The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a registered general contractor should be disciplined?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. His license is number RG 0001015. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has held license number RG 0001015. The Respondent has been in the construction business for 51 to 52 years. During the Fall of 1985, Mr. Edward J. Ashley discussed a construction project at Mr. and Mrs. Ashley's residence with the Respondent. The Ashley's residence is located at 2353 Hampshire Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The Ashleys and the Respondent, on behalf of Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc., agreed on the construction work to be performed and the price to be paid for the work. The agreement was memorialized on October 7, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal"), by the Respondent and presented to the Ashleys. Pursuant to the agreement between the Ashleys and the Respondent, Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc., was to construct a room addition to be used as a porch in the back of the existing residence, extend a master bedroom and bathroom, replace the tile in the bathroom, remove a partition between the kitchen and the living room and replace the existing roof with fiberglass shingles with a 20-year warranty. The Ashleys agreed to pay the Respondent's corporation $28,300.00 in consideration of the work to be performed. The Proposal presented to the Ashleys by the Respondent was never signed by the Ashleys but they did agree verbally to the work to be performed. The Ashleys and the Respondent agreed verbally that the construction price would be paid in two installments. One installment was to be made when half the construction was completed and the other half was to be paid when the construction was completed. The Ashleys made the first payment on December 5, 1985. The payment was for $14,000.00. Although the project was not completed, the Ashley's made a partial payment of $6,000.00 on January 10, 1986. The second payment was made earlier than agreed upon at the request of the Respondent. The Respondent told the Ashleys that the payment was needed so that the project, which was already late, could be completed. The Ashleys and the Respondent agreed verbally that the construction would be completed by December 15, 1985. Construction began at the Ashleys on November 14, 1985. On November 22, 1985, the concrete slab for the addition to the Ashley's home was poured in the morning. That afternoon a hurricane struck and rain associated with the hurricane washed away the top layer of concrete. The loss of the top layer of concrete caused the slab to be rough and uneven. It was especially unsightly in the area where the new room was being added as a porch. The Ashleys planned to leave this area uncovered. When they complained to the Respondent he told them not to worry, that he would take care of it. It was not repaired, however. The slab was also uneven in the bathroom and approximately 1 and 1/2 inches higher than the existing slab in the master bedroom. These problems were also not corrected. The area where the new slab joined the existing slab in the master bedroom was ground down but a bump still remains. The trusses of the addition to the residence were higher than the existing trusses. Although some of the problems associated with this problem were corrected, there remains a bump on the roof of the addition. The wall between the bathroom and the master bedroom did not match the existing wall. This problem was not corrected and is still visible. The Respondent filed an application for a building permit with the City of Tallahassee on November 12, 1985. The permit was issued on November 13, 1985. The Respondent was required to arrange slab, framing, and insulation inspections and a final inspection of the construction at the Ashley's residence. The Respondent had the slab inspection completed on November 19, 1985. The framing inspection was conducted on December 11, 1985, by Mr. Rackley. The construction did not pass this inspection because there was no "header" over one door and the ceiling joists were not adequately attached. It was the Respondent's responsibility to correct the problems found as a result of the framing inspection before proceeding with construction. The fact that the construction failed the framing inspection was noted on the copy of the building permit which is displayed at the construction site. Ms. Ashley was the only person present during the inspection other than the inspector. On December 17, 1985, Mr. Rackley saw the Respondent at a party and mentioned the door header and the failure of the residence to pass the framing inspection. The ceiling joists were not mentioned. At the time the framing inspection was completed, the construction was 40 to 50 percent complete. By letter dated February 12, 1986, Mr. Rackley asked the Respondent why the Respondent had not requested a re-inspection. The Respondent proceeded with construction without passing a framing inspection. Therefore, in the February 12, 1986 letter from Mr. Rackley the Respondent was directed to uncover the areas which had failed the inspection so that they could be re-inspected. The Respondent did not respond to Mr. Rackley's letter of February 12, 1986. Therefore, on February 24, 1986, the Respondent was contacted by Mr. Rackley by telephone. The Respondent agreed to open the areas necessary to complete the framing inspection. On February 26, 1986, the framing inspection was completed. An opening had to be cut in the existing roof for the inspection to be completed. The Respondent did not fail to arrange a re-inspection of the property in order to hide anything or cover-up improper work. The construction passed the insulation inspection. No final inspection of the construction has ever been requested or completed. As a part of the Respondent's agreement with the Ashleys, the Respondent was to remove the roof on the existing structure and cover it and the new roof with fiberglass shingles with a 20-year life. The shingles used by the Respondent were Temko shingles. Manufacturers of roofing materials generally recommend how to apply their products in writing. Therefore, Temko included instructions for the application of the shingles used by the Respondent. The instructions were written on the paper used to wrap the bundles of shingles. In order for the manufacturer's guarantee of the Temko shingles to be effective, the shingles must be installed according to the manufacturer's instructions. The Southern Building Code, which applies in Leon County, also requires that manufacturer's instructions be complied with. The following pertinent instruction, among others, was included with the shingles used on the Ashley's residence: LOW SLOPE APPLICATION: On pitches of 2" per foot to 4" per foot, provide a double underlayment of asphalt saturated felt by applying a 19" wide felt strip along the eaves and over this apply a full 36" wide sheet. Continue with full 36" wide sheets, lapping each 19" over the preceding course. If winter temperatures average 25 F or less, thoroughly cement the felt to each other with Temko plastic cement from eaves and rakes to a point a [sic] least 24" inside the inside wall line of the building. This instruction is consistent with roofing industry standards. The roof of the Ashley's residence pitches at 2" to 2 1/2" per foot. Therefore, the Respondent should have applied two layers of felt to the roof as specified in the "Low Slope Application" instruction. The Respondent's crew, however, only applied one layer of felt to the Ashley's roof. The instructions for the shingles also specified that each shingle be attached with four nails placed in a particular pattern. The Respondent's crew did not follow these instructions. Along the edges of the roof, the felt should have been cemented to the roof. It was not, however. Shingles placed in the valleys on the roof were not attached in any manner to the roof. The manner in which the roof was installed was incompetent. After the roof was placed on the Ashley's residence, water leaked in at several locations. The Respondent did not return the Ashley's telephone call. One of the Respondent's work crew when informed about the leaks told Mr. Ashley that the roof was not leaking; that it was blowing in from outside. Some of the problems with the roof were corrected by the Respondent. They were corrected, however, only after a building inspector was called in by the Ashleys. Even then, the leaks did not stop. The Ashleys subsequently paid another contractor $560.00 to correct problems with the roof. Throughout the period of time that the Respondent's crew worked at the Ashley's residence, whenever a problem arose, the Ashleys would be told not to worry about the problem; that it would be taken care of. Many of the problems, however, were not taken care of by the Respondent. Throughout the period of time that work was being performed at the Ashley's residence, there were numerous times when no one would perform any work at the Ashley's. Weeks would often go by without the Ashley's seeing the Respondent and without the Respondent's presence at the Ashley's. During the period that work was being performed at the Ashley's residence, there was a great deal of rain and the temperature dropped below 40 degrees. These weather conditions slowed progress on completing the job. These weather condition were not unique, however, and the Respondent admitted that he knew it rains and gets cold often during the period of time involved in this proceeding. One weather problem that the Respondent could not have reasonably foreseen was the hurricane which struck Tallahassee on November 22, 1985. As a result of damage to property caused by the hurricane, roofing and other materials were more difficult to obtain. Rain associated with the hurricane washed away the top layer of the concrete from the slab that was poured the day the hurricane struck. The Respondent checked with the weather service that morning. Based upon the projected weather, the hurricane was headed away from Tallahassee and rain was not expected until that afternoon. The concrete was poured in the morning and would have been dry before the afternoon. The weather forecast was incorrect, however, and the rain struck earlier than expected. After work had commenced on the Ashley's residence, the agreement was modified. The Respondent indicated that he could not do the tile work in the bathroom. Therefore, the agreed upon price for the project was reduced by $2,000.00. The Ashleys also had the Respondent perform other work not originally agreed upon; 2 skylights and a door were added and additional brick work was performed. These changes caused some delay in completion of the project. The evidence did not prove, however, that all of the delay was attributable to the changes in the work to be performed. Much of the delay was caused by the fact that the Respondent's crew simply did not show up to work at the Ashley's residence. The delays in completing construction at the Ashley's residence were on the whole not reasonable. Although days were lost because of weather conditions, including the hurricane, and changes in the work to be performed, the days that no work was performed were not reasonable or caused by these factors. The Respondent failed to properly supervise the work performed at the Ashley's residence. Although the Respondent indicated that he relied upon the men who worked for him, he was ultimately responsible for the proper completion of the project. The project was not completed and some of the work performed was not performed in a satisfactory manner. The Respondent was not allowed to complete the project. The Ashleys eventually got so fed up with the Respondent's