Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the parties' prehearing stipulation, the deposition of Herbert Coons and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Michael Harac, Petitioner herein, sat for the June 1981 Architecture Examination. Petitioner passed the written section of the 1981 Architecture Examination which tests substantive knowledge, has satisfied his internship requirements, and would be eligible for registration as an architect by the State of Florida but for his failing grade in the Design Examination at issue. By letter dated February 4, 1982, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on the question of whether or not he passed the Design section of the June 1981 Architecture Examination. The Design Section of the examination tests competence in the design process and utilizes the holistic grading method. Under the holistic procedure, three graders, after appropriate training sessions and instruction, grade each applicant's design solution. The range of available grades are 0 through 4. Scores of 3 and 4 are passing, a score of 2 or less is failing. Coordinating graders are available at the site and time of testing to evaluate any solution wherein the grader is uncertain or where there is a substantial disparity in grading. Petitioner received holistic scores of 1, 2 and 3 on the June 1981 exam. Respondent acknowledges that a score of 1 could not properly be awarded to Petitioner's solution based on the applicable grading criteria and, accordingly, has stipulated to the invalidity of that grade. That acknowledgment and stipulation stems from the fact that petitioner's solution was complete. Based on that stipulation and acknowledgment, Petitioner only received two valid grades, one passing (3) and one failing (2). The Grader's Manual used by Respondent in connection with the 1981 exam provides for a training session wherein the Training Committee will select twenty (20) actual test solutions which exemplify the level of competency and accomplishment required for each holistic score. (Grader's Manual at page 4, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Those solutions are termed training solutions and the graders are required to conform the severity and emphasis of their grading to the training solutions. The quality of an examinee's solution is to be measured against the quality of the solutions provided by other examinees. The graders are cautioned against judging against an imaginary ideal solution and must judge the actual performance of examinees on that particular examination for that particular project. (petitioner's Exhibit 1 at page 7) Training solutions are used as "range finders" in the holistic grading process. It is essential to the integrity of the holistic grading method that each applicant's solution is graded in a manner consistent with the training solutions. (Testimony of Ronald Newman, an expert qualified herein in holistic grading procedures) Charles Sieger, a witness tendered and received as an expert in architecture, conducted an evaluation of Petitioner's solution by first studying the solution and then blind-scoring several training solutions and thereafter scored Petitioner's solution and thereafter scored additional training solutions. Equal time was spent on all solutions including Petitioner's and all 20 training solutions were considered and weighed against Petitioner's solution. Mr. Sieger considered both passing and failing training solutions both before and after grading Petitioner's solution. Petitioner's solution compared favorably to the passing training solutions and would merit a holistic grade of 3 when compared to said training solutions. The evaluation procedure utilized by Charles Sieger possessed substantial validity within the holistic testing method, as is more particularly described in the Grader's Manual, and is as close to the original format as possible without reconvening the original graders and trainers. Mr. Sieger acknowledged that there were some design flaws in the Petitioner's solution; however, Petitioner's solution was buildable; given sufficient time to "polish" his solution, the solution would demonstrate the petitioner's ability to design and the flaws in Petitioner's solution were so minor that small changes could be made without destroying the concept as presented by the petitioner. (Testimony of expert witnesses Nerman and Sieger) Mr. Coons did not utilize the range finders in grading Petitioner's solution nor did he grade each solution against the others as is recommended in the Grader's Manual. Additionally, Respondent has acknowledged that Petitioner's solution was not graded against or in comparison with the training solutions by Mr. Coons. A review of Mr. Coons' testimony further reveals that he gave failing grades to training solutions which were passing solutions and were given holistic grades of 3 and 4 by coordinating grades. The Grader's Manual requires the grader to score solutions with the following questions in mind: "If the examinee knew more about the partic- ular project, would I say this person could design? If the examinee had time to polish the solu- tion, would I say that this person could design? Is the solution presented by the examinee buildable? Are the flaws in the solution so minor that small changes could be made without destroy- ing the concept?" (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at page 7) Respondent's main criticisms of Petitioner's solution consisted of his inclusion of a bathroom on the first floor, his failure to abut the structure to the adjacent building and his decision to opt for the minimum square footage (even though allowable under the program). While it is true that the inclusion of a bathroom on the first floor lobby was not called for by the program, evidence reveals and it is concluded that the bathroom could be deleted by a simple erasure without substantially changing the concept of the lobby. Further, several passing training solutions also provided for a bathroom on the first floor lobby which could be required, under some code provisions. Petitioner deliberately elected not to abut the new structure to an adjacent structure because of a lack of information as to the footings of the adjacent structure. In this regard, both Petitioner and Respondent's witness, Mr. Coons, testified that information as to the footings of the adjacent structure would be needed in order to properly abut the structure. Finally, Petitioner's solution satisfied the minimum square footage as required under the program. In this regard, Respondent's expert acknowledged the feasibility of increasing the square footage in Petitioner's solution if desired and noted that "the designer in this case could very easily have provided additional space. (Testimony of Herbert Coons) Moreover, at least one passing training solution contained less than minimum square footage requirements. Petitioner's solution properly located the core of the building, reflected the footings and structure of the building, provided for handicapped occupants, correctly designed the stairways and parking facilities and provided for energy conservation elements. Additionally, there was good continuity of transition between the new and existing buildings in Petitioner's solution, the security booth was correctly located and the solution made provision for artwork and other amenities required by the program. Petitioner's design elements in some instances were more sophisticated or extensive than required pursuant to the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner should be deemed to have passed the Site Planning and Design Section of the June 1981 Architectural Examination and shall be qualified for registration as an architect by the State of Florida provided he meet or otherwise satisfies other registration requirements not connected with the subject Site Planning and Design section of the June 1981 exam. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June 1984.
Findings Of Fact On March 9, 1973 Peterson, an architect registered in Florida, submitted a proposal "for preparation of design and construction drawings" for remodeling an existing residence to a new law office (Exhibit P-5). This was assigned on March 13, 1978 by attorney Anderson, who also remitted the required $200 retainer fee. Pertinent to this case, the contract provided for services to be rendered as: "Contract documents for permits and construction to include architectural plans (site floor plan, elevations and sections) and engineered structural and electrical drawings; "fee was $1,000 payable $200 on signing and $800 upon completed contract documents for permits." Any other services were at $20 per hour, including design changes after approval of preliminary drawings. The plans Peterson prepared showed the removal of a load bearing wall, without comment or provision for structural additions required by the demolition of the wall. Although the plans were not sealed, Anderson paid the $800 balance and bids were requested. The one bid (Exhibit R-4) was considerably more than budgeted, therefore the project was delayed. After a time, Anderson got interested in the project again but Peterson was unavailable so another architect was used and the project was completed. Thereafter, Anderson's requested reimbursement from Peterson was refused and this complaint was filed. Two registered Florida architects testified as experts for the Petitioner. Peterson's plans did not meet minimum architectural standards, particularly as to omission of substitute structural members for the removal of the load bearing wall. Although, structural changes could have been added by addendum, plans must be complete prior to obtaining permits and bids, and the acceptance of the full amount of the fee. In mitigation, Respondent agreed that he misinterpreted Anderson's understanding and desires but thought the standard procedure was followed; he indicated that this is the first time he has been in this type of situation. More particularly, Peterson intended to exercise his right to prepare an addendum that would have provided an appropriate structural substitution for the load bearing wall, after the ceiling was opened up; he considered the original plans for the wall as schematic only. He assumed the project was not going forward and the bidding process was merely to get prices.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. CB CO24584. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. In March, 1988, Alfred and Martha Entrekin entered into a contract with Southern Construction Technologies, Inc., whereby they agreed to pay the sum of $178,000 for construction of a custom-built home. Since the Entrekins were unable to qualify for the financing needed for construction, Southern Construction obtained a construction loan on their behalf. Despite delays, construction commenced in May of 1988 and continued through October, when, the closing on the residence took place, subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Town of Davie. Just prior to the closing, a "punchlist" was prepared by Respondent and the Entrekins. That punchlist, which became part of the closing, contains 24 numbered items. (Due to misnumbering, the punchlist says 25.) Thirteen 0of those items on the copy of the punchlist offered in evidence by the Petitioner have been crossed off that list. Of the remaining 11 items, the evidence at final hearing reveals that some were corrected and some items were not the subject of any evidence offered by either party at the final hearing. Although additional items appear to have been added to the punchlist