2024A-10258-CNC-ROC Complainant Response.pdf

2024A-10258-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-29

Case 2024A-10258-CNC-ROC

Dear Registrar of Contractors, Hon. Samuel Fox, Mr. Weech, Office of Administrative Hearings,

This serves as our responses to “Respondent’s Motion to Reconsider and Dismiss the 12/31/24 Citation” dated April 29, 2025.

Referenced are the following exhibits.

Exhibit 1 - 20250429 Respondent's Motion to Reconsider and Dismiss the Citation Exhibit 2 - Case 2024A-10258-CNC-ROC Contractor counter rebuttal to 20250114 Respondent’s Written Answer to Citation and Complainant Exhibit 3 - Original dated Contract with Alex Lucero signature implicating paid in full

Our Complaint against Lucero Construction Group, LLC (LCG), is lodged in the belief and trust that we have consumer protection under the jurisdiction and authority of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC). Their mission statement says they are to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public through a regulatory system designed to promote quality construction by Arizona contractors. We understand that the reason the ROC exists is to provide public protection in the form of assuring that construction contracts and construction work conform to Building Code and Workmanship Standards.

We ask that the Arizona ROC provide consumer protection to us, and we thank you that the motion to dismiss was denied. We appreciate ROC’s attention to this matter.

The 9,831.92 measured square footage of concrete driveway constructed by LCG was found to have not furnished “Structural Concrete” as was promised in the contract. LCG breached standards of ordinary care. The concrete driveway fails to abide by Code and Workmanship Standards that define the duties of LCG beyond the terms of the contract we signed. LCG failed to follow the particular Arizona Workmanship Standards that the ROC directed them to do.

LCG, to date, has refused to abide by the ROC’s issued Directives regulating their construction. Code mandated omissions that LCG has refused to correct have resulted in our concrete driveway cracking apart in multiple locations and continuing to crack in new locations as vehicles drive upon the surface. The cracking is exacerbated by rain. The causation of concrete crack failures, caused by LCG’s negligence, is based upon our Construction Consultant’s (Mr. Bruce McNeil) experience, scientific and technical knowledge. The defects are not theoretical as LCG ‘s Counsel appears to suggest. The failures objectively and tangibly exist and continue to increase in size as time progresses.

We are not represented by counsel and have not filed litigation.

LCG’s Counsel stated that subpoenas and depositions were commanded because they had not yet received responses from the us, Mr. McNeil, and the ROC Inspector. These commands were

1|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C upsetting to receive. LCG’s Counsel appears to have engaged in informal lawfare that was not legal, apparently, attempting to bully and intimidate us.

LCG has not obeyed the Workmanship Standards of Care, applicable Building Codes nor ROC’s Directives to correct their work. LCG has not communicated any offer to settle the Citation by remedying, repairing, or replacing the failed and damaged elements of the driveway.

The ROC issued Directives and, subsequently, a Citation to LCG. In response it appears that LCG’s Counsel tried to treat the matter as though it were in litigation, come after us and try to make us incur unnecessary legal fees to continue to engage in this non judicial administrative process.

LCG Counsel’s rebuttal to our Complaint is not substantially or objectively based. It is merely deflective and distracting. Counsel’s rebuttal does not address the consequences of failing to meet critical Standards of Care and omitting Building Code required features. In the rebuttal Counsel provides no scientific nor technically relevant arguments against our complaint.

A critical standard of care omission, for example, is the extended time interval between the clearance approval from the Town of Carefree Building Inspector to pour, and the actual concrete pour date, 77 days, caused the moisture level of the underlying grade to revert to native soil levels. The Town Carefree’s building inspector John Gunn, when he heard of this delay exclaimed, “You cannot do that.” Present at that time: Rand Losey, Judy Rounds, Joey Chester, and Bruce McNeil.

LCG’s Counsel distracts the reader’s attention away from our Complaint on the driveway with repetitive and standard irrelevant rebuttals where we answer, “previously stated, previously responded.” The focus of the Complaint is concrete failures due to breach of ordinary care, inadequate application of Building Code and Workmanship Standards and best practices. LCG failed to exercise due care during the course of construction.

LCG has neither obeyed the Workmanship Standards of Care, applicable Building Codes nor ROC’s Directives. They have not communicated any offer to us for settlement of the Citation by remedying, repairing, or replacing the failed and damaged elements of the driveway.