failure to correct problems and to complete the project that they would not allow the Respondents onto the property. Sometime after 1981, the Respondent received forms from the Petitioner which could be used to register his contracting license in the name of Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. He asked his former attorney to complete the forms for him. The forms were completed and placed in the Petitioner's mail. The Respondent's license has not been registered in the name of Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. The Respondent believed that his license was being switched to the corporate name. He knew or should have known that the change had not been completed because he did not receive a copy of a license with the corporate name. The Respondent's license had previously been held in a corporate name. The heading of the Proposal indicates that it is a proposal of "Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc." The Proposal was signed by the Respondent and was also signed "Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. by Welton Smith." Mr. Ashley understood that the agreement he was entering into was with Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. The two payments made by the Ashleys were made by checks. The checks were made out to Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. The building permit on the Ashley's residence was applied for and issued in the name of Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc., was not qualified with the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d), (g), (j) and (m) and 489.119, Florida Statutes (1985). It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2641 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been generally noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 and 2. 2 56. 3 4. 4 5. 5-6 6. 7 7. 8 18. 9-10 18 and 61. 11-12 10. 13 39 and 41. 13 The first sentence is hereby accepted. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. This state- ment was made to the Ashleys but in regard to the problems they had with their roof. 14 43. 15-16 44. 17 21. 18 21, 23 and 25. The building inspector informed the Respondent of the failed framing inspection on December 17, 1985, and not December 7, 1985. 19 28. 20 26. 21 33 and 34. 22 Hereby accepted. 23 37 and 38. 24-25 Hereby accepted. 26 38. 27 37. 28-29 39. 30 38-39 and 42. 31-35 Cummulative. 36-37 57. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. 2 2. 3 28 and 29. There was no "final inspection" performed on the project. There was a final framing inspection, however, that indicated that the work that originally failed the inspection had been performed correctly. 4-7 These proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 47-48 and 50. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10-11 Hereby accepted. 12 62. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elwin Thrasher, Jr., Esquire 908 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eric Neale Anderson, has been a registered building contractor in Florida, at all times relevant to this proceeding with license number RB 0016806. In December, 1983 Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Linda Fatzinger, a homeowner in Columbia County, for replacement of a roof. The contract price for the reroofing was $2820. After Respondent completed the reroofing, leaks developed in the new roof which Respondent attempted to fix. Respondent did not correct the leaking roof. Mrs. Fatzinger contracted with another building contractor who did repair her roof and eliminate the leaks for an additional charge of approximately $900. Mrs. Fatzinger's roof was inspected by representatives of the Columbia County Building Department who found violations of portions of the Standard Building Code, as adopted by Columbia County Ordinance 78-1, in the work performed by Respondent. Specifically, Respondent installed shingles on a portion of Mrs. Fatzinger's roof that had a pitch of only 1/2 inch per foot instead of the two inches per foot which is required by Section R-803 of the Standard Building Code when shingles are used. This means that the rise of the roof was only 1/2 inch per running foot which is virtually a flat roof. The manufacturer's packaging of the shingles used by Respondent clearly states that the shingles are for application to roof decks having inclines of not less than two (2) inches per foot. Respondent did not obtain a building permit for this reroofing job, although one was required by Columbia County Ordinance 78-1, and he admits knowing that one was required. In the installation of shingles on Mrs. Fatzinger's roof, it has been deemed admitted that Respondent used an insufficient number of nails. Although four nails per shingle were recommended by the manufacturer and are required by Section R-803, Standard Building Code, for the shingles that were used, in some areas Respondent used only two or three staples per shingle, and did not use any nails. In making the above findings of fact, Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered one through four are approved and proposed finding number five is rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 13th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric N. Anderson Route 9, Post Office Box 322 Lake City, Florida 32085 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate the Dade County building code, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint? Did the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board discipline Respondent? 