Findings Of Fact In October, 1973, the Petitioner filed an application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida with the Board. By letter dated November 21, 1973, the Board, through its Executive Secretary, denied the application stating that the Petitioner lacked the required degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner requested that his experience be reviewed to determine whether he had training fully equivalent to such a degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). By letter dated August 19, 1974 the Board notified the Petitioner that his educational background was insufficient, and that the application would be denied. Petitioner thereupon filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. The court adjudged that the Board was required to consider not only the Petitioner's educational training, but his private study, on-the-job training and other practical experience. A copy of the court's Final Declaratory Judgment was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 12. Petitioner again appeared before the Board and offered evidence respecting his training and practical experience. See: Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8. On June 11, 1976, the Board entered its order finding the Petitioner to be not qualified and denying the application (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing in accordance with Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1). Petitioner's application for licensure is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which commenced prior to January 1, 1975. The parties have nonetheless stipulated that the provisions of Section 120.57(1) will hereafter govern the proceeding. The Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago Technical College, Chicago, Illinois on December 17, 1954. Petitioner's course of study was architectural engineering. The Chicago Technical College was not, during the time that Petitioner attended it, and is not now on the approved list of schools and colleges of architecture adopted and published by the Board. The course of study pursued by the Petitioner at Chicago Technical College was not the same as a program in architecture. The program was a highly technical engineering program. The design studio which is perhaps the major facet of an architectural program was not present in the architectural engineering program pursued by the Petitioner. Following his graduation the Petitioner worked with other architects in the general practice of architecture. His longest periods of employment were with Cabanban and Wasserman, architects, where he worked for four years and eleven months from 1958 until 1963; and with Ohrnstein and Wasserman, with whom he was employed for four years and four months from 1966 through 1971. In each of these jobs the Petitioner performed the sort of work ordinarily performed by architects. A listing of the different projects in which the Petitioner performed design and supervisory functions is set out as a part of Hearing Officer's Exhibit 10. A wide variety of commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and private residences are included. Petitioner served as a partner in Cabanban and Wasserman, and in Ohrnstein and Wasserman. Augustine Cabanban and Earl Ohrnstein were both registered architects during the course of the partnerships. Cabanban and Ohrnstein each testified that the Petitioner performed the full range of architectural services during the course of the partnerships, and that his work was excellent. Architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner to the Board demonstrate that the Petitioner did not achieve a high level of design proficiency from his work experience. The best drawings submitted demonstrated a level of competence of approximately a third year architecture student in a five year program. Other drawings demonstrated a lack of design competence, and were inadequate. During 1972, the Petitioner passed the standard examination offered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Petitioner holds a current certificate issued by the National Council, and is registered to practice architecture in the State of Illinois. Schools or colleges of architecture approved by the Board have many common features, and the curricula offered at the schools are fairly consistent. Generally the programs and the curricula have remained consistent since approximately 1955 with minor variations, or changes of a technical sort. There is no real distinction between the sort of program which would have been approved in 1955, and the sort of program which would be approved today. Typically an approved program which operated on a quarter hour academic basis would require approximately 240 quarter hours for graduation. Approximately 75 quarter hours would be in architectural design culminating in a thesis. Approximately 60 quarter hours would be in general education subject matter, with between 30 to 35 hours in social science and humanities. The social science background is important because an architect must bring together all the factors which relate to the building environment, including social factors. The educational program followed by the Petitioner lacked the necessary design courses and social science courses which would be required in an approved architectural program. An architectural engineer is an engineer involved with buildings. The design courses in an architectural engineering program are set up to enable the engineer to work with an architect. Through on-the-job training the Petitioner received considerable design experience; however, drawings which he submitted to the Board did not evidence that he had achieved the level of design competence which would be required of a graduate of an approved architectural program. The fact that the Petitioner passed the National Council's test does not in itself establish that Petitioner reached the necessary level of competence. Petitioner did not offer evidence from which it could be concluded that his studies and experience would substitute for the social science background required of a graduate of an approved program. The Petitioner did not establish that he took social science courses, or engaged in individual study in the social sciences, or engaged in any other activities which would substitute for such an academic background.