G
Guest
Most notably, the issue at hand was that the client (County School Board) rejected the initial design based on cost and re-hired a second person who provided a design (at cost) that was substandard ...
JR
~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~
Alberto J. Sanchez, P.E.
PE 21368
FEMC Case Number 2005009371
Represented by Michelle M. Krone
Probable Cause Panel: Matthews, Seckinger
Mr. Sanchez was present at hearing and represented by counsel, Michelle M. Krone.
The complainant, a PE, was discharged by the client, allegedly for not complying with the client’s design wishes. The client, which was the Pinellas County School Board, subsequently hired Alberto Sanchez, PE, who designed a ventilation system that met the client’s budget but is in violation of code.
In his expert report, FBPE Consultant Homer Ooten, PE, opined that the HVAC design contained in sheets ME 01, ME 4.1 and ME 9.1 for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and ductwork renovations for a Multi-Purpose Room, which was a portion of the Coachman School Project, reflect the fact that the ventilation system at the school was under designed. Respondent’s renovation design plans for the Multi-Purpose Room’s HVAC system specified a 25-ton Roof Top HVAC Unit providing 10,000 Cubic Feet/Minute (CFM) of air and 900 CFM of outside air. The presumed occupancy of the Multi-Purpose Room at a standard rate is 600 persons (9000 Square Feet Area of Multi-Purpose Room/15 Square Feet per Person). Assuming that the occupancy of the Multi-Purpose Room would be intermittent (an assumption that is most beneficial to the HVAC design decision of Respondent), the lowest ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers) acceptable rate of Outside Air for the Multi-Purpose Room is 7.5 CFM per person. In order to meet this standard, the HVAC unit specified by Respondent’s HVAC design would have to input Outside Air at a rate of 4500 CFM of (9000 Square Feet Area of Multi-Purpose Room/15 Square Feet per Person/7.5 CFM per person) into the Multi-Purpose Room. The HVAC unit specified by Respondent’s HVAC design, however, produces Outside Air at a rate of 900 CFM for the room as a whole and thus produces Outside Air at a rate of 1.5 CFM per person utilizing the Multi-Purpose Room. Thus, because of Respondent’s design decision, the HVAC system supplies Outside Air to the Multi-Purpose Room users, normally the Coachman School children and teaching staff, at 20% of the rate required by building code and ASHRAE standards.
The school renovations were completed in 2002 and the HVAC system was constructed in compliance with Subject’s design. It remains in operation is currently using the same HVAC system. The AC charged that the failure of Respondent’s HVAC design to adequately provide for the proper rate of Outside Air circulation was a serious engineering deficiency and that in a hot and humid state such as Florida where HVAC systems are extensively utilized, such a deficiency could substantially add to the likelihood that the transmission of airborne diseases among the Multi-Purpose Room’s users would increase.
On May 17, 2007, the PCP authorized the issuance of an Administrative Complaint. Respondent through counsel sought to resolve this matter by entering into a settlement stipulation which was signed on July, 2007.
Probable Cause Recommendation: Reprimand; $1,000.00 administrative fine ($1,000.00 per count for (1) count); costs of $1,871.00; Suspension of licensure, stayed if fine/costs paid within 30 days of Final Order date; Board approved course in Engineering Professionalism and Ethics; and study guide.
Mr. Sanchez entered into a Settlement Stipulation with FEMC for costs ($1871.00)-appearance & discussion of practice, Reprimand, Course in Professionalism & Ethics & Study Guide.
Mr. Sanchez was sworn in prior to addressing the Board
Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Sanchez to address the Board and explain how he will prevent the same problems from reoccurring, and to explain his mitigating circumstances.
Mr. Sanchez was retained by the School Board to investigate design solutions for ventilation issues. He replaced some of the existing work, and provided the Board with plans for taking care of the health related issues, replacing duct work, additional ventilation, a new AC, etc. Mr. Sanchez stated that ventilation was a secondary issue and not required to be up to code and the budget could not afford changes.
Mr. Burke said that Mr. Sanchez had made a bad business decision when he attempted to follow the money which brings lots of errors in decision making. Engineers are professionals and sometimes we have to walk away from a project. Some clients are not worth having. Money cannot drive your decisions and scope of work, in the future not let these types of projects drive you, get the scope defined and do the right thing.
Mr. Tomasino asked Mr. Sanchez whether he advised his client about the capacity of the building.
Mr. Sanchez said that those issues were discussed and they were fully aware of the situation. The room was not going to be used much and would mostly be unoccupied.
Mr. Tomasino commented that this would be a good learning experience for Mr. Sanchez.
Mr. Sanchez discussed his experience with ventilation equipment and his understanding as to when special equipment is required.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland the Settlement Stipulation was accepted.
JR
~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~
Alberto J. Sanchez, P.E.
PE 21368
FEMC Case Number 2005009371
Represented by Michelle M. Krone
Probable Cause Panel: Matthews, Seckinger
Mr. Sanchez was present at hearing and represented by counsel, Michelle M. Krone.
The complainant, a PE, was discharged by the client, allegedly for not complying with the client’s design wishes. The client, which was the Pinellas County School Board, subsequently hired Alberto Sanchez, PE, who designed a ventilation system that met the client’s budget but is in violation of code.
In his expert report, FBPE Consultant Homer Ooten, PE, opined that the HVAC design contained in sheets ME 01, ME 4.1 and ME 9.1 for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and ductwork renovations for a Multi-Purpose Room, which was a portion of the Coachman School Project, reflect the fact that the ventilation system at the school was under designed. Respondent’s renovation design plans for the Multi-Purpose Room’s HVAC system specified a 25-ton Roof Top HVAC Unit providing 10,000 Cubic Feet/Minute (CFM) of air and 900 CFM of outside air. The presumed occupancy of the Multi-Purpose Room at a standard rate is 600 persons (9000 Square Feet Area of Multi-Purpose Room/15 Square Feet per Person). Assuming that the occupancy of the Multi-Purpose Room would be intermittent (an assumption that is most beneficial to the HVAC design decision of Respondent), the lowest ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers) acceptable rate of Outside Air for the Multi-Purpose Room is 7.5 CFM per person. In order to meet this standard, the HVAC unit specified by Respondent’s HVAC design would have to input Outside Air at a rate of 4500 CFM of (9000 Square Feet Area of Multi-Purpose Room/15 Square Feet per Person/7.5 CFM per person) into the Multi-Purpose Room. The HVAC unit specified by Respondent’s HVAC design, however, produces Outside Air at a rate of 900 CFM for the room as a whole and thus produces Outside Air at a rate of 1.5 CFM per person utilizing the Multi-Purpose Room. Thus, because of Respondent’s design decision, the HVAC system supplies Outside Air to the Multi-Purpose Room users, normally the Coachman School children and teaching staff, at 20% of the rate required by building code and ASHRAE standards.
The school renovations were completed in 2002 and the HVAC system was constructed in compliance with Subject’s design. It remains in operation is currently using the same HVAC system. The AC charged that the failure of Respondent’s HVAC design to adequately provide for the proper rate of Outside Air circulation was a serious engineering deficiency and that in a hot and humid state such as Florida where HVAC systems are extensively utilized, such a deficiency could substantially add to the likelihood that the transmission of airborne diseases among the Multi-Purpose Room’s users would increase.
On May 17, 2007, the PCP authorized the issuance of an Administrative Complaint. Respondent through counsel sought to resolve this matter by entering into a settlement stipulation which was signed on July, 2007.
Probable Cause Recommendation: Reprimand; $1,000.00 administrative fine ($1,000.00 per count for (1) count); costs of $1,871.00; Suspension of licensure, stayed if fine/costs paid within 30 days of Final Order date; Board approved course in Engineering Professionalism and Ethics; and study guide.
Mr. Sanchez entered into a Settlement Stipulation with FEMC for costs ($1871.00)-appearance & discussion of practice, Reprimand, Course in Professionalism & Ethics & Study Guide.
Mr. Sanchez was sworn in prior to addressing the Board
Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Sanchez to address the Board and explain how he will prevent the same problems from reoccurring, and to explain his mitigating circumstances.
Mr. Sanchez was retained by the School Board to investigate design solutions for ventilation issues. He replaced some of the existing work, and provided the Board with plans for taking care of the health related issues, replacing duct work, additional ventilation, a new AC, etc. Mr. Sanchez stated that ventilation was a secondary issue and not required to be up to code and the budget could not afford changes.
Mr. Burke said that Mr. Sanchez had made a bad business decision when he attempted to follow the money which brings lots of errors in decision making. Engineers are professionals and sometimes we have to walk away from a project. Some clients are not worth having. Money cannot drive your decisions and scope of work, in the future not let these types of projects drive you, get the scope defined and do the right thing.
Mr. Tomasino asked Mr. Sanchez whether he advised his client about the capacity of the building.
Mr. Sanchez said that those issues were discussed and they were fully aware of the situation. The room was not going to be used much and would mostly be unoccupied.
Mr. Tomasino commented that this would be a good learning experience for Mr. Sanchez.
Mr. Sanchez discussed his experience with ventilation equipment and his understanding as to when special equipment is required.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland the Settlement Stipulation was accepted.
