STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BAHMAN BEHZADI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 97-3353

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in Tampa, Florida, on October 7, 1997, before Arnold H. Pollock, an Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bahman Behzadi, pro se

Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687

For Respondent: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded additional credit for his answer to question number 290, and thereby be given a passing grade on the Professional Engineer examination administered on October 25, 1996, in Orlando.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

By letter dated April 7, 1997, Petitioner herein, Bahman Behzadi, requested a formal hearing regarding the grading of his answer to question number 290 on the Professional Engineer (Principles and Practice) Examination which he took in October 1996. This hearing followed.

Prior to the hearing, Petitioner was represented by counsel, George J. Meyer, Esquire of Tampa. Mr. Meyer did not appear at the hearing, however, and Petitioner indicated this was with his concurrence. Petitioner elected to proceed with the matter and to represent himself.

At the hearing Mr. Behzadi testified in his own behalf. He did not introduce any exhibits. Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Antonio A. Arroyo, an assistant professor at the University of Florida's School of Engineering and an expert in electrical engineering. Respondent also introduced Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 4.

A transcript of the proceedings was furnished. Petitioner indicated at hearing that he was not aware he could call witnesses in his behalf and was afforded the opportunity to submit the deposition of such witnesses as he deemed necessary, upon coordination with Respondent's counsel, by November 6, 1997. Thereafter, on November 3, 1997, Dr. Samuel J. Garrett, a registered professional engineer, professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, and an expert in

the field of electrical engineering was deposed by Petitioner, with counsel for the Department participating, and the deposition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 7, 1997. Absent any objection by counsel for the Department, the deposition of Dr. Garrett was considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

Subsequent to the hearing, Petitioner submitted his comments regarding the matters in issue, and counsel for the Department submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. All matters submitted by either party subsequent to the hearing were carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of professional engineers in Florida. With the cooperation and assistance of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the Board conducts periodic examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for certification as professional engineers in this state.

2. Such an examination was conducted in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 1996. Petitioner was a candidate at that examination. A minimum score for passing was 70. Petitioner received an overall score of 69. One of the questions posed to

   the candidates at that examination was question number 290, dealing with the design of a control system, which required the candidate to determine values for two parameters in such a fashion that the closed loop specifications stated as,

   "with K =20 the unit step response be a damped oscillation with a 10% overshoot and with a damped natural frequency of 15 rad/s" were met. In the answer to this question, the engineer has to arrive at parameters to give the desired step response within the stated percentages.

3. According to Dr. Antonio Arroyo, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida and an expert in electrical engineering, this subject matter is taught in a standard undergraduate controls course which is required in engineering schools nation-wide. The question in issue is a classic controls problem. The candidate is to reduce the diagram displayed in the examination question and give a closed loop description. Given that, the solution proceeds by taking the percentage of error and using it to back- track and arrive at the requested parameters, step by step.

4. The examination is an open book examination. Because of the many formulae used in engineering, the candidate is permitted to use printed resources to assist in the solving of the problems. This formula involved in this problem is standard. Only the parameters cited in the test problem are different. In his answer to the question Petitioner cited to the page in his

   reference material where the solution is to be found, and he used the appropriate formula. In doing so, he could take the numbers presented in the problem and apply them to the standard problem solution contained in the reference book he had with him. It is a "plug and chug" situation wherein the candidate inserts the

   problem numbers into the given formula and makes the calculations.

5. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, however, the candidate must decide how to use the information given. In this case, the problem involved a damped frequency of 15 hz and the candidate was required to calculate an undamped frequency. The Petitioner did not show that calculation in his solution, and it appears to Dr. Arroyo he missed the fact of the difference between the two frequencies. In Petitioner's solution, he listed what he saw as the data given, and though at no place did the problem show "Omega d", Petitioner put down "Omega d" but used "Omega n".

6. In the expert opinion of Dr. Arroyo, an engineer should, at least, check his calculations. Examiners will give credit to a candidate if the candidate shows the appropriate knowledge of the concepts involved in the problem. In the instant case, Petitioner's answer to question 290 far exceeded the allowable 10% overshoot. His answer for "a" was 0.895, whereas the correct answer was 1.099. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference was .110, Petitioner’s overshoot was .204. His answer for "b" was 11.25, whereas the correct answer was 17.3. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference here was 1.73, Petitioner’s overshoot was 6.05. To Dr. Arroyo, this shows a concept error rather than a calculation error

7. In substance, Petitioner utilized the correct formulae,

   but used incorrect data, and the use of the wrong data is sufficient to indicate his ignorance of the appropriate concepts. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, who did not see the problem utilized in the examination and relied on information provided by Petitioner, concluded that Petitioner’s margin of error was within the 10% limitation.

8. Here, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Dr. Garrett, Petitioner's solution missed the authorized overshoot by a significant amount, far more than the allowable 10%. He should have known something was wrong when this happened and should have looked to see what he did wrong. In the opinion of Dr. Arroyo, the Petitioner did not adequately evaluate the problem consistent with acceptable engineering standards since the final product of his calculations did not meet the specifications of the problem. This is the purpose behind the professional certification process, and Petitioner should have recognized that his answer did not meet the required specifications.

9. Petitioner received a score of six out of a possible ten for his solution to question 290. Dr. Arroyo is satisfied that the scoring plan of the NCEES for this problem is fair and he supports it. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, a professional engineer and long-time professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, disagrees. In his evaluation of the problem and the grading process used here, Dr. Garrett notes that problem 290 consisted of five parts, for each of which two points

   could be awarded. Petitioner correctly answered the first three parts and received a grade of six points. He missed part four, and part five was to use the results of parts three and four, with the proper equations, to determine the two answers required. Since Petitioner used the proper equations to figure his answer to part five, even though he did not get a correct answer to part four, which resulted in his numeric answer to part five being incorrect, Dr. Garrett is of the opinion that he should have received an additional two points for applying the proper formula in part five.

10. Review of the scoring plan developed for this problem indicates that Petitioner met all the qualifications for award of six points, but he did not recognize the relationship of damped as opposed to undamped. He used incorrect data to arrive at "a" and "b" in that he did not identify the relationship between natural frequency and damped frequency. This is a basic problem of control systems which an undergraduate should be able to solve correctly. It is basic electrical engineering knowledge and not beyond that expected of an electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in the field.

11. Had Petitioner utilized the formula he used with the proper data, he would have been awarded credit for a correct answer even if his calculations were incorrect. Here, however, while Petitioner utilized the correct formula, he applied it to incorrect data, and it is this use of incorrect data which makes

    an award of a higher score inappropriate.

    
    

12. The professional engineers’ examination is designed to test the individual's familiarity with engineering concepts and his ability to cast the problem into those concepts to solve the problem. Petitioner contends that his understanding of the concepts involved was correct and, therefore, even though he used the wrong figures, he should received credit for a correct answer or, at most, only 2 rather than 4 points should have been deducted.

13. Though Petitioner utilized the correct formula for his solution to question 290, he applied the wrong values in the use of the formula. This indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, and even though Petitioner used the proper formula, that formula came from the book he was permitted to use for the examination. He cannot be given full credit for copying the formula from the book. Had he used the correct values in his solution to the problem, he would have been given appropriate credit even if his calculations were wrong.

14. After being notified of his unsuccessful exam results, Petitioner requested that his answer to question number 290 be resubmitted to NCEES for re-scoring, and this was done. By memorandum in response, dated July 10, 1997, the NCEES scorer concluded:

    The error in using undamped natural frequency for damped natural frequency in the examinee's solution is a major error.

    Whether the examinee did not recognize the

    function was in fact the undamped natural frequency, as given in the problem statement, or whether it was an oversight, it is still a major error since the outcome is significantly affected.

    
    

15. The scorer, whose knowledge of the identity of the candidate was limited to a number only, recommended a score of "six" for Petitioner answer to this problem. There was no change from the initial scoring.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

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

17. The burden of proof in this case rests with the Petitioner to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the examination challenged here was faulty in some material particular; that it was arbitrarily or capriciously worded; that his answer in question was either arbitrarily or capriciously graded; or that he was improperly denied credit for his answer through a grading process that was devoid of either logic or reason. Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

18. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the question in issue was either arbitrarily or capriciously worded, nor was the examination question faulty in any particular. The question then remains whether Petitioner’s answer was either arbitrarily or capriciously graded or whether he was improperly denied credit for his answer through a grading process that was devoid of either logic or reason.

19. Here, the evidence of record shows, and Petitioner does not deny, that his ultimate answer to problem 290 was incorrect. To be sure, Petitioner correctly answered the first three sections of this problem, and he applied the appropriate formulae. His error, however, was not one merely of inaccurate

calculation. His error was in the application of incorrect data, and his solution to the problem demonstrated a failure of understanding of the concepts involved, a deficiency far more serious than a mere calculation error. To insure fairness, Petitioner’s solution was referred for a second time to the NCEE for review. It was again deemed insufficient. For this reason, it cannot be said that his answer was either arbitrarily or capriciously graded, nor can it be fairly said that the grading process utilized was devoid of logic or reason, and Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his answer to question 290.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner additional credit for his answer to question number 290 on the principles and practice portion of the electrical engineering examination administered for the Board of Professional Engineers on October 25 and 26, 1996.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (904) 921-6947

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bahman Behzadi

Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687

R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Angel Gonzalez Executive Director

Board of Professional Engineers 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: 97-003353

Orders for Case No: 97-003353