ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-11013-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In-Line Underground Solutions LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Ansco & Associates LLC,
ROC License No. 341287,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-11013-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 20, 2026 at 3:00 PM.
APPEARANCES: Krystal Moore appeared on behalf of In-Line Underground Solutions LLC (“Complainant”). Craig Clark appeared on behalf of Ansco & Associates LLC (“Respondent”). Kane McClasky observed.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the Arizona Registrar of Contractor’s (“Registrar’s”) attached administrative file, and January 12, 2026, Hearing Order were admitted into the evidentiary record.
_____________________________________________________________________
After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s license files as shown on the Registrar’s public website. On October 18, 2022, the Registrar issued ROC License No. 341287 for General Commercial A Engineering contracting to Respondent. Respondent’s license is active, in good standing, and renewed through October 31, 2026. Daniel Hernandez Jr. is listed as the Qualifying Party on the license. Steven Nielsen and Harry DeFerrari are both listed as Managers on the license. Dycom Investments, Inc. is also listed as the Parent Entity and Member on the license. The address of record for the license is 5250 Triangle Parkway Ste. 175 Norcross, Georgia. Respondent has a $25,000.00 surety bond for the license, effective October 01, 2022. The license has no prior disciplinary history. Currently, the record reflects that there is one (1) open complaint against the license, which is presumed to be related to this matter.
In or around late-October, 2025, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging nonpayment of services and/or materials against Respondent. Specifically, Complainant alleged that Respondent had failed to remit timely payment(s) on one (1) invoice totaling $55,420.89 regarding commercial boring of fiber cable in Mesa, Arizona. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-11013 and assigned the case to their legal department for review.
On October 28, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Complaint to Respondent that advised Respondent could submit a reply, including any affirmative defenses, by November 04, 2025.
On November 04, 2025, Respondent provided the following, in pertinent part, to the Registrar:
[Respondent] has a multi-state subcontractor agreement in place with [Complainant] and has utilized them for work in Mesa Arizona specifically on the project referenced in the complaint, MESA-2026PA.
To date, [Respondent] has no record of any invoice submitted by [Complainant] numbered 1758 as referenced in the complaint. We did receive a request for payment for invoice 1785 (attached in complaint) but do not show it as a valid invoice as it was requesting payment for footage/work not performed.
(Emphasis added.)
On December 09, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for an alleged violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10). Respondent was notified that a failure to provide an Answer by December 24, 2025, would be deemed as an admission of Respondent’s commission of the act(s) charged in the underlying complaint, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1155(B), and could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.
On December 25, 2025, the Registrar received Respondent’s untimely Answer.
On December 31, 2025, this matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on February 20, 2026. Per the January 12, 2026, Notice of Hearing the issue(s) to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following charge(s) alleged in the Citation:
Charge 1: A violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Hearing Evidence
Krystal Moore testified on behalf of Complainant. Craig Clark testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
On October 08, 2024, the Registrar issued License No. 354963 to Complainant for General Commercial A-5 Excavating Grading and Oil Surfacing. On April 16, 2025, the Registrar issued License No. 358316 to Complainant for Specialty Dual CR-67 Low Voltage Communication Systems. Shawn Allen is listed on both licenses as the Qualifying Party and Member.
On November 08, 2024, Complainant entered into a Subcontract Agreement with Respondent, under Respondent’s primary contract with a telecommunications conglomerate, to perform underground boring and fiber placement at a project site in Mesa, Arizona (“Project”). The parties’ agreement includes the following terms:
Section 10. Extra Work. Claims for extra work and changes in the Work made by Subcontractor will only be allowed when written authorization has been given by Contractor prior to execution of the work; Subcontractor waives all claims for any extra work or changes not so authorized. When such authority for extra work or changes in the Work is given without an agreed upon price, the fully documented claim must be submitted promptly upon completion of the extra work. Contractor may order in writing changes in the Work without notice to Subcontractor or its sureties consisting of additions, deletions, or modifications. Where work is required to be done and the parties cannot agree as to whether such work is extra work or cannot agree as to the valuation of the addition, deletion, or modification, Subcontractor shall not delay performance of the Work, and Subcontractor shall proceed with the Work upon the written order of Contractor. If the Contractor orders a change in the Work or requests the Subcontractor to review a proposal for a change in the Work, the Subcontractor agrees to review the change, or proposal for change, and within two-thirds (2/3) of the time required by the Primary Contract or five (5) calendar days, whichever is the shorter period of time, Subcontractor shall submit to Contractor a written proposal for the Work amply detailed and supported and conforming to the requirements of the Primary Contract and this Agreement. Subcontractor agrees that it waives all its rights to both price and time adjustments if it fails to submit its written proposal within the required time.
Section 11. Contract Amount. Contractor shall pay Subcontractor the prices and costs for work, materials, and supplies only as set forth in Exhibit A, as consideration for Subcontractor's compliance with this Agreement and performance of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Subcontractor shall not be entitled to any increase in the contract amount unless a Change Order has been accepted by the parties in writing. Subcontractor shall not be entitled to any increase in the contract amount due to price escalation of materials and/or labor costs.
Section 12. Conditions Precedent to Payment. As conditions precedent to Subcontractor's right to receive payment and to the extent permitted by applicable state law:
(a) Subcontractor agrees, consents, and acknowledges that its request for payment constitutes its representation that its work performed up to the date of the request for payment complies with the Contract Documents and satisfies fully its obligations under the Contract Documents. Subcontractor further agrees, consents, and acknowledges that its request for payment constitutes Subcontractor's waiver of and surrender of any claims, suits, liens, or damages of any kind against Contractor for or related to Subcontractor's work performed up to the date of the request for payment and for which Subcontractor seeks payment.
(b) Owner must first accept the Work performed by Subcontractor and pay Contractor for the Work before Contractor has the ability, obligation, or duty to pay Subcontractor;
(c) Subcontractor shall furnish Contractor with signed waivers of lien from all of its subcontractors and laborers complying with the requirements of all applicable mechanic's lien laws and such other evidence as may be reasonably required by Contractor or Owner to substantiate payment;
(d) Subcontractor shall keep full and detailed records to confirm compliance with the Agreement in form satisfactory to Contractor. Contractor and any state government or federal government auditor shall be afforded access to, and shall have access to and be permitted to audit and copy, Subcontractor's records, books, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, employment records, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda, and other data relating to this Agreement or the Work. Subcontractor shall preserve such documents and records referred to herein for a period of three (3) years after final payment, or for such longer period as may be required by law. Subcontractor shall not impose any charges for access to its books and records regarding its performance under this Agreement, and shall fully cooperate with authorized representatives in the examination or audit of books and records;
(e) All paperwork required by Contractor from Subcontractor has been completed, submitted to, and approved by Contractor; and,
(f) Payments to Subcontractor may be withheld at Contractor's sole discretion to insure the timely progress and completion of the Work and adherence to the Contract Documents.
Section 13. Payment Procedure. Subcontractor agrees that the following payment procedure shall govern all payments made hereunder:
(d) Right to Withhold Payment for Defective Work or other Failure to Satisfy Obligations.
In addition to Retainage, Contractor shall have the right to withhold payment for failure of Subcontractor to meet its obligations under the Agreement, for defective Work not remedied, for failure of the Work to conform to the Contract Documents, to satisfy any and all Claims or notices of possible Claims, or for other failure of Subcontractor to comply with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. Contractor shall be entitled to withhold such amount as may be necessary, from Retainage or otherwise, in Contractor's good faith opinion, to protect Contractor from loss due to such defects, non-performance, or failure to comply with the Contract Documents. If such deficiencies are not promptly corrected after Contractor provides written notice to Subcontractor, Contractor may correct such deficiencies at Subcontractor's expense and deduct all costs incurred from payment due to Subcontractor. The withholding by Contractor of any amounts otherwise due to Subcontractor shall not enable Subcontractor to stop the Work or terminate this Agreement.
(Emphasis added.)
On or about January 15, 2025, work on the Project commenced, and was concluded or otherwise stopped on or about March 14, 2025.
On or about March 14, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. 1785 for $55,420.89 to Respondent.
Additional Evidence
Mr. Clark testified that Respondent did not receive Invoice No. 1785 until June 2025, after Complainant was no longer on the Project, and that no payment had been made to Complainant on the invoice because the scope of work had not been pre-approved as required by the parties’ agreement. Per Mr. Clark, Complainant had requested prior authorization for the work at issue, but the request had been denied by Respondent because the Project’s owner had decided to “redesign” and “go in another direction.” Mr. Clark opined that if Complainant actually performed the work as alleged, that it was performed without approval or consent. Mr. Clark additionally testified that in early-January 2026 Respondent learned that Complainant had caused an unspecified amount/value of damage at the Project site when they “hit a line” during construction. Mr. Clark further testified that its final bill to the Project’s owner was approved the week prior to the hearing, and that he expected payment to be processed in eighty-five (85) days; and that Complainant’s retainage would be processed no later than 180-days afterward, per the parties’ agreement.
Ms. Moore testified that she was unsure whether the Project’s owner approved the work at issue in Invoice No. 1785, and that after Complainant was advised in January 2026 of alleged damage caused they were not permitted to attempt remediations of any kind.
Closing Arguments
In closing, Respondent argued that Complainant failed to sustain its burden of proof as no evidence existed to suggest the Project’s owner approved Complainant’s scope of work in Invoice No. 1785 as required by the parties’ agreement, and that Complainant acquiesced to the 180-day retainage payment term in the contract – thus, no monies were currently owed to Complainant by Respondent.
Complainant declined to provide a closing argument.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.
The Notice of Hearing the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing in this matter. Because the Registrar mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the Registrar as well.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[p]erformance by a subcontractor in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract entitles the subcontractor to payment from the party with whom the subcontractor contracts.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(B) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f a subcontractor has performed in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract, the contractor shall pay to its subcontractors within seven days of receipt by the contractor of each progress payment, retention release or final payment, the full amount received for such subcontractor’s work and materials supplied based on work completed or materials supplied under the subcontract.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) holds, in pertinent part, that among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has 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 case at bar, the Tribunal is tasked with determining how much money Complainant is owed by Respondent, if any, and if so, whether said debt(s) constitute a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) for which Respondent’s license should be lawfully disciplined by the Registrar.
Upon review of the record, the relevant evidence establishes that Complainant has failed to sustain its burden of proof by the requisite evidentiary standard. Although there are a litany of email communications and other forms of correspondence between the parties regarding pre-approval and payment for authorized work, there is nothing in the record that tends to substantiate or otherwise corroborate Complainant’s assertion that the scope of work in Invoice No. 1785 was authorized by the Project’s owner, or that the alleged work was completed.
Because Complainant has not established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has not established grounds for the Registrar to discipline License No. 341287.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Complaint No. 2025-11013 be dismissed, with prejudice.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, March 06, 2026.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
c/o Legal Department
Registrar of Contractors
1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
In-Line Underground Solutions LLC, Complainant
c/o Krystal Moore, Agent
16521 FM Rd., 920
Poolville, TX 76487
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Ansco & Associates LLC, Respondent
c/o Craig Clark, Agent
5250 Triangle Pkwy., Ste. 175
Norcross, GA 30092
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff