The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Florida. Respondent, David P. Miller, was licensed as a certified building contractor under license number CB C039127 and was doing business as Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. On March 14, 1988, Robert Crowley, a semi-retired real estate broker and promoter, and Treasurer of Enterprise Industrial Park, Inc., (EIP), entered into contracts with the Respondent to construct three buildings, A, B, and H, for it within the park boundaries. Building A was to house offices and retail space; building B was to house warehouse and offices; and building C was to house garage space. The construction was to be financed by an infusion of shareholders' money and by a construction loan from the Southland bank in the amount of $375,000.00. The loan was ultimately increased to $614,000.00 so that EIP could begin development of phase II of the park. The contracts provided for Respondent to be paid $110,000.00 for Building A, $67,000.00 for Building B, and $52,807.00 for Building H. The loan was obtained in phases. The developers had outlined the project to bank officials who approved it, initially, for development of the park and construction of four buildings. Phase one was to include the roadway and one building. When that was completed, the other buildings were to be erected. Site preparation was accomplished by John T. Day. Most of the site preparation was completed before Respondent started construction. Thereafter, as work progressed, Respondent periodically certified to the bank what work had been done and that suppliers had been paid. Upon receipt of that certification, the bank would issue a check for the appropriate amount to EIP which would, thereafter, issue its own check to Respondent. There was an exception, however, in the case of payments to Ludwig Steel. Whereas that supplier would bill Respondent for small items delivered, it demanded payment by cashiers' check upon delivery for major structural steel fabrications. These checks, for steel for Buildings A and B, were for $18,511.84 and $17,716.84, were issued by Southland Bank, at the request of EIP. During the course of his performance of the contracts for the construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent executed several of the above mentioned certification forms. For Building H: These included: a. August 30, 1988 $ 9,505.00 b. October 4, 1988 9,505.00 c. October 17, 1988 9,505.00 d. December 28, 1988 11,881.50 e. January 31, 1989 9,437.50 TOTAL $49,834.00 Prior to these certificates, the bank also released $90,000 in advances for start up costs and the loan in March, April and May, 1988. In addition to the certificates listed above, Respondent also signed certificates for Building A totalling $91,446.00 as follows: a. August 30, 1988 $ 19,800.00 b. October 4, 1988 19,800.00 c. October 17, 1988 19,800.00 d. December 28, 1988 24,750.00 e. January 31, 1989 7,296.00 TOTAL $ 91,446.00 Respondent also signed additional certificates for Buildings B as follows: a. December 28, 1988 $ 46,642.00 b. January 31, 1989 28,031.00 c. March 1, 1989 28,031.00 TOTAL $102,704.00 These certificates were also signed by the architect, Mr. Wilcockson. In fact, they were not correct in that not all the work had been done and not all suppliers had been paid. Respondent admits to falsely signing the certificates but claims he was urged to do so by representatives of EIP who indicated to him it was just a routine procedure. Consequently, even knowing the certificates were not accurate, he signed them because he wanted to get paid. It is found, however, that Respondent has been a licensed contractor for a number of years and knew the implications of his actions. His attempts at justification for his actions are neither credible nor impressive. Construction progressed satisfactorily and without major problems up to the time for the last draw. At that point, the bank declined to issue a check to EIP for the construction of Building C, also to be erected on the site, when it became aware that numerous liens had been filed by subcontractors and materialmen indicating Respondent's failure to make satisfactory payment for buildings A, B, and H. These liens included claims by: American Roll-Up Door Co. $ 3,630.00 B & B Painting Contractors 3,020.00 Blackton, Inc., 5,820.73 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #1 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #2 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #3 1,635.00 Don Alan Dinora 930.00 Energy Savings Systems, Inc. 10,750.00 Florida Mining & Materials 2,388.31 Mid Florida Air Conditioning, Inc. 3,982.00 Neeley-Built Structures, Inc., 4,995.78 Residential Building Supply 7,857.11 Total $47,058.93 Mr. Crowley claims the above liens were satisfied by EIP, and it is so found. He claims EIP also paid some subcontractors who did not file liens because of a desire to help small contractors who otherwise would not have been paid. No figures were available to support that latter claim, however, and it is not considered to be probative of any issue. It is found, however, that Respondent paid Neeley-Built the amount of $4,995.78 and the claim of lien form included within Petitioner's exhibit of filed liens refers to property other than that in issue here. In addition, the $10,750.00 lien of Energy Savings Systems is not totally attributable to services or materials for the instant project. It is estimated that 60 percent of that amount relates to work done outside the three contracts in issue here. Further, only $1,700.00 of the lien of Residential Building Supply relates to material provided for the work done by Respondent under these contracts. The balance relates to work done outside the original contract limits. Over the course of the contracts, EIP paid Respondent, in addition to a deposit of $25,786,99 for Bldgs. A & H, the sums below, for a total of $259,006.72 for Bldgs. A, B, & H: a. Aug. 31, 1988 $19,800.00 for Bldg. A b. Aug. 31, 1988 9,505.00 for Bldg. H c. Oct. 05, 1988 10,793.16 for Bldg. H & A d. Oct. 17, 1988 29,305.99 for Bldg. A & H e. Dec. 14, 1988 19,000.00 f. Dec. 29, 1988 49,417.06 g. Feb. 06, 1989 7,296.00 for Bldg. A h. Feb. 06, 1989 28,310.00 for Bldg. B i. Feb. 06, 1989 9,473.50 for Bldg. H j. Feb. 10, 1989 2,350.00 for misc. k. Feb. 15, 1989 20,000.00 l. Mar. 03, 1989 28,031.00 for Bldg. B In addition to those payments, EIP also paid $16,000.00 to Benson Drywall on December 12, 1988 at the request of Respondent. The total paid by EIP, either to or on behalf of the Respondent, was: $ 25,786.00 deposit 233,280.72 to Great Southern 16,000.00 Benson Drywall 36,228.68 Ludwig Steel $311,295.40 TOTAL Mr. Crowley was not the main source of corporate funds. The President of the company is a Mr. Nelson who was the "money man." Contractor selection was by agreement between Nelson and Crowley, but Crowley was the supervisor of the contracts and did most of the negotiating with Respondent. The work stipulated in the contracts between EIP and Respondent was not the only work called for in their relationship. The contracts provided for the basic construction but Mr. Crowley requested Respondent to perform additional work in or around buildings A, B, and H, which included: Tenant improvements in buildings A and B valued at $23,000 excluding labor; Additional site work including electrical, telephone, grading and filling, berm modification, concrete sidewalks and parking buffers, and repair of damaged concrete (all but the repair of concrete was the result of the failure of the original site preparation contractor to properly complete his work); Negotiations and discussions with Volusia County regarding the sewer/septic system necessary for the project. In addition to the $23,000.00 for tenant improvements mentioned in the paragraph next above, Respondent also paid out of pocket to the following contractors and suppliers for work outside the scope of the original contracts: a. Ludwig Metal Buildings $ 3,000.00 b. Concrete 3,840.00 c. John Bates & family 6,497.73 d. Four Seasons 1,190.00 e. Will Cox 975.00 f. Riley 3,100.00 All Star Electric 4,705.32 Jerry's Concrete Service 1,350.00 TOTAL $24,658.05 Though the contracts referenced in this proceeding pertain to construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent was also retained to erect a metal building to be designated C. Respondent received a total of $253,000.00 from EIP to construct those buildings for which he had the initial contracts and also to put up the metal building, C. The cost to complete Building C was $45,500.00 but EIP had remaining only slightly over $6,000.00 to pay for that work. Respondent did substantial work for EIP which was over and above the services called for under the contracts for Buildings A, B, & H as amended by the change orders for which he was not paid because Mr. Crowley advised him no additional monies were available. For example, he and his brother, Thomas, did additional site work valued by him at $24,260.00; and additional labor and services on the septic and sewer system problems valued by him at $5,600.00 and for tenant improvement, valued by him at $5,000.00. Here, however, it must be noted that the figures cited are not documented by any supporting material and contain significant amounts for his labor which he priced at $90.00 per hour. Mr. Miller, during his relationship with EIP, purchased a 10 percent interest in the firm. He originally filed his own lien on the property for $80,364.00 based on the contracts he had in hand and the site work which he valued at $18,000.00. He claims he subsequently withdrew his lien without being paid so that the limited funds available could be used to pay the subcontractors. No corroborating evidence on this point was introduced, however. Mr. Miller's contracting license was, subsequent to the incidents herein, placed in inactive status and currently remains so. He is not now engaged in contracting and claims he does not intend to do so in the future. His motivation in contesting the allegations against him is, he claims, solely to clear his good name and reputation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Respondent, David P. Miller, d/b/a Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. pay an administrative fine of $3,750.00 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 9th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7413 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as the total amount paid by EIP for the buildings constructed by Respondent. The figure is somewhat higher due to deposit and amounts paid to suppliers by EIP. Accepted and incorporated herein. * At this point, Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact become misnumbered. There are two numbers 5. The subsequent numbers are as reflected in Respondent's submittal. 5. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted. 17 & 18. Accepted. Alleged but not proven. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracy Sumner, Esquire William S. Cummins, Esquire Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kurt R. Borglum, Esquire 366 East Graves Avenue, Suite B Orange City, Florida 32763 Jack McRay General Counsel Business and 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
The Issue The ultimate issue to be decided in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner C & M Building Systems, Inc. should be granted certification as a minority business enterprise. In order to make that determination it must be decided whether Maxine R. Chentnik, the president of the Petitioner corporation, and its minority group member owner, controls the management and daily operations of C & M Building Systems, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, C & M Building Systems, Inc., was incorporated in Florida on October 15, 1975. The Petitioner at that time operated under the name of Homes Unlimited, Inc. and was primarily engaged in residential construction contracting. Since that time, the name has changed to the present name of the Petitioner corporation and since at least the mid-1980's the primary business of the corporation has been commercial construction contracting. The net worth of the Petitioner corporation is under a million dollars and 60 percent of its stock is owned by Maxine R. Chentnik, an American female. Forty percent of the stock is owned by her husband Chester G. Chentnik. Mr. Chentnik has over 33 years experience in the construction business as well as a doctorate degree in business administration. For some twelve years he taught business management courses at Florida State University. Mrs. Chentnik has a bachelor of science degree in education and attended business college for approximately one year. Additionally, she has taken approximately 15 hours of college level courses in the fields of interior design and architectural drafting. Mrs. Chentnik's experience in the construction industry began when she and her husband built their own home in 1974. They served as their own contractors and Ms. Chentnik was most involved in that construction project since her husband worked full time at the university. This allowed her to gain experience in hiring and negotiating with subcontractors, arranging for payment of them, in ordering materials and supervising the construction of the home. She and her husband were in need of extra income and therefore she conceived the idea of starting their own residential construction business. When their Corporation, Homes Unlimited, Inc. formed, Mrs. Chentnik was unemployed and, since her husband was still employed at Florida State University, she devoted the majority of the time of the two owners and officers, to the operation of the business. After building their own home, various friends and other customers began engaging them to do residential building projects. Thus, from 1974 until 1982, they built approximately 12 residences. Some of these were built for speculation purposes. Mrs. Chentnik did part of the initial design of the homes, obtained prices from subcontractors, exercised supervision at the job site as to the manner of construction and maintained the books and records of the business. Mrs. Chentnik has never held a contractor's license herself. All of these projects were built using Mr. Chentnik's license. He did the estimating of materials needed, material and labor costs involved and arrived at prices to charge the owner or customer. He had similar managerial duties to those of Mrs. Chentnik. The supervision of the home construction was a joint project because Mr. Chentnik had more technical construction knowledge than Mrs. Chentnik due to his years of experience in construction. He had many years of construction experience working with his father prior to obtaining his college education. In 1982, Mr. Chentnik left his employment with Florida State University and engaged in the construction business full time. From 1983 to 1985, Homes Unlimited, Inc. was associated with Paragon Builders, a corporation which was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik and another couple. Paragon entered into a consultant agreement with Homes Unlimited by which Homes Unlimited was responsible for estimating material and labor needs, as well as job costs, for bidding purposes, and assembling, preparing and submitting bids. It was also charged with performing job site supervision of Paragon's construction projects. Mr. Chentnik performed under this consulting agreement for Homes Unlimited. Mrs. Chentnik was less active in the business operations at that time due to her child rearing duties. In 1985, the relationship between Homes Unlimited and Paragon Builders came to an end and Paragon Builders, Inc. was dissolved. Homes Unlimited had become primarily a commercial construction contracting company and as a result the name was changed to that of C & M Building Systems, Inc. in November, 1985. The initial directors of Homes Unlimited and C & M Building System corporation were Chester G. Chentnik and Maxine R. Chentnik. The articles of incorporation provide that there should not be less than two directors. The articles also provide that the initial bylaws of the corporation must be adopted by the Board of Directors, and that the Board has the power to amend them. Article 3 Section 2 of the Bylaws at present, provides that the number of directors shall be two and that the affairs of the corporation shall be managed by the Board of Directors. The Bylaws provide that the Board of Directors shall be elected by the shareholders at the annual meeting. Section 12 also provides for cumulative voting for election of the Board members, meaning that at each election of the Board, each shareholder shall have the right to vote the number of shares owned by him for as many persons as there are directors to be elected or he may accumulate his votes by giving one candidate as many votes as the number of directors to be elected, multiplied by the number of his shares, or by distributing those votes on the same principle among any number of candidates. The Bylaws provide that a majority of the directors constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. Article 4 Section 1 of the Bylaws provides for a president, vice president, a secretary, and treasurer. All must be elected by the Board of Directors. The president is the chief executive officer of the corporation, subject to control by the Board. The president may execute contracts or other documents which the Board authorizes, as can the secretary or other officers. In January, 1986, the Board passed a resolution providing that estimates of the costs of work proposed to be done by the corporation are to be prepared by the president or secretary and that any proposal submitted by the corporation must be prepared, examined by and submitted to the president or secretary. It is also required that all orders for materials are to be given in writing by the president and secretary or by either of them acting with the consent of the other. No order is valid unless signed by the president or secretary. Contracts for the performance of work are valid only when signed by the president or vice president and by the treasurer or secretary. In April, 1986, C & M, by resolution of its Board, entered into an agreement with CGC Company whereby CGC would thereafter provide "all bidding, on-site management, and "special administrative services" (subject to the ultimate management power being vested in C & M's Board of Directors). CGC is to be compensated for these services at the rate of $1,000 per month, plus a performance fee at the end of each fiscal year, as determined by C & M's Board of Directors, based upon C & M's profitability during the preceding fiscal year. Chester Chentnik is the president of CGC Company and performs the services involved in construction site management, preparation of bids and the like. Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik have alternated at being president of C & M since its incorporation (under its original name) in 1975. Mr. Chentnik was first elected president and Mrs. Chentnik was elected vice president, as well as secretary- treasurer. Mr. Chentnik was president in 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1987. Mrs. Chentnik was president on alternate years beginning in 1977 and was president in 1988 and to the present. Mr. Chentnik explained that the alternating presidencies were intended to more evenly divide the workload involved in signing documents. Mr. Chentnik is currently the vice president and secretary-treasurer of the corporation. In 1986 and 1987, Mrs. Chentnik was employed with a real estate firm and Mr. Chentnik primarily ran C & M operations by himself. The Petitioner is currently working on construction projects involving the Florida A & M University President's residence, the Department of Transportation building; the computer room in the Carlton Building, a bus washing facility for the Leon County School Board, as well as a renovation project for the Florida Bar. Those projects are being performed under Mr. Chentnik's license. Mr. Richard Farrell was employed with C & M as a building superintendent and placed his contractor's license with C & M. His license was not used for any contracts presently being performed by C & M, however. Mr. Farrell is no longer an employee and is not performing work for C & M. Mr. Farrell now manages a related mill-work manufacturing company owned by the Chentniks, but is not performing any construction work or supervision for C & M. The decision to hire Mr. Farrell was a joint one by both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik. His direct supervisor was Mr. Chentnik, although both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik had supervisory authority over him. In any event, Mr. Chentnik's license is now the license qualifying the company as a construction contractor for purposes of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and the authority of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Chentnik does the estimating for the company, prepares bids for jobs, is responsible for supervision of the construction details of the business, as well as for construction site management. On those bidding situations when he does not prepare the entire bid, he generally prepares the cost estimate portion of it and the remainder of the bid, concerning the addition of "overhead", and profit increments, are prepared jointly with Mrs. Chentnik. He also deals with the architects, engineers, and subcontractors, especially at the job site, and, since Mr. Farrell's departure, has taken over his job site supervision responsibilities. Mr. Chentnik has signed contracts for the company, executed change orders, pay requests, contract amendments, purchase orders and has prepared and submitted bids on behalf of the corporation. Mr. Chentnik signed the Department of Transportation contract in June, 1988 and an amendment to that contract in December of 1988. He also signed signed certain change orders to the Florida Bar contract in both September and November, 1988. The Carlton Building computer room bid was signed by Mr. Chentnik in September, 1988, as well as a change order for the Florida A & M University project which he signed in November, 1988. Mrs. Chentnik does not hold a contractor's license herself. She does all the bookkeeping for the company, pays the bills, and deals with the banks; in terms of checking and savings account deposits, withdrawals, as well as arranging credit. She has signed certain notes and lines of credit herself. She orders supplies and takes care of the insurance needs of the business and monitors which construction projects are coming up for bid, and obtains plans for them for the company to consider. She also contacts subcontractors for prices, attends bid openings, and arranges for bonding for the company for the jobs it undertakes. She assists in preparation of bids, especially the supplying of figures for overhead and profit on bids the company submits. She shares in the supervision of employees with her husband and directly supervises one employee, a part-time clerical helper. The company secures a great deal of its business by competitive bidding. Cost estimating is an important part of the bidding process. This estimating is performed primarily by Mr. Chentnik. Mr. Chentnik also developed the computer program to assist the company in its bidding efforts. The bidding program contains a range of percentages of overhead and profit which the company can add to the cost estimates on its bid to arrive at its most advantageous bid price. Mrs. Chentnik typically chooses a percentage for overhead and profit from the ranges set by the computer program. Mrs. Chentnik does not prepare entire estimates or bids herself. In all nearly cases her husband has assisted her. Mrs. Chentnik did prepare an entire bid for a flagpole project, valued at approximately $3500. In essence then, the decisions concerning which projects the company bids and which it declines to bid on have been joint decisions of Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik. They have usually jointly prepared bids, with Mr. Chentnik doing the greater part of that effort in providing the cost estimates. Both of them have historically negotiated prices with subcontractors in order to obtain figures for costs for a given project, in the course of preparation of a bid, however. The company has a checking account, a money market account and holds certificates of deposit. Both the Chentniks have equal drawing rights on all the accounts. The decision as to what amount of money to be placed in certificates of deposit is usually a joint decision. Both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik have previously signed as personal guarantors on debt instruments for the company. Although Mrs. Chentnik does most of the banking business on behalf of the company, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Chentnik has sole control or authority over the bank accounts and the banking relationships of the corporation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the request for certification as a minority business enterprise of C & M Building Systems, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2758 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact (The rulings below relate, by number, sequentially, to the unnumbered paragraphs of the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact) Accepted Accepted Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely comporting with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not, in itself, dispositive of material issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted Rejected as unnecessary and not dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 25-29. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James O. Shelfer, Esquire Gardner, Shelfer & Duggar 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Susan B. Kirkland General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Tucker, is a registered building contractor holding State of Florida license number RB 0033063 (Ex. 7). Respondent was licensed as a building contractor by the State of Florida in September 1978, and has remained licensed at all times material hereto (Ex. 7). Since September 20, 1978, Respondent has held a local Building Contractor's License issued by the Leon County Contractor Licensing and Examination Board (Ex. 7). Respondent's license with the Department has been delinquent since July 1, 1985 (Ex. 7). In July 1983, Respondent made an oral agreement with Violet Gladieux to erect a carport for her at a cost of $1,350 (Ex. 3). Ms. Gladieux's residence is located at 2321 Belle Vue Way, within the city limits of Tallahassee. Jay Gladieux, Jr. became acquainted with Mr. Tucker from his position as an employee of Mr. Tucker on a prior construction project. Mr. Gladieux introduced his mother, Ms. Gladieux, to Mr. Tucker for the carport construction. It was orally agreed that Ms. Gladieux would pay Mr. Tucker for supplies as they were needed. Mr. Tucker began erection of the carport approximately one week after July 11, 1983, when he received the first payment of $300. On July 29, 1983, Mr. Tucker received final payment of $350 so that he could complete the carport (Ex. 3). Approximately two weeks after July 29, 1983, Respondent completed the carport. A permit for the erection of the carport was required by Section 7-63, Buildings and Construction Regulations (The Building Code) of the City of Tallahassee. The language of that ordinance has not changed since 1957 (Ex. 1). No building permit was ever obtained by Mr. Tucker for erection of the carport. Approximately two weeks after completion of the carport, it collapsed after a heavy rainfall (Ex. 4 and 5). Mr. Tucker returned to repair the damaged carport. He erected center studs and was to return later to complete the damage repair. Mr. Tucker has failed to return to complete the damage repair after requested to do so by Jay Gladieux. When an administrative complaint has been filed