by the Entrekins sometime after the closing, those items will not be considered in this cause since no evidence was offered to indicate that those items were agreed to by the Respondent at the time of closing and no evidence was presented as to when those items were added to the original punchlist by the Entrekins. At the time of closing, the sum of $1,500 was placed in escrow to ensure completion of the punchlist by Respondent. Respondent performed some of the punchlist work on the day of the closing and continued working on the punchlist items for the next three weeks. On January 11, 1989, the Entrekins' attorney sent a demand letter seeking the release of the funds placed in escrow at the closing. Attached to that demand letter was a list of 16 items allegedly remaining on the punchlist. Some of the items on the new "punchlist" submitted by the Entrekins did not appear on the punchlist agreed to by the parties at the closing. Others did appear on the closing punchlist but had been struck through and initialed by Mrs. Entrekin, assumedly as having been completed, on the copy of the closing punchlist offered by Petitioner as an exhibit in this cause. In response to the demand letter, Respondent authorized the release of the $1,500 in escrow to the Entrekins. Respondent admits that at the time that the money was released to the Entrekins, there were still some repairs needed to the rake tiles on the roof and he had not seeded the backyard. Respondent testified that four rake tiles on the eaves were missing, some were misaligned, and some had not been "mudded" in with mortar, but no broken tiles remained on the roof. He also testified that he had not seeded the backyard because the Entrekins had not yet placed fill in the backyard, an item which Mr. Entrekin admits was his responsibility as provided in the contract between the Entrekins and Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. The only evidence submitted in corroboration of the complaints of the Entrekins consists of several invoices. In March, 1989, the Entrekins obtained an estimate for roof repairs from Warren Roofing, Inc., in the amount of $1,200. That invoice indicates the need to replace 80 broken tiles on the roof, the need to remove and replace approximately 130 rake tiles to be secured with mortar tinted to match (although Donald Warren testified that the tile used is nail-on tile which does not require mortar), and the need to "repair defects" in two rear valley areas. Warren Roofing was never hired to effectuate the repairs for which it had submitted its $1,200 estimate. The extensive work set forth in the estimate in March of 1989 is inconsistent with the roofing inspection which would have taken place prior to the certificate of occupancy issued prior to the closing in October of 1988. The only roofing repair effectuated to the Entrekin house by anyone other than Respondent was work performed by Warren Roofing in July of 1989 repairing a leak around the skylight. Petitioner also offered in evidence two invoices from pool services dated March of 1989. One invoice in the amount of $275 represents the cost of acid washing the pool, and the other invoice is for $230 to "filter pool water." Due to electrical problems, the water in the pool was not filtered for two days during the period of construction of the Entrekin house. No evidence was offered to show that the absence of filtering a pool for two days would require it to be acid washed, and no evidence was offered in support of the services performed or the need for the services represented by the second invoice. Another invoice represents the cost of 20 loads of muck for the backyard at a cost of $600, and $150 to rent a bulldozer. Since the muck for the backyard was the responsibility of the Entrekins, the bulldozer charge accompanying the 20 loads of muck is, in all probability, also the responsibility of the Entrekins. The last invoice submitted in evidence also bears the date of March of 1989 and represents 50 pounds of grass seed, in the amount of $110.50, a cost item which Respondent admits was his responsibility at the time that the escrowed monies were released to the Entrekins.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles N. Tetunic, Esquire Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld, P.A. Post Office Box 9057 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310-9057 Joseph Stephen Sharrow, Esquire Post Office Box 8995 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Subhash C. Jethi, was a candidate on Division C of the national professional architectural examination given in June, 1984. The test is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is administered by the Educational Testing Service in Berkeley, California. Florida candidates take the national examination pursuant to an agreement between NCARB and respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Board of Architecture (Board). The examination consists of nine divisions administered over a four day period. Division C relates to building design and contains one graphic or sketch problem to be solved by the candidate in not more than twelve hours. The purpose of the examination is to require an applicant to prepare a design solution in response to the program submitted by the NCARB. Prior to the examination, the candidate is given a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements expected of the candidate to receive a passing grade. Each graphic solution to Division C is blind graded by three examiners (architects) designated and approved by the NCARB. The examiners are drawn from a pool of architects who have been selected by the various architectural registration boards of some twenty states. They are given training by NCARB prior to the examination to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Among