Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts I, II and IV of the amended administrative complaint, and guilty of misconduct by affixing his signature and number to air-conditioning plans in Count VI. All other charges should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be given the penalty set forth in paragraph 45 of this recommended order. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1983, 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for the certified electrical contractor's examination to the Respondent in January, 1983. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the standards of licensure for electrical contractors, pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21GG, Florida Administrative Code, and with administering and enforcing the licensure and practice standards of electrical contractors in the State of Florida. The application filed by the Petitioner indicated that he had been employed as a Journeyman electrician with Mozart Electric, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, since October, 1978. The application on its face showed no further experience in the electrical contracting trade possessed by the Petitioner, except as a Journeyman electrician for that company. The Petitioner was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1934. In 1950, when he was 16 years old, he became an apprentice electrician, working and learning the trade with a view toward becoming a Journeyman and ultimately a Master electrician. He was licensed in Berlin as a Journeyman electrician on September 12, 1953. He worked in that capacity in Germany until 1955, when he immigrated to the United States. In 1955, he settled in Chicago and was licensed as a Journeyman electrician and joined the Electrical Worker's Union Local 134 in Chicago in that classification. From 1957 to 1958, the Petitioner served as a "Master electrician" in the United States Army. The Petitioner has chosen to maintain his union membership so he was thus precluded from being employed in a job classification with the title of "contractor". Since the mid-1950's, however, the Petitioner has been in charge of and in a supervisory position on electrical contracting jobs. For instance, with Mozart Electric, his present employer since 1978, the Petitioner has typically supervised a crew of eight men in performing the electrical contracting portion of large commercial construction jobs. In that capacity, the Petitioner works in an unsupervised fashion and "lays out" the job, estimates the scope and cost of the work, solely supervises the men on the job, makes shop drawings, and solely inspects the finished job. The Petitioner, although he does not do the bidding himself, often does the estimating upon which bids are predicated. In addition, the Petitioner's activities and duties with Mozart Electric, Inc. include making corrections to blueprints, conferring with architects to work out necessary changes, promulgating time schedules, hiring and laying off electricians, and coordinating the electrical construction work with other trades on a given job. In this, or a similar capacity, he has worked with four electrical contracting companies since coming to the United States. Thus, he spent 17 years with Klorek Electric as a Journeyman, then foreman, then superintendent. The Petitioner spent two years with Gibson Electric Company as a foreman; four years with Midland Electric Company as a superintendent; and five years with his present employer, Mozart Electric, Inc. in performance of the above sort of duties. It has therefore been established that the Petitioner has worked for a substantial portion of the last 28 years in a capacity other than as merely a Journeyman electrical worker an a job site, but rather has typically worked in a supervisory capacity for most of those 28 years. Indeed, for most jobs performed during that time, the Petitioner was superintendent of the job and was solely responsible directly to the president of his company for the quantity and quality of work performed by his men, whom he supervised unassisted by anyone else.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Hans Rossignol to be permitted to take the examination for certified electrical contractors should be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 24th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Hans Rossignol c/o Mozart Electric, Inc. 2427 North Claybourne Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 Susan Tully, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Florida Electrical Construction Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Oliver J. Turzak violated statutes and rules governing the practice of engineering as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Clerk of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the “Board”) on October 4, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint at issue was filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (“FEMC”) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and at all times material to these proceedings has been, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 18230. Respondent’s last known address is 5405 Water Street, New Port Richey, Florida 34652. On April 20, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive, New Port Richey, Florida (“Fish Residence Project”). On June 10, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated an engineering opinion letter (“Letter”) which was addressed and sent to Champion Foundation Repair, the entity which was Respondent’s client for the Fish Residence Project. The Letter stated in material part: [Respondent], whose signature appears below, has verified placement of twenty-seven (27) exterior piers and twenty-five (25) interior jack pins as located on the drawings by the same job number. The piers all achieved sufficient load bearing characteristics to transfer the house weight to the piers and to close cracks substantially and stabilize the foundation. The remediation program was developed according to geological data supplied by Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc., dated November 2007. Similar pier reports on numerous structures with similar problems have demonstrated long term success without additional settlement. Therefore, it is the opinion of the [Respondent] that the location has been repaired and stabilized and, further, that there is no evidence of new sinkhole activity at the location. In compliance with Florida Statute 627.707, the report and remediation program was prepared under the supervision of a Registered Professional, whose field of expertise is a Geo-Technical Engineer. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (“Responsibility Rules”). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-35. Professional engineers, who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules, are required to comply with those rules. Rule 61G15-30.002(1) mandates that Respondent, as the structural engineer of record, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared for the Fish Residence Project. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing a document that complies with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record of the Structure for the Fish Residence Project as that term is defined in rules 61G15-31.002(1) and 61G15-31.003(1). As such, all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in rule 61G15-31.002(5), as mandated by rule 61G15-31.001, setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(4) provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” Rule 61G15-19.001(4) also provides that: [F]ailure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility Rules as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with this section unless the deviation or departures therefrom are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the professional engineer. Respondent’s June 10, 2008, Letter is an engineering “certification” as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-18.011(4): statement signed and sealed by a professional engineer representing that the engineering services addressed therein, as defined in section 471.005(6), F.S., have been performed by the professional engineer, and based upon the professional engineer’s knowledge, information and belief, and in accordance with commonly accepted procedures consistent with applicable standards of practice, . . . . “Certifications” are subject to the standards set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-29.001, which require that if an engineer is presented with a “certification” that “involve[s] matters which are beyond the engineer’s scope of services actually provided” that the engineer must “decline to sign . . . such certification.” Section 471.033(1)(a) provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for “[v]iolating . . . [a] rule of the [B]oard.” Section 471.033(1)(e) provides, in material part, that a professional engineer is subject to discipline for “[m]aking or filing a report or record that the licensee knows to be false” when the report is “signed in the capacity of a licensed engineer.” Rule 61G15-19.001(6) provides that: A professional engineer shall not commit misconduct in the practice of engineering. Misconduct in the practice of engineering as set forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., shall include, but not be limited to: * * * (b) Being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report, statement, or testimony whether or not under oath or omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report, statement or testimony when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, employer or the general public; . . . . The Fish Residence In 2007, the residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive in New Port Richey, Florida (the “Fish Residence”), experienced structural damage from subsidence in the ground underlying the home. As a result, a claim was made to Fish’s insurance company, and an investigation was commenced. Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. (“CFTL”), a geotechnical engineering firm, performed an in-depth analysis and found, in a signed, sealed, and dated engineering report issued on November 20, 2007, that the subsidence was likely caused by a number of factors, including sinkhole activity. As a result, the Fishes hired a contractor, Champion Foundation Repair (“Champion”) to remediate the damage. Champion hired Respondent to perform the engineering services necessary to obtain a permit for the remediation, inspect the construction, and complete a report certifying the adequate completion of the work. Respondent had a long history of providing similar services to Champion in the past, having performed engineering services in over 200 projects for Champion. Respondent created, signed, sealed, and dated on April 20, 2008, a Settlement Stabilization Plan (“Plan”), which formed the design basis for the work Champion carried out. Well into the project, the Fishes became dissatisfied with the work done by Champion. Champion was terminated as the contractor before the work was finalized and before Respondent was able to perform a final inspection of the property. Litigation was commenced and Bracken Engineering (“Bracken”), a forensic structural/civil engineering firm was engaged to perform an investigation of the work performed by Champion and Respondent for the pending litigation. Bracken issued a lengthy engineering report (“Bracken Report”), under engineering seal, on June 20, 2011. The Bracken Report found Respondent’s Plan deficient, that Respondent was not adequately knowledgeable about the site, that Champion’s implementation of the Plan, and Champion’s construction work as a whole was flawed and inadequate. Subsequent to the issuance of the Bracken Report, a complaint was filed with the Board, and these proceedings were initiated. Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence Roger Jeffery opined that the Plan failed to meet required engineering standards. The parties agree that when a structure, such as the Fish Residence Project, is initially built, the loads are directly transferred to the foundation, which then transfers the loads directly and uniformly as a continuously supported structure to the underlying soil. However, when, as occurred in this case, the structure’s loads are no longer transferred directly and uniformly to the ground through the foundation, but are transferred through pins which underlie the foundation, the foundation itself now acts as a beam or beams and is subject to the stresses applied to the beams. Respondent asserted that the foundation load would remain continuous, and therefore stable, since grouting had been poured under the Fish Residence to consolidate and stabilize the soils. However, Respondent’s plan did not call for grouting to be used. Moreover, according to the Bracken Report, no grouting was ever placed under the Fish Residence, even though it was called for in the CFTL Report to stabilize the structure. Respondent’s failure to perform a final inspection resulted in an inaccurate assumption and opinion. Respondent’s claim that grouting placed in the void under the structure reconstituted the original soil conditions is rejected, especially in light of the fact that Respondent also analyzed the pins and foundation in a beam configuration--a simple span beam. Further, Respondent’s analysis must be discounted because the calculations justifying his conclusion that the structure was adequately supported was performed in December 2013, well after these proceedings commenced and more than five years after the Plan had been created by Respondent. As a result of the changed structural support system (from ground support to pins), the position of the pins is critical to the stability of the structure. If the pins are too far apart for the strength of the foundation’s materials to accommodate the foundation, now acting as a beam or beams, the foundation will be overstressed. Cracking, at a minimum, or collapse, at a maximum, can occur. Cracking or collapse can occur because the concrete slab foundation used at the Fish Residence does not have any existing top reinforcing steel in it. When asked if perhaps reinforcing steel might have been placed within the slab itself, Mr. Jeffery stated he had never seen such use of steel in over 40 years. No evidence to support the steel within the slab theory was presented. When the newly installed pins become the structural support, a negative bending moment is introduced to the top of the foundation, now acting as a beam. The top of the foundation is made only of concrete, which has little ability to resist the induced negative moment. As a result, deflection, racking, and ultimate failure will be the result if the pin placement and the spans created by the placement are inadequately designed. Respondent’s after-the-fact calculations do not address this issue. Using a continuous beam analysis, the preferred method to evaluate the beam/pin assemblage design in structures like the Fish Residence, the spacing of the pins (usually ten feet apart) designed by Respondent coupled with the loads generated by the foundation and the lack of reinforcing steel in the top portion of the foundation would result in stress that would exceed the strength of the concrete and, at a minimum, the concrete would eventually crack. Dr. Ahmed Said, Respondent’s expert, agreed with this conclusion. Even using a simple beam analysis, the design method Respondent testified he used and that Dr. Said agreed was commonly used, movement, resulting in cracks at the foundation slab, would occur. Again, since no reinforcing steel exists at the top of the slab, as a matter of simple physics, the concrete would have to respond to the deflection that would occur at the bottom of the foundation and, concrete being weak, would likely crack or worse at the top. Respondent provided no persuasive rebuttal to Mr. Jeffery’s analysis. First, Respondent claimed that elevations taken at the site in 2013 showed minimal deflective movement, proving the Plan design was sufficient. However, Mr. Jeffery noted that subsequent elevations taken at the completed structure would have little meaning regarding the adequacy of the design since: the design stands alone and is not affected by how the contractor implemented it; and no one could know whether the design, as constructed, would withstand the required stresses until it was subjected to full design loading, which would have to include the full wind loads to which the structure was designed. There is no evidence the structure was ever subjected to such stress in the period between its construction in 2008 and the later recorded elevations. Next, Respondent claimed the 3-foot “spreaders” attached to the pins would reduce the span of the foundation acting as a beam and thus would overcome the lack of reinforcing steel in the top of the foundation and the resulting overstress. The problem with this assertion is that the Plan does not call for “spreaders” to be placed in the design by any notations that are readily and universally cognizable. Respondent admitted that the symbol regarding the use of the spreaders was agreed to only between Champion and him, and was not included in the Plan. However, even if the notations used by Respondent could be interpreted as calling for the use of the “spreaders,” the “spreaders” would not materially impact the fact that the foundation, acting as a beam, would be overstressed, since a negative moment would still exist due to the lack of reinforcing steel at the top of the foundation. Finally, Respondent asserted that Mr. Jeffery’s analysis was flawed since Mr. Jeffery had assumed the Fish Residence was a masonry structure whereas Respondent claimed the structure was a wood frame covered with a stucco exterior. This issue is confused by the fact that both the CFTL and Bracken Reports, upon which Mr. Jeffery relied, both stated the Fish Residence was a masonry structure, although the CFTL Report notes the structure was initially