The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for license as an architect pursuant to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1978, Petitioner John J. Bagdonas, Miami, Florida, inquired of Respondent State Board of Architecture concerning eligibility for registration as an architect in the State of Florida. He was advised by letter of April 18, 1978, from Herbert Coons, Jr., Respondent's Executive Secretary, that he was ineligible for such registration since he lacked a degree from an accredited program in architecture. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) On October 22, 1979, Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent for Class 13 certification as an architect pursuant to Chapter 467, Florida Statutes. He indicated in the appropriate block of the application form that he held a current registration as an architect in Massachusetts which had been issued in 1976. By letter of November 9, 1979, Petitioner was informed by Mr. Coons that his application was denied because he did not have a professional degree or ten years experience as a practicing architect, and he was advised as to his right to a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. By letter of November 13, 1979, Petitioner protested the decision and requested a hearing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Further correspondence ensued wherein Petitioner maintained that he was qualified for registration pursuant to current law concerning licensure by endorsement. He was making reference to a 1979 act that became Section 481.213(3)(b), F.S., which provided that Respondent Board must certify an applicant holding a valid license to practice architecture issued by another state if the criteria for issuance of such license were substantially equivalent to the licensure criteria which existed in Florida at the time the license was issued. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) By letter of January 23, 1980, Mr. Coons invited Petitioner to appear before the Board's Education Committee in February to "discuss your education in connection with your application for registration." The letter recommended that petitioner bring examples of his past work, letters of recommendation, and any other additional information concerning his educational background to the meeting. Petitioner, through counsel, declined the offer by letter of January 29, 1980, and elected to proceed with this administrative proceeding. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner graduated from high school in Boston, Massachusetts in 1962 and commenced employment with an architectural firm in that city. During the period May 1962 to November 1974, he was employed by five architectural firms in Massachusetts. During this twelve-year employment period, Petitioner prepared working drawings, office presentation drawings, design, detailing, construction drawings, and professional administration. At various times during his career, he handled several projects in their entirety, including the coordination of mechanical and electrical work with architectural drawings, client contact, supervising construction phase, shop drawings, project meetings, and field sketches. He was unemployed from November 1974 through December 1976. During the period January 1977 to the present, Petitioner has been employed successively by three architectural firms in Miami and Hollywood, Florida where he performed functions similar to those in prior years. He has been employed by the firm of Bouterse, Perez, and Fabrigas, Miami, Florida, since February 1979. He currently is the project manager for the Douglas Road Station for the rapid transit system in Miami. All of Petitioner's prior employers have submitted letters of reference concerning Petitioner's employment wherein they variously characterize his education, practical experience, and professional integrity as excellent or satisfactory. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner attended the Boston Architectural Center from 1962 to 1965 while he was employed on a full-time basis, but was unable to graduate due to his heavy schedule. During his attendance, he acquired 33 credit hours in architectural subjects with satisfactory grades. In the course of his employment, Petitioner has worked on a variety of projects including schools, office buildings, recreational facilities, nursing homes, and family housing. He has had training and experience in site and environmental analysis, schematic design, building cost analysis, code research, design development, construction documents and graphics, specifications and material research and document checking and coordination, building procedures, construction phase observation and office procedures (Testimony of Petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner was registered as an architect on February 5, 1976 in Massachusetts after successful completion of the National Council of Architectural Registration Board's (NCARB) equivalency examination in June 1975 and the NCARB professional examination in December 1975. At the time Petitioner was issued registration in that state, the law provided in Section 60C of Chapter 112, General Laws, that an applicant must either submit satisfactory evidence of graduation from an accredited school of architecture and of such practical experience in architectural work as the State Board proscribed by regulation, or that an applicant could submit satisfactory evidence of such other academic experience, practical experience, or both, as the Board prescribed. Regulations promulgated by the State Board pursuant to the General Laws provided in Chapter 30A, Section 4, that an applicant who was not a graduate of an architectural school would be required to submit satisfactory evidence of having completed eight years of practical experience in architectural work and one additional such year of work for each year short of graduation, but not more than five additional years. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) NCARB is a national organization that Sponsors registration laws in all states, formulates the standard examinations for architect registration, including Florida, establishes equivalence for its basic certificate requirements in education and training, and maintains and transmits professional records to state boards with recommendations for registration of architects who meet the organizational standards. If a registered architect in one state holds an NCARB certificate, NCARB will transmit a certified copy of his record to any state board, together with a recommendation that he be licensed as an architect without further examination. With such certification, reciprocal registration can be obtained in a great majority of the states without further examination and without making a personal appearance. Issuance of the NCARB certificate is based on the highest standards established by individual state boards. The NCARB equivalency examination is a two-day, twenty hour examination concentrating on architectural history and theory, design and construction theory and practice. It is required of non-degree applicants for NCARB certification. The Professional examination is a two-day, sixteen hour examination designed to place the candidate in areas relating to actual architectural situations whereby his abilities to exercise competent value judgments are tested and evaluated. It covers the subjects of environmental analysis, building programing, design and technology, and construction. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In 1978, Petitioner applied for and was granted NCARB Certification. In evaluating his record in this regard, NCARB determined that he possessed the equivalent of five years of education based on his academic credits and employment by architectural firms. On October 19, 1979, NCARB transmitted the Petitioner's record to Respondent in support of his application for state registration. (Testimony of Petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In Respondent's Rule 21B-8.05, Florida Administrative Code, provides that applications for registration will be reviewed by Respondent's Educational Advisory Committee when requested by the Board, to determine, among other things, a comparison of standards for equivalency for applicants who do not hold an academic degree in architecture. In such instances, the Committee customarily meets with the applicant, reviews his academic credentials and experience, and makes recommendations for registration to Respondent Board of Architecture. In making such determinations in the past, the Committee has on several occasions recommended candidates for registration who have not completed their degree requirements. In several instances, they have recommended that an applicant enroll in a graduate program in a special capacity so that he could be evaluated and a determination made as to his capabilities which might justify a recommendation of registration. However, in such instances, the individual was not required to obtain a degree prior to a favorable recommendation. In the opinion of the present chairman of the Educational Advisory Committee, Arnold F. Butt, who is presently the chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida, it is possible for the Committee to determine that an applicant has attained the required capability by work experience, but it is necessary that he demonstrate such fact to the Committee. He does not believe that providing an applicant an equivalent of one year's formal education for one year of architectural work experience is sufficient in itself to permit such a determination without evaluating the nature and extent of such experience. He is further of the opinion that, although successful completion of the NCARB equivalency examination demonstrates that a candidate has some minimal capabilities, which any candidate of a degree program would have, it is not sufficient in itself as a substitute for formal education, particularly in the area of architectural design. The Petitioner's application and NCARB record were not referred to the Educational Advisory Committee, nor did it make a recommendation to Respondent prior to the letter of denial of the application on November 9, 1979. (Testimony of Butts, Rule 21B-8.05, F.A.C.)
Recommendation That Respondent Florida State Board of Architecture deny the application of Petitioner John J. Bagdonas for license by endorsement pursuant to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Eber, Esquire 151 SE 14th Terrace Miami, Florida 33131 John Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol - LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 State Board of Architecture Attn: Mr. Herbert Coons, Jr. 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Claudio Ricardo Ramos was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and the Site Planning Examination administered on June 14- 16, 1982 by the Department of Professional Regulation. He is a graduate of the University of Miami with a Bachelor of Architecture Degree and is presently employed by an architecture firm in Miami, Florida. On September 10, 1982 Petitioner was informed by the Department that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After a review of his examination he requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request initiated these proceedings. The professional architecture examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. Part A is known as the site planning and design portion of the exam. It requires a candidate to draw a solution to a problem involving (a) site plans, (b) floor plans, (c) building sections, (d) two significant building elevations, (e) diagrams of structural systems, (f) diagrams of environmental control