other things, they are instructed to grade holistically, that is, to review each solution quickly for an overall impression and to score on the basis of that first impression. They do not regrade solutions or analyze specific points of presentation. The examinee is always given the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Candidates may receive a score ranging from 0 to 4. These numbers represent the following grades: 0-totally blank solution pad (fail) 1-incomplete (or extremely poor solution)(fail); 2-poor(fail); 3-minimally acceptable (pass): 4- good (pass). In order to pass, a candidate must receive at least two pass grades from the examiners. In Jethi's case, three examiners graded his solution and gave scores of 3, 2 and 2, respectively. Because the first grader gave him a 3, a fourth grader (also known as a coordinating grader) independently reviewed his examination and assigned a score of Therefore, he received an overall score of 2 which is a failing grade. This proceeding arose as the result of Jethi's request for an administrative hearing to contest that grade. Jethi's solution to Division C was introduced into evidence as respondent's exhibit 2. In support of his claim that he was entitled to a passing grade, Jethi presented the testimony of a registered architect, Miles A. Price, Jr., who reviewed Jethi's solution and found it to be acceptable and consistent with the requirements of the problem. However, Price had no experience in grading the national examination, and his comments were given in the context of a practicing architect rather than as a grader. Petitioner also offered a letter from an architect essentially adopting the position of Price. Jethi testified at length on his own behalf, and basically disagreed with most of the criticisms given by the examiners. He also attempted to show that his solution was better in certain respects than a sample solution to the problem which was deemed to be minimally acceptable for a passing grade. Respondent presented the testimony of Professor Arnold Butt, who was accepted as an expert in grading architectural examinations. Professor Butt was chairman of the University of Florida department of architecture for some fourteen years, has graded the examination in question since 1970, and is presently the chairman of the master jurors committee which performs the fourth grading on these examinations when required. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and persuasive than that presented by petitioner, and is hereby accepted as dispositive of the issue of whether petitioner's solution to Division C should receive a passing score. In this regard it is noteworthy that three of the four graders reviewing petitioner's examination, including Professor Butt, found the examination to be below the minimum requirements. On this particular examination, Division C required candidates to design a two-story architectural pavilion for a world's fair site in Chicago, Illinois. The candidates were specifically told the structure was to be an "architectural gem" and was to take maximum advantage of a scenic overlook of Chicago's downtown loop area. The primary deficiency in petitioner's solution was his failure to make maximum use in his design of the scenic overlook relating to Chicago's loop area as required by the problem. In addition, his solutions as to the location of service access, book store and restrooms, structural system, pedestrian circulation, and building site were shown to be deficient. Taken as a whole, they rendered his solution to Division C less than minimally acceptable for passing. Therefore, the overall score of 2 should not be changed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's failing grade received on Division C of the June, 1984 national architectural examination not be changed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22 day of October, 1985. APPENDIX* 1. Proposed findings 1 through 7 have been essentially incorporated in the findings of this Recommended Order. *Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Subhash C. Jethi 1101 Oriole Avenue Miami Springs, FL 33166 John J. Rimes, III, Esq. The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jorge L. Garcia, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida is of seven parts, part of which is the written examination and the rest of which is a site and design examination, which is given in June of each year. Petitioner took the building design portion of the Architecture Registration Examination in June, 1985. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. 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 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 which meets specific requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross- sections, facades, and floor plans. The program for the 1985 examination called for the design of a city administration building. Information supplied to the applicant includes a pre-examination 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. Applicants also may study a series of solutions proposed by previous successful and unsuccessful applicants so that they may anticipate and apply successful solutions when taking their own examination. 