STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALI KHALILAHMADI, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2652

) DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Joyous D. Parrish, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on July 6, 1993, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ali Khalilahmadi, pro se

12755 Southwest 60 Lane

Miami, Florida 33183

For Respondent: Vytas J. Urba

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner passed the licensure examination given on October 29-30, 1992.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on May 3, 1993, when the Petitioner, Ali Khalilahmadi, filed a request for a formal hearing to challenge problem #120 on the professional engineer exam. Petitioner maintained that his solution for the problem was 80 percent accurate and that the score of "4" for the answer did not fairly evaluate his response.

The Department of Professional Regulation, now Department of Business and Professional Regulation, (Department) referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on May 14, 1993. By notice of hearing entered June 4, 1993, the case was scheduled for hearing.

At the hearing, the following exhibits (all of which are confidential and have been sealed in an envelope so marked) were received into evidence: Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's exhibit 1 and Respondent's exhibit 1. A transcript of

the proceedings has not been filed. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties are included in the appendix at the conclusion of this order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer.

   
   

2. Petitioner took the licensure examination in October, 1992, and received an overall score of 68.10. The minimum passing score for the exam was 70.

   
   

3. The examination used by the Department is a nationally recognized test administered and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES).

   
   

4. The scoring plan utilized by NCEES in this case provided, in pertinent part, that the score of 4 would be given where the applicant's response showed more than rudimentary knowledge but was insufficient to demonstrate competence.

   
   

5. Petitioner received the score of 4 on problem #120 and felt his answer should have received a higher grade.

   
   

6. To receive a score of 6 on problem #120, Petitioner's solution would have shown minimum competence by indicating the required volume of solids taken as the required volume of fill with all other analysis and computations being correct. According to the scoring plan, only "modest" errors in cost analysis or volume analysis computations are permitted to receive a grade of 6.

   
   

7. Petitioner admitted that his calculation of volume on problem #120 was incorrect, but felt that since the error was only 10-15 percent, such error was reasonable given that he had correctly analyzed the majority of the problem.

   
   

8. Petitioner's calculations for problem #120 were approximately 5900 cubic yards from the correct answer. Since Petitioner's volume calculations were incorrect, no credit was given for the cost analysis.

   
   

9. Petitioner's error was not a "modest" miscalculation as set forth by the scoring plan.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

    
    

11. Petitioner has failed to establish he is entitled to additional credit for problem #120. Based upon the scoring plan utilized by NCEES, Petitioner received the correct score for that problem. That is, Petitioner correctly received a score of 4.

    
    

12. Further, there is no evidence to establish that the examination was arbitrary or capriciously graded or that the denial of additional credit for the problem solution was devoid of logic and reason.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED:

That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the professional engineer examination administered in October, 1992.

DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JOYOUS D. PARRISH

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1993.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2652

Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner:

1. Paragraph a) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

2. Paragraph b) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

3. Paragraph c) is rejected as irrelevant.

4. Paragraph d) is rejected as irrelevant.

Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ali Khalilahmadi 12755 S.W. 60 Lane

Miami, Florida 33183

Vytas J. Urba

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Jack McRay

Acting General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Angel Gonzalez Executive Director

Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 93-002652

Orders for Case No: 93-002652