The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers, which the Respondent scored as incorrect, to three questions on the February 2003 General Contractor Construction Examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the General Contractor Construction Examination on February 11, 2003. After being notified that he did not pass the test, the Petitioner requested a review of the test and his responses. Following the informal review of his examination answers, the Respondent awarded no further credit and the Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. The Petitioner initially challenged the scoring of his answers to 12 examination questions. The challenged examination questions are identified as Business and Finance AM questions 6, 12, 33, and 40, Business and Finance PM questions 2 and 25, and General Contract Administration questions 21, 22, 30, 34, 48, and 59. At the hearing, the Petitioner withdrew his challenges to Business and Finance AM questions 6, 12, and 33, and maintained his challenge to Business and Finance AM question 40. Business and Finance AM question 40 requires an examination candidate to identify the proper response, according to a specified reference source, to the hypothetical discovery of hidden asbestos revealed during a demolition process. The correct answer to Business and Finance AM question 40 requires a contractor to stop working and notify the owner and architect in writing. The answer is directly referenced in the text of "General Conditions of Contract," a book that the Petitioner was permitted to use during the examination. The Petitioner's answer to Business and Finance AM question 40 was to stop work and notify the owner by telephone. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner's response to Business and Finance AM question 40 is correct or that the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to credit for his answer. At the hearing, the Petitioner withdrew his challenges to Business and Finance PM questions 2 and 25. The Petitioner also withdrew his challenges to General Contract Administration questions 30, 34, 48, and 59, and maintained his challenge to General Contract Administration questions 21 and 22. General Contract Administration question 21 requires an examination candidate to calculate the workday upon which concrete footers could be poured following completion and inspection of specified preparatory work. According to the question, no inspection or other work occurs on Saturdays or Sundays and an inspection would occur on the workday after the footing preparation was completed. The question provided that the specified preparatory work would begin on a Monday and would take seven days to complete. An inspection would occur on the eighth workday. The correct answer to General Contract Administration question 21 was that the footers could be poured on the ninth workday. The Petitioner's answer to General Contract Administration question 21 was that the footers could be poured on the eleventh day. The Petitioner incorrectly included the weekend in his calculation of workdays. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner's response to General Contract Administration question 21 is correct or that the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to credit for his answer. General Contract Administration question 22 requires an examination candidate to calculate the total linear feet of rebar needed to reinforce a footer of specified length and construction. The calculation of the total linear feet of rebar as performed at the hearing by the Respondent's witness, William H. Palm (qualified as an expert in General Contracting), is accepted as correct. Based on the specifications given in the question, Mr. Palm calculated that there would be eight 20-foot bars with the eight bars overlapping each other by 12.5 inches at each of seven overlaps. Multiplying the seven overlaps by 12.5 inches results in 7.29 feet of total overlap. Adding the total overlapping segments to the 160-foot total and multiplying the results by the four continuous bars results in an answer to General Contract Administration question 22 of 669.16 feet. The closest possible answer from the multiple choices listed in the examination question is 670 linear feet. The Petitioner's answer to General Contract Administration question 22 was that 666 linear feet of rebar would be required. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner's response to General Contract Administration question 22 is correct or that the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to credit for his answer. The Petitioner also challenges as inappropriate and unfair, the use of "general trade knowledge" as a reference to correct answers. The evidence presented by the Petitioner fails to establish that the use of "general trade knowledge" is inappropriate or unfair. General trade knowledge is general or common knowledge among professionals in the trade. The list of appropriate references available to all examination candidates states that some questions will "be based on field experience and knowledge of trade practices."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grading of the Petitioner's responses to the February 2003 General Contractor Construction Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 12th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Malavenda 15811 Gulf Boulevard Redington Beach, Florida 33703-1733 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified general contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license number CG C027718. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Classic Design Builders. William R. DeFreitas describes himself as a broker of building materials for third world countries. His wife is also employed in that same business. They had their office building constructed for them. When they subsequently determined to add an addition to their residence, they solicited bids from that contractor and from two other persons. Aaron Ware, who held himself out to be an architect and the president of a company known as L. A. Designs, Inc., was one of the persons from whom the DeFreitases solicited a bid. He submitted a bid dated April 26, 1990, and a draw schedule on May 3, 1990. The extent of the work to be performed was finalized on June 6, 1990, when Mr. DeFreitas initialed the changes to the initial bid. The construction project contemplated under that contract was the addition of a family room, a laundry room, a shower off the master bath, and a small bath at the front of the house. The June 6, 1990, contract also called for replacement of the garage door and "painting of some interior doors." The total contract price was $50,000. While Ware was negotiating with the DeFreitases, he was also discussing with Respondent entering into a joint venture agreement between Classic Design Builders and L.A. Designs for the DeFreitas construction project. Their verbal agreement was memorialized in a written agreement dated June 18, 1990. Thereafter, Respondent did not advise Petitioner that he had entered into a joint venture agreement and, similarly, did not qualify the joint venture as a separate business entity for licensure purposes. Pursuant to instructions from Ware, Mr. DeFreitas directed a letter to the City of Boca Raton advising the building department that he had entered into a contract to construct an addition to his residence with "L.A. Designs/ Classic Designs." On July 2, 1990, Respondent on behalf of Classic Design Builders obtained a building permit from the City of Boca Raton for the DeFreitas addition. On July 6, Ware began work on the addition. Ware worked on the project from July of 1990 through the end of that year. During the course of that construction, the DeFreitases made many changes in the scope of the work contemplated by the original contract, which increased the contract price to above $56,000. Additional work was performed, which was not covered by the contract and which the DeFreitases agreed to pay for directly to the supplier or subcontractor. On February 4, 1991, the DeFreitases directed a letter to Ware advising him that the construction was close to completion and that it was time for them to "settle our account" as to the extras for which the DeFreitases had not paid. In that letter, the DeFreitases also offered to produce the invoices for materials and labor that they had agreed to pay to finish the job. In July of 1991 the DeFreitases complained to the City of Boca Raton. Respondent, as the holder of the building permit, was contacted and advised that the DeFreitases were alleging that their contractor had failed to complete the project. Respondent immediately went to the DeFreitases' business, met with Mr. DeFreitas, inspected the home, and prepared a punch list of items to be completed, many of which were not covered by the construction contract but were done by Respondent in an attempt to achieve customer satisfaction. Respondent completed the project, obtained the final inspections, and presented the DeFreitases with a warranty and release of lien. The DeFreitases refused to accept the warranty or release of lien. As a result of the DeFreitases' complaints, Respondent and Ware were charged with violating local ordinances. In those prosecutions, as well as in this case, the DeFreitases have attempted to obtain $11,000 from Respondent as "restitution" for moneys they have had to spend or will have to spend to complete the work envisioned by their contract with L.A. Designs, Inc. Most of the items listed as components of the claim for restitution are not even part of the construction contract. Of those few items covered by the contract, the money claimed is not. For example, the contract allocated $500 to be expended on the bathroom cabinets. The DeFreitases spent $1,670 on the cabinets and, surprisingly, are claiming that Respondent should pay them the difference because they spent more than their contractual allowance. Finally, they have claimed the cost of replacing inferior building materials provided by them, such as wood French doors. The DeFreitases paid to Ware approximately $4,000 less than they had promised to pay him as a result of the work completed by L.A. Designs. Rather than suffering a loss, the DeFreitases have actually received a windfall. At no time material hereto was either Ware or L.A. Designs licensed in the state of Florida as a contractor, architect, professional engineer, or landscape architect. Respondent knew that Ware and L.A. Designs were not licensed. At the time that Classic Design Builders and L.A. Designs entered into their written joint venture agreement and at all other times material hereto, Respondent was not an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of L.A. Designs, and Ware was not an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of Classic Design Builders. When Ware approached Respondent about entering into a joint venture for the DeFreitas project, Respondent had already suffered a minor heart attack and two mini-strokes. The joint venture agreement itself recites Respondent's need to limit his activities due to health reasons. In July of 1990 Respondent additionally tore an Achilles tendon in his left leg and was in a cast until Christmas of 1990. Due to his immobility during that time period, Respondent delegated all of his construction jobs to others, understanding that he was ultimately responsible for those projects since he was the contractor of record on them. In the same way, he delegated to Ware the day-to-day responsibility for the DeFreitas project. Other than "pulling the permit" for the DeFreitas project, Respondent's only other involvement in the job until the time that he was contacted as a result of the DeFreitases' complaints to the City of Boca Raton in July of 1991, was right after the job was commenced regarding some problem concerning the lot line. He was able to resolve that problem with the City of Boca Raton by telephone. The DeFreitases did not know that Respondent was the contractor for their construction project and ultimately responsible for that work. Although Ware had advised them that a "buddy" would somehow be involved in the construction, and although Mr. DeFreitas referred to both L.A. Design and Classic Design Builders in his letter to the City of Boca Raton authorizing a building permit to be issued, the evidence is clear that had the DeFreitases known of Respondent's responsibility, they would have been insisting that he perform services months earlier. In 1987 Respondent was charged with abandoning a construction project and/or failing to timely complete it. Respondent entered into a settlement stipulation admitting that fact and agreeing to pay a fine to the Construction Industry Licensing Board in the amount of $1,000. A Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation was entered on June 8, 1988. Respondent received no money from the DeFreitases or from Ware for the work Respondent performed on the DeFreitas addition. Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses for labor and materials on the DeFreitas residence between July of 1991 and June of 1992 total $1,747.50.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II and VII of the Administrative Complaint filed against him; Finding Respondent not guilty of Counts III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint filed against him; Requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000; and Placing Respondent's license number CG C027718 on probation for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-10, 16-20, and 22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 11-15, 21, and 24 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 23 has been rejected as being subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: John David Ashburn, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 3932 RCA Boulevard, Suite 3210 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Diane Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Peter Mineo, Jr., Esquire 8220 State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Copies furnished, continued Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Alachua County School Board, advertised a request for proposals for the removal of asbestos from one of its schools. Respondent received several bids from various companies, including Petitioner, Wayne Blackwell and Co., Inc., and Intervenor, International Abatement Management ("IAM"). The specifications for the bid provided: Posting of Bids "Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted for review by interested parties at the Planning and Construction Dept. 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Fla. on or about Monday following the bid opening, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On September 11, 1989, Respondent opened the bids it had received. Petitioner's representative was present at the bid opening and learned that it had not submitted the lowest bid, but was ranked third according to the bid prices. The Monday following the bid opening was September 17, 1989. On September 14, 1989, at 1:00 p.m., Respondent completed its review of the bids it had received and posted the bid tabulation on its bulletin board. The bid tabulation indicated that Intervenor, ("IAM"), was the winning bidder and Petitioner was the second place winner. The bid tabulation was posted below and slightly to the right was a copy of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, with the notice provisions highlighted. The statutory section was intended to be part of the posting of notice required by Section 120.53(5) and was associated with the bid tabulation proper that if a reasonable person had seen the bulletin board that person would have known the copy of the statute was part of the posting of the bid tabulation. The method of posting utilized by the School Board gave Petitioner a clear point of entry for purposes of this action. On September 17, 1989, the 72 hour period for filing of Notice Of Protests under Chapter 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, expired. On September 18, 1989, the school board voted to award the bid to Intervenor. A contract for the project was mailed to Intervenor for its signature and was later returned to the school board signed by Intervenor. On Thursday, September 20, 1989, Petitioner filed its Notice Of Protest. The Notice Of Protest was filed after the 72 hour period for filing such notices. 1/ Petitioner therefore has waived its right to protest the bid tabulation and awarded the bid to intervenor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Alachua County enter a final order dismissing the protest of Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of December, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 December, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Copenhaver was holder of a registered general contractor's license number RG 0013968 issued by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent qualified Southwest Building and Development Corporation with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. At all times material herein, neither Respondent nor Southwest Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc., were registered or certified as a roofing contractor with the Board. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. At all times material herein, Respondent was the holder of a Class C building contractor's license and a specialty limited roof-coating and spraying license, both issued by Sarasota County. See Transcript of Proceedings, page Said license was limited to work done to cosmetically improve a roof. Any work done to repair leaks required a standard roofing license. Respondent and Don Cogswell incorporated Southwest Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc. (SRWI), under the laws of the State of Florida on January 10, 1980. See Petitioner's Exhibit #5. All work done by SRWI was done under the Sarasota special roofing contractor qualification. Respondent was president of the corporation until December 15, 1980, at which time he resigned and transferred all his stock to Cogswell. See Petitioner's Exhibit #6. On February 14, 1980, SRWI contracted with A. T. Esslinger to completely waterproof a roof at 816 Idlewild Way, Sarasota, Florida. See Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The only warranty referenced in the contract was a separate standard warranty to be delivered at the time of final payment. See Petitioner's Exhibit #3A. Respondent gave the Esslingers a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit #3B) in which SRWI guaranteed to stop the leaks in their roof. This letter referenced SRWI's standard warranty. To waterproof the roof, gravel was removed from the existing roof and a cement-like surface applied to the roof. On June 4, 1980, SRWI contracted with Earl Mowry to waterproof a roof at 5339 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Bradenton, Florida, in accordance with specifications originally attached to the contract but not introduced at hearing. See Petitioner's Exhibit #4. To waterproof the roof, a concrete material was applied to the existing roof. On June 25, 1980, SRWI contracted with Maynard Howe to waterproof a roof over the family room in accordance with attached specifications at 2271 Mill Terrace, Sarasota, Florida. The only warranty given was the separate standard warranty to be delivered at the time of final payment. See Petitioner's Exhibits #7A and #7B. To waterproof the roof, a concrete material was applied to the existing roof. All of these contracts provided that SRWI would apply MARKEM Elastic Waterproofing material so that said roof areas were completely covered and free of all leaks. See Petitioner's Exhibits #9A, #9B and #9C for data concerning MARKEM. After the work was completed, each of the roofs in question leaked. When Respondent was contacted after he had left SRWI, he advised each of the persons that he had left the company and could not assist them. Respondent referred them back to SRWI, MARKEM or the company who became the MARKEM distributors in the area. None of the persons obtained relief from SRWI, the Respondent, MARKEM or MARKEM's new distributor. See Transcript of proceedings, pages 16, 25, 34. Howe sued SRWI and served Respondent with suit papers. In response, Respondent sent Howe a notarized document (Petitioner's Exhibit #6), which states that as of December 15, 1980, Respondent had resigned as president of SRWI and had transferred all of his stock to Don Cogswell. On October 14, 1980, SRWI contracted with Catherine Gilligan to waterproof her roof at 4819 Graywood Lane Meadows, Sarasota, Florida. See Petitioner's Exhibit #12. Gilligan paid SRWI $174 as partial payment on this contract. SRWI never did any work pursuant to the contract. Gilligan called SRWI, but to her knowledge never spoke to the Respondent concerning when SRWI was to start the job. Gilligan waited for one month, then called SRWI every day for three weeks. In the fourth week, SRWI's telephone was disconnected. This date reasonably coincides with the date Respondent resigned, December 15, 1980. No evidence was received of disciplinary action against SRWI or the Respondent by Sarasota County.
Recommendation Having found Respondent Robert W. Copenhaver guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board suspend the registration of Respondent as a general contractor for one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 21st day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert W. Copenhaver 2409 34th Street, West Bradenton, Florida 33505 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondents, Leslie Dickens and Dickens Land Clearing & Rock World, Inc., violated Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") rules that require a notice to be filed with the Department and an asbestos investigation conducted before a building is demolished; and if so, whether Respondents should pay the administrative penalties that are demanded by the Department.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent Leslie Dickens is an individual and President of Dickens Land Clearing & Rock World, Inc., which is an inactive, dissolved Florida corporation whose office was 9000 Panama City Beach Parkway, Panama City, Florida. On or about June 4, 2010, Respondents demolished a commercial building located at 2900 West 10th Street, Panama City. Respondents did not file a Notice of Demolition or Asbestos Renovation form with the Department before the building was demolished. At the time of the demolition, the building had been vacant for many years. The building had already been stripped of floor tiles, sheet rock walls, and insulation. Mr. Dickens testified that there was no asbestos in the building at the time of the demolition. However, Mr. Dickens did not conduct a thorough investigation to determine whether any asbestos was present. Instead, Mr. Dickens relied on an analysis that had been performed in 1996 by EnviroChem, Inc., that shows two samples from the building were analyzed for asbestos and no asbestos was detected. This analysis was admitted into evidence over the Department's relevance objection as Respondents' Exhibit 1. The document is relevant to the issue of whether the penalties assessed by the Department should be mitigated. Exhibit 1 does not demonstrate that a thorough investigation was conducted to determine whether any asbestos existed in the building at the time of the demolition. The Department does not know whether the building ever contained any asbestos.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, Respondent, Juan Rodriguez, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C005171. Respondent was licensed as an individual and not as the qualifying agent of any corporation or other business organization. At all times material hereto, Henry Pena was the sole officer and director of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., a Florida corporation. Neither Henry Pena nor U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Pena"), were registered, certified, or otherwise qualified under the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent was clearly aware of Pena's lack of licensure.1 The Zapata job Pertinent to this case, Oscar and Consuelo Zapata owned a one-story commercial building located at 59 Beacom Boulevard, Miami, Florida. On August 1, 1996,2 Mr. Pena, on behalf of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., and Mr. Zapata entered into an agreement whereby U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. would replace the roof on the building in exchange for an agreed price of $18,200. A first payment of $8,000 was to be paid after the first inspection, and the balance of $10,200 was to be paid following the final inspection. Later in the month of August, Mr. Pena presented a building and zoning permit application, as well as a request for permit, to Mr. Zapata (as owner of the property) for signature. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) Following Mr. Zapata's signing, Mr. Pena delivered the forms to Respondent who signed as the contractor. Thereafter, on or about September 3, 1996, Respondent submitted the forms to the City of Miami to obtain a building permit for the re-roofing job. Respondent was not then, nor was he ever, under contract to make improvements to the Zapata property, and his sole involvement was to obtain a permit so Pena could proceed with the job. The permit was issued on or about September 5, 1996.3 On September 17, 1996, Pena began work on the roof, and ceased work the same day when the roof collapsed.4 With the discovery that Pena was not licensed or insured, Mr. Zapata ultimately contracted with another company (that was licensed) to re-roof the building for $16,000. That contract was duly fulfilled, and the re-roofing of the Zapata building was accomplished (notwithstanding the roof collapse) without financial loss to the Zapatas.5 Respondent's lapse of insurance coverage Respondent's liability and property damage insurance policy was terminated June 25, 1996, and was not reinstated until September 19, 1996. Respondent does not dispute the lapse in insurance coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 10, and Transcript, at pages 76-77, and 80-81.) The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, the Department offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totalled $306.09, as of January 27, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Previous disciplinary action On January 18, 1996, the Department entered a final order which found the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint issued March 25, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In that complaint, the Department charged (in Count I) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, "by performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, if the cerfificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and unregistered," and (in Count II) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, "by being found guilty of fraud, deceit, or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting." Such charges were premised on a renovation contract Respondent held wherein he "subcontracted Nelson Echeverria [who was not a state licensed electrical contractor] to perform electrical work at customer's home for approximately $4,500.00." The final order found Respondent guilty of the charges, and imposed an administrative fine of $1,500 and costs of $1,433.03, to be paid within 30 days. On March 8, 1996, Respondent's license was suspended for failure to satisfy the penalty imposed by the final order; however, the penalty was then apparently satisfied and on June 19, 1996, the suspension was lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such violations, an administrative fine in the sum of $5,000; assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of $306.09; and, suspending Respondent's licensure for a period of one year, followed by a two-year term of probation subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 12th day of May, 1999.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the amended administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Ronnie L. Barfield was registered as a roofing contractor and held a state contractor's license, No. RC 0039607. At some point, records reflected the license was inactive, but this was in error. In 1987, Jack Williams lived in the house at 3101 Kings Drive in Panama City, Florida. At all pertinent times the house belonged to Evelyn Rhoads, whose daughter Anna was once married to Mr. Williams. "[B]ack in 1987," (T.10) Mr. Williams contracted with respondent Barfield, on behalf of Ms. Rhoads, to re-roof the house. Doing business as Gulf Coast Roofing Co., Mr. Barfield estimated the work would cost $5,000, before seeing the house, but ultimately presented a bill for (and was paid) $13,922.56. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Respondent removed the existing shingles, replaced rotted portions of the decking near the chimney, installed four new skylights, installed a new drip edge or eave drip and put on new felt and fiberglass shingles. Any flashing there may have been around the chimney did not survive removal of the existing shingles. The eave drip, a strip of aluminum, "puckered" over the carport because the trusses were not uniform. At Mr. Williams' request, Mr. Barfield drove three nails through the eave drip into the fascia to flatten the metal out. Exposed to the elements, the heads of these galvanized nails rusted. On August 10, 1987, after Jack had moved out, Anna moved back in. She noticed "a lot of ridges, indentations and waves in the roof." T.16. (But this may have been nothing new. When a concrete slab foundation varies in height, so that the trusses are at different heights, it makes the roof uneven.) Waviness arising even after respondent's work would more likely have been because of poor attic ventilation than any dereliction by respondent. Anna Bartness, as she has been known since July of 1988, also noticed that the shingles capping the peak or ridge of the roof were loose and uneven. When inspected in January, ridge cap shingles were found attached with only a single nail, instead of two -- one on either side -- which is the industry standard. Eventually "the ridge cap came off it was in the yard." T.16. One of the skylights leaked, when it rained. Ms. Bartness sought Mr. Williams' assistance in locating respondent to tell him of the problems. Mr. Williams remembered getting "the telephone number where [respondent] could be reached." T.14. Whether Mr. Williams himself actually telephoned is not clear, but Ms. Bartness tried repeatedly to reach Mr. Barfield by telephone. Although she never succeeded, she left messages on a telephone answering machine and also left word with a secretary in Mr. Barfield's lawyer's office. A certified letter she mailed respondent was returned unclaimed. These efforts to reach Mr. Barfield may have coincided with time he spent in south Florida. Respondent had agreed "LABOR CARRIES A 5 YEAR WARRANTY." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. He did not learn of complaints about the work at 3101 Kings Drive until after Ms. Rhoads complained to the Department of Professional Regulation and the present proceedings began. But he had not offered to reimburse Ms. Rhoads or otherwise honor the warranty in any way, as of the time of the hearing. Giving up on Mr. Barfield, Ms. Bartness got estimates from two other roofers, David C. Stallnecker and Mayo= Rudd. Among other things, flanges around plumbing vents that had sustained damage from external sources required replacement, flashing needed to be installed around the chimney, wood there had again rotted, and ridge cap shingles needed removal and proper installation. Mr. Rudd charged her $710 for repairs he told her consisted of putting flashing around the chimney because there was none, reapplying tar or "bull," replacing a defective vent that was leaking into a skylight and, which she could see herself, replacing shingles on the roof ridge. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. On or about January 15, 1988, before these repairs, Mr. Stallnecker, like Mr. Rudd, found "no flashing on the chimney." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5; T. 44. When water began coming down the chimney in 1990, Ms. Bartness contracted with James Rutledge, doing business as Rutledge Roofing, to do additional work. He removed shingles around the chimney, replaced bad wood, installed a "membrane with plastic [r]oof cement for flashing against chimney," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, and replaced felt and shingles. Unless an owner instructs him not to, a reasonably prudent roofer would install flashing around a chimney that did not already have it before laying shingles there. T. 45. Testifying at hearing, Mr. Barfield never claimed that he installed flashing around the chimney. Nor did he ever say he saw flashing around the chimney. He said flashing was built in behind the brick. You couldn't see it . . . until you pulled the brick out. T. 70. On balance, however, his testimony suggested that he assumed there was flashing around the chimney, without ever seeing it. [T]he brick masons put the flashing on unless you go where they're building these 235 houses around here they would have nailed it on the side. You hardly wouldn't do that on a $200,000 house sitting on the water, I wouldn't think. I would think it would be built in. T. 71. However reasonable this assumption, and the unstated assumption that his crew had not (inadvertently) removed the flashing in taking off the existing roof, the evidence as a whole showed there was no flashing around the chimney by the time respondent's crew put down the new shingles.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board fine respondent five hundred dollars ($500). DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of January, 1991. Copies furnished to: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rowlett W. Bryant, Esquire 833 Harrison Avenue Panama City, FL 32402