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 building design solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination therefore, allows the national testing service grading the examination, and through it, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy, and legal requirements. The grading of the building design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's proposed examination solution 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 competency required for a passing grade. Each architecture grader is then asked to review various solutions 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 examination solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration various criteria as set forth in Rule - 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code. Graders are instructed to make notations or areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then to determine, based upon an overall conception of each applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade of 3 or 4 as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code, has been earned. A method used to ensure independent and confidential grading of a solution is the folding of a single score sheet in such a way as to not allow subsequent graders to see the previous score. Approximately 3 and one-half minutes is utilized as the time in which each grader has to grade each applicant's exam. Page 7 of the Juror's Manual (graders manual) points out: Examinees are entitled to make some mistakes. The program analysis, design , development and drafting are hurriedly executed in a tense situation, without recourse to normal office reference materials (Sweets catalogs Architectural Graphic Standards, etc.) and without customary time for deliberation and critique by others. Jurors (graders) are permitted to recommend changes to an applicant's submission to bring it up to passing. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the at least three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant case, the Petitioner received three 2's (which are failing grades) and one 3 (which is a passing grade). Petitioner's exam solution presented a borderline case since one of the three graders who originally graded his exam gave him a passing grade. His response to notification of failure to pass this portion of the exam was a timely request for a Section 120.57(1) hearing and this proceeding ensued. While Petitioner attempted to comply with the instructions as set forth in the examination and pre-examination booklets, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve requisite minimal competency necessary to receive a passing score on the examination. The testimony of Arnold Butt, Registered Architect, former chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida and a master grader in the building design examination, is the only expert testimony of record. In Butt's opinion, Petitioner's submission contained several material departures from specific program requirements applicable to the 1985 examination. Specifically, Petitioner failed to place in his submission a delivery system, thus failing to meet program requirements, and showed no method of entry or egress. Further, there was no method of entry or egress from the river walk. Although Butt complimented Petitioner in overcoming one type of circulation problem that was overlooked by many other applicants at the same examination, Petitioner's circulation design was still full of many errors described by Mr. Butt, including life safety factors. Mr. Butt admitted that the graders had not marked life safety as a weakness present in Petitioner's exam. However, Butt's critique of Petitioner's circulation problems shows circulation overlaps into the area of "design logic." For other reasons, including but not limited to Petitioner's showing of certain features such as windows only upon the elevation sheets (as opposed to upon other sheets as well) and failure to show all of an access road, his errors and omissions also overlap into the evaluation criteria of "clarity and completeness of presentation." While Petitioner attempted to show, through use of the publication of NCARB which contains within it samples of various passing and failing examinations, that his examination submission was similar to those which had been recorded as passing grades, he was unsuccessful in discrediting the overall perception of Butt that there were significant difficulties in Petitioner's design solution which, taken as a whole, were much more numerous than the various solutions (both passing and failing) which were compared with Petitioner's solution. In a review of the sample solutions, Butt conceded that some of the errors that Petitioner made were also made by some of the candidates who achieved passing scores. However, Petitioner's examination submission contained a combination of many errors in one paper, which same errors may have existed only individually in some of the passing examples. In short, Petitioner's reliance on the NCARB-produced review booklet is misplaced in that his submitted solution to the problem presented a conglomeration of many of the errors which may have been passing if presented individually in various of the examples contained in the NCARB manual. Petitioner, who has the burden of proof in these de novo proceedings, has therefore failed to demonstrate that his examination solution exhibits minimal competency within the criteria necessary for a passing score.
Recommendation Therefore, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order affirming that Petitioner has failed the licensure examination for 1985. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2195 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Covered in Recommended Order FOF 1-3. 3-4. Covered in FOF 10. 5-7. Those portions not accepted are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence as a whole as set forth in FOF 11-12. Further, Mr. Butt testified that once the Petitioner's solutions to the problem were utilized, it was probable the graders would not give him the benefit of the doubt to recommend changes to his submitted because any reasonable solutions they might propose would require almost total redesign of his proposed building instead of the minimal changes they might be permitted to recommend. Rejected as not supported by the competent substantial evidence as covered in FOF 7. Three and 1/2 minutes was given as a fair estimate of the time actually used, not the time permitted. Covered in FOF 9; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Covered in FOF 10; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Accepted but immaterial and not dispositive of any issue at bar. The graders were not precluded from making more than three recommended marks. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Covered in FOF 1; that which is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOE 2. Covered in FOE 4 and 6. Covered in FOF 7 and 10. Covered in FOE 10. 6-7. Covered in FOF 11 and 12 but substantially modified for independent clarity of expression. COPIES FURNISHED: Pat Ard, Executive Director DPR-Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jorge L. Garcia 1744 Southwest First Avenue Miami, Florida 33134 Jorge L. Garcia 231 Southwest 52nd Avenue Miami, Florida John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The exam consists of two parts: the written part is given in December of each year and the site and design problem is given in June of each year. Todaro graduated from Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana in 1977 and had met the requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Todaro took the design and site planning portion of the national architectural exam in June, 1980. This consists of a 12 hour sketch problem involving the design of a structure by the applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. The exam is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is used by all states. Pre-test information supplied to each applicant includes a booklet providing the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which applicants are expected to apply themselves in order to receive a passing grade. At the examination, other information is supplied to enable the applicant to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. 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 by NCARB and allows the national testing service grading the examination (and through them the Florida Board of Architecture) to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which were tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December. The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectual 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 solution which lie is grading. The grader is instructed in how to consider the appropriate criteria. Graders are also instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is a three, and an applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant cause, Todaro received two 2's and one 3. He was therefore notified of his failure to pass the examination and of his right to this hearing. While Petitioner established that an effort had been made on his part to comply with the instructions, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation, particularly as to adequate consideration to grading and site planning, adequate consideration to marking elevations on his floor plans and adequate notation regarding the type of materials to be used in his elevations, floor plans, and wall sections. In general Todaro failed to place within his solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine that his program could be used; he failed to synthesize the information which he had learned in his educational process, in such a manner as to prepare adequate plans to respond to the requirements of good architectural practice in the formulation of design and site plans.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Stephen Todaro to change his grade on the June, 1980, site and design architectural examination be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Todaro 1507 N. E. 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 John J. Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the "Integration of Technical and Design" portion of the licensure examination administered in June of 1997.
Findings Of Fact In July 1997, Petitioner sat for Section 5 of the Landscape Architect Registration Examination that had been prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CARLB). CARLB is a national organization that prepares licensure examinations for several states, including Florida. Section 5, styled Integration of Technical and Design Requirements, contains 5 vignette problems, each of equal weight. Petitioner received a passing grade for problems 1 and 3. When her responses were initially scored, she did not receive a passing grade for problems 2, 4, and 5. Her responses were re- scored at her request. She did not receive a passing score for these three problems following the re-scoring of her responses. For Petitioner to have passed Section 5, she would have had to have a passing score on three of the problems. 1/ The candidates were required to prepare design development details for a terrace area. The two problems at issue in this proceeding pertained to the construction of a free- standing wall (vignette problem 2) and the construction of a pool (vignette problem 4). The candidates were to assume that the soils were stable and that the frost depth was 24 inches. The scoring for the five problems required the grader to first determine whether the design by the candidate met the criteria to be scored. Critical issues were identified by the committee that prepared the examination and were part of the scoring criteria used by the graders of the examination. If it did not meet that criteria, the candidate received a grade of "s," which is a failing grade. If it met the criteria to be scored, the grader next determined whether the candidate missed any critical items. If there were missed critical items, the candidate received a score of "c," which is a failing grade. If