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in Florida should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated April 7, 1982, authored by Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director for the Board of Architecture, Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in Florida was denied "due to the fact that [his] application does not show evidence that [he] had the professional degree which is required pursuant to Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(a)." Petitioner was further advised that he had failed to show that he satisfied the requirements of Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(b) or that he had engaged in the practice of architecture in another state for the ten (10) years, in conformance with Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(c). Therein, Petitioner was further advised that he could appeal the Respondent's denial of his application to practice architecture. Petitioner appealed that denial, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant thereto, the matter was noticed for hearing by copy of a Notice of Hearing dated December 14, 1982, scheduling the matter for hearing on February 18, 1983, in Miami, Florida. As stated, the Petitioner, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear to prove his entitlement for approval of his application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida. Based thereon, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 17th day of March, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Albert Poza, applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the state of Florida. The architectural licensure examination administered by the Respondent consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for a twelve hour examination consisting of a drafting or sketching problem concerning which he was required to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, taking into consideration numerous design and site considerations such as human traffic flow, parking, access to all floors, heating and cooling, including natural heating and lighting and numerous other aesthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the state of Florida as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Counsel of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) . Pursuant to the authority delineated below, this examination has been adopted for use by Florida applicants for licensure. The examination itself is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure, the Petitioner, to design a structure for placement on a particular site, including mandatory requirements for accommodating the structure to the site, and vice versa, detailed design of elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans, as well as effective use of natural light and solar heating potential, regard for the physical and aesthetic needs of the building's occupants, its impact on the environment of the site and its locality and numerous other criteria. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by the applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself, the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and the building design problems submitted to him by NCARB. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders, and through them, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether an applicant such as the Petitioner is able to coordinate the various structural design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on these same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the site and design portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some twenty states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to the site and design problem submitted by applicants, including the Petitioner, on a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, and the evaluation criteria set forth in the grading sheet. The graders are instructed to note areas of strength and of weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to the grading criteria and then determine, based on an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of three or four as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution to the problem in order to pass the relevant portion of the exam. The Petitioner herein received two "2's", which are failing grades and one "3", which is a passing grade. The Petitioner demonstrated an effort to comply with the instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre- examination booklet. He failed, however, to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. As established by Herbert Coons, Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, and Glenn Paulsen, Professor of Architecture at the University of Michigan, both graders of the Petitioner's examination and the Respondent's expert witnesses, the Petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based upon the criteria required to be considered and complied with in the examination program and by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. The Petitioner violated the setback requirements as to the side entrance of the building in question with the result that significant alterations of the off-site and publicly owned sidewalks and easements would be required in order to effect his design solution. It is not good architectural practice, when asked to design a structure, to use land which is not part of the land owned by the client requesting the design. The examination program also specifically required that the candidate either maximize the floor space in the building by eliminating some amenities or if determining to insert amenities such as atria, balconies, large interior spaces and so forth, that these be provided in such a way to make the structure a luxury-type office building. In effect, the owner's goals in this design problem sought either a functional building with maximum floor space or a luxury building with minimal floor space, but with significant cultural amenities. In his solution, the Petitioner did not meet either of those two goals, since he included minimal floor space and yet an insufficient number of luxury features required by the program as an alternative. Other significantly deficient areas in the Petitioner's examination solution included his failure to visually relate the building's design to adjacent buildings. That is, he ignored the instructions in the program requiring him to design a building in an area of historical significance with an appearance which is compatible with adjacent historical buildings; pictures of adjacent buildings being furnished in his examination booklet. The Petitioner failed to allow adequate room in the mechanical equipment