systems, and (g) a typical wall section. Part A is blind-graded by at least two examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to evaluation criteria set out in Section 21B- 14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades ranging from 1 through 4, depending on the quality of the work, are awarded by each examiner. An applicant must have a minimum average of 3 in order to pass Part A of the examination. On the June 1982 examination, all candidates were required to design a small municipal airport terminal building in a midwestern location. The problem required a site plan, ground level plan-north elevation, second level plan, and a cross-section of the facility. While Petitioner demonstrated on his examination that an effort had been made to comply with the instructions set out in the examination and preexamination booklet, he failed in several significant areas to design a structure consistent with the program's requirements. His design for the terminal failed to fit the criteria for floor areas, entrance- exist requirements, circulation pattern through enplaning and deplaning and to comply with the required structural and mechanical details. These deficiencies in Petitioner's design cannot be explained as merely a difference in professional judgment. They are fundamental mistakes which in some respects make his design functionally unsound. It is apparent from Petitioner's design that he spent a considerable portion of his allotted time on the ground level of the airport terminal design and then was without adequate time to prepare the second level plan and integrate that plan with the ground level. Petitioner has failed to present evidence showing that the failing grade he received was given in a capricious or arbitrary manner. Petitioner's grade was well within the range of reasonable professional judgment on what is an unsuccessful performance of the Part A examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order denying the application of Claudio Ricardo Ramos for licensure as an architect on the grounds that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Claudio Ricardo Ramos 140 Northwest 87th Avenue Apartment G-222 Miami, Florida 33172 John J. Rimes III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Florida Board of Architecture Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Board of Professional Engineers should discipline either Sam G. Gillotti on charges made against him in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 86-4800 on or about September 26, 1986, or Charles B. Bland on charges made against him in the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213 on or about November 14, 1986, or both. The Administrative Complaint against Gillotti in Case No. 86-4800 alleges essentially that he falsely certified both to Bland, as a part-owner, the owner representative, the engineer of record and the building contractor of record, and to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department, that the structural members of an eleven-story project known as the Marlborough House, located in Winter Haven, Florida, was built according to approved plans and according to applicable building codes. The Administrative Complaint alleges that this constitutes violations of: (a) Section 471.033(1)(e), Florida Statutes, which prohibits the making or filing of a report which the licensee knows to be false; (b) Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, which prohibits negligence or misconduct in the practice of engineering; (c) F.A.C. Rule 21H- 19.01(5)(b), which is alleged to prohibit being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report whether or not under oath; and (d) F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(m), which is alleged to prohibit knowingly failing to report a violation. The Administrative Complaint against Bland in Case No. 87-1213 alleges in three counts that Bland: (Count I) was negligent in light of several specified deficiencies in the structural members of the Marlborough House, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g) and (k), Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(3); (Count II) falsely certified to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department that the design of the Marlborough House was in accordance with applicable building codes (when combustible materials were designed to be used in the penthouse roof, in violation of the Southern Building Code), in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), which prohibits fraud or deceit or misconduct in the practice of engineering, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(b), which is alleged to define misconduct to include being untruthful in any professional report; and (Count III) signed and sealed electrical drawings for the Marlborough House when he was not competent through adequate training and experience to do so, in violation of Sections 471.033(1)(g) and (k), Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(d).
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues raised by the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 86-4800, Gillotti was licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, as a licensed professional engineer, having been issued license number PE 0012849. Indeed, Gillotti has been licensed to practice engineering in Florida for 23 years and, including practice in another state, has practiced engineering for 40 years. Besides this Administrative Complaint, Gillotti has never had a disciplinary proceedings brought against him as a licensed professional engineer. Bland, too, is and at all times material to the issues raised in the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213 has been a licensed engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0019406. Bland is licensed as an engineer in other states--17 at the time of the final hearing, plus approximately another ten in years past. He has been practicing engineering since 1962. He has provided engineering services for the construction of approximately 200 high-rise masonry buildings, including three in progress at the time of the hearing. Like Gillotti, this is Bland's first disciplinary action during his career as an engineer. Bland became involved in a project in Winter Haven, Florida, known as the Marlborough House in the late 1970s. Bland, doing business as Wellington Construction Corporation, was a part-owner of the project, and he also represented the joint venture that owned the property. The project was the development of an eleven-story condominium across the street from Cypress Gardens. Bland also served as the engineer of record for the project. He created the structural design and did the structural drawings for the planned condominium building. The design called for the construction of reinforced masonry bearing walls. The design transferred weight from the eleven stories to the foundation through a combination of wall types. On the higher floors, where the loads would be least, cement block walls sufficed. As the weight accumulated and increased progressively towards the lower floors, the wall was designed to bear the increased weight with a margin of safety against structural damage or collapse. First, the cement blocks comprising the walls were designed to be filled with grout for increased strength. On lower levels, reinforcement bars (rebars) were required to be inserted in the cement blocks, along with the grout, for even more strength. Still lower in the building, reinforced cements block and steel tube columns were required in the spaces between the walls. Finally, at the lowest levels, the reinforced columns had to be poured concrete to withstand the heaviest loads. The structural design called for special inspections to be made to assure that construction of the varied and relatively complex masonry bearing wall system would be according to plans. Bland coordinated his structural design with the architectural drawings 1/ and had both approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. It was decided that the Marlborough House would be inspected by affidavit, as permitted under the 1976 Standard Building Code, which Polk County had adopted. Under the affidavit system, the owner or designer of the building swears under oath that the building will be built according to approved plans and applicable local codes. Then, at the end of construction, before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner or its designated representative must swear under oath that the building has been built according to approved plans and applicable local codes. However, the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department was unfamiliar with the affidavit system of inspection, never having used it before, and allowed letters to serve in place of a sworn affidavit. At some point after approval of the plans for the Marlborough House, the structural plans were revised. The revised plans called for "poured-in- place" concrete flooring instead of the precast concrete floor system in the approved drawings. The revised drawings also called for a wood truss roof system for the penthouse roof. Otherwise, the structural drawings were essentially the same and also called for special inspections to be made to assure that construction of the varied and relatively complex masonry bearing wall system would be according to plans. The wood truss roof system for the penthouse was discussed and coordinated with the architect on the project. It is not clear whether the other structural revisions were discussed and coordinated with the architect. It is clear, however, that the architectural drawings were not modified to coordinate with the changes in the structural drawings. The the structural revisions were not formally approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. At least one change, allowing cantilevered balconies instead of corner column supports for the balconies, was approved as a field change. At some point early in the construction of the Marlborough House, the major investor in Bland's joint venture, Des Peres Financial Corporation of Missouri, and Bland decided that, since Bland was both engineer of record and part-owner, as well as owner representative and building contractor of record on the project, it would be wise for an engineer other than Bland to inspect the project for progress for purposes of requisition draws. Bland and Neil Luton, owner of the Neil Luton Planning Group, which Bland had hired to coordinate the development and obtain the necessary government permitting, decided to hire Gillotti for this purpose. Gillotti knew Bland slightly from a prior business relationship but that was the extent of Gillotti's knowledge of Bland. Gillotti had more of a working relationship with Luton, having being retained by him in connection with more than one development project in the past. Gillotti was not hired to, and was not relied upon by Bland and Luton to, provide the special inspections of the construction of the masonry bearing wall system called for in the structural drawings. In December, 1980, Bland gave the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter representing that the Marlborough House would be built according to approved plans and applicable structural provisions of the local code. In another letter to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department, Bland acknowledged that, although he had "associated" himself with another Florida licensed professional engineer, Gillotti, "concerning the progress inspections," he (Bland) had "ultimate responsibility concerning the structural aspects of the project." Gillotti's first requisition inspection was during the construction of the fourth level of the Marlborough House. It was known to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department that Gillotti was not present, or any way involved with the project, during the construction of the lower levels. Altogether, Gillotti made only three inspections during construction of the structural members of the Marlborough House, during construction of the fourth, eighth and penthouse levels. Although Gillotti was inspecting for purposes of requisition, he noted his general observations, including in some cases deviations from what he understood to be the building plans (the revised, not the approved, plans), on a report of each of the inspections. He provided a copy of his inspection report both to Bland and to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. Both Bland and the Polk County Building Inspection Department knew that Gillotti made only three inspections during construction of the structural members of the Marlborough House, during construction of the fourth, eighth and penthouse levels. Neither Bland himself nor any other structural engineer was on the site doing the special inspections called for in the structural engineering plans during the construction of levels which Gillotti did not see being constructed. Neither Gillotti nor Bland, nor the two of them together, were on the site enough to properly conduct the special inspections required by the structural plans. In June, 1981, the building was nearing completion, and Bland and Des Peres wanted the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department to issue a restricted temporary certificate of occupancy for the common areas so that the owners could begin selling condominium units in the project and obtain favorable financing terms for prospective buyers. For this purpose, Bland solicited and obtained from Gillotti a June 10, 1981, letter stating that the structural members of the Marlborough House were built according to the approved plans and local code. He did not qualify the letter either to note the limitations of his personal knowledge (and that he had to rely on Bland's representations to him as to most of the structure) or to again point out the deviatioins from the plans that he had noted in his inspection reports. Bland knew that Gillotti's June 10, 1981, letter certifying the structural members of the building was not accurate and could not be relied on. He knew that Gillotti was not at the site enough to have certified the building in this manner. He should have known that neither Gillotti's inspections, his inspections, or the inspections of both men, were sufficient to comply with the special inspections requirements of the structural engineering plans. 2/ He also knew, or should have known, that he never gave Gillotti a copy of the approved plans, but only a copy of the revised plans, for Gillotti's use in inspecting the building. Bland used Gillotti's June 10, 1981, letter to obtain from the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, issued on July 27, 1981, for the main lobby, the elevator and the elevator corridors, only, (and not the individual apartments) for floors 1-10 only. To obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy for the rest of the building, on or about August 7, 1981, Bland gave the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter certifying, among other things, that he had designed the Marlborough House in full conformance with the Standard Building Code, 1976 Edition, the National Fire Protection Code #3, and the National Electrical Code, 1975 Edition, with Polk County amendments, and that "[t]he building has now been constructed in full conformance with the above mentioned codes." Knowing that Gillotti also had been at the site performing inspections, the Director of the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department asked for a letter from Gillotti, too, although Bland's certification letter was considered to be legally sufficient under the affidavit system of inspection. Neil Luton relayed the request to Gillotti. On or about August 10, 1981, Gillotti sent the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter certifying "that the structural members of the [Marlborough House] were built according to the approved plans, the Standard Bldg. Code 1976 Edition, and the local code." He qualified this certification only by writing: "Mr. Charles Bland made the Mechanical, Plumbing, & Electrical inspections for the above building." On or about August 14, 1981, the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy" for all of the Marlborough House except the penthouse level. In fact, the Marlborough House was not built in accordance with either the approved plans or the applicable codes in that the wooden truss roof system for the penthouse level was not approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department and violated provisions of the Southern Standard Building Code that prohibit the use of combustible materials in the penthouse roof system. Other than the use of wooden trusses in the penthouse roof system, the evidence did not prove that the structure of the building failed meet the applicable codes except that the building was not constructed according to the approved plans in several respects: Reinforced concrete columns called for on the drawings had not, in all cases, been provided, e.g., in the second level, west unit, in the wall between the bathrooms. Instead, reinforced concrete block columns, which are not as strong, were substituted. Steel tube columns specified at the exterior corners of bedrooms were not provided, e.g., at the tenth level, east unit, exterior corner, approximately 30 feet south of the north wall. Spandrel beams specified at balconies, beams to be placed at the exterior edge of the balcony slabs, were not provided. Uncontrolled cutouts for ducts and electrical conduits were made in bearing walls. In one case, a wall was designed to be nine feet wide and had four feet missing due to uncontrolled cutouts. Some of the concrete blocks making up bearing walls were poorly aligned vertically. Misaligned blocks are hard to fill with grout, as the plans require in some places. In addition, vertically misaligned block introduces eccentric forces at the mortar joint between blocks, instead of transferring the load directly vertically through the block to the foundation in accordance with the structural design. In addition, some wall sections were misaligned so that one level's wall was not positioned directly above the wall section of the level below it. In one case, the displacement was greater than the width of the wall. As a result, lateral forces were introduced to the floor slab between the two wall sections, contrary to the structural design for the building. (f) Cement block cells that were designed to receive grout did not in some instances. In addition, the electrical engineering plans contained numerous deviations from the standards of the electrical engineering industry, as well as the National Electrical Code: Drawing E-1.-- There were no wire sizes shown for the various apartments for the branch circuits, contrary to the standards of the electrical engineering industry. There were no circuit numbers shown for the various apartment devices, another deviation from the standards of the industry. The outlet spacings in the apartment rooms and kitchens are not in accordance with the National Electrical Code (NEC), s. 210-25(b). There are no telephone or television outlets indicated on the plans, contrary to industry standards. There is no air conditioning disconnect switch indicated, as required by NEC s. 430 to allow for safe servicing of the unit. There was no life safety system audio device shown in the common corridors or stairs as required by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) s. 101. The apartment panelboards A and B do not show a branch circuit for the water heater, which is provided in the plumbing drawings. Drawing E-2.-- Drawing E-2 has the same deviations noted in (a) through (f) for Drawing E-1. The connection shown for the fire pump required by the NFPA in all buildings did not meet the requirements of the NEC. No short circuit rating for any of the electrical over-current devices, panelboard bussing, etc., are shown, contrary to the requirements of NEC s. 110-9. Drawing E-3.-- The telephone system conduit sizes shown appear inadequate to handle risers of 20 outlets. The ratio of 20 outlets to one riser also appears excessive. The normal ratio is six apartments per riser. The plans do not indicate the size of the elevator disconnect switch as required by NEC s. 430. Drawings E-1A, E-2A and E-3A.-- Drawing E-1A, E-2A and E-3A have the same deviations noted in (a) through (c), (e) and (f) for Drawing E-1. Drawing E-4. Drawing E-4 has the same deviations noted in (i) and (j) for Drawing E-2. In addition, the electrical riser does not show all feeder sizes or equipment sizes, a requirement of the NEC. Drawing E-4A. Some fire alarm schematics were shown but they were incomprehensible. This fails to meet the requirements of the NFPA s. 101, which requires the schematic to show the components of the system and how it is going to perform. Bland has had a great deal of experience in the design and construction of multistory buildings such as the Marlborough House, and has sealed the electrical engineering plans on many of those projects. The evidence did not prove that his experience and training was not adequate to enable him to do the electrical drawings for the Marlborough House. However, the extensive deviations between Bland's electrical plans and the various code requirements do prove that Bland was either incompetent or grossly negligent in drawing the electrical plans for the Marlborough House.
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: (1) finding Sam G. Gillotti guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), under the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 86-4800, fining him $1,000 and placing him on probation for six months; and (2) finding Charles B. Bland guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(e) under Count I and II, and Section 471.033(g), Florida Statutes (1981), under Count III, of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213, fining him $3,000 and suspending his license for one year, followed by one year of probation. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990.
The Issue The sole issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, which he took in June, 1982. Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The architectural examination in Florida is administered in two parts: a written examination given in December of each year, and the design and site planning examination given in June of each year. Canavan met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Canavan took the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1982. This examination consisted of various design and site problems to be resolved in drawings to be completed within 12 hours. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The examination is prepared and supplied to the Office of Examination Services by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The design and site planning portion of the examination for June of 1982 required the design of a small airport terminal by the applicant to include drawings of the structure on the site, exterior elevations, interior floor plans and cross-sections of the building interior. Canavan, together with the other applicants, was supplied information and a preexamination booklet setting forth generally the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which the applicants would be expected to sketch. At the time of the examination, other information was supplied to the applicants to enable them to more adequately design the structure requested and meet the necessary architectural requirements. The examination of the Petitioner, together with the examinations of the applicants from some 20 states using the NCARB standardized examination, were graded at one time by graders of the NCARB. Each state participating in the examination process provides at least two qualified architects to function as graders. These graders are given specific training by NCARB to standardize their grading approach to the examination. The examinations of all the applicants are divided among the various graders on a blind grading basis in such a manner that the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination he is grading. Graders look at the applicant's overall plan to determine whether the applicant has met or failed to meet the requirements. The grader makes notations of specific areas of weakness based upon the grading criteria and based upon the overall conception of the applicant's submission. Each examination is graded by a minimum of two graders, who grade the examination independently. If the examination receives a failing grade from each of the independent graders, it is graded by a third grader. The Petitioner's examination was graded in accordance with the above process and received a failing grade, indicating that it was graded by three independent graders. The Petitioner was notified of his failure to pass the examination and given notice of his right to a formal hearing. Jeff Hoxie, who was one of the graders on the June 1982 examination and who is an experienced architect licensed in the State of Florida, reviewed the Petitioner's examination in the manner that it would have been assessed by the graders, explaining the process generally and explaining the specific deficiencies which he noted. He used the original grader's comments regarding the deficiencies noted as a point of departure to explain his assessment of the Petitioner's examination. The Petitioner failed to follow specific examination requirements as to the required sizes of specific floor areas, failed to follow building code requirements in his design of the kitchen and restaurant, and failed to properly draw the sketch required of the structural and mechanical elements of the building. While there were other areas of weakness noted, Mr. Hoxie stated that the major failures listed above would justify a failing grade. Petitioner's testimony revealed that he had made a mistake in sketching one plan, and that, because of this mistake and the corrections which Petitioner made, he ran out of time, which resulted in the specific failings noted by the three graders at the national level and confirmed by Mr. Hoxie.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture of the State of Florida fail the Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination taken by Canavan in June, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel T. Canavan 814 Avenida Hermosa West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert Powers Wheeler is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination allows the national testing service grading the examination and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine if an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states, who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis, that is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. Further, the grader does not know the grade assigned to any applicant's solution by any other grader. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and are required to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's solution, whether a passing grade of "3" or "4" should be assigned to each applicant's solution. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's solution. Petitioner received a grade of "2," which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination. Although the Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, who is also an architect, testified that Petitioner made a valiant effort to pass the examination, he identified several material areas wherein Petitioner failed to achieve minimal competency in his presentation or wherein Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. Petitioner failed to meet the owner's goals in that he approached the minimum square footage requirement while failing to provide amenities, which was a prime directive in the examination program. Petitioner had difficulty with regard to the pedestrian traffic flow on his third-floor plan. Petitioner had difficulty with his parking solution as well as with fulfilling the requirement of keeping the building architecturally compatible with surrounding structures. The Board's Executive Director, who has many years' experience in grading Site Planning and Design Tests, would have also given to Petitioner an overall grade of "2." The graders of Petitioner's examination were not uniform in identifying areas of concern regarding Petitioner's weaknesses in his solution. However, the procedure to be utilized by graders is set forth in the Grader's Manual and specifies that under the holistic grading system each grader is to determine his overall impression of a candidate's submission in order to assign a passing or a failing grade. After making his determination based upon the overall project, the grader then returns to his areas of special concern. Although the different graders may have identified different areas of concern, all graders found Petitioner's submission to be below minimal competency requirements. Although Petitioner disagrees with his grade, he presented no evidence to show that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June, 1981, architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Powers Wheeler 5501 South West 147th Terrace Miami, Florida 33158 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge regarding the June 1997 landscape architecture licensure examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: In June of 1994, Petitioner took the national landscape architecture licensure examination (LARE). LARE is an examination developed, administered and graded by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB). The 1994 version of LARE, like all subsequent pre-1997 versions of the examination, contained seven parts: Legal and Administrative Aspects of Practice (part 1), Programming and Environmental Analysis (part 2), Conceptualization and Communication (part 3), Design Synthesis (part 4), Integration of Technical and Design Requirements (part 5), Grading and Drainage (part 6) and Implementation of Design Through the Construction Process (part 7). Three of the seven parts of the examination, parts 1, 2 and 7, consisted of multiple choice questions. Parts 2 and 7 had 90 and 120 questions, respectively. The passing score for each part of the examination was 75. On the June 1994 examination, Petitioner received a passing grade of 75 on part 2 and failing grade of 69 on part 7. In June of 1995, Petitioner retook part 7 of the examination (as well as four other parts of the examination she had failed in 1994). Petitioner received a failing grade of 71 on part 7 of the June 1995 examination. After receiving her scores on the June 1995 examination, Petitioner sent a letter, dated October 10, 1995, to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), which read as follows: Pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, I would like to petition for a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. I am disputing my scores achieved on the Landscape Architecture Registration Examination (LARE) for sections 3, 4, 5 6 and The reason I am disputing the score on these sections is because I was comfortable with the examination format, paid specific attention to detail and felt confident that I had successfully designed appropriate buildable solutions to the problems meeting or exceeding minimum competency. The procedures for requesting a formal hearing were written with what appear to be contradictions and therefore I am enclosing a copy that was mailed to me. Since the information pamphlet specifically states that NO CHALLENGES TO SECTIONS 1 THRU 7 OF THE EXAMINATION WILL BE ACCEPTED, it is not clear then why it states that a candidate electing to review the examination for the purpose of submitting challenges is then stated. I did call the Department of [Business and Professional] Regulation and spoke with JoAnn Richardson at the Bureau of Testing for clarification. In my first conversation with her, she stated that I would be able to request a pre-hearing review in order to accurately challenge my scores. In a second conversation with her on that same day, she then said that it would be O.K. to go to the review and then submit this letter of petition for a formal hearing. Since the dates in this pamphlet do not accurately reflect our conversation, I asked her if she could write it in a letter for me so that I was confident that I would not miss the deadline to file for this petition. I have not received this letter from her and therefore am petitioning for a formal hearing at this time with a request for a pre-hearing review of my examination. Petitioner received a letter from the Department, dated October 27, 1995, acknowledging receipt of her October 10, 1995, letter and advising her that her letter had been "forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel for review and action." No action, however, was subsequently taken on the matter. Petitioner telephoned the Department on several occasions to ascertain the status of her hearing request. She was told that she would be notified when a hearing was scheduled. Such notification, however, never came. Petitioner therefore applied to retake, in June of 1996, those parts of the LARE she had not yet passed, including part 7. The Pre-Exam Orientation Information booklet that CLARB sent to candidates before the June 1996 examination alerted candidates to the following: 1996 will be the last time to take Sections 2 and 7 of the LARE separately. In 1997, Sections 2 and 7 of the current test will be combined into a new Section 2(7)- Analytical and Technical Aspects of Practice. If a candidate does not pass both Sections 2 and 7 separately in 1996 he/she will be required to complete the new Section 2(7). Petitioner received a failing grade of 74 on part 7 of the June 1996 examination. She did not take any steps to challenge this failing grade. The revisions announced in the 1996 Pre-Exam Orientation Information booklet were made to the 1997 version of the LARE. Parts 2 and 7 of the examination were replaced by a new part 2(7), entitled "Analytical and Technical Aspects of Practice," which consisted of 130 multiple choice questions. This new part of the examination tested the same general knowledge, skills and abilities as had parts 2 and 7 of the previous examinations, but did so in a more efficient manner. In June of 1997, Petitioner took part 2(7) of the examination and received a failing grade. The failing score that Petitioner received on part 2(7) of the June 1997 examination, and the failing scores that she received on part 7 of the 1994, 1995, and 1996 examinations, are reliable indicators of her competency in the areas tested at the time she took the examinations. These failing scores reflect her failure to meet minimum competency in the areas tested, as determined by the panel of experts who set the passing scores for these examinations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner is not qualified for licensure as a landscape architect because she has not yet passed the licensure examination, as required by Section 481.311(2)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 11th day of September, 1998.