2|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C LCG failed to provide Structural Concrete as the contract explicitly promised. The driveway provided by LCG is not Structural Concrete. In part, what was not provided is described in the governing IBC Building Code:

The 2018 International Building Code (IBC) Chapter 19, defers to ACI 318 that defines requirements for structural concrete. Structural concrete includes 1901.5 Construction documents for structural concrete: 1. The specified compressive strength of concrete at the stated ages or stages of construction for which each concrete element is designed. 2. The specified strength or grade of reinforcement. 3. The size and location of structural elements, reinforcement, and anchors. 4. Provision for dimensional changes resulting from creep, shrinkage, and temperature. 5. The magnitude and location of prestressing forces. 6. Anchorage length of reinforcement and location and length of lap splices. 7. Type and location of mechanical and welded splices of reinforcement. 8. Details and location of contraction or isolation joints specified for plain concrete. 9. Minimum concrete compressive strength at time of posttensioning. 10. Stressing sequence for posttensioning tendons. 11. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, a statement if slab on grade is designed as a structural diaphragm.

We signed a contract for Structural Concrete. We paid in full, in good faith, albeit under threat of a lien being placed against our property. What was poured was an un-reinforced slab on grade concrete driveway which has subsequently failed. No records were provided by LCG supporting that any of the Code Prescribed Requirements were installed for Structural Concrete. LCG, had they attempted to install Structural Concrete, needed to have soils engineering done and an engineered substrate installed. It was disingenuous for the LCG contract to promise Structural Concrete and require us to supply soils engineering without explanation. The ordinary consumer would not know that structural engineering was required to provide a Structural Concrete driveway. LCG made no request of us to provide structural engineering. LCG performed their own grading and compaction and proceeded to pour concrete without any inquiries pertaining to their contract language that states, “…LCG shall proceed with the installation of structural concrete on the premise that a soil test/compaction test has either been previously conducted or, alternatively, is not required.” Then, “Notwithstanding, LCG shall not be held accountable for any issues that may arise due to soil instability, provided that LCG has adhered to acceptable industry norms.”

We ask that the ROC provide consumer protection in this matter. We ask that the ROC focus on the concrete driveway’s failures due to the actions and omissions of LCG, a State licensed contractor.

3|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C 20250429 Respondent’s Motion to Reconsider and Dismiss the Citation.

LCG Counsel’s 10 point discussion items comprise what Counsel believes give cause for dismissal of the Complaint and the Citation. Notwithstanding the State’s denial, our Complaint topics exist, many of them as direct harm suffered to date and several as future incurred financial harm to us. The Counsel’s discussion points include the reciting of contract language that Counsel states precludes our claim for Building Code omissions, Arizona Workmanship Standards, contractor negligence, and the contract’s promise of Structural Concrete because we made the final payment.

As retired business professionals, we are acutely aware that one cannot write a contract that ignores the law, and that applicable building codes and ordinances are ignored. A contract must be for a lawful purpose, comporting with Code and Workmanship Standards prescribed by the State’s ROC.

The necessity of the driveway requiring replacement became a subject matter after the understanding of the consequences of LCG’s breach of ordinary care during the construction of the driveway in accordance with Code and Workmanship Standards.

1. We have learned that omitting expansion joints where structurally required by Code results in slab cracking in excess of anything reasonably considered as “normal.” We have confirmed this through observations of other locations in Carefree with similar deficiencies. The recurring theme of breach of ordinary care on this job is irrefutable. 2. We have learned that contraction joints, in unreinforced, 3 ½” thick concrete, more than 8’ apart, lends itself to slab cracking. This fault exists, centerline and near centerline, 36 times out of 83 individual slab sections to date. 3. We have entertained other contractors’ suggestions to repair the driveway. The suggestions are the same: remove and replace the driveway. Otherwise, adding more contraction joints along with the removal of concrete on each side of a centerline crack would be unsightly and not what we purchased and paid for in good faith. 4. We have learned that a 77 day interval, from the date of the Town of Carefree Building Inspector’s concrete formwork approval to actual pour date of the concrete is not a best practice. This interval time period allowed for drying of LCG’s water aided compaction of the underlying dirt. 5. We have learned that the dryness of the prepared dirt, among other best practices missed, lent itself to causing the concrete to dry too fast which in turns lends itself to cracking. 6. The time interval hazard between activities of LCG allowed for damaging problems. Rain runoff created ruts in the LCG compacted/prepared dirt . We witnessed that rain runoff ruts were not filled in nor were the ruts filled and re-compacted before the concrete was poured. We were told that they (LCG) would simply just “pour more

4|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C concrete into the ruts to compensate and that this would make the driveway even stronger.” 7. We have learned that the additional infilling thickness of concrete creates fragility to the unreinforced, 3½” thick slab, across the plane of the dirt. Un-compacted ruts may lend to an increase in vulnerability to cracking due to differential dirt settlement. Differential concrete thicknesses may lend to an increase in vulnerability to cracking as vehicles drive upon the surface. 8. The 2nd ROC inspection included the attendance of Mr. John Gunn, Town of Carefree Building Inspector. Mr. Gunn stated, “you cannot do that” referring to the extended time interval from driveway formwork approval to the actual concrete pour. 9. To date, LCG has neither offered nor communicated any type of remedy, repair, replacement, or compensation.

Notwithstanding the ROC’s denial, the content of LCG Counsel’s “Motion to Reconsider and Dismiss the Citation” is a deflection away from the direct physical attributes causing the failures that comprise our Complaint. LCG ‘s work product presently displays that it is in a state of failure and will continue to fail.

LCG’s Counsel has not engaged an outside expert to inspect and opine upon the existing as built conditions of the driveway as compared to Prescribed Standards of Care that should have been followed.

LCG’s Counsel is exploiting incomplete contract soundbites taken out of context such as “completely satisfied” and “the service was completely rendered” to deflect away from our work product Complaint. Without our own counsel, we are depending on consumer protection to not accept LCG Counsel’s excuses. We note that LCG put us under the duress of the threat of property lien in the context of us not paying our invoice upon presentation.

It appears that LCG’s Counsel does not believe that “complete” means the work was done properly. LCG’s Counsel disregards the plain language of promises within the contract his client constructed and offered to us. In part, the contract specified Structural Concrete to be furnished, to best practices, to industry standards, done in compliance with applicable Code, and “…we provide our clients with the highest quality of concrete work available in the market.” None of the foregoing was complied with.

5|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C The Structural Concrete promised required an engineered substrate. Structural Concrete should not have been offered absent an engineered substrate. No lay person would know that. We were informed of this need by our Construction Consultant (Mr. Bruce McNeil). LCG’s Counsel depends on a small amount of language buried in the contract suggesting we may opt to hire an engineer to evaluate soils. As lay people, we did not understand the need for that. Structural Concrete should not have been promised without soils engineering. LCG did not request a copy of soils engineering. They had no business pouring any concrete, structural or nonstructural without consideration of soils conditions.

We believe that we are victims of consumer fraud and are relying on consumer protection from our State’s Registrar of Contractors.

In reference to Exhibit 2 - Case 2024A-10258-CNC-ROC Contractor counter rebuttal to 20250114 Respondent’s Written Answer to Citation and Complainant LCG’s Counsel gives his answers (rebuttals) to our numbered complaints. Counsel’s rebuttals are a deflection away from the direct physical symptoms observed on the concrete driveway. Counsel cites ACI 302.1R-15 as though that is the guide for industry standards. We have learned that is not true. We have learned that ACI 318 is the Code that defines requirements for Structural Concrete.

We have learned that other omissions of expansion joints and control joint spacing, in combination with a 77 day time interval between concrete formwork and concrete pouring, are the reasons behind the driveway cracking.

LCG’s Counsel has not physically been on site. Yet, Counsel dismisses the applicable Building Code and Workmanship Standards and the ROC Investigator’s Directive conclusions without having inspected the driveway or obtained experienced technical guidance and experience in the matter.

The cracking that exists upon our driveway is not normal and it is symptomatic of lack of due care during construction. 36 of 83 slab sections have centerline and near centerline cracks that are consistently associated with contraction joint spacing that is over 10’ each. The 36 slab cracks noted run parallel to the wider expanse of the slab section. Newer driveway cracks are currently appearing perpendicular to the 36 centerline cracks noted.

We have also been shown that cracks emanating from locations that Building Code requires to have an expansion joint is not normal. These are physical, tangible, and observable conditions. Yet, they are being dismissed as normal cracking by Counsel, who has not viewed the driveway. LCG’s Counsel has no known concrete expertise. Counsel’s rebuttals have no objective basis and appear to be unsupported lawfare bullying.

6|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C The following details our response to each of the items listed on Exhibit 1 - 20250429 Respondent's Motion to Reconsider and Dismiss the Citation. These responses listed 1-10 correlate numerically with the items listed in Exhibit 1.

1) Complainant withdraws the financial aspect of the trip and fall personal injury. The trip and fall from leftover construction debris occurred. The injury and ongoing medical care continue to this day. The Complainant’s intention was to further illustrate the contradiction of LCG’s statement, found within the contract “It is the position of LCG that we provide our clients with the highest quality of concrete work available in the market.”

2) Mr. Bruce McNeil of MACS Independent, LLC, https://macsllc.com/ is retained by us, with a limited power of attorney, to present for us our concrete driveway concerns to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. His evidentiary support materials and videos, from examinations, measurements, and documentation, illustrates Building Code omissions, Arizona Minimum Workmanship Standards deficiencies, and, what appears to be a breach of contract regarding Structural Concrete as stipulated in the executed LCG contract. Mr. McNeil’s tasking includes acquiring costing that considers the removal of the existing driveway and replacement with Structural Concrete as stipulated in the contract.

Our concrete driveway was examined, videoed, measured, documented, diagrammed, charted, and catalogued, slab section by slab section. Collected information was compared and contrasted to the statutorily amended 2018 Building Code Requirements, the Arizona Minimum Workmanship Standards, and the contract.

We believe it fair and right that the Complainant be reimbursed for Construction Consultant (Mr. Bruce McNeil) fees as we are consumers who have no knowledge of asphalt driveway removal, concrete driveway construction installation nor Code Requirements for a concrete driveway. We believe this experience, to date, speaks to consumer fraud. It would not have been necessary for us to hire a Construction Consultant if LCG had delivered on what they contractually promised, that which is explicitly found in the contract.

We were of the understanding that the State of Arizona Registrar of Contractors would provide consumer protection. We filed our Complaint with the ROC because of the Respondent’s refusal to respond to ROC’s Citation. This forced us to retain a Construction Consultant to credibly present our Complaint.

7|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C At this time, we have no plans to retain counsel, even though we continue to incur ongoing financial harm. To our disappointment, the Respondent has retained Counsel who has made no offer to settle, tried to dismiss the Complaint, and continues to ignore the Complaint. LCG’s Counsel has based his position on his view that the Construction Consultant is not credible, is uninformed, and is biased. Those descriptions exist without support. The defects and deficiencies of LCG’s work product exist, they are tangible. It was stated during the settlement conference that there exists a concern of holding a 1:1 talk between Mr. McNeil and Mr. Weech. We do not believe this is appropriate as neither Mr. McNeil is represented by counsel nor are we represented by counsel.

3) Isreal, LCG Project Manager, told Judith that the LCG’s crew would return to perform “deep cleaning.” When the LCG crew returned on the final day they were onsite and after partially addressing the leftover crud, around noon, “Alex Lucero stated the crew was finished (prematurely) and that they needed to leave our property for another job.”

We take pride in our property and its appearance in the neighborhood. Randall initially started the cleanup although since his slip and fall, Judith has spent a substantial number of hours since the LCG crew left the job, cleaning up, disposing of leftover asphalt and hardened cement along the driveway; there is still much to remove. We intend to support our community to assist with the rest of the removal and cleanup, and have spoken with the local high school administration, and learned where we can solicit and hire high schoolers. At this time, it is premature to continue clean up because as we have since learned, it is not possible for the current surface to be repaired. We have learned that it must be replaced because of the lack of conforming to Building Code and Workmanship Standards. Therefore, it is in best interest to deep clean after all driveway work is completed. Why pay to clean up twice? We anticipate it will take 4 high schoolers, 3 different days, 4 hours per workday, to remove leftover asphalt, leftover concrete debris and to clean the river rock that is splashed with colored concrete. Budget $1,200. Refer to Exhibit 2. Complaint Item 7 photos p. 27 and p.49

4) The LCG crew moved dirt to install the concrete formwork and concrete driveway. It seems logical and reasonable that they would replace the dirt that abuts the driveway after the concrete finished drying. The LCG contract states, “It is the position of LCG that we provide our clients with the highest quality of concrete work available in the market.”

8|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C 5) Contract Section V CITY APPROVALS was followed. We paid the Town of Carefree $1,711.75 for the required permit. Because of Respondents failed and failing work product, we will incur another permit fee to have LCG’s concrete work removed and replaced. At time of the first ROC Investigator’s site inspection, it had not yet been determined that the driveway could not be repaired, thus ‘replacement’ was not included in our ROC Complaint. Refer to Exhibit 2. Which itemizes our complaint.

6) False, we have not stated any such claim for damages against placing our home on the market. It is a matter of fact, that our intent was to place our home on the market in the fall of 2024. Saul Lucero repeatedly told Randall that LCG would install a “beautiful driveway.” a. Complainant has already spent their new driveway fund allowance. b. Respondent was given ample notice and the opportunity to remediate prior to the Citation and Directive being issued. c. We have no intent to destroy the evidence until Complaint is resolved. d. Physical evidence remains to this day. It exists and is tangible. LCG’s Counsel has not been on our property. To our knowledge, he has not personally viewed the Building Code and Workmanship Standards deficiencies.

7) At time of Citation, it was not known or determined that the driveway could not be repaired, thus ‘replacement’ was not included in our initial ROC submittal. Refer to Exhibit 2. Which itemizes our complaint.

8) a. b. According to the Respondents’ Motion to Reconsider and Dismiss Citation attachment “20240126 Losey-Rounds Concrete Contract” (Page 19 of the contract) In fact, final payment was made by Judith, and under the duress of Alex Lucero. Alex threatened to file a lien on our property if final payment was not made immediately. He did reduce the final payment amount due by $985 because of our increasing disappointment with the condition of the driveway. We repeatedly spoke with the LCG crew expressing our concern about their workmanship. One of our ROC Complaints is regarding the zebra-like streaking appearance of our newly poured driveway. We were told repeatedly by LCG that it could take between 60 to 90 days for the driveway to have a uniform appearance. To this day, the streaking appearance has not changed. Refer to Exhibit 3 - Original dated Lucero Contract with Alex Lucero signature implicating paid in full

9|Pa ge C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C c. The LCG crew did not level the “CLIENT-SUPPLIED MATERIAL” after shoveling it in the parking area. The LCG Project Manager said that a crew member would use a roller to level the “CLIENT-SUPPLIED MATERIAL” gravel. The LCG crew did shovel gravel in Respondents “after” photos #4 and #5, p. 32 of Exhibit 2. It is false to state there was an insufficient amount of gravel supplied. Since Respondents’ departure, there was so much excess gravel, that Judith has moved close to a half ton in buckets/wheelbarrow to other locations on the property. Today there is still a quarter ton of excess gravel. Refer to Exhibit 2 Complaint Item 9, photos p. 32

d. Contract Section V CITY APPROVALS was followed. We paid a required permit fee of $1,711.75 to the Town of Carefree. Because of Respondents failed and failing work product, we will incur another permit fee to have LCG’s work product removed and replaced. e. i. We do NOT own black marking soled shoes or boots. We respected the condition of newly poured driveway and did NOT walk on it until LCG said it was appropriate. We waited longer than were advised by LCG to walk or drive our vehicles on newly poured concrete. Why would a patient and intelligent person walk or drive upon newly poured concrete…ridiculous! There is plenty of access alongside the driveway to the road without walking on newly poured concrete. We parked our vehicle at a location accessible by foot through our property’s vegetation. Warning cones were placed by LCG, connected with yellow tape at the driveway entrance. ii. “previously stated, previously responded” on Point 1 of this document.

f. The Citation Complaint is not in regard to the job interruption length (although multiple months of interruption seemed excessive), the Complaint addresses the fact that between the time that the formwork was completed and LCG began pouring the concrete, a significant amount of rain created ruts in the dirt. Judith asked specifically what would be done to address the ruts and was told “nothing, the ruts will be filled in with additional concrete which will make that area even stronger.”

g. i. We are not questioning the coloration of the concrete. The photos show that the broom finish applied to the concrete, and the brush stroke directions are

10 | P a g e C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C variable and are not consistent as to the direction and continuity between the slab joints. We were told by LCG that it could take between 60 to 90 days for the driveway to have a uniform appearance. There have been no changes to its uniformity. Refer to Exhibit 2. Complaint Item 2, p. 3, photos p. 4. Additional views p. 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 43, 45, 48. ii. Cracks were visible within the first week after the pour with no influence by weather or us driving our vehicle on the newly poured concrete. We parked our vehicle at a location where front door access was made by foot through our property’s unimproved land, through existing vegetation. Warning cones were placed, connected with yellow tape, at the driveway entrance for several weeks to block access to the concrete driveway.

9. Paid under duress after given a threat by Alex Lucero to place a lien against our property.

10. On 4/8/25, Complainant responded to Exhibit 2 - Case 2024A-10258-CNC-ROC Contractor counter rebuttal to 20250114 Respondent’s Written Answer to Citation and Complainant. Homeowner responses in Green Homeowner’s Construction Consultant responses in Purple

We ask for the ROC to provide consumer protection in this matter.

Thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter.

Sincerely,

Randall Losey Judith Rounds

11 | P a g e C a s e 2 0 2 4 A -1 0 2 5 8 - C N C - R O C