there were no critical items missed, the grader continued grading the design until a final grade was determined. When Petitioner's responses to problems 2 and 4 were initially scored, she received a grade of "c" for both problems. When her responses to the two problems were re-scored, she received a grade of "c" for problem 2 and a grade of "s" for problem 4. For the purposes of scoring the examination, the term "Critical Failure," for which the candidate would receive a grade of "c," is defined as: solution indicates a life/safety error or fails to demonstrate the primary knowledge being tested on the vignette problem. For the purposes of scoring the examination, the term "unscoreable" [sic] for which the candidate would receive a grade of "s" is defined as: the solution is blank or fails to follow basic problem requirements given in the vignette problem statement. Problem 2 required the candidates to draw a cross- section of a free standing wall. The candidates were instructed to label materials, fasteners, finishes, and/or joining materials. Among the critical issues identified for problem 2 are the following, which Respondent asserts that Respondent failed to meet: 2/ Stone veneer is not tied to the wall. Fails to show compacted subbase and/or subgrade (i.e., compacted and undisturbed subgrade or compacted granular base shown). There was a dispute between Petitioner's expert witnesses and Respondent's expert witnesses as to whether Petitioner's response to vignette problem 2 should have received a passing grade. Respondent's expert was of the opinion that masonry ties should have been used to tie the stone veneer to the wall, and that Petitioner's failure to do so merits a failing grade. Petitioner's experts were of the opinion that Petitioner adequately tied the stone veneer to the wall by using mortar. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that while tying the stone veneer to the wall with masonry ties is the preferred method, using only mortar is an acceptable method. Using only mortar does not meet the definition of a critical failure issue. Respondent's expert also was of the opinion that Petitioner's failure to show that the area under the footing of the wall was compacted subgrade is a critical fail issue. Petitioner showed that certain areas above the footing were to be compacted subgrade, but she clearly did not show the area under the footing to be compacted subgrade. Respondent established that this is a critical failure issue because the failure to erect the wall on compacted subgrade could impair the structural integrity of the wall. This failure justified the failing grade, given Petitioner's response to problem 2. Vignette problem 4 required Petitioner to show the cross-section of a poured-in-place concrete pool. Among other instructions, the candidates were told to include a permanent combination drain/overflow structure and to label all critical dimensions. The only critical issue for problem 4 was the following: "Pool does not extend to or below frost depth (from top of water elevation)(dimensioned, labeled or noted)." Initially, Petitioner's response to problem 4 was awarded a score of "c." When it re-scored, the grade was changed from a "c" to an "s." Respondent's expert testified that the design was re- scored as an "s" because of the manner Petitioner's depicted the drain/overflow structure. In her notes, she indicated that the drain/overflow structure was a "2 x 18" high standpipe with dome removable from floor drain." The structure she described was not the structure she drew. As drawn, the drain/overflow structure would not have worked because it could not have been removed from the floor drain. The manner in which she drew the drain/overflow structure established that Petitioner was not entitled to a passing grade for problem 4. Petitioner's design did not place the bottom of the pool at or below the frost depth and she did not dimension, label, or note, the frost depth. Her experts argued that frost depths are not a factor that needs to be considered in Florida and that her failure to address the frost depth issue should not be a critical failure issue. That argument is rejected because Petitioner was not at liberty to ignore the fact that the hypothetical structure was to be built in an area with a frost depth of 24 inches. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that dismisses Petitioner's challenge to her grades to problems 2 and 4 of the "Integration of Technical and Design" portion of the licensure examination administered in June of 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of March, 1999.
Findings Of Fact In June, 1987, petitioner, J. Frank Smith, was an examinee on Division (C) of the professional architectural examination. Successful completion of the examination is a prerequisite to the issuance of a license as an architect by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture (Board or Department). Petitioner had previously received passing grades on all other parts of the examination. By notice dated October 9, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Department's Office of Examination Services that he had received a "Fail" score on Division (C). After participating in an informal grade review session concerning his examination score, 1/ Smith requested a formal hearing by letter dated December 2, 1987. Although the letter did not identify any alleged errors in the manner in which the examination was graded, Smith's concerns were brought out during final hearing. Division (C) is a twelve hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. On the examination in question, the candidates were required to design a downtown athletic club including a site and first floor plan, a second floor plan, elevations and building section. To receive a passing