ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2022A-00047-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-10-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Samuel David Wingersky

COMPLAINANT,

Strongbuilt Enterprise, LLC

License No. ROC 229962,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2021A-03079-CHC-ROC

No. 2021A-03692-CHC-ROC

No. 2021A-05800-CHC-ROC

No. 2022A-00047-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 21, 2022, September 29, 2022, and September 30, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Samuel David Wingersky (Mr. Wingersky) appeared on behalf of himself. Craig Cline, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Strongbuilt Enterprise, LLC (Strongbuilt).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Procedural Background

On March 18, 2022, December 3, 2021, and December 21, 2021, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) issued Notices of Hearing setting the above-entitled matters for hearing.

On January 14, 2022, docket numbers 2021A-03079-CHC-ROC and 2021A-03692-CHC-ROC were consolidated based a joint motion filed by the parties.

On April 6, 2022, docket numbers 2021A-03079-CHC-ROC and 2021A-03692-CHC-ROC were consolidated with docket numbers 2021A-05800-CHC-ROC

and 2022A-00047-CHC-ROC.

The consolidated matters were set for hearing on July 21, 2022.

A hearing was held on July 21, 2022, September 29, 2022 and September 30, 2022.

At the hearings, Mr. Wingersky testified on behalf of himself. Strongbuilt presented the testimony of Chris Kramer, Pamela Core, Thomas Kirschner, and Slade Dagan Barlett.

Hearing Evidence

Complaint 2021A-03692-CHC-ROC

1. On or about March 25, 2021, Strongbuilt agreed to build a rear deck at

at Mr. Wingersky’s home for the amount of $175,384.87 (rear deck contract). See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 1435-1437. The contract did not include an estimated start date, an estimated date of completion, nor information about the homeowner’s right to file a complaint with the ROC. See id.

2. On April 1, 2021, Mr. Wingersky paid Strongbuilt $66,656,40 pursuant to an invoice issued by Strongbuilt under the rear deck contract. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 1454 to 1458. The invoice did not include Strongbuilt’s license number. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pg. 215.

3. Strongbuilt purchased materials for the rear deck complaint due to the rising cost of materials. See Mr. Kramer’s on the Hearing Audio Record (1053 2022-07-21).AAC at 4:40 - 5:15 minutes.

4. On or about August 2, 2021, Respondent terminated the rear deck contact

5. On or about August 3, 2021, Mr. Wingersky filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) alleging abandonment on the part of Strongbuilt with regard to the rear deck contract (rear deck complaint). See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 1431-1432.

6. On September 1, 2021, Investigator Smith conducted a job-site inspection regarding the rear deck complaint.

7. Investigator Smith observed that work had not begun on the rear deck. See Investigator Smith’s testimony on the Hearing Audio Record (1053 2022-07-21).AAC at 21:30-22:06 minutes.

8. On September 20, 2021, the Registrar issued a Directive to Strongbuilt regarding the rear deck project. The Directive provided, in relevant part, 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 October 11, 2021.

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: “On March 25, 2021, contractor and owner of Strongbuilt Enterprise, LLC Chris Cramer and homeowner Samuel Wingersky signed a contract to build a “Rear Walk Deck Addition,” with the verbal start date of August 2021. The contract was signed before the plans were approved by Pima County because Chris Cramer stated a signed contract would allow “proper access” to the back (see email date 12-8-20). Strongbuilt was and is still currently working under a building permit (number P20BP01203) which includes a constructing a retaining wall. When completed, this retaining wall would obliterate access to the back. On April 1, 2021, Sam Wingersky paid invoice number 2926 in the amount of $66,656.40 to Strongbuilt Enterprise LLC (check number 636). This large sum of money was used to purchase the materials needed for the project. Pima County approved the plans for the Rear Walk Deck Addition on 7/16/2021 (permit number P21BP06766) after being redlined and reviewed in person with the project engineer, Dr. Rene Martinez, and Chris Cramer prior to submittal. However, due to a previous ROC complaint (Complaint Number 2021-03079), Strongbuilt decided they no longer wanted to complete the project. On August 2, 2021, Chris Cramer emailed a letter to Samuel Wingersky, writing, “We must terminate the proposal for the Rear Walk Deck construction at you home. We will deliver the steel to your home or as otherwise directed.” On a side note, during the jobsite inspection on 8/3/21, (for complaint 2021-03079) John Smith (Investigator #194) explained this new ROC complaint as an available option to help rectify the situation.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The parties entered into the contract for the rear walk deck on March 25, 2021. The invoiced down payment of $66,656.40 was paid to the respondent on April 1, 2021. Along with the complaint form, the complainant submitted documentation from Pima County Development Services stating the permit status of July 16, 2021 was “Approved”. The termination letter from the respondent to the complainant is dated August 2, 2021. The respondent confirmed terminating the contract, stating their reason for termination: “...unreasonable delay in the homeowner’s finalizing plans such that the construction opportunities and timelines were unreasonably delayed...” The contract does not specify any start date. The contract does not specify and estimated completion date. The contract does not include any expiration dates. Currently there is no evidence of a legal reason or excuse for the refusal to perform as contracted. Reference Pictures: 1-2

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1): Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to complete work per contract.

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were discovered: Warning Letter: Elements of a Contract.

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

• An estimated date of completion

• The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.

• 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 the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158 Warning Letter: Display of License.

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s invoice does not include the respondent’s ROC number. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) Namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) Display of License

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION:

The respondent is to submit documented compliance with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1124.

8. Investigator Smith explained that the project is not flat and easily accessible around the property. Investigator Smith explained that if a retaining wall was built, it would impede access to the back side of the house for the construction of the rear deck, but it would not be impossible to build the rear deck. See Investigator Smith’s testimony on the Hearing Audio Record (1053 2022-07-21).AAC at 27:00 to 29:00 minutes.

9. Strongbuilt did not comply with the Directive by October 11, 2021.

10. On October 27, 2021, the Registrar issued a Citation alleging that Strongbuilt had violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), (A)(2)(a), (A)(3), (A)(12), and (A)(22); A.R.S. § 1124(B), A.R.S. § 1158.02, and Arizona Administrative Code R4-9-108(a). 10. Strongbuilt filed a timely answer to the Citation.

11. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

12. At hearing, Mr. Cramer explained that he terminated the rear deck contract because he had not received approved plans and was unable to start work.

Mr. Cramer stated that he told Mr. Wingersky that work would begin in August of 2021 at the time that he entered into the contract. Mr. Cramer explained that he had other projects scheduled and it would negatively affect their business to keep a project on the calendar without approved plans.

13. Investigator Smith testified that as of July 16, 2021, the permit for the rear deck was approved. See Investigator Smith’s testimony on the Hearing Audio Record (0907 2022-07-21.AAC) at 22:06 - 22:37 minutes. However, Mr. Cramer explained that just before terminating the contract, Strongbuilt confirmed that the plans had not been approved.

Complaint 2021A-03079-CHC-ROC

14. On or about September 17, 2020, Strongbuilt entered into a residential remodeling contract with Mr. Wingersky for the amount of $346,534 (residential remodeling contract). See Respondent’s Exhibit 1. The contract did not include Strongbuilt’s business address, its ROC license number, an estimated date of completion, the dollar amount of advanced deposit, the dollar amount of progress payments, the stage at which those payments would be due, and information regarding the homeowner’s right to file a complaint with the Registrar. See id.

15. Mr. Wingersky paid Strongbuilt $338,111.15 under the contract.

16. On or about December 7, 2020, Strongbuilt started work under the residential remodeling contract.

17. On or about July 2, 2021, Strongbuilt stopped work under the contract.

18. On or about July 3, 2021, Mr. Wingersky filed a complaint with the Registrar against Strongbuilt.

19. On August 3, 2021, Registrar Investigator John Smith conducted a job-spite inspection regarding the residential remodeling contract.

20. On August 19, 2021, the Registrar issued a Directive to Strongbuilt regarding the complaint.

21. After the issuance of the August 19, 2021 Directive, Mr. Wingersky added items to the complaint.

22. On September 1, 2021, Investigator Smith conduced a second job-site inspection regarding the additional complaint items.

23. On September 20, 2021, the Registrar issued an Amended Directive based on the additional complaint items.

24. After the issuance of the September 20, 2021 Amended Directive,

Mr. Wingersky added additional items to the complaint.

25. Therefore, on September 27, 2021, Investigator Smith conducted a third job-site inspection.

26. On September 28, 2021, a Final Amended Directive was issued to Strong built based on the additional complaint items. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record pgs. 579-601. Through the Directive, the Registrar directed Strongbuilt to correct 39 verified complaint allegations, no later than October 15, 2021. Additionally, the Registrar directed Strongbuilt to submit an updated version of their contract that included all minimum elements of a contract required under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 32-1158.

27. On October 22, 2021, Investigator Smith conducted a compliance job-site inspection. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 639-653. Investigator Smith concluded that Strongbuilt had corrected only 7 of the 29 substantiated items from the September 28, 2021 Final Amended Directive. See id.

28. Strongbuilt submitted an updated contract. However, the contract did not include all minimum elements of a contract. The contract did not include the estimated date of completion, the dollar amount of an advanced deposit, and an intended draw of payment schedule.

31. On October 27, 2021, the Registrar issued a Citation alleging that Strongbuilt had violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), (A)(2)(a), (A)(3), (A)(12), and (A)(22); A.R.S. § 1124(B), A.R.S. § 1158.02, and Arizona Administrative Code R4-9-108(a). See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 736-741.

32. Strongbuilt field a timely answer to the Citation

33. At hearing, Mr. Wingerksy explained that Strongbuilt performed poor work in connection with the residential remodeling contract. Investigator Smith testified regarding his investigation of the complaint the issuances of the Directives.

34. Strongbuilt did not dispute that Complaint items 37 and 42A

constituted poor work on the part of Strongbuilt, and that the complaint items had not been corrected.

Complaint Item #10

35. Strongbuilt disputed that it violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #10.

36. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #10 as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 10: “In the approved plans of the home, 6.2 shows, the”New Roof Framing at Exg Bedrooms.” The Homeowner paid for both the plans and the new construction to have all the walls be constructed of masonry block. However, Strongbuilt charged the homeowner more money, did not have the structure inspected (The inspection completed on Zoom where the Homeowner was told that Strongbuilt liked to control the “view.”), and did not include masonry in all the walls. Portions of these walls were constructed with lumber, not block, as directed on the plans. The Homeowner was not consulted about this change, but he was charged without an explanation of materials. The Homeowner was invoiced for extra masonry work, but portions were completed with previously purchased lumber.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The respondent confirmed, verbally and in writing, that the walls along the east side of the house were extended with wood framing up to the new roof structure. The plans specify on Sheet 6.2 and on sheet 6.3 that these walls are to be block construction up to the new roof structure. There is no approved change order for this deviation from the plans. The allegation of charging additional fees without an approved change order is potentially a violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(8): Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract. The allegation of the work not inspected is not verified. The complainant acknowledged the work was inspected via a Zoom inspection. This type of inspection is allowed the Pima County Building Department.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done. The respondent acknowledged no corrective action has been taken on this item.

37. Mr. Kirschner designed the plans for Mr. Wingersky’s residential remodeling contract. See Mr. Kirschner’s testimony on the Hearing Audio Record (1311 2022-09-29).AAC at 2:12 - 34:32 minutes). Mr. Kirschner opined that the project was highly challenging due to existing conditions of Mr. Wingersky’s home. Mr. Kirschner discussed with Mr. Wingersky that the geometry of the existing walls were not conducive to a metal roof solution. However, Mr. Wingersky wanted to proceed with a new metal roof. See id.

38. Mr. Kirschner opined that it appropriate to place a frame wall on top of a masonry wall. See Mr. Kirschner’s testimony on the Hearing Audio Record (1311 2022-09-29).AAC at 25:00 - 29:00 minutes). Mr. Kirschner stated that construction of a frame wall on top of masonry wall is consistent with the plans. See id. However, Mr. Kirschner stated that masonry cannot be built on stick frame. See id at 34:00 to 35:00 minutes.

39. Investigator Smith has experience as a licensed general contractor. The

plans for the walls of the home reference block or masonry walls. See Respondent’s Exhibit 43, Bates 0780. Investigator Smith opined that because the plans refer to masonry walls, the walls should have been extended with block walls instead of wood framed walls. Investigator Smith also stated that on Exhibit 43, Bates 0781, the term “masonry” is crossed out and replaced with “frame.” See id at Bates 0781.

40. Mr. Kramer disputed that the plans called for block walls.

Complaint Item 15

41. Strongbuilt disputed that it violated A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #15.

42. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #15 as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

Complaint Item 15: “The property has 4 piles of Catalina rock and 1 pile of river rock that are onsite and owned by the Homeowner previous to the Strongbuilt contract. The Homeowner asked Strongbuilt not to pile dirt on top of the rock piles that would be used for landscaping and rip rapping the back of the house. Dirt was piled on the rock collection piles which will now require sifting by the Homeowner as Strongbuilt informed the Homeowner sifting was not on the contract. (see photos from 4/19/21)”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The homeowner does have four piles of decorative rock in the front of the house, for future use. There is dirt piled on portions of the decorative rock. The respondent acknowledged placing this new dirt on portions of the homeowner’s decorative rock.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

Complaint item #31

43. Strongbuilt disputed that it violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #31.

44. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #31 as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 31: “Additionally, the plans state that: “All contractors regardless of tier shall fully comply with the following codes and regulations: A. 2018 International Residential Code as amended by the governing governmental Body. E. All federal, state, local guidelines for accommodating the physically impaired and Handicapped The steps the Homeowner paid for do not meet both of these standards. Furthermore, the Homeowner asked that the steps have exposed aggregate on the surface to comply with requirements for ground and floor surfaces outlined by the ADA (especially for wet floors). This was a huge concern when the roof leaked into the master closet and into the garage below. This was brought to Strongbuilt’s attention. They declined to make the adjustment because they said they had met the IRC code; however, to comply with E listed on the plans, ADA would need to be considered. IRC 311.7.5.2 states: “The tread depth shall be not less than 10 inches (254 mm) “ The ADA standards stipulate that the tread must be 11” minimum. We believe that contractors are to follow the more stringent code. Clause 5 of the contract states: “All work to be performed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and installation standard of industry.” The homeowner paid additional money for these steps because he was told they were not in the contract or plans. These steps have a smooth finish (no exposed aggregate) and 9 3/4” treads. Therefore, the industry standard and ADA code have not been met. This measurement is documented on a photo and can be measured at any time. When discussed with Strongbuilt on 7/1, Chris Cramer informed the Homeowner that the inspector would not measure the steps, and it would pass inspection. (see photo taken on 6/28/21. Recorded audio of meeting from 7/1).”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified

Contract states “Work shall comply with the 2018 International Residential Code (2018 IRC) as adopted and other local codes pertaining to this project.” The plans state work is to be completed in accordance with IRC and all federal, state, and local guidelines for accommodating the physically impaired and handicapped. The treads of the garage steps are 9-3/4 inches deep with a smoothed/troweled concrete finish. International Residential Code (IRC) R311.7.5.2 Treads The tread depth shall be not less than 10 inches (254mm)” American Disabilities Act (ADA) 504 Stairways 504.2 Treads and Risers “...Treads shall be 11 inches (280mm) deep minimum.” 504.4 Tread Surface “Treads shall comply with 302.” 302 Floor or Ground Surfaces 302.1 General “Floor and ground surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant...”

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done. The respondent acknowledged no corrective action has been taken on this item

45. Mr. Kirschner opined that section 2.1 of the plans allows for 3 steps or 2 steps. Mr. Kirschner opined that the steps do not require an aggregate finish.

Complaint item #42B

46. Strongbuilt disputed that it A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #42B

47. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #42B as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 42B: (Addendum Item 7B) “mini split damaged upon install”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The protective wire grill is missing from the back side of the condensing unit. There are bent/damaged fins on the back side of the condensing coil.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

48. Mr. Kramer stated that fins damage easily and that someone came out and combed the fins. Mr. Kramer stated that the bent fins does not compromise the integrity of the unit.

Complaint item #45

49. Strongbuilt disputed that it violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #45.

50. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #10 as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

Complaint Item 45: (Addendum Item 10) “Dirt was piled in an area against Hillside Development (see ordinance 18.61.054)”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. There is a significant amount of dirt piled on the east side of the house/property. The area is identified on the plans as “Natural Undisturbed Open Space”.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

Mr. Kramer alleged that Mr. Wingersky allowed him to place the dirt on the east side of the house/property.

Complaint item #53

51. Strongbuilt disputed that it A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint item #53.

52. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #53 as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 53: (Addendum Item 18) “Three neighbors river rock drainage system was ruined when Strongbuilt disturbed the landscape.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. As part of the construction project, there are large piles of dirt on the property. Dirt is being washed away, and into the washes that are lined with river rock.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done. The respondent acknowledged that at this time, no corrective action has been taken on this item.

53. Investigator Smith did not conduct a survey with regard to Complaint item 53.

Complaint item #56B

54. Strongbuilt disputed that it A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #56B

55. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #56B as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 56B: (Addendum Item 21) “Multiple chips... in the garage concrete” Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. There are multiple chips/gouges in the concrete garage floor, some as large as 2-1/2 inches in diameter. Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. Some work has been done, however; the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards. Some areas of the chips have been filled with a material that does not match of blend well with the concrete. Several other area have not been repaired.

56. Mr. Kramer testified to the effect that it is impossible to match the material with the concrete.

Complaint item #70

57. Strongbuilt disputed that it violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #70.

58. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #70 as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

Complaint Item 70: (Addendum Item 35) “Built up roof structure over flat section of home does not follow approved plans.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The plans specify the new roof structure to be a 2 per 12 slope. The actual slope of the new roof structure is 2-1/2 per 12. The plans call for the dimension between the pre-existing roof deck and the new roof structure be approximately 3 feet, specifying a maximum of 42 inches. The actual dimension from the pre-existing roof deck to the now roof structure is approximately 8 feet. The respondent acknowledges the new roof structure is not built to plans. The respondent states this was discussed with the architect. There is no evidence these changes were discussed with or approved by the complainant. Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done. The respondent acknowledged that at this time, no corrective action has been taken on this item.

59. Mr. Kirschner stated at hearing that there was “no slope percentage called out in the plans.”

Complaint item #71

60. Strongbuilt disputed that it violated A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #71.

61. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #71 as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 71: (Addendum Item 36) “Garage cement slab is sloped in the wrong direction. Water flows into the garage, not out.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. Garage floor slopes in to the garage. The garage floor slopes away from the overhead garage door openings. Four areas were checked with a four foot level in four separate locations:

• Two areas level – no slope.

• One are sloped into the garage 1/32 inch per four feet.

• One are sloped into the garage 1/4 inch per four feet.

The International Residential Code (IRC) states: Section R309 Garage and Carports R309.1 “...The area of floor used for parking automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to facilitate the movement of liquids to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway.”

Mr. Kramer alleged that Mr. Wingersky requested that a slope not be placed in the garage. Mr. Wingersky denied at hearing that he requested that a slope not be placed in the garage.

Mr. Kirschner explained that the plans direct the builder to “field verify” items in the plans. Mr. Kirschner explained that “field verify” means that the builder is to verify that the measurements and specifications listed in the plans match the site and make necessary changes as new conditions are discovered. Mr. Kirschner stated that Pima County would require written plan changes, however, most items do not stop construction to have the changed plans approved.

Complaint item #74

62. Strongbuilt disputed that it violated A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and R4-9-108(a) as alleged in the September 28, 2021 Directive, as it relates to Complaint Item #74.

63. Investigator Smith found that Strongbuilt had not corrected Complaint Item #74 as alleged in the Directive. Investigator Smith’s Compliance notes, provided, in relevant part, as follows:

As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 74: (Addendum Item 39) “The TEP employee told me the dirt Strongbuilt placed around the transformer needs to be moved. There needs to be a “level 3-foot clearance around the transformer.” This needs to be corrected.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. Soil is built up around the TEP transformer / distribution box. TEP has marked with red paint the area that needs to be cleared out around the transformer.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. Some work has been done, however; the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards. Some dirt has been moved, however, there is still dirt pushed up onto the sides of the transformer. There is not the required clearance around the transformer.

64. Investigator Smith acknowledged on cross-examination that he does not know whether the dirt referenced in Complaint item 74 was pre-existing.

65. Mr. Kirschner testified that Mr. Kramer told him that extra dirt should have been removed. Mr. Kirschner stated that Mr. Wingersky never told him that he wanted his floor epoxied.

66. Mr. Kirschner also opined that masonry cannot be built on top of stick frame. Mr. Kirschner stated that all of Mr. Wingersky’s walls were masonry.

67. Mr. Kramer explained that he did not incorporate the plans into his contracts with Mr. Wingersky. Mr. Kramer stated that the plans do not require block construction and that the project passed “immediate frame” inspection.

Complaint 2021A-05800-CHC-ROC

68. On or about November 12, 2021, Mr. Wingersky filed a second complaint with the Registrar alleging poor work and abandonment on the part of Strongbuilt in connection with the residential remodeling contract. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 7-18.

69. On December 6, 2021, Investigator Smith conducted a job-site inspection.

70. On December 7, 2021, the Registrar issued a Directive to Strongbuilt. The deadline for compliance under the Directive was December 28, 2021. The Directive provided in relevant part, as follows:

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1 , or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed complete work per contract and to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 2: “The retaining wall Strongbuilt erected is not in the correct location as clearly drawn on the approved plan documents. The approved plans show the wall starting to turn away from the driveway at approximately 12 feet and 5 inches. Instead, Strongbuilt constructed a wall in a straight line extending 25 feet and 7 inches. In addition, the plans show a distance between where the wall lines up with the garage door at approximately 30 feet. Strongbuilt constructed the wall to line up with the garage door at 21 feet and 11 inches. As a result, the driveway needs to be rebuilt to be safe and functional. Another contractor pointed out that if this is not corrected vehicles would most likely hit the wall. An attachment, taken from the first page of the plans, shows this mistake/complaint.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The portion of the retaining wall currently built/installed does not match the plans. The plans do not include dimensions for the retaining wall.

The General Notes section, item 4, of the plans state “Do not scale dimensions. If clarification is required, consult the owner.” The plans do specify that the retaining wall is to have curves, not square corners. The retaining wall built/installed has square corners. The retaining wall is not complete.

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 3: “When the double garage door is closed, it reveals large gaps in the garage door opening and exposes a large amount of light.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. When closed, there is a significant amount of daylight visible along the top of the double wide overhead garage door. From the exterior, a gap is visible between the door panel and the sweep. The width of the gap is approximately 1/2 inch.

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 8: “Many areas under the eaves have not been fully painted.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The roof sheathing is OSB. The soffits are open. When walking around the exterior of the house, the bottom side of the roof sheathing is visible. The soffits have been painted. The complainant pointed out several locations of bare wood on the bottom side of the roof sheathing. Common to OSB exposed to the exterior, there are flakes of wood coming off the sheathing exposing bare wood. This condition is consistent around the full perimeter of the house and garage.

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 9: “Numerous paint drips are visible on the balcony trim.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The balcony area has a walkable flat roof material for the deck. The metal roof edge install has numerous paint runs. The complainant also pointed out brownish colored spots along the bottom of the balcony railing. These brownish color areas are not paint. The brownish colored areas appear to be rust stains/spots. This complaint does not include any allegations related to rust or the balcony railing.

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 10B: “...Strongbuilt stated, “We will not be doing any more work.””

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Work/progress on this project has stopped. The project remains incomplete. The respondent has not responded to this complaint. The respondent was not present for the jobsite inspection. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1): Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 1: “The installation of rain gutters was recommended by two geotechnical engineers (Jim Evanoff, PE and Kevin Walker, PE) before the start of the project and were included in the planning (due to the MSR setbacks). Strongbuilt knew both verbally in in writing about the necessity of the rain gutters to control water runoff. In April 2021, Strongbuilt scheduled Eric Perry, from Gutter Systems of Southern Arizona, to provide a written bid. The homeowner requested a bid from Southern Arizona Rain Gutters, which was accepted, but could not be finalized until after the metal roof was finished (see previous complaint). Unfortunately, due to the way Strongbuilt installed the metal roof roof drip edge, Southern Arizona Rain Gutters stated it was, “impossible to install rain gutters.” The company sent an email explaining why the rain gutters could not be installed (attached

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The metal roof edge is installed with minimal exposed fasteners. This appears to have been accomplished by installing a hook strip, fastened to the fascia boards, then installing the metal roof edge over the hook strip. The metal roof edge clips to the bottom of the hook strip. The top edge of the metal roof edge is most likely fastened to the roof deck – not currently visible with the roof panels installed. This is an acceptable method of installing a hidden fasteners metal roof system. Currently there are no gutters installed on the house. • Neither the plans nor the contract include rain gutters, or preparation for rain gutters. • Neither the plans nor the contract specify any specific detail for how the metal roof edge material is to be installed. • The email referenced by the homeowner, from Southern Arizona Rain Gutters o does not state “...impossible to install rain gutters...” o does state “...It is in our professional opinion that gutters are not installed on this house.” • The documentation from Southern Arizona Rain Gutters is in the name of Samuel Wingersky, not in the name of Strongbuilt Enterprise LLC. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 4: “Another issue discussed with another construction company (who provided a bid to fix/correct Strongbuilt’s work) was a large number of web-like cracking in the garage concrete. This company stated, “The cracks were caused by compaction issues.” Strongbuilt failed the first compaction test but passed the second compaction test (on January 6, 2020) after renting a compaction machine. Pima County’s website shows the results of the January 6, 2020, compaction test on January 8, 2021: “Under slab fill exceeding 24 inches in depth requires special inspection of compaction sent to [email redacted] prior to final inspections. Condition Met | | 01/08/2021” On January 7, 2021, the day after passing the compaction test, Strongbuilt dug up three different areas to insert rebar and electrical lines that they had forgotten to put into the ground. This should have been done before the compaction test. The rented compaction machine was no longer with Strongbuilt on January 7, 2021. A few photos, which have the date, time, and location are recorded on an iPhone.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The width of the cracks observed do not exceed the 3/32 inch acceptable tolerance allowed by Arizona Workmanship Standards. There is no visible indication, or other evidence, that the ground below the concrete has not been properly compacted. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 5: “The metal roof is creating a popping noise due to the thermal expansion and contraction when the lumber expands and moves and rubs against other pieces of wood that are not expanding at the same rate, creating the popping noise caused by Strongbuilt having a metal roof installed by a contractor who does not specialize in metal roofs.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. While standing in the garage, with all doors closed and no other noise, the noise described by the complainant could be heard. The “popping” sound heard is common to metal roofs, most commonly caused by thermal expansion/contraction of the metal roof components. There is no current evidence the metal roof, or the underlying framing structure, is installed improperly.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 6: “The telephone wires along the garage wall are not enclosed in a conduit.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. There is an exposed phone wire in the garage on the exterior wall. The wire is hanging parallel with the electric conduit installed. The contract does include “CAT-5 Telephone...Includes phone line in garage...” The contract does not specify the phone line in the garage is to be in conduit. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 7: “New cracks in the retaining wall and stairs were created when Strongbuilt installed weep holes as instructed by the last Written Directives. Photos show the time frame of when the damage occurred.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The complainant pointed out a crack in the stucco/masonry retaining wall near the main entry. The width of the crack observed did not exceed the 1/16 inch acceptable tolerance allowed by Arizona Workmanship Standards.

The complainant pointed out a crack in the concrete near the main entry. The width of the crack observed did not exceed the 3/32 inch acceptable tolerance allowed by Arizona Workmanship Standards. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 10A: “Strongbuilt has not released all the liens taken against my property even though Strongbuilt removed their sign from the property on November 5, 2021, at 10:11 am. Prior to removing the sign...” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 11: “The contract signed on September 17, 2020, stated that rock piles are to be relocated. The rock pile at the bottom of the hill has not been moved.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. There is a pile of rocks near the bottom of the driveway. The contract has no typed verbiage specifying the relocation of rock piles. The contract does include a hand written note that states “relocate rocks for owner to sort” There is no evidence of when particular this note was added to the contract. This note does not indicate what piles were to be relocated, or to where. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 12: “On 310 East Hilltop Place, the dirt placed on the side of the driveway has not been moved. This is causing additional issues with the inclusion of a swale between the two properties.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The dirt along the side of the area that is partially graded for the driveway, is higher than the area graded for the future driveway. There is insufficient evidence to be able to determine if the dirt along the side of the driveway was placed there, or if the dirt along the side of the driveway was part of the original natural grade. Neither the contract nor the plans specify the dirt along the side of the driveway is supposed to be flat or at the same elevation as the driveway. Governing Rule: N/A

71. Strongbuilt failed to comply with the Directive by the due date.

72. On or about January 7, 2022, the Registrar issued a Citation alleging that Strongbuilt had violated A.R.S § 32-1154(A)(1), (A)(2)(a), (A)(3), and (A)(22).

73. Strongbuilt filed a timely response to the Citation.

74. At hearing, Investigator Smith testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.

75. Strongbuilt did not dispute that that it performed poor work in violation of A.R.S. A.R.S .§ 32-1154(A)(3) and Arizona Administrative Code R4-9-108(a) in connection with Complaint Item 3.

76. Strongbuilt contended that there were no dimensions for the retaining wall specified in the plans.

77. Strongbuilt presented into evidence an e-mail from Mr. Wingersky’s previous attorney stating that Mr. Wingersky did not want Strongbuilt to perform any work under the Directive until an ROC inspection that was scheduled for the upcoming Friday. See Respondent’s Exhibit 27. However, the e-mail was sent on October 18, 2021 and is not dispositive of the allegation that Strongbuilt abandoned the project or failed to comply with the Directive. Strongbuilt stopped work on July 2, 2021 and the Directive was not issued until December 7, 2021.

Complaint 2022A-00047-CHC-ROC

78. On or about November 12, 2021, Mr. Wingersky filed a third complaint with the Registrar alleging poor work and abandonment on the part of Strongbuilt in connection with the residential remodeling contract. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 203-251.

79. On January 25, 2022, Investigator Smith conducted a job-site inspection.

80. On January 26, 2022, the Registrar issued a Directive to Strongbuilt. The deadline for compliance under the Directive was February 11, 2022. The Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 2: “The walk-in closet was not built according to plans, and there is no record of any change with the Pima County Development Services... The walls in the closet are not flush.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Currently there is a jog in the back wall of the closet, approximately two inches. The plans specify the back wall of this closet is to be flat and in the same plane the full length of this closet. 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 4: “Stucco on new addition does not match existing”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The stucco texture on the front of the garage is not a reasonably close texture match to the rest of the stucco texture on the house and addition. 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...

Complaint Item 5: “Strongbuilt installed a planter which is not on plans due to their error”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There is a masonry planter installed between the garage addition and the main entry area. The plans show no planter in this area.

Complaint Item 6: “Strongbuilt installed the gas line in the incorrect location (see attached) The gas meter is in the incorrect location.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The plans specify the gas meter to be located at the front corner of the garage addition. The gas meter is currently installed on the back side of the house/garage.

Complaint Item 7: “The gas lines to the fireplace and back patio area are missing”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The plans specify gas lines to be installed to the fireplace, and to an exterior location for a future grill location. No gas lines are installed at either location.

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent: Complaint Item 1: “The walk-in closet was not built according to plans, and there is no record of any change with the Pima County Development Services... There is a 3-inch drop in the flooring due to not following plans. The plans clearly show the closet floor flush with the existing bedroom floor.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The plans show the closet floor being at the same plane as the adjoining floor. Currently, the closet floor is approximately three inches lower than the adjoining floor. After the respondent stopped working on the project, tile flooring has been installed by others. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1155(D): The registrar may not issue a citation for failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards if...The contractor’s work has been subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. Complaint Item 3: “The walk-in closet was not built according to plans, and there is no record of any change with the Pima County Development Services... The ceiling heigh does not follow the plans.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The ceiling height of the closet is not specified on the plans. The plans also specify “Do not scale dimensions...” Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 8: “Due to Strongbuilt removing the property markers, the gas line may be located on the neighbor's property.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The gas line in question is the portion of gas line owned by Southwest Gas, specifically, the portion of gas line feeding the meter. The respondent’s emailed response to this complaint item stated they did relocate the gas line to be within the complainant’s property lines. A representative of Southwest Gas was present during this inspection, and confirmed the gas is approximately 6 feet beyond the complainant’s property, on the adjoining property. The Southwest Gas representative further stated there is no requirement for their portions of the gas line to maintain any distance from property lines or to stay within property lines. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 9: “In addition, the depth of the gas line may need to be changed in order to install the new driveway.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The complainant stated the portion of gas line that is currently buried below the driveway may need to be lowered when the driveway is lowered in the future. The gas line below the driveway is currently buried and not visible. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 10: “Due to Strongbuilt not moving the gas line as clearly shown in the plans, the entire garage may not be in the correct location...” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The complainant stated the size of the garage is not in question, but that the concern is based on the distance from the garage addition to the property line. Currently the back wall/corner of the garage is approximately 8 feet away from the back property line. The plans specify a distance of 6.1 feet from the property line to a point that is approximately 2 feet away from the back wall of the garage. The plans do not specify the exact distance of this approximate 2 foot distance / spacing. The plans specify “Do not scale dimensions...” The plans do not specify the actual complete dimension from the back wall/corner of the garage to the back property line. Based on the information available on the plans, the garage is in the correct location as specified on the plans. Governing Rule: N/A

81. Strongbuilt failed to comply with the Directive by the due date.

82. On or about January 7, 2022, the Registrar issued a Citation alleging that Strongbuilt had violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a),(A)(3), and (A)(22); A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

83. Strongbuilt filed a timely response to the Citation.

84. At hearing, Investigator Smith testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.

85. Strongbuilt did not dispute that that it performed poor work in violation of A.R.S. A.R.S § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), (A)(3) and Arizona Administrative Code R4-9-108(a) in connection with Complaint Item 7.

86. Regarding Complaint Item #6, Mr. Kramer stated that Strongbuilt did not perform poor work as alleged in Complaint Item 6 because the gas line was not located where indicated on the plans. Ms. Core testified that she verified with Southwest Gas that the gas meter needed to be moved to comply with applicable codes.

87. Regarding Complaint Item #2, Mr. Kramer explained that he could not see behind the walls until they were opened. Mr. Kramer stated that after opening the walls, he noticed that there was a discrepancy between the alignment of the walls and the framing. Mr. Kramer stated that Mr. Wingersky wanted more space for his closet.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C). R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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 Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s administrative

record. See A.A.C. R4-9-118.

Complaint 2021A-03692-CHC-ROC

4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the project, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

6. The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) and A.R.S. § 32-1158.

7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Complaint 2021A-03079-CHC-ROC

8. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated A.R.S.

§ 32-1154(A)(2)(a) regarding Complaint items 10, 31, 45, and 70.

9. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), regarding the substantiated Complaint Items that Investigator Smith found were not corrected by the Respondent.

10. The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) and A.R.S. § 32-1158.

11. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Complaint 2021A-05800-CHC-ROC

12. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned

the project, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

13. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated A.R.S.

§ 32-1154(A)(2)(a) regarding the Complaint Items that were substantiated by Investigator Smith.

14. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108, and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), regarding the Complaint Items that were substantiated by Investigator Smith.

15. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Complaint 2022A-00047-CHC-ROC

16. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated A.R.S.

§ 32-1154(A)(2)(a).

17. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108, and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), regarding the Complaint Items that were substantiated by Investigator Smith.

18. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Strongbuilt Enterprise, LLC License No. ROC 229962, for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Done this day, October 20, 2022.

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 is forty days after the date of that certification.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors