STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

VADIM J. ALTSHULER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-2342

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ) ENGINEERS (FLORIDA ENGINEERS ) MANAGEMENT CORPORATION), )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Administrative Law Judge, Don W. Davis, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on July 22, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Vadim J. Altshuler, pro se

9794 Sharing Cross Court Jacksonville, Florida 32257

For Respondent: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his response to Question Number 146 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering examination administered on October 31 through November 1, 1997.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On April 19, 1998, Petitioner challenged the propriety of Respondent’s action in determining that Petitioner’s response to Question Number 146 was incorrect. The matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings where final hearing was scheduled.

At the final hearing, Petitioner called one witness, himself, and presented one exhibit. Respondent presented testimony of one witness and nine exhibits.

A transcript provided by the parties was filed on August 7, 1998. Proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been duly considered in the preparation of this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner took the professional engineering licensing examination with emphasis in mechanical engineering on

   October 31, 1997.

   
   

2. Passing score on the examination was 70. Petitioner obtained a score of 65 and a raw score of 43. A score of 70 would have generated a raw score of 48. Petitioner needed at least 5 additional raw score points to achieve a passing grade and a converted score of 70.

3. Out of a possible 10 points on Question Number 146, Petitioner received a score of 4 points.

4. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and

   Surveying (NCEES), the organization that produces the examination, provides a Solution and Scoring Plan outlining the scoring process for question 146. Further, NCEES rescored Petitioner’s test but found no basis to award additional points.

5. There are 5 categories to question 146. All six elements of question 146 must be completely and correctly answered to receive full credit of 10 points for the question. Instructions for the question provide:

   A perfect solution is not required, as the examinee is allowed minor psychometric chart reading errors (two maximum) or minor math errors (two maximum).

   The total number of minor errors allowed is two. Errors in solution methodology are not allowed. Examinee handles all concepts (i.e., sensible and total heat, sensible heat ratio, coil ADP and BF, adiabatic mixing, and coil heat transfer) correctly. (emphasis supplied.)

6. Testimony at the final hearing of Petitioner’s expert in mechanical engineering establishes that Petitioner did not qualify for additional points for answers provided for question

146. Petitioner failed to use the definition of bypass factor indicated in the problem. Instead, Petitioner used the Lindenburg method rather than the Carrier method to calculate the bypass factor.

1. The Carrier Method was implied in the problem due to the way the problem was structured. The system outlined in question

   146 did not have the special configuration that would be listed if the Lindenburg method were utilized.

2. Petitioner also missed the total coil capacity due to

   misreading the psychometric chart. By his own admission at the final hearing, Petitioner misread the data provided because they were printed one right above the other in the question.

3. Petitioner read the point on the psychometric chart for an outdoor dry bulb temperature at 95 degrees and a 78 percent relative humidity as the outdoor air. The question required a dry bulb temperature of 95 degrees and a wet bulb temperature of

   78 degrees. Petitioner’s misreading constituted an error in methodology as opposed to a minor chart reading error.

4. Question Number 146 on the examination was properly designed to test the candidate’s competency, provided enough information for a qualified candidate to supply the correct answer, and was graded correctly and in accord with the scoring plan.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

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

6. Petitioner misread data on the examination with a resultant error in methodology and was properly graded.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered confirming Petitioner’s score on the examination question which is at issue in this proceeding.

DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DON W. 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 25th day of August, 1998.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Vadim J. Altshuler

9794 Sharing Cross Court Jacksonville, Florida 32257

Dennis Barton, Executive Director 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: 98-002342

Orders for Case No: 98-002342