space for heating and air conditioning equipment, which the size and type building would require. Additionally Witness Coons established, by scaling the Petitioner's design solution, that the building was too large for the site on which it was to be constructed. Portions of it would encroach upon public property and violate local zoning ordinances. In a more serious vein, it was established that the building design did not contain an adequate allowance for structural support as to the various spans over the columns. The column spacing was appropriate, but the beams depicted are not of a sufficient size and type to safely support the structure and there is a danger that a building so constructed would collapse. Additional deficiencies noted involved poor human traffic circulation in the third floor lobby area design, insufficient storage space included in the design for the third floor lecture room and inadequate provision for landscaping. Other less significant deficiencies were noted including, as admitted by the Petitioner that the square footage on the upper floors was in error. In short, significant program requirements were not provided for or complied with by the Petitioner. In view of the above determined deficiencies, the Petitioner failed to establish that his solution to the site and design problem posed by the examination reflects sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed applications with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) for a provisional plans examiner license and a standard building plans examiner license.1/ The Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors (Board), which is part of DBPR, is the state agency charged with certification of building code administrators, plans examiners, and building code inspectors, pursuant to Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accompanying her applications were: a statement of educational history; an affidavit from her then current employer, Robert Olin of the Orange County Building Division; an "Experience History" page; and notarized statements from two construction companies listed on the Experience History page, JE Activities Construction Managers, Inc., and BFC Construction Corp., regarding Petitioner's employment with those companies. DBPR reviewed her applications and sent her two letters dated August 9, 2005, both of which read in pertinent part as follows: If you are using your education as experience, you will need to have an official transcript sent from your institution. Have them send it to attention building codes, CIU. (There's no need to send the one for the psychology coursework, only the engineering.) The paperwork you sent from New York is not sufficient. You will need to use the affidavit form in your packet, such as Mr. Olin used. They need to fill out the form completely (please note it does not have to be notarized.) The affidavits must be filled out by a state licensed architect, engineer, contractor or building official (see application instructions.) They must include their state license number and tell what the license is (i.e. general contractor). If they are one of these professions but are not licensed in New York because it is not necessary in that state, they need to send a separate letter so stating, which is notarized. You need to send a new experience history page which includes your position in Orange County. (emphasis in original) Additionally, the August 9, 2005, letter regarding her application for a provisional license advised Petitioner the following: Please be advised that in order to be eligible for provisional license, you must be hired into the position of a building plans examiner. . . . You will need to send a new affidavit from your CBO stating that you have been hired into the position, and the effective date of such hire. (Please see Rule 61G19-6.012(6) showing you are eligible to perform the duties of a building plans examiner when hired for a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the application for provisional licensure) under direct supervision of a CBO. . . . Petitioner responded to the August 9, 2005, letters by supplying the requested documentation. Specifically, Petitioner provided a revised affidavit from Robert C. Olin, Manager/Building Official with the Orange County Building Division, which stated as follows: Ms. Georges was hired as a Plans Examiner on 6/13/05. She is applying for her Provisional Plans Examiner License and also to take the Building Plans Examiner exam. Presently her responsibility is to complete her training for the position of Plans Examiner, and to obtain a Provisional, and then a Standard Plans Examiner License. Petitioner also provided a revised Experience History page which included her position in Orange County listing the dates of employment as June 13, 2005 to present. Further, Petitioner provided revised statements/affidavits, on the affidavit form specified in the August 9, 2005, letter to Petitioner, regarding her work experience in New York. One of the affidavits was written by Ernest Jochen, vice president of JE Activities, Inc., who listed her dates of employment as February 2003 to June 2005, and her years of supervisory experience as "2 years 3 months." The other affidavit was written by Garfield Stewart, Senior Project Manager, of BFC Construction Corp., who listed her dates of employment as May 2000 to January 2003, and her years of supervisory experience as "2 years 8 months." The substance of the original statements of Mr. Jochen and Mr. Stewart regarding Petitioner's work experience was essentially the same as in the revised affidavits. The revisions were of a technical nature only, i.e., on the correct forms. Petitioner's work experience in these jobs, i.e., managing gut renovations of city-owned multi-family apartment buildings, is in the field of construction. Petitioner also ordered an official transcript from Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, New York, which was received by Respondent on October 5, 2005. The transcript indicates that Petitioner attended Polytechnic University from the fall of 1996 through the fall of 2000, earning 123.50 credits over four years with a major in Civil Engineering. The Board denied Petitioner's applications at a meeting held on December 9, 2005, and issued the Notice of Intent to Deny on January 4, 2006. Subsequent to issuance of the Notice of Intent to Deny,2/ Petitioner provided separate letters from Mr. Stewart and Mr. Jochen which read as follows: A license to complete gut renovations on multi-family structures is not required in the State of New York. The firm is only required to be bonded and insured. Although Petitioner was employed by Orange County at the time she submitted her applications and for several months thereafter, she explained at hearing that she left her employment with Orange County in June 2006, and was employed there for exactly one year. This meant at the time she made application, Petitioner was employed by an agency of government, but not at the time of hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for provisional certification as a building plans examiner, and granting Petitioner's application for standard certification as a building plans examiner, thus allowing her to sit for the standard certificate examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 24th day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a structural engineer should be approved. This case arose as a result of a determination by Respondent that Petitioner had not passed the reexamination for licensure as a structural engineer which was held on October 25, 1985. Petitioner contends that he was disadvantaged by the time allowed to study for the examination, the time taken to publish the results of the examination, the esoteric nature of a steel beam problem, and the design method required for a reinforced concrete structure. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner was not so disadvantaged, but that even if he were, it is not sufficient to increase his grade to a passing score. The respective contentions of the parties were embodied in a pre-hearing stipulation which was received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. Petitioner appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel and was therefore advised of his rights and the procedures to be employed in the administrative proceeding. He indicated that he understood his rights and such procedures, and elected to represent himself. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted six exhibits which were received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of James A. Power, a consulting structural engineer and Allen R. Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. In addition, Respondent submitted six exhibits in evidence, which were admitted. Petitioner's application for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. The parties were given until September 2, 1986, in which to file any posthearing submissions. However, Respondent failed to file any such submission and Petitioner's written argument was untimely filed on September 3, 1986.
Findings Of Fact By application received by Respondent on August 13, 1985, Petitioner Max E. Lambie applied for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination to be held on October 25, 1985. The application reflected that Petitioner had previously passed the "Fundamentals" part of a previous examination on April 19, 1985, and that his application was to take the "Principles and Practice" part for reexamination in the discipline of structural engineering. By a letter dated August 21, 1985, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the application and applicable fees. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Petitioner thereafter received from Respondent's Office of Examination Services, a "Notice to Appear for October 24-25, 1985, Professional Engineer (PE) Examination." The notice included information that Part II of the examination was to be based on Professional Principles and Practice, and devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of the candidate's discipline. It further stated as follows: In the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, candidates are required to solve eight (8) problems; four (4) in the morning session and four (4) in the afternoon session, drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (H) STRUCTURAL: Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces. The notice also stated that a passing grade on Part II of the examination was defined as a grade of seventy (70) or better, and that within approximately three (3) months after the examination date, the applicant would receive written notification of the examination results. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) By a Memorandum from Allen R. Smith, Jr., Director, Board of Professional Engineers, dated September 20, 1985, applicants applying for licensure by examination in the structural engineering discipline were advised that the examination was now given once a year and that the schedule was October 24 and 25, 1985, and October 23 and 24, 1986. The Memorandum further noted that the Board of Professional Engineers had amended Rule 21H- 21.02, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to the discipline of structural engineering to require that applicants were required to answer questions dealing specifically with structural engineering, and that applicants must answer four out of six questions on the a.m. and four out of six questions on the p.m. portions of the Principles and Practice examination. Enclosures to the Memorandum reflected the subject matter and numbers of the examination questions. A copy of Chapter 21H- 21 of the Respondent's Rules, dated July, 1985, was attached to the Memorandum. Rule 21H-21.02(2) provided in part as follows: Part two of the examination shall be based on Professional Practices and Principles and shall be devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's finding solutions to problems designed to test the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of his discipline. Applicants for registration must select one of the listed specializations in which to be examined. . . . In Part Two of the examination the applicant will usually be required to solve from seven to ten problems which the applicant may choose from approximately twenty problems drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (h) STRUCTURAL--"Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces." Finally, the Memorandum included an enclosure entitled "Design Reference Codes, Standards and Manuals" which listed various manuals and codes to be used as references for the review and use of applicants. The Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and Basic Building Code, had an asterisk after their listings. A note at the bottom of the listing stated "Use code with which you are familiar and/or currently using in your practice." One of the listings also was "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318- 83." It was not followed by an asterisk on the listing. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Petitioner took the October, 1985, examination which was a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) and available for certification or licensure throughout the United States. Respondent's Rule 21H-21.01 provides that the examination "shall be provided by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE)." (Stipulation (Joint Exhibit 1), Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Testimony of Petitioner) Petitioner did not receive his examination grades until March, 1986. The uniform grade notice, dated March 21, 1986, advised him that his examination grade was 66.3 which was failing and that a minimum passing score was 70. The reason for the delay in mailing the examination scores was that one of Respondent's graders for a specific portion of the examination was unavailable due to illness or accident. (Testimony of Smith, Respondent's Exhibit 5) At the hearing, Petitioner testified that the late notification by Respondent that only questions on structural engineering would be on the October examination disrupted his preparation and left him insufficient time to adequately prepare for the examination. He testified that in prior examinations it was possible for a candidate to select questions not specifically related to structural engineering, such as economics, and that he had to "scramble" to obtain texts to study for new subjects. He also claimed that the note at the bottom of Respondent's Design Reference Codes, Standards and Materials (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) which had accompanied Respondent's September 20, 1985 Memorandum to applicants (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) was misleading in that he construed the note to permit him to use whatever building code he was familiar with, and that it was not until he arrived at the examination that he found out that he had made the wrong assumption in that regard. The facts show, however, that the prior examination taken by Petitioner was not solely in the structural engineering discipline, but was a Civil/Sanitary/ Structural examination. Further, Respondent's note on the listing of reference manuals clearly indicated that it applied only with respect to the Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and the Basic Building Code, and not to the other codes and manuals listed therein. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 2- 3, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner claimed that the examination contained questions requiring the application of building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318- 83, which had only been in effect for the past two years and was not familiar to applicants of his age group and past experience. He contended that he had to hurriedly prepare himself utilizing unfamiliar texts that had become available only a few months prior to the examination. ACI 318-83 deals with a concept called "ultimate strength design," but Petitioner was familiar with an older concept called "working strength design." He further claimed that the South Florida Building Code was based entirely on the latter concept. However, expert testimony presented by the Respondent showed that the ultimate strength design concept had been part of the ACI code since 1956 and always had been required in designing prestressed concrete members. He also testified that working strength design is still permitted as an alternative concept in ACI 318-83, that both the South Florida Building Code and Standard Building Code require conformance to ACI 318-83, and that such requirements have been in both codes for at least 25 years. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioner's claims that he was prejudiced by the use of ACI 318-83 in problems on the examination are without merit. In this regard, it is also noted that the April 19, 1985 examination required the use of the latest ACI code and one question required the use of the ultimate strength method. (Testimony of Petitioner, Tower, Respondent's Exhibits 1-6) Respondent also contended at the hearing that question no. 275 of the October, 1985 examination contained a typographical error which required assumption of a different criterion for the solution, and that his expenditure of time in resolving the situation resulted in a score of five out of a possible ten. However, no evidence was presented that his solution was incomplete or that the score awarded by the graders was incorrect. Petitioner brought the typographical error to the attention of the Board by a letter stating that the error induced "extraordinary anxiety which contributed to a loss of concentration" and asked that his observation be passed on to the NCEE. At the hearing, he claimed that past typographical errors on examinations had resulted in adjustment of score points and that such should have been done with regard to the error which he pointed out to Respondent. Again, however, it is found that there was insufficient evidence presented to establish that the error noted by Petitioner had affected the grading of his solution. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 6.) Petitioner's claim that the late grading of the examination precluded him from applying for the Spring, 1986 examination is found to be irrelevant to the question of his failure of the October, 1985 examination. Further, his complaint that the new structural examination is used only in six states and that Florida was one of the first states to adopt the new examination provides no grounds for relief. The Board's purpose in changing the examination format was due to the belief that structural engineers should be more qualified in that particular discipline. In any event, the new Board rule established such format and no challenge to the rule was filed by Petitioner. (Testimony of Petitioner, Smith)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether certain questions within the June 2002 construction building contractor examination are invalid, and whether Petitioner should receive credit for certain answers scored as incorrect.
Findings Of Fact In June 2002, Petitioner sat for the construction building contractor examination. Shortly following the exam, Petitioner was advised that he incorrectly answered 17 of the 50 exam questions and did not attain the minimum passing score of 70 percent, but received a failing scaled score of 66 percent. Petitioner timely challenged the validity and scoring of eight questions, including questions 8, 14, 17, 33, 34, 38, 43, and 44. In order for Petitioner to acquire a passing score, Petitioner must prove that certain challenged questions are invalid or demonstrate that he is entitled to receive credit for his answers. Specifically, Petitioner must demonstrate that either three questions should be stricken from the exam providing Petitioner with 70.2 percent, two questions should be stricken and one answer scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70.8 percent or two answers should scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70 percent. QUESTION 8 Exam Question 8 asks, "According to AIA-A201, who determines the interest rate that the contractor can charge on due and unpaid payments?" Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, argues that the parties to the contract are not defined within the question and it is therefore misleading. However, the credited answer D, "all the parties must agree on the rate" is within the provided reference material and is clearly the best answer. It is not misleading and Petitioner's argument lacks merit. In addition, 89.47 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 8. QUESTION 14 Exam Question 14 is wordy and involves computations. It requires the test-taker to calculate the number of "labor" hours required per 100 pieces to build a wall, given certain pricing and wall construction information. Question 14 is ambiguous and confusing on its face. While the question asks for labor hours, the facts provide a fixed combined hourly cost for a mason and laborer's hour. There is no distinction made between "labor" hours and a "laborer's" hours. Mr. Collier admitted that there is some apparent confusion between "labor" costs and the "laborer's" costs. Mr. Palm further agreed and indicated that he fully understood Petitioner's rationale to divide the labor costs in half and choose answer A. Furthermore, it is clear that Petitioner's perception of the question was not unique. In fact, only 46.62 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 14. QUESTION 17 Exam Question 17 asks, "During the bid process, which document has priority in the event of conflicting information?" Clearly, the correct answer is B, "addenda." Petitioner's argument regarding "competitively bid projects" is without merit. Mr. Palm succinctly explained that Petitioner's selection was obviously incorrect because "plans don't change during the bid process unless there is an addenda issued." Moreover, 75.56 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 17. QUESTION 33 Exam Question 33 identifies a situation that where drawings differ from written specifications and where there is no legal precedent that one is more binding than the other. The question specifically calls for the best procedure according to the listed and available reference. While Mr. Uman argues that the answer does not appear within the reference material in a clear manner, the exact text of the question and answer are in fact within the material. Petitioner's argument lacks credibility. QUESTION 34 Exam Question 34 asks the test-taker "what is the EARLIEST workday for completing the masonry work?" given the number of crew, the number of hours required, and the ratio constant of the crew. Although 80.45 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 34, Mr. Uman argues that the question could have been answered without reference to the Builder's Guide to Accounting material and therefore, was misleading. Petitioner's argument is devoid of common sense. QUESTION 38 Exam Question 38 asks the test-taker to identify the activity that "a specialty structural contractor is qualified" to perform. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, again argues that the question is misleading since the credited correct answer "perform non-structural work" is not written verbatim in the provided reference material. To the contrary however, all of the alternative choices are clearly listed in the reference material as activities specifically prohibited by specialty structure contractors. Furthermore, page 2B17 to 61G415.015 of the Contractor's Manual specifically states that: The specialty structure contractor whose services are limited shall not perform any work that alters the structural integrity of the building including but not limited to roof trusses. Respondent's experts, Mr. Collier and Mr. Palm, agree that Question 38 is clear. Moreover, 53.38 percent of test- takers correctly answered the question. While the question appears to require enhanced reasoning skills and is generally more difficult, it is not misleading. Petitioner's assertions are without merit. QUESTION 43 Exam Question 43 asks, "Which accounting method should be used by a contractor if the contractor is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of progress to date on a job or the total costs remaining to fulfill the contract?" Mr. Uman argues that the question is ambiguous and the reference material is "not terribly clear." He further alleges that when a contractor cannot estimate progress, the contractor cannot establish a "completed contract method," the credited correct answer. Respondent's experts disagree. While it is true that Mr. Palm agreed that all of the choices are accounting methods which is inconsistent with Mr. Collier's testimony, the reference material is clear. In fact, 58.65 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 43. Petitioner presented insufficient evidence that he should receive credit for his answer or that Question 43 should be invalidated. QUESTION 44 Exam Question 44 provides detailed information regarding a standard form contract and asks, "Based ONLY on the information given above, what is the amount of the current payment due?" In addition, however, as Mr. Uman points out, the standard form referred to in the problem was mistakenly misidentified as Form 201 instead of Form 702. While it is clear that the referenced form was mislabeled, the precise form number was incidental, unrelated to the question, and unnecessary to compute the answer. In fact, Mr. Palm explains that the problem was "just a mathematical exercise." According to Mr. Collier, the question was not misleading, and the incorrect reference was irrelevant. "It's simple math, industry knowledge." Furthermore, Petitioner's answer is clearly incorrect because "he failed to deduct the retainage." Finally, 54.89 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 44.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered invalidating only Question 14, re-computing Petitioner's examination score, and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nickolas Ekonomides, Esquire 791 Bayway Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33767 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David A. Mancino, was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and Site Planning Examination administered on June 14 through 16, 1982, by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture. He is a 1979 graduate of the University of Texas and is presently employed by an architectural firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 10, 1982, Petitioner was advised by Respondent that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After reviewing his examination with the Executive Director of the Board in December, 1982, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request prompted the instant proceeding. The professional architectural examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. The former part is known as the Site Planning and Design portion of the examination and 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 three examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to prescribed evaluation criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades are awarded by each examiner ranging from 1 through 4 depending on the quality of the work. An applicant must have a minimal average of 3 in order to pass this part 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. Petitioner's solution has been received as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner received scores of 2, 2 and 2 on Part A of the examination. Generally, his solution was found to be weak in the following broad areas: (a) site planning and site location, (b) building planning and design, and (c) technical aspects. Specifically, the solution was weak as to the following aspects of site planning and site design: handicapped parking location/access from parking area across traffic lanes, service area location and traffic circulation, service drive curb cut, and site aesthetics, including trees, walls and pedestrian crosswalks. In building planning and design Petitioner's solution was less than acceptable in appropriate positioning and indication of ancillary elements, logical pedestrian circulation in relation to services, vertical circulation, conformance to program area requirements, conformance to life safety requirements, and building aesthetics in response to surrounding area, activities and owner goals. Finally, the technical aspects of the solution were weak in terms of the use of appropriate materials and construction methods, and vertical loads (roofs, columns and walls) All such deficiencies were confirmed by the Department's expert witness who reviewed and analyzed the examination, and who would have assigned a grade of 2 to the examination had he been an examiner. Petitioner generally disagreed with the noted weaknesses, and contended his solutions were satisfactory. He also questioned whether the problem was "fair", since the typical architect would probably never be called upon to design an airport terminal building during his or her career. Other than his own testimony, he offered no other evidence to contradict the examiners' conclusions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of David A. Mancino be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David A. Mancino 2791 Northeast 57th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christopher T. Mancino, Esquire Suite 2200 One Financial Plaza Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers to any one or all of five challenged questions on the structural I engineering examination that Petitioner took in April 1997 (the "structural engineering examination").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the structural engineering examination given in April 1997. Respondent administered the examination. The minimum passing score for the structural engineering examination is 70. Respondent earned a score of 69. By Examination Grade Report dated July 29, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that he had failed the structural engineering examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner's test results were re-scored by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying ("NCEES"). The re-score did not increase Petitioner's original score. Credit for an answer to one additional question will result in a score of 70 on examination. Petitioner challenges questions 270-273 on the morning part of the exam and question 572 on the afternoon part of the exam. The maximum score available for question 270 is 10 points. Petitioner received eight points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 270. Petitioner incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 271 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 271. Petitioner did not complete the procedure for two of the required items. Petitioner completed only two items in question 271. He received a correct score of two points because he incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 272 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 272. Petitioner did not provide a correct analysis of the "forces perpendicular and parallel to the grain" or "determine the allowable force at an angle to the grain." The maximum score available for question 273 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 273. A higher score would require Petitioner to calculate two items correctly. Petitioner calculated only one item correctly. Question 572 has two parts. Part 2 is a multiple choice format. The correct answer to Part 2 of Question 572 is answer "C," or 1.25. Petitioner chose answer "B," or 2.25. Petitioner incorrectly assumed that the structure was a mixed steel/concrete frame. If Petitioner's assumption had been correct, then answer "B," or 2.25, would have been the correct answer. Petitioner failed to show that Respondent did not utilize the scoring plan correctly. The examination provided enough information for a candidate for licensure to answer the problems correctly. The examination was properly designed to test a candidate's competency. The challenged questions are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 270-273 and 572. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 R. Beth Atchison Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl A. Brown, pro se 9313 Sonoma Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Licensing Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
