ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2021A-06667-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-08-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Benjamin Lehi Hulse,

COMPLAINANT

Howard Fletcher Thruston

DBA: Dynasty Homes

License No. ROC 086148

RESPONDENT

No. 2021A-06667-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 13, 2022 and July 18, 2022 with the record held open until July 25, 2022.

APPEARANCES: Complainant Benjamin Lehi Hulse appeared via Google Meet on his own behalf. Respondent Howard Fletcher Thruston appeared via Google Meet on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Smith appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

______________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Howard Fletcher Thruston (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 086148 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about January 23, 2021, Benjamin Lehi Hulse (Complainant) signed a contract with Respondent for a new home remodel. The contract amount was for $175,000.00.

On or about December 16, 2021, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project. An addendum to the Complaint was also added on January 20, 2022. In total, there were 34 allegations of poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Smith. The jobsite inspection was performed on February 17, 2022.

Investigator Smith then issued a written directive on or about February 22, 2022, to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. §32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on March 24, 2022.

. . .

You are hereby directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

The Respondent is to obtain any and all required building permits from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive.

If the local jurisdiction finds corrective issues relating to the respondent’s work, the respondent will be required to correct those issues by appropriate means. The respondent is required to submit a copy of the approved inspection results to the ROC Investigator.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b) : Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar, Namely R 4-9-108: (B) A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 2: “Front door sidelight has gaps that don't look to be filled in correctly.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The sidelight panel was installed on site.

The width of the gaps between the door jamb and the sidelight sash are not consistent.

The thickness and color of the caulking installed is not consistent.

The caulking along the bottom is approximately twice as wide as the caulking applied at the sides.

There is no visible caulking installed along the top.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 3: “Deadbolt strike plates poorly installed.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The strike plates are poorly installed and not mortised properly on three exterior doors.

Additionally, the hardware is not installed square on the doors.

The respondent stated this is not part of his work, and that the complainant paid the subcontractor directly for this work.

The complainant acknowledged paying the subcontractor directly.

The respondent acknowledged that payments from the homeowners directly to the subcontractors was at his (the general contractor’s) instructions.

The complainant making a payment directly to a subcontractor, at the specific instructions of the general contractor, does not alleviate the general contractor from responsibility of work performed by the subcontractor.

The scope of work for this project includes installing doors and painting.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 4: “Damage done to other interior doors during duration of the remodel.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There is damage to the bottom corner of the door between the garage and the laundry room.

The respondent acknowledged this could have been caused by any one of the subcontractors.

The general contractor is responsible for the actions and inactions of all subcontractors on the project.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 19: “Cabinets - we agreed originally on having doors made by a custom cabinet shop called Caldoor which he said he ordered back in August and the doors would arrive in 4-6 weeks. Well he lied and he never ordered the doors from Caldoor or even from any other custom cabinet shop. He has his cabinet assembly guy make the doors from MDF and other trim and they currently look bad and not what we agreed upon. We haven't seen the final product of the cabinet doors yet but he is going to have them done or at least a sample done sometime within the next month.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The cabinet boxes and some of the drawer fronts are melamine.

Most of the doors, drawer fronts, and side panels are painted MDF.

The contract does not mention the use of painted MDF cabinets or painted MDF cabinet components.

The contract does not indicate the cabinet will be anything other than custom melamine cabinets.

The contract states “Thruston has agreed to build “custom” Melamine cabinets...”

There are no signed change orders authorizing this deviation from the contract.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 20: “Cabinets ...currently look bad...”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The respondent stated he agreed with all cabinet issues identified and pointed out by the complainant, with one exception in the laundry room. The one area in the laundry room the respondent stated he disagreed with has a blemish in the paint that is visible and is considered a verified workmanship issue.

•

The cabinet installation is currently incomplete. There are several areas of missing doors and drawer fronts, and at least four bathroom drawer boxes installed are the incorrect size.

•

Door panels are not properly aligned with the side panels. Some doors are flush with the front edge of the side panels, other doors protrude more than 1/8 inch past the front edge of the side panels.

•

Doors are not properly aligned with other doors. Door edges are not straight or square. Gaps around doors are not even or consistent.

•

There is visible damage inside the cabinets. Additional holes were created during installation. Some holes have been covered with additional stickers.

•

There are several open miter joints in the trim boards. There are several unfilled nail holes in the trim boards. There are several areas of cracks in the caulking between the upper trim board and the ceiling.

•

There are stickers and adhesive inside and on the bottoms of the cabinets.

•

The respondent acknowledged and agreed with all issues of the cabinet issues identified by the complainants.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 21: “There are some chips in the cabinets that happened during the install.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There areas of chips, scratches, dents, and blemishes in the finished surfaces of the cabinets.

The respondent acknowledged and agreed with all of the cabinet issues identified by the complainants.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 22: “One of the drawers got drilled wrong for hardware and has holes in it.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

One of the drawer fronts on the island was drilled incorrectly for the hardware. The holes were filled. The filler material is not a reasonably close match to the finished surface of the drawer front.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 23: “There are edges of some of the panels that have a risen part to them that stands out.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Edges of some of the side panels have ridges and are not smooth.

The respondent acknowledged and agreed with all of the cabinet issues identified by the complainants.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 24: “Some of the edge banding is chipped or smushed in several places.”

Investigator’s Observations: This is a duplicate of Complaint Item 21. See notes in Complaint Item 21.

Complaint Item 26: “Time - In our contract I agreed to pay him up front and he agreed to be substantially completed with 120 days which would be about July 7th, 2021. We are not in December and the cabinets and paint still have a long ways to go to be completed. None of the delays have anything to do with material shortages, labor shortages, or anything covid related. He would wait to order materials until the last minute. He would wait to schedule trades until the last minute. He doesn't plan more than a day or two out and then even those plans change. Long story short we agreed on a 4 month timeline and we are now 9 months in and I don't see being done for another month or two. The thing that has taken the longest is the cabinets which he contracted to build himself with his crew.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The contract states: “Thruston will begin this remodel on Monday March 8, 2021 based on Hulse closing on the purchase of their home the end of February and will substantially complete the remodel within 120 days of that date.”

March 8, 2021, plus 120 days, equals July 6, 2021

As of today, February 17, 2022, the project is not complete.

Today’s date, February 17, 2022, is 346 days past March 8, 2021.

Today’s date, February 17, 2022, is 226 days past the completion date specified in the contract.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8): Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project...

Complaint Item 27: “...The location of the pot filler above my range is far too low...”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Industry standard location for the installation of a pot filler is approximately 18 inches above a cooking surface.

This pot filler is installed with the bottom of the lower handle less than 2 inches above the cooking surface, and the spout approximately 9 inches above the cooking surface.

Additionally, the pot filler protrudes from the wall approximately 6-1/2 inches restricting use of the two of the cooking surface burners.

The respondent acknowledged the pot filler is not installed in the location specified on the plans.

There are no signed change orders authorizing or approving the current location of the pot filler.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 30: “Some of the edges of the cabinets don’t seem to have been sanded very well and there is a bump along one side.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Edges of some of the side panels have ridges and are not smooth.

Finished surfaces also have blemishes including high spots, low spots, bumps, and visible sanding marks.

The respondent acknowledged and agreed with all of the cabinet issues identified by the complainants.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 31: “The shelf holding our laundry machine looks to have a piece of the edge banding missing on the left side.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The front edge of the shelf below the laundry machines is damaged.

The respondent acknowledged and agreed with all of the cabinet issues identified by the complainants.

Additionally; the front edge of this shelf is a painted oak banding material.

The contract states “Thruston has agreed to build “custom” Melamine cabinets...”

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 33: “The double pocket doors in my master have several issues...

Doors don’t sit flush in the pocket door void

Trim around the opening is incomplete

Nail holes sticking out around trim in the opening

Only one side of doors has a predrilled area for hardware

If the trim was installed right now there would be no way of opening the doors since there isn’t any hardware to grab on that surface

In summary the pocket doors are incomplete...”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Double pocket doors at master bathroom:

• Door installation, and related trim/hardware/paint, is incomplete

• Doors are not centered in the pocket openings

• Tracks are not straight or centered in the frame

• Significant voids between trim boards

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 34: “...the clear coat finish on the front door has to pretty much be redone. There are drip marks on a bunch of places.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There are locations of runs in the clear finish applied to the main entry door.

Additionally, there are protruding nails and unfilled nail holes.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:

Warning Letter: Elements of a Contract.

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s contract is missing the following information:

• A description of the work to be performed under the contract.

• 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.

• 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.

• Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar

• Contact information for the registrar

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) Minimum Elements of a Contract.

Any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the homeowner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information:

1: The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and 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.

9a: 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.

9b: 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.

9c: The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in at least ten point bold type...

9d: ...and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor's designated representative.

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a copy of a current contract form that complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158

Warning Letter: Performing permit required work without a permit being obtained.

Investigator’s Observations: This project included: modifying exterior load bearing walls, modifying plumbing below the concrete foundation, modifying plumbing inside the walls, modifying electrical inside the walls, modifying the foundation to accommodate a 16’ patio door, etc.

All of these require permits to be obtained prior to the work being performed.

All work on this project was performed without a permit being obtained.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3)(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards...

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The Respondent is to obtain any and all required building permits from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive.

(All errors contained in the original)

On March 28, 2022, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154,(A)(8); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about April 12, 2022, Respondent filed an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about May 3, 2022, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on June 13, 2022 at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. A further hearing was then held on July 18, 2022.

At hearing, Investigator Smith testified as to his involvement and the above timeline as well as his findings under the Directive.

Investigator Smith testified that Respondent admitted all work was done without a permit, because Complainant did not want the same.

