Findings Of Fact King Royer, Inc., the Petitioner, and the State of Florida, Department of General Services, entered into a contract dated October 15, 1974, for the construction of vocational facilities at the Union Correctional Institution at Raiford, Florida. A copy of the contract agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the plans for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and the specifications for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, all admitted into evidence. The contract has been completed and a certificate of contract completion issued by the Department of General Services as reflected in the copy of that certificate which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence. The certificate of contract completion is attended by a letter of explanation from the architectural firm in charge of the project which letter is Respondent's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This certificate of contract completion makes reference to change order No. 2, and a copy of change order No. 2 has been admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This cafe is brought pursuant to Article 8.5 of the contract document, Form of Agreement Between Contractor and Owner for Construction of Buildings, which calls for claims and disputes to be appealed to the Department of General Services for hearing. Those specific claims of appeal are promoted by two documents. The first document is the letter of July 16, 1975, by King Royer as president of the Petitioner corporation. This letter is addressed to the Director of the Department of General Services and is treated as the appeal document. There are five items within this element of the appeal which are listed as follows: "(1) Extension of tire for completion of the project, due to late delivery of the engineered metal building, and delays in completing corrective work of which we were informed only a few days before scheduled completion of the project. Removal of concrete floor which we believed to be 4" thick on the plans, but for which the Architect contends 6" thickness is required. Removal of approximately 2,500 square feet of slab which we contend was substantially in accordance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. Temporary bracing for the building, not necessary for any possible loads on such bracing, during removal of the concrete slab. Painting of interior metal structure, not required by the plans and specifications." Paragraphs one and four of this letter/petition will not be considered in substance, for reasons which will be set forth in the section of this recommended order, entitled Conclusions of Law. The second element of the appeal concerned an amendment to the appeal for purposes of considering change order No. 2, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This amendment was entered into by stipulation and agreement of counsel for the parties. The stipulation and agreement, indicated that the appeal could consider the elements of the change order to this extent: (1) The element on extension of time due to inclement weather; (2) liquidated damages, only those elements where the liquidated damages pertain to delays associated with the removal of the concrete floor slabs reflected in paragraphs two and three of the original appeal and the painting of interior metal structures as indicated in paragraph five of the original appeal; (3) additional testing shown in the change order; (4) additional services of the structural engineer shown in the change order; and (5) additional services, of the architects and engineering firm, shown in the change order. The first it ruled to be a proper subject for consideration in this appeal, was item two of the July 16, 1975, appeal. As mentioned before this item deals with the removal of a concrete floor which the Petitioner contends was supposed to be 4" thick in accordance with the plans and for which the architect in speaking for the Respondent claims should have been 6" thick to comply with the plans. This area is shown at page 2 of 27 in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which is to plan of the project. The area is found between column line A as a southern boundary and it's northern boundary is a common line extended from the northern wall of the auto mechanics shop. Its eastern boundary runs along column line 5, than proceed through an area approximately 4' 10" wide from column line 5, west to the eastern most wall of classroom 1, and then inset to the eastern wall of the instructor's office No. 1, and then inset to the small closet like area identified as No. 1, these latter dimensions making up the western boundary of the disputed area. In the initial pour of the concrete in that area, the depth of the pour was 4" and was so intended by the Petitioner. The architect of the project discovered that the depth was 4" and not 6" and ordered that this section of the concrete slab be removed. The removal was effected and the cost of that removal and reinstallation is at issue in the appeal. Sheet 5-2, which is at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, calls for a 6" concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop and this auto mechanics shop is that area identified on Sheet 2 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and includes the disputed area previously described before. Since the initial pour was 4" instead of 6" in the area as described, the Petitioner was not in compliance with the plans and the architect was correct to cause the removal of the initial pour and the substitution of the 6 " pour. Item three in the appeal, set forth on July 16, 1975, questions the requirement for the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of slab which the Petitioner contended was in substantial compliance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. This area would be constituted of the remaining aspect of the auto mechanic shop which has not previously been identified in discussing item No. 2. Its southern boundary begins at the intersection of column line A and 1, thence along column line A to the intersection with column line five; go dawn column line 5 from that point to the intersection with the first wall encountered to locate the western boundary; then along that wall east to an intersection of the wall and column line 1 to locate the northern boundary; and then south along column line 1, to the intersection of column line 1 and column line A, to locate the eastern boundary. When the Petitioner initially poured the concrete slab in this area it placed the welded wire fabric by such a method that fabric sunk to the bottom or near bottom of the concrete slab, in violation of Division 3.2C. of the specifications, which call for the welded wire fabric to be placed in the center of the slab. Approximately a week after the floor was poured a Case No. 584 diesel forklift which weighs 10,000 pounds was driven onto the newly poured slab in the auto mechanics area, 100 to 150 times carrying approximately 1500 pounds of structural members on each run. Subsequent to the time that the mesh sunk to the bottom or the near bottom of the concrete floor slab, cracks were discovered in the surface of the floor of the auto mechanics shop and these cracks are determined to be structural cracks. These structural cracks were promoted in part by the location of the mesh in the concrete slab and by the traffic of the fork lift. The location of the mesh may be seen in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 which is a photograph of the auto mechanics slab when it was being removed and also in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 which is a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area. The nature of the structural cracks is shown by hand drawn lines placed on number 5-2, at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, the pencil lines being drawn by Villany Hausner, the structural engineer on the project and the red lines being drawn by Jeff Hoxie, the project architect. This floor slab in the auto mechanics area was also dusted in contravention of Division 3.11A of the specifications which prohibits dusting of the exposed slab. The Petitioner tried to demonstrate that the cracks found on the surface of the concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop were not structural in nature by driving a 38,000 pound concrete truck onto the slab in the auto mechanics area in excess of two months after the pour. This test is found to be inadequate to overcome the conclusion that the cracks were structural in nature in that the test was not properly designed. The Petitioner was offered an opportunity for utilizing a properly designed test at its expense, as prescribed by the architect but the Petitioner did not respond to this offer. There was conflicting evidence about the depth of the initial pour in the area of the 2500 square feet. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 seems to indicate that a test performed by the Petitioner showed the depth to be substandard but other Exhibits by the Petitioner, namely Petitioner's Exhibits No. 11 and No. 12 show photographs of the concrete slab being torn out indicating that the depth approximated 7". There is also an Exhibit, Respondent's No. 9 which was a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area, but it is not clear what section of the auto mechanics area it was taken from, whether in the 2500 square foot area or in the narrow area 4' X 10" which was mentioned in the point No. 2 of the appeal of July 16, 1975. After reviewing the evidence on the depth of the slab, it is not clear what the true depth was on an average, in the 2500 square foot section. Nonetheless, based on the structural cracks, as explained by the mesh location and to a lesser extent by the driving of the fork lift truck onto the slab, the initial pour of to 2500 square feet was not in compliance with the contract and tie architect was correct in having the slab removed when the Petitioner failed to respond to his offer to have the slab tested. Item No. 5 in the July 16, 1975 appeal pertains to the painting of the interior metal structures and the Petitioner claims that these metal structures are not required by the plans and specifications to be painted. The Petitioner promotes his argument by reference to Division No. 9 of the specifications, particularly 3.7A of Section 9F, which is found on page 9F-8. This part, 3.7A says, "do not paint . . . pre-finished item as specified under Division 13- special construction." Therefore, it is the Petitioner's contention that any item found in Division 13 should not be painted. However, Division 13 in its Section 13B, 3.1C found at page 13B-2, says, "give one shop coat of paint as specified herein to all steel surfaces . . ." This statement is further supported by Division 9, Section 9F, 3.6B(3) at page 9F-7, which says that ferrous metals, including shop painted items will have one coat of rust inhibiting primer and one coat of interior gloss oil house paint. Therefore, the reference 3.7A in Section 9-F of Division 9 does not exclude all so called pre-finished items as specified under Division 13 from painting and the architect was correct in insisting that all interior metal structures which were not in fact pre-finished be given a shop coat, one coat of rust inhibiting primer, and one coat interior gloss oil house paint, as necessary. The second aspect of the appeal concerns change order No. 2. The parties agreed that the 20 day extension of time due to inclement weather should be awarded to the Petitioner at $50 a day for a total amount of $1,000. The second item of the change order concerning liquidated damages in the amount of $1,800 is sustained in view of the fact that only those items pertaining to the removal of the floor slab and painting of the structural members could be considered in addressing the liquidated damages, because of the prior stipulation. Therefore, the architect being found correct in his actions, the liquidated damages should stand. Items 3-5 in the change order concerning additional testing, additional services of the structural engineer and additional services of the architect and engineering firm are proper cost items in view of the problems associated with the floor slab and the appeal of their assessment should be rejected.
Recommendation It is recommended that those items found in the July 16, 1975 letter of appeal offered by the Petitioner not be allowed. It is further recommended that the matters as set forth in the amendment to the petition as found in change order No. 2 be allowed only to the extent of an award of $1,000 for extension of time due to inclement the technique considered acceptable far reimbursement of the amount of $1,000, regardless of the decision on the other matters of the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room 115, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John F. Roscow, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers to any one or all of five challenged questions on the structural I engineering examination that Petitioner took in April 1997 (the "structural engineering examination").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the structural engineering examination given in April 1997. Respondent administered the examination. The minimum passing score for the structural engineering examination is 70. Respondent earned a score of 69. By Examination Grade Report dated July 29, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that he had failed the structural engineering examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner's test results were re-scored by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying ("NCEES"). The re-score did not increase Petitioner's original score. Credit for an answer to one additional question will result in a score of 70 on examination. Petitioner challenges questions 270-273 on the morning part of the exam and question 572 on the afternoon part of the exam. The maximum score available for question 270 is 10 points. Petitioner received eight points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 270. Petitioner incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 271 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 271. Petitioner did not complete the procedure for two of the required items. Petitioner completed only two items in question 271. He received a correct score of two points because he incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 272 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 272. Petitioner did not provide a correct analysis of the "forces perpendicular and parallel to the grain" or "determine the allowable force at an angle to the grain." The maximum score available for question 273 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 273. A higher score would require Petitioner to calculate two items correctly. Petitioner calculated only one item correctly. Question 572 has two parts. Part 2 is a multiple choice format. The correct answer to Part 2 of Question 572 is answer "C," or 1.25. Petitioner chose answer "B," or 2.25. Petitioner incorrectly assumed that the structure was a mixed steel/concrete frame. If Petitioner's assumption had been correct, then answer "B," or 2.25, would have been the correct answer. Petitioner failed to show that Respondent did not utilize the scoring plan correctly. The examination provided enough information for a candidate for licensure to answer the problems correctly. The examination was properly designed to test a candidate's competency. The challenged questions are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly.
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 questions 270-273 and 572. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 R. Beth Atchison Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl A. Brown, pro se 9313 Sonoma Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Licensing Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified general contractor, violated the construction industry licensing law, by: (1) willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the State or any municipalities, cities or counties thereof; (2) diverting construction funds resulting in his unwillingness or inability to perform pursuant to a construction contract; and (3) abandoning a construction project; and if the Respondent is guilty of such violations, the appropriate disciplinary penalty which should be imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation That Respondent's certified general contractor's license No. CGC005174 be suspended until such time as Respondent furnishes the Board satisfactory evidence of having made restitution to Simon H. and Alexandra U. Ramos in the amount of $2,515 for monies expended by them to pay for lumber, electric and plumbing charges arising out of their construction contract.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Wayne Cassity, was a certified building contractor having been issued license C-6620. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Cassity Construction, 5000 Rena Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. On or about December 19, 1995, Respondent contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Thomas to build an addition to the back of their home located at 1537 Carson Circle Northeast, St. Petersburg, Florida. The contract provided that the construction project was to be completed in forty (40) working days, or about two months. The contract was later modified by agreement of the parties on January 26, 1995. Except for an increase in the cost of the project, the amended contract was substantially the same as the original contract. Under the terms of the modified agreement, the cost increased from $14,400.00 to $15,900.00 The increased cost resulted from changes in the plans that were necessary to comply with certain FEMA regulations. Under the terms of the agreement, payment for the work performed was to be made at various intervals during the construction project. The contract required that Mr. and Mrs. Thomas pay Respondent $3,300.00 upon execution of the contract; $5,040.00 after masonry work was completed; $5,040.00 after completion of framing; and $2,520.00 upon completion of the contract. In regard to Respondent's obligations, the contract provided in pertinent part the following: Furnish drawing to owner for approval. Obtain a building permit from the City of St. Petersburg. Remove and dispose of existing grass where the new addition is to be built. Remove and dispose of existing walls in spare room on east side of the new addition. Remove and dispose of existing 12'-0" sliding glass door. Furnish and install all material to con- struct a new concrete slab, approximately 19'-0' x 12' -0' made up of 3000 PSI con- crete, 16" x 16" footing with two no. 5 rebar continuous and 4" thick slab with 6" x 6" x 10 wire mesh on 6 mil visqueen. Furnish and install all material to con- struct exterior block wall for new addition Furnish and install all material to con- struct a new roof over new addition made up of 2" X 8" rafters 24" on center with 3/3" plywood. Overhangs to match existing house as close as possible. Furnish and install 90 lb. torch down roll roofing, for new room of new addition. (Entire flat room) Frame interior walls of new addition. Apply 1/2" drywall to interior of all walls and prepare for paint. Install electricity to new addition to include seven receptacles, four light switches and three overhead lights. Install rough plumbing for new bath to supply shower, toilet and sink. Install two new A/C ducts to new addi- tion tapping into existing trunk line. Under the terms of the contract, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas were to supply and install the following: toilet; sink; vanity; all doors; base trim; door trim; interior paint; exterior paint; carpet; bath floor tile; shower fixtures, exterior stucco; and exterior soffit. Notwithstanding the written contract terms, at some point prior to completing the project, the parties verbally agreed that the owners, not Respondent, would remove and dispose of the existing walls in the spare room and the sliding glass door. Additionally, the parties verbally agreed to reduce the price to be paid under the contract from $15,900.00 to $15,780.00. Although the written contract provided for increases and reductions pursuant to authorized change orders, no evidence was presented regarding the specific reason for the decrease in the construction cost. The Pinellas County Building Office issued the building permit to Respondent on December 18, 1994 and Respondent began work on the Thomas' project several days later. The Pinellas County Building Code requires contractors to call for inspection at various intervals during construction. This allows any code violations to be identified and corrected prior to completion of a given project. Although contractors are required to call for inspections, building inspectors sometimes make unrequested inspections. On January 10, 1995, an initial unrequested inspection was made of the Thomas construction project. Respondent's slab/footer work on the project was rejected by the inspector because it did not meet FEMA requirements. Another unrequested inspection was made by a Pinellas County inspector on January 25, 1995, and again the footer work was rejected. Respondent called for an inspection of the project on January 29, 1995. Pursuant to Respondent's request, an inspection of the work was made on February 17, 1995, by a Pinellas County building inspector. At the time of the February inspection, the footer work was in progress but not yet complete. Two or three days later, after the footer and slab were completed, the work passed inspection. The Thomas' made the first three payments to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the contract, but never made the final payment. On December 28, 1994, Respondent was paid $3,300.00 by Mr. and Mrs. Thomas. The second and third payments of $5,040.00 each were made on January 26, 1995 and February 10, 1995, respectively. The total payment paid to Respondent by the Thomas' was $13,380.00, and represents 85 percent of the total contract price. The percentage corresponds to the 85 percent of work completed by Respondent on the Thomas construction project. On March 28, 1995, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas notified Respondent in writing of their general dissatisfaction with his work. Specifically, the owners expressed a concern that Respondent had failed to complete his designated responsibilities under the contract. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas further indicated that Respondent failed to do a quality job. While several items were of concern to the owners, their primary concern was that the floor level of the new addition was not even with the existing structure. In order to placate the owners, Respondent agreed to return to the Thomas' home and perform the work which the Thomas' believed should have been done by Respondent. Respondent's attempts to comply with the Thomas' request were unsuccessful and attempts to satisfy the owners were futile. Despite the owners' personal dissatisfaction with Respondent's work, no competent and substantial evidence was presented regarding whether the actual work completed by Respondent was consistent with the approved plans and the actual contract. The contract between Respondent and Mr. and Mrs. Thomas contained a dispute resolution clause. According to that provision, "all disputes hereunder shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association." Mr. and Mrs. Thomas have failed to utilize the dispute resolution method prescribed in the contract. An investigative inspection was performed by a Pinellas County inspector on March 19, 1996, approximately one year after Respondent initially completed his work on the Thomas home. Typically, three types of inspections are conducted: construction, electrical, and roofing. However, the March 19, 1996 inspection was limited to a construction inspection, and did not include a roofing or electrical inspection. The construction inspection revealed three code violations: the framing for the roof was improperly anchored; the air flow duct was blocked by the insulation; and the window frames were not sealed. The Code violations discovered as a result of the March 19, 1996, inspection were not included in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. On or about March 24, 1995, Respondent entered into a contract with B. G. Diehl to convert an apartment building to an Assisted Living Facility. The first payment under the contract was made on or about March 28, 1995. Work on the remodeling project began on March 28, 1995, although the permit was not obtained until the first week of May 1995. Respondent's failure to obtain the building permit was based on his belief that