PDF copy: ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2017A-280-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2017-11-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Diana Lee Vangellow, No. 2017A-280-CHC-ROC COMPLAINANT, v. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION Bambuilt, LLC , License No: 283958 RESPONDENT.

HEARING: September 11, 2017 at 8:30 AM APPEARANCES: Diana Vangellow (“Complainant”); Jeffrey Fisher (“Mr. Fisher” witness for Complainant); Joshua States (“Mr. States” City of Phoenix Planning Department, Witness for Complainant); James Sampley (“Respondent” for Bambuilt LLC); Russell Reed (“ROC Investigator” for Registrar of Contractors); Joe O’Connor (“Mr. O’Connor” attorney for Complainant) and Gary Cude (“Mr. Cude” Complainant’s expert from Matrix Analytical Laboratories, Inc. (“Matrix”)).

FURTHERANCE HEARING: October 23, 2017, at 1:00 PM APPEARANCES: Diana Vangellow (“Complainant”); James Sampley (“Respondent” for Bambuilt LLC); Derrick Denis (“Mr. Denis” Respondent’s expert from Clark Seif Clark Inc (CSC)); Paul Anderson (“Mr. Anderson” Respondent’s expert from CSC); Gary Cude (“Mr. Cude” Complainant’s expert from Matrix.); and Joe O’Connor (“Mr O’Connor” attorney for Complainant).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Linda Marie Brown _____________________________________________________________________ This matter was set by the Registrar of Contractors as a hearing to determine whether Respondent violated the charged provisions A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), and 32- 1154(A)(22) as alleged by Complainant and as cited by the Registrar of Contractors

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 (hereinafter “Registrar”). Testimony and evidence were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) issued License No. KB-1-283958-D to Respondent, Bambuilt, LLC. Respondent’s address of record is 2040 South Alma School Road, Suite 1, Box 436, Chandler, Arizona 85286. 2. On or about January 17, 2017, Diana Lee Vangellow (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint with the Registrar listing twelve (12) complained of items: (1) mishandling/ mismanaging scope of work pertaining to spray foam contractor; (2) failure to provide proper barrier between existing house and new addition during spray foam application; (3) poor work; (4) not reviewing the plans pertaining to setbacks; (5) not reviewing the structural engineer plans pertaining to lumber requirement; (6) failure to provide final set of plans from the city to all subcontractors; (7) poor work site conditions; (8) failure to use agreed upon wood products for the addition to match existing home trim rough instead of smooth; (9) failure to understand survey report; (10) abandonment of project; (11) money disputes; and (12) possible sewer line damage. 3. Complainant provided a residential address of 6208 North 29th Place, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. 4. Complainant is the owner of real property located at 128 East Tuckey Lane, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1047 (“Tuckey Property”) that is the subject of this complaint. The Agreement between the parties was entered into on November 18, 2014. 5. The Complaint listed a date work started November 2014 and date work stopped April 2, 2015. Based on the terms of the Agreement work was to commence on December 1, 2014.1 6. The City of Phoenix Building Permit described the scope of work to be performed at the Tuckey Property as a 2235 SQ/FT addition includes a 1193 SF music room, 388 SF home office, 229 SF hobby room, entry, mechanical & storage rooms at the rear of this existing residence with structural analysis under the 2006 Building Codes.

See Complainant’s Exhibit C-3 (pp. 1-13). Note: Complainant’s Exhibit missing page 8: See ProLaw 05/11/2017 REQHRG (Intake Additional Docs Submitted2.pdf). New Const – CMU; 400a Elec srvc; For Personal & Recreational Use Only. Not intended for commercial use/operations.2 7. On January 30, 2017, Notice of Complaint and a copy of the Complaint were sent to the Respondent at its address of record. 8. Respondent submitted its’ Answer to the Complaint addressing each of the complained of items. Regarding Item 1 of the Complaint, Respondent replied that it was the Complainant who interviewed and selected Indigo Foam and Insulation, and that after the installation of the foam, homeowner complained of toxic fumes and asked that an air quality test be conducted. Respondent complied and hired an independent third- party expert to conduct the test and the on-site inspection concluded there was a non- detect of the specific chemicals in the foam and the residence was completely safe3; and that regarding Item 4 of the Complaint, the plans were very unclear.4 9. Section 24.3 of the Agreement titled Hazardous Materials set forth on page of the Agreement states, “If, without negligence on the part of the Contractor the Contractor is held liable for the cost of remediation of a hazardous material or substance solely by reason of performing Work as required by the Contract Documents, the Owner shall indemnify the Contractor or all costs and expense thereby incurred however, the Owners indemnification obligation set forth herein is not strict liability, and arises only upon the Owner’s negligence in creating or ignoring the offending condition.” 5 10. At hearing, Respondent entered Icynene Foam Sample Report dated May 12, 2015. The report provided results from foam samples sent for testing by the manufacturer and concluded that received foam samples are Icynene’s LDC50v4 (classic max) product and that they are standard quality.6 11. Investigator Russell Reed (“Investigator Reed”) for the Registrar conducted an onsite inspection of the property on February 23, 2017.

