The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner is eligible to sit for the Professional Engineers examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. On December 12, 1983, Petitioner, Craig S. Smith, made application to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to sit for the April, 1984 professional engineering examination. Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, reviewed Petitioner's application in their meeting on February 19, 1984 and denied his reguest to sit for the April, 1984 examination. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to qualify under the ten-year provision which requires ten years of experience in engineering pursuant to Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, and Rule chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. The Board determined that Petitioner did not satisfy the requisite experience in the areas of engineering, responsible charge and engineering design. Specifically, Respondent determined that Petitioner had 82 months of creditable service toward the 120 month requirement and no experience in the area of engineering design. Petitioner's application reveals that he was employed by Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc., 6784 Northwest 17 Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida from May, 1971 to May, 1973 in the position of a driller crew chief. His professional duties during that period include the following: subsurface investigations for foundation design; securing and classifying subsurface samples in accordance with standard procedures of ASTM and AASHTO; overall responsibility for drilling operations and sampling equipment (standard penetration tests using either split barrel sampler, shelby tube, hollow stem flight auger, steel casing, drilling mud and rock coring, when required). From May, 1973 to January, 1979, Petitioner was employed by the same employer but held the position of laboratory and field engineering technician. His specific job duties include various construction sampling, testing and inspection as follows: ASPHALT asphaltic design mixes conforming to Florida Department of Transportation and FAA criteria; quantitative extraction of bitumen from bitumen paving mixtures; bulk specific gravity of compacted bituminious mixtures; compressive strength of bituminious mixtures; sampling bituminious paving mixtures; sampling bituminious materials; (o) bituminious mixing plant inspections; coating and stripping of bitumen-aggregate; determining degree of particle coating of bituminous-aggregate mixtures: maximum specific gravity of bituminous paving mixtures; specific gravity of solid pitch and asphalt displacement; determining degree of pavement compaction of bituminous paving mixtures; resistance to plastic flow of bituminous mixtures using marshall apparatus; resistance to deformation and cohesion of bituminous mixtures by means of hveem apparatus. CONCRETE compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens; making and curing concrete compressive and flexural strength specimens in the field and laboratory; obtaining and testing drilled cores and sawed beams of concrete; flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with third point loading); slump of Portland cement concrete; weight per cubic foot, yield, and air content (gravimetric) of concrete; (q) sampling fresh concrete; measuring length of drilled concrete cores; air content of freshly mixed concrete by the pressure method; securing, preparing and testing specimens of lightweight insulating concrete; air content of freshly mixed concrete by the volumetric method; checking approximate strength of hardened concrete by the Swiss hammer method; cement content of hardened Portland cement concrete; specific gravity, absorption and voids in hardened concrete; inspection and testing agencies for concrete materials as used in construction. SOILS investigating and sampling soils and rocks for engineering purposes; dry preparation of disturbed soil and soil aggregate samples for test; particle size analysis of soils; determining the liquid limit of soils; determining the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils; determining the field moisture equivalent of soils; moisture-density relations of soils using a 5.5 lb. rammer and a 12 in. drop; specific gravity of soils; moisture-density relations of soil-cement mixture; cement content of soil cement mixture; wet preparation of disturbed soil samples for test; moisture-density relations of soils using a 10 lb. rammer and an 18 in. drop; density of soil in place by the sand-cone method; the California bearing ratio, the line-rock bearing ratio; unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil; permeability of granular soils (constant head) one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils; repetitive and nonrepetitive static plate load tests of soils and flexible pavement components, for use in evaluation and design of airport and highway pavements; determination of moisture in soils by means of a calcium carbide gas pressure moisture tester; bearing capacity of soil for static load on spread footings; density and moisture content of soil and soil- aggregate in-place by nuclear methods (shallow depth); classification of soils and soil aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes; determining the Florida bearing ratio test (Florida Department of Transportation) determining the calcium carbonate content for base course materials (Florida Department of Transportation). AGGREGATES sampling stone, slag, gravel, sand, and stone block for use as highway materials; amount of material finer than 0.075 mm sieve in aggregate; unit weight of aggregate; voids in aggregate for concrete; organic impurities in sands for concrete; sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates; mechanical analysis of extracted aggregate; sieve analysis of mineral filler; specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate; specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate; resistance to abrasion of small size coarse aggregate by use of the Los Angeles abrasion machine; soundness of aggregate by use of sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate; clay lumps and friable particles in aggregates; lightweight pieces in aggregate; surface moisture in fine aggregate; reducing field samples of aggregate to testing size; total moisture content of aggregate by drying. MISCELLANEOUS percent of elongation, yield and tensile strength of steel members; compressive strength of hollow load bearing masonry units; inspection tests, including the inspection of pressure grout to insure proper distribution for foundation design; inspection and testing agencies for reinforced concrete culvert, storm drain and sewer pipe as used in construction; inspection and testing amenies for precast and prestress oiling members; From January of 1979 through January of 1982, Respondent held the position of supervisor for the same employer, Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc. During that period, he was in charge or was otherwise overall responsible for field and laboratory operations, prepared engineering reports, analyses, recommendations and design for various construction projects; Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport-Resurface Requisition No. 14905 and No. 29019 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport- ADAP No. 06-12-0025-10 R/W and T/W Improvements and Resurfacing Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport - ADAP No. 06-12-0025-11 R/W and T/W Improvements and Resurfacing Key West International Airport - ADAP No. 06-12-0037-08 Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Project No. 7155 City of Fort Lauderdale Parking Garage Project No. 7071 City of Fort Lauderdale 5 Ash Waste Water Treatment Plant Project No. 7642 From January of 1982 to the present time, Respondent formed his own company and holds the position as President of that firm (Eastcoast Testing and Engineering, Inc., 430 Northwest Flagler Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301). Respondent is responsible for all phases of construction materials, testing, analysis, inspections, evaluations, quality control and quality assurance. The laboratory personnel and facilities of Eastcoast Testing and Engineering, Inc. has been inspected by the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards. It is accredited by the Department of Commerce, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for selected test methods of freshly mixed field concrete. Eastcoast was awarded the annual testing contract for the City of Fort Lauderdale during its first year of operation. During his tenure as an employee of Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc., Petitioner planned and implemented testing programs for the purpose of developing design criteria; implemented investigation and testing programs for the purpose of determining the cause of failures; prepared reports documenting material test data; and assisted in the preparation of reports for engineering evaluation under the guidance of a professional engineer. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) For Petitioner's experience at Florida Testing during the period 1971 to 1973, Respondent determined that "zero time" was credited for that experience based on the Board's determination that Petitioner's work was more a "technician's job than engineering-related job." (Testimony of Board member William B. Bradley, Tr. page 16.) For Petitioner's experience during the period Nay, 1973 to January, 1979, Respondent allotted fifty percent or 34 of the 68 months experience that Petitioner served in that position. The Board determined that the "in-house testing" would have a lot more association with normal engineering procedures than Petitioner's earlier work. (Tr. 17.) The Board considered the technical testing and reporting thereof that took place in the laboratories was more responsible for engineering and, therefore, creditable as opposed to Petitioner's field work. (Tr. 17-18.) Again, for the period 1979 through 1992, Respondent gave Petitioner 59 percent credit for a total of 18 months of the 3 years in question. For the period 1979 through 1982, the Board determined that Petitioner was not essentially doing anything different but, rather, that he was "in charge of people now; he is preparing engineering reports here which I assume Mr. Winterholler signed." For that service, Petitioner was given credit for 18 of those 36 months. From the period of January, 1982 to the present time, the Board gave Petitioner 199 percent credit because, as President of his own firm, he would be more involved and would have more responsibility for the actions of his testing laboratory and, therefore, entitled to full credit for that time. (Testimony of Bradley at Tr. page 21.) Finally, Mr. Bradley determined that be saw no design engineering in the Petitioner's submissions because designing is "actually putting onto paper what's going to be there." (Tr. page 29.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding Petitioner eligible to sit for the next regularly scheduled Professional Engineers examination based on his compliance with the ten (10) year requirement of Subsection 471.013(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William Everett Warriner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) in June, 1982. This portion of the examination is a twelve-hour sketch problem involving design and site consideration in which the applicant is graded on his or her design solution to the program requirements furnished, which are identical for each candidate at a given examination, on the basis or certain stated criteria, by trained graders who are registered architects. The examination is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida, as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by NCARB. The examination involves the design of a structure, in this case a small municipal airport terminal building, by an applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, facades, floor plans, and other aspects. The applicant is supplied with a preexamination booklet which sets forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the actual examination, the applicant is furnished other information to enable him to more adequately design the facility and demonstrate his command of the architectural requirements. In general, the examination was designed to require the applicant to design a solution to the site plan and the building design problems submitted to him by NCARB. The pertinent portion of the examination allows the examination graders to determine whether an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural design, technical aesthetic, energy, and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the candidate's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of several states, who are given training by NCARB in an effort to, as much as is possible, standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each reviewer then assesses the product submitted by candidates/examinees on a "blind grading" basis, that is without knowledge of the identity or geographical origin of the submitter, or of the grade assigned the product by other reviewers/graders. The graders assess the product with a view toward identifying areas of strength or weakness within an overall determination of satisfaction and assign a holistic numerical score ranging from "0" (fail) to "4" (pass). Grades "1" (incomplete) and "2" (poor) are failing grades, and grades "3" (minimally acceptable) and "4" (good) are passing grades. If grades "1" or "2" are awarded, the graders are required to indicate the examinee's weakness, but these indications of weakness must not be arbitrary. All solutions are graded by three examiners, except those solutions to which a "0" has been given by one examiner. Solutions which are not clearly passing or failing are graded by a fourth examiner. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive passing grades from at least two examiners, who independently grade his solution to the problem. A passing grade, as was stated above, is defined as a holistic grade of "3" or "4" as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner received a grade of "2", which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination. Though the Petitioner demonstrated an effort to comply with the criteria set forth in the examination and indicated in each area identified as weak on the examination grade report wherein he felt he had achieved the desired goal and standard, Mr. Burke, a registered architect and a member of the Florida Board of Architecture, identified several material areas wherein the Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. In the Site Planning and Site Design area, Petitioner has not shown any details as to how handicapped individuals would get across the median in the parking area in that there is no showing of a ramp from the pavement over the curb and across the median, nor is there any showing of lighting over the curbs for the handicapped. Further, on the issue of service area location, as drawn by Petitioner, this layout would require all service vehicles to pass in front of the airport through passenger traffic to get to the service cut for the service drive, which, in itself, is located too close to the baggage handling area. In addition, the site aesthetics were deficient in completeness and clarity in that landscaping was not shown, nor was appropriate consideration given to water flow and drainage. Additional deficiencies were demonstrated in the areas of building planning and design. The functional relationships of programmed areas were basically accomplished, but major problems exist in the general lobby area. While the test problem calls for the display area to be in the general lobby area, in Petitioner's solution, they are away from the ticket area and somewhat hidden. Those facilities which need exposure do not get it. Pedestrian circulation between the baggage claim area and the lobby exits is obstructed by the location of the car rental booths. In addition, traveling from the deplaning area on the second floor to the baggage claim area on the ground floor is made too difficult. The solution's conformity to barrier-free requirements is weak. There is little or insufficient protection from the elements at the entrances and exits. The solution's requirement for 74-foot trusses in the terminal creates excessive wasted volume in the attic area, and the overall form is awkward. In addition, one page of the problem is not completed, and emergency exits are not shown as required. In the section involving technical aspects of the plan, the first two sub-areas were marked weak primarily because of the incompleteness of the technical plan for the foundation. Further, only a very few technical notes appear on the solution, providing insufficient information, and the use of wood for a public building is dangerous. Petitioner disagrees with his grade and presented evidence to show that his failure was a marginal one. He feels he has rebutted approximately 75 percent of the failing items and passed the written part of the examination (Part B) on the first attempt. He has been involved in residential design for twelve years and has considerable experience. He feels the comment on the handicap ramps is valid, but that is only one part of the problem. There is sufficient other provision made for the handicapped in his solution. The lobby displays would have the least likelihood of being seen if placed in the ticket area as suggested. He opines that the covered walkways over the two major entrances are sufficient, and it would be superfluous to have covers over every door. Repeated rebuttal, such as those items listed, display Petitioner's difference of opinion with the grade assigned his problem, but not that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States. Also, his excuse for incompleteness that he only had twelve hours in which to complete the problem is invalid. The same time was allotted all candidates, including those who passed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June 1982 architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. William Everett Warriner 305 North East Fifth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Board of Architecture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for the answer given in the General Contractor Examination, Contract Administration, Question No. 3, thus improving his grade and allowing him to pass the examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a candidate to be licensed as a general contractor in Florida, took the General Contracting Examination on June 29 and 30, 1993. The examination instrument was prepared by the National Assessment Institute through an agreement with Respondent to prepare and deliver the examination to determine minimal competence of candidates as a perquisite to licensure in the field of general contracting in Florida. The examination that was given was constituted of two parts. Part I was Contract Administration. Part II was Project Management. To be a successful candidate one must have scored a minimum grade of 70 on each part. Petitioner received a score of 67 in the Contract Administration part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the score received on Question No. 3 within that part. If his challenge is successful he will have passed that part and the overall examination. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 contains the examination question, possible answers, correct answer and solution to the problem. To assist Petitioner and other candidates in preparing for the examination Respondent provided a candidate information booklet. The candidate information booklet explained the subject matter about which the candidates would be examined, the purpose of examination and the method of grading the examination. In addition Petitioner and other candidates were provided a general building and residential building reference list to assist in answering the questions in the examination instrument. Finally, the candidates were reminded that some questions were based upon field experience and knowledge of trade practices within the construction business. Having in mind the preparatory information, Petitioner believes the correct answer to Question No. 3 is (D), whereas the answer called for in the examination instrument is (C). Petitioner places emphasis on the belief that field experience and knowledge of trade practices would have caused the candidate to conclude that (D) was the proper answer. Moreover, Petitioner has placed emphasis on the means the Respondent employs to ascertain the propriety of the examination challenge. Those factors are in turn: Was the item clearly and unambiguously worded? Was enough information presented to allow you to select the correct response? Did approved reference materials support the correct response? Were all current techniques taken into account when the correct response was determined? Did responding correctly to the item require knowledge which was beyond the scope of knowledge that should be expected of the candidate for licensure? With this information as the background Petitioner has also included his drawings within Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, which Petitioner describes as "what went on in Petitioner's mind after reviewing said examination question", considered in the context of associated examination drawings and specifications provided to assist in the solution and as found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The examination question at issue referred the candidate to the drawings and specifications found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The candidate was then directed to prepare formwork to substitute concrete for concrete masonry in elevator shaft walls depicted in the drawings and specifications. The candidate was told the labor cost per square foot for erecting forms for the "concrete contact surface area". The candidate was reminded of the dimensions of the formed openings for the elevator door. The candidate was told to assume that the form work abutted boxed columns located at the intersections of certain grid lines and to deduct measurements for door openings and to include forms for door jams and headers. With these assumptions in mind the candidate was provided four possible answers as the labor costs to erect the forms for the elevator shaft wall between the finished second and third floor elevations. To arrive at the solution the candidate need only perform mathematical calculations consistent with the instructions. The correct answer is depicted in the solution to Question No. 3 found in Respondent's Exhibit 1. By performing the proper calculation, the correct answer is (C). The question was unambiguous and the solution obvious. Nothing in the question or the pre-examination explanations made from Respondent to Petitioner called for reference to the fire code in arriving at the answer to Question No. Therefore, it was inappropriate for Petitioner to try and calculate the answer by attempting to ascertain the appropriate material for boxing the column associated with the elevator shaft taking into account fire code requirements. Petitioner assumed the necessity to utilize fire retardant materials to encase the boxed column located at the intersection of grid lines D and 3 as the column abutted the formwork that was described in the problem. Placement of fire retardant material around the column was not necessary and contributed to Petitioner's miscalculation of the answer to the question. Moreover, in Petitioner's calculation, contrary to the instructions which said to assume that the form work abutted the boxed column at the intersection of grid lines D and 3, Petitioner made his calculations along the centerline and not as these surfaces abutted. This meant that the lineal footage determination should have been 35 and not 36 as calculated by the Petitioner. Petitioner also calculated by using two headers and two jams pertaining to the doorway on the second floor to the elevator. Only one header was required in that the bottom of the doorway was not an area where concrete was being poured which would require a form to hold the concrete in place while it was being poured. This caused the Petitioner's measurement to be 23 feet instead of the anticipated 19 foot measurement. In summary, it is the attempt to try and develop an answer which takes into account the fire code in boxing the column and the other errors in calculation specifically referred to here that led the Petitioner to obtain the incorrect answer.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which dismisses the Petitioner's challenge to the examination results and upholds the determination that Petitioner did not pass the General Contractor's Licensing Examination given on June 29 and 30, 1993. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 24th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6616 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 10 through 57 are rejected as they attempt to justify the Petitioner's choice of answers to Question No. 3 in the examination instrument. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Centola, Jr. 532 Ponte Vedra Boulevard Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Manuel Lanz graduated from the University of Illinois School of Architecture in December of 1971, with honors and high distinction in the area of design. He is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in Florida is composed of two parts. The written portion of the exam (Part B) is given in December, and petitioner passed this portion. The design and site portion of the exam (Part A) is given in June and consists of a twelve-hour sketch problem. Petitioner failed this portion of the examination in June of 1982, as he has done on two previous occasions. Part A of the examination is supplied to participating states by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and involves the design of a structure by an applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, cross sections, and floor plans. Applicants are provided with a preexamination booklet which sets forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which are to be addressed in order to achieve a passing grade. At the time of the examination, the applicant is given other information to enable him to more adequately design the structure and perform the necessary technical adjustments. Each participating state sends a number of graders to an intense two- day grading session sponsored by the NCARB. The purpose, of such sessions is to standardize the graders' conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each examination is graded on a blind basis by at least two independent architect graders. If the two separate grades received, when considered together, do not result in a definite pass or fail, a third, and on some occasions a fourth, independent grader will review the applicant's solution. The project to be designed in the 1952 Site Planning and Design Test was a municipal airport terminal building in a small city in the northwest. Applicants were provided with information as to the applicable topography and climate of the area, code requirements, space requirements, site circulation requirements and the various areas to be included within the building. The candidates were required to provide a site plan, a ground level plan-north elevation; a second level plan and a cross-section of the facility. Petitioner's solution to the problem was weak in many areas. Service, baggage and aircraft traffic were co-mingled. Accessibility for handicapped persons was not addressed. His solution failed to comply with the applicable building code requirements with regard to the number of exits required, the location of stairs and a fire sprinkler system. Petitioner also failed to comply with the requirements regarding square footage. His exit doors swung in the wrong direction and there was no means of exit from the kitchen other than through the dining room of the restaurant. His cross-sectional failed to indicate the location of beams and ducts for heating and cooling. There was no indication in the solution that petitioner gave any consideration to the program requirements of natural ventilation or natural lighting, or that he made any provision for noise from the aircraft. The flat roof provided by the petitioner would not accommodate the precipitation experienced in the area as described in the program. While an effort was made by the petitioner to comply with the program requirements, he failed in several material areas and some minor areas to achieve sufficient clarity in his presentation and to observe program requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying petitioner's application for licensure as an architect on the ground that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (304) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Silvio Lufriu, Esquire Suite 817 412 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Herbert Coons Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest (raw) score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420. Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations. Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving". Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations. Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation. Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption. In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation. Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale". The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable". The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct". The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc." The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error. The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the contract administration portion of the October 2000 General Contractor Examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner sat for the contract administration portion of the Florida certification examination for general contractors administered in October 2000 (Contract Administration Examination). The Contract Administration Examination consisted of 60 multiple-choice questions of equal value, worth a total of 100 points. To attain a passing score on the Contract Administration Examination, candidates needed to receive a total of 70 points. Of the 378 candidates who took the Contract Administration Examination, 156 received passing scores. Petitioner was not among this group of successful candidates. He received a failing score of 66.67 on the examination. Question 2 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that required the candidate to determine, based upon the information given, on what workday (not calendar day) the pouring of concrete footings for a residential construction project would begin. There was only one correct answer to this question. Approximately 50 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect because it represented the calendar day (not the workday) on which the pouring would begin. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 9 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's knowledge of the requirements of Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: A contractor shall subcontract all electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing, sheet metal, swimming pool, and air- conditioning work, unless such contractor holds a state certificate or registration in the respective trade category, however: A general, building, or residential contractor, except as otherwise provided in this part, shall be responsible for any construction or alteration of a structural component of a building or structure, and any certified general contractor or certified underground utility and excavation contractor may perform clearing and grubbing, grading, excavation, and other site work for any construction project in the state. Any certified building contractor or certified residential contractor may perform clearing and grubbing, grading, excavation, and other site work for any construction project in this state, limited to the lot on which any specific building is located. A general, building, or residential contractor shall not be required to subcontract the installation, or repair made under warranty, of wood shingles, wood shakes, or asphalt or fiberglass shingle roofing materials on a new building of his or her own construction. A general contractor shall not be required to subcontract structural swimming pool work. A general contractor, on new site development work, site redevelopment work, mobile home parks, and commercial properties, shall not be required to subcontract the construction of the main sanitary sewer collection system, the storm collection system, and the water distribution system, not including the continuation of utility lines from the mains to the buildings. A general contractor shall not be required to subcontract the continuation of utility lines from the mains in mobile home parks, and such continuations are to be considered a part of the main sewer collection and main water distribution systems. A solar contractor shall not be required to subcontract minor, as defined by board rule, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, or roofing work so long as that work is within the scope of the license held by the solar contractor and where such work exclusively pertains to the installation of residential solar energy equipment as defined by rules of the board adopted in conjunction with the Electrical Contracting Licensing Board. No general, building, or residential contractor certified after 1973 shall act as, hold himself or herself out to be, or advertise himself or herself to be a roofing contractor unless he or she is certified or registered as a roofing contractor. There was only one correct answer to this question. Approximately 65 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect inasmuch as a newly licensed general contractor is not free, pursuant to Section 489.113(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to install or repair wood shake roofs on existing buildings constructed by other contractors. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 29 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's ability to calculate, based upon the information given, the cost of delivering 28,000 lineal feet of #5 bars of reinforcing steel. There was only one correct answer to this question . Approximately 67 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 38 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's ability to distinguish between unit price contracts and other types of contracts, including lump sum contracts. Approximately 82 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the contract administration portion of the October 2000 certification examination for general contractors. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Richards 3802 Lakewood Road Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue is whether Oliver J. Turzak violated statutes and rules governing the practice of engineering as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Clerk of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the “Board”) on October 4, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint at issue was filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (“FEMC”) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and at all times material to these proceedings has been, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 18230. Respondent’s last known address is 5405 Water Street, New Port Richey, Florida 34652. On April 20, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive, New Port Richey, Florida (“Fish Residence Project”). On June 10, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated an engineering opinion letter (“Letter”) which was addressed and sent to Champion Foundation Repair, the entity which was Respondent’s client for the Fish Residence Project. The Letter stated in material part: [Respondent], whose signature appears below, has verified placement of twenty-seven (27) exterior piers and twenty-five (25) interior jack pins as located on the drawings by the same job number. The piers all achieved sufficient load bearing characteristics to transfer the house weight to the piers and to close cracks substantially and stabilize the foundation. The remediation program was developed according to geological data supplied by Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc., dated November 2007. Similar pier reports on numerous structures with similar problems have demonstrated long term success without additional settlement. Therefore, it is the opinion of the [Respondent] that the location has been repaired and stabilized and, further, that there is no evidence of new sinkhole activity at the location. In compliance with Florida Statute 627.707, the report and remediation program was prepared under the supervision of a Registered Professional, whose field of expertise is a Geo-Technical Engineer. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (“Responsibility Rules”). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-35. Professional engineers, who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules, are required to comply with those rules. Rule 61G15-30.002(1) mandates that Respondent, as the structural engineer of record, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared for the Fish Residence Project. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing a document that complies with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record of the Structure for the Fish Residence Project as that term is defined in rules 61G15-31.002(1) and 61G15-31.003(1). As such, all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in rule 61G15-31.002(5), as mandated by rule 61G15-31.001, setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(4) provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” Rule 61G15-19.001(4) also provides that: [F]ailure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility Rules as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with this section unless the deviation or departures therefrom are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the professional engineer. Respondent’s June 10, 2008, Letter is an engineering “certification” as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-18.011(4): statement signed and sealed by a professional engineer representing that the engineering services addressed therein, as defined in section 471.005(6), F.S., have been performed by the professional engineer, and based upon the professional engineer’s knowledge, information and belief, and in accordance with commonly accepted procedures consistent with applicable standards of practice, . . . . “Certifications” are subject to the standards set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-29.001, which require that if an engineer is presented with a “certification” that “involve[s] matters which are beyond the engineer’s scope of services actually provided” that the engineer must “decline to sign . . . such certification.” Section 471.033(1)(a) provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for “[v]iolating . . . [a] rule of the [B]oard.” Section 471.033(1)(e) provides, in material part, that a professional engineer is subject to discipline for “[m]aking or filing a report or record that the licensee knows to be false” when the report is “signed in the capacity of a licensed engineer.” Rule 61G15-19.001(6) provides that: A professional engineer shall not commit misconduct in the practice of engineering. Misconduct in the practice of engineering as set forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., shall include, but not be limited to: * * * (b) Being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report, statement, or testimony whether or not under oath or omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report, statement or testimony when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, employer or the general public; . . . . The Fish Residence In 2007, the residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive in New Port Richey, Florida (the “Fish Residence”), experienced structural damage from subsidence in the ground underlying the home. As a result, a claim was made to Fish’s insurance company, and an investigation was commenced. Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. (“CFTL”), a geotechnical engineering firm, performed an in-depth analysis and found, in a signed, sealed, and dated engineering report issued on November 20, 2007, that the subsidence was likely caused by a number of factors, including sinkhole activity. As a result, the Fishes hired a contractor, Champion Foundation Repair (“Champion”) to remediate the damage. Champion hired Respondent to perform the engineering services necessary to obtain a permit for the remediation, inspect the construction, and complete a report certifying the adequate completion of the work. Respondent had a long history of providing similar services to Champion in the past, having performed engineering services in over 200 projects for Champion. Respondent created, signed, sealed, and dated on April 20, 2008, a Settlement Stabilization Plan (“Plan”), which formed the design basis for the work Champion carried out. Well into the project, the Fishes became dissatisfied with the work done by Champion. Champion was terminated as the contractor before the work was finalized and before Respondent was able to perform a final inspection of the property. Litigation was commenced and Bracken Engineering (“Bracken”), a forensic structural/civil engineering firm was engaged to perform an investigation of the work performed by Champion and Respondent for the pending litigation. Bracken issued a lengthy engineering report (“Bracken Report”), under engineering seal, on June 20, 2011. The Bracken Report found Respondent’s Plan deficient, that Respondent was not adequately knowledgeable about the site, that Champion’s implementation of the Plan, and Champion’s construction work as a whole was flawed and inadequate. Subsequent to the issuance of the Bracken Report, a complaint was filed with the Board, and these proceedings were initiated. Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence Roger Jeffery opined that the Plan failed to meet required engineering standards. The parties agree that when a structure, such as the Fish Residence Project, is initially built, the loads are directly transferred to the foundation, which then transfers the loads directly and uniformly as a continuously supported structure to the underlying soil. However, when, as occurred in this case, the structure’s loads are no longer transferred directly and uniformly to the ground through the foundation, but are transferred through pins which underlie the foundation, the foundation itself now acts as a beam or beams and is subject to the stresses applied to the beams. Respondent asserted that the foundation load would remain continuous, and therefore stable, since grouting had been poured under the Fish Residence to consolidate and stabilize the soils. However, Respondent’s plan did not call for grouting to be used. Moreover, according to the Bracken Report, no grouting was ever placed under the Fish Residence, even though it was called for in the CFTL Report to stabilize the structure. Respondent’s failure to perform a final inspection resulted in an inaccurate assumption and opinion. Respondent’s claim that grouting placed in the void under the structure reconstituted the original soil conditions is rejected, especially in light of the fact that Respondent also analyzed the pins and foundation in a beam configuration--a simple span beam. Further, Respondent’s analysis must be discounted because the calculations justifying his conclusion that the structure was adequately supported was performed in December 2013, well after these proceedings commenced and more than five years after the Plan had been created by Respondent. As a result of the changed structural support system (from ground support to pins), the position of the pins is critical to the stability of the structure. If the pins are too far apart for the strength of the foundation’s materials to accommodate the foundation, now acting as a beam or beams, the foundation will be overstressed. Cracking, at a minimum, or collapse, at a maximum, can occur. Cracking or collapse can occur because the concrete slab foundation used at the Fish Residence does not have any existing top reinforcing steel in it. When asked if perhaps reinforcing steel might have been placed within the slab itself, Mr. Jeffery stated he had never seen such use of steel in over 40 years. No evidence to support the steel within the slab theory was presented. When the newly installed pins become the structural support, a negative bending moment is introduced to the top of the foundation, now acting as a beam. The top of the foundation is made only of concrete, which has little ability to resist the induced negative moment. As a result, deflection, racking, and ultimate failure will be the result if the pin placement and the spans created by the placement are inadequately designed. Respondent’s after-the-fact calculations do not address this issue. Using a continuous beam analysis, the preferred method to evaluate the beam/pin assemblage design in structures like the Fish Residence, the spacing of the pins (usually ten feet apart) designed by Respondent coupled with the loads generated by the foundation and the lack of reinforcing steel in the top portion of the foundation would result in stress that would exceed the strength of the concrete and, at a minimum, the concrete would eventually crack. Dr. Ahmed Said, Respondent’s expert, agreed with this conclusion. Even using a simple beam analysis, the design method Respondent testified he used and that Dr. Said agreed was commonly used, movement, resulting in cracks at the foundation slab, would occur. Again, since no reinforcing steel exists at the top of the slab, as a matter of simple physics, the concrete would have to respond to the deflection that would occur at the bottom of the foundation and, concrete being weak, would likely crack or worse at the top. Respondent provided no persuasive rebuttal to Mr. Jeffery’s analysis. First, Respondent claimed that elevations taken at the site in 2013 showed minimal deflective movement, proving the Plan design was sufficient. However, Mr. Jeffery noted that subsequent elevations taken at the completed structure would have little meaning regarding the adequacy of the design since: the design stands alone and is not affected by how the contractor implemented it; and no one could know whether the design, as constructed, would withstand the required stresses until it was subjected to full design loading, which would have to include the full wind loads to which the structure was designed. There is no evidence the structure was ever subjected to such stress in the period between its construction in 2008 and the later recorded elevations. Next, Respondent claimed the 3-foot “spreaders” attached to the pins would reduce the span of the foundation acting as a beam and thus would overcome the lack of reinforcing steel in the top of the foundation and the resulting overstress. The problem with this assertion is that the Plan does not call for “spreaders” to be placed in the design by any notations that are readily and universally cognizable. Respondent admitted that the symbol regarding the use of the spreaders was agreed to only between Champion and him, and was not included in the Plan. However, even if the notations used by Respondent could be interpreted as calling for the use of the “spreaders,” the “spreaders” would not materially impact the fact that the foundation, acting as a beam, would be overstressed, since a negative moment would still exist due to the lack of reinforcing steel at the top of the foundation. Finally, Respondent asserted that Mr. Jeffery’s analysis was flawed since Mr. Jeffery had assumed the Fish Residence was a masonry structure whereas Respondent claimed the structure was a wood frame covered with a stucco exterior. This issue is confused by the fact that both the CFTL and Bracken Reports, upon which Mr. Jeffery relied, both stated the Fish Residence was a masonry structure, although the CFTL Report notes the structure was initially constructed as wood frame. In any event, Mr. Jeffery testified that regardless of the masonry versus wood frame question, the structure would still be overstressed. Changing the construction from masonry to wood frame/stucco veneer might lessen the overstress, but not materially. In addition to the overstress created by failing to address the induced negative moment at the top of the foundation, Respondent’s design also resulted in a shear load which exceeded the maximum allowable under the American Concrete Institute 318 Concrete Code; and, since that code is incorporated into the Florida Building Code (“FBC”), the requirements of the FBC as well. The shear load factor is especially relevant since Respondent did not assure that the pins would not be placed under windows and doors where this issue is critical. Respondent did not address the shear issue as it applied to windows and doors in his after-the-fact calculations. The Plan is also deficient since it did not indicate the placement of windows and doors in the Fish Residence Project. By not doing so, the pins, when put in the ground, could be placed underneath these internal spaces which do not then form a continuous roof/wall/foundation assembly. If that occurred, and it apparently did in the Fish Residence on four occasions, the shear problem described above is exacerbated, since at either side of a door or window a point load is created and the shear stress increased. The Plan also fails to include required information. While the Plan calls for the use of a “FastSteel” product, the Plan does not include any product specification number or the strength of the material to be used. Although Respondent stated that the contractor, based upon its experience, knew what was intended, ultimately Respondent admitted that the required information was not in the Plan. Similarly, the Plan did not include the design loads and criteria used in the design and provided no building codes and standards. Respondent admitted the Plan lacked this required information. The missing information is important. Only by including such information on design documents can the engineer adequately communicate to the reviewing building code plans examiner or a contractor what the design engineer intended. By not including this required information, the reviewer can be uncertain as to whether the engineer used the correct loadings or designed the structure in accordance with the correct edition of the building code. Similarly, failing to provide sufficient information concerning the products to be used may lead a contractor to utilize the wrong product during construction. The Plan was submitted to Pasco County for issuance of a permit. The county building department issued a permit for the work to be performed. Mike Mosher of Champion believed the Plan included all the specifications he needed to identify the components to be used and the manner in which the work was to be performed. He also testified the work was completed consistent with the Plan. The June 10, 2008, Certification Letter Respondent issued the June 10, 2008 Certification Letter (“Letter”) under seal to his client before he completed the inspections necessary for the conclusions in the Letter to accurately reflect the opinions contained in it. Both Respondent and his client, Champion, agree that since the client had been denied access to the Fish Residence Project, no final inspection of the site by Respondent ever occurred. As a result, Respondent admitted that, when he signed, sealed, and issued the Letter, the engineering services, upon which the certification in the Letter was based, had not yet occurred. The evidence proved that Respondent’s last appearance at the Fish Residence Project occurred on or about May 5, 2008, and that most of the work done at the site occurred after that date with the final construction finishing on or about May 30, 2008. As a result, the conclusions and opinions contained in the Letter were not based upon accurate and contemporaneous engineering analysis. Since the Letter purports to be grounded in engineering inspections, the statements in the Letter were not fully based upon the services Respondent actually provided. While not entirely clear from the evidence and testimony, had Respondent had the ability to perform a final inspection, he would have had the opportunity to discover several deficiencies in the construction. The Bracken Report detailed several deficiencies and non-conformances with the Remediation Plan. These deficiencies included: 1) failure to drive 5/6ths of the pilings to the depth prescribed by the notes to the Plan; a large number of pins found beneath door and window openings; mis-installation of pins and pin assemblages; and 4) no grouting placed in the ground although Respondent intended that grouting be used. Respondent agreed that at least some of the Bracken Report conclusions were warranted. Respondent asserts that, although the Letter was issued prematurely, Respondent should not be held accountable since the Letter “never went public.” This contention is rejected. The Letter was a final engineering report/certification and, upon issuance to Respondent’s client, Champion, was fully subject to all engineering standards, rules, and statutes. Since the Letter contained conclusions that were inaccurate and based upon information that was not collected under Respondent’s direct supervision, issuance of the Letter constituted negligence and misconduct in the practice of engineering. Respondent’s Prior History of Discipline Respondent has previously had discipline imposed. The instant case is the first in more than 40 years of Respondent practicing engineering that involved a subsidence remediation plan. Respondent’s first prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 00-0086. In that case, Respondent was hired to correct building code issues identified by a county building department. The drawings he made violated the building code requirements, contained deficiencies, and were not in compliance with the standard practice of engineering. Respondent proceeded to hearing without benefit of legal counsel. A final order was entered by the Board reprimanding his license, fining him $1,000, plus costs of $302.93, placing him on probation for one year, and requiring he complete a course in professionalism and ethics while on probation. Respondent’s second prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 01-0079. That matter was based upon drawings that were dated February 16, 2001. Respondent was not represented by counsel in that proceeding. In that proceeding, no proof was presented that the structure depicted in the plans by Respondent was ever built. Therefore, no direct risk of harm to the public was proven. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that matter which was approved by the Board of Professional Engineers. He agreed to pay a total administrative fine of $7,000, plus $316.67 in costs and receive a reprimand on his license. He also received a one-year suspension of his license, followed by two years’ probation, and continuing education requirements. The other instance of discipline imposed against Respondent was in FEMC Case No. 2004037005. That complaint arose from plans that were signed by Respondent in June 2004. He was charged with signing plans he had not personally prepared or were not prepared under his supervision. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that case that was approved by the Board. He paid a $5,000 administrative fine and costs of $750; received a reprimand on his license; received two years of probation; and was required to make detailed reporting to the FEMC during the probationary period. No additional evidence of prior disciplinary matters was offered other than the three cases described above.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Oliver Turzak’s Professional Engineer license be reprimanded, and that the license shall be suspended for a period of one year. Upon termination of the suspension, Respondent shall be reinstated under terms and conditions of reinstatement as the Board determines are appropriate, including two years of probation with terms the Board deems appropriate. Respondent shall also be fined $1,000 per count ($2,000 total fine). Finally, Petitioner shall be entitled to assess costs which are related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs or fees associated with an attorney’s time, as provided in section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2014, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David P. Rankin, Esquire Law Office of David P. Rankin, P.A. 18540 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33548 John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue This cause concerns whether the Respondent committed certain violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes (1989), governing the regulation of licensure and practice of Professional engineers in the State of Florida by certain alleged negligent acts with regard to the preparation of plans for a building and alleged engagement in the practice of architecture beyond the scope of authorized engineering practice.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes, and with enforcing the licensure standards for registered professional engineers in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a licensed engineer, licensed by the State of Florida, holding license number PE 0029985. His address of record is Charles Stokes Engineering, 3000 Highway 231, North, Lynn Haven, Florida 32404. In 1989, the Respondent contracted with James Carlton to prepare building plans for a restaurant known as the Crab Shanty in Panama City Beach, Florida. Numerous changes were effected in the plans, both before and during construction, such that the restaurant evolved finally as a three-story restaurant built primarily of wood with utility-pole type pilings or posts and beams for framing, including glued-laminated wood beams (glue-lam). An initial set of plans (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) were submitted to the Bay County Building Official, Mr. James Pybus. While the initial 11-page plans depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 1 lacked some detail, especially with regard to electrical, plumbing, air conditioning and mechanical aspects, the plans were later augmented by an additional 11 pages depicting some of the previously absent details and Mr. Pybus confirmed that the practice of his agency is not to require more detailed plans of such electrical, plumbing, air conditioning, or mechanical work, if it comes within the scope of the exceptions set forth in Section 471.003(2)(i), Florida Statutes (1989). Those exceptions provide that licensed subcontractor, in those fields can design the electrical, plumbing, air conditioner, or mechanical aspects of a project themselves if they have the appropriate contractor's licenses without engineering registration. Therefore, Mr. Pybus' agency does not require that engineers preparing such plans, as to these aspects of the planning work, include such details if licensed contractors for those areas of the construction project will be doing the design and installation work, which was the case in this situation. Personnel under Mr. Pybus' direction inspected the building during construction and preformed a final inspection, all of which confirmed that the construction was in accordance with appropriate building codes. Mr. Pybus opined that his office had reviewed the plans submitted and determined that the plans had depicted sufficient detail for construction in accordance with the applicable codes. The Petitioner presented a consulting engineer, Mr. Harold Benjamin, as an expert witness. Mr. Benjamin opined that the Respondent had exceeded the limits of his engineering experience by signing and sealing plans which entailed mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and, to some extent, the field of architecture. The Respondent, however, has worked for many years in the nuclear power industry, during which time he was actively involved in electrical, structural and mechanical engineering and design which, by this extensive experience, qualified him to sign and seal plans covering the fields of mechanical and electrical engineering. The evidence to this extent refutes the testimony of Mr. Benjamin, and it is rejected in this regard. Further, although the Respondent preformed a minor amount of architectural work in designing the building, the architectural aspects of his building design were clearly incidental to the major considerations of civil, mechanical, structural, and electrical engineering. Even Mr. Benjamin, the Petitioner's witness, conceded that the architectural aspect of the design work was incidental to the overall plan and design work involved and was on the order of approximately ten percent of the Respondent's work on the project. Mr. Benjamin testified that he observed certain omissions on the plans contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Those omissions involve not showing the proper type of support for some stairs, a foundation plan not being labeled, wall sections not being properly shown, and an absence of an "electrical legend" on the face of the plans. He opined that heating and air conditioning plans were unclear as to duct size, air delivery and quantities to various rooms. Mr. Benjamin acknowledged, however, that he was basing this testimony on only the plans depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, which consisted of the first 11 pages and it was shown that this was not the complete set of plans actually drawn and ultimately filed with the building department by the Respondent, which consisted instead of a total of 22 pages which showed much more detail then Mr. Benjamin had reviewed and upon which he based his testimony. Mr. Benjamin only saw the remaining portion of the plans in question very briefly shortly prior to hearing and acknowledged that many of the omissions had been supplied on the additional plan sheets. Mr. Benjamin also acknowledged in his testimony that flaws in the design alleged by a Mr. Coleman, a "complaining architect" had not been proven in his view and, therefore, the Respondent was not negligent in his design. Upon redirect examination, Mr. Benjamin acknowledged that he only opined that the Respondent was negligent in terms of not consulting with qualified electrical and mechanical engineers with regard to the project because of his previously discussed opinion that the Respondent's engineering experience or expertise did not extend to electrical and mechanical engineering. This opinion, however, has been refuted as delineated above. Concerning the structural design aspects of the building and plans, in view of Mr. Benjamin's letter report to the Department of June 12, 1989, coupled with Mr. Benjamin's testimony that he did not do a complete review of the plans and did not examine the building itself, Mr. Benjamin's testimony has not established any negligence on the part of the Respondent. It affirmatively establishes that any architectural practice the Respondent may have engaged in was only incidental to his engineering design work for the project as a whole. Further, the testimony of Mr. Benjamin to the effect that the air conditioning system appeared to him inadequate to handle the peak load, as generated by restaurant occupancy of nearly 100 people and the restaurant kitchen, it was demonstrated at page 41 of the transcript that Mr. Benjamin had not observed the restaurant and kitchen space at the building in question and was not aware of what the actual occupancy of the restaurant was. Therefore, he is not deemed competent to express expert opinions concerning the adequacy of the air conditioning equipment and design. The Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Berton Hufsey, a mechanical engineer. He was accepted as an expert witness in this field. Mr. Hufsey initially expressed criticism about certain plumbing and HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) aspects of the plans. Mr. Hufsey acknowledged, however, that because his practice is in the Miami, Florida, area, he was not familiar with the extent of detail customarily shown on engineering plans in the Bay County area and, thus, was not familiar with the professional practice standards in the Bay County area in that regard. Mr. Hufsey initially opined that the grease trap for the restaurant was inadequately sized and that all kitchen and bathroom waste were routed though the grease trap; that the toilet vent was a "dry vent" and that a wet vent, which washes the bottom of the vent pipe, should have been employed. He criticized the absence of details of the water heater and the kitchen ventilating system not being shown to be coordinated and balanced, but acknowledged that two fans were shown and appeared to balance. He also opined that the plans did not show an innerconnect to shut off heat producing equipment when the fire extinguisher system was operating, that exhaust fans or windows were not shown for the bathroom/toilet area, that the gas furnace was not shown to have a flue connection, and that the HVAC system was not shown to have a condensate water drain. Mr. Hufsey acknowledged in his testimony, however, that he thought, based upon this opinion and review of the initial set of the 11-page plans he had reviewed in making his recommendation to the Department, that the complaint had some validity but he would not go so far as to testify that negligence had occurred. Then, when confronted in his testimony by the as-built" plans, which he only saw on the day of the hearing, Mr. Hufsey acknowledged that the grease trap was properly designed, that the kitchen supply and exhaust fans were also appropriately detailed on the as-built plans, as well as the fire sprinkler system, and the air conditioning system. In summary, after reviewing the actual as-built, 22-page set of numbered and sealed plan sheets prepared by the Respondent, Mr. Hufsey acknowledged that the omissions and lack of detail noted on the first 11-page set of "rough plans" had been corrected with the exception of the "dry vent" for a toilet. Mr. Hufsey, however, acknowledged in regard to this that an experienced, qualified plumbing contractor would know the correct type of vent to install for the toilet, even if it was not actually depicted on the plans, and acknowledged that professional engineering practice in Florida provides that certain types of jobs can be designed and built by the licensed trade contractors such as plumbers, electrical contractors and mechanical contractors and that these types of trade contractors can design and build the plumbing, heating and air conditioning, and electrical aspects of a job such as this without having the design actually placed in the plans by the licensed registered engineer. See the exception contained in Section 471.003(2)(i), Florida statues (1989). Moreover, the Respondent, in his plans, affirmatively indicated that the sprinkler system had to take priority in its design and location over the mechanical, heating, air conditioning equipment and duct work, as well as the plumbing piping. This was a safety feature in order to ensure that the sprinkler system had effective coverage in the event of fire. Because of this safety feature, noted on the plans by the Respondent engineer, there necessarily had to be some degree of flexibility for installing the HVAC, the duct work~ and the plumbing work for those pertinent, licensed trade contractors. This was an additional appropriate reason why specific detail of the plumbing, electrical, and mechanical HVAC aspects of the job were not firmly and finally designed by the Respondent, because of the necessarily precise location of the sprinkler system shown on page 15 of the as-built plans. Thus, because of the exception allowed in the statute for design of HVAC, plumbing, and electrical work by the appropriate, licensed trade contractors and because of the priority the Respondent himself noted on the plans for the sprinkler system design and installation, it has not been shown that the Respondent was negligent in regard to the lack of detail on the plans for HVAC, electrical and plumbing design. Further, Mr. Hufsey acknowledged in his testimony concerning the alleged water heater detail deficiency, the lack of depiction of the air conditioning condensate drain, the furnace flue, and air supply; that experienced, licensed trade contractors in those relevant trades would be able to design and build those features into the building appropriately within the exception allowing them to do so at Section 471.003(2)(i), Florida Statutes. Mr. Garcia testified as an expert in the field of electrical engineering. Mr. Garcia stated that the plans submitted for the permit were deficient as to electrical items, thereby demonstrating negligence. Specifically, Mr. Garcia found that the initially submitted plans depicted no "panel scales"; no electrical risers; no load analysis; no specifications for lighting fixtures; insufficient detail to show compliance with the national electrical code and the energy code; that emergency lighting did not comply with the national electrical code; that no electrical legends were depicted; that circuits were not properly identified for lighting fixtures; that no schedule specifying light fixtures were shown; and that stairs were not shown to have the required emergency lighting. Mr. Garcia acknowledged in his testimony that the later, as-built plans depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 8 showed that many of these items were corrected, although not all of them. He acknowledged, however, that on a project of this size that a licensed electrical contractor could design and build the required electrical items, equipment, and service, including the items he found not sufficiently depicted on the plans, without the services of a licensed engineer for the design, in accordance with the exception provided at Section 477.033(2)(i), Florida Statutes. Mr. Garcia testified, however, that a prudent engineer, if he omitted such detail from his plans, should make a notation on the plans to that effect to indicate that that design detail was to be provided by the licensed electrical contractor performing that aspect of the job. The Respondent failed to make this notation. The Petitioner presented the testimony of James Owen Power, a structural engineer accepted as an expert witness in that engineering field. Mr. Power expressed criticism concerning the Respondent's plans as demonstrating negligence in the practice of engineering in the following particulars: Sheet 2 of Exhibit 1 shows a roof over the third floor, sheet 3 shows no roof. The details on sheet 5 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 related to the girder layout indicated glue laminated wood beams with insufficient notes to guide the contractor. The stairs of the south elevation were shown in two locations and did not show proper detail to show attachment to the building, nor that they met life safety standards. Sheet 5 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1, according to Mr. Power, shows a connection of the glued laminated wood member to a girder which was structurally inadequate because of the type and manner of bolting. The plans contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 1 used to obtain the building permit were somewhat confusing because certain irrelevant notes were written on the right hand side of sheet 1 of those plans. The piling construction notes, according to Mr. Power, called for 8 X 8 square pilings or 8 inch round marine treated pilings, but the drawing showed 12 inch round pilings. Sheet 6 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is confusing in that it is unclear whether it should be applied to the second or third floor, or just one of those two floors because the sheet specifies metal stud walls but does not indicate the gauge or size of the metal studs, nor did Mr. Power find the details sufficient to show how the walls should be framed at the top under the second floor trusses. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 allegedly shows insufficient detail with regarding to flashing and, finally, Mr. Power opined that there was not proper specification with regard to attachment of sheet metal to an overhang. Mr. Power's testimony was directed to Petitioner's Exhibit 1, the initial preliminary plans submitted for purposes of obtaining the building permit. Although building permit submittal plans should depict sufficient detail to show that a safely constructed building will result which will comply with appropriate building codes, it is not expected, as Mr. Pybus demonstrated, that all details be shown, especially in this case where certain planning details are appropriately and legally left to the designing and building performance of licensed trade contractors for the electrical, plumbing, and HVAC aspects of the building. Mr. Power's testimony does not demonstrate that the plans in Petitioner's Exhibit 1 would not have resulted in a safely constructed building which could comply with the building codes. In any event, the as-built set of plans drawn and designed by the Respondent (Petitioner's Exhibit 8), coupled with Respondent's unrefuted testimony, shows that these alleged deficiencies did not exist or had been adequately depicted in the as-built plans. The alleged improper connection of the glue lamented wood members to girders was actually demonstrated by the Respondent's testimony to be structurally adequate and in accordance with good, safe engineering practices. Concerning the alleged life safety standard violations regarding the stairs, Mr. Power acknowledged he had no architectural expertise, and was not qualified to render such an opinion, and the Respondent's case in chief shows that there was a change order regarding the stairs which legitimately accounts for the two different locations shown. Further, concerning the piling size complaint of Mr. Power, the Respondent demonstrated that the 8 inch sectional dimension of the pilings was the minimum diameter specification, which becomes obvious when it is taken into account that the drawing showed 12 inch round pilings. Accordingly this aspect of Mr. Power's criticism is invalid and is not indicative of negligence in the practice of engineering. The matters concerning the gauge or size of metal stud walls, the flashing, the depiction of roofs for the second and third floors, and the attachment of sheet metal to the overhang involved structural changes made during the course of construction as the result of legitimate agreements between the Respondent and the owner, as well as apparent deficiencies which were actually corrected on the final set of signed and sealed plans. Accordingly, these criticisms from Mr. Power do not reflect inadequacies or negligence in the practice of engineering in this regard either. Further, although Mr. Power expressed criticism concerning non- compliance with the statutory requirement for the drawings to be signed and sealed by the Respondent engineer, on cross examination he acknowledged that the Respondent had- in fact, attached to his final plans a cover letter and an index which had been signed and sealed with the appropriate raised seal and that each sheet of the drawing incorporated under that cover letter by reference was, in turn, appropriately identified by a stamped, red ink seal. Thus, the final plans were appropriately signed and sealed. Finally, it should be pointed out that none of the expert witnesses presented by the Petitioner had viewed the structure involved and none was able to testify competently that the structure had not, in fact, been finally designed, in the final plans, and constructed in a manner which would result in an improperly constructed, unsafe building. The Respondent presented the testimony of Mr. James Carlton, one of the owners of the building. Mr. Carlton established that he retained the Respondent to perform engineering services and that he did not want or need an architect because he had already conceived the architectural design of the building based upon his experience in the restaurant business. Mr. Carlton established that he was satisfied with the services provided by the Respondent and described his close cooperation with him and his supervision of the construction as very satisfactory. In fact, Mr. Carlton described the Respondent as working late at night seven days a week and always readily responding if changes were needed or desired by the owner or the contractors. Mr. Carlton described in detail the structural soundness of the building, even when subjected to 80 MPH winds and the weight and movement of crowds involving hundreds of people, which corroborated the Respondent's own testimony regarding the substantial structural soundness of the resulting building. The Respondent also presented the testimony of Henry Skipper, the contractor who actually constructed the building. Mr. Skipper confirmed that the plans provided adequate guidance for construction and for the work which was to be actually performed by licensed subcontractors in the trades of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC. Mr. Skipper corroborated the fact that the Respondent was readily available to assist the contractors and subcontractors and the owner and to ensure that the building was properly constructed at all stages. Mr. Skipper found that the Respondent's plans contained the appropriate amount of detail treatment which he was accustomed to encountering in the preparation and use of building plans in the Bay County construction industry over a period of many years. Mr. Skipper's testimony appearing at pages 110 through 120 of the transcript specifically refutes the claims by Petitioner's witnesses concerning the adequacy of the design or construction of the stairs, the exterior walls, the glue--lam beams, the metal roofing and sheet metal detail, the perimeter walls, and the electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and HVAC aspects of the project. His testimony is accepted. Respondent testified in his own behalf and described his extensive experience as a professional engineer. In refuting the Petitioner's claims that he had worked outside his training and experience in terms of mechanical and electrical engineering, he established that he has many years of experience, derived from the nuclear power industry primarily, as well as to some extent in the sanitary sewer engineering design field by which he acquired extensive expertise in electrical mechanical, as well as structural engineering design. He is a licensed professional engineer in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, and has been certified by the State of Florida as a Designated, Threshold Engineering Inspector. He has been approved for state employment as a professional engineer-mechanical III and a professional engineer-electrical I. His testimony appearing at pages 147-160 of the transcript together with the testimony of Mr. Skipper, the contractor, and the owner, Mr. Carlton, refutes the Petitioner's criticism concerning his design of the HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and structural aspects of the bui1ding. The Respondent established, in fact, that his design of the laminated beams and the method of connection of them, in fact, exceeded the recognized engineering and structural design requirements. Although various of the Petitioner's witnesses, as well as the Respondent in his testimony, established that sufficient detail concerning the mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and plumbing portions of the project were depicted on the plans so that appropriately licensed trade contractors practicing in those fields of contracting could do the final design and installation of those aspects of the project, the Respondent did not refute the showing by the Petitioner's witnesses that, as to the electrical equipment and service design portion of the project, the Respondent failed to properly note on his plans that flexibility for appropriate design and installation of the electrical segment of the project was being left to the licensed electrical subcontractor. In this regard then, it was established that the Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering. It was not established that the Respondent engaged in any fraud or misconduct in the practice of engineering however, nor that he practiced architecture beyond the purview of his engineering licensure, in more than an incidental way.
