STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BRIAN TRUJILLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-5052

) FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT ) CORPORATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case by video teleconference on February 12, 1999, before

1. D. Parrish, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

   APPEARANCES

   
   

   For Petitioner: Brian Trujillo, pro se

   16660 Southwest 92nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33196

   
   

   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 pursuant to his challenge to the examination for civil/sanitary engineer licensure.

   PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   
   

   This case began on October 16, 1998, when Petitioner, Brian

   Trujillo, filed a challenge to the civil/sanitary engineer examination administered in April of 1998. Petitioner's claim sought review of four items from the test for which Petitioner believed he should have received additional credit. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on November 13, 1998.

   At the hearing Petitioner testified in his own behalf.

   
   

   Respondent presented testimony from Frank Hutchinson, a licensed civil engineer. Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1-7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 were admitted into evidence, and have been fully marked and sealed in an envelope to protect the confidential nature of the information they contain.

   The Transcript of the proceeding was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 26, 1999. The parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders which have been considered in the preparation of this order.

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Petitioner, Brian Trujillo, is a candidate for licensure by examination as a civil/sanitary engineer.

   2. Mr. Trujillo took the examination in April of 1998, and received a score of 69. He timely challenged the test results and maintained he should have received a higher score on four items of the examination.

   3. In order to achieve a passing score of 70, Petitioner would need to establish he should have been given a raw score of

      at least 48. Thus, Mr. Trujillo needs credit of one more point in order to pass the examination.

   4. At the hearing, Mr. Trujillo limited his challenge to only two problems on the examination which were identified in this record as to Questions No. 87 and No. 125.

   5. As to Question No. 87, Mr. Trujillo maintained that based upon the conditions in South Florida, the answer he gave is the correct one of the four choices.

   6. Question No. 87 was a multiple-choice question wherein candidates were to choose the best of the four options offered. Mr. Hutchinson explained why the answer provided by Petitioner was not the best choice for Question No. 87. Mr. Hutchinson's explanation was clear, concise, and based upon engineering demands regardless of the location of the project.

   7. As to Question No. 125, Petitioner maintained he should have received more points for the answers given. This item was divided into three parts worth a total of 10 points. The score given Petitioner on this item was 8.

   8. By his own admission, Mr. Trujillo lacked sufficient time to complete Question No. 125. Based upon the calculations shown by Petitioner, it is difficult to determine how the candidate intended to solve the problem.

   9. In the absence of additional comments from a candidate, the examiners reviewing the work must assume a candidate used a consistent problem-solving approach.

   10. In order to achieve a score of 10 on this problem, the candidates were required to be within five percent of the

       approved solution value.

   11. Mr. Trujillo did not explain the approach used in his attempt to solve Question No. 125. Two approaches would have yielded correct responses.

   12. The answers provided by Mr. Trujillo were inconsistent with a single problem solving approach. Thus, either part B or part C or his answers were incorrect by a margin of greater than ten percent.

   13. If the reviewer assumed Petitioner used one approach to solve the items of Question No. 125, he did calculate the problems correctly.

   14. If the Petitioner used two different approaches to solve the items of Question No. 125, he did not clearly explain his work in order to demonstrate knowledge of the areas addressed by the question.

   15. Question No. 125 required the candidate to solve three subparts based upon a single factual scenario. The question was not ambiguous nor did it require a candidate to use inconsistent theories to arrive at a correct solution.

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

   17. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this case to establish that he should have received additional points for the challenged questions. He failed to meet that burden.

   18. The examination questions challenged were clear and unambiguous. The scoring utilized by the Respondent in evaluating Petitioner's responses was also clear and unambiguous. The Department did not act arbitrarily in denying this Petitioner credit for the answers given.

   19. Multiple choice questions necessarily have one best answer. Petitioner's answer to Question No. 87, although a valid concern in the South Florida area, was not the best choice as it failed to consider the dominant engineering issue for all environments. Mr. Hutchinson's expertise in this regard has been deemed persuasive.

   20. Finally, as to Question No. 125, if Petitioner elected to use inconsistent approaches to solve the subparts of this item, he failed to adequately document the assumptions. This failure has nothing to do with the question nor the scoring of its answers. Giving Petitioner the benefit of the doubt as to either approved approach is how the examiner was able to give 8 of the 10 points to Petitioner. Thus Petitioner actually benefited from the examiner's generosity. Again, Mr. Hutchinson's expertise in the explanation of this item was most persuasive.

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 confirming Petitioner's score on the

April 1998 examination and dismissing the challenge to it.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

J. D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of April, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Brian Trujillo

16660 Southwest 92nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33196

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: 98-005052

Orders for Case No: 98-005052