Ms. Diehl had verbal assurance from county or city officials that prior problems with permitting for this project had been resolved and that the permit would be issued. The Pinellas County Building Code requires that building permits be obtained by contractors prior to beginning a project. This requirement is directed to licensed contractors, and it is the responsibility of the contractor, not the property owner, to ensure that proper permits were obtained prior to beginning the Diehl construction project. The contract provided that the job would be complete on August 15, 1995, and also included a "time is of the essence" provision. The work was substantially complete by August 15, 1995, and certified for occupancy in October 1995. One of the reasons for the delay was the issuance of a Stop Work Order issued in April 1995. Ms. Diehl's dissatisfaction with Respondent was affected by and escalated when Respondent placed a lien against her property. Though Ms. Diehl indicated she was generally not satisfied with Respondent's work, no competent and substantial evidence was presented demonstrating that the work was not completed or performed in a workmanlike manner. During the course of the construction project there were numerous disputes between Ms. Diehl and Respondent. The primary dispute involved a work order which would have required Ms. Diehl to pay an additional $10,000-$20,000. The change was deemed necessary by Respondent after he consulted with the civil engineer employed by Ms. Diehl for this project. The civil engineer informed Respondent that the plans initially drawn by the engineer and which had been relied upon by Respondent in his bid would not work. Similarly, additional changes were required after Respondent conferred with the structural engineer retained by Ms. Diehl. These changes, at least in part, required a modification of the location of bathroom fixtures. The essence of Ms. Diehl's complaints regarding the work performed by Respondent involve changes that were made to the plans without her approval. However, Ms. Diehl met with Respondent, the civil engineer and the structural engineer, and was aware that the engineers knew and agreed that the changes were necessary. Ms. Diehl was responsible for the electrical work involved in this project, and approved Randy's Electric as the company to perform the electrical work required by the contract. Respondent subcontracted with Rainbow Gas Company to install the gas piping which was required for this remodeling project. The total contract amount for the Diehl construction project was $158,750.00. Ms. Diehl paid Respondent all payments except the last one and employed another contractor to complete the job. No evidence was presented indicating the amount of money Ms. Diehl paid to Respondent or the amount of money, if any, paid to the contractor who completed the work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order that finds that: Respondent did not violate the provisions of Chapter 89-504, Section 24(2)(d), (h)2., and (d), Laws of Florida, as alleged in Counts One, Two, and Four of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent violated the provisions of Chapter 89-504, Section 24(2)(n), Laws of Florida, as alleged in Count Five of the Administrative Complaint, and which assesses an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $100.00 for that violation. Respondent did not violate the provisions of Chapter 89-504, Section 24(2)(g) and (n), as alleged in Counts Six, Seven and Eight of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent did not violate Rule 2-15.003, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Count Nine of the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CARLOYN S. HOLIFIELD, 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 4th day of June, 1996.
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 489, F.S., regulating the practice of contracting, by failing to complete a roofing job which he had agreed to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Michael W. Ballans was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor, holding License Number CB C036542. He qualified as an individual doing business at 1107 Oregon Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida 32769. On April 6, 1988, H. Earl Fisher signed his acceptance of a written proposal by Michael Ballans for Ballans to install a new roof on Fisher's double-wide trailer at 7650 E. Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway, in St. Cloud, Florida. The price for the job was $1,575.00, for supplies and labor. Fisher made an initial payment of $1,018.00 on June 6, 1988. Materials were delivered to the job site, but Ballans never commenced work. Fisher contacted Ballans four or five times to try to get him to do the job or to get someone else to do it. Ballans never returned the funds and at one point told Fisher that he could not do the work because he lost his insurance. Fisher did not agree to do the work himself and told Ballans he wanted the money back and the materials removed from his property. Stanton Alexander was qualified as an expert in construction industry contracting, including roofing. He has practiced in the profession for approximately thirty years. He served two terms on the construction industry licensing board, including a term as chairman. He has testified in the past as an expert in construction industry practices. A contractor terminates his responsibility under a contract after payment and final inspection and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Until then, he is responsible for completion of the job. Proper procedure when a contractor becomes unable, to complete a job is to refund the money and remove the materials or to get permission from the building department and owner to bring in another contractor to complete the work. Michael Ballans did neither, and simply abandoned the job. This deviation from the standards of construction industry practice constitutes incompetency or misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding Michael W. Ballans guilty of violations alleged in Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 16th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael W. Ballans 2314 Knob Hill Drive, Apt. #12 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in proposing to award a contract for State Project No. 99003-3501 to the Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Respondent, the Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department sought bidders for a construction project by invitation to bid. The Petitioner, North Florida Construction, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "North Florida"), submitted a bid on the Department's construction project. The Intervenor, Pro-Steel Buildings, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Pro-Steel"), also submitted a bid on the Department's construction project. The Subject Invitation to Bid. The Department issued an Invitation to Bid for State Project Number 99003-3501 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The ITB solicited bids on a construction contract for the relocation of the Department's maintenance yard facility in Tallahassee, Florida. The ITB required that each prime contractor either subcontract at least 25 percent of the total contract price to a Certified Minority Business Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as a "CMBE"), or show a good-faith effort to meet the 25 percent goal. Pages 78-81, Joint Exhibit 1. Included in the Instructions to Bidders, at Section B-14, are instructions concerning "Listing of Subcontractors." Page 15, Joint Exhibit 1. Section B-14 of the ITB provides: In order that the Owner may be assured that only qualified and competent subcontractors will be employed on the project, each Bidder shall submit in triplicate with his proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work for each Division of the Specifications utilizing the "List of Subcontractors" form enclosed as Exhibit 5. The Bidder shall have determined to his own complete satisfaction that a listed subcontractor has been successfully engaged in this particular type of business for a reasonable length of time, has successfully completed installations comparable to that which is required by this Agreement and