The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement, pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner applied for a certified plumbing contractor's license by endorsement. Applicants who seek a licensure by endorsement must have passed an examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination given in Florida or hold a license in another state or territory of the United States where the criteria for issuance of the license is substantially equivalent to Florida's criteria. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed or certified as a plumber in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. For the purpose of his application for licensure by endorsement, Petitioner submitted information to the Board regarding the examination he took in Georgia. Petitioner was not precluded from submitting information regarding the examinations he took in Alabama and Tennessee. However, Petitioner submitted the information regarding the examination he took in Georgia because it was the one he had taken most recently. Georgia gives three different plumbing examinations and issues three different plumbing licenses. One examination is for a journeyman's license. Another examination is for a Class I restricted plumbing license. Still, another examination is given for a Class II unrestricted plumbing license. In order to obtain his plumbing license in Georgia, Petitioner successfully completed the Class I Restricted Georgia Examination (Georgia Examination). Florida issues only one certified plumbing contractor's license and that license is the equivalent of Georgia's Class II unrestricted plumbing license. To meet the examination requirement for licensure as a plumber in Florida, an applicant must successfully complete the Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors (Florida Examination or Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors). Stephen Allen, a psychometrician employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, evaluated the Georgia Examination to determine if it were substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. In determining whether the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination were substantially equivalent, Mr. Allen considered and compared the material covered; the emphasis placed on various topics; the actual content of the examinations; the general characteristics of the examination; the number of questions; the amount of time allowed to complete the examination; the weight given to various areas or categories of the examinations; and the method of measuring knowledge in the various content areas. Based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination, Mr. Allen properly determined that the Georgia Examination was not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. The area in which the examinations are significantly different is the isometric area or category. First, the relative weight on the isometric area of the examinations varies greatly. On the Florida Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is 31 percent. On the Georgia Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is, at most, only 6 percent. Second, the knowledge of isometrics is measured differently on the examinations. The Florida Examination requires that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of isometrics by having the candidate draw five different isometric drawings, which show the room's plumbing based on the fixtures to be installed. The five drawings are graded on legibility, orientation, flow, angles, piping, labeling, and vents. The Georgia Examination is a multiple choice examination and measures knowledge of isometrics by the candidate's selecting the correct answer from four possible answers. The Georgia Examination successfully completed by Petitioner to obtain his master plumber's restricted license is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. Petitioner is ineligible for licensure by endorsement because the examination he took in Georgia is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 15th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William Lantrip 927 Lakewood Drive Dunedin, Florida 34698-7218 Timothy Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Abraham Scott, Jr., is a registered general contractor with the FCILB and holds general contractor's license no. RG0008305. Pursuant to an agreement entered during April, 1975, Respondent and Mrs. Ruth Jenkins of Lake Butler entered into a contract for construction of a home at a cost of $37,000. To finance the project, Mrs. Jenkins secured a loan from Guaranty Federal Savings & Loan Association of Starke, Florida in the amount of $30,600 and she additionally paid Respondent approximately $5,913.57. Guaranty Federal Savings & Loan had disbursed approximately 90 percent of the construction loan to Respondent when Mrs. Jenkins received liens filed against her property in the amount of approximately $9,579.53. The lienors included Lake City Industries, North Florida Concrete, Mayo Electric, Roy Ward Wholesale Distributors, Sawyer Slade Gas Company and a local carpet distributor. At that juncture, Mrs. Jenkins complained to Respondent regarding the liens filed against her property and the fact that the house was not completed as per their agreement to no avail. Thereafter, Mrs. Jenkins contacted Mr. Harold K. Davis, Branch Manager of Guaranty Federal Savings & Loan Association, who terminated all further disbursements of the construction loan. At that point, approximately $28,436.50 had been disbursed to Respondent. Mr. Hermon Cherry, investigator with FCILB investigated the Jenkins' complaint and discussed the matter with Respondent. Mr. Cherry testified that Respondent advised him that he had used part of the money from the Jenkins' project to complete a job in Hamilton County and that when the proceeds from that job were received, those receipts would be used to satisfy liens placed against the Jenkins property. Petitioner's Exhibit #3, is a statement given to investigator Cherry on March 22, 1976, by Respondent. The statement is somewhat corroborative of Cherry's testimony that Respondent used portions of the construction loan monies received from the Jenkins project to complete another job. Respondent acknowledged that he was having financial problems in another county "in which I have money from this job tied in the amount of $2,500. As soon as I can collect this money from these jobs, I will clear this matter up". (See Petitioner's Exhibit #3). Respondent acknowledged that he had monies due him from a project he had completed in Jasper, Florida and that this job was completed prior to the commencement of the Jenkins project. However, he failed to state that all obligations due and owing on that job in Jasper had been satisfied or that all unpaid subcontractors, materialmen, etc., who furnished