3) Do Respondent's alleged acts violate Chapter 489, Florida Statutes? Petitioner submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, McArthur Carter, is a registered residential contractor holding license number RR 0009875, which he held at all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent contracted to construct an addition to the residence of Milton and Imogene Harvell. A copy of this contract was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The contract provided as follows: Front of House Forming of 2 arches Pouring 4" slab between arches Forming planting area Existing Carport Area - Remove existing Roof Enclose form arches Placing of new laundry area Room for tools All electric as shown on plans One window to utility Garage Section Floor trowel finish Ceiling 1/2 sheet plaster finish Work bench out 3/4 plywood One (1) double two light window Two (2) garage doors allowance (150.00) each Roof standard asphalt shingle 2x6 rafters Plugs and lights according to plans Den Extention [sic] Remove existing windowns [sic] & walls Replace window into new wall Match existing ceiling Match existing wall Two new lights - 3 new plugs Existing Utility [sic] Remove all fixtures and replace to new area Painting between owner & builder. (Owner to pay half of painting) exterior WE PROPOSE hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($13,500.00). Payment to be made as follows: 1/3 after signing of contract, 1/3 after exterior walls are complete, balance upon comple- tion of job. Authorized Signature: M. Carter (signed) In addition, plans of the building were prepared by Respondent, and these were approved by the local building official. The job began two weeks after the contract was signed, and an initial sum of $5,000 was paid by the Harvells to Respondent. After approximately three months, after the exterior walls were up, Respondent ceased work because the Harvells had not paid him. He came back to work when he was paid another $5,000. Respondent continued to work on the project for several more months, then again halted work on the project. By this time, there was a conflict between Respondent and the Harvells over the project, money and the Harvells' relationships with subcontractors. After approximately six weeks, Mrs. Harvell called the local building officials. An inspection was made and an order to show cause issued. After a hearing in September of 1980 before the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, the local board acted to discipline the Respondent. However, at the same time the local board agreed to reinstate Respondent when the work was performed correctly and completely. This action of the local board was based upon Respondent's "abandonment" and changes to the plans for the garage ceiling. The record indirectly indicates that the local board's action on the change to the plans was tied to a fire code violation, because when the ceiling was redone with fire-resistant dry wall it was approved. The initial installation of dry wall that was not fire-resistant was not intentional but a simple mistake. The substitution of dry wall for plaster and lath is not per se a critical alteration, and it was not shown to be critical to the construction. Respondent returned to the job in November of 1950 and finished the work in November, 1951. Final inspection was called for in June of 1982, and all the defects were corrected, the job was completed in accordance with the contract, and all code violations were corrected. The local board has reinstated Respondent's license based upon his adherence to their agreement when action was originally taken against Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, McArthur Carter, receive a letter of reprimand. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 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 19th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 SW 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Mr. McArthur Carter 17325 NW 18th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
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 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 Whether Respondent, who is licensed as a Plans Examiner, a Building Inspector, and a Building Code Administrator, committed the offenses alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties if any that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate Building Code Administrators and Inspectors pursuant to Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held licenses as a Standard Plans Examiner in Building and Mechanical; a Standard Inspector in Building and Mechanical; and a Building Code Administrator. Section 468.603(1), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: Building code administrator" or "building official" means any of those employees of municipal or county governments with building construction regulation responsibilities who are charged with the responsibility for direct regulatory administration or supervision of plan review, enforcement, or inspection of building construction, erection, repair, addition, remodeling, demolition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. This term is synonymous with "building official" as used in the administrative chapter of the Standard Building Code and the South Florida Building Code. . . . Section 468.603(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following definition relevant to this proceeding: (2) "Building code inspector" means any of those employees of local governments or state agencies with building construction regulation responsibilities who themselves conduct inspections of building construction, erection, repair, addition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. Section 468.603(6), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Categories of building code inspectors" include the following: "Building inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that buildings and structures are constructed in accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state accessibility laws. * * * (e) "Mechanical inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that the mechanical installations and systems for buildings and structures are in compliance with the provisions of the governing mechanical code. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Plans examiner" means a person who is qualified to determine that plans submitted for purposes of obtaining building and other permits comply with the applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other applicable construction codes. Categories of plans examiners include: (a) Building plans examiner. * * * (c) Mechanical plans examiner. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Building code enforcement official" or "enforcement official" means a licensed building code administrator, building code inspector, or plans examiner. Ramon Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Melendez was not individually licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not qualified as a construction business by any certified or registered contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about March 20, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Pedro Camacho to re-roof the residence located at 3961 N.W. 170th Street, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $3,000. Mr. Camacho paid Mr. Melendez the agreed sum in cash based on the contract dated March 20, 1998. On or about June 3, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Santos Valentin to re- roof the residence located at 4412 N.W. 185th Street, Opa Locka, Florida, for the sum of $2,800. Mr. Valentin paid R.E.M. Roofing, Inc. the sum of $1,400 on June 8, 1998. Mr. Valentin paid Mr. Melendez the additional sum of $800 on June 10, 1998. Both payments, which were by check, were for the roofing work described in the contract dated June 3, 1998. On April 6, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Camacho roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on April 6, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Camacho roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. On June 8, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Valentin roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on June 8, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Valentin roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. Miami-Dade County Compliance Investigator Daniel Vuelta filed criminal charges against Respondent in two separate criminal cases. One case was for his involvement in the Camacho roofing project and the other was for his involvement in the Valentin roofing projects. These cases were brought in Miami- Dade County Court and assigned case numbers M99-57926 and M99- 57931. In each case, Respondent was charged with one count of Unlawful Application for Building Permit and one count of Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Contractor. All charges were first- degree misdemeanors. On February 22, 2001, Respondent entered into a plea agreement to resolve those criminal charges. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to each of the two counts in Case M99-57931, and he was subsequently adjudicated guilty of each count. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to nolle pross Case M99-57926. The crimes to which Respondent entered a guilty plea involved fraudulent building permits and, consequently, were directly related to building code enforcement. Petitioner’s investigative costs for this case, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, were $427.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts I, II, and III. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order revoke Respondent’s licensure and impose an administrative fine against him in the amount of $3,000. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner order Respondent to pay its investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, in the amount of $427.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 7th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Board of Professional Engineers should discipline either Sam G. Gillotti on charges made against him in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 86-4800 on or about September 26, 1986, or Charles B. Bland on charges made against him in the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213 on or about November 14, 1986, or both. The Administrative Complaint against Gillotti in Case No. 86-4800 alleges essentially that he falsely certified both to Bland, as a part-owner, the owner representative, the engineer of record and the building contractor of record, and to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department, that the structural members of an eleven-story project known as the Marlborough House, located in Winter Haven, Florida, was built according to approved plans and according to applicable building codes. The Administrative Complaint alleges that this constitutes violations of: (a) Section 471.033(1)(e), Florida Statutes, which prohibits the making or filing of a report which the licensee knows to be false; (b) Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, which prohibits negligence or misconduct in the practice of engineering; (c) F.A.C. Rule 21H- 19.01(5)(b), which is alleged to prohibit being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report whether or not under oath; and (d) F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(m), which is alleged to prohibit knowingly failing to report a violation. The Administrative Complaint against Bland in Case No. 87-1213 alleges in three counts that Bland: (Count I) was negligent in light of several specified deficiencies in the structural members of the Marlborough House, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g) and (k), Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(3); (Count II) falsely certified to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department that the design of the Marlborough House was in accordance with applicable building codes (when combustible materials were designed to be used in the penthouse roof, in violation of the Southern Building Code), in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), which prohibits fraud or deceit or misconduct in the practice of engineering, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(b), which is alleged to define misconduct to include being untruthful in any professional report; and (Count III) signed and sealed electrical drawings for the Marlborough House when he was not competent through adequate training and experience to do so, in violation of Sections 471.033(1)(g) and (k), Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(d).
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues raised by the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 86-4800, Gillotti was licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, as a licensed professional engineer, having been issued license number PE 0012849. Indeed, Gillotti has been licensed to practice engineering in Florida for 23 years and, including practice in another state, has practiced engineering for 40 years. Besides this Administrative Complaint, Gillotti has never had a disciplinary proceedings brought against him as a licensed professional engineer. Bland, too, is and at all times material to the issues raised in the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213 has been a licensed engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0019406. Bland is licensed as an engineer in other states--17 at the time of the final hearing, plus approximately another ten in years past. He has been practicing engineering since 1962. He has provided engineering services for the construction of approximately 200 high-rise masonry buildings, including three in progress at the time of the hearing. Like Gillotti, this is Bland's first disciplinary action during his career as an engineer. Bland became involved in a project in Winter Haven, Florida, known as the Marlborough House in the late 1970s. Bland, doing business as Wellington Construction Corporation, was a part-owner of the project, and he also represented the joint venture that owned the property. The project was the development of an eleven-story condominium across the street from Cypress Gardens. Bland also served as the engineer of record for the project. He created the structural design and did the structural drawings for the planned condominium building. The design called for the construction of reinforced masonry bearing walls. The design transferred weight from the eleven stories to the foundation through a combination of wall types. On the higher floors, where the loads would be least, cement block walls sufficed. As the weight accumulated and increased progressively towards the lower floors, the wall was designed to bear the increased weight with a margin of safety against structural damage or collapse. First, the cement blocks comprising the walls were designed to be filled with grout for increased strength. On lower levels, reinforcement bars (rebars) were required to be inserted in the cement blocks, along with the grout, for even more strength. Still lower in the building, reinforced cements block and steel tube columns were required in the spaces between the walls. Finally, at the lowest levels, the reinforced columns had to be poured concrete to withstand the heaviest loads. The structural design called for special inspections to be made to assure that construction of the varied and relatively complex masonry bearing wall system would be according to plans. Bland coordinated his structural design with the architectural drawings 1/ and had both approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. It was decided that the Marlborough House would be inspected by affidavit, as permitted under the 1976 Standard Building Code, which Polk County had adopted. Under the affidavit system, the owner or designer of the building swears under oath that the building will be built according to approved plans and applicable local codes. Then, at the end of construction, before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner or its designated representative must swear under oath that the building has been built according to approved plans and applicable local codes. However, the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department was unfamiliar with the affidavit system of inspection, never having used it before, and allowed letters to serve in place of a sworn affidavit. At some point after approval of the plans for the Marlborough House, the structural plans were revised. The revised plans called for "poured-in- place" concrete flooring instead of the precast concrete floor system in the approved drawings. The revised drawings also called for a wood truss roof system for the penthouse roof. Otherwise, the structural drawings were essentially the same and also called for special inspections to be made to assure that construction of the varied and relatively complex masonry bearing wall system would be according to plans. The wood truss roof system for the penthouse was discussed and coordinated with the architect on the project. It is not clear whether the other structural revisions were discussed and coordinated with the architect. It is clear, however, that the architectural drawings were not modified to coordinate with the changes in the structural drawings. The the structural revisions were not formally approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. At least one change, allowing cantilevered balconies instead of corner column supports for the balconies, was approved as a field change. At some point early in the construction of the Marlborough House, the major investor in Bland's joint venture, Des Peres Financial Corporation of Missouri, and Bland decided that, since Bland was both engineer of record and part-owner, as well as owner representative and building contractor of record on the project, it would be wise for an engineer other than Bland to inspect the project for progress for purposes of requisition draws. Bland and Neil Luton, owner of the Neil Luton Planning Group, which Bland had hired to coordinate the development and obtain the necessary government permitting, decided to hire Gillotti for this purpose. Gillotti knew Bland slightly from a prior business relationship but that was the extent of Gillotti's knowledge of Bland. Gillotti had more of a working relationship with Luton, having being retained by him in connection with more than one development project in the past. Gillotti was not hired to, and was not relied upon by Bland and Luton to, provide the special inspections of the construction of the masonry bearing wall system called for in the structural drawings. In December, 1980, Bland gave the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter representing that the Marlborough House would be built according to approved plans and applicable structural provisions of the local code. In another letter to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department, Bland acknowledged that, although he had "associated" himself with another Florida licensed professional engineer, Gillotti, "concerning the progress inspections," he (Bland) had "ultimate responsibility concerning the structural aspects of the project." Gillotti's first requisition inspection was during the construction of the fourth level of the Marlborough House. It was known to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department that Gillotti was not present, or any way involved with the project, during the construction of the lower levels. Altogether, Gillotti made only three inspections during construction of the structural members of the Marlborough House, during construction of the fourth, eighth and penthouse levels. Although Gillotti was inspecting for purposes of requisition, he noted his general observations, including in some cases deviations from what he understood to be the building plans (the revised, not the approved, plans), on a report of each of the inspections. He provided a copy of his inspection report both to Bland and to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. Both Bland and the Polk County Building Inspection Department knew that Gillotti made only three inspections during construction of the structural members of the Marlborough House, during construction of the fourth, eighth and penthouse levels. Neither Bland himself nor any other structural engineer was on the site doing the special inspections called for in the structural engineering plans during the construction of levels which Gillotti did not see being constructed. Neither Gillotti nor Bland, nor the two of them together, were on the site enough to properly conduct the special inspections required by the structural plans. In June, 1981, the building was nearing completion, and Bland and Des Peres wanted the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department to issue a restricted temporary certificate of occupancy for the common areas so that the owners could begin selling condominium units in the project and obtain favorable financing terms for prospective buyers. For this purpose, Bland solicited and obtained from Gillotti a June 10, 1981, letter stating that the structural members of the Marlborough House were built according to the approved plans and local code. He did not qualify the letter either to note the limitations of his personal knowledge (and that he had to rely on Bland's representations to him as to most of the structure) or to again point out the deviatioins from the plans that he had noted in his inspection reports. Bland knew that Gillotti's June 10, 1981, letter certifying the structural members of the building was not accurate and could not be relied on. He knew that Gillotti was not at the site enough to have certified the building in this manner. He should have known that neither Gillotti's inspections, his inspections, or the inspections of both men, were sufficient to comply with the special inspections requirements of the structural engineering plans. 2/ He also knew, or should have known, that he never gave Gillotti a copy of the approved plans, but only a copy of the revised plans, for Gillotti's use in inspecting the building. Bland used Gillotti's June 10, 1981, letter to obtain from the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, issued on July 27, 1981, for the main lobby, the elevator and the elevator corridors, only, (and not the individual apartments) for floors 1-10 only. To obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy for the rest of the building, on or about August 7, 1981, Bland gave the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter certifying, among other things, that he had designed the Marlborough House in full conformance with the Standard Building Code, 1976 Edition, the National Fire Protection Code #3, and the National Electrical Code, 1975 Edition, with Polk County amendments, and that "[t]he building has now been constructed in full conformance with the above mentioned codes." Knowing that Gillotti also had been at the site performing inspections, the Director of the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department asked for a letter from Gillotti, too, although Bland's certification letter was considered to be legally sufficient under the affidavit system of inspection. Neil Luton relayed the request to Gillotti. On or about August 10, 1981, Gillotti sent the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter certifying "that the structural members of the [Marlborough House] were built according to the approved plans, the Standard Bldg. Code 1976 Edition, and the local code." He qualified this certification only by writing: "Mr. Charles Bland made the Mechanical, Plumbing, & Electrical inspections for the above building." On or about August 14, 1981, the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy" for all of the Marlborough House except the penthouse level. In fact, the Marlborough House was not built in accordance with either the approved plans or the applicable codes in that the wooden truss roof system for the penthouse level was not approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department and violated provisions of the Southern Standard Building Code that prohibit the use of combustible materials in the penthouse roof system. Other than the use of wooden trusses in the penthouse roof system, the evidence did not prove that the structure of the building failed meet the applicable codes except that the building was not constructed according to the approved plans in several respects: Reinforced concrete columns called for on the drawings had not, in all cases, been provided, e.g., in the second level, west unit, in the wall between the bathrooms. Instead, reinforced concrete block columns, which are not as strong, were substituted. Steel tube columns specified at the exterior corners of bedrooms were not provided, e.g., at the tenth level, east unit, exterior corner, approximately 30 feet south of the north wall. Spandrel beams specified at balconies, beams to be placed at the exterior edge of the balcony slabs, were not provided. Uncontrolled cutouts for ducts and electrical conduits were made in bearing walls. In one case, a wall was designed to be nine feet wide and had four feet missing due to uncontrolled cutouts. Some of the concrete blocks making up bearing walls were poorly aligned vertically. Misaligned blocks are hard to fill with grout, as the plans require in some places. In addition, vertically misaligned block introduces eccentric forces at the mortar joint between blocks, instead of transferring the load directly vertically through the block to the foundation in accordance with the structural design. In addition, some wall sections were misaligned so that one level's wall was not positioned directly above the wall section of the level below it. In one case, the displacement was greater than the width of the wall. As a result, lateral forces were introduced to the floor slab between the two wall sections, contrary to the structural design for the building. (f) Cement block cells that were designed to receive grout did not in some instances. In addition, the electrical engineering plans contained numerous deviations from the standards of the electrical engineering industry, as well as the National Electrical Code: Drawing E-1.-- There were no wire sizes shown for the various apartments for the branch circuits, contrary to the standards of the electrical engineering industry. There were no circuit numbers shown for the various apartment devices, another deviation from the standards of the industry. The outlet spacings in the apartment rooms and kitchens are not in accordance with the National Electrical Code (NEC), s. 210-25(b). There are no telephone or television outlets indicated on the plans, contrary to industry standards. There is no air conditioning disconnect switch indicated, as required by NEC s. 430 to allow for safe servicing of the unit. There was no life safety system audio device shown in the common corridors or stairs as required by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) s. 101. The apartment panelboards A and B do not show a branch circuit for the water heater, which is provided in the plumbing drawings. Drawing E-2.-- Drawing E-2 has the same deviations noted in (a) through (f) for Drawing E-1. The connection shown for the fire pump required by the NFPA in all buildings did not meet the requirements of the NEC. No short circuit rating for any of the electrical over-current devices, panelboard bussing, etc., are shown, contrary to the requirements of NEC s. 110-9. Drawing E-3.-- The telephone system conduit sizes shown appear inadequate to handle risers of 20 outlets. The ratio of 20 outlets to one riser also appears excessive. The normal ratio is six apartments per riser. The plans do not indicate the size of the elevator disconnect switch as required by NEC s. 430. Drawings E-1A, E-2A and E-3A.-- Drawing E-1A, E-2A and E-3A have the same deviations noted in (a) through (c), (e) and (f) for Drawing E-1. Drawing E-4. Drawing E-4 has the same deviations noted in (i) and (j) for Drawing E-2. In addition, the electrical riser does not show all feeder sizes or equipment sizes, a requirement of the NEC. Drawing E-4A. Some fire alarm schematics were shown but they were incomprehensible. This fails to meet the requirements of the NFPA s. 101, which requires the schematic to show the components of the system and how it is going to perform. Bland has had a great deal of experience in the design and construction of multistory buildings such as the Marlborough House, and has sealed the electrical engineering plans on many of those projects. The evidence did not prove that his experience and training was not adequate to enable him to do the electrical drawings for the Marlborough House. However, the extensive deviations between Bland's electrical plans and the various code requirements do prove that Bland was either incompetent or grossly negligent in drawing the electrical plans for the Marlborough House.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order: (1) finding Sam G. Gillotti guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), under the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 86-4800, fining him $1,000 and placing him on probation for six months; and (2) finding Charles B. Bland guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(e) under Count I and II, and Section 471.033(g), Florida Statutes (1981), under Count III, of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213, fining him $3,000 and suspending his license for one year, followed by one year of probation. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 22nd day of August, 1990.
