The QP Who Works Somewhere Else: Experience, Employment, and Exam Credit
Summit Ridge Roofing LLC applies to the Nevada State Contractors Board for a roofing specialty license with a requested monetary limit of $750,000. The proposed qualifying party is Ramon Salas, who holds a 10% membership interest. Ramon works 45 hours a week as a project manager for a licensed roofing company in North Las Vegas and says he would supervise Summit Ridge "on evenings and weekends." His experience file contains W-2s and foreman letters documenting 3 years and 8 months of roofing supervision ending in 2022, plus about $22,000 of cash side work he did in 2013 that has no permits, invoices, or references. The company's reviewed financial statement shows negative net worth of $18,000, a $31,000 truck loan, and $4,200 cash. At intake the owner asks whether he can submit bids next week "to hold the customer," whether he can use the exam scores of a friend who passed the roofing trade exam in 2022 but never applied for a license, and what he can do about the experience shortfall.
1. Does Ramon satisfy the qualifying-party experience requirement? Identify what counts, what does not, and the practical ways to cure the shortfall.
Read the worked answer
The requirement is a minimum period of journey-level or supervisory experience in the classification, earned within a defined lookback window (commonly the last 10 years), and it must be verifiable. Ramon's file supports 3 years 8 months, which is short of the 4-year mark by roughly four months, so the application fails on this element as submitted.
The 2013 cash work does not help for two independent reasons: it falls outside the lookback window, and it is unverifiable - no permits, no invoices, no licensed contractor willing to attest to it. Self-reported side work is the weakest evidence the Board sees.
Cures: (1) document additional qualifying months with W-2s, pay stubs, permit records listing him as the responsible supervisor, inspection histories, and signed letters from licensed contractors who employed him; or (2) name a different qualifying party who already meets the full requirement. The applicant should not submit and hope - a denial costs time, and each resubmission restarts review.
2. Can Ramon serve as qualifying party while employed full time by another roofing contractor, and how does the financial statement affect the request for a $750,000 limit?
Read the worked answer
No. The qualifying party must be regularly and actively engaged in the licensee's business in a supervisory capacity - not a figurehead who appears after hours. A full-time job with a competitor creates an immediate conflict: Ramon would be supervising two roofing operations, and the Board will ask who is actually running Summit Ridge's crews, contracts, and jobsite decisions. Either Ramon leaves the other employer and documents full-time engagement, or the LLC designates someone else.
The financial statement is a separate problem. A negative net worth with minimal liquidity signals that the company may not be able to absorb a payroll cycle, a materials bill, or a call-back. The Board has discretion over the monetary limit, so the realistic outcomes are a reduced limit, a request for additional financial documentation or an indemnitor, or denial. Asking for $750,000 on negative net worth invites scrutiny; a smaller initial limit that matches demonstrated capacity is the stronger strategy.
3. May the LLC submit bids before the license is issued, and can it use the friend's passing exam scores?
Read the worked answer
No to both.
Bidding before licensure. Submitting a bid is itself an act of a contractor. A bid submitted before the license issues exposes the company to discipline and undermines any later claim for compensation, and the customer who relies on that bid is dealing with an unlicensed entity. The correct answer to the owner is that the bid waits until the license number exists.
The friend's exam scores. Exam results belong to the individual who sat for the exam and are meaningful only in connection with that person's role as qualifying party. They are not a company asset and cannot be assigned, sold, or "borrowed." If the friend is to be useful, he must actually become the qualifying party - which means meeting the experience, employment, and ownership/status requirements himself and being the person accountable for the work. Otherwise the company is shopping for a straw party, which is exactly the arrangement the Board treats as a serious violation.