is qualified both technically and financially to perform that pertinent phase of this work for which he is listed. . . . Any bidder who lists a subcontractor not certified and/or registered by the State to perform the work of his trade if, such certification or registration is required for the trade by Florida Laws, will be rejected as non-responsive. No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. [Emphasis added]. Exhibit 5, List of Subcontractors, provides, in part, the following: THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREINAFTER CALLED "BIDDER", LISTS BELOW THE NAME OF EACH SUBCONTRACTOR WHO WILL PERFORM THE PHASES OF THE WORK INDICATED. FAILURE OF THE BIDDER TO SUPPLY SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ALLOW VERIFICATION OF THE CORPORATE, AND DISCIPLINE LICENSE STATUS OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR MAY DEEM THE BID AS BEING NON-RESPONSIVE. Page 55, Joint Exhibit 1. Exhibit 5 was required to be completed and submitted with all bids pursuant to Section B-14 of the ITB. From the technical specifications for Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning work (hereinafter referred to as "HVAC"), for the project at issue, it could be inferred that two 30-ton air conditioning units were required. The Bids Submitted by Pro-Steel and North Florida. Bids on the ITB were submitted and opened on March 24, 1994. North Florida submitted a bid in response to the ITB: On the envelope containing the sealed bid of North Florida, North Florida requested that $14,000.00 be deducted from its proposed contract price. North Florida submitted a bid of $2,997,007.00. North Florida was the apparent second low bidder. North Florida listed Gallon & Sons as the subcontractor responsible for HVAC work. North Florida also listed Gallon & Sons as a CMBE. Gallon & Sons was listed on Exhibit 5, the Minority Business Enterprise Utilization Summary, submitted with North Florida's bid. North Florida proposed to install two 30-ton air conditioning units. Pro-Steel also submitted a bid in response to the ITB. Pro-Steel submitted a bid of $2,993,000.00. Pro-Steel was the apparent low bidder. Pro-Steel listed "Watts Mechanical" as the subcontractor responsible for the HVAC work required by the ITB. Pro-Steel also listed Watts as one of two CMBE subcontractors. "Watts Mechanical" was listed on Exhibit 5, the Minority Business Enterprise Utilization Summary, submitted with Pro-Steel's bid. Pro-Steel's bid submittal proposed the installation of two 30-ton air conditioning units. The Department's Decision. It is the policy of the Department to waive minor irregularities in bid submittals. Irregularities with North Florida's bid were correctly determined to be minor by the Department and were waived. The bid tabulation sheet and the bids indicated that Pro-Steel submitted the lowest, responsive bid. The Department proposed to award the contract under the ITB to Pro-Steel. Without Watts as a CMBE, Pro-Steel would not meet the 25 percent CMBE participation goal of the ITB. The Department's project manager for the ITB determined that Watts was a CMBE in evaluating the bid submittals. Qualification of CMBE's to Perform Work Proposed. Gallon & Sons was at all times relevant to this proceeding, registered as a CMBE in hearing and air conditioning. Eddie Gallon, Sr., was at all times relevant to this proceeding, the registered qualified agent for Gallon & Sons. Mr. Gallon holds a Class A license in heating and air conditioning. The stock of Watts Mechanical, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Watts"), is owned 100 percent by Jacqueline Watts. Ms. Watts is also the President of Watts. Ms. Watts held and still holds a Class B HVAC license from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Ms. Watts was registered with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation as the qualifying agent for Watts. Watts was registered with the Department of Management Services as a CMBE under the category of heating and air conditioning contractors. On January 1, 1994, Watts acquired the assets of Energy Systems of Tallahassee (hereinafter referred to as "Energy Systems"). Energy Systems was then owned by Thomas Trapane. As of January 1, 1994, it was intended that Watts be renamed "Watts Mechanical and Energy Systems, Inc." Mr. Trapane held and still holds a Class A HVAC license from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Mr. Trapane was registered with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation as the qualifying agent for Energy Systems. As of January 1, 1994, Mr. Trapane became an employee of Watts. As of March 24, 1994, when bids were submitted on the ITB: Watts had not filed an amendment to its Articles of Incorporation reflecting the change in name to Watts Mechanical and Energy Systems, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Watts Mechanical and Energy"). The amendment was not filed until April 26, 1994. Mr. Trapane had not registered with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation as the qualifying agent for Watts or Watts Mechanical and Energy. It was not until May 2, 1994, that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued a letter indicating that Mr. Trapane was a secondary qualifying agent for Watts Mechanical and Energy. Watts had not notified the Department of Management Services of its name change with regard to its CMBE certification. Based upon the foregoing, at the date of the submittal of bids and the proposed award of contract pursuant to the ITB, Watts did not hold the license required in order for it to complete the work Pro-Steel had represented to the Department Watts would perform. Substitution of Subcontractors. It is the policy of the Department to allow contractors to substitute subcontractors for good cause if proper documentation is submitted. The evidence, however, failed to prove the Department's policy concerning substitution of subcontractors applies in this matter. The evidence also failed to prove that the Department's policy concerning substitution of contractors allows the Department to accept as meeting part of the CMBE requirement of the ITB a CMBE that was not qualified to perform the required work as of the date of bid award. Alternative Proposals. The ITB allows substitutions for specified systems or products contained in the ITB. Page 28, Joint Exhibit 1. Substitutions, however, must be requested of the Architect-Engineer and written approval from the Architect-Engineer must be obtained. Substitutions must be submitted within 45 days after award of the contract. No substitutions were submitted by Pro-Steel or Watts at the time of bid submittal. As of the date of the final hearing of this case, Watts had decided to suggest that the configuration of the HVAC of the project be changed in a manner that would not require a Class A license for the work to be performed. The evidence failed to prove that the Department was aware of this proposal at the time of its initial decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order declaring the bid submitted by Pro-Steel Builders, Inc., to be non-responsive. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 13th day of June, 1994 APPENDIX Case Number 94-2353BID The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. North Florida's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 2 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 1. Accepted in 3 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 4 and 10. Accepted in 10-11 and 13. Accepted in 6-8. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 25 and 32. Conclusion of law. Accepted in 9. Conclusion of law. See 27 and 32. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 7-8. See 33. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 4. Accepted in 2-3 and 11-12. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 10-11. Accepted in 11 and 13. Accepted in 11 and 15. See 26, 28 and 32. Watts Mechanical, Inc. was a CMBE at the time of bid submittal. Watts Mechanical & Energy Systems, Inc., did not exist at the time of bid submittal. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 9. 9 Accepted in 24. 10-11 Accepted in 25. Accepted in 31. Accepted in 29. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 23. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 21. Accepted in 36. But see 37-38. Not relevant. See 7. Accepted in 8. 23 See 36-38. Not relevant. Accepted in 17. Pro-Steel's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 4. Accepted in 7-8 Accepted in 8. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 34. See 35. Accepted in 17. 7 Accepted in 2-3, 10-11 and 18-19. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 9 and 36. See 25-26. But see 32. Accepted in 27, 29 and 31. The last sentence is not relevant. Accepted in 32. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 14 See 34-35. 15 See 36-39 COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thomas H. Duffy Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Tommy Strickland North Florida Construction, Inc. Post Office Box 129 Clarksville, Florida 32430 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire 155 Office Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license Number CG C017772. On April 13, 1986, the Respondent, Richard T. Warnky, entered into a written contract with Jackson S. and Muriel Boyer to construct a home for them on Block 1244, Lots 7 and 8, Unit 19, Cape Coral, Florida, otherwise known as 2414 S.E. 28th Street for a contract price of $95,295.00. The Boyers gave Respondent a $550.00 down payment prior to signing the contract and at the time of signing, gave him an additional 10 percent of the contract price, or $9,529.50. The contract called for the payment of an additional 10 percent at commencement of construction and this payment was made at ground breaking. When the plumbing was roughed in and the slab poured, according to the contract, the Boyers paid Respondent an additional 10 percent and an additional 20 percent, or $19.059.00 when the masonry work was completed and the lintel poured. The contract called for three additional payments of 20 percent and two 15 percent payments, but for reasons subsequently to be discussed, none of these three payments was made. The contract called for the house to be completed in eight months, (240 days). According to Mr. Boyer, the Respondent left town for 8 weeks as soon as he had been paid the first 10 percent payment. Respondent claims that he was out of town for one week during which time he took ill and was physically unable to begin construction for an additional seven weeks. He also contends that he did not want construction to start without his being there to supervise it. Respondent's version of this situation is accepted. From the beginning of construction, Mr. and Mrs. Boyer had questions concerning the quality of the work being done When the slab was poured, it had holes in it and showed hills and valleys. Nonetheless, it passed inspection by the building inspector and the block work started. Pictures taken by Mr. Gogel, the licensing inspector for the City of Cape Coral at the request of Mr. Davenport, the building official, in July, 1986, reflect numerous deficiencies in the construction. They show large gaps in the vertical block joints; a lateral deflection in the tie beam poured at the top of the top course of blocks; blow out of the frame for the tie beam resulting in concrete running down the block walls; displacement of the tie beam which shows bulges and deformities; loose mortar in joints of the fifth course of blocks from the bottom; voids in joints; severe slippage in the top of the tie beam resulting in a reduction of the top; honeycombing of the concrete in the tie beam with rough attempts shown to patch it; slippage and deflection of the tie beam; and similar defects shown in the 14 pictures making up Petitioner's Exhibit 4 as well as the 15 additional pictures taken by Mr. Gogel and Mr. Davenport which were introduced as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6. On August 5, 1986, after Mr. Davenport and Mr. Gogel had visited the construction site at the request of Mr. Boyer, Mr. Davenport wrote Respondent a letter in which he discussed various items of workmanship on the property which needed Respondent's attention. In his letter, Mr. Davenport referred to the provisions of the American Concrete Institute Standards and the standards of the City of Cape Coral. He specifically pointed out that as to joints between cinder blocks, the joint should be not less than one quarter inch nor more than five eighths inch wide. His inspection indicated many of the masonry joints exceeded five eighths of an inch because the blocks were cut with a hammer rather than a block saw and in some cases, poured concrete extruded beyond the surface of the block. Mr. Davenport further addressed additional items which, he indicated, would require attention by the contractor in order for the work to meet the standards of acceptability for good residential construction in the City of Cape Coral. These included: waviness or blow out of sections of the tie beam; extrusion of concrete at the blow out patches; proper preparation of the cinder block walls for the receiving of stucco surface; honeycomb portions of the tie beam; and shimming and re-nailing of furring strips on the interior walls which had bent to follow the warped inner curve of the tie beam. These word descriptions are of the same defects shown in the photographs mentioned above. When Respondent reached that point in the construction where he felt an additional draw payment was called for, he requested it of the Boyers, but because of their dissatisfaction with the quality of the work he had done, they refused to make such payment. Mr. Warnky thereafter contacted his attorney who advised the Boyers by letter dated January 26, 1987, that their continued refusal to make draw payments as required by the contract, would jeopardize completion of the construction. No further payments have been made by the Boyers, however, since they consider the workmanship to be substandard and Mr. Warnky has done no further work on the project. The Boyers have had the work finished by another contractor at considerable additional expense. It should be noted, however, that the work done by the Respondent was passed by the building inspectors for the City of Cape Coral who did not indicate that it was below the cited code standards. Respondent is charged with gross negligence as a result of his failure to properly supervise the laying of the block walls with a resultant defect in the tie beam attached thereto. He admits that he was not present for approximately five to seven days during the ten days to two weeks that it took to lay the block on this project. Both Mr. and Mrs. Boyer contend that Respondent was not present at any time during the laying of the blocks by his employee, Mr. Sweebe. Since Mr. Boyer admits that he was not present at all times on all days that the blocks were being laid, it is impossible for him to indicate with any certainty that Respondent was never present. At best, the evidence shows that on those days when Mr. or Mrs. Boyer were present, Respondent was not present for the laying of the blocks. Based on his visit to the site and his observation of the workmanship, Mr. Davenport concluded that it was not of good quality. The materials used appeared to be suitable, but the application of the materials did not meet the criteria of the Southern Standard Building Code. These conditions are reparable, however, and it appears that Respondent did make efforts to repair some of the defects pointed out. For example, photographs taken on November 5, show an attempted "repair" of a honeycomb patch on the tie beam as does the November 19 photo. This latter picture, however, also shows that the tie beam is out of plumb and that furring strips were shimmed and covered with new furring in an attempt to comply with Mr. Davenport's letter of August 5. Further, this photo showing the waviness on a part of the tie beam indicates some grinding down in an attempt to bring it within standards. Notwithstanding, in Mr. Davenport's opinion, the workmanship by Respondent is below what is normally seen in the industry in Southwest Florida as it pertains to block masonry. These sentiments were reiterated by Mr. Verse, a certified general contractor in Sarasota for 13 years. Mr. Verse evaluated the various photographs taken by Mr. Gogel and Mr. Davenport and compared the work done by the Respondent as depicted on the pictures, against the accepted standards