One Qualifying Party, Two Contracting Entities

The qualifying party is a personal credential tied to active responsibility for a specific licensee's construction operations, not a license that can be spread across entities. The board generally expects one qualifying party to be actively engaged with one licensee; using the same person to qualify a second company requires close scrutiny and, in practice, a showing that the person will genuinely direct both operations. Leilani's plan fails that test: she would be in Hilo only monthly, Marcus would run daily operations, and Kai still needs her attention on Oahu. The phrase "Kai's license can cover RoofSafe" is itself evidence of license renting. The board would examine who signs contracts, controls crews, sets prices, handles money, and bears risk. If Leilani is not actively engaged in RoofSafe's roofing operations, RoofSafe is effectively unlicensed. Kai's license could also be jeopardized if the board finds Leilani is not fulfilling her qualifying-party duties. The answer is not a simple no forever, but the proposed arrangement is not permissible as described.

RoofSafe must obtain its own contractor license before contracting or bidding as a contractor. That means forming a proper application, identifying a qualifying party who meets the experience requirement for the roofing classification and passes the required exams, and submitting the bond and insurance documents the board requires. Marcus may be a candidate if he can verify the required years of roofing experience, including supervisory experience, and pass the exams; six years of experience alone does not license him. The 10-day bid deadline does not create an exception. RoofSafe cannot lawfully submit a prime bid in its own name without a license, and it cannot borrow Kai's license number. If RoofSafe wants to participate sooner, it could work as a properly licensed subcontractor only after it is licensed, or it could decline to bid and pursue licensure for the next opportunity. Submitting the bid unlicensed risks rejection, a board complaint, civil penalties, and payment problems later.

The board would look beyond the signature to actual control. Key facts include how often Leilani is physically present in Hilo, whether she supervises RoofSafe's crews or only reviews paperwork, who hires and fires employees, who negotiates and signs the contract, who controls the bank account and payroll, whether Marcus is held out to customers as the person in charge, and whether Kai receives any fee or other consideration for the use of its license. The board would also compare RoofSafe's application and bid documents with the reality of daily operations. A monthly visit and a title such as "qualifying party" do not establish active engagement. If Marcus is actually managing the work, RoofSafe may need him to qualify or may need a different qualifying party who is regularly employed and actively involved. The board could suspend or revoke Kai's license, cite RoofSafe for unlicensed contracting, and impose penalties on Leilani individually.