Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Notice of Review and Appeal Rights


                                 STATE OF OREGON
                                          for the
                             CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARD

In the Matter of the Complaint of:
                                                                   Complaint No: 171360-101

vs.                                                             PROPOSED AND FINAL ORDER
                                                              FOLLOWING REMAND FROM THE

                                             HISTORY OF THE CASE

        On July 6, 2007, the complainant timely filed this complaint pursuant to ORS 701.140,
701.143 and 701.145, alleging that respondent performed improper and negligent asphalt paving
work at his home, located at 2800 Oakgrove Road in Rickreall, Oregon. The respondent was
licensed at the time the work was performed. The Construction Contractors Board (CCB) reviewed
the matter and conducted an on-site investigation of the complaint on August 16, 2007, which was
attended by Mr. Case and Steven Gardner, sole member of respondent LLC. The investigator
issued his report and recommendation on August 27, 2007. Respondent filed a request for a
hearing on September 28, 2007. Upon request from the CCB dispute analyst, complainant then
filed a Statement of Damages (Exhibit 41-42) seeking a total of $65,415.51.

        On November 1, 2007, the CCB referred this matter to the Office of Administrative
Hearings to conduct binding arbitration of the matter, pursuant to ORS 701.148(1), and subject to
the provisions of ORS 701.148(4). A Notice of Arbitration Hearing was served on the parties
December 18, 2007, setting the hearing for March 7, 2008, before Arbitrator Robert Goss.
Complainant timely filed a request for the matter to be heard as a contested case under ORS
Chapter 183 and, due to caseload adjustments, the case was reassigned to Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) David Marcus. A telephone prehearing conference was conducted on January 18,
2008, and the hearing was reset for cause to March 26, 2008. Complainant then timely filed an
amended Statement of Damages, based on complete removal and replacement of the asphalt
installed by respondent, in the amount of $94,784.73.

       The hearing in this matter was conducted on March 26, 2008, in Salem, Oregon. Notice of
Hearing was served on the parties by the Office of Administrative Hearings, in accordance with
ORS 701.080. The complainant appeared in person with his attorney, Noel Grefenson. The

  This order is an amended version of the Corrected Proposed and Final Order issued April 25, 2008. Any deletions
from the previous order are noted by double strikethrough; additional language is designated by underscored italic

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                                  Page 1 of 10
respondent appeared through its sole member, Steven D. Gardner. Mr. Case and Mr. Gardner both
testified at the hearing. The following persons testified for complainant: Brian Leach, Senior
Engineer, Carlson Testing Inc.; Greg Vego, contractor; Jim Bryson, employee of respondent on the
Case project; and, Shari Lowery, complainant’s significant other. The following persons testified
for respondent: Zachary Gardner, Steven Gardner’s son; Robert Pennock, employee of respondent
on the Case project; and, Steve Beggs, friend of Mr. Gardner and principal of Beggs Trucking

       On April 22, 2008, the ALJ issue a Proposed and Final Order for respondent to pay
complainant $79,958.00 plus $50.00 in costs for complainant’s processing fee. A Corrected
Proposed and Final Order was issued on April 25, 2008, correcting a mathematical error and
ordering respondent to pay complainant $76,958.00 plus $50.00 in costs for complainant’s
processing fee. Respondent timely filed exceptions with the CCB Appeal Committee, which then
heard oral argument from the parties on April 28, 2009. On May 21, 2009, the CCB issued an
“Intermediate Order of Remand,” returning the case to the undersigned ALJ “for additional
findings to establish whether there was a contract between the complainant and the respondent.”

        On June 23, 2009, the ALJ conducted a telephone prehearing conference. Complainant
appeared through his attorney, Noel Grefenson. Respondent appeared through its sole member,
Steven D. Gardner, and was not represented by counsel. During the teleconference, respondent
expressed a desire to retain counsel and respondent was afforded opportunity to do so. The ALJ
advised that the Intermediate Order of Remand called for additional findings of fact, but it did not
call for allowing any additional evidence. The ALJ asked the parties if the matter could be
submitted on briefs, without an oral hearing. Complainant agreed to that course, and respondent
advised that he needed to consult with counsel first. Accordingly, complainant was allowed
opportunity to retain counsel and have notice of representation filed by July 6, 2009. The parties
were advised that if notice of counsel for respondent was timely filed, a subsequent teleconference
with counsels would be scheduled. The parties were further advised that if notice of counsel was
not filed, then the case would be submitted on briefs, without an oral hearing, and such briefs
would be due by August 3, 2009.

        As of July 6, 2009, no notice of representation was filed on respondent’s behalf. By letter
dated July 7, 2009, the ALJ confirmed the earlier ruling during the June 23 teleconference—that
the matter would be submitted on briefs without oral hearing and that briefs were due by not later
than August 3, 2009. The letter specifically advised that the parties had opportunity to submit
proposed additional or corrected findings, supported by citation to exhibits in the record, and
testimony with a notation of the hour and minute on the digital recording. Complainant timely
filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, but the ALJ did not receive any further submission
from respondent.


      1. Whether respondent and complainant had a direct contractual relationship, given Greg
Vego’s role in this project; and if so,

       2. Whether respondent breached the contract or otherwise performed improper or negligent
work in completing the terms of the contract; and if so,

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                   Page 2 of 10
      3. Whether the cost of replacement or the cost of repairs is the appropriate measure of

                                        EVIDENTIARY RULING

       Exhibits 1 through 106, submitted in the agency’s file for hearing, were all admitted into
evidence without objection. In addition, complainant’s Exhibits C1 through C54 and respondent’s
Exhibits R1 and R2 were also admitted into evidence without objection. The hearing was
concluded and the record was closed on March 26, 2008.

        Mr. Gardner called the OAH on March 27 and left a voice message with staff assistant
Joanne Call regarding the case. Ms. Call advised the ALJ of the message and the ALJ requested
that she notify Mr. Gardner by phone that the record was closed. Ms. Call phoned Mr. Gardner,
advised him that the record was closed and prepared a telephone memorandum of the call, which
has been marked as Exhibit 108. Later on March 27, 2008, Mr. Gardner submitted a letter to the
ALJ requesting opportunity to provide additional explanation for the record regarding the
respondent’s phone number listed on its CCB record. That letter has been marked as Exhibit 107.
The ALJ notified the parties, by letter dated April 1, 2008, that both the letter from Mr. Gardner
and Ms. Call’s memorandum constituted ex parte contacts under OAR 137-003-0625, and allowed
complainant opportunity to respond by April 10, 2008. That letter has been marked as Exhibit 109,
and counsel’s response for complainant, dated April 3, 2008, with attached copy of Mr. Gardner’s
March 27, 2008 letter to the ALJ, have been marked as Exhibits 110 and 111. Exhibits 107
through 111 are all entered into the record.

        Following remand of this case by the CCB Appeals Committee, additional documentation
has been made a part of the record, including Exhibits E-1 through E-74, and A-1 (CCB’s
Intermediate Order of Remand), A-2 (Notice of Telephone Prehearing sent June 11, 2009), A-3
(handwritten letter from Mr. Gardner, faxed on July 2, 2009), A-4 (ALJ’s letter to parties dated
July 7, 2009), and A-5 (Complainant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, submitted August
3, 2009). The record on remand was closed on August 3, 2009.

                                           FINDINGS OF FACT

       1. Complainant is the owner of a large, high-end home and shop, on acreage including an
orchard and a vineyard, located at 2800 Oakgrove Road in Rickreall, Oregon. Complainant built
the home himself with a friend, who was a retired contractor. (Ex. C16, C51-C53; testimony of

       2. Greg Vego is a businessman, a current principal in Triad Paving & Grading Co., and a
former principal of Keizer Paving & Grading, Inc., which was a licensed contractor from 1993 to
2006. Complainant became acquainted with Mr. Vego in 2004, and he contracted with Keizer
Paving & Grading Inc. for asphalt work at his business in 2005. Complainant was satisfied with
the work that was performed. Also in 2005, when Mr. Vego experienced financial problems,
complainant made a personal loan of $10,000.00 to Mr. Vego. (Testimony of complainant, Mr.

       3. Steve Gardner had worked for Keizer Paving & Grading Inc. on occasion for about
seven years and he was acquainted with Mr. Vego. When Keizer Paving & Grading Inc. went out

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                 Page 3 of 10
of business in 2006, Mr. Vego encouraged Mr. Gardner to establish a contracting business and the
two men discussed being partners in business. With some assistance from Mr. Vego, including
arranging for the purchase of a paving machine, Mr. Gardner formed Northwest Paving & Grading
LLC., which was first licensed in July 2006 in the non-exempt category (i.e., with employees and
subject to workers’ compensation coverage), with Mr. Gardner as the sole member. Mr. Gardner
did not have experience performing paving work except with Mr. Vego and he planned to have
Vego obtain jobs for respondent and to teach him how to pave as they completed those jobs. When
Gardner applied for respondent’s CCB license, he provided Mr. Vego’s phone number (the same
number formerly used by Mr. Vego for Keizer Paving & Grading) as respondent’s business phone.
(Testimony of Mr. Vego, Mr. Gardner.)

        4. Once respondent became licensed, Mr. Vego actively sought contract work as
respondent’s agent, with Mr. Gardner’s knowledge and approval. Mr. Vego initiated all bids on
behalf of respondent. In doing so, Mr. Vego utilized the old forms for Keizer Grading & Paving
and changed “Keizer” to “Northwest,” as Mr. Gardner had not obtained contract forms for the new
business. Prior to the contract with complainant, Mr. Vego successfully bid four jobs for
respondent, ranging in contract price from $4,555.00 to $17,000.00. These jobs were performed by
Mr. Vego and Mr. Gardner and other employees of respondent. After each job, Mr. Vego prepared
and provided billings in the name of respondent to the customers. The property owners for these
jobs paid made full payment to respondent or Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Gardner then paid Mr. Vego
one-half of the profits after expenses. Mr. Vego obtained four additional contracts for work for
respondent after the contract with complainant, and those jobs were completed in the same
manner. (Ex. C2-C5 C9; testimony of Mr. Vego, Mr. Gardner.)

         5. Mr. Vego fell behind on repaying the loan he had received from complainant. Because
of that, the two men had stayed in touch and Mr. Vego was aware of complainant’s construction of
his new home. Mr. Vego advised complainant that he was working with Mr. Gardner and
Northwest Paving & Grading as a partner and complainant asked Mr. Vego for a bid to pave the
extensive driveway and the area around the home and shop. Both men recognized that Mr. Vego
would be in a better position to repay the loan if the work was contracted to respondent. Mr. Vego
submitted a written bid from respondent to complainant on September 29, 2006, which
complainant subsequently verbally accepted. (Ex. 4; testimony of complainant, Mr. Vego.)

        6. Work on the project was performed to substantial completion in October 2006. Mr. Vego
and respondent’s employee, Jim Bryson, performed the initial grading. When Mr. Gardner brought
the paving machine to the site, he observed that the grading was not satisfactory and he told Mr.
Vego that it needed more work. Mr. Vego advised that they could pre-level with the paving
machine and make a second pass to complete the job. Gardner and Vego proceeded with the
paving and discovered that the particular paving machine respondent had purchased was not
capable of pre-leveling. As a result, the paving was not level or smooth and was overall of poor
quality. Respondent overlaid the driveway pavement in an attempt to improve the finished surface,
but after applying the additional lift, the driveway had rough and uneven edges and numerous dips
and bumps. Mr. Vego had no further involvement in the project after the driveway overlay, but
Mr. Gardner and his sons returned in November to repair and saw cut broken edges of the asphalt
and to apply gravel to the edges of the driveway. During the course of the paving project,
complainant made cash payments to Mr. Vego and to Mr. Gardner, and he also made direct
payment to the suppliers of the asphalt and to Steve Beggs Trucking LLC for the gravel deliveries
in November. After the original paving was complete, Mr. Vego prepared an invoice to

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                 Page 4 of 10
complainant from respondent and he gave it to Mr. Gardner. Mr. Gardner, in turn, personally
gave the invoice to complainant. Mr. Gardner also personally gave complainant the material
supplier billings to respondent and complainant paid those billings directly. Respondent agreed to
return in the spring of 2007 to apply the seal coat and complete any additional needed repairs, and
complainant withheld $3,000.00 of the contract price to assure that respondent would complete the
job. The contract was otherwise paid in full. (Ex. 1, 5, 27-37, C10 & C11; testimony of
complainant, Mr. Vego, Mr. Bryson & Mr. Gardner.)

        7. In the spring of 2007, complainant contacted Mr. Vego to arrange for respondent to
complete further repairs and seal coat the asphalt. Mr. Vego advised that he was no longer working
with respondent as Mr. Gardner had “fired” him. Complainant then attempted to contact Mr.
Gardner by telephone, but he was only able to get voicemail for Mr. Gardner. Complainant left
several messages, but Mr. Gardner did not return his calls. Complainant then sent respondent
written notice of his intent to file a complaint with the CCB. That notice was sent on May 17,
2007. On June 1, 2007, Mr. Gardner went to complainant’s home, but complainant was not at
home. Mr. Gardner left a note acknowledging receipt of the complainant’s letter and requesting
that complainant call him to discuss the problems and possibly rectify them. (Ex. 10; testimony of
complainant & Mr. Vego.)

         8. Mr. Gardner and Mr. Beggs met with complainant in early June. At that time,
respondent acknowledged that there were issues with the driveway, caused in large part by the poor
grading before the initial paving work. Mr. Gardner agreed to perform another overlay to the
driveway if complainant agreed to pay for the asphalt and trucking. Complainant agreed to that
arrangement, with the understanding that respondent would provide the asphalt and complainant
would reimburse respondent for the cost incurred. Respondent performed the driveway overlay on
June 12, 2007. The result of that additional work was completely unsatisfactory to complainant.
He therefore proceeded to file this complaint with the CCB on July 6, 2007. The sealant was never
applied and complainant did not pay respondent the contract balance of $3,000.00. In addition,
complainant received a direct billing from River-Bend Sand and Gravel for the asphalt and trucking
in the total amount of $14,188.07. Complainant had not authorized that charge and has not paid the
billing, which has increased to $14,816.53 as of October 2007, due to finance charges on the
unpaid balance. (Ex. 43; testimony of complainant, Mr. Gardner & Mr. Beggs.)

      9. The paving project as left by respondent in June 2007 does not meet industry standards.
Respondent performed improper work that has resulted in defects as listed below:

            a. Throughout the project, grading was not properly performed, substrate
               was not properly prepared or sufficiently compacted, and the rolling of
               the asphalt was not properly completed;

            b. The upper level parking area around the house and shop has numerous
               grade changes, depressions, humps and improper and unsightly patched
               areas over some depressions. Water does not properly drain to the
               catch basin and water accumulates where the asphalt meets the
               concrete. The finish is very uneven, with some areas smooth and other
               areas very rough with evident spalling and raveling. The seams are
               very rough and several have humps. In several areas, roller marks from
               the paving machine are quite visible and there are fine cracks

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                   Page 5 of 10
                throughout the asphalt surface, which indicates that respondent failed to
                finish roll the surface. While applying a sealer would improve the
                appearance of the asphalt surface, it would not resolve the problems
                with the asphalt, as detailed above, which will accelerate the failure of
                the asphalt. There is also insufficient lateral space, given the concrete
                surfaces, for an additional lift or overlay of asphalt to be applied;

            c. The driveway, even after respondent’s overlay, has an undulating,
               washboard surface, with numerous humps and several poor and uneven
               seams. There are several very visible roller marks and the surface
               finish varies from fairly smooth to very coarse and raveling. Fine
               cracks have developed throughout the surface and several larger, severe
               cracks have also developed. The edges are not properly finished and
               are unsafe and also deteriorating due to lack of support and improper
               preparation before asphalt was applied.

            (Ex. 23-24, C13, C16-C53; testimony of Mr. Leach, complainant.)

        10. The asphalt as installed by respondent has a drastically reduced life expectancy and
cannot be repaired or supplemented so as to provide a finished surface that meets industry
standards for functionality and aesthetic appearance. Removal and replacement is necessary to
provide complainant with finished pavement that meets industry standards and the reasonable
expectations of complainant under the parties’ contract. The reasonable cost to complete that work
is $79,958.00. (Ex. C13, C15; testimony of Mr. Leach.)

                                        CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       1. Mr. Vego was an authorized agent of respondent in negotiating and performing the
contract in this case. Respondent and complainant had a direct contractual relationship. The
complaint is therefore within the jurisdiction of the CCB under OAR 812-004-0320(5)(a).

      2. Respondent breached the contract by performing improper or negligent work in
completing the terms of the contract.

       3. Complete removal and replacement of the asphalt respondent installed is necessary and

       4. Complainant is entitled to recover damages from respondent for the removal and
replacement of the asphalt respondent installed in the total amount of $76,958.00.


        The person making the complaint has the burden of proving the complaint. ORS
183.450(2); Salem Decorating v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 116 Or App, 170 (1992), rev den
315 Or 643 (1993). In a contested case proceeding, the standard by which a party must prove the
facts asserted is by a “preponderance of the evidence.” ORS 183.450(5); Gallant v. Board of
Medical Examiners, 159 Or App 175, 180 (1999). Under OAR 812-004-0535, complainant must
prove that complainant suffered damages, that those damages were caused by the respondent and

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                      Page 6 of 10
that the monetary value of those damages is substantiated on the record. Pursuant to OAR 812-
009-0100, “If the complainant does not carry this burden of proof, the administrative law judge
must dismiss the complaint.”

      Respondent first argues that it did not have a direct contractual relationship with the
complainant, a jurisdictional requirement under OAR 812-004-0320(5)(a). That section provides:

            (5) Complaints will be accepted only when one or more of the following
            relationships exist between the complainant and respondent:
               (a) A direct contractual relationship based on a contract entered into by
            the complainant and the respondent, or their agents;
               (Emphasis added.)

         Mr. Gardner asserted that Mr. Vego undertook the job and was responsible for the defects
in the finished paving work. Mr. Gardner also asserted that the contract was an under-the-table
deal between complainant and Mr. Vego as a way for Mr. Vego to repay a loan debt to
complainant. Mr. Gardner argued that Mr. Vego, not respondent, should be responsible for any
damages complainant has suffered. Mr. Gardner’s testimony on this point was not credible and
respondent’s arguments are not persuasive, given the evidence in the record. While it is true that
respondent’s improper work included work performed by Mr. Vego, the record nevertheless
supports a conclusion that Mr. Vego was working as an authorized agent of respondent.

        Mr. Vego’s working relationship with respondent is not entirely clear, i.e., whether he was
an employee, an unlicensed independent contractor or “a partner.” However, the record
establishes that Mr. Vego acted as an agent for respondent, with Mr. Gardner’s authorization, in
seeking out and contracting for the Case project, and at least eight other jobs, between July 2006
and April 2007. Four of those other jobs were contracted before the contract with complainant. I
am persuaded that Mr. Gardner knew that Mr. Vego was contracting work in the name of
Northwest Paving & Grading LLC. Mr. Gardner also knew, or should have known, that respondent
was required to have a written contract for all jobs in excess of $2,000.00. All of the projects
respondent worked on with Mr. Vego exceeded that amount. A written contract was required for
each of the projects respondent undertook with Mr. Vego and all of those contracts were prepared
in respondent’s name. Payments from the owners on the prior projects were made directly to Mr.
Gardner in cash or by check payable to respondent. Finally, respondent provided no evidence of
ever entering any other contracts for work except through Mr. Vego. Respondent allowed Mr.
Vego to act on its behalf and for its benefit, and cannot now be heard to disavow Mr. Vego’s
authority to contract and perform jobs as its agent.

        This conclusion is reinforced by respondent’s participation in the original contract work,
Mr. Gardner’s acceptance of direct payments from complainant, and respondent’s actions in
attempting remediation of the job after respondent’s relationship with Vego had terminated. I
conclude that respondent, through Mr. Gardner, had clothed Vego with express authority to
contract work on behalf of respondent. Vego had done so for all of respondent’s jobs, a total of
five jobs including the job for complainant. Gardner was clearly aware that Vego had contracted
all those previous jobs, and he continued to clothe Vego with authority to enter contracts for
respondent on four additional jobs after complainant’s job. I also conclude that Gardner’s actions
clearly implied, and reasonably led complainant to believe, that Vego was authorized to contract
Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                     Page 7 of 10
on behalf of respondent. Thus, Vego had actual authority to act as respondent’s agent for the
purpose of entering contracts for paving work. Accordingly, his actions as agent are binding on
respondent as the principal. See Taylor v. Ramsay-Gerding Construction Co., 345 Or 403 (2008).

        For all of these reasons, I conclude that complainant and respondent had a direct contractual
relationship and the complaint is properly within the jurisdiction of the CCB. I now consider the
extent of damages to complainant and the appropriate scope of corrective work.

         Complainant first seeks to recover damages in the amount of $14,826.53, the amount billed
to him by River-Bend Sand and Gravel for the materials and trucking associated with respondent’s
attempt to remedy the issues with the driveway in June 2007. Complainant acknowledges that he
agreed to pay for the materials based on respondent completing satisfactory repair work at no
additional cost. Complainant testified that he did not authorize River-Bend to bill him directly and
had understood that respondent would provide the asphalt and he would reimburse respondent for
the cost. Complainant also asserts that he received no value from the additional materials because
respondent’s repair work is still defective. Complainant has not made any payment on the billing
and no evidence was presented to show that River-Bend has filed a lien on complainant’s property
or initiated any other actions to collect from complainant. I conclude that complainant has failed to
establish that he has suffered damages on this item of the complaint and it is therefore dismissed.

         The evidence establishes that the grading and paving work has not been performed
properly. Although respondent’s work in June 2007 resulted in some improvement, it also resulted
in further damages and the project, as left by respondent after that work, clearly did not meet
industry standards. The central issue for determination is whether complete removal and
replacement of all asphalt is necessary and appropriate, as opposed to further repairs to the work as
it exists. Complainant has submitted bids for each alternative, but argues that the appropriate
remedy is complete removal and replacement because the existing paving cannot be repaired to
meet industry standards and normal useful life expectancy. Given the extent of the defects proven
by complainant, I am persuaded that complete removal and replacement is necessary and
appropriate to obtain completed paving consistent with industry standards and the reasonable
expectations of the complainant.

        I acknowledge that the CCB investigator stated in his report that complete removal and
replacement is not required. However, I found the testimony of Mr. Leach, and the photographic
evidence to be more reliable and compelling on the question. I also find that the D & D Paving Co.
bid, Exhibit C15, is reasonable, particularly when compared with the original contract between the
parties. D & D’s bid, in the total amount of $79,958.00, is broken down as $19,480.00 for removal
of the existing asphalt, $8,132.40 for grading and preparation, and $52,345.80 for new asphalt
paving. The total for grading and paving by D & D is within $3,000.00 of the contract price for
grading and paving by respondent, and is reasonable. The cost for removal and disposal of the
existing paving is also reasonable.

       I conclude that complainant is entitled to recover for removal and replacement of
respondent’s asphalt paving work, in the amount of $79,958.00. However, pursuant to OAR 812-
009-0160(5), this amount must be reduced by the amount of any unpaid balance on the parties’
contract. The parties agree that $3,000.00 was withheld and never paid by complainant.
Complainant is therefore entitled to a net amount in monetary damages of $76,958.00. Pursuant to

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                    Page 8 of 10
ORS 701.147(4) and OAR 812-004-0250(2)(c), complainant is also entitled to recover his
complaint processing fee in the amount of $50.00.


       Respondent shall pay complainant $76,958.00, plus $50.00 in costs for complainant’s
processing fee.

Dated this 31st day of August, 2009

                                                    David Marcus, Administrative Law Judge

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                 Page 9 of 10
                          NOTICE OF REVIEW AND APPEAL RIGHTS

As provided in ORS 183.460, any party that disagrees with this Proposed and Final Order may file
written exceptions, including argument. If you choose to file exceptions, carefully follow the
instructions enclosed with this order. Mail your exceptions to the Construction Contractors Board
(CCB) at the address provided below. CCB must receive written exceptions on or before the 21st
day after this order was mailed to the parties. If CCB does not receive your written exceptions on
or before the 21st day after this order was so mailed, your exceptions will not be considered.

If exceptions are timely received, CCB will send the opposing party a copy of the written
exceptions. At the same time, CCB will send both parties information and guidelines for
participating in the exceptions process. Thereafter, the Construction Contractors Board Appeal
Committee (Appeal Committee) will consider the exceptions at an Appeal Committee meeting.
This will not be a new hearing. The Appeal Committee will only review the original hearing
record and this order. The Appeal Committee will not consider evidence that was not a part of
the original hearing record.

If CCB does not timely receive exceptions, this order will automatically become final on the 21st
day following the date of issuance of this order, unless CCB requests the ALJ to review and
consider revising the order. OAR 812-009-0160. If this order becomes final, you are entitled to
request judicial review pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183.482, by filing a petition for judicial
review with the Court of Appeals within 60 days from the date that this order becomes final. Mail
any exceptions or a copy of any petition for judicial review to:

                                Assistant to Dispute Resolution Manager
                                Construction Contractors Board
                                PO Box 14140
                                Salem, OR 97309-5052

Case v. Northwest Paving & Grading LLC., CCB complaint no. 171360-101,                   Page 10 of 10

To top