In addition, Investigator Smith testified that he became aware that the original builder never obtained a permit but it was now Respondent’s responsibility to obtain the same.

Investigator Smith testified that at he received an e-mail from Respondent at 4:55 p.m. on March 24, 2022, (5 minutes before the Directive expired), that while the original permit had been obtained and accepted by the City of Chandler, Respondent had not begun the process to obtain the new permit. Further, Investigator Smith testified that in that e-mail, Respondent requested that Complainant pay for all of the additional costs associated with complying with the Directive. Further, Investigator Smith testified that at no time did Respondent specifically request an extension for time to complete the corrective work.

Further, Investigator Smith testified that Respondent admitted some of the complaint items, namely numbers 19 and 27, were in fact workmanship issues.

Investigator Smith also testified that Complainant informed him that there was no corrective work performed, thus he did not perform a compliance jobsite inspection.

Finally, Investigator Smith testified that Respondent failed to provide an updated contract to comply with the statute, and it was his belief that Respondent made no good faith effort to comply with the Directive.

Complainant testified on his own behalf. He testified generally that Respondent continually delayed the project and performed subpar work. He testified that the estimated time to complete the project was 120 days, yet the project still remains incomplete.

Complainant also testified as to several of the workmanship items such as the laundry room issues, the location of the pot filler, and the issue with the doors not being custom made by Respondent.

Finally, Complainant requested that Respondent’s license be revoked.

Respondent testified on his own behalf. He testified generally that he believed that the Directive was defective and there was no way for him to comply with the same. Specifically, Respondent testified that he sent an e-mail to Investigator Smith on February 21, 2022, the day before the Directive was issued, informing him of the issue with the original permit.

Respondent testified that he truly believed the issue of obtaining the permit was Complainant’s responsibility.

As to the pot filler, Respondent testified that there was no standard location for the same, and that Complainant met alone with the plumber and requested that the plumbing be changed.

Respondent testified that certain fixtures were not timely ordered as he was trying to save Complainant money, however, those items were not present on the jobsite once they were ready to be installed.

Finally, Respondent testified that he was still willing to complete the work, but that Complainant should pay for the permit. Also, Respondent testified that he did not ask for an extension because it was not his fault that Investigator Smith issued a defective Directive.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 10, 2022. Such prior May 1, 1990, and reflects that there was 1 open complaint, namely the present complaint.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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).

The preponderance of the evidence established that, per the contract, Respondent had agreed to build custom Melamine cabinets, however painted MDF cabinets were installed instead. Further, as of the date of the jobsite inspection, the project was overdue by 226 days. In addition, the pot filler was not installed in the location specified in the plans. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a);

The preponderance of the evidence established, and Respondent admitted, that he never obtained a permit prior to the commencement of work. Respondent testified numerous times that he had been in the construction business for over 30 years, thus, it was inexcusable for not obtaining a permit. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) and A.R.S. § 32-A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).

The preponderance of the evidence established that the project was not completed within the 120 day limit as agreed to in the contract. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8);

The preponderance of the evidence established that the contract between the parties did not meet statutory requirements as there was no description of the work to be performed under the contract, no 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, no 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, no Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar and finally, no contact information for the registrar. Therefore, Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158;

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Specifically, the front door sidelight had gaps; the deadbolt strike plate were poorly installed; there was damage done to other interior doors; the cabinets were not made per the terms of the contract and were not properly aligned, had visible nail holes, and had chips; edges of some of the side panels were not smooth and had ridges; the project was not completed within the 120 days; the pot filler was in the incorrect location; the laundry room shelves was not made from Melamine and was damaged; the issues with the double pocket doors; and there were location of runs in the clear finish applied to the main entry door. Respondent also did not dispute that there were issues with some of the work performed. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established and Respondent admitted that he failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. While Respondent testified that he faced delays because of the original incomplete permit, the fact remains that had he obtained the permit initially, this issue could have been resolved. Further, to have zero contact with Investigator Smith once the Directive was issued, about his progress until 5 minutes prior to the expiration date, was unacceptable. There was no evidence that Respondent requested an extension and/or that Complainant denied the same. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Overall given Respondent’s experience, the above violations are inexcusable. There was no excuse for not obtaining a permit at the commencement of a project this size. It was proven too that a lot of the work was sloppy and that there were inexcusable delays in completing the project. Further, there was no testimony or proof supplied by Respondent at hearing that he now uses a statutorily acceptable contract with his clients, demonstrating that Respondent has a difficult time with being regulated. While the Tribunal certainly understands Complainant’s request for revocation, it also must balance that with Respondent’s ability to earn a living going forward.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 086148 for a period of forty-five days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that Respondent provide an updated contract that complies with statutory requirements to the Registrar within 10 business days. Should Respondent fail to do so, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until there is compliance with the same.

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 30 days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, August 10, 2022.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000

By Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary