Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Based on an Administrative Complaint filed on July 6, 1979, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (herein sometimes referred to as the Petitioner or the Board) seeks to take disciplinary action against Licensee Richard E. Ulbricht, d/b/a Ulbricht Construction, Inc., and to impose an administrative fine or $500.00. Respondent is a registered contractor who holds the following licenses: RG 0011921 - Registered General/Active/Issued RGA 0011921 - Registered General/Active/Issued RG OB 11921 - Registered General/Delinquent RM 0014920 - Registered Mechanical/Active/Issued RM 0017586 - Registered Mechanical/Delinquent RS 0019201 - Registered Sheet Metal/Active/Issued RC 0019264 - Registered Roofing/Active/Issued Respondent was first licensed by the Petitioner during February, 1972. On June 14, 1977, Respondent qualified Ulbricht Construction, Inc., as the business entity through which he would conduct his contracting business. The construction activities involved herein took place in the City of Palm Bay, Florida. Palm Bay has no local licensing board. On June 12, 1978, Respondent entered into a contract with Michael D. and Karen K. McCammack to construct a residence for the sum of $39,900.00. Respondent received the full contracted price and the transaction closed on January 4, 1979. Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company closed the transaction for Respondent and the McCammacks on January 4, 1979. Camille Guilbeau is the manager for the Palm Bay branch of Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company. Ms. Guilbeau is in charge of all closing and as such ensures that all outstanding obligations of record are paid. In keeping with Chelsea's policy of protecting itself in the event of outstanding unrecorded claims of liens, Chelsea has a policy of requiring contractors and builders such as Respondent to declare in an affidavit that there is no outstanding work which has been performed, or labor or materials for which a lien could be filed on property in which Chelsea is closing the mortgage transaction. Respondent executed such an affidavit relative to the McCammacks' property, which Chelsea relied on to close the transaction on January 4, 1979 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 4, 1979, Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company paid Rinker Materials Corporation of Melbourne, Florida, $1,201.02 based on a claim of liens filed December 15, 1978, for materials consisting of concrete block, steel and miscellaneous items which were used on the McCammack property (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Subsequent to the date of closing, January 4, 1979, liens amounting to approximately $2,761.62 have been filed against the McCammack property based on Respondent's failure to pay bills for labor and/or materials used in connection with the construction of the McCammacks' residence. These lien claims were filed against the McCammacks' property for a drilled well, installation of a pump and tank by Perry and Leighty, Inc., of Melbourne, Florida; two septic tanks, drains and sand supplied by Pence South Brevard Sewer and Septic Tank of Melbourne, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 8 and 9). On December 22, 1978, Respondent entered into a contract with Robert J. Greene to construct a residence for $30,500.00 in Palm Bay, Florida. Respondent filed an affidavit of no liens relative to the Greene property on January 10, 1979. Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company relied on this affidavit to close the Greene property transaction on January 10, 1979 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Respondent was paid thee entire contract price. On February 12, 1979, Pence South Brevard Sewer and Septic Tank filed a claim of lien in the amount of $1,015.36 for two septic tanks, drains and sand which had been furnished the Respondent for the property of Robert J. and Alice Greene of Palm Bay, Florida, on December 15, 1978 (Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11). Approximately $3,496.40 was retained by Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company to satisfy outstanding recorded obligations on the date the Greene transaction closed (Petitioner's Exhibit 13). On February 21, 1979, Respondent caused to be filed in the United States District Court of the Middle District of Florida, a Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy for Ulbricht Construction, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 Composite).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's contractors licenses set forth hereinabove be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of May, 1980, 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 6th day of May, 1980.
The Issue Whether Respondent's License as a residential pool contractor should be suspended for alleged violation of Section 468.112(7), Florida Statutes. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing although proper notice thereof had been furnished under date of February 11, 1976 to him by the hearing officer. Accordingly, the hearing was conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed as a registered pool contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board since June 20, 1974. The license was not renewed for 1975/76 (Exhibit 4). Respondent filed a Voluntary Petition in Bankruptcy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Bankruptcy No. TBK 75-25, on March 13, 1975 (Exhibit 5).
Recommendation That the registration of William R. MacKinnon as a residential pool contractor be suspended until such time as he meets the qualifications and other requirements for renewal of registration and applies therefor. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: David Linn, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. William R. Mackinnon Route 3, Box 584C Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent operated as a contractor under the name of Olen Homes, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes by failing to qualify as a contractor under said name. Whether Respondent failed to pay a subcontractor for services performed in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapter 489, 455, and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent Milton W. Olen was a certified residential contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CR C024221. At all times material hereto, Respondent's licensure was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, as an individual, and the Respondent did not qualify Olen Homes. On or about November 9, 1987, the Respondent's company, Olen Homes, contacted Donald L. Grider of "A Final Touch Cleaning Service" to provide the final cleanup on a home the Respondent was constructing at 1255 Kelso Boulevard, Orange County, Florida. A Final Touch Cleaning Service completed the cleanup on November 30, 1987, and an invoice was mailed to Olen Homes in the amount of $1,014.00, on December 9, 1987. Donald L. Grider mailed a second copy of the invoice to Olen Homes on January 22, 1988. On February 19, 1988, Respondent acknowledged the debt, but stated he was having financial problems. He promised to pay off his bills. Mr. Grider demanded full payment for the job by letter dated August 8, 1988. Mr. Grider received a document from the Respondent on or about August 15, 1988, which Respondent claimed relieved him of responsibility for payment of Mr. Grider's bill. On September 19, 1988, Mr. Grider forwarded documents to the Respondent which indicated the Respondent was responsible for payment. Mr. Grider has not been paid any sum by the Respondent as of April 17, 1990, the date of the formal hearing in this matter. Respondent previously received a letter of guidance from the Board on November 19, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of contracting or acting in the capacity of a contractor, under the name of Olen Homes when his license was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as an individual. Section 489.129(1)(9), Florida Statutes. It is recommended that an administrative fine of $250 be imposed. Respondent be found guilty of misconduct by failing to pay a subcontractor for services rendered under a contract with Respondent. Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. It is recommended that an administrative fine of $1500 be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of May, 1990, 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 14th day of May, 1990. 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 Adopted in full. Respondent did not file proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell, Esquire Kenneth D. Easley Department of Professional General Counsel Regulation Department of Professional Northwood Centre Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Milton W. Olen, Jr. 250 International Parkway, NO. 160 Lake Mary, FL 32746 Steven Michael Labret, Esquire 501 North Magnolia Avenue Suite A Orlando, FL 32801 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and that he be given a public reprimand and fined $1,000. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Xavier J. Fernandez, Esquire P. O. Box 729 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Michael H. Merrill, Esquire Suite 10 - 2502 Second Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the South Florida Water Management District’s (“District”) intended award of a contract for aerial spraying services, granular application services, and aerial transport services, to Coastal Air Services, Inc. (“Coastal”), is contrary to the District’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the bid specifications; and, if so, whether the decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The District is an independent taxing authority created pursuant to section 373.069, Florida Statutes, with the authority to contract with private entities to maintain real property controlled by the District. See § 373.1401, Fla. Stat. HAI is a Florida corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida with a business address of 1090 Airglades Boulevard in Clewiston, Florida. Coastal is a Florida corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida with a business address of 7424 Coastal Drive in Panama City, Florida. The RFB On February 7, 2018, the District issued the RFB, soliciting bids for qualified respondents to provide the following: [F]urnish all labor, equipment, perform data entry and perform all operations for spraying of aquatic, ditchbank and invasive vegetation by helicopter and provide aerial flight services for site inspection and plant surveys. Both HAI and Coastal submitted timely bids, which the District deemed responsive and responsible under the terms of the RFB. The District deemed Coastal the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for aerial spraying, granular application, and aerial transport services. The District deemed HAI the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for spot spraying services. On May 11, 2018, the District posted its Notice of Intent to Award the respective contracts to Coastal and HAI. HAI challenges the award to Coastal because it is not a responsible bidder under the terms of the RFB. HAI’s challenge focuses on two items required to document the bidder’s responsibility to perform the requested services. First, the RFB requires the bidder to provide at least two helicopters certified pursuant to 14 CFR Part 133, Rotocraft External-Load Operations; and 14 CFR Part 137, Agricultural Aircraft Operations (Part 137 Certificate). Second, the RFB requires the bidder to demonstrate its ability to obtain required insurance coverage. Part 137 Certificate HAI contends that Coastal’s bid does not meet the responsibility provisions of the RFB because it did not include sufficient Part 137 Certificates for its subcontractor, HMC Helicopters (“HMC”). HAI contends the Part 137 Certificates are required to expressly state that aircraft are certified to dispense economic poisons. Petitioner’s argument fails for three reasons. First, the RFB does not require the bidder’s Part 137 Certificate to expressly endorse aircraft to dispense economic poisons.3/ Second, assuming the express endorsement was required, the requirement does not apply to HMC. The RFB defines the term “Bidder” and “Respondent” as “[a]ll contractors, consultants, organizations, firms or other entities submitting a Response to this RFB as a prime contractor.” (emphasis added). In its bid, Coastal is listed as the prime contractor, and HMC as a subcontractor. The RFB requires each Respondent to list at least two aircraft which are Part 133 and 137 certified. The requirement applies to Coastal as the primary contractor, not to its subcontractor. Coastal’s bid listed five aircraft with both Part 133 and 137 Certificates, actually exceeding the requirement for two such certified aircraft. Third, assuming an express endorsement for dispensing economic poisons was required, and that the requirement applied to HMC, HMC’s Part 137 Certificate documents HMC’s authority to dispense economic poisons. Pursuant to 14 CFR 137.3, “Agricultural aircraft operation” is defined as follows: [T]he operation of an aircraft for the purpose of (1) dispensing any economic poison, (2) dispensing any other substance intended for plant nourishment, soil treatment, propagation of plant life, or pest control, or (3) engaging in dispending activities directly affecting agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation, but not including the dispensing of live insects. To obtain a Part 137 Certificate, the operator must pass a knowledge and skills test, which includes the safe handling of economic poisons and disposal of used containers for those poisons; the general effects of those poisons on plants, animals, and persons and precautions to be observed in using those poisons; as well as the primary symptoms of poisoning in persons, appropriate emergency measures in the case of poisoning, and the location of poison control centers. See 14 CFR § 137.19. However, if the operator applies for a Part 137 Certificate which prohibits dispensing of economic poisons, the applicant is not required to demonstrate the knowledge and skills listed above. See Id. HMCs’ certificates do not contain an express prohibition against dispensing economic poisons. The authorization for HMC’s aircraft to dispense economic poisons is inherent in its Part 137 Certificate. Coastal’s bid meets the solicitation requirement for at least two aircraft with Part 137 Certificates. Insurance Requirements The RFB requires each Respondent to “provide evidence of the ability to obtain appropriate insurance coverage.” Respondents may meet the insurability requirement by having their insurance agent either (1) complete and sign an insurance certificate which meets all of the requirements of Exhibit H to the RFB; or (2) issue a letter on the insurance agency’s letterhead stating that the Respondent qualifies for the required insurance coverage levels and that an insurance certificate meeting the District’s requirements will be submitted prior to the execution of the contract. In response to this requirement, Coastal submitted a letter from Sterlingrisk Aviation, dated March 6, 2018, stating, “All required coverage amounts are available to Coastal Air Service, Inc. to fulfill the requirements of this contract.” In the Re: line, the letter refers to the specific RFB at issue in this case. Coastal also submitted a certificate of insurance from Sterlingrisk Aviation demonstrating the levels of insurance coverage in effect at the time the bid was submitted, although the coverages are less than the amounts required under the RFB.4/ HAI takes issue with Coastal’s evidence of ability to obtain the required coverage because the letter from Sterlingrisk does not state “an insurance certificate reflecting the required coverage will be provided prior to the contract execution.” Based on the totality of the evidence, the undersigned infers that Sterlingrisk’s letter omits the language that a certificate “will be provided” prior to contract execution, because Sterlingrisk will issue an insurance certificate only when Coastal applies, and pays the premium, for the increased coverage limitations. The letter from Sterlingrisk substantially complies with the insurance requirements of the RFB, and constitutes competent, substantial evidence of Coastal’s ability to obtain the required insurance coverage. HAI introduced no evidence that Coastal obtained an economic advantage over HAI by failing to include language from its insurance agent that “an insurance certificate reflecting the required coverage will be provided prior to the contract execution.” Instead, HAI argued that by failing to enforce that provision of the RFB, the District cannot ensure the winning bidder will be responsible to undertake the contract. HAI argued that the District’s failure to adhere to this RFB requirement may create inefficiencies that “would result in the event that Coastal were unable to obtain the required insurance coverage” before execution of the contract. Coastal’s bid documents its eligibility for insurance coverage in the amounts required by the RFB. If Coastal does not provide said certificates, it will not be qualified for final execution or issuance of the contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing Helicopter Applicator, Inc.’s Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 15th day of November, 2018.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Mr. Borek was licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C 58817. He was licensed on November 18, 1996. At all times material hereto, Mr. Borek was the qualifying agent of Atlantic Coast General Contractors, Inc. (ACGC), a Florida corporation, and has been its president. ACGC was issued a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified business on June 2, 1977, having been issued license number QB 07357. ACGC's license expired on September 1, 2001 and became null and void on September 1, 2003. The State of Florida, Department of State, administratively dissolved ACGC, as a corporation, on October 1, 2004, for its failure to file its annual report, as required by law; and, as a result, ACGC's authority to transact business, as a corporation, in the State of Florida was revoked on the same date. At all times material hereto, Tracey Meredith (Ms. T. Meredith) resided in and owned a home located at 7690 Northwest 16th Court, Pembroke Pines, Florida. Ms. T. Meredith wanted her mother, Jane Meredith1 (Ms. J. Meredith), to live with her so Ms. T. Meredith decided to have an addition built to her home, consisting of a bedroom, bathroom, and closet. Ms. T. Meredith obtained a proposal from ACGC and five other contractors for the addition. Each contractor was aware of the purpose of the addition. Ms. T. Meredith decided to contract with ACGC, which was not the lowest or the highest bidder, but was somewhat in the middle. On June 28, 2002, a Proposal/Contract (Contract) was executed with ACGC for the addition at a cost of $32,925.00. Even though the Contract showed Ms. T. Meredith as the contracting party, it was signed by Ms. J. Meredith because she (Ms. J. Meredith) was actually paying for the addition and signing the checks. Both Mses. T. Meredith and J. Meredith were in agreement with the Contract. The Contract provided, among other things, that the addition was 15 x 21; and that the payments would be as follows: 20% at acceptance of the Contract, 20% at permit issuance, 10% at slab, 20% at wall and roof framing, 10% at roof completion, 10% at finished walls and flooring, and 10% at final completion. No dispute exists that the cost of the Contract was reasonable. No dispute exists that the Contract failed to contain a provision explaining the consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund, formerly known as the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. No dispute exists that the Contract did not provide a date for completion of the addition. Regarding a completion date for the addition, Ms. T. Meredith testified that all the other proposals provided that the addition would be completed within six to eight weeks and that, at the beginning, Mr. Borek orally communicated to her that the addition would be completed by ACGC within six to eight weeks. To the contrary, Mr. Borek testified that, at the beginning, no completion date was given to her, either orally or in writing. None of the other proposals were submitted into evidence, only the Contract with Mr. Borek, which did not provide a completion date. It would not be reasonable for Ms. T. Meredith to accept Mr. Borek's proposal without it’s being within the time period of completion of the other proposals. The undersigned finds Ms. T. Meredith's testimony more credible and makes a finding of fact that, at the time of the signing of the Contract, Mr. Borek made an oral representation that the addition would be completed by ACGC within six to eight weeks. An expert in the field of general contracting, John Yanoviak (Mr. Yanoviak), testified on behalf of the Department. The undersigned finds his testimony credible, except as specifically indicated. A reasonable amount of time to complete the addition was a maximum of three months. Mr. Borek, as the contractor, was responsible for keeping the project timely and for quality control. On June 30, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,585.00. This amount was 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. Paying this amount was in accordance with the Contract. Mr. Borek filed an application for a building permit with the City of Pembroke Pines (CPP) on or about July 3, 2002. The building permit was issued by CPP on or about October 25, 2002. Work on the addition was commenced before the issuance of the building permit. Ms. T. Meredith was aware of the date that the building permit was issued. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Ms. T. Meredith complained to Mr. Borek regarding the addition’s not being completed. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. T. Meredith indicated to Mr. Borek that, by his failure to complete the addition within a six-to- eight-week period, he was not abiding by the Contract. No evidence was presented to show that she indicated her dissatisfaction to the degree of possibly terminating the Contract with ACGC. On November 12, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,585.00. This amount was paid after Mr. Borek obtained the building permit and was 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. Paying this amount was in accordance with the Contract. On December 11, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,885.00. This amount was $300.00 more than 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that this check was written in advancing of the addition. According to the records of the CPP's building department2 (Records), a CPP form for a revision to the addition was submitted on January 6, 2003, providing for an electrical change to the addition. Further, the Records indicate that, on March 20, 2003, an application for an electrical permit was submitted and that, on March 24, 2003, the permit was approved. Also, a revision to the plans of the addition was submitted to the CPP by the architect to the addition, Hernando Acosta, according to the Records. The Records indicate that the revision to the plans was dated January 30, 2003 by Mr. Acosta, that the revision was submitted on February 7, 2003, and that the revision was approved on February 11, 2003 by the CPP. In addition, in February 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. Ms. T. Meredith received a copy of a letter from the CPP to Mr. Borek, dated February 18, 2003. The letter indicated, among other things, that the CPP had issued a "stop work status" on the addition due to Mr. Borek’s having issued a check, payable to the CPP, in the amount of $135.80, which was dishonored. Another revision, according to the Records, was submitted on March 27, 2003, regarding the trusses. The Records indicate that the revision was approved on April 17, 2003. Ms. T. Meredith became more dissatisfied with the progress toward completion on the addition by Mr. Borek to the point that she filed a complaint with the Department on May 21, 2003. In May 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. By letter dated May 22, 2003, she received notification from the CPP, as information only, that a code violation had not been corrected within the allowable ten-day period, together with a copy of CPP's letter to Mr. Borek, dated May 22, 2003, of his failure to correct the code violation. The letter to Mr. Borek indicated, among other things, that Mr. Borek had until June 11, 2003 to correct the violation, identifying the inspection date and the violation. By a letter dated May 28, 2003, Ms. T. Meredith advised Mr. Borek, among other things, that he had seven days to continue with the work on the addition in accordance with the Contract or else the Contract would be considered by her to be "null and void"; that, if he did not do so, she would be "forced" to hire another contractor, with Mr. Borek being held financially responsible for completion of the addition; and that the Contract was to be completed within six to eight weeks. On June 12, 2003, Mr. Borek contacted the investigator for the Department regarding the complaint filed by Ms. T. Meredith. Among other things, Mr. Borek informed the investigator that he (Mr. Borek) was willing to complete the addition in 30 days. By his representation, Mr. Borek indicated that he would complete the addition on or about July 12, 2003. By a letter dated June 18, 2003, Mr. Borek notified the investigator, among other things, that he was working "diligently" to complete the addition. Mr. Borek failed to complete the addition within the 30-day period, as he had represented to the Department's investigator. The Records indicate that an application for a building permit, involving the roof to the addition, was submitted on June 25, 2003. The permit was issued, according to the Records, on July 30, 2003. Further, the Records indicate that a revision, regarding the size of a window and the elimination of a door, was submitted on July 8, 2003, and approved on July 9, 2003. In July 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received another written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. By letter dated July 9, 2003, she received notification from the CPP, as information only, that a code violation had not been corrected within the allowable ten-day period, together with a copy of CPP's letter to Mr. Borek, dated July 9, 2003, of his failure to correct the code violation. The letter to Mr. Borek indicated, among other things, that Mr. Borek had until July 28, 2003, to correct the violation, identifying the inspection date and the violation. In addition, in July 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding another problem with the addition. She received a copy of a letter from the CPP to Mr. Borek, dated July 18, 2003, which indicated, among other things, that the CPP had issued a "stop work status" on the addition due to Mr. Borek having issued a check, payable to the CPP, in amount of $76.23, which was dishonored. Even though Mr. Borek failed to complete the addition within the 30-day period that he had represented to the Department's investigator and even though Ms. T. Meredith had received notification of the problems at the jobsite from the CPP, on September 10, 2003, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $4,000.00. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that this check was written in furtherance of the addition. ACGC had been paid a total of $24,055.00 of the Contract cost of $32,925.00, which was approximately 73 percent of the Contract cost. The balance of the Contract cost was $8,870.00. Mr. Borek testified that, at the time of the writing of the check for $4,000.00, he and Ms. T. Meredith agreed that he would have until on or about November 15, 2003 to complete the project. Ms. T. Meredith testified that no such agreement was made. At the time of the check for $4,000, ACGC was almost 60 days beyond the completion date represented to the Department's investigator. No testimony was presented as to why the $4,000.00 was paid to ACGC in light of such a considerable delay in completing the job by ACGC and in light of the complaint being filed with the Department. Due to the lack of an explanation for the payment of the $4,000.00 to ACGC in furtherance of the project, Mr. Borek's testimony presents a reasonable explanation. Therefore, Mr. Borek's testimony is found to be credible. Hence, a finding is made that, on or about September 10, 2003, Mr. Borek and Ms. T. Meredith orally agreed that ACGC would have until on or about November 15, 2003, to complete the addition. Ms. T. Meredith continued to be dissatisfied with the progress on the addition by ACGC. Sometime after September 10, 2003, an incident occurred which caused her to reach the conclusion that she could not allow ACGC to continue working on the project. One day when she left for work, one of ACGC's workers was painting the exterior walls. When she returned from work later that same day, the same worker for ACGC was painting the exterior walls. Ms. T. Meredith immediately directed the worker to leave and to take all of his equipment with him; the worker did so. Ms. T. Meredith contacted Mr. Borek and informed him that she would not allow him to continue with the project. Mr. Borek repeatedly requested Ms. T. Meredith to allow him to continue with the project, but she refused. By letter dated October 9, 2003, Ms. T. Meredith terminated the Contract with ACGC. She mailed the letter on the same date and faxed it on October 14, 2003. Her mother was in agreement with terminating the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith indicated, among other things, in her letter to ACGC that its failure to complete the addition as of the date of the letter, when the oral agreement was completion within six to eight weeks, left her no choice but to terminate the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith included in the letter, among other things, what remained to be completed on the project and a cost of $539.55 for damaged items at her home caused by ACGC, with an itemized list. At the time of the termination, the following work remained to be completed: purchase and installation of plumbing fixtures; sewer hookup; molding; tile work in the bathroom; installation of storm panels and flooring; some painting; installation of an air conditioner; some electrical connections; and installation of an electrical panel, electric wall plates, and an electric light fixture. Ms. T. Meredith obtained a homeowner's permit and hired someone, Adam Friedman, to assist her in completing the addition. On December 15, 2003, the CPP issued a certificate of occupancy to her. As to expenditures by Mses. T. and J. Meredith in order to complete the addition, the undersigned finds the testimony of Mr. Yanoviak credible. Mses. T. and J. Meredith expended $19,170.52 to complete the addition. The expenditures for completion were reasonable and necessary. Not included in the expenditures for completion are the following: $3,941.31 for items not included in the Contract--a fence, pavers, wood floor, upgraded bathroom fixtures or accessories, closet woodwork and various Home Depot items (totaling $238.21); $250.00 for mill work associated with chair rails; and $2,400.00 for an exterior concrete slab. Included in the expenditures for completion is the following: $1,360.00 for a split-system air conditioning unit which was not installed by ACGC. Further, included in the cost of expenditures is an adjustment in favor of Ms. T. Meredith in the amount of $1,000.00 for the elimination of a window on the west elevation of the addition, which was orally agreed to by Ms. T. Meredith and Mr. Borek after the signing of the Contract and which would have been subtracted from the cost of the Contract. After Ms. T. Meredith terminated the Contract, she filed a claim under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. The claim was dated October 10, 2003, one day after she terminated the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith set forth in the claim that she was requesting $12,000.00, which she indicated was the amount to pay another contractor to complete the project. The undersigned places very little weight upon the amount requested because the claim is prior to completing the project and fails to reflect the actual costs involved in completing the project, which were realized only after completion. Damage to items at Ms. T. Meredith's home occurred, during the work being performed by ACGC, for which ACGC was responsible. The following items were affected: damaged a window magnet that was part of the home's security system at $80.00; destroyed, broken, or thrown away one large planter pot, one archway, and two large stepping stones--all at an estimate of $440.34; and broken tiles in the front of the house at $13.57. The damages totaled $533.91. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Borek had not made any payments to Ms. T. Meredith or Ms. J. Meredith for their expenditures to complete the addition or for the damages. At the time of the termination, in accordance with the oral agreement of completion by on or about November 15, 2003, ACGC had a little over 30 days to complete the addition. In light of the finding that an oral agreement had been reached to allow ACGC until on or about November 15, 2003, to complete the addition and in light of the only incident since that agreement, presented by the evidence, was the situation involving ACGC's painter, the undersigned finds that the painting situation was not substantial and that, therefore, the termination on October 9, 2003, prior to the new agreed- upon termination date, was unreasonable. Ms. T. Meredith testified that, sometime during the middle of the year 2003, for a period of "exactly" 60 days, ACGC failed to perform any work at the project. Mr. Borek denies her assertion. Ms. T. Meredith testified that she kept records on everything. When she testified as to an exact 60- day period in the middle of 2003 during which no work was being done at the project, Ms. T. Meredith did not point to any of her records to verify the assertion or provide certain beginning and ending dates. Taking into consideration the standard of proof and the burden of proof, the evidence failed to show clearly and convincingly that no work was done at the jobsite by ACGC for a period of 60 days in the middle of the year 2003. Nothing was done by Ms. T. Meredith, the architect, or CPP to delay the completion of the project. Mr. Borek admits that he had other jobs in progress when he was working on the addition. He further admits that when changes had to be made to the project, whether by the CPP or the architect or Ms. T. Meredith or himself, he had to re- arrange his schedule to accommodate the other jobs, which included re-deploying his workers and subcontractors, which in turn caused delays. Further, Mr. Borek admits that the turnaround time for any changes given to the architect for the plans to the addition was reasonable and that the turnaround time for the CPP to review the changes to the plans submitted by the architect was reasonable. Consequently, no unreasonable or inordinate delays were caused by the architect or the CPP when changes were made to the plans of the addition. Mr. Borek performed some work for Ms. T. Meredith at no cost that was not required by the Contract. The extra work at no cost included the following: the removal of trees; pouring of an exterior concrete slab; and plastering of drywall. The slow progress in completing the Contract was significant and material and resulted in the Contract’s not being performed in a reasonable time. The delays in completion of the addition were significant and were the fault of Mr. Borek. In addition to re-deploying workers for other jobs on which ACGC was working, ACGC failed to properly perform work, which resulted in failed inspections by the CPP, which resulted in numerous delays, and failed to timely obtain an electrical permit. As to the failure to timely obtain an electrical permit, the electrical permit was obtained almost five months subsequent to the issuance of the building permit by the CPP. The electrical permit was applied for on March 20, 2003 and approved on March 24, 2003. CPP's turnaround time in approving the permit was short and inconsequential. As to the failure to properly perform work, the Records indicate construction defects, which were under Mr. Borek's, the contractor's, control and which resulted in failed inspections. Furthermore, the Records indicate prior construction faults, identified in inspections, not being timely corrected, which was under Mr. Borek's control and which resulted in delays until the faults were corrected. Mr. Yanoviak testified that failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted misconduct. The undersigned finds his testimony credible. A finding of fact is made that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted misconduct. Additionally, Mr. Yanoviak testified that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted a material breach of the Contract. The undersigned finds his testimony credible, and a finding of fact is made that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted a material breach of the Contract. Further, Mr. Yanoviak testified that, such material breach, justified terminating the Contract. The undersigned finds his testimony credible only as to a general application and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that, generally, the failure to perform a construction contract within a reasonable time would justify terminating the construction contract but does not justify terminating the Contract under the circumstances presented in the instant case. Both Mr. Borek and Ms. T. Meredith orally agreed to a new date for completion of the addition, i.e., on or about November 15, 2003. To disregard the new date of completion would be manifestly unjust. Furthermore, at the time of the termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith, i.e., on October 9, 2003, the termination was unreasonable and not for just cause. Hence, a finding of fact is made that termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith, prior to the new completion date, was not justified. Mr. Yanoviak also testified that failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted abandonment of the project. The undersigned finds his testimony credible only as to general application and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that, generally, the failure to perform a construction contract within a reasonable time would constitute abandonment of a project. However, as found above, a new date for completion of the project was orally agreed upon and the new date had not expired at the time of the termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith. Hence, a finding of fact is made that, under the circumstances of the instant case, abandonment did not exist. The Department presented evidence of costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with attorney time. As of July 5, 2005, the costs for the investigation and prosecution totaled $880.18. As to prior disciplinary action, on September 9, 2004, the Department filed a Final Order in Department of Business and Professional Regulation vs. Bret Jayson Borek, Case No. 2003-069533, License No. CG Co58817 before the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In that case, an administrative complaint was filed against Mr. Borek for violating Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2001), by failing to comply in a material respect with a provision of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, through the failure to obtain a certificate of authority for ACGC; and for violating Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2001), by failing to satisfy a civil judgment, related to the practice of construction, within a reasonable time. Mr. Borek waived his rights to an informal hearing, and no material fact was disputed. Among other things, the Final Order imposed an administrative fine of $1,000.00, required restitution of $15,218.94 to a roofing and sheet metal company and required payment of $506.92 for investigative costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Finding that Bret Jayson Borek committed the violations set forth in Counts I, II, and III; Dismissing Count IV; and Imposing the following penalties: As to Count I, an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and revocation of the license of Bret Jayson Borek. As to Count II, an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. As to Count III, an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and revocation of the license of Bret Jayson Borek. S DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _______________________________ ERROL H. POWELL 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 9th day of January, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified general contractor, is guilty of pulling permits for construction projects not supervised by Respondent, and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary action which should be taken by the Board.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of Certified General Contractor's License No. CG C005204 issued by the Board. Although this license was active at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, Respondent has placed it on an inactive status until June 30, 1981. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) As to Amiguet Construction Project During 1976, Jose Amiguet entered into a contract with San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction of an addition to his existing residence located at 1409 Granada Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida. (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Since San Pedro Construction Inc. was not properly licensed as a building contractor, it was not qualified to apply for and obtain a Coral Gables building permit to undertake this residential addition. Therefore, on January 12, 1977, pursuant to an agreement with Jose San Pedro, representative of San Pedro Construction Inc., the Respondent applied and obtained the required Coral Gables building permit under his on name. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, Charles Kozak, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The Respondent did not participate in, manage, or supervise, in any manner, the construction of the Amiguet residential addition by San Pedro Construction Inc. Jose Amiguet neither knew the Respondent, nor had any dealings with him during the construction work. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) Final inspection of the Amiguet construction project has not been conducted by the Coral Gables building inspection department since the required documentation concerning sidewalk improvements and subcontractors used has not yet been submitted. The actual construction work has, however, been completed, to the satisfaction of Jose Amiguet. (Testimony of Charles Kozak, Respondent) Respondent made an effort to assist Jose Amiguet in obtaining the final inspection and clearance by the city building inspection department. However, since Respondent did not supervise the subcontractors' work, he cannot truthfully complete the required documents. He has, therefore, offered to (1) pay for the additional costs associated with obtaining the necessary final inspection, and (2) transfer to Jose Amiguet the right to receive, after final inspection, the refund of the contractor's performance bond in the amount of approximately $400-$500. (Testimony of Respondent) As to the Shaw Construction Project During July, 1977, and on February 8, 1978, James L. Shaw entered into separate contracts with San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction of residential improvements at 836 Obispo Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. The final contract was in the amount of $16,700.00. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, James L. Shaw, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Since San Pedro Construction Inc. was an unlicensed contractor, Respondent, on November 15, 1977, pursuant to an agreement with that company, applied for and obtained the required Coral Gables building permit. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, James L. Shaw, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) The Respondent did not participate in, manage, or supervise in any manner the construction of the Shaw residential improvements by San Pedro Construction Inc. James Shaw neither knew Respondent, nor had any dealings with him during the construction work. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) On or about April, 1978, the lending institution for the Shaw project, and James Shaw stopped making construction payments to San Pedro Construction Inc., due to its failure to proceed on and abandonment of the project. (Testimony of James Shaw, Charles Kozak) On June 20, 1978, James Shaw obtained an "owner-builder" permit from the City of Coral Gables and incurred the following costs in order to complete the construction project as originally planned: $12,000 for labor and materials, and $625.00 for architectural services. Inasmuch as approximately, $10,128.00 had earlier been paid to San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction project, the total cost of the project to James Shaw was approximately $22,753.00-$6,053.00 in excess of the original contract price. (Testimony of James Shaw and Respondent) San Pedro Construction Inc. is no longer in business, and the whereabouts of its owner, Jose San Pedro, is unknown. (Testimony of Respondent) As with the Amiguet construction project, final inspection of the Shaw project cannot be conducted until missing documentation relative to sidewalk improvements and subcontractors involved is supplied. In an effort to assist James Shaw, the Respondent has offered to transfer to Shaw the right to receive, after final inspection, the refund of the contractor's performance bond in the amount of approximately $400-$500. (Testimony of Charles Kozak and Respondent) At all times material hereto, the Respondent was aware that it was unlawful, under both state law and the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, to aide an unlicensed contractor in evading the contractor licensing law, and to use one's license to pull permits for projects not supervised by the licensee. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The Metro Dade Construction Trades Board heard the complaint against the Respondent and found prima facie evidence and probable cause to refer the matter to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Stipulation) Notwithstanding the evidence presented, the Administrative Complaint and the Board's counsel at hearing limited the amount sought for restitution purposes to $5,300.00, provided both the performance bonds are refunded to the benefit of Jose Amiguet and James Shaw. (Administrative Complaint, statement of Board's Counsel) Respondent regrets having taken the actions complained of in the Board's Administrative Complaint, and now more fully understands the resulting burdens which have been placed on Jose Amiguet and James Shaw. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation Guilty, as charged. Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be suspended until such time as full restitution is made to the persons damaged by his actions.