constructed as wood frame. In any event, Mr. Jeffery testified that regardless of the masonry versus wood frame question, the structure would still be overstressed. Changing the construction from masonry to wood frame/stucco veneer might lessen the overstress, but not materially. In addition to the overstress created by failing to address the induced negative moment at the top of the foundation, Respondent’s design also resulted in a shear load which exceeded the maximum allowable under the American Concrete Institute 318 Concrete Code; and, since that code is incorporated into the Florida Building Code (“FBC”), the requirements of the FBC as well. The shear load factor is especially relevant since Respondent did not assure that the pins would not be placed under windows and doors where this issue is critical. Respondent did not address the shear issue as it applied to windows and doors in his after-the-fact calculations. The Plan is also deficient since it did not indicate the placement of windows and doors in the Fish Residence Project. By not doing so, the pins, when put in the ground, could be placed underneath these internal spaces which do not then form a continuous roof/wall/foundation assembly. If that occurred, and it apparently did in the Fish Residence on four occasions, the shear problem described above is exacerbated, since at either side of a door or window a point load is created and the shear stress increased. The Plan also fails to include required information. While the Plan calls for the use of a “FastSteel” product, the Plan does not include any product specification number or the strength of the material to be used. Although Respondent stated that the contractor, based upon its experience, knew what was intended, ultimately Respondent admitted that the required information was not in the Plan. Similarly, the Plan did not include the design loads and criteria used in the design and provided no building codes and standards. Respondent admitted the Plan lacked this required information. The missing information is important. Only by including such information on design documents can the engineer adequately communicate to the reviewing building code plans examiner or a contractor what the design engineer intended. By not including this required information, the reviewer can be uncertain as to whether the engineer used the correct loadings or designed the structure in accordance with the correct edition of the building code. Similarly, failing to provide sufficient information concerning the products to be used may lead a contractor to utilize the wrong product during construction. The Plan was submitted to Pasco County for issuance of a permit. The county building department issued a permit for the work to be performed. Mike Mosher of Champion believed the Plan included all the specifications he needed to identify the components to be used and the manner in which the work was to be performed. He also testified the work was completed consistent with the Plan. The June 10, 2008, Certification Letter Respondent issued the June 10, 2008 Certification Letter (“Letter”) under seal to his client before he completed the inspections necessary for the conclusions in the Letter to accurately reflect the opinions contained in it. Both Respondent and his client, Champion, agree that since the client had been denied access to the Fish Residence Project, no final inspection of the site by Respondent ever occurred. As a result, Respondent admitted that, when he signed, sealed, and issued the Letter, the engineering services, upon which the certification in the Letter was based, had not yet occurred. The evidence proved that Respondent’s last appearance at the Fish Residence Project occurred on or about May 5, 2008, and that most of the work done at the site occurred after that date with the final construction finishing on or about May 30, 2008. As a result, the conclusions and opinions contained in the Letter were not based upon accurate and contemporaneous engineering analysis. Since the Letter purports to be grounded in engineering inspections, the statements in the Letter were not fully based upon the services Respondent actually provided. While not entirely clear from the evidence and testimony, had Respondent had the ability to perform a final inspection, he would have had the opportunity to discover several deficiencies in the construction. The Bracken Report detailed several deficiencies and non-conformances with the Remediation Plan. These deficiencies included: 1) failure to drive 5/6ths of the pilings to the depth prescribed by the notes to the Plan; a large number of pins found beneath door and window openings; mis-installation of pins and pin assemblages; and 4) no grouting placed in the ground although Respondent intended that grouting be used. Respondent agreed that at least some of the Bracken Report conclusions were warranted. Respondent asserts that, although the Letter was issued prematurely, Respondent should not be held accountable since the Letter “never went public.” This contention is rejected. The Letter was a final engineering report/certification and, upon issuance to Respondent’s client, Champion, was fully subject to all engineering standards, rules, and statutes. Since the Letter contained conclusions that were inaccurate and based upon information that was not collected under Respondent’s direct supervision, issuance of the Letter constituted negligence and misconduct in the practice of engineering. Respondent’s Prior History of Discipline Respondent has previously had discipline imposed. The instant case is the first in more than 40 years of Respondent practicing engineering that involved a subsidence remediation plan. Respondent’s first prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 00-0086. In that case, Respondent was hired to correct building code issues identified by a county building department. The drawings he made violated the building code requirements, contained deficiencies, and were not in compliance with the standard practice of engineering. Respondent proceeded to hearing without benefit of legal counsel. A final order was entered by the Board reprimanding his license, fining him $1,000, plus costs of $302.93, placing him on probation for one year, and requiring he complete a course in professionalism and ethics while on probation. Respondent’s second prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 01-0079. That matter was based upon drawings that were dated February 16, 2001. Respondent was not represented by counsel in that proceeding. In that proceeding, no proof was presented that the structure depicted in the plans by Respondent was ever built. Therefore, no direct risk of harm to the public was proven. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that matter which was approved by the Board of Professional Engineers. He agreed to pay a total administrative fine of $7,000, plus $316.67 in costs and receive a reprimand on his license. He also received a one-year suspension of his license, followed by two years’ probation, and continuing education requirements. The other instance of discipline imposed against Respondent was in FEMC Case No. 2004037005. That complaint arose from plans that were signed by Respondent in June 2004. He was charged with signing plans he had not personally prepared or were not prepared under his supervision. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that case that was approved by the Board. He paid a $5,000 administrative fine and costs of $750; received a reprimand on his license; received two years of probation; and was required to make detailed reporting to the FEMC during the probationary period. No additional evidence of prior disciplinary matters was offered other than the three cases described above.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Oliver Turzak’s Professional Engineer license be reprimanded, and that the license shall be suspended for a period of one year. Upon termination of the suspension, Respondent shall be reinstated under terms and conditions of reinstatement as the Board determines are appropriate, including two years of probation with terms the Board deems appropriate. Respondent shall also be fined $1,000 per count ($2,000 total fine). Finally, Petitioner shall be entitled to assess costs which are related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs or fees associated with an attorney’s time, as provided in section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David P. Rankin, Esquire Law Office of David P. Rankin, P.A. 18540 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33548 John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, appropriately denied Petitioner's, Kevin Harrington, application to take the examination for licensure as an electrical contractor.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is the state agency vested with the authority to test applicants seeking certification as electrical contractors. Petitioner is seeking certification (licensure) as an electrical contractor. On December 12, 2001, Respondent received Petitioner's application to take the Electrical Contractors Unlimited examination. On December 24, 2001, Respondent mailed Petitioner a letter requesting additional information. The letter requested that the additional information be received by Respondent no later than January 4, 2002. This date was later extended to January 8, 2002. On January 4 and January 7, 2002, Petitioner, through his attorney, forwarded the requested additional information to Respondent. Petitioner's application was complete on January 10, 2002. Respondent, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board("Board"), met on January 16 and 17, 2002. The Board delegates initial consideration of applications to take certification examinations to an Applications Committee consisting of members of the Board who make recommendations to the full Board on each application. Each application is examined by at least two Applications Committee members; if both recommend "denial of the application," or, if one recommends "approval of the application" and one recommends "denial of the application," the application is reviewed by a third Applications Committee member. Each member of the Applications Committee is provided a worksheet as a part of the application package which lists reasons for denial drawn from Subsection 489.511(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes. After each application is considered by members of the Applications Committee, the application with the Applications Committee's recommendations, reasons for denial (if applicable), and other comments are given to a staff employee who prepares an approved/denial list which is presented to the full Board for consideration. The foregoing procedure was followed in the instant case. On January 16, 2002, Board members, Roger Lange and Kim DeBerry, who were members of the Applications Committee, considered Petitioner's application; both recommended denial of the application. Because there were two recommendations of denial, the application was considered by a third Applications Committee member, Dawn Johnson; she, too, recommended denial. Petitioner's application and the recommendations, reasons for denial, and comments of the Applications Committee were then given to a staff employee who prepared a summary list of all applicants with the recommendations for approval or denial by the Applications Committee with reasons given for denial for submission to the full Board. The full Electrical Contractors Licensing Board considered Petitioner's application on January 17, 2002, and unanimously denied the application. Petitioner was advised of the denial by letter dated February 8, 2002. Petitioner's Applicant's Affidavit dated November 16, 2001, indicates that he was seeking a license under Subsection 489 .511(2)(a)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The Applicant's Affidavit specifically states: 489.511(2)(a)(3)(a), F.S. Has, within the six (6) years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least