The Nevada Connection – February 2019

Nevada Board Compliance Actions

December 2017 – November 2018

SAJAN ABRAHAM, PE 019285
CASE NUMBER: 20170005
VIOLATION OF NRS 625.080, NAC 625.612, AND NAC 625.613

Complainant alleges two instances of stamping by Mr. Abraham on items over which he did not have responsible charge of the work performed. Specifically, Complainant alleges that Mr. Abraham stamped calculations for shop drawings that had been prepared by and stamped by a licensed Arizona PE, and Mr. Abraham then submitted the same to CCPW for review under the letterhead and title block of Forterra, an Arizona firm, with whom Mr. Abraham was not employed. Complainant further alleges that Mr. Abraham sealed cement design mix certifications and test results under the title block of CEMEX, with whom Mr. Abraham is not employed, and that he again did not take due care or responsible charge through the testing and certification process.

The first project at issue is described as the Clark County Public Works Bid Number 603740-15 located at Las Vegas Wash. The contractor on the project was Aimes Construction, and the Quality Control Consultant was Mr. Abraham’s employer at the time, 1st Choice Inspections & Testing.
On August 4th, 2016, Forterra, an Arizona firm with whom Mr. Abraham was not employed, submitted a reinforced concrete box calculation that was designed by Hugh Martin, the Arizona Responsible Charge Professional Engineer for Forterra. Mr. Martin performed the calculations and stamped the same as an Arizona professional engineer. Mr. Martin does not have a Nevada PE license.
Forterra hired Mr. Abraham to review and stamp the calculations using his Nevada PE license.
As to the second allegation, the project is referred to as Clark County 604263 Moapa Town Roads II – Henrie Road. The contractor on that project is Meadow Valley 4615, and the supplier is CEMEX. IQC Southwest was Mr. Abraham’s employer at the time, and IQC was a consultant on the project. The owner is Clark County, Nevada, a governmental subdivision of the state of Nevada.
On April 3, 2017, a CEMEX mix design, number 1577290, was submitted to the Clark County Department of Public Works as project 604263. CCPW’s design review resulted in rejection due to the stamping of the design by Mr. Abraham, who was not in responsible charge.
Mr. Abraham has since left the private sector, and is now employed by the City of Henderson as a Laboratory Manager for the Public Works Quality Control Material Laboratory.
The State Board may take disciplinary action against a licensee for violations of provisions of NRS Chapter 625 and/or NAC Chapter 625.
NAC 625.612 provides that each report, study, test result, certification or calculation which is submitted to a public authority must be stamped, signed and dated by the licensee who had responsible charge of that report, study, test result, certification or calculation.
NAC 625.613 provides that details, shop drawings, descriptions of products or any other information which is prepared by a manufacturer, supplier or installer of a product or system may be included in a document which has been prepared and stamped by a licensee. Each document which is prepared by a licensee must include: (a} A description of the document; (b} The date the document was printed; (c) The name, address and telephone number of the licensee’s firm; and (d) The name and location of the project for which the document was prepared.
NRS 625.080 provides that “Responsible charge of work” means the independent control and direction, by the use of initiative, skill and independent judgment, of the investigation or design of professional engineering or land-surveying work or the supervision of such work.
By reviewing and stamping Mr. Martin’s calculations on the Clark County Public Works Bid Number603740-15 (Las Vegas Wash), Mr. Abraham violated NAC 625.612 and 613.
By stamping the design on the CEMEX Project 604263 (Henrie Road) without have responsible charge thereof, Mr. Abraham violated NRS 625.080.

Pursuant to NAC 625.640, this matter may be resolved without a formal hearing by Stipulated Agreement.

Stipulated Agreement executed on January 18, 2018

Mr. Abraham shall, within six (6) months of approval of this Stipulated Agreement, undergo study and course completion of a Murdough Center Basic Level Study in Engineering Ethics;
Mr. Abraham shall within one (1) year of approval of this Stipulated Agreement, complete a follow-up Whitepaper on the importance of responsible charge of work as it relates specifically to materials and testing field and the Southern Nevada Quality Control and Assurance Program, as well as the chain of command in materials and testing, and the responsibilities of a professional engineer in personnel management and supervision. The Whitepaper shall be submitted to the Board, but shall not be deemed completed until the Board approves the content thereof;
Mr. Abraham shall pay an administrative fine of $250.00;
Mr. Abraham shall pay assessed administrative costs and fees incurred in this matter in the amount of $2,000.00.

DAVID WINCHELL, PLS 003209
CASE NUMBER: 20170016
VIOLATION OF NAC 625.700

The complaint against Mr Winchell alleged violations of NRS chapter 625 and NAC chapter 625. Upon investigation by the Board’s staff, it was determined that a violation of NAC 625.700 likely occurred. The provisions of NAC 625.700 require a professional land surveyor to “(1) advise his or her client of discrepancies which raise doubts concerning the boundary lines of the property being surveyed; and (2) provide a written report to the client concerning the discrepancies.”

Factual Summary

On June 26, 2017, the Respondent recorded a land survey of 3835 Ponderosa Drive, Carson City, Nevada 89701, APN 009-137-08. The subject recorded survey set new monuments where established monuments previously existed and were apparent. The boundary was surveyed in 1995, and apparently affirmed in 2011 when monuments were set, by James Haddan, a Nevada registered professional land surveyor. These prior existing monuments established the boundary line upon which the affected parties relied, as demonstrated by the construction of a fence along the boundary line and a masonry wall a few inches to the north of it.

Prior to the survey in question, the Complainant had the original 1995 survey boundaries reaffirmed by the original surveyor. This reaffirmed survey was recorded on June 7, 2011, as Document No. 413275. Despite the existing and apparent monument boundaries and the June 7, 2011, recorded land survey, the Respondent set new monuments between the parcels, which appear to move the boundaries approximately eight (8) inches to the north. The Complainant called the Respondent on June 21, 2017, and inquired about the new and conflicting monuments. During the parties’ telephone conversation, the Respondent acknowledged his awareness of the existing conflicting monuments, but nevertheless, recorded his new land survey on June 26, 2017, apparently without discussing the discrepancies with the original surveyor, James Haddan. Stipulated Settlement Agreement

The Board is prepared to proceed with a hearing on a disciplinary action against the Respondent, and the Respondent is prepared to contest the allegations against him at a hearing. However, the Parties desire to compromise and settle the instant controversy upon the terms and conditions of the following Stipulated Agreement.

Stipulated Agreement executed on May 10, 2018

The Respondent agrees to provide a written report to his client regarding the boundary discrepancy found during the subject land survey, in accordance with NAC 625.700(2), including a recommended action to resolve, within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Stipulated Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”).
The Respondent agrees to complete, within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Agreement, the following distance learning tutorials conducted by Gary Kent at Geolearn, on surveys and disputed boundaries:
1. “The Surveyor’s Judicial Role Series (Tutorial 1)—What is the Real Role of the Boundary Surveyor?”; and
2. The Surveyor’s Judicial Role Series (Tutorial 4)—Can the Surveyor Resolve Boundary Title Problems?”.
The Respondent agrees to pay an administrative fine to the Board of Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($500.00), within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement.
The Respondent agrees to pay the Board’s attorney’s fees incurred in this matter in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Dollars and Twenty-Six Cents ($540.26)

LAZELL PREATOR, PE 014982
CASE NUMBER: 20180006
VIOLATION OF NRS 625.410 (2) & NAC 625.530

The office of the Deputy Building and Safety Director for the City of Las Vegas received a plan set entitled “Calverts Main Extension Plan”. The plan set included an irregular and misspelled signature of the City Engineer, Allen Pavelka, with his name signed “Alan” as opposed to the proper spelling “Allen.” The plan set further included a signature of a retired Director of Building and Safety, Chris Knight. Mr Preator asserts that he relied on a third party to acquire said signatures, and that said third party, unbeknownst to Mr Preator, obtained or affixed the forged signatures. Although Mr Preator denies forging the signatures at issue, he admits that he is responsible for documents that he seals and signs and that he is responsible to use due care and oversight to manage originals and copies of all documents he has signed and sealed.

Pursuant to NAC 625.640, this matter may be resolved without a formal hearing by Stipulated Agreement.

Stipulated Agreement executed on November 8, 2018

1. Mr Preator’s Nevada license shall be suspended for twelve (12) months following entry of this Agreement, pursuant to NRS 625.410 (2) and NAC 625.530, but with the suspension stayed and probation imposed for the duration of that time period.
2. The stay of Mr Preator’s suspension may be lifted by the state board upon notice and the opportunity to be heard should Mr Preator fail to abide by the terms hereof.
3. Mr Preator’s successful completion of probation is expressly conditioned upon his full compliance with the following conditions of probation:
  1. Mr Preator shall pay a fine of Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($500.00) for each forged signature at issue, for a total fine of One Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($1,000.00);
  2. Mr Preator shall draft and file a White Paper on the meaning of responsible charge or work in relation to the practice of professional engineering.

ROGER BLAIR, PE 024744
CASE NUMBER: 20180011
VIOLATION NRS 625.410 (6), NRS 625.410 (2), NRS 625.410 (5), NAC 625.520(1), NAC 625.530(1), & NAC 625.611

Mr Blair self-reported to the Nevada board discipline imposed against his Texas PE license by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers (“Texas Board”) for violations of the Texas Engineering Practice Act, the Texas Occupations Code, and the Texas Administrative Code, with regard to engineering services provided on a project.

The project consisted of a weld-up building to be used as a recreational facility and mechanic shop by the client. Mr Blair prepared, issued, signed, and sealed seven engineering design sheets for a metal building on the project, under the incorrect assumption that the building was a pre-engineered/manufactured building. Mr Blair did not include a disclaimer on the seven design sheets or a cover sheet indicating that his signature and seal only attested to the materials list as appropriate, thus his signature and seal attested to the entire engineering design. As such, Mr Blair’s signature and seal misled the client to reasonably believe the entire design met general engineering standards. It was subsequently determined that Mr Blair’s engineering design for the project was materially deficient in violation of 22 TAC §§ 137.33(n), 137.55(a) and (b), 137.57 (a), 137.57(b)(1)-(3), 137.63(a), 137.63(b)(1), 137.63(b)(4)-(6), and 137.77(h).

Mr Blair stipulated to the following violations in the Texas Consent Order:

Based on the significance and extent of the deficiencies and lack of information, Mr Blair neglected to practice engineering in an honest, ethical, professional, careful and diligent manner, thus jeopardizing the public health, safety, and welfare. Thus, Mr Blair failed to practice engineering in an honest, ethical, professional, careful, and diligent manner, which when measured by generally accepted engineering standards and/or procedures endangered the public health, safety, and welfare in violation of 22 TAC §§ 137.55(a) and (b), 137.57 (a), 137.57(b)(1)-(3), 137.63(a), 137.63(b)(1), 137.63(b)(4)-(6); and
Mr Blair is employed by and associated with the engineering firm Caiman Engineering, Inc., with firm registration number F-15209. On or about August 26, 2015, Mr Blair issued, signed, and sealed seven engineering design sheets for the project which lacked the firm’s title block and registration, which violated 22 TAC §§ 137.33(n) and 137.77(h).

Mr Blair stipulated that he engaged in conduct which violated 22 TAC §§ 137.33(n), 137.55(a) and (b), 137.57(a) and (b) (1-3), 137.63(a), (b)(1), and (b) (4-6), and 137.77(h), as set forth in the Texas Consent Order.

NRS 625.410(6) provides authority for the Nevada board to administer discipline in Nevada for discipline received by licensee in another state, if at least one of the grounds for discipline is the same or substantially equivalent to any ground contained in NRS Chapter 625. Regarding same or substantially similar grounds for discipline as those imposed on Mr Blair in the Texas Consent Order, NRS 625.410(2) empowers the Nevada board to impose discipline on a licensee for “[a]ny gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of professional engineering as a professional engineer…” Likewise, TAC §§ 137.55 (h) provides the Texas Board the power to discipline “[a]ny act or conduct which constitutes incompetence or gross negligence, or a criminal violation of law, constitutes misconduct…”

Furthermore, NRS 625.410(5) provides that the board may take disciplinary action against a licensee for “[a] violation of a provision of this chapter or regulation adopted by the Board.” As such, grounds for discipline under Nevada Administrative Code (“NAC”) Chapter 625 are grounds for discipline under NRS Chapter 625. The additional grounds for discipline of Mr Blair in Texas or are substantially equivalent to the following NAC Chapter 625 provisions:

NAC 625.520(1) provides that “[in] a licensee’s relations with the public, the licensee shall…[h]ave proper regard for the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of his or her professional duties.” This regulation is substantially similar to TAC §§ 137.55(a)&(b) which provides, in relevant part, that “[e]ngineers shall be entrusted to protect the health, safety, property, and welfare of the public in the practice of their profession.”
NAC 625.530(1) reads, in relevant part that “[i]n a professional engineers…relations with his or her employers and clients, he or she shall…[a]ct in professional matters as a faithful agent or trustee for each employer and client. “TAC §§ 137.63(B)(4) reads in relevant part that “[t]he engineer must…act as a faithful agent for their employers or clients.”
NAC 625.611 requires that “[p]lans or maps submitted to a public authority must include…[t]he name, address and telephone number of the form which submits the plans or maps. “TAC §§ 137.77(h) requires that “[a]ll form documents released, issued, or submitted by or for a registered engineering firm…must clearly indicate the firm name and registration number.”

Pursuant to NAC 625.640, this matter may be resolved without a formal hearing by Stipulated Agreement.

Stipulated Agreement executed on November 8, 2018

Mr Blair’s Nevada license shall be suspended for the duration of his Texas license probation pursuant to NRS 625.410 (2) and (6), but with the suspension shall be stayed and probation imposed for the duration of his Texas license probation.
The stay of Mr Blair’s suspension may be lifted by the Nevada board upon notice and the opportunity to be heard should Mr. Blair fail to abide by the terms of his Texas Consent Order and/or this Stipulated Agreement.
Mr Blair’s successful completion of probation is expressly conditioned upon his full compliance with the following conditions of probation:
1. the licensee shall provide proof to the Nevada board that he is in good standing throughout the Texas board’s probation period, and he shall provide the Nevada board with copies of the reports for verification.
2. the licensee shall submit detailed bi-monthly probation reports to the Executive Director of the Nevada Board, which shall report any work completed in Nevada during the previous two (2) month period. A report shall be filed even if no work was performed in Nevada during the previous two (2) month period. The first report shall include any work performed in Nevada since the date of the Texas Consent Order. Each report shall include a copy of the contracted executed for any work in Nevada, including the scope of work detail as well as supporting project documentation.
3. Mr Blair shall fully satisfy the terms of the Texas Consent Order.
Mr Blair shall not be required to pay any administrative fine or reimburse any investigative costs of fees.

MINGQIAO ZHU, PE 015943
CASE NUMBER: 20180015
VIOLATION OF NRS 625.410 (6), NRS 625.410(3) & NRS 625.565(3)

Mr Zhu self-reported to the Nevada Board disciplinary action imposed against his Oklahoma PE license by the Oklahoma State Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors for violation of the Oklahoma Statute Title 59. In that matter, Mr Zhu signed and sealed design and engineering documents for Stephen P Maslan & Co., a firm not authorized to offer and practice professional engineering services in Oklahoma. Further, Mr Zhu did so while not in responsible charge of the work performed. Mr Zhu thus violated 59 O.S. § 475 1 et seq., and the Board Rules in place in Oklahoma.

Mr Zhu stipulated to the following violations in the Oklahoma Consent Order:

On September 7, 2017, Mr Zhu was contacted to stamp a cover letter and drawings in relation to engineering drawings and calculations for the Oklahoma City Zoo timber frame project (“Project 1”). That same day, Mr Zhu digitally signed the cover sheet of the structural calculations report for Project 1, and further sealed the same on September 8, 2017.
The signed and sealed structural calculations report for Project 1 further included the name and information of Stephen P Maslan & Co., despite the fact that neither the firm, nor Mr Maslan himself, hold a valid or current Certificate of Licensure in Oklahoma.
On March 20, 2015, Mr Zhu signed and sealed the structural engineering drawings for a project for Joe Klerekoper, at the request of Mr Maslan (“Project 2”).
On September 18, 2015, Mr Zhu signed and sealed a structural engineering design for a project for Jamie Cupp in Oklahoma, at the request of Mr Maslan (“Project 3”).
On November 21, 2016, Mr Zhu signed and sealed structural engineering design drawings for a project for Don Davis in Oklahoma, at the request of an employee of Mr Maslan’s firm (“Project 4”).
On March 15, 2017, Mr Zhu signed and sealed structural engineering design and drawings, architectural drawings, and calculations for a residence in Oklahoma, at the request of an employee of Mr Maslan’s firm.

Mr Zhu stipulated that he knew or should have known that Stephen P Maslan & Co did not have a Certificate of Licensure to offer and/or practice engineering in Oklahoma at the times in which Mr Zhu provided the services listed above. As such, Mr Zhu stipulated that he violated the provisions of 59 O.S. § 475.1 and 475.18(A)(8) by aiding and assisting Stephen P Maslan & Co. in offering and practicing engineering services in Oklahoma without proper licensure.

Mr Zhu further stipulated that his signed, sealed, and dated structural engineering design drawings and/or structural calculations reports for the five projects listed above were not prepared under his direct control and personal supervision.

Mr Zhu acknowledged that the actions of Stephen P Maslan & Co. violated the provisions of 59 O.S. § 475.1, which provides in pertinent part that it shall be unlawful to practice or to offer to practice engineering or land surveying in this state, as defined in the provisions of 59 O.S. § 475.1 et seq. of that title, or to use in connection with any name or otherwise assume or advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that any person is an engineer, professional engineer, professional structural engineer, land surveyor or professional land surveyor, unless such person has been duly licensed or authorized under the provisions of that title. Mr Zhu stipulated that by assisting Stephen P Maslan & Co. in violating 59 O.S. § 475.1, Mr Zhu violated 59 O.S. § 475.18{A){8), which provides in pertinent part that the Oklahoma Board shall have the power to deny, place on probation, suspend, revoke or refuse to issue a certificate or license, or fine, reprimand, issue orders, levy administrative fines or seek other penalties, for aiding or assisting another person or entity in violating any provision of Section 475.1 et seq. or the rules or regulations pertaining thereto. Nevada has a same or similar statute, namely NRS 625.410(3), which allows the Nevada Board to impose discipline against a licensee for “[a]iding or abetting any person in the violation of any provision of this chapter or regulation adopted by the Board”.

Mr Zhu stipulated that he violated 59 O.S. § 475.l S(A)(l 0), which provides in pertinent part that the Oklahoma Board shall have the power to deny, place on probation, suspend, revoke or refuse to issue a certificate or license, or fine, reprimand, issue orders, levy administrative fines or seek other penalties, for signing, affixing the professional engineer’s or professional land surveyor’s seal, or permitting the professional engineer’s or professional land surveyor’s seal or signature to be affixed to any specifications, reports, drawings, plans, design information, construction documents, calculations, other documents, or revisions thereof, which have not been prepared by, or under the direct control and personal supervision of the professional engineer or professional land surveyor in responsible charge. Nevada has a same or similar statute, namely NRS 625.565(3), which makes it ”unlawful for a professional engineer to sign or stamp any plans, specifications or reports that were not prepared by the professional engineer or for which he or she did not have responsible charge of the work”.

Pursuant to NAC 625.640, this matter may be resolved without a formal hearing by Stipulated Agreement.

Stipulated Agreement executed on November 8, 2018

Mr Zhu’s Nevada license shall be suspended for eighteen (18) months following entry of this agreement, pursuant to NRS 625.410(6), but with the suspension stayed and probation imposed for the duration of that time period.
The stay of Mr Zhu’s suspension may be lifted by the Nevada board upon notice and the opportunity to be heard should Mr Zhu fail to abide by the terms of his Oklahoma Consent Order and/or this Stipulated Agreement.
Mr Zhu’s successful completion of probation is expressly conditioned upon his full compliance with the following conditions of probation:
1. the licensee shall submit detailed bi-monthly probation reports to the Executive Director of the Nevada Board, which shall report any work completed in Nevada during the previous two (2) month period. A report shall be filed even if no work was performed in Nevada during the previous two (2) month period. The first report shall be due within two (2) months of the effective date of this Stipulated Agreement, and shall include any work performed in Nevada since the date of the Oklahoma Consent Order. Each report shall include a copy of the contracted executed for any work in Nevada, including the scope of work detail as well as supporting project documentation; and
2. Mr Zhu shall fully satisfy the terms of the Oklahoma Consent Order, and shall provide proof of said full compliance to the Nevada board.
Mr Zhu shall not be required to pay any administrative fine or reimburse any investigative costs of fees.