STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ASHOK RAICHOUDHURY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-4071

)

FLORIDA ENGINEERS )

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Upon due notice, this cause came on for the disputed fact, hearing on January 22, 1999, in Gainesville, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly-assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ashok Raichoudhury, pro se

9917 Northwest 6th Court Plantation, Florida 33324

For Respondent: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management

Corporation 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Is Petitioner entitled to enough points so as to be considered to have passed the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner presented his own oral testimony and that of Dr. Ranganathan Narayanan. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Dr. Michael Peters. Dr. Narayanan and Dr. Peters are each fully qualified Ph.D.s in chemical engineering.

Dr. Narayanan has held full professor status in chemical engineering at the University of Florida since 1981. Dr. Peters has held full professor status at Florida State University since 1993 and has served as department chair between that university and Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University since 1991.

Both were accepted as expert witnesses in chemical engineering.

Respondent had fourteen exhibits admitted in evidence.

The parties' joint prehearing stipulation was admitted in evidence as ALJ Exhibit A, which has been utilized as appropriate, but not verbatim, in this recommended order.

Irrelevant or immaterial matters contained in the joint prehearing stipulation have been excluded from this recommended order.

A transcript was provided in due course.

All timely filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered in preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination.

2. Petitioner received a score of 68 on the examination. A score of 70 is required to pass.

3. A score of 70 is a converted raw score of 48. Petitioner's score of 68 is a converted raw score of 46. Therefore, Petitioner needs two raw-score points to achieve a passing score.

4. Petitioner challenged the scoring of Questions 28, 62, 114, and 119.

5. Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) to be re-scored. The re-score resulted in no additional points being added to Petitioner's score.

6. No significant evidence was presented with regard to Questions 28 and 62, and Petitioner's expert agreed that they had been scored correctly with zero points awarded.

7. Question 114 is an essay question. Petitioner received a raw score of 4 on this question, (40 percent of a possible 10 points).

8. Question 119 is an essay question. Petitioner received a raw score of 2 on this question, (20 percent of a possible 10 points).

9. Neither Petitioner's nor Respondent's expert was pleased with the scoring method established by NCEES, but both experts agreed that applicants are bound by the scoring plan established by whatever entity devised the test and scoring system, in this case NCEES.

10. The NCEES scoring system is called the Solution and

    Scoring Plan. It contemplates that if an examinee's answer meets some criteria specified by NCEES for 4 points (but not all the criteria for 4 points) and also meets some criteria specified by NCEES for 2 points (but not all the criteria for 2 points), the examinee is to be awarded only 2 points, not 1 point or 3 points.

11. Petitioner received a score of 4 on Question 114, a gas absorption problem.

12. Petitioner got the correct answer but did not do much to justify the assumptions he made. He wrote his assumption in the body of his calculations instead of at the beginning, where he must have actually made the assumption in order to work the problem.

13. According to Dr. Narayanan, Petitioner merely made an assumption of diluteness.

14. Dr. Peters explained that Petitioner had assumed that the percent removal would be identical for the two cases contained in the problem. Petitioner had assumed that the percent removal of ammonia in condition one, which is 85 percent, is exactly the same as condition two. However, in Dr. Peters' view, there is no justification for that assumption. The Petitioner had calculated the new Yout based solely on the ratio of the two cases, without proving that the approach is valid.

15. Therefore, although Dr. Narayanan would have scored Petitioner with 5 or 6 points, instead of 4 points on this problem, Dr. Peters' view was that achieving the correct answer from an incorrect procedure did not demonstrate more than 4 points on the established scoring system.

16. Upon all the evidence, I find that Petitioner's answer to Question 114 meets the criteria set forth for a score of 4 under the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan. Accordingly,

    Petitioner was entitled only to a score of 4 for that problem.

17. Petitioner received a score of only 2 points on Question 119.

18. Overall, Petitioner selected the proper equations and demonstrated the solution procedure correctly with the correct mass balances, but the scoring plan required that for a score of

    4 on Question 119, examinees had to at least attempt to sketch the heat release curve, which Petitioner did not do. Petitioner admitted that he did not even attempt to draw the curve because he ran out of time.

19. More specifically, Part A of Question 119 required Petitioner to determine the temperature at which the flash cooler must be operated and the composition, in mole percent, of the liquid stream removed. Petitioner did not demonstrate the calculation for the mole fractions in the liquid phase composition. Instead, he calculated the vapor phase composition. Although there is no way he could calculate the correct temperature, which he did, without somehow calculating the liquid phase compositions coming out of the process, Petitioner still did not fulfill all of the requirements of Part A of Question 119, as that question was posed on the examination.

20. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Narayanan, partially agreed with the official scoring of Question 119. However, he stated that Petitioner's failure to report the liquid phase compositions, rather than the gas phase compositions, was merely an oversight.

21. Petitioner calculated something correctly that was not required, but he did not calculate at all one element which was required.

22. More specifically, Part B of Question 119 required Petitioner to sketch the heat release curve. Petitioner determined enough raw data for plotting the curve, but did not plot the curve due to the time factor. Completing all requirements of each problem posed was part of the testing procedure. Petitioner made no reasonable attempt to sketch the heat release curve, and therefore, Petitioner did not get any part of Part B of Question 119 correct.

23. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I accept as persuasive the testimony of Respondent's expert, Dr. Peters, that the scorer applied the NCEES scoring plan correctly, without a subjective component, and that Petitioner is not entitled to any more points on the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination than those which were originally awarded to him.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

25. As a license applicant, Petitioner has the duty of going forward and the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence his asserted position in this cause. Florida Department

    of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

26. Petitioner made a inappropriate assumption in Question

114. Petitioner did not fulfill all of the requirements of Question 119. Accordingly, his score cannot be increased.

27. Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional points.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order confirming Petitioner's score of 46 on the

October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

ELLA JANE P. DAVIS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ashok Raichoudhury

9917 Northwest 6th Court Plantation, Florida 33324

Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers

Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of

Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of 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: 98-004071

Orders for Case No: 98-004071