STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SUSAN R. WILSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 97-3468

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Upon due notice, this cause came on for formal hearing on November 25, 1997, by video conference between Tallahassee, Florida and Jacksonville, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Susan E. Wilson, pro se

3581 Jose Terrace

Jacksonville, Florida 32217

For Respondent: R. Beth Atchison

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Is Petitioner entitled to one additional point on the October 1996 Professional Civil Engineer Examination so as to

achieve a passing score for licensure in Florida?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by its February 17, 1997, Examination Grade Report that she had earned a score of 69.00, which was not a passing grade on the October 1996 Civil Engineer Examination. Petitioner requested formal hearing.

Formal hearing by video conferencing occurred November 25, 1997. All attendees, with the exception of the undersigned, were present in Jacksonville, Florida. The undersigned was present in Tallahassee, Florida.

At formal hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Frank Wilson and testified on her own behalf. She had one exhibit admitted in evidence.

Respondent presented the oral testimony of Eugene N. Beauchamps and had five exhibits admitted in evidence. These exhibits were available to Petitioner at formal hearing and have been available to the undersigned while preparing this Recommended Order, but they are confidential and will be returned under seal to the Agency with this Recommended Order.

A transcript of the proceedings was filed January 6, 1998.

Each party's proposed orders, the last of which was filed January 20, 1998, by agreement, have been considered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner took the Civil Engineer Examination given in October 1996.

2. The Department of Business and Professional

   Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination

   
   

   Grade Report dated February 17, 1997, that she had earned a score of 69.00 on the Civil Engineer Examination.

3. The minimum passing score for the Civil Engineer Examination is 70.00.

4. Petitioner timely requested formal hearing and challenged only Question 120, for which she received no points.

5. Petitioner is trained as a materials engineer. Question 120 is a soils and foundation problem outside her concentrated area of study. It is an open book examination question. Petitioner selected the correct equation from the

   applicable manual, but acknowledged that she solved the variables of that equation incorrectly.

6. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) produced, distributed, and was responsible for grading the examinations.

7. Petitioner contended that the examiner who graded her answer sheet applied different criteria than the examination criteria published by the NCEES. Petitioner further contended that since one criterion her grader actually used was merely to "write the correct equation," she should be awarded at least one point on that basis.

8. However, a comparison of the actual grader's handwritten "summary" on Petitioner's Solution Pamphlet (Respondent's Exhibit 3) and the NCEES's Solutions and Scoring

   Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) does not bear out Petitioner's theory. It is clear that out of five possible parts of the question, which five parts total two points' credit each, merely

   
   

   selecting the correct equation from an open text would not amount to two points, or even one point, credit.

9. I accept as more competent, credible and persuasive the testimony of Eugene N. Beauchamps, the current Chairman of the NCEES Examination Policy Committee and a Florida licensed Professional Engineer, that the grader's "summary" describes what he actually reviewed in Petitioner's written solution to Question

   120 rather than establishing one or more different grading criteria.

10. In order to receive a score of two on Question 120, the candidate was required to demonstrate any one of five requirements listed in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan for "2-Rudimentary Knowledge."

11. The first requirement in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) for receiving a score of two points is, "Determines effective overburden stress at mid- depth of clay layer."

12. The remaining four NCEES scoring criteria required that the examinee:

    • Computes the change in effective stress at mid- depth of the clay layer due to placement of the fill.

      
      

    • Computes the primary consolidation settlement, based on a change in effective stress, due to the fill

      surcharge.

      
      

    • Evaluates the Average Degree of Consolidation and the Time Factor.

      
      

    • Determines the waiting period after fill placement recognizing the existence of double-drained conditions.

13. In order to gain two more points (total 4 points) so as to demonstrate "More Than Rudimentary Knowledge But Insufficient to Demonstrate Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have to have met two of the five bulleted criteria. For two more points (total 6 points) for "Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have had to score three bullets. For two more points (total 8 points) for "More than Minimum But Less Than Exceptional Competence," Petitioner would have had to score four bullets. Finally, to attain "Exceptional Competence" for 10 total points, Petitioner would have had to score all five bullets.

14. In the first correct equation for answering Question 120, "p sub zero" (p naught) equals the present effective overburden pressure, which represents what clay was present before anything was put on top of the clay layer. "P" equals the total pressure acting at mid-height of the consolidating clay layer or the pressure of the dirt and the water in the dirt.

    "H" equals the thickness of the consolidating clay layer.

    
    

15. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, "determining the effective overburden stress at mid-depth of clay layer," indicated p sub zero (p naught) as the "present effective overburden pressure," but it incorrectly calculated p sub zero equaling 125 pounds multiplied by 13 feet. This is incorrect because the effective overburden pressure would not include 13 feet of fill. The 13 feet of fill is not part of p sub zero, the present effective overburden pressure.

16. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, also

    multiplied water, represented by 62.4, by 12, which is incorrect.

    
    

    She should have used a multiplier of 10 to receive credit for this problem.

17. The grader indicated the correct equation was used incorrectly by Petitioner because of the two foregoing incorrect calculations.

18. The equation, as Petitioner stated it, was correct and her multiplication was correct. Her solution identified P sub zero as present effective overburden pressure but present effective overburden pressure would not include the fill.

19. Petitioner had the correct equation for the present effective overburden pressure and her mathematics were correct. However, she did not use the consolidation equation correctly, not obtaining the correct percentage of primary consolidation. As stated, the problem did not consider the fill as part of the present effective overburden pressure.

20. Her solution also contained the correctly written time rate of settlement equation but failed to use it, and no waiting period was determined.

21. The practical result of Petitioner's error could range from a cracked building to a collapsed building, depending upon the degree of error to site and materials.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

22. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause,

    pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

23. Petitioner bears the duty to go forward to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to one additional point.

24. Petitioner contends that because the examination consisted of eight ten-point questions that were broken down into two point increments, a perfect score would be 80 raw points out of a possible 80 points, i.e. 100 percent, and she needs only one per cent, or 0.8 raw points or 80 percent of one raw point to pass. She maintains there was sufficient correct work to warrant

    0.8 of one raw point. This analysis is misleading.

    
    

25. If Petitioner had succeeded in establishing any one of the five grading "bullets" described in the findings of fact, she would have been entitled to two points.

26. She established none of the five bullets.

RECOMMENDATION

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

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and affirming her score as one point below passing.

RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1998, 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

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Susan E. Wilson 3581 Jose Terrace

Jacksonville, Florida 32217

R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel

Department of Business and Profession Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and

Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel

Department of Business and Profession Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

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: 97-003468

Orders for Case No: 97-003468