The Issue Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints made to the Department for violations of the requirements of chapter 489, part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e) and 455.225, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to section 489.129(1), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for the violations set out in that section. At all times material to this case, Mr. Cote was a certified general contractor operating under License Number CGC006199 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Cote currently holds this license, and he has been a licensed general contractor since 1973. At all times material to this case, Mr. Cote was the licensed qualifying agent for JLC Enterprises, Inc. On January 12, 1995, Noel Mais, on behalf of Noel Mais Roofing, contracted with Judith Braun to re-roof property she owned located at 8914 Northwest 26th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price was $7,000.00, with $3,000.00 required as a down-payment, $3,000.00 to be paid after the roof was dried in, and $1,000.00 to be paid on completion of the project. Neither Mr. Cote nor JLC Enterprises, Inc., was a party to this contract. In late January, 1995, Mr. Mais approached Mr. Cote and requested that he apply for the necessary building permit from the City of Coral Springs. He provided to Mr. Cote a workers' compensation waiver and exemption, a Certificate of Insurance for general commercial liability insurance, and a Certificate of Competency issued by Broward County, Florida, with an expiration date of August 31, 1995. Mr. Mais also told Mr. Cote that he had submitted all of the papers necessary to register his Broward County Certificate of Competency with the state but had not yet received his registration. Mr. Cote relied on the documents and the representations of Mr. Mais regarding his registration status with the state. On or about February 1, 1995,1 Mr. Cote submitted an application to the City of Coral Springs for a building permit to re-roof property owned by Ms. Braun and located at 8914 Northwest 26th Court, Coral Springs, Florida, naming JLC Enterprises, Inc., as the contractor and identifying the estimated cost of the project at $7,000.00. Mr. Mais gave Mr. Cote $300.00 when he applied for the permit. Mr. Cote used $150.00 of this money to pay the permit application fee and $60.00 to pay for two re- inspections which had to be done on the roof. On or about February 17, 1995, the City of Coral Springs issued Permit Number 95-443.2 Mr. Mais commenced work on the project a few weeks after the contract was signed, but before Mr. Cote applied for the permit. According to Ms. Braun, Mr. Mais started "like gangbusters" and quickly stripped the old tiles off of the roof and applied the tar paper. After Mr. Cote agreed to apply for the permit, he told Mr. Mais not to work on the project until the permit was issued. According to Mr. Cote, Mr. Mais returned to work the day after the permit was issued and, the "next day," the job failed inspection because the nail spacing was not consistent with the new code. Mr. Mais re-nailed the roof according to code, but it failed re-inspection because the flashing was not painted. This was done, and the job passed a second re-inspection. Mr. Cote looked in on the job a couple of times after this and saw that nothing was being done. He contacted Mr. Mais and asked why he was not working on the project, and Mr. Mais told him that he was waiting for Ms. Braun to give him some money so he could buy the tiles. When Ms. Braun called Mr. Cote and complained that no tile had been delivered, he went to Mr. Mais's home and insisted that he "get some tile on that roof." The next day, Mr. Mais brought a load of tiles and piled them on the roof.3 Ms. Braun paid Noel Mais the $3,000.00 down-payment specified in the contract by a check dated January 12, 1995, the day the contract was executed. Then, notwithstanding the payment schedule stated in the contract, Ms. Braun paid Mr. Mais $3,000.00 by check dated January 25, 1995. She paid Mr. Mais the remaining $1,000.00 due under the contract by checks dated March 28 and 31, 1995, and April 13, 1995. After receiving full payment, Mr. Mais abandoned the job, and, when Ms. Braun told Mr. Cote she had paid Noel Mais in full for the job, Mr. Cote refused to finish the work because he had not received any portion of the payment. In November, 1995, Ms. Braun contracted with R. J. Chambers Roofing, Inc., to complete the work on her roof for $4,500.00. The work was completed, and she paid Mr. Chambers the contract price. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Cote knew that Mr. Mais was not registered with the State of Florida as a roofing contractor and that Mr. Cote stated on the permit application that his company, JLC Enterprises, Inc., was the contractor for the Braun re-roofing job even though he was not a party to the contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order finding that Jacques Cote violated section 489.129(1)(e) and (n), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $1,000.00, consisting of a $500.00 fine for each of the two violations; assessing the costs of investigating and prosecuting the violations; and requiring Mr. Cote to make restitution to Judith Braun in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1997.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is entitled to a credit for unit price work which was not performed under the contract. Whether the contractor is entitled to additional payment for the electrical work on the outside stairwells and interior modifications. Whether the contractor is entitled to additional payment for installing the 3-inch drain for the HVAC discharge. Whether the Respondent is entitled to access $3,750.00 in liquidated damages against the contractor for completing the project ten (10) days beyond the scheduled completion date.
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction Findings of fact 1 and 2 are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Credit for Unit Prices The findings of fact 3 through 28 contained in the Recommended Order are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference except for the following: That portion of finding of fact number 15 which states "Such a bid process does not enhance the competitive bidding process or benefit the public." This sentence is rejected in that it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The Hearing Office erroneously concluded that the inclusion of section 01026 in the bid specifications used by DNR for the Wakulla Springs Project was not in the best interest of the public. This section required that the unit price allowances be included in the base bid. The only evidence regarding the purpose of including the unit price allowances in the base bid was the testimony of Jerry Hicks. Mr. Hicks is a professional architect who has extensive experience in developing bid specifications for governmental contracts. [T. 170-171] Mr. Hicks was retained by DNR to develop the plans and specifications for the Wakulla Springs Project. [T. 173) Mr. Hicks testified that he placed the requirement that the unit price allowances be included in the base bid because the Department had a limited budget and he wanted to ensure that the Department would not be "caught at the end of the project short of funds." [T. 174] The purpose of the provision was to protect the state. [T. 174) The only evidence at the hearing indicated that the bid process used by the Department was to enhance the competitive bidding process and benefit the public by protecting the Department and ensuring the project would not go over budget. That portion of finding of fact number 26 which states: "Based on what he read, Mr. Gray did not think section 01026 required the unit price allowance to be included in the base bid." This sentence is rejected in that it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 01026 of the bid specifications states in pertinent part: The contractor shall provide in his base bid the following work related to unit prices and the separate asbestos abatement contract. A change order will be issued to credit the owner with the difference in cost or charge the owner with additional unit price quantity cost. (emphasis in original) Gray did not allege that bid specification section 01026 was unclear or that he misinterpreted it. Gray's argument was that he did not carefully read the bid specifications and that he assumed the project was a "turn-key" project. Gray's testimony indicates that when Gray carefully read the bid specifications, he agreed that the unit price allowances were suppose to be part of the base bid. When asked on direct examination if there was any reference in the bid specifications concerning unit price allowances and the inclusion of these figures in the base bid, Gray answered that there was, but "they were stuck back in another section." [T. 224] During the cross examination of Mr. Gray, the following testimony was elicited: [T. 266] Q: That is not the question. When you read [the bid specifications document), you just didn't read it carefully. You missed this section [01026]. The section was in there. Did you dismiss it? A: I guess I dismissed it. The evidence clearly indicates that Mr. Gray understood section 01026 of the bid specifications to require unit price allowances in his base bid, but he either did not read the bid specifications or he did not follow them. There is no evidence to the contrary. Gray made a mistake because he did not read the bid specifications carefully and made assumptions about the nature of the project, not because the specifications were unclear. The Hearing Officer erred in concluding that Gray found the bid specifications unclear because it is contrary to the evidence and the assertions of Gray himself. The following findings of fact are adopted in addition to those delineated by the Hearing Officer: Section 01026 of the bid specifications clearly states that the unit price allowances are to be included in the base bid. contract. Petitioner completed $442,992.00 worth of work on the initial Stairwell Amendment Findings of fact 29 through 38 are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference in their entirety. The HVAC Drain Findings of fact 39 through 43 are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference in their entirety. Liquidated Damages Findings of fact 44 through 49 are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference in their entirety. Prejudgment Interest Findings of fact 50 and 51 are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Conclusions These conclusions are based upon all of the Findings of Fact made heretofore. The standard upon which the award of prejudgment interest is the definability of the amount in controversy. In Bergen Brunswig Corporation v. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765, the First District Court of Appeal said, " in Florida there has evolved a principle that prejudgment interest may be awarded when damages are a fixed sum or an amount readily ascertainable by simple calculation . . . . However, we now determine that the better view is expressed in the case of Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So.2d 562 (Fla. 4DCA 1975), where the court held that, for the purpose of assessing prejudgment interest, a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date." Using either test, Petitioner is entitled to prejudgment interest because the amount of money at issue was defined by the contract or by the proposed change order. All parties were always aware of the exact amounts in the change order claims, and all parties knew that the money was due Petitioner after the contract was completed on August 20, 1990. The parties even stipulated to the amounts in controversy: the amount withheld by the Respondent for unit price work is stipulated to be $33,444.60, and the amount due and unpaid on the claim for the HVAC drain was $1,014.85. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to prejudgment interest on certain amounts owed him by the Respondent at the statutory rate of 12 percent. The computation of the amount of interest due is ministerial. The damages per day for each day of delay were fixed by the contract at $250.00 per day; however, the number of days involved was subject to evidentiary determination. The excess amount withheld for damages for not finishing on time is $750.00. See "Delay" above. The $750.00 is not subject to prejudgment interest.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that the Respondent pay the Petitioner $750.00, plus $34,459.45, and prejudgment interest on the $34,459.45 in the amount of 12 percent per annum since August 20, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 16th_ day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0257 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected; not a fact. Subsumed in paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. 3-4. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 15 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as irrelevant. Subsumed in finding on substantial completion in paragraph 46 of the Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted. Subsumed in paragraphs 6, 8, and 11 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as part of paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. The facts on the amounts of the total contract were unnecessary because the amount in controversy and the amount withheld were stipulated to or presented as facts. Adopted as paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 17 of the Recommended Order. 18-19. Subsumed in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Recommended Order. 20. Adopted as paragraph 19 of the Recommended Order. 21-22. Subsumed in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Recommended Order. 23-26. Subsumed in paragraph 47 of the Recommended Order. 27-28. Adopted as paragraphs 18 and 21 of the Recommended Order. 29. Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 28 states the amount in controversy. 30-31. Adopted as paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. 32. Rejected as irrelevant. 33-34. Adopted as paragraphs 4 and 12 of the Recommended Order. 35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Adopted as paragraphs 4 and 12 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 26 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. 41-43. Adopted as paragraph 24 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 25 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts. Adopted as paragraph 26 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 27 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 26 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted as paragraph 29 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 30 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 31 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 32 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 33 of the Recommended Order. Adopted. Adopted as paragraph 36 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 35 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 38 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 39 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 40 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts. Adopted as paragraph 40 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts. Adopted as paragraph 44 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 69-70. Adopted as paragraph 47 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 48 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts regarding HVAC. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Ken Plante, Esq. General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Michael F. Coppins, Esq. DOUGLASS, COOPER, ET AL. 211 East Call Street Box 1674 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1674 Lynne Chapman, Esq. Kelly Brewton, Esq. Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard MS-35, Douglas Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be disciplined because he aided or abetted an uncertified or unregistered person, knowingly combined or conspired with an uncertified or unregistered person by allowing his certificate or registration to be used by an uncertified or unregistered person with the intent to evade Chapter 489; acted in the capacity of a contractor under an unregistered or uncertified name; engaged in fraud, deceit, or gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting as alleged, in violation of Subsections 489.129(1)(e),(f),(g) and (m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility to investigate construction activities in Florida and, where indicated, to file Administrative Complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material, Respondent, Richard L. Melvin, was licensed as a general contractor, having been issued license number CG C022926. During times material, Respondent did not qualify Jeffrey Gaston or Tropical Exteriors & Services, Inc. (TESI), nor did said entity or contractor's name appear on Respondent's license. During times material, Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI, was never licensed nor qualified to do business as a contractor in Florida. During times material, Respondent was not a licensed roofing contractor. On or about March 31, 1987, Jeffrey Gaston contracted with Deborah and Clinton Weber to repair a roof and renovate a bathroom at their residence for the sum of $5,000.00. Respondent's name, license number, address and telephone number was listed on the Gaston/Weber contract. Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI entered into a contract with Wilfred Butler on January 12, 1987, to replace a back porch at his residence. Respondent's general contractor's license number was listed at the top of the agreement between Gaston-TESI/Butler. Checks drawn by Butler were made payable to Respondent/TESI. Respondent obtained a permit for Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI for the Butler project. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Respondent admitted to authorizing Gaston or TESI to use his name and certificate number on contracts. Respondent was aware of approximately 20 contracts and several other permits wherein Gaston/TESI obtained the contracts or permits by using Respondent's name and license number. Respondent admitted receiving approximately $2,000.00 for supervising TESI. Respondent never disassociated himself from Jeffrey Gaston until May 31, 1987. Petitioner introduced ten contracts for work in Pinellas County from December 1986 to May 1987, with Respondent's name and state certification number with Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI listed as the contractor. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) Respondent obtained a permit for Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI for the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the Stitches' home situated at 111 Aurora Avenue North, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent did not supervise the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the Stitch's residence. Respondent, as a general contractor, is responsible for all phases of work for which he contracted for and/or obtained permits. Respondent was aware that Jeffrey Gaston was not a licensed contractor in Florida. Jimmy Jimenez has never been a licensed contractor in Florida. J & J Construction Company was qualified in February 1988, under Respondent's license number, CG C022926. Thereafter, during February 1989, J & J Construction was qualified under Respondent's license number RC 0058448. Respondent did not attempt to qualify J & J Construction until he was cautioned by Petitioner's investigators Steven Pence and Dennis Force, that his construction activities amounted to "aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor." On or about December 11, 1987, Wiley Parks, Jr., entered into a contract with J & J Construction to perform construction work and remodel a home for Parks located at 1722 West Arch Street, Tampa, Florida. In conjunction with that contract, a second contract was submitted by J & J Construction for Mr. Parks, although unbeknownst to him, which utilized Respondent's name and contractor's license number at the top of the agreement. Wiley Parks spent a great deal of his time observing the construction and remodeling work by J & J. Respondent was only seen by Wiley Parks when they met at a local bank to cash a check which represented a draw submitted by Respondent for construction work done at the Arch Street construction project. Respondent obtained a permit for the Parks job on January 6, 1988, which was prior to the time he qualified J & J Construction as the entity through which he would conduct construction business. Respondent, although required to do so, never called for a final inspection on the Parks job. The floor joists at the Parks job were disapproved by the Hillsborough County Building Department and were never repaired by Respondent. Employees of J & J were observed working at the Parks job site on January 4 and 8, 1988. Respondent was, on two occasions, the subject of prior disciplinary action by Petitioner during 1987. On one occasion, probable cause was found on August 12, 1987 and the case was closed by issuing a letter of guidance to Respondent. On the second occasion, probable cause was found on October 7, 1987. Final action was taken on February 11, 1988, whereby an administrative fine of $1,000.00 was imposed against Respondent or, alternatively, a 30-day suspension of his license. Respondent paid the administrative fine within the allotted time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent's general contractor's license number CG C022926 be REVOKED. 1/ RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 March, 1990.