three (3) years proven "management experience" in the trade or education equivalent thereto, or a combination thereof, but not more than one- half of such experience may be educational. (Please submit at least three (3) years of W- 2 Forms) The occupational skills and responsibilities of an electrical contractor are unique and require experience and understanding which are typically acquired by extensive, direct "on-the-job" training in the electrical contracting trade. Petitioner is an experienced General Contractor's project manager. His credentials as a General Contractor's project manager are impressive and the projects he has supervised are extensive. Petitioner has little or no direct supervisory experience in the electrical contracting trade. Petitioner's construction management experience is as a General Contractor project manager, not an Electrical Contractor project manager or similar position, and, as a consequence, he does not meet the "'management experience' in the trade" statutory requirement. Petitioner has an enviable academic record: an Associate of Science Degree With Honors from Miami-Dade Community College (1990), a Bachelor of Science in Building Construction from University of Florida (1993), 21 hours of graduate studies at Florida International University leading towards a Master of Building Construction degree. Petitioner's academic credentials have little direct application to the electrical contracting trade and, as a consequence, do not meet the "educational equivalent" to management experience statutory requirement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the Certified Electrical Contractor's Licensure Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Rosemary Hanna Hayes, Esquire Hayes & Associates 3117 Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondents are certified general contractors and were so licensed at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Respondents Herbert S. McNairy, George A. Hunt, Jr., and James R. Brown, Jr., were qualifiers for George Hunt, Inc. at all times pertinent to the proceedings. Respondents Larry A. Thompson and Bill H. Hunt were qualifiers for Hunt Brothers Construction, Inc. at all times pertinent to the proceedings. On or about March 17, 1979, George Hunt, Inc. entered into a contract with Don Olson Firestone, Inc. for the construction of a warehouse building at 2009 Sunnydale Blvd., Clearwater, Florida. On or about April 3, 1979, Hunt Brothers Construction, Inc. applied for and received a building permit for the construction of the building from the Pinellas County Building Department. The permit was signed by Respondent, Bill Hunt, qualifier for Hunt Brothers Construction, Inc. Respondent, Herbert S. McNairy participated in discussions with the architect and was a supervisor of construction. Immediately prior to the permittee's signature line, the permit document states: "It is understood that any deviation from the original document will render this permit issued under this application null and void, unless approved by the building director." Elsewhere on the document, it is stated that "permits and applications are true representations of construction to be accomplished under this permit. It is understood that any deviation from the original document will render this permit issued under this application null and void unless the changes are approved by the building department." The plans for the warehouse were prepared by Frank Norris, registered architect. The plans called for concrete walls at the front and rear of the structure (north and south ends, respectively) and a concrete wall in the center of the structure, dividing it into two rooms. A structural steel roofing system was specified consisting of trusses mounted on columns and connected by joists welded to the top chords of the trusses. These joists were to be welded to the trusses and welded to steel plates located in the concrete walls. The plans did not contain a drawing or specifications for the trusses. The plans called for end-bracing between the trusses and specified the steel to be used to accomplish this bracing. The joists specified were 22H7 joists--22 inches in depth, 50,000 pounds per square inch tensile strength. Cross-bridging was specified between the joists. Pursuant to a verbal contract, State Steel Erectors, Inc. was hired to erect the structural steel for the roof, i.e., mount the trusses on the columns and connect (weld) the joists to the trusses and to the steel plates in the walls. The steel was fabricated by George Hunt, Inc. in lieu of a steel fabricator subcontractor. The Southern Standard Building Code (1973 Edition) had been adopted as the Pinellas County Building Code at the time of this construction. Inspectors for the building department inspected the construction as follows: INSPECTION DATE Footing & Columns April 6-10-12, 1979 Pilaster April 12, 1979 Rough Plumbing May 8, 18, 1979 Lintel May 10, 1979 Slab May 30, 1979 The roofing system would have been inspected during the framing inspection, after completion of all framing in the building. Inspections are requested by the contractor and there had been no request for a framing inspection of this building. Due to additional framing to be completed in the interior of the building, construction had not progressed to a point where a framing inspection was called for. On or about June 4, 1979, while the deck subcontractor, Decks, Inc., was applying a gypsum deck on the top of the roofing structure on the north end of the building, the structure on that end collapsed, killing one workman and injuring several others. The scene of the accident was visited by Frank Morris; Tom Jones, President of State Steel Erectors; Robert Hostetler, Chief Building Official for Pinellas County; and O. E. Olsen, an engineer hired by the insurance carrier for State Steel Erectors, Inc. Inspection of the scene following the building collapse and subsequent investigation revealed the following: (a) The joists on the north end of the building were 20 J7 joists--having a depth of 20 inches and a tensile strength of 36,000 pounds per square inch. (b) Straight bridging was installed between the joists. (c) None of the trusses were end-braced. (d) Some of the joists in the north end of the building were not welded to the trusses or the walls. (e) Joists of varying depths were installed in the south end of the building. (f) Some joists in the south end of the building had been spliced. TRUSSES: The architect's plans called for bottom-bearing trusses resting on steel columns with vertical x-bracing between the ends of all the trusses. The roof failure occurred as a result of lateral movement of the point where the trusses were welded to the columns. That "point" amounted to a weak joint which buckled on both of the trusses in the north section of the building, causing the collapse. The vertical bracing which was omitted from the structure was the only feature which would have kept the trusses plumb with the columns, and the roof failure would not have occurred if the trusses had been end-braced as required. Without drawing, a contractor or subcontractor would not have known that bracing of the trusses was required. However, it was not possible to safely build the warehouse without bracing of the trusses as was required by the plans. In the south section of the building, where roofing work had not begun and where truss-bracing had also been omitted, the trusses showed lateral deviation off of the columns, indicating the beginning of failure. The failure to brace any of the 16 truss ends as called for in the plans was not an inadvertent deviation from the plans but was an omission of a principal member of the steel structure. JOISTS: The plans called for 33 joists in the north part of the warehouse and 44 in the south. The joists were to be size 22H7. The specific size was called for so that the joists could carry the design load. The design load is the load of the structure and the applied live load called for by Steel Joist Institute specifications which are adopted in the Southern Standard Building Code. The first number designation is the depth of the joist. The letter designates strength. H means steel which yields 50,000 pounds per square inch yield point. J strength yields 36,000 pounds per square inch yield point. The last number refers to a Steel Joist Institute load table. J strength is no longer made although it was commonly used at the time the joists used in the warehouse were built. In the north part of the building, two joists measured 20 inches rather than 22 inches as called for in the plans. In the south, joists ranged from 14 to 20 inches in depth. The strength of joists is roughly proportionate to their depth. Mr. Olsen directed that pieces of two 20 inch joists from the collapsed portion of the building be cut and sent to Law Engineering Testing in Tampa, which sent the samples to their Atlanta office for steel tensile testing to determine whether they were H series, as called for, or J series. The tests showed that the steel was of the J series rather than that of the H series required in the plan. Because one cannot visually observe whether unmarked steel is H or J series, the usual practice is to assume used, unmarked steel is of the J series, rather than to attempt to test it. In this case, that assumption would have been that two 20J7 joists were used in the north portion of the warehouse and that, in the south, 14 to 20J7 joists were used, all instead of 22H7 joists as specified in the plans. Some joists in the southern part of the building were spliced. Splicing is normally accomplished only under shop conditions; otherwise, the welders and the materials used are generally not adequate. Inadequate procedures were evident in the warehouse joist splicing where the welding had burned holes through chord members. If joists were to be spliced, plans would be required to show the splices. These plans did not call for spliced joists. Additionally, if joists are to be spliced, the Southern Standard Building Code requires that they be butt-welded, which allows the joists to have the strength of a continuous member. Joists in this project were lapsed-spliced which made it impossible to develop the full strength required of the spliced joists. The facts that none of the joists used in the warehouse were marked as to weight, that they were used steel and thus more likely to be J series and that they were poorly, incorrectly spliced and of varying, incorrect depths, establish that deviation from the specifications was substantial and material. HORIZONTAL BRACING: The plans called for x-bridging in all the steel joists but horizontal bridging was used on the structure. However, the Steel Joist Institute accepts either x-bridging or horizontal bridging. The Pinellas County Building Code requires that the contractor notify the building department prior to changing the design of the building from the plans and specifications in the building department's file. In this case, the Pinellas County Building Department never approved any deviations from the plans and specifications prior to the collapse on June 4, 1979.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter its Final Order revoking the contractor's licenses of Respondents Herbert S. McNairy and Bill H. Hunt, and that the Administrative Complaints as to Respondents Larry A. Thompson, George A. Hunt, Jr. and James R. Brown, Jr. be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 2nd day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane E. Heerema, Esquire Stephanie Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Michael Huey, Esquire Mary Lou Rajchel, Esquire Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Petitioner, vs. DPR Case No. 0010508 DOAH Case No. 82-1041 LARRY A THOMPSON, CG CA000105 HUNT BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. 805 Cardinal Avenue Palm Harbour, Florida 33563 LAT CONSTRUCTION, INC. CG C000105 Post Office Box 1027 460 Pinehill Road Port Richey, Florida 33568 Respondent. /
