STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SYED M. SAFDAR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 97-5941

)

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

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 30, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Syed M. Safdar, pro se

1740 Northeast 125th Street, No. 1

Miami, Florida 33181

For Respondent: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented is whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the April 1997 civil/sanitary engineer examination.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By examination grade report mailed July 29, 1997, Respondent advised Petitioner that he had failed to achieve a passing score on the April 1997 civil/sanitary engineer examination, and Petitioner timely requested an evidentiary hearing regarding his score. This cause was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the evidentiary proceeding.

Petitioner Syed M. Safdar testified on his own behalf.

Respondent presented the testimony of Frank Hutchinson and Faye Hartsfield. Additionally, Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1-7 were admitted in evidence.

Although both parties requested leave to file post hearing proposed recommended orders, only Petitioner did so.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner took the April 1997 examination for licensure as a civil engineer. The examination was purchased by Respondent from the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (hereinafter "NCEES"). The minimum passing score on that examination was 70. Petitioner was advised by Respondent's Bureau of Testing that he had achieved a score of 65.

2. Petitioner challenged his score on question numbered 125 only. The maximum points that could be awarded for the answer to that question were 10. Petitioner was awarded 6 points for his answer to that question.

3. There were three parts to question numbered 125. NCEES' scoring plan for that question provided that 10 points should be awarded where a candidate answered the question correctly in all aspects and the numerical results were within two percent, plus or minus, of the approved solution. In other words, a candidate could receive the maximum points for an answer which contained a

   
   

   mathematical error as long as the error resulted in an answer within two percent of the correct mathematical answer.

4. NCEES' scoring plan also provided that a candidate could only receive eight points out of ten where the candidate answered part (a) correctly but made one or more errors in part (b) or part (c). Petitioner answered parts (a) and (c) correctly but he made a mathematical error in part (b) which caused his answer to be incorrect by 100 percent.

5. When Petitioner's examination was initially scored, he was only awarded six points for his solution to question

   numbered 125 due to errors he made in both parts (b) and (c). At the final hearing in this cause Respondent's expert agreed with Petitioner that Petitioner's answer to part (c) should have been considered correct. Respondent's expert opined, therefore, that Petitioner should receive eight points rather than six.

6. Petitioner cannot, however, be given full credit for his answers because his mathematical error caused his answer to part

   (b) to be incorrect by 100 percent rather than by only two

   percent as permitted to be able to receive full credit. Accordingly, Petitioner does not qualify to receive full credit for his answer to question numbered 125.

7. Petitioner's raw score on the examination is now 45 due to the additional two points for question numbered 125. The scoring conversion scale converts a raw score of 45 to a scaled score of 67, less than a passing grade.

8. The conversion scale is not a linear scale, i.e., it is not a percentage scale. The maximum raw score available on the examination is 80, with a maximum possible converted scaled score of 100. Computer calculations have established the converted scaled score based upon each possible total raw score. In other words, the conversion table converts every possible total raw score from one through 80. The conversion ratio varies along that table. For example, a total raw score on the examination of two becomes a scaled score of four, of four becomes a scaled score of eight, of 45 becomes a scaled score of 67.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. Sections

   120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

10. Section 471.015(1), Florida Statutes, requires successful completion of the examination in order to obtain licensure. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof to show that he has achieved a passing score on the examination.

11. The evidence is convincing that Petitioner should have received eight points for his answers to question numbered 125 rather than six. The evidence is convincing that Petitioner should not receive full credit for his answers to question numbered 125 since he did not answer the question correctly as to all aspects. Further, his mathematical error in part (b) of the question was incorrect by 100 percent and was not within two percent of the correct solution in order to receive full credit for his answers to that question.

12. The evidence requires the conclusion, therefore, that Petitioner achieved a total raw score of 45, which converts to a scaled score of 67, less than the minimum passing score of 70. Petitioner's argument that the additional points should be converted to a scaled score and the scaled score should then be added to his raw score and then be converted again to a scaled score is illogical and without merit.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner achieved a score of 67 and, therefore, failed to achieve a passing score on the April 1997 civil/sanitary engineer examination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT

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 27th day of May, 1998.

COPIES FURNISHED:

R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Syed M. Safdar, pro se

1740 Northeast 125th Street, No. 1

Miami, Florida 33181

Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755

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: 97-005941

Orders for Case No: 97-005941