The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating building code administrators and inspectors. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed standard building inspector, license number BN 0001750. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Martin County Building Department as a Building Inspector. Harriet R. Edwards owns a residence located at 2595 Hickory Avenue, Jensen Beach, Florida. This home is located in Martin County, Florida. At some point in early 1996, it became Ms. Edwards' desire to construct an addition to the residence. She retained a contractor to perform the work and returned to her second home in Ohio during the time of the construction. When Ms. Edwards returned to Florida in December of 1996, she was dissatisfied with the quality of the construction work performed on her home. Mr. Joyce, Ms. Edwards' friend, stated that they had expressed a desire for, and had requested, a high quality of work for the addition to Ms. Edwards' home. Upon investigation it was discovered that the permit card located at the construction site had been initialed by an unlicensed building inspector, James L. Brown. This led the homeowner to suspect that the work performed did not meet inspection code standards. Building code inspections are to verify that the work performed by contractors meets certain minimum standards set forth in adopted building code regulations. By implication the highest quality of construction performance would generally exceed code requirements. One inspection item in particular concerned Ms. Edwards' friend, Mr. Joyce. This homeowner believed the new addition did not have a proper footer. All of the inspections listed on the permit card for this project occurred prior to December 17, 1996. The footer/slab inspection was performed on October 4, 1996. The Respondent asserts that at the time he performed the footer/slab inspection, the structures were in place to assure that the poured foundation would meet minimum code requirements. The Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Brown, an unlicensed inspector in training, initialed the permit card and transmitted by radio the inspection results. Mr. Brown was assigned to work with the Respondent during his training period prior to receiving licensure from the state. Mr. Brown ultimately received his provisional license on or about December 17, 1996. The Respondent asserts that a final inspection was not performed on Ms. Edwards' home. Consequently, no final verification was completed to assure the home addition was constructed in accordance with the plans and the forms on the ground for the footer/slab foundation. In this case there is no allegation that the construction plans for the addition for the Edwards' home failed to meet minimum code requirements. Presumably the footer/slab foundation as reflected on the plans would have specified at least a minimum compliance with code mandates. The footer/slab inspection was performed with the forms and reinforcements in place according to the approved plans. The Respondent maintains that the forms and reinforcements met minimum code requirements and that if such forms were altered after inspection he would not have known. Typically, once the footer/slab foundation forms and reinforcements are approved by an inspector the contractor calls for the delivery of concrete to be poured into the foundation forms. The date the concrete was poured for the subject footer/slab is unknown. Whether there was a delay between the footer/slab inspection date and the construction date is unknown. In any event when Ms. Edwards and Mr. Joyce returned from Ohio to view the addition the foundation did not appear adequate. Efforts were then pursued to attempt to ascertain whether the footer/slab did meet code. In this case the record is inconclusive as to whether the footer/slab foundation as constructed at Ms. Edwards' addition meets minimum code requirements. The pictures in evidence do not clearly establish the depth of the slab. Some of the photographs suggest that the minimum depth was achieved. A visual inspection performed at the site did not verify the depth nor compare the interior finished grade with the exterior measurements. The final grading of the exterior of the home around the addition was never completed. As a result the photographs may have a distorted view of the foundation and portions should have been back-filled along the edge of the slab. In any event, no definitive measurements have been offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Building Code Administrators and Inspectors enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bobby T. Chambers 3520 Northeast Linda Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue It is necessary to resolve the following issues in this proceeding: Whether Mr. Taft violated Section 471.025(3), F.S. and thereby violated Section 471.033(1)(a), F.S., by signing and sealing plans depicting work that he was not licensed nor qualified to perform; Whether he violated Section 471.033(1)(j), F.S., by signing and sealing plans that had not been prepared by him or under his supervision, direction or control; and Whether he violated Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., by misconduct in the practice of engineering for the same acts alleged in a) and b), above.
Findings Of Fact Barrett L. Taft, P. E. has been licensed in the State of Florida as a professional engineer since 1968, holding license number PE 0013208. Mr. Taft graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1940 with a degree in metallurgical engineering. For the first 27 years he practiced mostly metallurgical engineering, with some, but admittedly very little building experience. After moving to Florida he took the engineers' exam in metallurgical engineering and was licensed. Since being licensed in Florida, he has worked as a sole practitioner in the Maitland-Central Florida area. His primary business activity since 1968 has been the operation of a metal die casting business with a die casting machine that he invented and patented. The contractor who built Taft's plant in Casselberry, a pre-engineered metal building, asked Taft to help him work on foundations for metal buildings. In this way Taft started doing building projects, primarily metal buildings. Harvey Spears was one of the contractors Taft worked with. Spears is a licensed contractor who owns Spears General Contractors, Inc. in Eustis, Florida. J. C. Woliver is an employee of Spears, Inc. He is a draftsman and prepares estimates for the company. Neither he, nor Harvey Spears, nor the company are licensed in architecture or engineering. Sometime in 1985 and 1986, J. C. Woliver prepared drawings for two buildings to be constructed in Eustis by Spears. One was a 2,567 square foot insurance company building, the Talmadge Building; the other was a small strip shopping plaza, Bay Street Plaza. After the drawings were completed and approved by the owners, Harvey Spears took them to Taft's office for his review. Taft reviewed and sealed the drawings. Building permits were obtained; both projects were constructed and they are now occupied by the owners' businesses. Barrett Taft never met with the owners prior to sealing the drawings, nor did he ever meet or talk with J. C. Woliver during preparation of the drawings. Neither Woliver nor Spears were employed by Barrett Taft and he had no supervisory relationship with these individuals. Taft did not do engineering calculations for these two projects, as in his view they were very simple. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Woliver and checked them against the standard building code. No changes were made prior to Taft's application of his seal and return of the drawings to Spears. The plans for the Bay Street Plaza were signed, dated and sealed by Mr. Taft in his capacity as a professional engineer on August 5, 1985. The Talmadge Building plans were signed, dated and sealed by Mr. Taft in his capacity as a professional engineer on May 6, 1986. The drawings sealed by Taft for both projects are very sketchy and lack essential detail. No engineering calculations are included, and it is impossible to review the drawings to determine compliance with fire and life- safety codes. Because these buildings are used and inhabited by the public, they should have been designed by an architect. Architects, not engineers, are trained and tested in the requirements of the various building codes, including the fire and life-safety codes. Barrett Taft is not a licensed architect. Taft argues that he was providing a service to the public and the customers are satisfied. His arrangement with Harvey Spears with regard to sealing Woliver's drawings was that he would not handle anything complicated and the contractor would follow the building code. He felt that the buildings were little more than house-like structures which would not require an engineer's calculations or a seal. Barrett Taft was disciplined previously by the Board of Professional Engineers. In an Order dated May 25, 1984, and amended July 31, 1984, the Board imposed a fine of $1,000.00 and one year probation. The order was entered after an informal hearing requested by Mr. Taft. The Board found in that case (DPR #0034220) that Mr. Taft was guilty of negligence; that he lacked training, experience and education to perform the services provided; and that he affixed his seal and signature to drawings that were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervision or direction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Barrett L. Taft, P.E., guilty of violations of subsections 471.025(3), 471.033(1)(a), (g) and (j), and imposing the following discipline. Reprimand. (b) $1,000.00 fine. One year suspension. Two years probation, following suspension, under conditions to be determined by the Board, relating to limiting Mr. Taft's practice to a field in which he is qualified to work and limiting the use of his seal to his own work. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Barrett L. Taft 2940 Cove Trail Maitland, Florida 32571 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