utilized by the building trade in Florida. He concluded that Respondent's work was not acceptable. He agreed with Mr. Davenport as to the deficiency in the joints, in the support of the tie beam, of the forming of the tie beam, and as to all masonry and concrete work. The negligence involved here was in letting this type of work go on when it was not up to code. A prudent general contractor would have stopped any subcontractor when he saw this type of work being done. If Respondent was not present to do so, then he failed to properly supervise. If he was present and allowed this substandard work to continue, he was grossly negligent. Mr. Verse rejects Respondent's excuse for washed out mortar joints, attributing them to rain, as unsatisfactory and unacceptable because a careful contractor will generally cover his work with a plastic sheet in the event rain is imminent. Respondent states that in his years as a contractor, he has never seen this done. Neither did Mr. Mahlmeister. In any case, a prudent contractor would make some provision to protect his work against any outside factor which might reasonably tend to threaten it. Respondent's failure to do so does not excuse the result. The honeycombing and bulging of the tie beam could occur from either improperly formed concrete or properly formed concrete which was improperly vibrated. Based on his examination of the photographs, Mr. Verse concluded it was probably improperly formed. Supports for the forming were not used. Had they been, they would have prevented the bulges that are seen. Even if the form work was properly braced and formed, if the concrete in the tie beams was improperly poured, the tie beam could bulge out at the bottom. Mr. Dililch, the individual who poured the concrete for Mr. Warnky, indicated that the procedure was accomplished at the very hottest part of the day in the hottest part of the year, which caused the concrete to dry out too rapidly and necessitated adding additional water to the mixture in order to keep it pourable throughout the process. Mr. Dililch indicates that though those abnormal steps were necessary, nonetheless, the concrete was poured in one session without any necessity to layer it. There appear to be no joints in the beam, the major defects being the honeycombing and bulging. Mr. Dililch recognizes there were blow outs where the concrete oozed out from under the framing, but contends that these are relatively common and occur on many different jobs by different contractors. Numerous factors could cause a blow out including loose braces, loose clamps, and things of that nature. Prior to pouring the concrete here, Mr. Dililch examined the form carefully and was satisfied it met standards and was safe. Nonetheless, the tie beam contained several examples of honeycombing. Blow outs are difficult to see before the concrete is formed. Older rental clamps quite often come loose and the looseness shows up only when the concrete is poured into the form generating the stress which forces the "mud" out through the joint. On every house he has worked on, there has been at least one blowout. It is, in his opinion, a common occurrence. His self-serving testimony is of little probative value here. The forming for the tie beam was inspected by Mr. Mahlmeister before the beam was poured and determined to be safe. Mr. Verse was shown pictures of work accomplished by other contractors which show similar defects to those attributed here to the Respondent and he admits that other contractors do, from time to time, substandard work. However, based on the opportunity he had to examine Respondent's work in this instance, the Respondent's performance showed defects throughout the entire project, not merely in isolated instances. The deficiencies in Respondent's work are broad based and wide spread. While all contractors make mistakes, the number of Respondent's mistakes take his performance beyond the realm of accident and indicate substandard work in general. Respondent is a small-contractor who does most of the work on his projects by himself and supervises the rest. It is his practice to be present on the construction scene every day but in this case, he admits he was not present all of every day. He has been a contractor in Florida for seven years, building approximately two houses per year. Prior to coming to Florida, he was a builder up north. He takes a great deal of pride in his work and has had very few complaints concerning the quality of his construction. In fact, he got the Boyer job because he had built a house for the Boyer's daughter who was happy with the quality of his construction. He believes his work is equal to the standards of most Cape Coral builders. Respondent admits that he makes mistakes, but he strongly contends that none of the deficiencies here were serious or would make the house unsafe. With all the complaints against it, the tie beam poured under Respondent's supervision, was never changed or altered. Most of the defects cited were cosmetic in nature and would have been corrected by him when the house was stuccoed. Respondent has been disciplined by the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, previously, in 1984, when he was fined $250.00. It would appear that action was based on similar grounds to those in the instant action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor be suspended for six months, that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00, and that he be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1718 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY THE PETITIONER Petitioner failed to number Findings of Fact submitted and included them in a section entitled FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. However, as best as can be determined: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Accepted. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. Accepted as evidence of prior disciplinary action. BY THE RESPONDENT None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard T. Warnky 4924 S. W. 11th Court Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)1., 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Calleja had a valid and active license as a commercial certified pool/spa contractor. His license number is CP 1456568. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Calleja was the owner of or did business as Nautica Pools & Spa (Nautica). The Board is charged with regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. On April 2, 2005, Mr. Calleja, as the representative for Nautica, entered into a contract with Jack Coleman to renovate Mr. Coleman’s existing pool. From April 2005 to July 27, 2005, Nautica installed rebar in the pool and set a new skimmer. Nautica subcontracted with Prestige Gunite of Melbourne, Inc. (Prestige), to put the gunite in the pool. Gunite is concrete that is sprayed out of a hose to form the walls of the pool. Personnel from Prestige arrived on the project site on the afternoon of July 27, 2005, to apply the gunite, but did not do so because the application would have taken longer to do than one afternoon. The following day, July 28, 2005, Mr. Calleja and a crew from Prestige returned to the project. A representative from Prestige told Mr. Calleja that the steel rebar had not been laid properly. Mr. Calleja told Prestige to apply the gunite and do what was necessary to cover the steel. Mr. Calleja left the project site, and Prestige began applying the gunite. During the application of the gunite, it became evident that the first spraying of gunite was not going to cover the steel. Attempts were made to reach Mr. Calleja, but Mr. Calleja was not available to solve the problem. Prestige began applying additional coats of gunite in an attempt to cover the steel. After the gunite was applied, two problems were identified. The first problem was in the fountain area. The gunite had not been applied properly, and there were hollow areas. The second problem was in the wet deck area. The steel rebar was too close to the surface of the floor, and the steel was visible. In order to remedy the problems, the concrete in the areas would have to be jack hammered to remove the concrete, and new gunite would have to be applied. By letter dated August 28, 2005, Nautica requested Mr. Coleman to pay Prestige $954.57. Nautica