score, the candidate had to prepare "minimally acceptable solutions" in the following major categories: (a) program requirements, (b) design logic, (c) code compliance, (d) technical aspects, and (e) completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. By rule, the Board has established a passing score to be a 3 or 4 while a fail score is 2, 1 or 0. In order to pass, a candidate is required to receive at least two passing scores from the graders. For the June, 1987 examination, approximately 150 professional architects were used to grade the candidates' examinations in two regional locations. The graders were experienced architects who had graded examinations in prior years. Before actually grading the solutions, the graders were given one-half day training sessions which consisted of receiving instructions in the grading process, reviewing the grading criteria and practicing on sample solutions that had already been graded by master jurists. The instruction was given by the director of examinations development for the National Council of Architecture Registration Boards (NCARB). The NCARB is the organization that prepares the examination questions. The live grading began on the afternoon of the first day of the examination. The graders used a holistic grading approach which meant they reviewed the entire examination and made a pass-fail judgment. If a failing grade was assigned, the grader was required to check up to three so-called "weakness boxes" on the grading sheet to indicate in which areas the grader found the candidate to be deficient. A grader was also allowed to make brief written comments next to the checked boxes to elaborate on the perceived weaknesses. After being graded by the first grader, the examination was given to a second and third grader, both of whom were unaware of the scores assigned by the others. If a mixed score occurred, that is, two 2's and a 3 or two 3's and a 2, a master jurist then graded the examination. Therefore, it was possible for the same examination to be graded four times before a final score was assigned. In Smith's case, he initially received two 2's and a 3, or an overall fail score. A master jurist reviewed the solutions and assigned a grade of 2. Thus, Smith did not pass Division (C). Grader 1217-153 assigned a score of 2 and noted that Smith was weak in category M, or completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. Grader 1232-155 assigned a score of 2 and checked off areas A, G and K which meant Smith was weak in the areas of program requirements, code compliance and technical aspects, respectively. Finally, Grader 9929-075 concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate since he believed Smith was weak in areas D, E and G. Areas D and E pertained to design logic (circulation) and design logic (spatial relationships/ proportions/adjacencies) while Area G, as noted above, related to technical aspects. The fourth grader assigned a passing score of 3. At hearing, Smith testified on his own behalf and generally reviewed his solution pointing out what he perceived to be his strengths and weaknesses. As he saw it, he attained a passing score. Smith is a graduate, with high honors, of the University of Florida School of Architecture in 1976 and received a master's degree in architecture from the university of Illinois in 1983. He is president of a construction firm in Fort Lauderdale that designs and constructs various projects, both large and small, and his partner is a registered architect. In addition to his own results, Smith offered into evidence the solutions prepared by five other candidates who received passing scores on the June, 1987 examination. Smith then attempted to point out that, even though their solutions contained various flaws, the candidates nonetheless received passing grades. Expert witness Butt, who is a registered architect, was a long time professor and former chairman of the School of Architecture at the university of Florida. He continues to do consulting work for the Board. Butt has been a grader on many examinations and was a master jurist as recently as 1987. Butt regraded Smith's examination and concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate. This was because he noted major deficiencies in the areas of design logic (circulation), code compliance, and completeness, clarity and presentation of the solution as to the structural system. More specifically Smith failed to adequately address certain public circulation questions on the building's first floor. This raised serious concerns as to petitioner's design logic and compliance with building codes. In addition, the structural system, which was required to be shown as part of the transverse section, was incomplete and contained several errors. Further, no structural system was shown on the west side of the building. Other difficulties included poor circulation around the monumental staircase, questionable design logic as to fire safety requirements in front of the building and the use of two hour rated firewalls throughout the entire building even though the fire code required only one hour rated firewalls. Butt's testimony as to the appropriate grade to be assigned Smith's examination is found to be more credible than that of Smith and is hereby accepted. Although several errors were noted on the other solutions of passing candidates, those errors were not so serious in nature as to require a failing grade. Further, such errors were solvable without major modifications in the design intent of the subject, and the candidates had completed all program requirements on the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of J. Frank Smith to receive a passing score on Division (C) of the June, 1987 professional architectural examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1988.