2 See ProLaw 05/11/2017 REQHRG (Intake Additional Docs Submitted1.pdf). See Complainant’s Exhibit C-7: CSC Project No. 5004301 Report dated May 22, 2015. See ProLaw 05/11/2017 REQHRG. See ProLaw 05/11/2017 REQHRG (Intake Additional Docs Submitted2.pdf). See Respondent’s Exhibit R-1. 12. On March 9, 2017, a written Directive was issued by the Registrar directing Respondent to “complete project as per contract.” The Respondent was given until April 12, 2017, to comply. 13. A Citation issued on April 21, 2017, for alleged violations. That Citation contained two charges: Charge 1: A violation of Rule 4-9-108, titled ‘Minimum construction Standards,’ in the Arizona Administrative Code, and thereby of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3).7 Charge 2: A violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).8 14. Respondent filed its’ response to the Citation asserting that the written Directive was to complete the project as contracted with no corrective action, and that they requested access to the property but were denied access to finish the work.9 15. A Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on May 16, 2017, notifying the parties that a hearing upon the charges in the Citation and Complaint will be held by the Office of Administrative Hearings. HEARING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE

7 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, violation of any rule adopted by the registrar. A.A.C. R4-9-108 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

B. A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. C. All work performed by a contractor in a county, city, or town that has not adopted building codes or where any adopted building codes do not contain specific provisions applicable to that aspect of construction work shall be performed in accordance with professional industry standards. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides as follows: Failure 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. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. See ProLaw 05/11/2017 REQHRG (Lg Citation1.pdf). Investigator Russell Reed 16. Investigator Reed testified that he performed an onsite inspection and provided a narrative at the Hearing regarding his findings at the time of the inspection. He testified that his inspection took place over one (1) year from the date the spray foam was installed. He also stated he did not witness poor work but rather incomplete work which he believed resulted because Complainant and Respondent disagreed as to the spray foam. 17. Investigator Reed took photographs during his jobsite inspection. These photos are referenced in Complainant’s list of exhibits as C1-5. Photo 3 of Complainant’s Exhibit C-2 represents the measurement of the 2 ft. 6 inch clearance between the building and the wall on the East side of the Tuckey Property. 18. When asked to clarify the written Directive where it states, “complete project as per contract,” Investigator Reed stated that work stopped after the spray foam installation. Complainant wanted the spray foam taken out and replaced and Respondent declined based on the scientific findings provided in the testing they had performed by a third-party expert concluding the spray foam had non-detectible VOCs. At that point, Complainant would not let Respondent finish the project. This is believed to be sometime late April 2015. Investigator Reed testified that the spray foam should have been covered up in a timely manner but has since been exposed to the elements in the climate without climate or air quality control for more than a year from the time he had inspected the job site.10 19. Mr. O’Connor, counsel for Complainant, then questioned Investigator Reed regarding the building dimensions and whether the 3 feet 10 inches reference appears anywhere in the site plan? 11 Mr. O’Connor asked whether the East side of the building called for a 2 ft. 6 inch walkway? Investigator Reed was asked if the discrepancy in the site plan (sheet no. C-S) versus floor plan (sheet no. A-2)12 should have prompted further inquiry from the Respondent since there appears to be a conflict as to

10 09/11/2017 Hearing Transcript (Position: 00:33:54 to 00:34:24). See Complainant’s Exhibit C-1. See Complainant’s Exhibit C-1 for both C-S and A-2 plans. dimensions? Investigator Reed responded he cannot tell a contractor how to do their job.13 Joshua States, City of Phoenix

20. Joshua States (“Mr. States”) testified he has residential construction experience for the better of 40 years. He is currently employed in the Planning and Development Department for the City of Phoenix and supervises a 20-person team.

21. Mr. States testified that he recalls the site plans for the Tuckey Property.

22. In review of Site Plan Sheet Number C-S14 for the proposed building, the

solid line indicates that the building “should be more than 3 feet from the property line.”15

23. Under S-1 of the plans, the plans changed from a masonry wall and were

replaced with wood frame construction. His recollection is there would be no change to

the roof overhang as a result of this change.

