STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARK A. GRIFFIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 87-4628

) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ) PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, final hearing in the above-styled case was held on March 7, 1988, in Orlando, Florida, before Robert E. Meale, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

The representatives of the parties were as follows: For Petitioner: Mark A. Griffin, pro se

7236 Autumn Trail

Orlando, Florida 32818

For Respondent: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

BACKGROUND

Petitioner took the April, 1987, professional engineering examination. By Uniform Grade Notice dated July 22, 1987, he was notified that he had failed the principles and practice portion of the examination. On August 27, 1987, Petitioner requested a formal hearing regarding disputed issues of fact.

Petitioner presented one witness, himself. Respondent presented one witness. Petitioner offered into evidence two exhibits. Respondent offered into evidence four exhibits. All exhibits were admitted into evidence.

Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order. Respondent filed a brief. Treatment accorded Petitioner's proposed findings is set forth in the Appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner took the April, 1987, professional engineering examination and failed the principles and practice portion of the test. His raw score was

   69.1 and he needed a score of at least 70 to pass. (All references hereinafter to "points" shall be in terms of raw score.) Petitioner challenges questions

   146 and 441 of the principles and practice portion of the examination.

2. Question 146 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Respondent's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed at the request of the commercial producer of the test. The question generally provides certain information regarding a cylindrical pressure vessel. The question then asks the applicant to consider stipulated operating conditions and determine, as a result thereof, the total elongation of the cylindrical part of the vessel and the increase in diameter of the vessel.

   
   

3. The answer requires a calculation of two forces: the longitudinal force (along the length of the cylinder) and the diametrical force (along the circumference or diameter of the cylinder).

   
   

4. The calculation of each of the two forces requires the determination of the effect of temperature and internal pressure in the cylinder. These determinations require that the applicant apply commonly accepted equations or formulas to the facts given in the problem.

   
   

5. The correct answer for the total elongation or change in length in the cylinder due to the effect of temperature is 0.8056 inches. The correct answer for the change in elongation due to the effect of internal pressure is 0.0256 inches. The correct answer for total elongation is thus 0.831 inches.

   
   

6. The correct answer for the change in diameter in the cylinder due to the effect of temperature is 0.222 inches. The correct answer for the change in diameter due to the effect of internal pressure is 0.030 inches. The correct answer for the increase in diameter is thus 0.252 inches.

   
   

7. Petitioner's answer for the total elongation was 0.87 inches. He calculated that the change in length due to the effect of temperature was 0.81 inches. He calculated that the change in length due to internal pressure was

   0.064 inches. The discrepancy as to temperature was due to rounding off and is insignificant. The discrepancy as to internal pressure was due to Petitioner's decision not to apply Poisson's ratio or effect in his calculations. His decision was informed and based on practical experience. The effect of Poisson's ratio in this case was slight and generated a more conservative result. He applied Poisson's ratio in his calculations concerning diameter. The discrepancy as to internal pressure was also insignificant.

   
   

8. Petitioner's answer for the change in diameter was 0.03 inches. He calculated that the change in diameter due to the effect of internal pressure was 0.03 inches, using Poisson's ratio. He inadvertently forgot to calculate the change in diameter due to the effect of temperature.

   
   

9. In addition to supplying the formulas to generate the correct quantitative answers to the questions, the test producer provides scorers with a standard Scoring Plan Outline, which is more commonly known as the Item Specific Scoring Plan ("ISSP"). The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants awarded, say, four points on a specific question, regardless of who actually does the grading. These criteria are supplied by the person or persons who actually prepared the question. The criteria indicate "in problem-specific terms the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven [0-10] points on the scale."

10. The ISSP awards six points on question 146 when the applicant "recognize[s]" the biaxial nature of the strains--i.e., longitudinal and diametrical--and shows "some expression" for temperature strain, although the "problem may be incomplete."

    
    

11. The ISSP awards seven points on question 146 when the applicant produces "results [that] are reasonable," although the deformation due to temperature may be "incorrect."

    
    

12. The ISSP awards eight points on question 146 when the applicant "recognize[s] and compute[s]" the biaxial strains and produces "results [that] should be reasonable," although equations for stresses may be "inconsistent or incorrect." (An alternative criterion for eight points is inapplicable.)

    
    

13. The ISSP awards nine points on question 146 when the applicant produces the "correct" solution, although marred by a "poor presentation" or "simple mathematical error," but in any event the "results are reasonable."

    
    

14. The ISSP awards ten points on question 146 when the applicant produces the "correct [solution] (+/- 5% of stated results) with neat orderly presentation."

    
    

15. The ISSP criteria for nine or ten points as to question 146 clearly require that Petitioner calculate the correct solution, subject in one instance to mathematical errors. The ISSP provides that a correct solution is within 5% of the stated result provided by the test producer. Petitioner's answer as to the change in diameter is nearly 7 1/2 times less than the stated result, or only within 87.5% of the stated answer.

    
    

16. The ISSP criteria for seven or eight points as to question 146 clearly require that petitioner's result be "reasonable." The above-described divergence is not reasonable, notwithstanding the fact that the question deals with fractions of an inch that may have little practical significance.

    
    

17. The ISSP criteria for seven points, however, expressly permit an incorrect deformation due to temperature. In order to give meaning to this provision, it should be given effect even when the incorrect deformation due to temperature yields an unreasonable result.

    
    

18. Petitioner failed to produce an incorrect deformation for temperature only insofar as he failed to produce any deformation for temperature with respect to the change in diameter. The ISSP criterion for seven points requires that the applicant provide a calculation for change due to temperature, even though it generates the wrong result. To show only one calculation for change due to temperature satisfies the ISSP criterion for six points--i.e., that "some expression for temperature strain" be shown. To adopt Petitioner's interpretation of the seven-point criterion regarding incorrect temperature deformation would leave little, if any, difference between the treatment of temperature calculations under the six-point and seven-point categories. An omitted temperature calculation should not satisfy both the "some expression" and "incorrect" criteria of the two point categories.

    
    

19. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 146.

    
    

20. Question 441 is worth ten points and is set forth in its entirety in Respondent's Exhibit Number 1. The question generally provides certain information regarding a stainless steel pipe serving as a drive shaft for a

    cooling tower fan. The question then asks the applicant to consider stipulated operating conditions, including a maximum attained motor speed of 2850 rpm, and a problem involving severe vibration. The applicant must calculate the critical speed of the shaft and determine whether two proposed "solutions" would be effective.

    
    

21. The correct answer for the critical speed of the shaft is 2524 rpm. Since the critical speed is less than the maximum motor speed, resonance is a problem. Neither of the proposed changes would be effective.

    
    

22. Petitioner calculated the critical speed as 1690 rpm. His error resulted when he applied a formula appropriate to solid shafts to the subject shaft, which was hollow. The portion of the examination of which question 441 is a part was an open-book examination. Petitioner used a textbook that, he testified, insufficiently distinguished between hollow and solid shafts. Petitioner correctly rejected the two proposed "solutions."

    
    

23. The ISSP awards seven points on question 441 when the applicant produces a "reasonable [result] (i.e., critical speed is less than 2850 rpm)" and the "remainder of the problem is consistent and correct," even though the solution for the critical speed of the shaft is "incorrect."

    
    

24. The ISSP awards eight points on question 441 when the applicant produces the correct critical speed and correctly rejects the first of the two proposed "solutions," but incorrectly answers the last part of the problem with respect to the second proposed "solution." (An alternative criterion for eight points is inapplicable.)

    
    

25. The criteria for nine and ten points are completely inapplicable, requiring in general a correct solution.

    
    

26. The ISSP criteria for eight or more points as to question 441 clearly requires that Petitioner correctly calculate the critical speed of the shaft, subject to mathematical errors. Petitioner has failed to do so and has failed to prove why a claimed obscurity in his textbook should justify his using the incorrect formula.

    
    

27. Petitioner received seven points for his answer to question 441.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

   
   

2. Respondent is charged with the responsibility of licensing duly qualified persons seeking to practice engineering in Florida. Passing an examination is generally a prerequisite to obtaining a license. Section 471.015, Florida Statutes. Respondent is required to administer the licensing examination. Section 417.013, Florida Statutes.

   
   

3. The examination must "adequately and reliably measure an applicant's ability to practice the profession." Section 455.217(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The examination must "adequately measure ... an applicant's competency." Section 480.042(1), Florida Statutes.

4. Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent incorrectly assigned him a failing grade. Florida Department of Transportation v. J. W. C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987, engineering examination.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of March, 1988.

ROBERT E. MEALE

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 24th day of March, 1988.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4628

1-6. Adopted in substance.

1. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. "An understanding that a biaxial strain condition was present" qualifies Petitioner for six points, not seven. (All references in Petitioner's proposed findings to Question 441 are deemed to mean Question 146. Question

   146 involves biaxial stress. Question 441 involves the critical speed of a shaft.)

2. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence and irrelevant. First, a "correct" solution must be within 5% of the stated results. A "reasonable result" may be outside 5% -- i.e., it is not correct, but reasonable. More

   important, Petitioner's failure to earn seven points was due to the fact that his calculation of temperature deformation for the change in diameter was not "incorrect" as permitted by the ISSP; it was completely omitted. Petitioner's answer addressing diametrical strain was thus within 87.5% of the stated result. This portion of the answer is therefore not reasonable, regardless of the accuracy of his answer addressing longitudinal strain.

3. Rejected as unnecessary. Petitioner's answer failed to meet the ISSP criteria for seven points, regardless of the testimony set forth in this finding. See above paragraph of this Appendix.

4. Although true, rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant.

5. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence of the ISSP criteria for seven points.

6. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mark A. Griffin 7236 Autumn Trail

Orlando, Florida 32818

H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Docket for Case No: 87-004628

Orders for Case No: 87-004628