STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GEORGIOUS GAITANTZIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-4757

) FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ) ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on January 26, 1999, in the Screening Room, 7th Floor, Planning and Development Department, Florida Theatre Building, 128 East Forsyth Street, Jacksonville, Florida, a formal hearing was held in this case. The authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The case was considered by Charles

C. Adams, Administrative Law Judge.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Georgious Gaitantzis, pro se

11461 Scott Mill Road Jacksonville, Florida 32223

For Respondent: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Did Petitioner pass the Mechanical Engineers Examination he took on April 24, 1998?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 30, 1998, Respondent mailed Petitioner notification of the examination grade report noting that Petitioner had received a score of 69 on the Mechanical Engineers Examination, a failing grade.

On September 21, 1998, Petitioner reviewed the results of his examination. Petitioner, by correspondence dated September 28, 1998, received the next day by Respondent, contested the scores received on problems 94, 96, and 146.

At hearing Petitioner abandoned his challenges to problems

94 and 96. Petitioner presented his case concerning the challenge to the score received for problem 146.

On October 26, 1998, the Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Division received a request that the case be assigned for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The assignment was made and the hearing was conducted on the aforementioned date.

At hearing Petitioner testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of Geoffrey Spencer, P.E. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 was admitted. Respondent's Exhibits 1-14 were admitted. Respondent did not present witnesses.

On February 4, 1999, the last installment of the hearing transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

On February 11, 1999, Respondent filed a Proposed Recommended Order. Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order within the time allotted, which was ten days from the date of the filing of the transcript.

Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order has been considered in preparing the Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On April 24, 1998, Petitioner took the Mechanical Engineers Examination. He received a score of 69 for his effort. A passing score was 70.

2. The Mechanical Engineers Examination was administered under Respondent's auspices.

3. As alluded to in the preliminary statement, Petitioner challenged the score received on problem 146. The maximum score available for that problem was ten points. Petitioner received eight points.

4. In accordance with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying Principles in Practice of Engineering Examinations for spring 1998, score conversion table - discipline specific, Petitioner had a raw score of 47 which equated to a conversion of 69, to include the eight raw points received for problem 146.

5. In addition, the examination provided a scoring plan for problem 146, which assigns scores in increments of two points from zero to ten. To pass, it would be necessary for Petitioner to receive an incremental increase of two points, raising his score from eight points to ten points. This would give him a raw score of 49 points. According to the score conversion table - discipline specific, that would give Petitioner 71 points.

6. According to the scoring plan for problem 146 to receive the ten points, Petitioner would have to demonstrate:

   Exceptional competence (it is not necessary that the solution to the problem be perfect) generally complete, one math error. Shows in-depth understanding of cooling load calculation psychrometrics.

   
   

7. Problem 146 required Petitioner to:

   
   

   Determine the required cooling coil supply air quantity (cfm) and the conditions (°F db and °F wb) of the air entering and leaving the coil."

   
   

8. Petitioner was provided a psychrometric chart to assist in solving problem 146.

9. The examination candidates were also allowed to bring reference sources to the examination to assist in solving the examination problems. Petitioner brought to the examination, the Air-Conditioning Systems Design Manual prepared by the ASHRAE

   581-RP Project Team, Harold G. Lorsch, Principal Investigator. Petitioner used that manual to determine the wet-bulb temperature of the air entering the coil. In particular, he used an equation

   from the manual involving air mixtures. For that part of the solution he arrived at a temperature of 65.6°F wb.

10. According to the problem solution by Respondent's affiliate testing agency, reference ASHRAE Fundamentals Chapter 26, the coil entering wet-bulb temperature taken from the psychrometric chart was 66.12°F wb.

11. The scorer in grading Petitioner's solution for problem

    
    

    146 placed an "x" by the answer provided 65.6°F wb and wrote the words "psychrometric chart." No other entry or comment was made by that scorer in initially reviewing the solution Petitioner provided for that problem. This led to the score of eight.

12. The scoring plan for problem 146 for the April 1998 examination taken by Respondent equates the score of eight as:

    MORE THAN MINIMUM BUT LESS THAN EXCEPTIONAL

    COMPETENCE Either a) Provides correct solution to problem with two math errors or incorrect dry-bulb or wet-bulb for coil entering or leaving conditions or minor total cooling load error, or b) Provides correct solution to items c and d correctly and minor math errors in items a and b of Score 6 below.

13. Petitioner was entitled to review the results of his examination. He exercised that opportunity on September 21, 1998, through a post-examination review session.

14. Petitioner requested and was provided re-scoring of his solution to problem 146. According to correspondence from the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying to the Florida Member Board from Patricia M. Simpson, Assistant

    Supervisor of scoring services, the score did not change through re-scoring. In this instance, the October 14, 1998 correspondence on re-scoring states, in relation to problem 146:

    Incorrect methodology used in calculating coil entering wet-bulb temperature.

    Incorrect coil entering wet-bulb temperature provided. No calculation provided for coil leaving temperature conditions.

    
    

15. The coil leaving wet-bulb temperature in Respondent's proposed solution was 53.22°F wb taken from the psychrometric chart. Petitioner's solution for the coil leaving wet-bulb temperature taken from the psychrometric chart was 53.3°F wb.

16. At hearing Respondent did not provide an expert to establish the basis for point deduction in the original score and the re-scoring of Petitioner's solution for problem 146. Moreover, Respondent did not present expert witnesses to defend the commentary, the preferred written solution in its examination materials. Consequently, Respondent's preferred solution constitutes hearsay about which no facts may be found accepting the validity of Respondent's proposed solution, as opposed to merely reporting that information.1

17. By contrast, Petitioner provided direct evidence concerning the solution provided for problem 146 in response to the criticisms of his solution that were unsupported by competent evidence at hearing. More importantly the criticisms were responded to at hearing by Geoffrey Spencer, P.E., a mechanical

    engineer licensed to practice in Florida, who was accepted as an expert in that field for purposes of the hearing.

18. As Petitioner explained at hearing, he used the Air- Conditioning Systems Design Manual equation to arrive at the coil entering wet-bulb temperature, which he believed would provide the answer as readily as the use of the psychrometric chart. (Although the psychrometric chart had been provided to Petitioner for solving problem 146, the instructions for that problem did not prohibit the use of the equation or formula.) Petitioner in his testimony pointed out the equivalency of the process of the use of the psychrometric chart and the equation. Petitioner deemed the equation to be more accurate than the psychrometric chart. Petitioner had a concern that if the answer on the coil entering wet-bulb temperature was inaccurate, this would present difficulty in solving the rest of problem 146 because the error would be carried forward. Petitioner pointed out in his testimony that the solution for determining the coil entering

    wet-bulb temperature was set out in his answer. The answer that was derived by use of the formula was more time consuming but less prone to error, according the Petitioner's testimony.

    Petitioner points out in his testimony that the answer he derived, 65.6°F wb, is not significantly different than Respondent's proposed solution of 66.12°F wb. (The instructions concerning problem 146 did not explain what decimal point of a

    degree the candidate had to respond to in order to get full credit for that portion of the solution to the problem.)

19. Petitioner in his testimony concerning his solution for the coil leaving wet-bulb temperature indicated that the calculation for arriving at that temperature was taken from the psychrometric chart and is sufficiently detailed to be understood. Further, Petitioner testified that the degree of accuracy in which the answer was given as 53.3°F wb, as opposed to Respondent's proposed solution of 53.22°F wb, is in recognition of the use of the psychrometric chart. Petitioner questions whether the proposed solution by Respondent, two decimal points, could be arrived at by the use of the psychrometric chart.

20. In relation to the calculation of the coil entering

    
    

    wet-bulb temperature, Mr. Spencer testified that the formula from the Air-Conditioning Systems Design Manual or the psychrometric chart could have been used. Moreover, Mr. Spencer stated his opinion that the solution for coil entering wet-bulb temperature of 65.6°F wb by Petitioner is sufficiently close to Respondent's proposed solution of 66.12°F wb to be acceptable. Mr. Spencer expressed the opinion that Petitioner had correctly used the formula from the manual in solving the coil entering wet-bulb temperature. Mr. Spencer expressed the opinion that the psychrometric chart is an easier source for obtaining the solution than the use of the formula from the manual. In Mr.

    Spencer's opinion, the formula shows a more basic knowledge of the physics involved than the use of the psychrometric chart would demonstrate.

21. In relation to the coil leaving wet-bulb temperature, Mr. Spencer expressed the opinion that Petitioner had adequately explained the manner of deriving the answer. Further,

    Mr. Spencer expressed the opinion that the answer derived was sufficiently accurate.

22. The testimony of Petitioner and opinion of Mr. Spencer is unrefuted and accepted.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

23. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this case pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

24. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to be licensed as a professional engineer. See Florida Dept. of Trans. v. J.W.C., Co. Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). That proof must be by preponderance of the evidence that shows Petitioner passed the professional engineers examination given on April 24, 1998, for mechanical engineers. See Section 125.57(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has made that proof. Petitioner is entitled to receive ten points for his solution to problem 146. This provides Petitioner with a raw score of 49 and a converted score of 71. The converted score necessary to pass is 70.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered which finds that Petitioner passed the Florida Board of Professional Engineers April 24, 1998, Mechanical Engineers Examination with a score of 71.

DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

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 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1999.

ENDNOTE

1/ Those comments made in relation to the original score and the results of re-scoring are hearsay, which may not form the basis for fact finding on the critique offered by the scorer and re- scorer. See Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Georgious Gaitantzis 11461 Scott Mill Road

Jacksonville, Florida 32223

Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida 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: 98-004757

Orders for Case No: 98-004757