24. Mr. States testified that site plans are used primarily for zoning approval

and provide general information on what is being built and where it is supposed to go. 25. Typical use of floor plans is to identify exterior walls, ceiling heights, and a number of things but basically it outlines personal traffic within the building. 26. In review of the city inspector field notes, Mr. States recalls the roof cutback on the Tuckey Property. He testified no special detailing required with masonry but when the build went to frame wall, they needed a rated assembly. He stated some time later, when the city inspector arrived at the Tuckey Property, the overhang was too close to the property line. 27. Mr. States testified that in review of the site plan, there are a few places where it states the overhang should be 2 feet from the wall and in other places it states 3 feet from the wall. So this raises the question, “which one is it?” 28. Mr. O’Connor questioned Mr. States in his professional opinion what should the contractor have done when he noticed discrepancies in the plans? Should he have stopped construction and said wait a minute, we have a problem here, let’s go back to the architect, let’s go back to the draftsman? Mr. States replied that if Mr. O’Connor is

13 09/11/2017 Hearing Transcript DS231855.DSS (Position: 1:07:44 – 1:12:00). See Complainant’s Exhibit C-1 (Sheet Number C-S). Hearing Transcript: DS231855.DSS (Position: 1:18:00 – 1:18:10). asking him in his capacity as representative of the city, he cannot respond what the contractor should have done but only what a contractor needs to do to comply with the building code. But further testified that in his experienced opinion, when you have plans with a bunch of discrepancies, were he in Respondent’s shoes, he would fire the architect or draftsman and drew up his own plans. 29. Mr. State’s testimony is found to be credible. Complainant Testimony 30. Complainant complains there are two issues. Complainant alleges the foam spray applied to Complainant’s room addition is allegedly emitting toxic gasses and needs to be removed and replaced in order to permit persons to occupy the property; and the second issue is the location of the room addition. Specific plans were provided to the Respondent, and construction is now misplaced and too close to the East property line which makes the access way useless. Because of the issue on the setback, it became necessary for a portion of the roof built on the East side to be cutback in order to meet city code.16 31. Complainant testified that based on the terms of the Contract and relying on the expertise of Respondent, she expected to be contacted and advised about any discrepancy should there be one prior to proceeding with the build or to be notified of any problems on the overhang and walkway footage. She argued that she now has a roof that is an eyesore because the overhang is 6 inches and the access way on the East side of the new addition is useless. 32. Complainant stated that regarding the spray foam the Respondent, manufacturer, and subcontractor worked together to discuss her concerns. 33. Complainant testified that upon receipt of the Clark Seif Clark Inc Report (“CSC Report”) dated May 22, 2015, she reached out to CSC to further understand the report but they were unresponsive. 34. She testified that the home has been vacant since 2015, and that she cannot spend time in there because she finds it hard to breath.

Hearing Transcript 09/11/2017 (Position: 00:09:00 to 00:10:29). 35. Additionally, Complainant reiterated that Mr. States’ testimony was that the plans were inconsistent which should have raised a red flag that there was an apparent conflict on dimensions. She also restated that based on the General Conditions to the Agreement, Section 5.3, the Contractor is responsible for notifying the Owner and yet in this instance it failed to do so. Respondent Testimony 36. Respondent testified that Complainant interviewed his foam contractor and did not care for them so then Complainant interviewed on their own and requested the subcontractor (Indigo) be hired for the spray foam application to the room addition. Respondent stated it emailed Complainant the ROC contractor information from the website because it wanted to use his guy but Complainant wanted Indigo. Respondent testified that it doesn’t believe Indigo did anything wrong with the foam installation. Respondent testified testing was done that went down to the parts proof billing of the specific chemicals and foam and the results came up as non-detect. The VOCs are very low. Respondent asks the tribunal to compare the two experts’ reports by both parties and asserts Respondent’s CSC Report is very professional when paled with Complainant’s expert’s report and further testified that he isn’t even sure if Complainant’s inspector for the air quality test was ever on site.17 37. Regarding the location of the building, Respondent testified that there were very limited dimensions on the plans. The properly lines were set, the reason the overhang being cutback is that it was too close to the property line per code. It can only be 12 inches and was reaching into the neighbor’s yard. Respondent testified they did not cutback the roof to bring it into city code because Complainant asked that they hire their own roofer to do it. Complainant was credited back for a portion of the roof install from Respondent’s initial contract. Respondent testified he did not feel it was its direct responsibility because it was built with an overhang based on the floor plan.18 19 Respondent further testified that the building structure and East setback was built in the correct location. Hearing Testimony: 09/11/2017 (Position: 00:14:00 to 00:15:49). Mr. States testified that construction location is based primarily on-site plans and that “floor plans” are to determine traffic flow within the building. Hearing Testimony: 09/11/2017 (Position: 00:15:51 to 00:17:07). 38. Respondent argued that if there was a variance, then this was a draftsman issue. Complainant hired the draftsman. Complainant questioned Respondent if he observes the General Conditions set forth under the Agreement, specifically, Section 5.3 Permits, Fees and Notices found on page 2 where it reads, in part, “However, if the Contractor observes that portions of the Contract Documents are at variance therewith, the Contractor shall promptly notify the Architect and Owner in writing and necessary shall be accomplished by appropriate Modification. Contractor further acknowledges that the Owner does not have the experience, training or knowledge to independently make such determinations regarding compliance.”20 39. Respondent reiterated that he provided Complainant with a credit back for the modifications made to the roof overhang because Respondent did not cutback the roof and homeowner hired another roofer to bring the roof into city code. 40. Respondent stated in closing that he never experienced burning eyes or throat or noticed any unusual smells when at the project site. Gary Cude Testimony 41. Gary Cude is a professional chemist for the past 45 years. He credibly testified that he was responsible for evaluating the samples obtained on two separate dates from the Tuckey Property and provided the test results from both tests. The first test was performed on August 7, 201521 and the second test was performed on August 29, 2017.22 42. He explained how the air samples are gathered, and that individuals set up, plug in stationary samples that calculate total volume air during flow rate. 43. Mr. Cude stated that with new construction sites there is a lot of off- gassing. 44. He testified that his findings resulted in extremely high and dangerous in toxins (VOCs). He also testified that he reviewed the Limited Industrial Hygiene Investigation Report Specific to Spray Foam Application dated May 22, 2015, prepared by Clark Seif Clark, Inc. (CSC) by Project Manager Derrick A. Denis and IAQ Specialist

20 See Complainant Exhibit C-3. See Complainant’s Exhibit C-4. See Complainant’s Exhibit C-5. Paul V. Anderson, from investigation dates of April 23 & 28, 201523, and agrees with the conclusions and recommendations based on the analytical results and visual inspection that the new addition is acceptable for construction but disagrees that the home is acceptable for general occupancy.24 45. Mr. Cude provided testimony regarding the recommended guidelines set forth by the Texas Commission Environmental Quality. He stated that both summary of his findings found elevated VOC’s and Aldehydes. He testified that in this instance the VOCs stay trapped in the air space and reabsorb (heat: off-gassing/cold: reabsorb). He testified that these elevated levels should drop by 50 percent in about 6 more years. 46. When questioned if the gasses would remain, he replied that it depends on how remediated and removed since wood would also absorb the off-gassing from the foam spray. 47. Respondent questioned Mr. Cude regarding the time of year air quality testing samples were obtained. Mr. Cude was asked if he is aware of Arizona’s climate in August when his tests were performed? Respondent asked if he is aware that for every 18 degrees Fahrenheit, the reaction rates double? Mr. Cude replied he was not aware of Arizona temperatures but would expect it to be hot. 48. Respondent’s next question regarding the chain of custody in how Matrix Analytical Laboratories Inc. (“Matrix”) administers their air sampling kits was whether a professional set up and obtained the samples to which Mr. Cude replied, no. Derrick Denis Testimony 49. Derrick Denis testified he has 23 years’ experience as a BSD Certified IEQ professional, and a project manager for Clark Seif Clark Inc. He testified that Mr. Cude based his findings on TCEQ guidelines which follows ultra conservative test results levels and that based on acceptable VOC/Aldehyde levels set forth by NIOSH, ACGIH and OSHA, and CSC Report findings, the VOC/Aldehyde are within the normal range.25 50. He explained distinction made between what is detectible versus dangerous levels since VOCs/Aldehyde can be found in many other sources such as

23 See Complainant’s Exhibit C-7. See Complainant’s Exhibit C-7, p 9 of 17, para. 5, no. 3. See Respondent’s Exhibit R-3. plastics, perfumes, OSB Wood Products, food products, disinfectants, cleaners, gasoline and solvents.26 51. Mr. Denis also testified that some persons have increased sensitivities and are predisposed to these sensitivities of various compounds. Mr. Cude offered a rebuttal that there has been no finding that there is any relation to these compounds in say a work environment to persons with predisposed sensitivities. 52. Mr. Denis also testified as to his concerns regarding the qualifications of the person responsible for gathering and sending the air samples on both occasions for Matrix that Mr. Cude relied on for testing of his air quality samples versus the thorough testing his company performed on-site that was conducted and handled by qualified experts. In the CSC Report prepared May 22, 2015, several photos of the on-site readings obtained at that time were included in its Report. 53. It was also pointed out that the HVAC system has not been complete and if operational would have provided ventilation to reduce off-gassing. 54. Mr. Denis’ testimony and evidence provided were credible. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A). 2. Complainant bears the burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119. 3. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960). 4. Respondent is cited for two (2) alleged violations: Charge 1: A violation of Rule 4-9-108, titled ‘Minimum construction Standards,’ in the Arizona Administrative Code, and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); and Charge 2: A violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22).

See Respondent’s Exhibit R-3 (comparison table between TCEQ, NIOSH, ACGIH and OSHA). 5. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”27 6. The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.28 7. Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did not install the Spray Foam Installation in the room addition in a professional and workmanlike manner. 8. Testimony on the issue of the spray foam was received from two experts based on on-site air flow tests conducted and each presented results contrary to one another. This Tribunal finds Respondent’s argument surrounding the chain of custody and qualified persons administering the tests persuasive.29 Additionally, Respondent provided product testing sample results from the manufacturer,30 as well as comparison of CSC’s findings from their on-site inspection aligned with various government agencies and are found to be within acceptable levels.31 Complainant did provide its findings from two separate testing studies that showed increased levels but testimony received indicates these levels could have likely been adverted had Respondent been given the opportunity to complete the project to allow for the installation of the HVAC system to create ventilation and airflow within the new room addition. 9. Credible testimony established Respondent exercised professionalism and good judgment in promptly addressing Complainant’s concerns surrounding the spray foam installation. Additionally, while the Complainant was not responsible for direct payment to the subcontractor Indigo; Complainant was responsible for selecting this spray foam subcontractor who fell outside of the initial subcontractor’s recommendation. Respondent was not negligent in the manner in which he addressed Complainant’s concerns and stood ready to remedy but found the issue on toxicity not supported based on the findings from scientific evidence obtained in the CSC Report.

27 A.R.S. § 1-211(B). See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995). See Complainant’s Exhibit C-7. See Complainant’s Exhibit R-1. See Respondent’s Exhibit R-3. 10. On the second issue of building setback, Complainant did establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent acted below workmanship standards32 and failed to provide proper notice to Complainant regarding discrepancies in the plans. Respondent failed to abide by the terms of its own agreement as set forth under Section 5.3 of the General Conditions to their Agreement regarding the discrepancies in the plans. This failure caused the new building to be set too close to the property line on the East side and lessened the walk way by more than 1 foot thus rendering the walkway extremely narrow and as Complainant testified unusable, and caused the newly installed roof overhang to have to be cutback in order to comply with city code. 11. In regards to a violation of A.R.S.; § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action without valid justification, Complainant did meet its burden of proof at the hearing that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action in regards to the setback by failing to promptly notify the Complainant prior to beginning the build of the new addition, and continuing to deny this failure even in light of testimony received from the City of Phoenix’s Planning and Development Department regarding inconsistencies. 12. Regarding the spray foam installation, this Tribunal acknowledges that Respondent was not permitted to continue with any work on this alleged issue or permitted to complete the remainder of the contract due to the unresolved issue on the spray foam installation to which Respondent attempted to remedy and provided adequate reassurances to Complainant that the VOC measurements with the PID were found to be at acceptable levels within the main home and new addition, and further that based on the analytical results and visual inspection by CSC, the main home was deemed acceptable for general occupancy and the new addition acceptable for construction but yet Complainant insisted the spray foam that she selected be removed and replaced in order to complete the remainder of the contract. 13. The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to exercise good judgement prior to building the new addition thus causing the Complainant additional inconveniences that could have been avoided but for Respondent failure to The Tribunal believes the Citation should have also included a Charge of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications. verify inconsistencies prior to constructing the new addition. This failure to timely act resulted in poor workmanship standards. This Tribunal concludes that Respondent violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108 and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that commencing on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, License No. KB-1-283958-D of Respondent shall be suspended for one (1) day. It is further recommended that Respondent pay the sum of $150.00 to the Registrar of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E). The failure by Respondent to pay the entire amount of the aforesaid civil penalty, on or before 30 days following the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, shall result in the automatic revocation of Respondent’s contractor’s licenses effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered. 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 forty days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, November 19, 2017. /s/ Linda Marie Brown Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors