PDF copy: ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-283-ROC-RF · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-04-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kashmira P Chokshi and Parag H Chokshi No. 2015A-283-ROC-RF

COMPLAINANT ADMINISTRATIVE -v- LAW JUDGE DECISION License No. CR48.130924-D of Agave Tile Inc.

RESPONDENT

RECOVERY FUND PAYOUT HEARING: January 29, 2016, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Agave Tile Inc. (“Respondent”) was represented by Dominica J. Minore, Esq., The Law Offices of Dominica J Minore PC; the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) was represented by Thomas C. Raine, Esq., Assistant Attorney General; Kashmira P. Chokshi and Parag H. Chokshi (“Complainants” or “Dr. and Mrs. Chokshi”) appeared on their own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

BACKGROUND: THE UNDERLYING WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT

1. On January 26, 1998, the Registrar issued License No. CR48.130924-Dfor

dual ceramic, plastic, and metal tile to Respondent. Craig Daniel Marian (“Mr. Marian”)

is Respondent’s current qualifying party and officer.

2. On or about January 21, 2015, the Registrar received a complaint against

Respondent from Mrs. Chokshi that alleged various construction deficiencies in the tile

and laminate floors that Respondent had installed at her residence at 7283 W. Softwind Dr., Peoria, Arizona 85383 (“the project”).1 According to the complaint, Complainants had paid Respondent $9,400.00 on the contract price of $9,100.00. The Registrar designated Mrs. Chokshi’s complaint as Case No. 2015-283.

See the Registrar’s Exhibit 1.

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 3. The Registrar assigned the complaint in Case No. 2015-283 to Investigator Tim Pennington (“Investigator Pennington”). Investigator Pennington performed a jobsite inspection and on February 10, 2015, issued a directive to Respondent to

remedy certain workmanship deficiencies on or before February 26, 2015, in relevant

part as follows:

1. Excessive lippage in over 50% of tile.

2. Varying grout width in over 80% of tile and poor uneven cuts of tile.

3. Damaged tiles installed and missing [medallions]. 4. Grout on wood trim.

5. Poor cuts of laminate flooring; using [caulking] to fill gaps between floor and base board.

6. Toilet not set properly on wax ring and water damage.

7. Stains on drive way from cutting tile needs to be cleaned. 8. Bathroom wall tiles unfinished and corner out of square.2

4. On March 2, 2015, Investigator Pennington performed a compliance

inspection in Case No. 2015-283. His compliance inspection report stated in relevant

part as follows:

The respondent has removed the tile leaving the floor [in] very poor condition, grout is rough varying from 3/8 of [an] inch to nothing in approximately 70 percent of the bottom floor. Respondent did not correct by the due date on the directive. . . .

Compliance Findings: Respondent did not correct by the due date on the directive The respondent has removed the tile leaving the floor [in] very poor condition, grout is rough varying from 3/8 of an inch to nothing in approximately 70 percent of the bottom floor.3 The Registrar’s Exhibit 2. 3 The Registrar’s Exhibit 3. 5. On April 15, 2015, the Registrar as the Complainant on its own motion issued a Citation in Case No. 2015-1587,4 incorporating Mrs. Chokshi’s complaint in Case No. 2015-283 and charging cause to discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3),5 namely A.A.C. R4-9-108,6 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22),7 and A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(12),8 namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.9 6. Respondent requested a settlement conference with the Registrar in Case No. 2015-1587. On July 6, 2015, Mr. Marian on behalf of Respondent signed a

See the Registrar’s Exhibit 4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.” 6 A.A.C. R4-9-108 requires that “[a]ll work shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner” and that “[a]ll work shall be performed in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.” A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar.” A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure in any material respect to comply with this chapter A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) provides that any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved after December 31, 2007 must be in writing and must include the following minimum terms: 1. The name of the contractor and the contractor’s business address and the license number. 2. The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description. 3. The date the parties entered into the contract. 4. The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract. 5. A description of the work to be performed under the contract. 6. The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes. 7. The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner. 8. The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract. 9. That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A. The contract shall contain the registrar’s telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32-1155, subsection A. The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in ten point bold type. . . .

consent order in which he admitted that Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3) by performing work that did not comply with the Registrar’s or industry workmanship standards on Mrs. Chokshi’s project, but did not admit a violation of

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). In the consent order, Respondent agreed to a three-day

suspension of Respondent’s license to resolve the citation in Case No. 2015-1587.

The consent order provided in relevant as follows:

The parties agree that Respondent’s admissions are solely for the purpose of settlement of this disputed matter, that no adjudication or legal findings have been made pursuant to any evidentiary hearing as to the Findings of Fact, and that the admissions shall have no application or effect outside the present proceedings, including as evidence from which any liability or wrongdoing could be inferred, and may not be relied upon or used to establish liability in any other civil or criminal proceeding.10 Respondent in the July consent order also admitted violating A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, which requires licensed contractors to have a written, signed contract that, among other things, describes the scope of work to be performed. COMPLAINANTS’ CLAIM TO THE FUND 7. On August 6, 2015, Complainants submitted a claim to the Registrar’s Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“the Fund”) to recover the damages for Respondent’s poor work on their project. Complainants submitted three bids to repair Respondent’s tile work, including a low bid in the amount of $15,787.57, and claimed that they had also spent an additional $5,462.07 to repair the laminate and certain consequential damages.11 8. Complainants are persons who have been injured as defined by A.R.S. § 32- 1131(3) who are eligible to receive a payout from the Fund.12 9. The Registrar’s Recovery Fund Department prepared an excel spreadsheet and based on the information that Complainants had submitted, calculated their compensable damages to be $18,987.57. On September 14, 2015, the Registrar

10 The Registrar’s Exhibit 5 at 3. See the Registrar’s Exhibit 6. 12 See the Registrar’s Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. issued a Notice of Claim for Administrative Payout, informing the parties that “[a]fter a review of the claim and all supporting documentation, the Fund has determined that

Complainants are to be awarded $18,987.57 in the form of a payment issued by the

Fund.”13 Respondent timely requested a hearing on the intended payout.14

10. The Registrar subsequently realized that Respondent had contracted only

to install the tile and laminate flooring, not to provide the flooring, that one of

Complainant’s payments had been to reimburse Respondent for the cost of the flooring,

not for installation, and that Complainants still owed money to Respondent under the

contract. On October 15, 2015, the Registrar issued an Order of Quashing Prior Notice

of Claim for Administrative Payout, that provided in relevant part as follows:

After further review of the documentation supplied to the Recovery Fund by the Complainants, it was discovered that an error had been made in the calculation of damages. The Complainants had a remaining balance of $4,600.00 on their original contract with Agave Tile Inc. This information was not taken into account during the original calculation of damages; therefore, the awarded amount of $18,987.57 shown in the Notice of Claim for Administrative Payout is incorrect.15 Neither party requested a hearing on the Registrar’s order quashing the September 14, 2015 Notice of Claim for Administrative Payout. 11. The Registrar’s Recovery Fund Department prepared another excel spreadsheet and based on the corrected information, calculated Complainants’ compensable damages to be $14,387.57.16 On October 19, 2015, the Registrar issued a second Notice of Claim for Administrative Payout in Case No. 2015-283, informing the parties that “[a]fter a review of the claim and all supporting documentation, the Fund has determined that Complainants are be awarded $14,387.57 in the form of a payment issued by the Fund.”17

The Registrar’s Exhibit 15. See the Registrar’s Exhibit 16. 15 The Registrar’s Exhibit 17. See the Registrar’s Exhibit 18. 17 The Registrar’s Exhibit 19. 12. Respondent again requested a hearing.18 The Registrar referred Complainants’ claim to the Fund in Case No. 2015-283 to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

13. A hearing was held on January 29, 2016. Respondent submitted one

exhibit and presented Mr. Marian’s testimony. The Registrar submitted 23 exhibits and

presented the testimony of James Barbour, the Registrar’s Recovery Fund

Department’s claims reviewer who was assigned to analyze Complainants’ claim to the

Fund. Complainants presented the testimony of Dr. Chokshi.

14. Investigator Pennington was not subpoenaed by any of the parties and did

not testify at the hearing. Mr. Barbour testified that neither he nor anyone else from the

Registrar had been to Complainants’ residence to perform an inspection since

Investigator Pennington’s compliance inspection.

RESPONDENT’S CONTRACT WITH COMPLAINANTS

15. Respondent did not have a signed contract with Complainants that specified the scope of work and the areas where each type of floor would be installed. Instead, Mr. Marian developed Respondent’s scope of work in a negotiation with Mrs. Chokshi that was conducted through an email exchange. 16. As part of the negotiation, on October 11, 2014, Mrs. Chokshi forwarded to Respondent Sav-More Flooring LLC’s (“Sav-More’s”) October 10, 2014 email that provided in relevant part as follows: The following is a breakdown of the bid for your project: Install 1065sq ft of 18x18 Pietra Crema ceramic tile in all tile areas down stairs Install 50 sq ft of Pietra Calcutta 18x18 ceramic tile in bathroom Install 285 sq ft of 6x24 porcelain tile Sigma café Demo 1400 sq ft of tile, carpet and [linoleum] Add 18x18 Pietra Calcutta tile to walls in bathrooms (2) downstairs .... Re-install (3) toilets replacing wax rings. .... 18 See the Registrar’s Exhibit 19. The cost for the entire project is: $5,642.5819 Mr. Barbour testified that he did not rely upon Sav-More’s October 10, 2014 email in determining the scope of Respondent’s contract or in calculating Complainants’ damages. Mr. Barbour testified that he understood the 1400 square foot demolition to provide roughly the same space for the combined total of installation of the 1065 square feet of 18” x 18” Pietra Crema ceramic tile and the 285 square feet of 6” x 24” Sigma Crema porcelain tile. 17. On October 17, 2014, Mr. Marian on behalf of Respondent sent an email to Mrs. Chokshi that provided in relevant part: Install tile bought by homeowner in entire downstairs except bedroom, dining area and living room, upstairs master bath and utility room. Tile bath walls in front entry area with glass tile on walls 3 foot up with deco band on top. Install laminate in downstairs living room, dining area and back bedroom, upstairs landing area, and master bedroom. . . . Lift up all toilets and sinks and set back down putting in new wax rings for toilets. Will lay tile as needed with inserts. Tear out flooring in these areas, prepping areas down stairs where tiling is to be done with plastic and paper on bottom of cabinets. . . . Home owner to provide all tiles and laminate and pad with new baseboards. Agave tile to provide all other materials to complete job. . . . Total due $9,100.00 Half down $4,500.00 when starting remainder $4,550.00 upon completion. . . .20

Mr. Barbour testified that he relied on Mr. Marian’s October 17, 2014 email to determine the scope of Respondent’s contract. 18. Respondent submitted an October 2, 2014 email from Mr. Marian to Mrs. Chokshi, which Complainants apparently had not provided to the Registrar, that stated in relevant part as follows: Install tile brought by homeowner in entryway, hallways, pantry, kitchen downstairs hall bath, family room, hall bath and small office, upstairs utility room, master bath and close The Registrar’s Exhibit 10 at 3. 20 The Registrar’s Exhibit 10 at 1-2. aprox. 1400 square feet. Install tile straight lay at $2.75 per foot which includes thin set and grout total $3850.00. . . . Tear out tile and carpet in these area screws and liquid nails plus labor for install. Tear out tile and carpet in these area[s] and haul off garbage to dump, put up plastic in tiled [areas] total $ 950.00. Lift up 3 toilets and install new wax rings $90.00. Install laminate brought by homeowner which you need to buy pad for underlayment aprox. 1700 square feet At $2.00 per foot includes tear out $3400.00. . . .21 Mr. Marian testified that he prepared the estimate in the October 2, 2014 email based on Sav-More’s estimate, which Complainants had provided to Respondent. 19. Mr. Marian testified that pursuant to the bid in the October 2, 2014 email, Respondent installed 1400 square feet of tile, based on Mr. Marian’s, Sav-More’s, and Mrs. Chokshi’s measurements. Mr. Marian testified that after Respondent completed the job, it had 15 to 20 boxes of tile left, with approximately 12 tiles in each box. 20. Dr. Chokshi testified that Mr. Marian never measured the house. 21. The Registrar submitted the February 5, 2015 sales order from supplier M S International, Inc. for the tile that Respondent installed in Complainants’ residence. The sales order showed 912 pieces of 18 x 18 polished Pietra Crema tile.22 Dr. Chokshi testified he calculated that 912 pieces of 18” x 18” tile would cover a 2055 square foot area. 22. Mr. Marian testified that installation of tile cut on the diagonal, like Complainant’s floor, results in up to 20% waste. 23. Mr. Marian testified that after the Registrar issued the February 26, 2015 directive, Respondent removed approximately 1,100 to 1,200 square feet of tile in the downstairs of Complainant’s residence. Mr. Marian acknowledged that if the repairs were not done within three months or so, all of the tile would have needed to be replaced because it would no longer be possible to match the manufacturer’s dye lot. //// ////

Respondent’s Exhibit A. 22 See the Registrar’s Exhibit 23. COMPLAINANTS’ BIDS FOR TILE REPAIRS

24. Complainants submitted three bids from licensed contractors to repair the

tile in their residence from Sav-More, License No. CR-8.292312-D, Custom Creative

Marble & Granite Inc., License No. CR-8.245433-D (“Custom Creative”), and Knight’s

Tile Installation and Removal LLC, License No. CR48.290385-D (“Knight’s Tile”).

25. Sav-More’s bid was dated July 21, 2015, and was in the total amount of

$15,787.57. Sav-More described the scope of work in relevant part as follows:

Install 1065sq ft of 18x18 Pietra Crème ceramic tile in all tile areas down stairs .... Demo 1700 sq ft of tile .... bags of thinset 12 bags of grout Total Labor $8,895.85

Materials ....

Petra Crème 18x18 2,000sq ft @ $219 sq ft = $4,380.00 ....

Total Material $6,891.7223 Mr. Barbour testified that he used Sav-More’s low bid in the Registrar’s calculation of damages. 26. Mr. Barbour testified that when he was preparing for the hearing, after the Registrar’s attorney called his attention to the discrepancy between the 1065 square feet where Sav-More proposed to install tile and the 2,000 square feet of Petra Crema tile that Sav-More proposed to furnish in materials for the job. Mr. Barbour testified that he asked Mrs. Chokshi to contact Sav-More to resolve the discprepancy. The Registrar submitted Sav-More’s January 27, 2016 bid, in which it proposed to “[i]nstall 1950sq ft

23 The Registrar’s Exhibit 13 at 1. of 18x18 Pietra Crema ceramic tile,” for a total labor cost of $12,779.00 and a total job cost of $19,683.87.24 Mr. Barbour testified that despite Sav-More’s error, Complainants were not a position to receive a greater payout from the Fund.

27. Custom Creative’s July 20, 2015 bid in the total amount of $20,655.36

included “Cost of floor tile – including wastage (1955 sq.ft at $2.19/sq.ft)” and

“Installation of tile in a brick pattern (1700 sq.ft at $4.25).”25 Mr. Barbour testified that

the wastage in Custom Creative bid was in the area of 5-15%, which he understood to

be standard in the industry. Mr. Barbour testified that the dimensions of the tile areas

in Custom Creative’s bid were consistent with the dimensions in Sav-More’s original

and amended bids.

28. Knight’s Tile’s August 5, 2015 bid in the total amount of $30,272.40 did not

include any dimensions for installation or materials.26

COMPLAINANTS’ PAYMENTS ON THE CONTRACT AND EXPENDITURES FOR LAMINATE AND OTHER REPAIRS

29. Complainants paid Respondent the first payment of $4,500.00 under the contract.27 30. Complainants also paid Chavez Building Systems $200.00 to buff the tile in the master bathroom to remove the haze and $150.00 to Ray Lemons of B Kool Air Conditioning-Heating & Plumbing to reinstall the toilet that was leaking because Respondent had installed the wax ring incorrectly.28 31. Complainants also paid a total of $2,850.00 to Midwest Elite LLC, License No. CR-8.283994-D (“Midwest”) to repair the laminate flooring and backsplashes.29 Midwest’s February 16, 2015 invoice for the work showed that it charged Complainants $1,250.00 for “Laminate and Trim Repair,” $300.00 for material, $300.00 to “Replace 3 Broken Tiles & Regrout backsplashs,” and $1,000.00 for “Floor Prep.”30 See the Registrar’s Exhibit 22 at 2. See id. at 4. See id. at 6. See the Registrar’s Exhibit 11. 28 See the Registrar’s Exhibit 12 at 2 and 4-5. See the Registrar’s Exhibit 12 at 8, 9, and 10. 30 Id. at 7. 32. Mr. Marian testified that Respondent had installed laminate flooring in the upstairs bedrooms and in the downstairs right entry, small dining room, and small bedroom. Mr. Marian testified that downstairs, Investigator Pennington did not note

poor cuts, but merely stated that trim pieces were not properly centered.

33. Mr. Marian testified that upstairs, where Investigator Pennington noted poor

cuts and excessive caulking, a piece of the laminate floor could be removed and

replaced with a better cut piece. The whole laminate floor did not need to be removed.

34. Mr. Marian testified that Midwest’s charge of $1,250.00 to repair trim was

outrageous and that it must have replaced part of the floor. Mr. Marian testified that if

the whole laminate floor did not need to be torn out, it would not need to be prepped.

Mr. Marian testified that a total cost of $200.00 to $500.00 should have been sufficient

to repair the laminate floor.

35. Dr. Chokshi testified that Midwest had not replaced the entire laminate floor,

only the edges where Respondent had left improper cuts.

36. Mr. Marian testified that Respondent had not installed any backsplashes at

Complainant’s house and that laminate would not be a suitable material for a

backsplash. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.31 2. After the Registrar has determined the amount of the payout from the Fund to which Complainants are entitled, Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the Registrar’s calculations were erroneous or not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.32 3. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”33 A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing See 32-1101 et seq. 32 See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). 33 MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960). force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”34

4. Mr. Marian on Respondent’s behalf acknowledged that it had performed poor

workmanship that did not comply with the Registrar’s standards on Complainant’s

project, furnishing cause to suspend its license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3). Mr.

Marian also acknowledged that the lack of a written, signed contract furnished

additional cause to suspend Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12),

namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158. The lack of a contract that unequivocally described the

dimensions of the project and Respondent’s scope of work complicated the Registrar’s

calculation of Complainants’ damages.

5. A.R.S. § 32-1132(A) describes the measure of damages that an eligible

homeowner is entitled to recover from the Fund in relevant part as follows:

The residential contractors' recovery fund is established, to be administered by the registrar, from which any person injured by an act, representation, transaction or conduct of a residential contractor licensed pursuant to this chapter that is in violation of this chapter or the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter may be awarded in the county where the violation occurred an amount of not more than thirty thousand dollars for damages sustained by the act, representation, transaction or conduct. An award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. . . .

(Emphasis added.) 6. It appears that Respondent’s initial email proposal to install 1400 square feet of Pietra Crema 18” x 18” tile was based primarily on Sav-More’s proposal for a similar scope of work. The amount of tile purchased is consistent with either a 1700 square foot job or a 1400 square foot job with more than 20% wastage and substantial tile left over or a 1700 square foot job with 15-20% wastage. Sav-More later corrected its BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999). proposal to install 1950 square feet of tile, which is 250 square feet more than the 1700 feet that Custom Creative proposed to install. Investigator Pennington’s February 10, 2015 directive noted extensive workmanship deficiencies in the tile and Respondent

conceded that the whole tile floor needed to be replaced. On this record, Respondent

did not establish that Sav-More’s July 21, 2015 bid for $15,787.57 exceeds the amount

necessary to compete or repair Complainants’ tile floor.

7. The only deficiency that Investigator Pennington noted in the laminate

flooring was poor cuts and using caulking to fill the gaps between the floor and

baseboard. There is no evidence that the laminate floor needed to be completely

replaced and Dr. Chokshi noted that Midwest did not replace the floor, but only

replaced the edges. Mr. Marian credibly testified that the edges of the floor could be

replaced without removing the floor. Mr. Marian’s credible testimony established that

Midwest’s charge on February 16, 2015 invoice for $1,000.00 for “floor prep,” in

addition to the $1,200.00 charge to repair the laminate floor and trim, was excessive

and that the $300.00 charge to repair three broken tiles and regrout backsplashes

exceeded Respondent’s scope of work because there is no evidence Respondent

installed backsplashes on Complainants’ project. Therefore, Respondent established that the Fund should not reimburse Complainants for $1,300.00 of the monies that they paid to Midwest. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund shall pay $13,087.5735 to Complainants Kasmira P. Chockshi and Parag H. Chokshi. It is further recommended that under A.R.S. § 32-1139(B), the Registrar shall charge $13,087.57, plus interest at a rate of ten percent a year, to Respondent Agave Tile Inc.’s License No. CR48-130924-D.

The basis of this amount is the amount on the Registrar’s October 19, 2015 Notice of Claim for Administrative Payout ($14,387.57) minus the $1,300.00 paid to Midwest that Respondent established was beyond the scope of Respondent’s contract or the corrective order and/or that was not necessary to return Complainants to the position they would have occupied had Respondent performed its contract to comply with the Registrar’s and industry workmanship standards. 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 five days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, February 5, 2016.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors