The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers to any one or all of five challenged questions on the structural I engineering examination that Petitioner took in April 1997 (the "structural engineering examination").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the structural engineering examination given in April 1997. Respondent administered the examination. The minimum passing score for the structural engineering examination is 70. Respondent earned a score of 69. By Examination Grade Report dated July 29, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that he had failed the structural engineering examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner's test results were re-scored by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying ("NCEES"). The re-score did not increase Petitioner's original score. Credit for an answer to one additional question will result in a score of 70 on examination. Petitioner challenges questions 270-273 on the morning part of the exam and question 572 on the afternoon part of the exam. The maximum score available for question 270 is 10 points. Petitioner received eight points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 270. Petitioner incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 271 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 271. Petitioner did not complete the procedure for two of the required items. Petitioner completed only two items in question 271. He received a correct score of two points because he incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 272 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 272. Petitioner did not provide a correct analysis of the "forces perpendicular and parallel to the grain" or "determine the allowable force at an angle to the grain." The maximum score available for question 273 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 273. A higher score would require Petitioner to calculate two items correctly. Petitioner calculated only one item correctly. Question 572 has two parts. Part 2 is a multiple choice format. The correct answer to Part 2 of Question 572 is answer "C," or 1.25. Petitioner chose answer "B," or 2.25. Petitioner incorrectly assumed that the structure was a mixed steel/concrete frame. If Petitioner's assumption had been correct, then answer "B," or 2.25, would have been the correct answer. Petitioner failed to show that Respondent did not utilize the scoring plan correctly. The examination provided enough information for a candidate for licensure to answer the problems correctly. The examination was properly designed to test a candidate's competency. The challenged questions are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 270-273 and 572. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 R. Beth Atchison Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl A. Brown, pro se 9313 Sonoma Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Licensing Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a professional engineer should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of professional engineering in Florida. During the applicable time period set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Charles A. Wunder, Sr., was licensed as a professional engineer in Florida. He holds license number PE0016670, which has been in effect continuously since 1971. Respondent Wunder's last known address on file with the Board of Professional Engineers is 12620 Eagle Road, Cape Coral, Florida 33909. Plaza 1300 In 1981, the Respondent was commissioned by Messrs. Mike Zak and John Zipkovich to prepare plans for the construction of a commercial building to be developed in Cape Coral, Florida, known as Plaza 1300. At the time the commission took place, the owner-developers represented to Respondent that the construction company with whom he was involved would build the project, and he would supervise construction as a professional engineer. Based upon this representation, the Respondent designed and prepared plans in a way that was less time consuming than the creation of a plan to be used without his continuous supervision and direct involvement in construction. Instead of placing all of the specifications on the drawings, the Respondent chose to incorporate many of the details in the plan through the use of separate specification booklets which would be used by the fabricators and the Respondent during construction. The Respondent judged that this was a reasonable approach to the project design based upon the information he was given by the owner- developers during the design phase. The original plans for the building were completed in January of 1982. Four copies of the drawings, as completed by the Respondent for this project, were sealed with Respondent Wunder's professional seal as an engineer and were given to his clients during that same month and year. These drawings were specific enough to allow Messrs. Zak and Zipkovich to decide whether this was the building they wanted built at the project site. The Respondent did not give the owners the technical specifications that had been placed in the separate booklets because this aspect of the design was beyond what they were seeking to review at the time the project design was presented to them. After the Respondent discussed with the owner-developers what it would cost to build the project, they decided to find another builder who would construct the project for less money. The owner-developers used the sealed drawings when they went looking for a cheaper builder. They did not advise the Respondent of their decision not to retain the construction firm with whom he was affiliated, and they did not reveal they were going to use the drawings for the purpose of retaining a contractor. The owners gave the drawings to David J. Hayes, the general contractor and qualifier for Coral Bay Construction, Inc. This construction company was hired by the owners to build Plaza 1300 pursuant to the sealed drawings created by Respondent Wunder. Once the Respondent was advised that his construction company would not build the building, there must have been some discussions and agreements made with the owner-developers as to how Respondent Wunder would remain on the project for engineering purposes. It is obvious from the evidence adduced at hearing that the Respondent remained actively involved in the project in a number of ways after he completed his design and sealed the drawings. The Respondent's role and involvement in this project is confusing to others who are attempting to delineate what the Respondent's responsibilities were at different stages of the project's development. Sometimes the Respondent performed engineering functions for the owner-developers such as the approval of shop drawings. At other times, he assisted the contractor in working out code disputes with various city agencies and defended or revised his design. The Respondent also completed the structural inspection for the city on this building, and made any necessary design changes the city deemed were necessary to allow the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. By some means, all of the parties managed to delineate responsibilities throughout the project without any conflicts as to who was ultimately responsible for what in any given stage of development. The Respondent was only called upon when he was needed, and he assisted any of the parties when he was asked to do so. The signed and sealed drawings received by the contractor were submitted by him to the building department as the complete set of plans and specifications. Building department personnel relied on the drawings as the complete building plans. However, other city personnel who had questions concerning the specifications contacted the designer, Respondent Wunder. Any questions were resolved to the satisfaction of the city personnel prior to permit approval. For example, when the Fire Marshall had questions concerning whether construction would comply with the Standard Fire Prevention Code, National Fire Codes (NFPA) and the Life Safety Code 101, he discussed the matter with the Respondent. The Fire Marshall was given the Respondent's specification booklet that contained more information on the building materials than what was contained on the plans. Based upon the review of these specifications in addition to the drawings, the project was approved for permit by the Fire Marshall as long as the special conditions listed by him on a separate sheet were met. A permit was issued to construct the building according to the drawings and the additional specifications reviewed by city personnel on May 5, 1982. The contractor was never advised during his ongoing interactions with Respondent Wunder, the owner-developers or city personnel that separate sets of specifications existed which were part of the designer's plans for the project. The contractor relied on the construction drawings, the Respondent's approval of shop drawings prepared by manufacturer's before the structural items were fabricated for placement in the building, the outcome of his own discussions with city personnel about the application and interpretation of various codes as well as Respondent's discussions, and Respondent's structural inspections of the project. Based upon the knowledge and materials obtained by this contractor throughout the project, he was able to construct the building and obtain a certificate of occupancy for the owner-developers. The separate sets of specifications were not provided by the Respondent or the city through its records at hearing because these items were lost, destroyed or stolen from the city and the Respondent years prior to the filing of the charges by the Department. The deficiency in the records was not the fault of the city or the Respondent. Wherever deficiencies alleged by the Department as to design could be resolved in separate specifications, it has been determined that the Respondent did in fact supply this information in additional specification booklets as part of the plan for Plaza 1300. On Sheet S1 of the signed and sealed drawings, the Footing Schedule fails to call for anchor bolts at the base of steel columns in Footings (1,2,4) CB and 7 B-C. Ordinarily, this omission is contrary to the exercise of due care and fails to exhibit due regard for the principles of professional engineering because anchor bolts are required for the columns to function. It is careless to assume a contractor will use the right number and size anchor bolts. In this case, however, the Respondent created a separate specification, approved the shop drawings before the columns and the anchor bolts were delivered for use by the contractor, and inspected the installation of these materials. Any omission of the anchor bolts from the Footing Schedule in the drawings was resolved well before installation of the columns. The Footing Schedule on Sheet S1 calls for dowels at 10 feet on centers in footings supporting masonry walls, but this is inconsistent with the dowel requirements indicated on Sheet S2. This sheet shows the dowels are placed at varying spaces, e.g., some are spaced 46 feet apart, some are 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet and 40 feet on centers. Drawings should be consistent as to the information they convey to the contractor. This error could not have been corrected in a separate set of specifications. It resulted in a handwritten entry on the drawings prior to approval by the building department that gave a third alternative as to how the dowels should be placed. The lack of clarity as to dowel placement and the creation of three possible installations was a failure by a professional engineer to use due care in design while performing in an engineering capacity. As this disciplinary proceeding relates only to the design portion of this project, it is unknown if Respondent Wunder was actively involved in the revision accepted by the building department or whether he approved later shop drawings based upon the handwritten entry on the drawings submitted to the building department for approval. The Recommended Bar Details on Sheet S1 of the drawings are ambiguous as they do not specify what portion of the required bottom bars may be stopped short of the supports. The details indicate that some bottom bars are cut off and do not extend into supports, but the number is not specified. An engineer's design must explain which bottom bars extend the full length of the span because the designer is the only one who knows this and he must tell the detailer what he wants. The details cannot be allocated to a fabricator for subsequent approval by the engineer because the bars not needed for moment must be developed in bond beyond the cut off point, according to code requirements. A fabricator would not have the expertise to read the moment diagram and design what the professional engineer's calculations require without specific instructions regarding the bottom bars. Separate specifications would not cure the problem with the ambiguities in the bottom bars because the ambiguities are in the pictures themselves. If the ambiguities could not be clarified in the pictures, they could not logically be clarified with the written word. On Sheet S1, the requirements for top steel reinforcing bars in continuous concrete beams are ambiguous in that the required number and extent of those bars over supports between adjacent beams has not been defined in the drawings. The top bars are detailed in each separate beam with no regard as to how many bars are required between adjacent beams. For example, beams B-1, B-2 and B-3 are adjacent to each other on the second floor, the third floor and the roof. The top reinforcing for beam B-2 does not agree with that of beams B-1 and B-3. If the engineer had a particular area of steel required for this condition, then he has confused the contractor with this detail in the drawings. In this example, the amount of reinforcing varies on the roof beams by 33 percent. The amount of reinforcement should be the same for each bar. The reason this ambiguity could not be resolved in specifications or shop drawings is that the ambiguity is inherent in the design, as represented in its pictorial form. The alleged ambiguities as to Sheet S2 regarding anchor bolts and base plates were resolved in Respondent's favor in a separate specification booklet, and the shop drawings reviewed and accepted by Respondent. His details regarding the stairs were contained in the architectural portion of the drawings in the plans as opposed to the structural drawings. Based upon his design, and his review and approval of the shop drawings presented at hearing, the alleged ambiguities did not exist. The CORRUFORM deck indicated on architectural Sheet A6 is structurally inadequate to safely support code specified loads at the indicated joist spacing. The manufacturer's recommendation, based on an allowable stress of 30,000 PSI on the span of 5 feet is 34 PSF, is a little over one half of the actual load on the deck. The actual load is almost twice what the manufacturer recommends. A separate set of specifications could not correct this deficiency because the properties specified indicate the deck is structurally inadequate to support the required loads set forth on Sheet S1 of the drawings. In Sheet S5 of the drawings, all steel joists specified, except for those marked 8H3, are structurally inadequate to safely support code specified loads, according to the engineering calculations presented at hearing. This deficiency is repeated in the shop drawings. This structural inadequacy fails to exhibit due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. The 12 WF27 steel beams shown on Sheet S5 lack the moment resisting capacity needed to safely support code specified loads on the roof. The moment resistance required for the roof beam is 81.89 foot kips. The allowable moment capacity for these beams is 68.4 foot kips. This is an inadequate carrying capacity which could not be cured with additional specifications because it is a design error. The roof was redesigned by the Respondent prior to the roof construction. The beam details provided in Sheet S6 are ambiguous in that they fail to define the number and extent of top reinforcing bars required over intermediate supports in continuous concrete members. It appears from the beam schedule that although B-1 joins to B-2 and B-2 joins to B-3, each beam calls for a different number and size of reinforced bars at the connections. This causes confusion as to whether there should be 3, 4 or 7 reinforcing bars intersecting with each other where the beams are supposed to join. Shop drawings and separate specifications would not cure this deficiency as the ambiguity is in the details of the design. In addition to the structural design deficiencies alleged by the Department, Count I of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that various provisions of the applicable building codes in effect in the City of Cape Coral at the time the plans were sealed were violated in the design created by the Respondent. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board has already determined that there were two rated separate stairways provided to exit the second and third floors of this building, and that the designed stairways met the applicable provisions of the Standard Building Code, as interpreted, applied, and enforced within the City of Cape Coral. The Board also determined that the travel distance to exits and the corridors met the fire, building, zoning, and related technical codes, as they were interpreted and enforced in this municipality. The fire ratings for the elevator glass were in a separate specification book that Respondent Wunder submitted to the Fire Marshall prior to the Fire Marshall's determination that the sealed plans would be approved if the special conditions listed by the Fire Marshall on the drawings were met. These special conditions are missing and cannot be located. It is unknown if these special conditions related to the elevator glass or if the missing specifications were sufficient. The Respondent is found to have complied with the city's code requirements as to the elevator glass in the missing specification. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board found the doors and walls of the exit pathway to be fire rated and in compliance with all fire, building, and related technical codes as interpreted and in force within this municipality. The building materials used were in a separate specification booklet and were used to purchase the materials prior to installation by the contractor. The stairs designed by Respondent Wunder for this building decrease in width in the direction of exit travel. Both the Standard Building Code and the Life Safety Code in effect at the time of the design prohibit a decrease in the width of stairs in the direction of exit travel. The stair landings were found to be in compliance by the Cape Coral Enforcement Board as the applicable codes were interpreted and enforced within the municipality. Winding stairs, although prohibited as an exit stairway by the Standard Building Code, were designed by Respondent Wunder for use as an exit stairway in this commercial building. The riser and tread design completed by Respondent Wunder did not comply with the Life Safety code adopted by the City of Cape Coral. The design error may have been one of the special conditions placed upon the design by the Fire Marshall prior to his approval of the plans for permit. Uniform risers were placed in the building when it was constructed. In the Third Amended Administrative Complaint, the Department alleged that wood trim in exit stairways is prohibited. The Respondent stated in his answer that he was without knowledge of this prohibition. Because the Standard Building Code does allow wood trim if that wood trim meets certain flame spread characteristics and complies with the interior finish requirements, this allegation in the charging document did not sufficiently alert the Respondent as to what he was required to defend against concerning the wood trim. In addition, the Respondent is found to have satisfied code requirements for any wood trim in a separate specification booklet. A manual fire alarm system was not provided by Respondent Wunder as part of his original design. A manual alarm system was made part of the revised drawings on October 31, 1982, which was well after the permit was issued by the municipality. It is unknown if the omission of the manual fire alarm system in the design drawings was an omission, a matter of code interpretation, or whether the system was originally in the separate specification booklet reviewed by the Fire Marshall prior to his approval of the construction plans. This alleged deficiency is resolved in the Respondent's favor upon the determination that the system was in the separate specifications taken from the fire department. The Department's allegations regarding a standpipe system were removed from consideration prior to the taking of evidence in the formal hearing. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board determined that the vertical openings in the floor and roof of this building and the structural system are adequately fire protected under the city's interpretation of fire, building, and other technical codes in force in the city. The handicap accessibility requirements were not met in the drawings completed by Respondent Wunder. During the design phase of the project, the Accessibility by Handicapped Persons Act was in effect in Florida. Even if the restrooms and water fountains in the facility meet the minimum requirements set forth in Section 553.48(2)(h), Florida Statutes, as a result of the separate specifications, the parking space configurations and building access do not meet all of the applicable minimum code requirements. Schooner Cove In 1984, Respondent Wunder had an ongoing business relationship with the architectural firm of Stout & Gerald in Cape Coral, Florida. The architectural firm would hire Respondent Wunder to review the site drainage on the firm's project designs for buildings located on land within the City of Cape Coral. The following procedure was used by the architectural firm when it retained the Respondent in a couple of hundred projects: One of the architects would telephone the Respondent and ask him for a price on a particular number of units and would advise Respondent of the number of lots involved. The Respondent would be told whether the lots were inland or on a canal. Upon receiving this information, the Respondent would give the firm a price quote. When the project progressed to the point where a drainage review was needed, the drawings would be sent to the Respondent. He would either review, review and do some work on them, or say the drainage was all right. The architects would rely upon this review and go forward with finishing the design from that stage to its completion. When the customer needed signed sealed drawings for a building permit, the architect assigned to a particular project would place his seal on the project for the other work. The Respondent would place his seal on the plans as to the site drainage. On October 22, 1984, Respondent Wunder signed and sealed the site plan for a twelve unit condominium project known as Schooner Cove in Cape Coral, Florida. His title block on the site plan indicated "DRAINAGE ONLY" beneath the name "C.A. Wunder Engineering, Inc." The Respondent did not require a survey or a soil test of the site prior to his drainage review of the site plans because of his working professional knowledge of the soil conditions and the undeveloped lots within the City of Cape Coral at the time the site plans were given to him for review. This judgment call was reasonable based upon the architect's site plan and his failure to call anything unusual to Respondent's attention in the preliminary drainage design prepared by the architect. The Respondent did view the site before sealing the drainage design. A drainage design is comprised of calculations, grading and retention. The drainage design for Schooner Cove relied upon the percolation method to dispose of excess water from ten year critical storm events because there is no overflow/outfall capability from the retention areas that collected the excess water. Calculations are part of a drainage design. They should be performed with relation to a site and the drainage layout shown on the site plans. In determining the appropriate calculations, the engineer who places his seal on a site plan as to drainage must establish grades, overflow and how the drainage will be handled on the project. Both pre-construction and post-development conditions at the site must be reviewed. The drainage design at the Schooner Cove project that received the Respondent's engineering seal was not adequate to provide for reasonably anticipated storm water runoff at the site, post-construction, in a ten year critical storm event. The flooding of the retention ponds in such a storm event should have been apparent to a professional engineer who reviewed the plans with due care and due regard for the principles of professional engineering. Mitigating Circumstances The Department did not present any evidence of a previous disciplinary history in this or any other jurisdiction wherein the Respondent has practiced engineering. Many of the deficiencies alleged in the drawings for Plaza 1300 which were created in 1982, have since been reformed by the Respondent within his engineering firm. He no longer prepares separate specification booklets for projects of this size, and he prepares more detailed drawings that do not rely upon his personal supervision and direction after the design phase of the project. These steps were taken by Respondent even before the violations were charged against him in these proceedings. The way in which the drawings were prepared in Plaza 1300 was an unusual practice for Respondent, and was done in reliance upon the owner- developers' representation that Respondent would be responsible for the supervision of the construction of the building as a professional engineer. Some of the deficiencies in the Plaza 1300 project proved by the Department were minor, and were corrected as the project was built. The drainage design deficiencies in the Schooner Cove project can be corrected with a redesign of the drainage system at the site. Aggravating Circumstances Some of the structural design deficiencies in the Plaza 1300 project drawings reveal that the building's deck, columns and beams may not safely support code specified loads if they were built according to the design in the drawings. The owners of the condominiums in the Schooner Cove project must have the drainage redesigned to alleviate the flooding problems at the site. The fact that the complaint alleges multiple counts of the same provision of Chapter 471 cannot be used for enhancement in this case because that provision of the rules regarding disciplinary guidelines was not in effect when either of the violations occurred. The Department did not prove that enhancement of penalties based upon multiple violations was a policy of the Board of Professional Engineers during the time the violations occurred.
Recommendation In determining what penalty should be recommended for Respondent Wunder, the Hearing Officer considered the severity of the offenses, as well as the degree of harm to the consumers and the public. Based upon the foregoing, including all of the information made available to the Hearing Officer regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it is recommended: The Respondent Wunder be found guilty of having violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I , Paragraph Nine of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. The Respondent Wunder be found guilty of having violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II, Paragraph 15 of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent be fined $1,000.00 for each violation for a total of $2,000.00, and receive a letter of reprimand from the Board. The Respondent's license should also be placed on probationary status for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of May, 1991. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 29th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5149 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected, plans completed in 1981. Contrary to date on the drawings. See HO #4. Rejected, these were complete drawings. See HO #3. The rest of paragraph 4 is accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6 and #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #24. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3, #4, #7 and #8. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, Section 6, Art. VIII, Florida Constitution. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14 and #15. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #3. Rejected. Overbroad. Addressed individually in findings. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #18. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #20. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Reject first two sentences. Relates to construction. The rest is accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Not an allegation in the complaint. Rejected. Not an allegation in the complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3, #7 and #10. Accepted. Rejected. Conclusionary. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant to charges. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Contrary to facts of this case. See HO #3, #7 and #10. Rejected. Contrary to this particular situation when drawing sealed. See HO #3. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. See HO #25. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #3. Accepted. 121. Accepted. See HO #25. 122. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 123. Accepted. See HO #15, #17, #18, #21, #22, #23 and #25. 124. Accepted. See response to paragraph 123. 125. Accepted. See response to paragraph 123. 126. Accepted. 127. Accepted. 128. Accepted. See HO #10. 129. Accepted. 130. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 131. Accepted. 132. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 133. Accepted. 134. Accepted. 135. Accepted. 136. Accepted. 137. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 138. Accepted. 139. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 140. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 141. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 142. Accepted. 143. Accepted. 144. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 145. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 146. Accepted. 147. Accepted. 148. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 149. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 150. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 151. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 152. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 152(a). Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. 154(b). Accepted. 155. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 156. Accepted. See HO #30. 157. Accepted. See HO #30. 158. Accepted. 159. Accepted. 160. Accepted. 161. Accepted. See HO #30. 162. Accepted. 163. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 164. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 165. Accepted. 166. Accepted. See HO #32. 167. Accepted. 168. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 169. Accepted. 170. Accepted. 171. Accepted, but See HO #33. 172. Accepted. 173. Accepted. 174. Accepted. See HO #33. 175. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but see HO #34. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Rejected. Not proved by clear and convincing evidence. See HO #36. Rejected. Not established fact. See HO #36. 184. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 185. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 186. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 187. Accepted. 188. Rejected. Irrelevant. 189. Rejected. Speculative. 190. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 191. Accepted. 192. Accepted. 193. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 194. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 195. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 196. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 197. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 198. Accepted. 199. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 200. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 201. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. 202. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. Rejected. Not alleged in complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. Rejected. Not alleged in complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 208. Rejected. See HO #3 and #12. 209. Rejected. See HO #3 and #12. 210. Accepted. 211. Accepted. 212. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 213. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 214. Accepted. See HO #39. 215. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. 216. Accepted. 217. Accepted. See HO #9. 218. Accepted. See HO #9. 219. Accepted. 220. Accepted. 221. Rejected. Irrelevant. 222. Rejected. Irrelevant. 223. Rejected. Irrelevant. 224. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. 225. Accepted. 226. Accepted. 227. Accepted. See HO #41. 228. Accepted. See HO #41. 229. Accepted. See HO #40. 230. Accepted. 231. Accepted. See HO #40. 232. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #41. Accepted. See HO #41. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted to critical storm 10-year event standard. Rejected beyond 10-year critical year standard. Accepted. See HO #42. Accepted. See HO #44. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #42. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted. See HO #44 and #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #42. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Argument as opposed to factual determination. Attorney comments are not evidence. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14 and #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Attorney comments not evidence, therefore, that portion is rejected. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Attorney comments, not evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, in part. See HO #27 - #39. Those parts rejected are contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #27 - #39. Accepted. See HO #27. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Unknown, but resolved in Respondent's favor. See HO #36. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Accepted, as his testimony only. Rejected as finding of fact. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted, but not as to Respondent Wunder's design. Accepted. See HO #27 - #39. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Attorney's comments, not evidence. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #43 - #45. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #40. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #40 and #43 - #45. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #43 - #45. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 117. Rejected. Speculative. Improper summary. 118. Rejected. Irrelevant. 119. Rejected. Irrelevant. 120. Accepted. 221. Accepted. 222. Rejected. Irrelevant. 223. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #45. 224. Accepted. 225. Accepted. 226. Accepted. 227. Accepted. 228. Accepted. 229. Accepted. Rejected. Weight and sufficiency determination. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #40. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Wings S. Benton, Esquire Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 Diane E. McGill, Esquire TURK & SHIPP, P.A. 4223 Del Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether certain questions within the June 2002 construction building contractor examination are invalid, and whether Petitioner should receive credit for certain answers scored as incorrect.
Findings Of Fact In June 2002, Petitioner sat for the construction building contractor examination. Shortly following the exam, Petitioner was advised that he incorrectly answered 17 of the 50 exam questions and did not attain the minimum passing score of 70 percent, but received a failing scaled score of 66 percent. Petitioner timely challenged the validity and scoring of eight questions, including questions 8, 14, 17, 33, 34, 38, 43, and 44. In order for Petitioner to acquire a passing score, Petitioner must prove that certain challenged questions are invalid or demonstrate that he is entitled to receive credit for his answers. Specifically, Petitioner must demonstrate that either three questions should be stricken from the exam providing Petitioner with 70.2 percent, two questions should be stricken and one answer scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70.8 percent or two answers should scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70 percent. QUESTION 8 Exam Question 8 asks, "According to AIA-A201, who determines the interest rate that the contractor can charge on due and unpaid payments?" Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, argues that the parties to the contract are not defined within the question and it is therefore misleading. However, the credited answer D, "all the parties must agree on the rate" is within the provided reference material and is clearly the best answer. It is not misleading and Petitioner's argument lacks merit. In addition, 89.47 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 8. QUESTION 14 Exam Question 14 is wordy and involves computations. It requires the test-taker to calculate the number of "labor" hours required per 100 pieces to build a wall, given certain pricing and wall construction information. Question 14 is ambiguous and confusing on its face. While the question asks for labor hours, the facts provide a fixed combined hourly cost for a mason and laborer's hour. There is no distinction made between "labor" hours and a "laborer's" hours. Mr. Collier admitted that there is some apparent confusion between "labor" costs and the "laborer's" costs. Mr. Palm further agreed and indicated that he fully understood Petitioner's rationale to divide the labor costs in half and choose answer A. Furthermore, it is clear that Petitioner's perception of the question was not unique. In fact, only 46.62 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 14. QUESTION 17 Exam Question 17 asks, "During the bid process, which document has priority in the event of conflicting information?" Clearly, the correct answer is B, "addenda." Petitioner's argument regarding "competitively bid projects" is without merit. Mr. Palm succinctly explained that Petitioner's selection was obviously incorrect because "plans don't change during the bid process unless there is an addenda issued." Moreover, 75.56 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 17. QUESTION 33 Exam Question 33 identifies a situation that where drawings differ from written specifications and where there is no legal precedent that one is more binding than the other. The question specifically calls for the best procedure according to the listed and available reference. While Mr. Uman argues that the answer does not appear within the reference material in a clear manner, the exact text of the question and answer are in fact within the material. Petitioner's argument lacks credibility. QUESTION 34 Exam Question 34 asks the test-taker "what is the EARLIEST workday for completing the masonry work?" given the number of crew, the number of hours required, and the ratio constant of the crew. Although 80.45 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 34, Mr. Uman argues that the question could have been answered without reference to the Builder's Guide to Accounting material and therefore, was misleading. Petitioner's argument is devoid of common sense. QUESTION 38 Exam Question 38 asks the test-taker to identify the activity that "a specialty structural contractor is qualified" to perform. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, again argues that the question is misleading since the credited correct answer "perform non-structural work" is not written verbatim in the provided reference material. To the contrary however, all of the alternative choices are clearly listed in the reference material as activities specifically prohibited by specialty structure contractors. Furthermore, page 2B17 to 61G415.015 of the Contractor's Manual specifically states that: The specialty structure contractor whose services are limited shall not perform any work that alters the structural integrity of the building including but not limited to roof trusses. Respondent's experts, Mr. Collier and Mr. Palm, agree that Question 38 is clear. Moreover, 53.38 percent of test- takers correctly answered the question. While the question appears to require enhanced reasoning skills and is generally more difficult, it is not misleading. Petitioner's assertions are without merit. QUESTION 43 Exam Question 43 asks, "Which accounting method should be used by a contractor if the contractor is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of progress to date on a job or the total costs remaining to fulfill the contract?" Mr. Uman argues that the question is ambiguous and the reference material is "not terribly clear." He further alleges that when a contractor cannot estimate progress, the contractor cannot establish a "completed contract method," the credited correct answer. Respondent's experts disagree. While it is true that Mr. Palm agreed that all of the choices are accounting methods which is inconsistent with Mr. Collier's testimony, the reference material is clear. In fact, 58.65 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 43. Petitioner presented insufficient evidence that he should receive credit for his answer or that Question 43 should be invalidated. QUESTION 44 Exam Question 44 provides detailed information regarding a standard form contract and asks, "Based ONLY on the information given above, what is the amount of the current payment due?" In addition, however, as Mr. Uman points out, the standard form referred to in the problem was mistakenly misidentified as Form 201 instead of Form 702. While it is clear that the referenced form was mislabeled, the precise form number was incidental, unrelated to the question, and unnecessary to compute the answer. In fact, Mr. Palm explains that the problem was "just a mathematical exercise." According to Mr. Collier, the question was not misleading, and the incorrect reference was irrelevant. "It's simple math, industry knowledge." Furthermore, Petitioner's answer is clearly incorrect because "he failed to deduct the retainage." Finally, 54.89 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 44.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered invalidating only Question 14, re-computing Petitioner's examination score, and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nickolas Ekonomides, Esquire 791 Bayway Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33767 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts I, II and IV of the amended administrative complaint, and guilty of misconduct by affixing his signature and number to air-conditioning plans in Count VI. All other charges should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be given the penalty set forth in paragraph 45 of this recommended order. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's engineering license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Michael V. Carr, P.E. is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, holding license number PE0026675. He has been engaged in the practice of engineering for more than 15 years. Mr. Carr's area of expertise is in civil and structural engineering. He is not experienced in electrical or mechanical engineering. In 1989, Mr. Carr was employed as a full-time engineer and construction project manager by a local development and construction company. He also operated, on a part-time basis, an engineering business. The purpose of his part-time business was to offer engineering services to people who are experienced in the construction industry or are working with someone who is experienced in the construction industry and have to varying degrees developed their own plans. Respondent also would serve as the construction manager on those projects. During 1989, Respondent performed engineering services on four buildings owned by four different owners. All four buildings, involved relatively simple construction. Three of the buildings, Dr. Zummarraga's office, the Raulerson/Liberty National building, and Bay Podiatry Center, were designs comparable to residential structures. The Eleventh Street Office Park, while a larger structure, was a shell building and a simple structure, as well. Respondent was not retained to provide engineering for the construction of the interior of the Eleventh Street Office Park. In regards to all four buildings, the Respondent was not retained to provide plumbing, electrical or mechanical engineering services. Those items were left to the respective trades involved in the construction of the project. The limited plans submitted for the plumbing, electrical and mechanical aspects of the four buildings met the standard of practice in the Bay County area and were sufficiently complete for the various trades to perform its respective part of each project. Moreover, the simplicity of the construction plans for these four buildings meant that standard construction methods are provided in the Standard Building Code and/or are known in the industry. Such standard construction methods include detail on roof systems, spacing and connections, as well as live load requirements. Therefore, not as much detail needed to be provided on the plans for these projects. It was standard engineering practice in the Bay County area not to include such detail if it was adequately covered in the building code. In each instance, the owners of the buildings contacted Respondent to perform limited engineering services and to act as the construction manager on each project. Except for Mr. Raulerson, each owner had, prior to the time Respondent was hired, worked out some rough plans with a person qualified to create such plans and had a general idea of what type of building they wanted. Mr. Raulerson had drafted a fairly complete set of building plans. The goal of each owner of the four projects was to obtain a set of plans from what the owner already had developed which would at least minimally meet the local building code requirements sufficiently to allow a building permit to be issued for the construction project. In each instance, the Respondent's plans were submitted to the local building code enforcement agency which reviewed and accepted the plans. A building permit was issued for each building project. During the construction of each building, Respondent provided engineering inspections on each project. The plans submitted to the Bay County building department were not as-built plans and were never intended to be 100% complete plans since several of the owners had not made final decisions on a number of details such as roof line or plumbing facilities. 1/ Such open-ended plans were justified by the specific circumstances of each case and the professional judgment of Respondent, especially since Respondent acted as the project manager of the construction project. For purposes of clarity the facts and circumstances surrounding each building and any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to each building will be outlined individually. No alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, were established by the evidence unless it is specifically noted below. Zummarraga Building The plans for the Zummarraga building were signed and sealed by Respondent on October 24, 1989. Dr. Zummarraga had contacted Rich Koehnemann of Koehnemann Construction Company to build an office building for him. Mr. Koehnemann sent the doctor to Jeff Robinson, a draftsman in the Bay County area, to work up a draft of the office plans the doctor desired. The doctor or Mr. Koehnemann gave Mr. Robinson a rough sketch of the office building. Mr. Robinson informed the doctor that a structural engineer would have to be involved since the County would require the plans to have the signature and seal of an architect or engineer in order to obtain a building permit. At that point, Respondent was retained to help develop a set of plans for Dr. Zummarraga. Mr. Carr was hired to draft plans for an office building. He was not hired by Dr. Zummarraga to design a building for a specific site. Therefore, no substantial site information, site work, grading or contouring details were provided on the plans for the Zummarraga project. By passing drafts of plans back and fort, a set of plans was devised by Mr. Robinson under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to the plans for the Zummarraga project. Later, after the structure's plans were finalized, the contractor determined that a detention pond would have to be designed for the site and a DER permit obtained for the pond. Respondent was retained to design a detention pond for the site and worked with DER to meet its extensive permitting requirements for such a pond. See Chapter 17-4, 17-25 and 17-512, Florida Administrative Code. That design was submitted to DER and a permit was issued for the detention pond. The original unsealed set of plans was amended for the building department. The specific details of the more rigid DER requirements, such as site work, grading and contouring, were not included on the plans filed with the building department and the owner did not contract with Respondent to include redundant detail on the building department's plans. Essentially, the building department's plans reflected the location of the detention pond and the area of the wetlands on the property which were subject to DER jurisdiction. Additionally, the plans contained some specifications which guided the contractor on pond requirements and in grading and contouring the site. These notes in conjunction with the DER permit requirements were sufficient to accomplish the building of the detention pond. Therefore, the desire of the owner and the avoidance of unnecessarily redundant detail between the DER permit and the building department's plans justified the lack of any extensive site work detail on the building department's set of plans for the Zummarraga project. The plans devised by Mr. Carr did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering work he performed. 2/ Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside of his field. In every instance, the plans of Dr. Zummarraga's office building were of sufficient detail to meet the building department's requirements for the issuance of a building permit, to allow the contractor to construct the project according to the Standard Building Code and to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the building department. Obviously, on these facts, the plans met the standard of practice in the community for the engineering services Respondent was hired to perform. Moreover, the lack of code related, electrical or mechanical details was justified under the facts and circumstances of the Zummarraga project and it was well within the professional judgment of the Respondent to omit such details given the standards of practice in the Bay County area. Raulerson/Liberty National Building The plans for the Raulerson/Liberty National building were signed and sealed by Respondent on July 31, 1989. Mr. Raulerson is an experienced developer in the Bay County area and acts as a general contractor on his own projects. Prior to hiring Respondent, Mr. Raulerson had been working with a local draftsman and Liberty National's architect to create a set of plans for the construction of Liberty National's office building in Bay County. Mr. Raulerson contacted Respondent on the advice of Bayne Collins, a local architect. Mr. Collins advised Mr. Raulerson that his plans were complete and all he needed was an engineer to check the wind loads. 3/ Mr. Raulerson gave Respondent the plans he had developed in conjunction with Liberty National's architect. Mr. Raulerson asked Mr. Carr to go through the plans and do a structural analysis to make sure that wind load requirements were met, that the building was structurally sound and that the building met the requirements for issuance of a building permit. Mr. Carr reviewed the plans and determined that they were an excellent set of plans for a very simple, sound and over-designed structure. He calculated the wind loads for the building and completed a structural analysis of the building. He also made one minor correction to the plans. Mr. Carr thought it ridiculous to put Mr. Raulerson to the expense of copying the Liberty National plans and essentially adopted the plans as his own. In this case, the fact that the plans were not drawn under Respondent's supervision is immaterial since the specific circumstances of the project did not call for such supervision in that the plans were drafted by experienced individuals. The plans were under Respondent's control at the point in time he was hired by Mr. Raulerson and the plans submitted to him for his review and approval, disapproval or amendment. Since copying the plans would be an unnecessary duplication of effort and Respondent did in fact exercise control over the plans by reviewing them before he affixed his seal to them, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to construction plans. The Raulerson/Liberty National plans did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. Anything in the plans which may be construed as "architectural work" was requested and specified by the owner to be in the plans. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside his field. The plans did contain a roofing plan which called for pre-engineered trusses. The detail on the plan simply read "pre-engineered trusses." The plans did not contain any requirements relating to who was to design the pre- engineered trusses or requirements for structural submittals on the trusses. In the Bay county area "pre-engineered trusses" means trusses from Fagans, the local truss manufacturer. It is common knowledge, that Fagan's has a licensed engineer on staff who designs all of its pre-engineered trusses from the plans submitted to him. The pre-engineered trusses all have pre-construction documentation available. Also, submittals for the trusses accompany the trusses at the time of their delivery. With such knowledge, it is unnecessary to specify any more information or requirements regarding the truss manufacture on the Liberty National plans. Similarly it was unnecessary to detail that submittals be given to the engineer since such submittals accompanied the trusses. The absence of any more detail was justified by the specific circumstances of the Liberty National project and well within the professional judgment of the Respondent given the nature of the pre-engineered truss market in the Bay County area and the fact that Respondent was the construction manager on the project. As indicated, Respondent also acted as the construction project manager and would visit the construction site about once a week. At the point in time Mr. Raulerson was going to order the trusses, he decided to change the pitch of the roof, Mr. Raulerson did not advise Mr. Carr of his decision. Mr. Carr discovered Mr. Raulerson's change when he visited the construction site. Fortunately, Respondent had the project file with him. With the project file information and the submittals from the truss manufacturer, Respondent checked the load conditions for the changed pitch. No structural concerns were presented due to the change in pitch of the roof. The Liberty National plans were not amended because Mr. Raulerson did not contract for them to be amended. The plans were not required to be amended under Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. Respondent did not commit any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to his actions outlined above. Bay Podiatry Center The plans for the Bay Podiatry Center were signed and sealed by Respondent. However, the date the plans were signed and sealed was not included on the plans. It was inadvertently omitted by Respondent. The absence of the date is a de-minimis violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statues, and does not justify the imposition of any formal penalties. However, Respondent should be given a letter of guidance for the violation. Respondent was not brought into the Bay Podiatry Center project until the final draft of the plans was to be done. Up until that time, Dr. Wilkerson, the owner of the project, had worked up preliminary drafts of the project in conjunction with his contractor and a local draftsman. They had developed a building with an attached carport. Mr. Carr did work directly with the draftsman on the final plan. Therefore, the plans were created under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Since Respondent supervised and controlled the finalization of the project's plans at the crucial time and since the people involved in drafting the plans did not need more supervision and control, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. There was no clear and convincing evidence which demonstrated that Respondent performed any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. At the time Dr. Wilkerson desired to begin construction and obtain a building permit, he had not decided on a final roofing system. Therefore, the final plans called for the use of pre-engineered trusses and did not have a great amount of detail on a roof framing plan. There was some detail provided on the page of the plans detailing the wall section of the building. This page provided sufficient detail for a competent contractor to construct the building according to code. In fact, the building was so constructed and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the building upon its completion. Again the trusses would come from Fagans. Petitioner did in fact review submittals from Fagan's truss engineer for the pre-engineered trusses used on the Bay Podiatry Center. Included in those submittals was a roofing plan in which the trusses were numbered to fit the sequence shown in the roofing plan. Respondent made sure the trusses and roof system were structurally sound. However, the owner did not contract with Respondent to amend the building department's plans. Chapter 471, Florida Statutes does not require such an amendment. Given the truss market in the Bay County area, the knowledge of Respondent regarding that market, the fact that a decision regarding a roof line had not been made when the plans were sealed, and that it was appropriate to leave such a decision for later in the construction process, no further detail was required in specifying the roof system for this project. No clear and convincing evidence was presented that demonstrated Respondent was negligent in his specifications on the roof system. The only exception to the above was that Respondent did not specify the material of the trusses over the carport. Such information is not supplied by the Code and therefore must be supplied by the engineer. The oversight was caught by the contractor when he was preparing to order the trusses. The contractor contacted Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr determined what the appropriate truss material should be and informed the contractor. The inadequacy of the plans was resolved in less than ten minutes. The omission of such a detail is negligent on the part of Respondent and is a violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. However, on these facts, the omission of the detail is minor. Most of the light, plumbing and mechanical fixtures were prelocated by the owner prior to the time Respondent was hired. Respondent did not purport to draft plumbing, electrical or mechanical plans in detail in the final plan. Except in one respect, the detail was sufficient to guide the respective trades in the performance of their work and no more detail was required. The only exception was that Respondent approved a special detail of the hub drain/trap primer which was not in accordance to code. Since Respondent provided a special detail which did not meet the code requirements and which was not demonstrated to be justified by the circumstances of the Bay Podiatry project, he is guilty of negligence in the drawing of the Bay Podiatry plans in that aspect. Given the fact that this is a very small error in a larger project and that the drain was put in according to code during the construction of the building, Respondent's violation is a minor one. Finally, the draftsman, without instructions from Respondent, put some plumbing and mechanical notes in the plans which clearly did not relate to the project. Respondent did not catch the inclusion of the notes and sealed the plans with the superfluous notes in them. However, it was obvious that the notes did not relate to the project and the trades involved ignored them. The notes did not cause any problems during the construction and were not shown to be inimical to the public health and safety. Therefore, while the inclusion of the notes was sloppy work, there was no negligence shown on the part of Respondent. Eleventh Street Office Park The plans for the Eleventh Street Office Park were signed and sealed by Respondent on January 31, 1989 The Eleventh Street Office Park project demonstrates best the dynamism involved in an evolving construction project. Often, as with the Eleventh Street project, an owner is not sure of the best method or design (usually determined by lowest cost) to utilize prior to construction or whether he wants to go forward with the expense of construction of a building given certain designs. On the Eleventh Street project three plans were developed, beginning with a three story structure with structural steel and precast walls, and ending with a large, one story, cement block structure on a cement slab. All the plans were for a shell building and did not include any floor plan. Preliminary rough drawings were completed by a draftsman who was hired by the project's owner. Respondent reviewed these rough drafts and over the course of several weeks made numerous structural changes. After the plans were re-drawn to Respondent's satisfaction, he submitted them to the building department in order to obtain a building permit. There is no question that the plans for the Eleventh Street project were drawn under Respondent's direct supervision and control. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. The plans submitted to the building department were not intended to be complete. For instance, the owner had not decided where to locate the restrooms in the building. However, the owner, for unspecified reasons, wanted to proceed with obtaining a building permit. With that decision open, the detail for the plumbing aspects of the plan were not intended to be complete or to match as to specifics. Such limited detail was intended only to place the building department and the contractor on notice that some consideration had to be given to the upcoming plumbing. The same considerations applied to the electrical and mechanical aspects of the plans. All of the evidence concerning deficiencies in the electrical design of the Eleventh Street Office Park was based on Petitioner's expert's review of a single sheet of plans obtained from the building Department. This sheet is mysterious as to its origins and relationship to the Eleventh Street project. The sheet was not prepared by Respondent, did not bear his seal, lacked the fire department's approval which was present on other pages of the project's plans, and was a different size paper than those sealed by Respondent. There was no substantial evidence which demonstrated Respondent had prepared this sheet or that the sheet reflected the electrical plans used in the Eleventh Street project. The absence of extensive detail or the provision of extraneous notes on the electrical, mechanical and plumbing aspects of the plans were justified by the fact that the owner of the project had not made up his mind in regards to those details, such decisions could be determined later in the construction process, the Eleventh Street project was a shell building and there was sufficient detail for the licensed trades to perform their tasks when the time came and the decisions were made. The incompleteness of these plans in that regard was clearly justified by the specific circumstances of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. As with the Bay Podiatry project, the only exception to the above was that the hub drain/trap primer detail was not in accordance with the building code. For the reasons stated in regards to the Bay Podiatry project, the provision of the hub drain detail constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Again the violation is a minor one. Similarly, as with the other three projects, no substantial evidence was presented that Respondent performed any architectural services in relation to the Eleventh Street project which were not incidental to the engineering services he performed. There was a great deal of debate among the experts as to the adequacy of the structural aspects of the Eleventh Street Office Park and whether they met the standards of practice for engineers. Most of the debate centered on how much detail needed to be placed on the plans and whether the detail provided was sufficient for a contractor to build a safe building. The better evidence demonstrated that the amount of detail on the plans was sufficient to enable a contractor to build a safe building. The detail which was not contained on the plans was contained in the building code and did not need to be included on the plans. Such a practice comports with the standard of practice in the Bay County area and is a specific circumstance of a project which would enable a professional engineer to exercise his judgment and not include such detail. 4/ Moreover, although the calculations were not contained on the plans, Respondent did, in fact, determine the structural soundness of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The only exception to the above is that Respondent was negligent in specifying the type of mortar to be used in the concrete walls. In essence Respondent specified three different types of mortars. These mortars significantly differed as to each mortar's respective strength. Use of an improper mortar in the concrete walls can effect the strength of the wall and cause them to be unsafe. This inconsistency in detail or specifications differs from the inconsistency in details or specifications where such details or specifications obviously do not apply to the project or where such details or specifications have no contrary reference in the plans. The latter two cases while showing sloppy work are not necessarily indicative of negligence and depend greatly on the surrounding facts and circumstances before a finding of negligence can be made. The inconsistency with the mortar is indicative of negligence since a contractor may very well use the wrong mortar on a project. In this case, the inconsistency did not become a problem and Respondent was present as the project manager to handle any problem which may have arisen. Therefore, the violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, is moderate to minor.
Recommendation That the Department enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of five violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, assessing a total fine of $750.00 and placing the Respondent's license on probation for a period of one year, during which Respondent should be required to take and pass a course or courses on the proper methods of plan drafting for the four violations involving negligence; and issuing a letter of guidance for the violation involving the date. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 22nd day of February, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2014), and implementing rules,1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state entity charged with regulating the practice of engineering, pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. FEMC provides administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to section 471.038. At all times material to this case, Mr. Holt was licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Florida, with license number PE 15252. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (Responsibility Rules). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-36. Mr. Holt is required to comply with the Responsibility Rules when performing engineering services. On December 3, 2014, FEMC received a complaint filed by Mr. John Farinelli, chief building official for the City of Belle Glade, Florida (City). Mr. Farinelli had reviewed plans for three residential construction projects which had been submitted to the City for general building permits. The engineering plans for each project had been signed, sealed, and dated by Mr. Holt. Mr. Farinelli found what he believed to be numerous errors on the plans, resulting in the complaint against Mr. Holt. After receipt of the complaint, the engineering plans were reviewed by professional engineers retained by FEMC. Mr. Homer A. Ooten, Ph.D., P.E., LEED-AP, reviewed the electrical and mechanical elements of the plans; Mr. Roger L. Jeffery, P.E., LEED-AP, reviewed the structural elements of the plans. Based substantially upon engineering reports prepared by these engineers, an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Holt was filed on or about September 15, 2015. Mr. Holt filed an "Answer to Administrative Complaint" on October 23, 2015. In that pleading, he admitted that: Rule 61G15-30.002(1), Fla. Admin. Code, mandates that Respondent, as the engineer of record for all projects delineated in the Specific Allegations, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing documents that comply with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. In response to other portions of the Administrative Complaint setting forth requirements of the Responsibility Rules concerning electrical systems design, he repeatedly stated "any departures are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the Respondent." In response to specific allegations of material deficiencies in the electrical engineering design documents, Mr. Holt responded that any omissions were "negated by Respondent's reference to the NFPA 70 National Electrical Code 2008." Mr. Holt made numerous similar claims that departures were justified based on circumstances and his professional judgment in response to portions of the complaint setting forth the requirements for mechanical systems design, involving both heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and plumbing elements. He also noted that "Respondent merely designed a hole for a future wall unit." Although Mr. Holt thus accepted responsibility for electrical and mechanical elements of the drawings prior to hearing, arguing that any departures were justified in the exercise of his "professional judgment," he later took a different tack. In testimony at hearing, Mr. Holt maintained that he signed and sealed the documents only as a structural engineer and that he did not therefore assume responsibility for any elements of the drawings constituting electrical or mechanical engineering. On cross-examination, Mr. Holt was evasive when asked who was responsible for the electrical and mechanical elements of the drawings he had sealed: Q. Whose work was it, if it wasn't yours? A. Whose work was it? Q. Yes. A. I don't know for sure. A lot of times we include air conditioning companies, electrical contractors. Depends. Q. Somebody drew the drawings. Did your office draw the drawings? A. What are you getting at? Q. I'm just asking a question. A. What was included or what was drawn? Q. I just want to know -- somebody drew these documents. A. Yes. My draftsmen drew them all up, yes. Q. They were all drawn up in your office? A. In my office? He has his own offices. Okay. Q. They were all drawn up by your draftsmen? A. Yes. Q. And that included the electrical work, mechanical work, and structural work all by your draftsmen? A. The structural input was mine. He drew it, yes. As was ultimately clear from his testimony, Mr. Holt was well aware that no other engineer was responsible for any part of the engineering drawings for the three residential construction projects. Mr. Holt was in responsible charge for the preparing, signing, dating, sealing, and issuing of all three of the engineering plans, whether he prepared them personally or whether they were prepared by his draftsmen. He was the engineer of record for all three projects. As he admitted, he was fully aware that the engineering drawings were submitted under his seal and filed for public record with the City for building permits. He knew that the drawings under his seal would be, and were, reviewed by City officials, not only as to structural elements, but also for electrical and mechanical elements, as the City was required to do. At hearing, in support of his position that he was not responsible for anything on the drawings other than the structural work, Mr. Holt noted that his name and address had appeared under the words "Structural Design Review by:" on the drawings for two of the projects. He added that he also "should have put that on there" for the third set of drawings. The title "Structural Engineer" also appears underneath Mr. Holt's name and address on the third set of drawings. Mr. Holt's signature appears in a different area on all three drawings, followed by the letters "P.E." and Mr. Holt's engineering license number. The references to "Structural Design Review" and "Structural Engineer" on the engineering drawings near his name and address were not sufficient to indicate to a City official or other person reading the drawings that, by use of these, words Mr. Holt intended not to accept responsibility for various elements of the drawings. Under the circumstances of this case--in which the engineering drawings were prepared under Mr. Holt's responsible charge, and he knew that they would be filed for public record to obtain building permits--it is disingenuous for Mr. Holt to attempt to disclaim responsibility because of the language "Structural Design Review by:" or "Structural Engineer." His argument that, at worst, he simply failed to clearly indicate the limits of his responsibility, is completely rejected.2/ As to the structural engineering elements for which Mr. Holt did accept responsibility at hearing, he maintained that any departures from the Responsibility Rules were justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and his sound professional judgment. Mr. Holt also argued that his general citation to the Florida Building Code (FBC) put the contractor on notice of all of the construction code requirements. Finally, he argued that certain specifications did not need to be included in the engineering drawings if those specifications were commonly known in the county or area where the construction was to take place. The testimony of Mr. Ooten and Mr. Jeffery at hearing convincingly refuted all of Mr. Holt's contentions. First, departures from the Responsibility Rules, even if they are justified by circumstances and the professional judgment of the engineer--which these were not--must be documented. Second, general references to applicable electrical, mechanical, and building codes do not incorporate the entire content of those codes so as to meet the specific documentation requirements of the Responsibility Rules. Third, while Mr. Holt's testimony that specifications for certain construction materials were well known in his area is credited, his argument that this eliminated the requirement to include them on the engineering drawings was completely unsupported by the Responsibility Rules or the FBC, and is rejected. Findings related to the specific allegations in the Administrative Complaint are discussed below. Mr. Holt testified that he did not dispute the opinions of Mr. Ooten as to the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in any of the plans. Betancourt Project On or about July 29, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated revised engineering drawings for a conversion/renovation project located at 117 Northwest Avenue H Place, Belle Glade, Florida (Betancourt Project). The Betancourt Project drawings included sheets S-1 through S-3. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain an electrical riser diagram, but no short circuit values and no voltage calculations for the feeders and customer-owned service conductors. If the circuit breakers and the wires are undersized, then the electrical systems can overheat and that affects the safety of the occupants. The panel schedule does not contain the information it should. It has blank spaces that do not indicate whether there are missing circuit breakers. Conductor sizes, insulation types, circuit-interrupting devices, and fault current interrupting capability are omitted. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings. While Mr. Holt argued at one point that no surge protection was required, Mr. Ooten credibly testified that the Responsibility Rules required it. He also noted that if there had been a justified departure from this requirement, a notation to that effect on the drawings was required, and there was none. The main electrical panel was not located on the plans. The fact that it was shown on the electrical riser diagram is not sufficient. The drawings show no circuitry for outlets, equipment, devices, or smoke detectors. The reference in the panel schedule to "building receptacles" is not sufficient. There is no outdoor receptacle outlet shown at the front and back of the one-family dwelling. There is no 125-volt receptacle outlet shown at an accessible location within 25 feet of HVAC equipment. The drawings do not contain information required by section 107.3.5 of the Florida Building Code-Building (FBC-B), requiring documents to show electrical overcurrent protection and wiring methods and materials. The legend on drawing sheet S-2 has a symbol for a ceiling-mounted light (style by contractor), but the drawings contain no specifications for any fixtures. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixtures on this project. The lighting design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. The HVAC engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project show a new wall air conditioning unit, but no size, no voltage, no disconnecting means, and no circuit for the unit. While it was clearly shown that section 2701.1 of the FBC- B requires that electrical equipment shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of the National Fire Protection association (NFPA) 70, the National Electric Code (NEC), it was not clearly shown what provision of the NEC, if any, these omissions from the drawing violated. Section 1901.4 of the FBC requires construction documents to contain the specified compressive strength of concrete and the specified strength or grade of reinforcement. As Mr. Jeffery testified, structural engineering drawings also need to contain detail as to how a piling is anchored to the pile cap, particularly in plans designed, as these were, to withstand a wind sheer of 170 miles per hour. Mr. Jeffery also credibly testified that the overlap of reinforcing steel needed to be a minimum of 18 inches and that one of the bars was shown as 12 inches in total length, with about eight inches embedded into the footing, leaving only four inches of overlap. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of the concrete and reinforcing steel are missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is connected to the pile cap. The lap length of the reinforcing steel in the masonry walls is too short. Bullock Project On or about May 19, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated revised engineering drawings for a residential conversion/renovation project located at 251 Noah Court, Belle Glade, Florida (Bullock Project). The Bullock Project drawings included sheets A-1 through A-3. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: There is an electrical riser diagram, but it contains only one panel and one electrical meter. The drawings contain some conductor sizes, no insulation types, some circuit interrupting devices, and no fault current interrupting capability. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings, and there is no notation on the drawings indicating any reason for departure from this requirement. One electrical distribution panel is shown for the south unit on Sheet A-1, but no panel is shown for the north unit. No meters are shown. The drawings show no circuitry for outlets, equipment, devices, or smoke detectors. The drawings do not indicate that an outdoor receptacle outlet is to be installed at the front and back of the Bullock Project. The drawings contain partial load computations for the panel schedule on sheet A-1, but they are inadequate to explain the wiring. The calculation is 99 amps, but that is serving into only one panel, which is not an appropriate design. The drawings do not contain information required by the FBC. Section 107.3.5 of the FBC-B requires branch circuitry and separate overcurrent protection for each of the two units, wiring methods and materials, and load calculations. While some information is included, it is incomplete, and some is incorrect. The legend on drawing sheet A-1 has a symbol for a ceiling-mounted light, but the drawings contain no specifications for any lighting fixtures. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixtures for either unit. The lighting design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the HVAC engineering documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings did not contain adequate information for the City to determine compliance with codes and ordinances. The drawings contain no air conditioning equipment schedules for air handling units and condensing units. The drawings do not contain cooling coil requirements based on sensible heat, latent heat and total heat gains; outside and inside design dry and wet bulb conditions; nor outside (fresh) air make-up conditions. The drawings contain no specifications for heating equipment. The drawings contain no condensate discharge piping layouts. No HVAC ductwork is shown on the drawings. The mechanical drawings do not contain all data required to complete the Florida Energy Code calculations, as required by the chapter 13 of the FBC-B. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the plumbing engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain no plumbing equipment schedules. No potable water isometric diagrams are shown. Total water fixture units for either dwelling unit are not shown on the drawings. One isometric sanitary riser diagram is shown; however, total flow waste fixture units for both dwelling units are not shown on the drawings. No storm riser diagrams or area drainage calculations are shown on the drawings. The drawings contain no sanitary piping layouts, no cold water, no hot water, and no storm drainage piping layouts. Florida Building Code—Plumbing (FBC-P), 2010 Edition, is noted as an applicable plumbing code. However no other codes, design standards, or requirements are shown on the drawings. No specifications for materials for plumbing systems are shown on the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of materials for the reinforcing steel, grout, and masonry are missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is to be connected to the grade beam. The engineer of record's engineering requirements for the delegated engineer for the wood roof trusses are missing. The phrase "pre-engineered wood trusses" appears, but no requirements. Morales Project On or about July 16, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated engineering drawings for a residential extension project located at 1033 Whitaker Road, Belle Glade, Florida (Morales Project). The Morales Project drawings included sheets S-1 and S-2. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The plan view on sheet S-1 shows the existing electric meter is to remain on the new covered patio, with no mention that the contractor needs to raise the height of the weather head so that it is at least eight feet above the roof as required by NEC 230.24. The drawings contain no panel schedules, no circuit interrupting devices, and no fault current interrupting capability. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings. The drawings show no new panel, no existing panel, and no sizes, except for the addition of one 20-amp breaker. Whether or not a new or existing panel would have adequate physical space or electrical capacity to add the 20-amp breaker is not addressed. The drawings contain no circuitry for loads added by this project, or existing circuitry, and thus are deficient in circuiting all outlets, equipment and devices. NEC 210.52(E)(1) requires that at least one outdoor receptacle outlet be installed at the front and back of a one- family dwelling. No outlet is indicated. The drawings do not contain all information required by the FBC. Section 107.3.5 of the FBC-B requires that documents show electrical wiring, branch circuits, grounding, wiring methods and materials, and load calculations. The information that is provided is inadequate. The drawings contain no information on the performance specifications or number of lamps on the ceiling fans. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixture, and no panel is shown. The design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the mechanical engineering design (HVAC) documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient in that the HVAC Scope of Work included a toilet exhaust fan for ventilation. No heat was specified, and the exhaust fan size was omitted from the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the plumbing engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain no equipment schedules for all plumbing fixtures, water heater, valves, and accessories. Potable water isometric diagrams and total water fixture units are not shown on the drawings. Total sanitary waste fixture units are not shown on the drawings. No storm riser diagrams or area drainage calculations are shown on the drawings. The drawings contain no piping layouts for cold water, hot water, sanitary, or storm drainage. The drawings acknowledge that FBC-P, 2010 Edition, is applicable to this project, but fail to list other applicable codes and standards. No specifications for materials for plumbing systems are shown on the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of materials for the concrete, reinforcing steel, grout and masonry are missing. There is no reinforcing steel designated for the concrete piles. The lap length of the reinforcing steel in the masonry walls is missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is connected to the pile cap. The drawings indicate that a 6" x 6" x 16" concrete masonry unit (CMU) block wall is an optional alternative. Contrary to Mr. Holt's argument, the bathroom walls are not interior walls in this design, as they are bounded by a porch, and this size block is inadequate to resist the design wind pressures. Mr. Holt failed to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity and failed to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles in the Betancourt, Bullock, and Morales Projects. It was clearly and convincingly shown that Mr. Holt engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering in each project. Prior Discipline Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 01-0159 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2002, he was disciplined by the Board in FEMC Case Nos. 0l-0159, 01- 0106, and 01-0170 after a settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2005048785 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2006, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after a settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2007068131 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2010, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2007047569 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2010, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after settlement stipulation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers: Finding that John D. Holt, P.E., engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 19.001(4); suspending his professional engineer license for a period of one year, to be reinstated under such conditions and terms, including a period of probation, as the Board finds appropriate; and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 16th day of March, 2016.
