ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2011A-3873-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-02-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 30, 2012 APPEARANCES: Cochise Electric, Inc. was represented by its authorized representative, William Hendrix. Lisa Darlene Herrin did not appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Lisa Darlene Herrin, doing business as Strong Winds (“Respondent”), is the holder of License No. 173201, a Class L-11 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Cochise Electric, Inc. (“Complainant”) was the electrical contractor for the Highlands Fire Station #23 project in Flagstaff, Arizona. 3. Complainant subcontracted the fire alarm system scope of work to Respondent. 4. On July 6, 2011, Complainant filed a written Complaint with the Registrar concerning Respondent’s refusal to make necessary repairs to the fire alarm system installed by Respondent. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. 2011-3873. 5. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2011-3873 charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A) (1). 6. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 2011-3873 to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 7. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in Case No. 2011-3873 that advised the parties of the time, date, and location of the formal hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties at their addresses of record with the Registrar. 8. The commencement of the scheduled hearing was delayed 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Respondent’s authorized representative. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondent’s absence. 9. Aegis Security provides the fire alarm monitoring service for the Highlands Fire Station #23. 10. On May 3, 2011, Aegis Security began receiving trouble signals on the station’s phone line 2. Aegis Security sent a technician to the station to investigate. 11. The technician found three problems with the fire alarm system: 1) the primary and secondary telephone lines to the fire dialer were wired incorrectly; 2) the primary telephone connection to the fire alarm dialer was bad; and 3) the fire alarm control panel circuit board was not properly grounded. 12. By email dated May 12, 2011, Aegis Security advised Complainant of its findings. 13. By email dated May 12, 2011, Complainant informed Respondent of the deficiencies in its work and requested that Respondent make necessary repairs. 14. By email dated May 31, 2011, Complainant requested an update from Respondent, who advised that Respondent would install a new part when it arrived. 15. By email dated June 13, 2011, the general contractor informed Complainant that it had received calls about the fire alarm going off at the station. The general contractor requested that Complainant have someone investigate as soon as possible. 16. By email dated June 13, 2011, Complainant made a third request to Respondent for a status of the repairs. Complainant advised that if Respondent did not respond to Complainant by June 15, 2011, then Complainant would have another fire alarm company make the necessary repairs. 17. By email dated June 14, 2011, Respondent informed Complainant that the parts were being shipped that day. 18. By email dated June 20, 2011, the fire department contacted the general contractor to request an update. The general contractor was informed that the problems with the fire alarm and telephone system were still occurring. 19. By email dated Monday, June 20, 2011, the general contractor informed Complainant that if Respondent did not get the repair work completed by Wednesday, June 22, 2011, then another subcontractor would be hired to perform the work. 20. By email dated June 24, 2011, Respondent advised Complainant that it now had the dialer and requested to schedule access to the station. By email that same day, Complainant provided Respondent with information about access. 21. By email dated June 27, 2011, Respondent advised Complainant that Respondent would make the repairs either that day or the next. 22. By email dated June 28, 2011, Complainant requested a status of the repairs from Respondent. By email dated June 29, 2011, Respondent replied that the work would be performed the next morning. 23. By email dated June 29, 2011, Complainant informed Respondent that if Respondent did not complete the repairs by 5:00 p.m. that day, then Respondent would be denied access to the station and Complainant would hire another subcontractor to perform the repairs. Respondent did not perform the repairs. 24. Complainant hired B & W Fire Security Systems, L.L.C. (“B & W”) to perform the required repairs. Complainant paid B & W the sum of $710.00 for that work. 25. A review of the Registrar’s public website on February 17, 2012, revealed that Respondent’s License No. 173201 was suspended by operation of law for lack of bond on August 18, 2011. There is only one open complaint listed against that license. 26. At hearing, Complainant’s manager, William Hendrix, stated that Complainant is not seeking restitution but believes that the revocation of Respondent’s contracting license is appropriate in this matter. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(C), the suspension of Respondent’s contracting license for lack of bond does not deprive the Registrar of the authority to impose discipline upon that license for proven statutory violations in this matter. 3. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainant has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 4. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (1), as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. The evidence of record established that Respondent abandoned the subject project by failing to perform warranty work necessary to correct its deficient workmanship. 5. Since Complainant is not seeking restitution from Respondent for Complainant’s costs to hire B & W to make the repairs that were Respondent’s responsibility to perform, the Administrative Law Judge declines to recommend restitution pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1156.01. RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent’s License No. 173201 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2011-3873 In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of that certification. Done this day, February 17, 2012.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826