materials, supplies or labor, in connection with the Jasper project had been paid. Based on that statement and Respondent's acknowledgement that the liens had been placed on the Jenkins project based on his financial difficulties with another project in which he clearly stated in Petitioner's Exhibit #3 that money from the Jenkins project had been tied up on another project, I find that the two matters, when coupled together provides proof positive that the Respondent diverted funds received for completion or the Jenkins project to another project and as a result thereof, he was unable to fulfill the terms of his obligation and contract with Mrs. Jenkins, in violation of Chapter 468.112(2)(e). During the course of the hearing, Respondent introduced evidence indicating that a settlement agreement was being worked out to resolve the differences with Mrs. Jenkins property and to satisfy all lien claimants who had filed liens against Mrs. Jenkins' property. Mrs. Jenkins acknowledged the settlement agreement and indicated her willingness to accept the terms thereof as full satisfaction of Respondent's obligations to her pursuant to the construction of her home. (See Respondent's Exhibit #1.) Respondent testified further that he intends to fulfill all of the remaining deficiencies that may exist with respect to the Jenkins property and that he at all times intended to fulfill his obligations to her. For these reasons, I shall recommend that the Respondent's registered general contractor's license be suspended rather than revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that the Respondent's registered general contractor's license be suspended for a period of 90 days in accord with the authority contained in Chapter 468.112(3)(a), F.S. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Mr. Abraham Scott, Jr. Route 1, Box 503 Lake City, Florida JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant matter, registered as a septic tank contractor with the Department. In July 2002, Respondent entered into a contract with Pro Gold Investments Corp. (Pro Gold), whose president and sole owner is Emerico Kemeny Fuller. The contract provided that Respondent would install a "new septic system" for Pro Gold at 453 Blue Road in Coral Gables, Florida (Blue Road Property) for $4,600.00, a job that should have taken only a "few days" to complete. Pro Gold gave Respondent a "job deposit" of $2,300.00. In July 2003, Pro Gold, by Warranty Deed, conveyed title to the Blue Road Property to Maurits de Blank's company, Mortgage Lending Company LLC (MLC), and it also executed a Bill of Sale, Absolute and Assignments of Contracts, which read as follows: PRO GOLD INVESTMENTS CORP, as Seller, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration paid to it by MORTGAGE LENDING COMPANY, LLC, as Buyer, the receipt of which is acknowledged hereby sells, assigns, grants, transfers, and conveys to Buyer all of Seller's right, title, and interest in the following described goods, contracts and personal property: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A- PROPERTY" AND EXHIBIT "B- CONTRACTS ASSIGNED" Seller covenants and agrees that it is the lawful owner of goods, contracts, rights or interests transferred hereby; that they are free from all encumbrances, except for outstanding amounts due, if any, to those parties set forth on Exhibit "B," and that it has the right to sell, transfer and assign the goods, properties and rights set forth in the attached Exhibit "A," and the right to transfer and assign the contracts, rights or interests shown on Exhibit "B," and will warrant and defend same against the lawful claims and demands or all persons. The "attached Exhibit 'A- Property'" read, in pertinent part, as follows: (Regarding transfer of 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables, Florida, "the Real Property") (Mortgage currently in favor of Mortgage Lending Company, LLC "the Mortgage") All property rights of any kind whatsoever, whether in property that is real, fixed, personal, mixed or otherwise and whether in property that is tangible or intangible, including, without limitation, all property rights in all property of any kind whatsoever that is owned or hereafter acquired by the Company and that is associated with, appurtenant to or used in the operation of the Real Property or is located on, at or upon the Real Property and is associated with or used in connection with or in operation of any business activity conducted on, at or upon the Real Property, and including, without limitation, the following: * * * All right, title, and interest in those certain contracts and agreements [set] forth in the attached Exhibit "B," which are hereby transferred and assigned to Mortgage Lending Company LLC. Among the "contracts and agreements [set] forth in the attached Exhibit 'B,'" was the aforementioned July 2002, contract wherein Respondent agreed to install a "new septic system" for Pro Gold on the Blue Road Property (Septic System Contract). This contract was still executory. Respondent had not done any work on the site in the year that had passed since the contract had been signed. In the beginning of August 2003, Mr. de Blank met with Respondent and advised him that MLC was the new owner of the Blue Road Property and that MLC had also received an assignment of the Septic System Contract from Pro Gold. In response to this advisement, Respondent stated "he did not do assignments." Following this meeting, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent documentation supporting the assertions he had made regarding MLC's ownership of the Blue Road Property and its having been assigned the Septic System Contract. Mr. de Blank then attempted, unsuccessfully, to make contact with Respondent by telephone. He "left messages," but his telephone calls were not returned. These efforts to telephonically communicate with Respondent having failed, Mr. de Blank "decided that it may make some sense to start a letter writing program." As part of that "program," on September 8, 2003, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent the following letter: Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables As background, and in chronological order: Pro Gold Investments purchased the above cited property and obtained a construction loan from our firm. One of the conditions was that all construction contracts would be assignable to our firm in the event of default. Pro Gold Investments entered into contract with your firm to install a new septic tank and drainfield at 453 Blue Road. Pro Gold Investments defaults and forfeits title in lieu of foreclosure. The deed was recorded on August 4, 2003, at Bk/Pg: 21484/4283. Not recorded but attached for your reference is an assignment of contracts to include the contract Pro Gold Investments entered into with your firm. See further attachment. The original can be inspected in my office. At this point, I request you proceed with the work as soon as practical and under identical conditions as originally agreed with Pro Gold Investments. Please call me at . . . to confirm a start date. Mr. de Blank did not receive any response to his letter. He finally was able, however, to reach Respondent on the telephone. During this telephone conversation, Mr. de Blank made arrangements to meet Respondent at the Blue Road Property to discuss Respondent's doing the work Respondent had agreed to do in the Septic System Contract. This meeting between Mr. de Blank and Respondent took place on September 11, 2003. During the meeting, Mr. de Blank went over with Respondent "what the job [was] going to be." Although Respondent indicated that he was "going to put in th[e] septic tank" per the Septic System Contract, Mr. de Blank had his doubts that Respondent would be true to his word. Following the meeting, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent the following letter: Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables We met today to discuss the above referenced job. My understanding is: You will start the job no later than the first week of October and will complete the job no later th[a]n the last week of October. I will obtain a copy of the approved permit. You indicated you will not need a survey.[1] Should you change you[r] mind, you can always refer to a survey I keep on site. You will have your insurance agent mail to my address a certificate of insurance. Though not discussed: I would like a partial release of payments made to date for the job. See further the attachment. Assuming you concur, then please send a signed and notarized copy to Maurits de Blank, Mortgage Lending Company, Post Office Box 430336, Miami, Florida 33143. Note that I prefer for various legal reasons that you use the release form as provided. Once the job has been started, I would like a list of firms supplying materials to the job. Notwithstanding that he had promised Mr. de Blank that he would "start the job no later than the first week of October," by the middle of October Respondent had yet to even "pull a septic tank construction permit from the City of Coral Gables" (that was needed before any on-site work could begin).2 In an attempt to find out from Respondent what was the cause of the delay, Mr. de Blank started a "calling campaign," but Respondent neither answered the telephone when Mr. de Blank called nor returned Mr. de Blank's calls. On October 19, 2003, Mr. de Blank sent the following letter to Respondent (by certified United States Mail, return receipt requested): Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables I need a firm commitment when you will start and finish septic tank at above address. If you cannot perform the work, then I will need a refund of the deposit given to your firm. Please call to discuss. The end of the month was fast approaching, and Respondent had neither contacted Mr. de Blank nor begun the Septic System Contract on-site work. After paying a visit to Coral Gables City Hall and learning that Respondent had still not even "pull[ed] a septic tank construction permit from the City of Coral Gables," Mr. De Blank found another septic tank contractor, Westland Septic Tank Corp., to do the installation work for MLC that Respondent was contractually obligated to perform. MLC paid Westland $4,400.00 to do the work. Westland completed the job some time prior to November 4, 2003. The work passed all of the necessary inspections. Upon learning that MLC had contracted with Westland, Respondent sent Mr. de Blank a letter complaining that Mr. de Blank had not given Respondent an adequate opportunity to meet his obligations under the Septic System Contract. In the letter, Respondent offered to return only $500.00 of the $2,300 down payment he had received from Pro Gold. Mr. de Blank subsequently informed Respondent that this was not satisfactory and that he wanted the "full deposit back." He added that if he did not get it, he would "go to court." Not having received any portion of the "deposit back," Mr. de Blank, acting on behalf of MLC, in mid-November 2003, filed suit against Respondent in Miami-Dade County Court. On May 14, 2004, a Final Judgment was entered in Miami-Dade County Court Case No. 0313813 in favor of MLC and against Respondent "in the amount of $1,675.00 plus court costs in the amount of $121.00." As of the date of the final hearing in this case, Respondent had not made any payments to MLC. In view of the foregoing, it is found that Respondent abandoned for 30 consecutive days, without any apparent good cause, a project in which he was under contractual obligation to complete; and his failure to go forward with the project, combined with his failure to return any of the deposit he had received, caused monetary harm to a party to whom he was contractually obligated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by fining him $500.00 and suspending his registration for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 February, 2005.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statues, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Richard M. Golfman, was, at all times material hereto, licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C032860, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual.1 The Feinstein project (DOAH Case No. 00-0599) On or about October 30, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Norman and Sheila Feinstein to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to enclose and remodel the screened patio, and to build a rock garden, at their home located at 5468 Northwest 20th Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. At the time, the Feinsteins paid Respondent $1,500 as the initial payment (deposit) under the terms of the contract. The contract Respondent presented and the Feinsteins executed on October 30, 1998, did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Following execution of the contract, Respondent made repeated promises to construct the rock garden; however, it was not until November 10, 1998, that Respondent appeared on-site and constructed the rock garden, albeit not to the Feinsteins' satisfaction. Subsequently, Respondent had some high-hat electrical fixture cans and a bundle of furring strips delivered to the home for the patio project but, thereafter, despite repeated requests, refused to perform any work on the project or refund any money to the Feinsteins. The value of the labor and materials Respondent invested in the rock garden, as well as the cost of the building materials (the high-hat fixtures and furring strips) delivered to the job-site, was $250, a sum considerably less than the $1,500 the Feinsteins had entrusted to Respondent under the terms of their agreement. The Burres/Berger project (DOAH Case No. 00-0600) On or about November 23, 1998, Respondent submitted a written proposal to Tanya Burres to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to replace the existing roof on her home located at 7270 Montrico Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $22,125. The proposal was a one-page preprinted form. In the upper left there appeared, printed immediately following Respondent's handwritten name, the following: THE GOLFMAN GROUP, INC. P.O. Box 811926 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 The proposal did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At the time the proposal was submitted, Tanya Burres was under contract to sell the home to Drs. Glenn Berger and Michelle Fiorillo, husband and wife (the Bergers), and Ms. Burres had agreed to split with the Bergers the cost of a new roof for the home. At the time, Ms. Burres had suggested the Respondent as a contractor to perform the work (because he had previously done satisfactory work for Ms. Burres); however, it was understood that the employment of any contractor was subject to the Bergers' approval. That the Bergers' agreement was required before any such employment would be accepted was clearly conveyed to Respondent. On November 23, 1998, Tanya Burres signed the proposal and gave Respondent a check payable to his order in the sum of $1,106.25, representing her half of the ten percent deposit called for by the proposal. The Bergers, however, declined to accept the proposal, and refused Respondent's request for the balance of the deposit. Rather, the Bergers, having received adverse information from the Department regarding Respondent's record, preferred to employ a different contractor, and Ms. Burres accorded the Bergers a monetary credit at closing (on the purchase of the home) for one-half the cost to re-roof the home. When the Bergers informed Ms. Burres (shortly after she signed the proposal on November 23, 1998) that they would not agree to use Respondent, Ms. Burres attempted to stop payment on her check; however, the check had already been cashed. Thereafter, Ms. Burres attempted on numerous occasions to contact Respondent by telephone and by his pager, but Respondent failed to return any of her calls or messages. To date, Respondent has failed to account for or return Ms. Burres' deposit of $1,106.25. The costs of investigation and prosecution As of February 25, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $234.85 for DOAH Case No. 00-0599 (the Feinstein project) and $195.65 for DOAH Case No. 00-0600 (the Burres/Berger project.) Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated August 4, 1987, which found Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (which were not revealed at hearing beyond what may be inferred from the terms of the Final Order), and resolved that Respondent suffer the following penalty: Respondent's licensure is hereby suspended for ten (10) years. Provided, Respondent may obtain termination of said suspension at anytime, without further action by the Board, upon providing the Board's Executive Director with a certified bank check in an amount sufficient to cover and pay a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), and the bad check alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and all service charges in connection therewith, and all other fees accruing as of the date Respondent seeks said termination of supervision. The second occasion Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated July 18, 1997, which approved a stipulated settlement of certain complaints then pending before the Board. That Final Order approved the dismissal of a number of counts contained in five Administrative Complaints then pending before the Board and, as to the remaining counts, agreed (without Respondent admitting or denying the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaints) to the following penalty: 3. FINE AND COSTS: Respondent shall pay a fine of Nine Hundred dollars ($900.00) and costs of Eight Hundred fifty One dollars ($851) to the Board within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. Said payment shall be in the form of a cashier's or certified check and shall be made payable to the "Construction Industry Licensing Board." To assure payment of the fine and costs, it is further ordered that all of Respondent's licensure to practice contracting shall be suspended with the imposition of the suspension being stayed for thirty (30) days. If the ordered fine and costs are paid in compliance with the terms set forth above, the suspension imposed shall not take effect. However, should payment not be timely made, the stay shall be lifted and Respondent's license shall be immediately suspended. Upon payment of the fine and costs in full, the suspension imposed shall be lifted. Respondent apparently satisfied the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as a penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $13,500.00, revokes Respondent's licensure, orders that Respondent pay restitution to Norman and Sheila Feinstein in the sum of $1,250.00 and to Tanya Burres in the sum of $1,106.25, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through February 25, 2000) in the total sum of $430.50 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is a plumbing contractor. He is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, licensed to engage in the plumbing contracting business in the State of Florida. His license number is CF C020307. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for A'Aabbott, a plumbing contracting business located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In August of 1992, A'Aabbott entered into a written contract (Contract) with Nereo Agostinelli in which it agreed, for $3,225.00, "[t]o furnish labor and materials to install [on Agostinelli's property in Plantation, Florida a] 600 sq. ft. drain field to all codes at standard practice." Respondent signed the Contract on behalf A'Aabbott. His license number, however, was not written or otherwise displayed on the Contract. The Contract contained the following warranty provision: "3 year conditional warranty-must upkeep interior plumbing." Agostinelli paid the $3,225.00 Contract price by check. A'Aabbott thereafter installed a 600 square foot drain field on Agostinelli's property, as it had agreed to do. Approximately two days after it had been installed (which was within the three-year warranty period), the system failed and raw sewage backed up into Agostinelli's residence on the property. The system failed because pipe that A'Aabbott had installed as part of the project had been cracked during installation by a large rock and had become clogged with soil and therefore could not carry effluent to the drain field. The "interior plumbing" that Agostinelli was required maintain as a prerequisite to his receiving the benefit of the Contract's "3 year conditional warranty" did not cause the failure of the system. Agostinelli made numerous attempts to contact A'Aabbott and request that it fix the problem, as A'Aabbott was required to do under the Contract. When Agostinelli spoke with Respondent, Respondent told him that A'Aabbott had no intention of doing anything further for him. Although A'Aabbott was made aware of the system's failure, it failed to take any action to repair the system. Sewage continued to back up into Agostinelli's residence. On three occasions, Agostinelli had Raider Rooter Sewer and Drain Cleaning, Inc., (Raider Rooter) come to his residence and remove sewage. The total cost to Agostinelli of Raider Rooter's services was $355.00. Agostinelli would not have incurred these costs had the system installed by A'Aabbott not failed. Having been unsuccessful in his efforts to have A'Aabbott honor its warranty under the Contract, Agostinelli contracted with B and N Dozing and Bobcat Service (B and N), on or about March 23, 1993, to make the necessary repairs to the system. He paid B and N $670.00 to make these repairs. There have not been any problems with the system since it was repaired by B and N.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, alleged in Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) fining Respondent $1,100.00 for having committed these violations and requiring him to pay $1,025.00 to Agostinelli in restitution and to reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs associated with the Department's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the challenged portions of Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined by Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Respondent The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of building and maintaining the state’s transportation system. Each year the Department lets out hundreds of road and bridge construction projects totaling over one billion dollars. The projects range from sidewalk improvements to major bridge construction. Accordingly, there is a wide range of expertise and qualifications necessary for the different kinds of projects let by the Department in Florida. Section 337.14(1), Florida Statutes, requires any person desiring to bid on any Department construction contract in excess of $250,000 to first be certified by the Department as qualified to perform the work to be let. Pursuant to Section 337.164, Florida Statutes, the Department qualifies contractors to preserve the integrity of the public contracting process, to ensure an open and competitive environment for the benefit of the taxpayers, and to ensure a quality project in terms of public works. Pursuant to Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, persons seeking to bid on contracts in excess of $250,000 must first file an application for a Certificate of Qualification with the Department. The statute specifically authorizes the Department to enact rules addressing the qualification of persons to bid on contracts in excess of $250,000, including requirements with respect to competency, responsibility, equipment, past record, experience, financial resources, and organizational personnel of the applicant. Gregory Xanders is the State Construction Engineer. His duties include setting policy and reviewing contractor responsibility and qualifications under Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code. In conjunction with reviewing a contractor’s qualifications, the State Construction Engineer’s Office receives input from other personnel, including contract managers in the field, the Department General Counsel’s Office, the Department Inspector General’s Office, and other cities and counties who may work with the contractor. The State Construction Engineer’s Office also reviews any intended decision to deny, suspend, or revoke a contractor’s Certificate of Qualification with the Assistant Secretary of the Department. When the State Construction Engineer’s Office makes a preliminary determination that a contractor’s Certificate of Qualification should be suspended, revoked, or denied, the contractor is notified and informed of its rights to an administrative hearing to contest the intended decision under Section 120.569, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner MBI is a company which engages in road building and asphalt paving. Since the early 1980s MBI has been qualified to bid on and awarded several Department projects. Approximately 80 percent of MBI's workload involves Department projects. Pursuant to Department rules, MBI annually submits an application to renew or obtain an updated Certificate of Qualification in order to continue bidding and performing Department projects. In 1997, MBI was denied qualification to bid on Department projects for approximately ten months. However, MBI was subsequently qualified by the Department during calendar year 1999. On or about March 31, 2000, MBI filed an Application for Qualification with the Department. By letter dated May 18, 2000, the Department gave MBI notice of its intent to deny MBI’s Application for Qualification, and stated that any subsequent application would not be considered for a period of two years. The Department’s letter advised MBI that the denial of the application constituted "a determination of non-responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract" for the same period. Specifically, the letter provided: Please be advised that pursuant to Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14- 22, Florida Administrative Code, it is the intent of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter Department) to deny Mitchell Brothers, Inc.’s (hereinafter Mitchell Brothers) Application for Qualification dated March 31, 2000. This denial shall preclude consideration of any subsequently submitted Application for Qualification for a period of two (2) years. Additionally, this denial shall constitute a determination of non- responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract and shall prohibit Mitchell Brothers from acting as a material supplier, contractor, or consultant on any Department contract during the period Mitchell Brothers is not qualified by the Department. The Department’s Notice of Intent denied MBI’s Application based upon a determination that MBI had demonstrated "a pattern of exorbitant and false, deceptive or fraudulent statements, certifications, or materials in claims for payment," and "a lack of management expertise and continuity." By Petition for Formal Hearing dated May 30, 2000, MBI challenged the Department’s Notice of Intent to Deny MBI’s Application for Qualification. MBI’s Petition for Formal Hearing was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 00-2431. On September 18, 2000, the Department served on MBI a Modified Notice of Intent to Deny MBI’s application. The Modified Notice gave additional grounds for the Department’s decision to deny MBI’s Application for Qualification. Among the additional grounds for denying MBI’s Application were the following: MBI submitted false, deceptive, fraudulent, erroneous or unreasonable statements, certifications, or materials in its claims for payment to the Department, the City of Tallahassee, the Leon County School Board, and other owners; MBI submitted claims or statements for services not performed or expenses not incurred; MBI failed to avoid, diminish or otherwise mitigate the effects of construction delays; and MBI failed to reasonably cooperate with the Department’s efforts to investigate the accuracy of MBI’s delay claims and statements. On October 13, 2000, MBI filed it’s Petition Seeking Administrative Determination that Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority (DOAH Case No. 00-4234RX). Specifically, in paragraph 11 of its Petition, MBI alleges that the Rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes specific provisions of the law implemented, and that the Rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. MBI later alleged that the Department had also exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority. A three-week final hearing was scheduled to commence in DOAH Case No. 00-2431 on October 26, 2000. Shortly prior to hearing, Petitioner filed a Motion to consolidate DOAH Case Nos. 99-2431 and 00-4234RX. The Department opposed the motion based on their counsel's inability to be adequately prepared for the 00-4234RX rule challenge proceeding. In lieu, the parties agreed to temporarily break from the 00-2431 hearing during the second week and commence the rule challenge. However, on the morning of October 26, 2000, MBI filed a Notice of its Withdrawal of its Petition for Formal Hearing in DOAH Case No. 00-2431. Consequently, DOAH Case No. 00-4234RX was scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2000. Based on MBI’s Notice of Withdrawal of its Petition, an Order Closing File was entered in DOAH Case No. 00-2431 on November 1, 2000. On November 2, 2000, the Department entered a Clerk’s Order of Dismissal of MBI’s Petition challenging the denial of its Application for Qualification. "Good Cause" Defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, provides: For reasons other than delinquency in progress, the department, for good cause, may determine any contractor not having a certificate of qualification nonresponsible for a specified period of time or may deny, suspend, or revoke any certificate of qualification. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, circumstances in which a contractor or the contractor’s official representative: Makes or submits to the department false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements or materials in any bid proposal to the department, any application for a certificate of qualification, any certification of payment pursuant to s. 337.11(10), or any administrative or judicial proceeding; Becomes insolvent or is the subject of a bankruptcy petition; Fails to comply with contract requirements, in terms of payment or performance record, or to timely furnish contract documents as required by the contract or by any state or federal statute or regulation; Wrongfully employs or otherwise provides compensation to any employee or officer of the department, or willfully offers an employee or officer of the department any pecuniary or other benefit with the intent to influence the employee or officer’s official action or judgment; Is an affiliate of a contractor who has been determined nonresponsible or whose certificate of qualification has been suspended or revoked and the affiliate is dependent upon such contractor for personnel, equipment, bonding capacity, or finances; Fails to register, pursuant to chapter 320, motor vehicles that he or she operates in this state. Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, or revoke an Application for Qualification based upon a determination of "good cause." "Good cause" is defined by six examples specified in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, but the statute further provides that "good cause includes, but is not limited to" the six circumstances specified in the statute. "Good Cause" Defined in the Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled: "Suspension, Revocation, or Denial of Qualification." Subsection (1) of this Rule provides in pertinent part: (1) The Department will, for good cause, as that term is defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, suspend, revoke, or deny any contractor’s qualification to bid. A suspension, revocation, or denial for good cause pursuant to this rule shall prohibit the contractor from bidding on any Department construction contract for which prequalification is required by Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, and shall constitute a determination of non- responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract and from acting as a material supplier, subcontractor, or consultant on any Department contract or project during the period of suspension, revocation, or denial. As provided in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, such good cause shall include, but shall not be limited to, the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (e) below. When a specific period of revocation, denial, or suspension is not specified by this rule, the period shall be based on the criteria of Rule 14-22.0141(4), F.A.C., as well as Department contractor certification activities. (a) The contractor’s Certificate of Qualification shall be denied or revoked for at least one year when it is determined by the Department that any of the following has occurred: One of the circumstances specified under Section 337.16(2)(a), (b) or (d), Florida Statutes, has occurred. Affiliated contractors submitted more than one proposal for the same work. In this event the Certificate of Qualification of all of the affiliated bidders will be revoked or denied. All bids of affiliated bidders will be rejected. The contractor made or submitted to the Department false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements, certifications, or materials in any claim for payment or any information required by any Department contract. The contractor defaulted on any Department contract or the contract surety took over any Department contract from the contractor. Rule 14-22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, or revoke a contractor’s qualification to bid based on a determination of "good cause" as that term is defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes. The term is defined by examples contained in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and in the Rule, but it is not exhaustive. In addition to the list of examples of "good cause" specified in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14- 22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, the Department consistently considers other criteria contained in Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, which relate to the qualifications of a contractor. Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, requires the Department to consider a contractor’s equipment, past record, experience, financial resources and organizational personnel. Other factors considered are contained in Rule 14-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, which addresses the rating of the applicant, work performance record, quality of work performed, history of payment, timeliness of completing projects, cooperative attitude, contract litigation, claims, defaults, integrity, and responsibility. Both Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, provide the industry with sufficient guidance as to the criteria for "good cause." Responsibility A contractor bidding on projects of less than $250,000 is presumed to be responsible unless one of the circumstances specified in Rule 14-22.0141, Florida Administrative Code, occurs, in which case the contractor may be deemed "non- responsible." In addition to being "qualified," a contractor seeking to bid on projects over $250,000 must also be deemed to be "responsible." By statute, a contractor must be "responsible" as a prerequisite to being "qualified." Section 337.14(3), Florida Statutes, provides: (3) Upon the receipt of an application for certification, the department shall examine it, verify its statements when necessary, and determine whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work. The Department must consider the responsibility of the contractor during the review of its Application for Qualification. If a contractor’s qualification has been denied, suspended, or revoked for "good cause," then the contractor is deemed to be non-responsible and not allowed to bid on any project. Under Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, the Department may determine the time period in which a contractor is deemed to be non-responsible. Period of Disqualification As to the period of disqualification, Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provide a framework of guidelines and, in some instances, detailed timeframes relating to specific circumstances. For example, Section 337.165(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes, specifically requires the Department to deny or revoke a contractor's certification for a period of 36 months when the Department determines that the contractor has been convicted of a contract crime. This statute provides a frame of reference for the Department in establishing the period of disqualification. Within the framework provided by Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, the Department considers a period of disqualification ranging from 0 to 36 months. Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, states that when a Certificate of Qualification is denied or revoked for any of the specified reasons in Rule 14-22.012(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the denial or revocation is "for at least one year." This revocation period only provides a lower limit. Rule 14-22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, further provides: "When a specific period of revocation, denial, or suspension is not specified by this rule, the period shall be based on the criteria of Rule 14-22.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Department contractor certification activities." Rule 14-22.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a contractor will be "ineligible to bid on Department contracts for a period of time based on the seriousness of the deficiency." Rule 14022.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides examples of factors affecting the seriousness of the deficiency. Under the Rule, the examples of factors affecting the seriousness of the deficiency include impacts on project schedule, cost, quality of work, unsafe conditions allowed to exist, complaints from the public, delay or interference with the bidding process, and the potential for repetition. It is not possible to codify in a rule the precise time period of disqualification for every single instance. Because the facts and circumstances supporting a determination of "good cause" vary, it is impracticable to compile an exhaustive list for each instance.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application for certification as a licensed plumber was proper.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record 1/ compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During mid-April of 1981, Petitioner, David L. Mooney, filed an application to be certified to sit for the next Certified Contractors' Examination with the Respondent, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Since approximately 1969, Petitioner had been a resident of Newton, New Jersey, where he was licensed as a Master Plumber. While residing in New Jersey, Petitioner was in a private plumbing business which was fairly successful, however, due to the weather conditions in the New Jersey area, the plumbing business is primarily a seasonal business. As a result of the seasonal nature of the plumbing business in New Jersey, Petitioner's business also had cash-flow problems. Petitioner also experienced personal financial problems in connection with his adoption of a son while in New Jersey. Petitioner was forced to expend a substantial amount of money in legal fees and had to leave the State of New Jersey in order to gain the release of the adopted son. Briefly, and more specifically, evidence reveals that the adopted son had several brushes with the law, including an involvement in an armed robbery and arson of a country club. (Testimony of Petitioner.) Petitioner's application was examined by members of the Respondent, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), and the Board decided that it could not certify Petitioner to sit for licensure as a certified contractor due to a lack of financial responsibility. An examination of Petitioner's application for licensure to sit for the Certified Contractors' examination reveals that at the time in which he filed his application, his cash on hand amounted to $500.00 with virtually no assets and he had incurred liabilities in excess of $118,000.00. Petitioner's application reveals that there were outstanding judgments against him, tax liens, and several past due and delinquent accounts and/or bills.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent deny Petitioner's application for certification as a plumbing contractor in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1982, 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 25th day of February, 1982
The Issue The primary factual issue was whether the company which the Respondent had qualified was in fact the contractor on the job from which the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint arose. The Petitioner submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Edward Ryan, is a certified building contractor holding license number C3 C006481 and was the qualifying agent for Behr Contracting, Inc. (thereafter "Behr Contracting"), at all times relevant to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Behr Contracting was, and is a business engaging in, contracting, selling building materials, and mortgage brokerage. Its operations as a mortgage broker are now carried on under a separate corporation; however, at the time involved in these proceedings, its mortgage brokerage operation was carried out in the name of Behr Contracting, Inc. Willie Mae Williams resides at 1451 Northwest 92nd Street, Miami, Florida. In 1980, Ms. Williams had extensive modifications made to her house at the foregoing address. With regard to the work on her house, Ms Williams' initial contact was with S. J. (Jerome) Farmer. Farmer was an independent contractor who was doing home repairs in early 1980 to several homes close to the Williams home. He was not doing these jobs as an employee of Behr Contracting, and no evidence was introduced that at said time he was an employee of Behr Contracting. After he had already begun working on the Williams home, Farmer approached the Respondent and requested Respondent's assistance in helping him estimate additional repairs and modifications to Ms. Williams' home and assistance in obtaining the financing for this job. Farmer was not affiliated in any manner with Behr Contracting. The Respondent arranged for an estimator to assist Farmer in estimating the cost of the project and in obtaining financing for the project. (Testimony of Ryan, Tr. 58 et seq.) This estimator had two contract forms signed by Ms. Williams, one for financing and one for construction. These documents were identified by Ms. Williams and were received into the record. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3.) Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is the contract between Behr Contracting and Ms. Williams for the financing of the modifications to the Williams house. Financing for the project was obtained through the mortgage brokerage operation of Behr Contracting and the money funneled through Behr Contracting to pay for materials purchased through Behr's building materials operation. Ms. Williams has made payments and is making payments as required under said contract to the finance company, Uni Credit of Jacksonville, Florida. Behr Contracting provided cabinets, windows and certain appliances, to include a dishwasher. The Respondent was at Ms. Williams' house approximately three times prior to the delivery of building materials from Behr Contracting. (Testimony of Ryan, Tr. 23.) On none of these occasions was the Respondent there as a building contractor qualifying Behr Contracting. At all times, Farmer was in charge of the project. (See testimony of Williams, Tr. 184.) Farmer was the contractor in fact. Subsequent to installation of the dishwasher, the Respondent was present at the Williams house often because of Ms Williams' complaints about the dishwasher. The Respondent replaced this dishwasher and had Ms. Williams' septic tank pumped in order to solve the drainage problem which was causing the dishwasher to malfunction. This was done to honor the warranty on the dishwasher. (Supra, Tr. 45-51.) A salesman for Behr Contracting gave Ms. Williams an estimate on both the contracting and on the financing for the modifications and remodeling of the Williams house. Under its business practices, Behr Contracting disapproved or rejected the contract for construction, yet approved the financing contract. Approval of a construction contract in the amount of the instant contract, over $11,000, would have required an officer's approval. (See testimony of Stanley Weiss, Tr. 21-28.) Although Ms. Williams identified her signature on the purported construction contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), she could not identify the signature appearing on the lefthand side of the page at the bottom of the contract in the area of "Agent" and "Officer." This signature also could not be identified by Stanley Weiss or Margaret Behr, officers of Behr Contracting. It was not the signature of Weiss, Ms Behr or the Respondent, who were the only officers of the corporation authorized to approve a contract of this amount at the time that this contract was prepared. This contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) was never accepted by Behr Contracting (See testimony of Weiss, Tr. 35.) Although a copy of Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was discovered by Weiss in the files of Behr Contracting, this was a photo copy given to Weiss by the Respondents who had received it from the Board's investigators when the Respondent first spoke to them about this case. (See page 8, deposition of Ryan taken September 17, 1982; see pages 3, 4 and 8, deposition of Weiss; testimony of Ryan, Tr. 70-75; testimony of Weiss, Tr. 10-12.) The Respondent's involvement in this matter was "limited to providing gratuitous advice to Farmer at Farmer's request on one occasion, concerning a broken major waste drain, and representing Behr Contracting who was a major supplier of materials and appliances for the job. It is specifically found that the Petitioner failed to establish the existence of a construction contract between Ms. Williams and Behr Contracting. Regarding the allegations that the Respondent abandoned the job, the Respondent caused the dishwasher supplied by Behr Contracting to be replaced under warranty service. The septic tank at the Williams house was pumped and cleaned at the request of Uni Credit in an attempt to solve the problem. Finally, over a year after the job had begun, the Respondent had the septic tank and drainfeild rebuilt and solved Ms. Williams' drainage problems. This last action was taken under threat of prosecution by the Board's investigators and was done in spite of the fact, which is uncontroverted, that the construction did not address modifications to the plumbing in the house. After the Respondent had taken these actions, Ms. Williams than wanted the cabinets and other work, which had been done by Farmer, replaced because of water damage caused by the drainage problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Amended Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Edward Ryan, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Kristin Building, Suite 101 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 32206 Mr. Edward Ryan 19762 Bel Aire Drive Miami, Florida 33138 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