against a contractor, personal service of the complaint is attempted upon the contractor at his last address of record. If personal service cannot be effectuated at the contractor's last address of record, further attempts are made to locate the contractor. The building departments, both City and County, the telephone company, utility company and post office are contacted. The building departments are contacted to determine if the contractor has obtained any permits, for the permits would list the contractor's address. The telephone company is contacted for prior and new telephone listing(s) with address(es). The post office is contacted for forwarding address(es). The utility company is contacted for new utility service which would contain a new address (es). If the contractor cannot be located after using these avenues, a diligent search affidavit is executed by the investigator who is attempting to serve the contractor. In September 1978 and at all times pertaining to the construction of the carport, Respondent's address of record with the Department was 1515-21 Paul Russell Road and P.O. Box 20234, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had not notified the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board of any change in his address (Ex. 7), other than by the new address revealed on the Election of Rights form he filed in response to the administrative complaint. The Department attempted to personally serve Mr. Tucker at his listed address and could not locate him there. On May 21, 1984, Robert E. Connell, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, executed a diligent search affidavit concerning service of the Administrative Complaint upon Mr. Tucker in this proceeding (Ex. 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of the charges in count one of the Administrative Complaint, as amended; that counts two and three be dismissed; and that he be fined $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Errol H. Powell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert Tucker P.O. Box 10218 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C000942. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Twenty First Century Construction Management, Inc. On September 5, 1992, Willie Janes, doing business as Janes Roofing Contractor, entered into a contract with Debourah Benjamin to replace the roof at her residence located in Margate, Florida. The contract price was $6,748, but Janes later agreed to do the work for $6,248, which was all Benjamin's insurance company would pay. On November 26, 1992, Benjamin gave Janes a check in the amount of $2,200 as a down payment on the work. The check was payable to Willie Janes. At the time Janes entered into his contract with Benjamin, his local roofing license had expired, and he was not licensed as a roofing contractor by the State of Florida. Respondent applied for the roofing permit for the Benjamin job. The City of Margate Building Department issued permit number 11525-R by and through Respondent's licensure on December 3, 1992. Janes commenced work on the Benjamin project on November 26, 1992. On December 8, 1992, the City of Margate Building Department performed a tin tag inspection of the work done by Janes. The work failed the inspection that day but passed two days later. On January 11, 1993, Benjamin issued a second check, in the amount of $2,300, payable to Willie Janes, for the purchase of roof tile. Janes did not order and did not pay for the roof tile until approximately June 25, 1993. The tile was delivered to Benjamin's residence a few days later and placed on the roof for installation but Janes did not return to the project site. The amount of tile delivered to Benjamin's residence was not sufficient to cover the entire roof. On approximately June 25, 1993, Benjamin noticed for the first time that the name of the company on the permit posted at her residence was Twenty First Century Construction. Neither the Respondent nor Twenty First Century Construction Management, Inc., had any involvement in Benjamin's project other than obtaining the building permit. Benjamin contacted the building department which issued the permit and was referred to Petitioner. An employee of Petitioner advised her that the qualifier for Twenty First Century Construction was Respondent. Benjamin had never heard of Respondent at the time. Benjamin contacted Respondent by telephone several times about completing the work commenced by Janes. Respondent repeatedly promised to finish the roof but never did. Benjamin next contacted the Margate Police Department to report the activities of Respondent and Janes. On September 3, 1993, Officer Liberatori of the Margate Police Department spoke to Respondent by telephone, and Respondent promised to complete the work within 30 days. However, Respondent did nothing to complete the work. The last inspection performed on the Benjamin project under permit number 11525-R was the dry-in inspection performed on February 8, 1993. Permit number 11525-R expired on July 8, 1993. In December 1993 Benjamin had the project completed by another contractor. On November 16, 1992, Delos and Barbara Johnson entered into a written contract with Respondent to remodel a porch enclosure at the Johnson residence in Coral Springs, Florida, for a contract price of $10,250. The Johnsons made three payments to Respondent: $1,000 on September 28, 1992; $5,000 on November 17, 1992; and $3,000 on December 2, 1992. On October 12, 1992, Respondent applied for a building permit from the City of Coral Springs for the Johnson remodeling. The City of Coral Springs issued permit number 920004472 by and through Respondent's licensure on November 30, 1992. When the City of Coral Springs issues a building permit, it provides with the permit a list of the required inspections. Respondent proceeded with the construction until December 2, 1992, when he received the third payment. Thereafter, Respondent ceased all construction activities on the Johnson project. Shortly thereafter, the Johnsons learned from the Coral Springs Building Department that their remodeling project had failed to pass the required inspections. When they confronted Respondent regarding his failure to obtain the required inspections, he represented to them that he had made a videotape of all the work he performed, that he himself was a building inspector and could inspect his work, and that he could get a special inspector to inspect the project from the videotape. At no time material hereto was Respondent a certified building inspector. Videotaping a construction project in lieu of obtaining required inspections is not permitted under the South Florida Building Code nor is it permitted by the City of Coral Springs Building Department. Of the required nine inspections for the project, Respondent only obtained three inspections. Of those three, he only passed two. Respondent's failure to obtain the required inspections constitutes a violation of the South Florida Building Code, the minimum standard required for any type of building construction in South Florida. A contractor's failure to adhere to that minimum standard causes harm to the public from deteriorating construction. The Johnsons and the City of Coral Springs Building Department gave Respondent an opportunity to obtain and pass the required inspections and complete the construction project. When Respondent declined to do so, the attorney hired by the Johnsons discharged Respondent. The Johnsons had paid approximately 90 percent of the money they had saved for the porch enclosure to Respondent, and they could not afford to continue with the construction project using the services of another contractor until November 1994. Rick Hugins of Hugins Construction Corp., the remedial contractor, needed to pass the required inspections that Respondent had neglected in order to be permitted by the City of Coral Springs Building Department to complete the project. Work that needed to be inspected was concealed by subsequently- installed construction materials which had to be removed in order that the required inspections could be performed. Numerous code violations were discovered in the concealed work. The work performed by Respondent was below industry standards. The Johnsons paid Hugins Construction Corp. $10,000 to correct the code violations, to pass the required inspections Respondent had missed, and to complete the project. Hugins completed the project by January 23, 1995. Respondent has been previously disciplined by Petitioner on charges of assisting unlicensed activity and of failing to notify Petitioner of his current mailing address and telephone number. That discipline included the payment of an administrative fine and an assessment of costs associated with that investigation and prosecution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 97- 1365, finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 97-1368, requiring Respondent to pay restitution to the Johnsons, assessing against Respondent the costs of investigation and prosecution through the time the final order is entered, and revoking Respondent's certification as a general contractor in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, No. N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Edward Conrad Sawyer, Esquire 1413 North 58th Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Albert J. Ruocco, is licensed as a registered building contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RB00030112. His last address in the Department's file is 604 Citrus Court, Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951. Sometime prior to the date of the administrative complaint, the Department received a complaint from Mrs. Dale Normington that Ruocco told her he had obtained a termite treatment for the addition he constructed on her home, but that no treatment was done. DPR investigator, John Allen, told Mrs. Normington to send her back-up information. John Allen received in the mail a copy of the purported contract between the Normingtons and Rivers Edge Construction Company, Inc., Ruocco's Company. He also received a series of cancelled checks and a copy of a letter purportedly sent by the Normingtons to Albert Ruocco. John Allen checked the Department's licensing files and obtained the licensing information on Ruocco. He also personally served the Administrative Complaint on Ruocco, but did not, to the best of his recollection, discuss the complaint with him or have any other contact with him. Ruocco never responded to any investigative correspondence. Douglas Vanderpoest, owner of Slug-A-Bug, a pest control company, established that his company never treated the addition to the Normington resident. Brevard County Building Inspector, Howard Stott, knows Albert Ruocco and is familiar with the addition Ruocco installed for the Normingtons in 1985. A permit was obtained and Stott performed three inspections, including the slab, pre-lath and final on the addition. Brevard County requires evidence of termite treatment of soil for any new construction or modifications to an existing structure. The practice is usually for the inspector to require a receipt or evidence of treatment prior to approving the slab. Stott does not remember whether he required the evidence on the Normington job. The permit in those days did not have a space to indicate the termite treatment. However, Stott did approve the slab, as noted on the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint dated November 2, 1987, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 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 20th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Bryant, Reeves & Deer 220 East Madison Street Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Albert J. Ruocco 604 Citrus Court Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for consideration at this hearing is whether Respondent's certification as a communications systems specialty contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, was the county agency responsible for licensing contractors in the construction trades in Pinellas County and for the regulation of the profession of contracting in that county. Respondent, Michael G. Linton held license No. C-5513 as a certified communications systems specialty contractor in Pinellas County. On or about June 14, 1995, Kim and Vincent Carter, tenants at a residence located at 118 7th Street in Belleair Beach, Florida, contacted Respondent to secure his assistance in moving the satellite reception dish which he had initially installed for them to their new residence. On that date, Respondent issued an invoice to the Carters on which he indicated he was to reinstall their satellite system for $300.00. The statement was signed by Respondent and also bears the apparent signature of V.J. Carter. Mr. Linton claims it was Mrs. Carter who signed the statement authorizing the work, however, but she denies it and Mr. Carter claims it was he who signed it. Mr. Carter disconnected the system inside the residence and helped to take down the outside dish. Respondent moved the dish from the Carter's old residence to their new residence where it was to be reinstalled. Respondent did not pull a permit from the City of Belleair Beach to construct the base for the antenna dish. A permit was required. Mr. Linton claims he did not dig the hole for the base into which he poured the cement but that the base hole was dug by Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter denies having done so. Whoever dug the hole, it did not meet code requirements since it was only 20 inches deep and the code requires a base of concrete at least 48 inches deep. The length and breadth of the slab depends on the size of the satellite dish and the length of the pole on which it will be affixed. The Carters deny that they agreed to pull the permit for this work, claiming that since they are not the owners of the property, they cannot do so. This is not so, however, because, under the terms of the Code, (Section 6- 3(a)(1), either the owner of the property or the authorized agent of the owner can pull the permit. If authorized by the owner of the new residence, either the Carters or the contractor may have pulled the permit. Neither did. Respondent claims he was hired by the Carters only to help them move their satellite system. He was to be paid between $300.00 and $350.00, and Mr. Carter was to help. Because Carter and Mr. Moore, the building official, were old friends, Carter was to pull his own permit and that was put on the invoice. The Carters claim this notation was not there when they signed the invoice. Respondent claims he would have charged $150.00 extra to pull the permit. Respondent admits he holds himself out as a communications systems contractor and that he was retained by the Carters to do work related to the move of their satellite system from one residence to another, but only to help Mr. Carter. He admits he knew a permit was required for the construction of the new base and, though he may not have known whether a permit had been pulled before he poured the new base, he did not pull it himself or insure that one had been pulled. He now admits he should not have relied on the Carters' representations that they would take care of it. He also did not insure that the base which was poured conformed to the requirements of the approved engineering for the installation. The city's building official, Mr. Moore, inspected the work site, on two separate occasions. He first found the hole to be too shallow. When he came back to reinspect, the cement had been poured and he could not gauge the depth, finally accepting the certification of the subsequent contractor that the base conformed to specifications. The conforming work was not done by Respondent but by a subsequent contractor hired by the Carters, Satellite Communications and Electronics, Inc. The Carters were billed an additional $250.00 for this follow up work. This included a fee of $150.00 for pulling the required permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the offenses alleged, placing his license on probation for six months, and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 12th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5933 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. None submitted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's counsel did not number the facts urged in that portion of his submittal described as "Respondent's version Of The Facts." Therefore, the four paragraphs in that section will be addressed individually. Accepted. Accepted, but the contractor must not begin work without a permit being issued. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Louis Bakkalapulo, Esquire The Wilder Center Suite 404 3000 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 34619
