ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-10564-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
H&H Building Solutions LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
CP Welding and Fabrication LLC
DBA: CP Contracting,
License No. ROC 345645,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-10564-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 8, 2026.
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Jacob Harper
Respondent: Chris Preble
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
Respondent Exhibits A, B, H, N, P.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural History
CP Welding and Fabrication LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 345645 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about March 29, 2024, H&H Building Solutions LLC (Complainant) submitted an estimate to Respondent which was subsequently accepted and served as parties’ contract for Complainant to construct a building pad.
On or about October 14, 2025, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay Invoice No. 1515.71, amounting to $22,808.34.
On December 2, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). Respondent timely submitted an Answer on December 17, 2025.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was issued on January 13, 2026, setting the hearing for February 24, 2026.
On February 9, 2026, the hearing was continued to April 8, 2026, due to scheduling conflicts.
A hearing was held on April 8, 2026.
Hearing Evidence
Complainant’s Estimate No. 1255 (hereinafter “contract”) offered to construct a 50’x80’ 6” building pad with footings using 3000 psi concrete with microfiber for a total price of $48,000.00. The contract required Respondent to provide all materials for the project and Complainant to be paid the remaining balance of the contract price less the cost of materials provided by Respondent. Receipts were required for verification. The contract documented that Invoice No. 1740, in the amount of $20,256.69, was to be paid by Respondent directly to the concrete supplier. The contract included this deduction from the total price. Thus, the contract price of $48,000.00, minus $20,256.69 (Invoice No. 1740) left a remaining balance owed of $27,743.31.
On or about July 14, 2025, Complainant placed the concrete pad.
On July 14, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. 1515.71, for a total amount of $22,808.34, as referenced in the Complaint. On an unknown date thereafter, the invoice was revised to reflect the addition of a credit memo ($397.19) and removal of sales tax ($3,642.28). The revised invoice included the initial contract price, Change Order Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the credit applied toward the material cost of Invoice No. 1740, for an adjusted total amount of $19,563.25.
Chris Preble, on behalf of Respondent, stipulated that Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,800.00 for site relocation was accurate and approved.
The parties stipulated that Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $3,800.00 was not approved. Change Order No. 2 was billed by Complainant due to additional work hours required to disassemble and reconstruct the pad per correct plans after the plans were sent to an incorrect email address.
Mr. Preble stipulated that Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $586.00 for a price difference in materials from the initial estimate to the “current” plans was approved at the time Respondent issued partial payment in July 2025.
Mr. Preble also stipulated that the concrete supplier issued a credit for early payment in the amount of $397.19 which was accurately applied toward the materials deduction in the contract and Invoice No. 1515.71.
On or about July 25, 2025, Complainant submitted a Customer Satisfaction Resolution Statement (Resolution Statement) to Respondent acknowledging that concerns had been brought to Complainant’s attention, including unsatisfactory finish work, cracking, improper anchor bolt positions, unlevel anchor bolts, and pooling on the slab. The Resolution Statement noted two proposed resolutions were discussed between Respondent and the Town of Wickenburg representatives (project owner), including (1) demolition and replacement of existing slab-on-grade, and (2) installation of an epoxy flooring to cover comprehensive surface of slab-on-grade. After review and investigation, Complainant determined that the interior finish of the slab met requirements per MAG and AGI (noting areas near clustered anchor bolts were subject to optional fill/patch for improved appearance), observed cracking was non-structural and within acceptable tolerances (noting subject to optional non-structural fill for improved appearance), anchor bolts were applied per manufacturer specifications, pooling risk was minimum as the pad met or exceeded requirements for flatness and levelness per MAG and AGI tolerances, and the recommendation for an epoxy floor coating and/or demo of the existing slab and re-pour was not justified. Complainant included a remediation plan instead to cosmetically repair, by industry standards, all anchor bolt cluster locations, and cosmetically repair, by industry standards, all non-structural surface area cracks.
Also on July 25, 2025, Respondent made a $15,763.25 partial payment to Complainant.
On an unknown date, Complainant issued a Formal Demand for Payment (Demand) to Respondent providing, in pertinent part, that Complainant remained willing to assist with a cosmetic remediation, but asserted that the outstanding balance for the original contracted scope of work was separate and apart from such discussions and was immediately due and payable. Complainant acknowledged the Town of Wickenburg’s concerns as “cosmetic” and asserted that the slab remained within acceptable specifications of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) and all applicable state and county standards. Complainant offered to provide a paint coating to the floor free of charge but acknowledged that this was not a long-term solution suitable for the facility. Complainant further stated, “Given the daily use of the building to house and maintain tractors, trailers, and heavy equipment, we believe that a polyaspartic floor coating—specifically designed for heavy-duty, high-traffic environments—is a more appropriate measure.” However, Complainant advised, it was a luxury upgrade.
Complainant Hearing Testimony
Jake Harper testified on behalf of Complainant that Kevin Bruce, Chief Building Inspector for the Town of Wickenburg advised Complainant that installation of epoxy flooring was not required. However, Complainant agreed to install the epoxy coating as a “good faith effort” once the remaining balance (“second half”) of Invoice 1515.71 was received. Mr. Harper further testified that approximately one month later, while preparing to test for moisture in the slab to determine if the epoxy installation could begin, Respondent denied Complainant’s request for final payment. Mr. Harper testified that Respondent had already been paid in full by the Town of Wickenburg. He stated that other than Respondent’s request, Complainant had not received notice from any authority that the epoxy was required. Specifically, Mr. Harper stated that neither Willdan Engineering nor the Chief Building Inspector for the Town of Wickenburg had advised Complainant that epoxy was required.
Respondent Hearing Testimony
Chris Preble testified that Complainant acknowledged the slab was not poured correctly and returned later to cut it; however, the damage to the slab was already done. Mr. Preble stated that Respondent issued the $15,763.25 partial payment in good faith that Complainant would make the necessary corrections to the pad. He testified that at the time the payment was issued, the parties verbally agreed that Respondent would remit the remaining balance once the repairs were completed. Mr. Preble further testified that, based on Complainant’s acknowledgment of deficiencies and “somewhat” willingness to make repairs to the slab, Mr. Egan instructed Respondent to “go-ahead” with construction of the building on the slab. Mr. Preble asserted, however, that the Resolution Statement provided photos only of the slab “post-recut” and not the original defect. Thus, Mr. Preble testified, both Respondent and Mr. Egan refused to accept and sign the Resolution Statement because the remediation plan did not include epoxy treatment.
Mr. Preble testified that on September 15, 2025, Mr. Egan, Complainant, and Respondent met on-site where Complainant agreed that corrective work was required, including crack repair and epoxy treatment. That same day, Complainant provided coating options and pricing to Respondent and Mr. Egan.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
In the instant matter, there was a genuine dispute between the parties as to workmanship. The workmanship issues alleged by Respondent were not before the Tribunal in this matter. However, because there existed a genuine dispute regarding whether the work was completed within industry standards, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge did not find payment was due at the time of complaint filing.
Upon review of the evidence submitted this case, Complainant failed to establish that any monies were “due” for materials or services rendered to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor.
The preponderance of the evidence did not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge did not find grounds to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, Complainant’s complaint be closed.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, April 24, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
CP Welding and Fabrication LLC
DBA: CP Contracting
[email redacted]
H&H Building Solutions LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff