DECISIONS OF THE TEXAS BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EXAMINERS REGARDING GIGNAC and PBK:

1.  Raymond D. Gignac

                                         JURISDICTION

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to TEX. OCC. CODE ANN.  1051.501, 751-752 and 22 TEX. ADMIN. CODE  1.121, 1.141., 1.146, 1.147, and 1.164

                                                                   FINDINGS OF FACT 

The Board makes the following finding of fact:

1.  Respondent is registered to engage in the practice of architecture in the State of Texas.

2.  Respondent is a principal partner in the firm of Gignac & Associates (Gignac).

3.  On August 5, 2011, Registrant appeared before the Corpus Christi Independent School District (CCISD) Board of Trustees to provide information in support of his/her firm's selection to provide architecture services for the construction of a new CCISD middle school known as the Southside Middle School.

4.  The presentation made on August 5, 2011, was the result of a collaborative effort between Gignac & Associates and PBK Architects.  The collaboration and presentation were for the purpose of securing a contract to provide architectural services for the construction of the CCISD Southside Middle School.  This collaboration will be referred to as the "Team" in this Settlement Agreement.

5.  During the Team's presentation to the CCISD Board on August 5, 2011, Respondent and other members of the Team made comments about potential project savings and "economics of scale" that could arise from the Teams' already-existing design activities for a CCISD high school project.  Included in this presentation was a Power Point slide that referred to possible cost savings in the procurement of materials and contractors' services, which does not constitute a violation of the Architect's Practice Act or the Board's Rules.  The Team's presentation also included reference to "Design Team Savings" of "$100,000-$135,000," with a specific listing of this amount on one of the Power Point slides.

6.  During its investigation of this case, it came to light that materials provided in answer to a question regarding the Team's litigation history were insufficiently detailed.  It is important for architects to provide truthful, complete and candid responses in all communications with prospective clients.  Respondent is reminded of the importance of providing complete and detailed answers to questions posed by prospective clients.

                                                                  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to TEX. OCC. CODE ANN.  1051.501, 751-752, and 22 TEX. ADMIN. CODE  1.165(a) and (b).

2.  The Board has authority to resolve this matter informally as set forth herein under TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. 2001.056 and 22TEX. ADMIN CODE  1.165(a) and (b).  Respondent has knowingly and voluntarily waived all procedural rules to which he might have been entitled regarding the entry of this Order.

3.  Respondent did not violate the Professional Services Procurement Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2254.

4.  By referencing the "design team savings," Respondent violated the Board Rule 1.147.  Because these savings arose out of work that the Respondent was already performing by the CCISD, and because these savingS were not created merely to secure the contract for the new middle school, Respondent was not aware that his/her conduct violated Rule 1.147, nor did (s)he intend to violate Rule 1.147.

5.  The sum of SEVENTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($17,500.00) is within the statutory and regulatory criteria by which penalty calculations are guided, and shall be remitted to the Board within (30) days of the Board's formal acceptance and approval of this Settlement Agreement.  Respondent acknowledges any future violation of Rule 1.147 by engaging in conduct described in Conclusion of Law 4 could lead to the imposition of an administrative penalty of FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($50,000.00), the suspension of his certificate of registration, or the revocation of his certificate of registration.

6.  Respondent volunteers to attend 2 hours of professional ethics training acceptable to the Board within 12 months of the date of the entry of Board Order approving this Agreement.

7.  Insufficient evidence exists to support a finding of wrongdoing of any statute, rule, or other authority other than TBAE Rule 1.147.  The Board has concluded that the additional matters alleged in the Board's proposed Notice of Violation dated July 12, 2012, are not violations of the Board's Rules, the Texas Occupations Code, or the Texas Government Code.

The Board has never had an opportunity to clearly delineate the scope of Rule 1.147.  The rule states, in relevant part, "an architect may submit information related to the monetary cost of a professional service only after the governmental entity has selected the architect on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications pursuant to the Professional Services Procurement Act."  By specifically representing that the Team would be able to provide the Corpus Christi Independent School District with between $100,000 and $135,100 in design tem savings, Respondent provided "information related to the monetary cost of a professional service" prior to the Team's selection "on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications pursuant to the Professional Services Procurement Act."

These savings resulted from the fact that design work that had already been performed for CCISD by the Team developing a high school could be transferred to, and used for, the development of the Southside Middle School and would not, therefore, have to be developed as original work.  In light of this, and recognizing the lack of prior Board interpretations of Rule 1.147, the Board has found that the Respondent did not intend to violate Rule 1.147.

Rule 1.147 prohibits an architect from submitting "information related to the monetary cost of a professional service" until such time as the architect has been notified that he or she has been selected for the work based exclusively on demonstrated competence and qualifications."  Based upon the language of Rule 1.147, and the highly specific amount of the design team savings, a commitment to provide "design team savings" prior to selection based exclusively upon "competency and qualifications" constitutes the provision of information related to the monetary cost of a professional service."

This Settlement Agreement represents a full and final resolution of all complaints, investigations or allegations of any kind involving Respondent and the CCISD's Southside Middle School project.

By his signature on this Settlement Agreement, Respondent hereby waives his right to a Notice of Hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearing and/or the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners, and judicial review of this Settlement Agreement, all of which rights are granted to Respondent under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure act, sections 2001.001-2001.902, Texas Government Code, and/or Sections 2003.001-2003.046, Texas Government Code.

After discussion of the matters previously outline in this Settlement agreement relative to this inquiry, Respondent has agreed to an entry of a Board Order dispensing with the need for further administrative action in this matter.

AGREED and dated this 20th day of February, 2014.

_________(Signature)_________________________

RAYMOND GIGNAC, AIA - Respondent

________(Signature)________________________

J. A. "TONY" CANALES, Attorney for the Respondent

________(Signature)_______________________

ALFRED VIDAURRI, JRL, AIA, NCARB, AICP

_______(Signature)_______________________

SCOTT GIBSON, Attorney for

TEXAS BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EXAMINERS

(Settlement Agreements for the following PBK architects (principal partners) not yet copied here)

2.  Joel E. Hernandez 

3.  Irene M. Nigaglioni

4.  James Ian Adams Powell