advised Mr. Coleman that when that amount had been paid, Nautica would pay the balance owed to Prestige and forward a release to Mr. Coleman. Mr. Calleja claimed that Mr. Coleman owed the $954.57 because Mr. Coleman had damaged Mr. Calleja’s saw. In the letter, Nautica acknowledged that there was additional work which had not been completed. The letter was signed by Mr. Calleja’s wife. Mr. Calleja had verbally told Mr. Coleman that he wanted Mr. Coleman to pay him $2,000.00, and he would take care of paying Prestige. The general specifications in the contract required that the contractor was responsible for “[s]tandard structural engineering plans and permits required by code.” Prior to commencing work on the pool renovation, Mr. Calleja did not secure the required building permits for the project. Mr. Coleman called Clifford Stokes, who is the building official with the town of Indialantic, and asked whether a permit had been issued. Mr. Stokes went to the project site. At that time, the gunite had been shot, and there was exposed steel rebar. Since no permit had been pulled, no inspection had been done after the steel was put in place. On September 15, 2005, Mr. Calleja applied for a building permit. Because the steel had been placed, and the gunite shot, it was impossible to do a visual inspection to determine whether the steel had been placed properly. In order to get a permit after the construction had been commenced, certain affidavits had to be submitted to the building official of Indiatlantic. Mr. Calleja had to submit an affidavit stating that the steel had been placed properly. An affidavit stating that the work had been performed properly had to be submitted from an engineer, who had made a site visit to the project and had determined that the work performed had been according to code. Additionally, Mr. Coleman was required to submit an affidavit that stated that he understood that no inspection had been done of the work by the building official. Mr. Calleja also had to pay a fine to Indiatlantic for commencing work without a building permit. On October 19, 2005, Mr. Calleja and Robert Lee from Lee Engineering came to the project site for the purpose of preparing the affidavits necessary to secure a building permit. Mr. Calleja did not return to the project site after October 19, 2005. Mr. Coleman sent a letter to Mr. Calleja dated October 13, 2005, noting that no work had been done on the project since July 28, 2005, and requesting that Mr. Calleja remedy a number of deficiencies with the work performed on the project and complete the job in accordance with the contract. The letter was returned to Mr. Coleman by the postal service because the time for forwarding mail from the address listed in the letter had expired. When Mr. Calleja came to the project site on October 19, 2005, Mr. Coleman requested a current address from Mr. Calleja, but Mr. Calleja refused to give him one. Mr. Coleman wrote another letter to Mr. Calleja dated October 25, 2005, again stating that no work had been done since July 28, 2005, and requesting that Mr. Calleja correct the deficiencies in the work and complete the contract. Mr. Coleman filed an action in small claims court attempting to recover the money for the lien filed by Prestige. However, Nautica had filed for bankruptcy, and Mr. Coleman did not proceed with the small claim action. A building permit for the project was issued in January 2006. The issuance of the building permit did not relieve Mr. Calleja from the responsibility of assuring that the work in the shallow end of the pool area where the rebar was sticking up was redone properly. After the building permit was issued, neither Mr. Calleja nor Mr. Coleman called for inspections by the Indiatlantic building official. The permit expired in June 2006. After the issuance of the building permit, Nautica performed no further work on the project. The total contract price was $9,340.00. Mr. Coleman and Mr. Calleja entered into an addendum to the contract on July 27, 2005, which increased the contract price to $13,000.00. The contract called for a down payment of $934.00, which was ten percent of the contract amount. After completion of excavation and the form and steel work, a payment of $3,736.00 was due, representing 40 percent of the total work. After completion of the pool shell, a payment of $2,802.00 was due, representing 30 percent of the total work. Prior to plastering, which represented 20 percent of the total work, a payment of $1,868.00 was to be paid. The contract addendum of $3,660.00 called for 50 percent of the addendum amount to be paid at the completion of the pool shell, and the remaining 50 percent of the addendum amount was to be paid at the completion of the pool. By check dated April 22, 2005, signed by Mr. Coleman’s wife, Mr. Coleman paid Mr. Calleja $1,000.00 as down payment on the project. In June 2005, Mr. Coleman gave Mr. Calleja a check for $573.42 for a pool and spa light. Mr. Coleman was to receive a credit of $380.00 toward the contract for the light. Additionally, Mr. Coleman overpaid Mr. Calleja by $166.90. By check dated July 27, 2005, and signed by Mr. Coleman’s wife, Mr. Coleman paid Mr. Calleja $7,396.00. This payment was to include half of the addendum amount, but Mrs. Coleman inadvertently included the full amount of the addendum. By check dated August 1, 2005, and signed by Mrs. Coleman, Mr. Coleman paid Mr. Calleja $739.10. Thus, by August 1, 2005, Mr. Coleman had paid Mr. Calleja, $9,682.00 on the contract. In December 2005, Mr. Coleman asked a representative of Paradise Pools, Patrick McDonough, to come to the project site and give an estimate to complete the pool. The estimate of $7,800.00 from Paradise Pools was for a cosmetic plaster of the existing pool, and the work was not warranted against leakage. Mr. McDonough would not warrant the work, because he saw a lot of potential liability problems with the work performed by Mr. Calleja. Mr. McDonough did not recommend that a cosmetic plaster be performed because of the potential problems. On October 26, 2005, Prestige filed a Claim of Lien against the property of Mr. Coleman for $4,227.40 plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. The lien was for the work which Prestige had performed on the project on July 28, 2005, and for which Mr. Calleja had failed to pay. Mr. Coleman called Mr. Calleja and told him that a lien had been filed. Mr. Calleja assured him that he would pay the lien, but he failed to do so. Mr. Coleman satisfied the lien by check dated April 11, 2006, for the amount of $5,139.58. David Bogenrief, P.E., viewed the project in June 2008 and provided Mr. Coleman with a quote to develop structural plans to repair Mr. Coleman’s pool. There was no testimony on the amount of the quote, and the Department did not request that the written proposal be admitted in evidence. Mr. Bogenrief did not know what it would cost to repair the pool. The Department has incurred $470.49 for costs in the prosecution of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Calleja did not violate Subsection 489.119(2), Florida Statutes, and that Mr. Calleja violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)1., 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)1., Florida Statutes, imposing a fine of $2,000.00, suspending Mr. Calleja's license for six months, and requiring Mr. Calleja to pay Mr. Coleman $5,139.58 as restitution for the payment of the lien filed by Prestige; for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, imposing a fine of $2,000.00, suspending Mr. Calleja's license for six months, and requiring Mr. Calleja to pay Mr. Coleman $9,682.00, which represents the amount that Mr. Coleman paid to Mr. Calleja; for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, imposing a $1,000.00 fine and four years of probation; for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, imposing a $1,000.00 fine and four years of probation, which shall run concurrently with the other probation imposed; and, for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, imposing a $1,000.00 fine and two years of probation to run concurrently with the other probation imposed; and requiring payment of $470.49 as costs for the prosecution of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 29th day of August, 2008.
