments with funds provided on loan from the federal government. Respondent signed the contract on November 3, 1981, and began work on November 9, 1981. He fully completed one of the nine buildings and partially completed one other. He also did some work on the roofs of all. On or about January 13, 1982, Respondent called Mr. Roland's home and left word he would be out of town for several days. He never returned to work on the project. The work was 35 percent complete when Respondent abandoned the project. Later, Mr. Roland completed the project himself at an overrun of approximately $2,500 above the contract price. Aside from one minor modification which cost an additional $261, there were no changes to the plans and specifications when Roland took over. It was only later that Roland got word that the subcontractors had not been paid. He paid off those who filed liens against his property. During the course of his work on the Rolands' property, Respondent, in his own name or as Angle Enterprises, Inc., entered into agreements with several subcontractors, including Scotty's, Berger Roofing, Melbourne Insulation, City Gas Co., and Jackson Electric, all of which provided either materials or services, or both, for this project. Scotty's provided materials valued at $16,513.24, but was paid only $6,751.46, leaving an unpaid balance of $9,761.78 for which the company filed a lien against the Rolands' property. This sum, left unpaid by Respondent, was subsequently paid by Mr. Roland. Berger Roofing, Inc., furnished labor and materials for the porch roofs on each of the project's buildings during late November and early December, 1981, and was due $750 from Respondent for this job. Respondent did not ever pay, and Berger also filed a lien against the property. This lien was also satisfied through payment by Mr. Roland. Melbourne Insulation furnished labor and materials to the project through contract with Respondent for approximately $2,000 of which only one-half was paid by Respondent. The balance has not been paid, though no lien was filed here because of an oversight by claimant's lawyer. City Gas Company is still owed $1,524.75 of the $4,784.33 it billed Respondent for labor and materials (heaters) it provided for the project for a contract it had with Respondent dated December 1, 1981. No lien was filed for the unpaid amount here, either. Jackson Electric performed electrical work on the project which included removing plates, switches, and fixtures from one of the buildings in November, 1981, based on an agreement with Respondent. The contractor was about to start work on a second building in the project, but due to the fact that Respondent was a slow payer on previous jobs done for him, the additional work was not started and Jackson was never paid for the work done. Respondent also failed to pay the wages he owed to several of his employees, including David Jones and Carl Cramer. Jones worked for Angle Enterprises, the company owned by Respondent and under which he did business from November, 1981, to January, 1982, in a job on Roland's buildings which involved stripping the roofs off the buildings and painting. He was not paid for his final week of work, which ended on January 15, 1982. He is owed for 32 hours work at $5.75 per hour. He considered himself a close personal friend of Respondent who gave no advance notice that he would not pay his employees. Cramer and a third employee (Mr. Kibben) also were not paid their earned wages by Respondent. He was working at the time in question as a carpenter/foreman for Respondent. On the last morning of work, Friday, January 15, 1982, Respondent told him that the accountant would come by and pay him and the other men that afternoon. Respondent then left and was not seen again, nor was the accountant or the wages. Cramer was due 32 hours pay at $7 per hour. During the time he was working on this project, Respondent submitted four draw requests and was paid on three. These draws were submitted to Mr. Grinstead at the Community Development Office for approval and were approved when Grinstead checked to see that the approximate work was done. Mr. Grinstead was at the project site almost every day. The last time he saw Respondent there was on or about January 15, 1982. As of that date, the work was not completed, but Respondent did not go back. Mr. Grinstead approved three draws. These were: December 10, 1981, for $13,000 payable to Roland, Respondent, and Scotty's; December 21, 1981, for 54,000, payable to Respondent; and January 8, 1982, for $13,000 payable to Roland, Respondent, and Scotty's. A fourth draw request on December 12, 1981, for $2,400 was denied by Y. Grinstead because sufficient additional work was not done to justify it. All three approved checks were cashed. As to the check for $13,000 dated January 8, 1982, Roland signed it and Respondent took it to Scotty's, where he convinced the credit manager to endorse it in exchange for his, Respondent's (Angle Enterprises'), check dated January 11, 1982, in the amount of $7,446.61. Thereafter, the same day, Respondent signed a stop-payment order at his bank on which that check was drawn, listing as his reason for that action a corporate reorganization. Payment was stopped, and Scotty's was not paid by Respondent. On the basis of Respondent's conduct regarding the check, an information charging him with altering a worthless check and grand theft (second degree) was filed in the Circuit Court in Brevard County, Florida, on June 1, 1982. Thereafter, on November 30, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both offenses and was placed on probation for five years. Conditions of probation included full restitution of the $13,000 and a prohibition from engaging in construction or repair services without permission of the court.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's certified residential contractor's license be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 5th day of April, 1984. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Colin Spruce 1001 SW Conover Avenue Palm Bay, Florida 32907 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
