Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Leon Cases, is an applicant to become licensed as an architect in the State of Florida by endorsement as provided in Section 481.213(3), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was originally licensed as an architect in the State of New York in 1992, and the parties stipulate that he has passed the national licensure examination as prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and thus has completed all examination requirements for licensure. The parties also stipulate that the Petitioner has completed an architectural internship which is substantially equivalent to that required by Section 481.211, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner graduated from the School of Architecture and Environmental Studies of the City College of New York on September 1, 1977, with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Architecture (BS Arch). The School of Architecture and Environmental Studies at the City College of New York is a school or college of architecture accredited by the National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB). The degree which the Petitioner received from the City College of New York is not the professional degree in architecture offered by that college. NAAB accredits schools and colleges of architecture which offer curricula and programs leading to a first professional degree in architecture. A professional degree in architecture in the United States is uniformly evidenced by a five year degree leading to a Bachelor of Architecture (B. Arch) or a six or more year two stage degree program (a bachelor's [not a B. Arch degree] degree followed by a master's degree) leading to a Master of Architecture (M. Arch). It is not disputed that the Petitioner's degree (a four-year Bachelor of Science in Architecture degree) is not a professional degree in architecture as defined by NAAB. The Petitioner completed the course requirements for the BS Arch degree from CCNY, but did not attempt or complete the course requirements for the fifth year which results in the B. Arch from CCNY. The fifth year of a five-year program leading to a professional degree in architecture is an important part of the educational process which results in the synthesis of all the undergraduate work which is done in the first four years. This importance is recognized by CCNY which in its catalogue noted that it is only "with this degree [the bachelor of architecture, that] the student may begin the internship required for admission to the examination for licensure as a registered architect." It is in the fifth year of a five-year professional degree program, that a student usually (via a thesis requirement) develops an architectural program and completes the design of a structure from concept to completion. It is this requirement that allows the faculty to measure an individual's capacity to become a practicing architect. The Petitioner completed none of the fifth year requirements at CCNY. After the Petitioner graduated from CCNY he moved to the State of Florida and began working at an architectural firm. He considered applying to sit for the licensure examination in the State of Florida in the early 1980's; however, he determined that he would not be eligible to sit for the examination since he did not have a five-year professional degree in architecture. As a result, the Petitioner determined to apply to New York under the provisions of that state's licensure laws. He was accepted to sit for the examination in New York pursuant to his combination of education and experience, and was licensed after completing all parts of the exam in 1992. The Petitioner was authorized to sit for the examination in New York as a result of New York's statutes and rules which permit a combination of education and experience to be used to form the basis for entry to the licensure examination. The State of New York has confirmed this method by which the Petitioner was authorized to sit for the examination and ultimately licensed within New York by a document sent to the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design verifying the Petitioner's licensure in that state and the manner by which that licensure occurred. Since 1979 the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design has interpreted the provisions of Chapter 481.209, Florida Statutes, relating to entry to the licensure examination to mandate that a professional degree in architecture from an accredited school or college of architecture approved by NAAB is required. The only proviso is that applicants from an unaccredited school or college of architecture must meet standards which are equivalent to NAAB. These standards have been set forth by Board Rule 61G1-13.003, F.A.C., which mandates a five-year professional degree in architecture. Neither the Board of Architecture and Interior Design nor the Department of Business and Professional Regulation have compiled a subject matter index as mandated by Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. No evidence has been adduced to show that the Board has taken a position contrary to its established position that a professional degree in architecture is required by the provisions of Section 481.209, Florida Statutes, prior to licensure in the State of Florida. The Board did produce information relevant to past Board actions on applications either for licensure by endorsement or to sit for the examination, which shows that the Board has consistently denied such applications if a professional degree from an accredited school or college of architecture, or an equivalent degree from an unaccredited school or college of architecture, or an equivalent degree from an unaccredited school or college of architecture was not present in the applicant's educational background.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design issue a final order in this cause denying the Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May 1994 at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 11th day of May 1994. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: The findings addressed immediately below are the four paragraphs following the caption "FINDINGS OF FACT" at pages 11 and 12 of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order. No effort has been made to make specific rulings on other factual assertions that appear throughout other portions of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order in conjunction with arguments and conclusions of law. Paragraph A: Accepted up to the first comma. The remainder is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph B: Accepted up to the first use of the word "architect." The remainder is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph C: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. And, in any event, the argument lacks merit. Paragraph D: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusion of law, rather than proposed finding of fact. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: All findings of fact proposed by the Respondent have been accepted, with the exception of the last paragraph of same. The last paragraph proposed by the Respondent is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Paglino, Esquire 11601 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33181 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL 04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Architecture & Interior Design Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed architect in the State of Michigan. He began working in this field in 1964 as a designer-draftsman. He later served as a job captain, supervising draftsmen and designers. He began practicing architecture as a principal in February, 1974, and has been active as an architect since that time. Petitioner began his education in architecture at the University of Oklahoma in 1960, but did not obtain an architectural degree. He began graduate studies at the University of Detroit in 1974 and was awarded a Masters of Architecture Degree in December, 1975. Petitioner was originally registered as an architect in Michigan on February 2, 1975. He obtained his registration without an architectural degree on the basis of his training, experience and national examination results.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order affirming its denial of Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 28th day of June, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer.
Findings Of Fact In 1994, Petitioner passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination (a ten-year academic course) in India. Petitioner passed this high school course of study with classes in the core subjects of English, Sanskrit, Hindi, Mathematics, Science, and Social Sciences. In 1996, Petitioner passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination in India. For this two-year high school course of study, Petitioner completed classes in English, Mathematics and Statistics, Physics, Chemistry, and Comprehensive Science. Petitioner completed his undergraduate degree in December 2001. He graduated from the Sardar Patel College of Engineering (SPCE), an affiliate of the University of Mumbai in Mumbai, India, with a Bachelor of Engineering Degree (Civil). The SPCE is accredited by the National Board of Accreditation of the All India Council for Technical Education (NBA-AICTE). At the time of Petitioner's graduation, the SPCE was not accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). For 75 years, ABET has accredited college and university programs in the United States in the following areas: (a) applied science; (b) computing; (c) engineering; and (d) technology. It is a federation of 28 professional and technical societies representing these fields. ABET accredits approximately 2,700 programs at over 550 colleges and universities nationwide. In April 2003, Petitioner passed the Engineer Intern Examination. Petitioner passed this eight-hour written examination in Ohio. In May 2003, Petitioner earned a Master of Science in Civil Engineering at the University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. Petitioner worked for a design engineer located in Vicksburg, Mississippi, from July 2003 to April 2004. Since May 2004, Petitioner has worked for an engineering firm located in Jacksonville, Florida. The Washington Accord, signed in 1989, is an international agreement among bodies responsible for accrediting engineering degree programs. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by signatories and recommends that graduates of programs accredited by any signatory be recognized by the other signatories as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. ABET, as a signatory of the Washington Accord, recognizes the substantial equivalency of foreign academic programs accredited by other signatory members; it does not accredit them. Further, ABET only recommends that graduates of programs from the signatories be recognized as substantially equivalent. Respondent does not follow the recommendations of ABET regarding the substantial equivalency of foreign academic programs in part because ABET and the other signatories of the Washington Accord recognize engineering technology degrees. Respondent has statutory authority to recognize engineering technology degrees only if the applicant was enrolled in a state university system prior to July 1, 1979. See § 471.013(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. In 2007, the Washington Accord members granted provisional membership status to the NBA-AICTE. As a provisional member, the NBA-AICTE must demonstrate that the accreditation system for which it has responsibility, appears to be conceptually similar to those of the other signatories of the Washington Accord. By conferring provisional status, the signatories have indicated that they consider the provisional signatory to have the potential capability to reach full signatory status; however, the awarding of provisional status does not in any way imply a guarantee of the granting of full signatory status. April 2007, Petitioner applied to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer. He specifically sought to be recognized as a civil engineer with proficiency in water resources. In order to show substantial equivalency pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(1), Petitioner had his engineering degree from SPCE evaluated by Joseph Silny and Associates, Inc. (Silny). Respondent has approved Silny to conduct the substantial equivalency evaluations required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(3). Silny's evaluation showed that Petitioner's degree from SPCE lacked 13.59 semester credit hours of math and basic sciences, and 16 semester credit hours of humanities and social sciences. Silny concluded that Petitioner’s SPCE degree failed to meet the substantial equivalency requirements rule requirements. Petitioner submitted his transcript from the University of Toledo to Respondent for further evaluation. After reviewing the transcript, Respondent gave Petitioner credit for coursework in Numerical Analysis I and Numerical Analysis II, totaling six semester credit hours toward the math and basic science requirements. The credit reduced Petitioner's academic deficiency to 7.59 semester credit hours in math and basic science. During the hearing, Petitioner submitted transcripts and his secondary school certificates as evidence of coursework prior to his Bachelor of Science degree at SPCE. This coursework is not acceptable to meet the substantial equivalency rule requirements because they are college preparatory classes taken in high school for which Petitioner received no college credit. Many of Petitioner's high school courses cover subjects also taken in his undergraduate program, such as physics, chemistry, math, and statistics. Petitioner has already received credit for these courses that cannot be counted twice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enters a final order denying Petitioner's application to take the second part of the professional engineer examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 14th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rahul Parab 496 Monet Avenue Ponte Vedra, Florida 32081 Michael T. Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Patrick Creehan, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street 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 At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Raymond E. Hirst, Jr., professional engineer, was licensed as such by the State of Florida under license number PE 0017307. Prior to March 22, 1983, the Respondent, for Mech-Mar Engineering Company, Inc., designed a storage bay and mini- warehouse project to be built by Ruth Stein Construction for William M. Kwasniki, to be located on South Babcock Street in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner designed the facility and signed the plans for construction on March 22, 1983. A note clearly marked on the sheet index on the upper right hand corner of the first page of the plan set reflects, "The engineer's services do not include supervision of the construction of this project." The plans consist of three sheets of drawings, each of which is sealed and signed by the Respondent. The first sheet reflects the foundation plan. The second shows the electrical riser and firewall detail, and the third reflects the elevations. On or about April 3, 1983, the contractor, Ruth Stein, submitted these plans to the City of Palm Bay building department. The plans were approved for construction by the office of the chief building official, Paul Olsen, and formed the basis for the issuance of the construction permit. Neither the engineer's specifications nor calculations were submitted and filed with the plans. However, calculations were not required by the City of Palm Bay at that time. Two amendments to the plans were filed by the Respondent on May 31, and August 10, 1983. No revised drawings were submitted, however. The drawings that were submitted by Ms. Stein, but drawn by Respondent, were used to insure that the plans conformed to standard building codes, zoning codes, etc., but were not reviewed by the city for compliance with engineering standards and no engineering analysis was done by the city on these or any other plans at that time. The need to do so was apparently recognized later, however, as such analyses are now done on a routine basis. The plans were also to be used by the city's inspection staff to compare work being done by the contractor with the plans to insure that the work conforms to them. During construction, the building being erected according to Respondent's plans, a concrete block structure, collapsed. This collapse occurred sometime prior to May 20, 1983. After the structure collapsed, the city building office again approved the plans drawn by Respondent for reconstruction. The contractor was told to clean up the site and was then allowed to rebuild. Not only the original plans but the amendments referred to above, including that dated August 10, 1983, called for partitions within the building. After rebuilding, the structure was inspected by the city and a certificate of occupancy was issued in August, 1983. No complaints have been filed regarding this construction since that time. After the collapse, an inspection of the collapse site revealed that in some areas on the west part of the structure, cells of the concrete blocks being used to form the walls had not been filled with concrete as was required by the design submitted by Respondent. In the opinion of Mr. Olsen, this defect was a fault not of the Respondent but of the contractor. No determination was made by the city as to: whether the block walls as designed by Respondent met Standard Building Code (SBC) requirements; whether the walls were supported laterally as required; whether anchorage of the roof trusses to the walls was accomplished; whether Respondent properly, or at all, designed a roof diaphragm for this project; whether the walls were adequate to meet the wind load requirements (the SBC suggests that maximum wind velocity standard is 90 mph.); whether the lentils were adequate; and whether the truss anchorage limits were satisfactory. (According to Mr. Olsen, this decision is left up to the engineer who designs the structure.) The city found, however, that a part of the reason for the collapse of this structure was that the trusses for the roof were set too soon, were not adequately braced, contained questionable materials, and wore questionably fabricated. Though the city was not critical in its analysis of Respondent's performance, the experts retained by Petitioner to evaluate his drawings were. Mr. James O. Power, who has been a registered structural engineer since 1947 did not examine the building site but is aware of the project in question. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Respondent, photos taken of the site, the investigative report, letters and correspondence from Respondent with calculations contained therein, and the Respondent's amendments to the original drawings. On the basis of this evidence, he formed an opinion as to Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project and prepared several letters on the subject dated July 6 and October 21, 1983, and January 30 and September 7, 1984, all of which constitute his opinion as to Respondent's performance. In substance he concluded that Respondent's engineering performance on this project was unsatisfactory showing basic negligence and lack of due care as well as a lack of understanding of the basic engineering requirements for the job. In his opinion, overall, the drawings lack sufficient detail. For example, they, (a) show no interior partitions (partitions were defined in an amendment to the drawing filed after the collapse); (b) show that while the southern wall has few openings, the north wall has many, (this is significant in that because of the lack of partitions, the walls must resist the winds playing upon them as vertical cantilevers); (c) show that the number 5 vertical bars in the fill cells are 12 feet apart, (to serve as reinforced masonry, they should be 4 but no more than 8 feet apart depending on the circumstances); (d) reflect a ceiling height of 14 feet whereas later drawings show a difference in elevation; (e) show that the tie beam is to be constituted of inverted masonry U-beam 16 inches deep filled with concrete and reinforcing steel without providing for any obvious way to insert the concrete within the beam; (f) failed to show with detail the strap makeup or method of connection for the hurricane straps to be used to hold down the roof trusses to the walls, (the drawings show that the strap is to loop over the truss and if the straps do not do so, the connection is weak); (g) reflect that the door height at the openings on the north and south side doors are different than the tie beam height but there is no showing of how the weight of the roof is to be distributed over the door head only 8 inches below the tie-beam (this could contribute to the collapse of the building); and (h) failed to show drawings of trusses by the Respondent. In this regard, the truss company's drawings and specifications are insufficient. Since the Respondent's drawings do not define with particularity how the trusses are to be constructed, the truss fabricator must make assumptions as to the stress and load to be applied. With regard to the pre-engineered and pre-manufactured roof trusses, Mr. Power is of the opinion that the designer, Respondent, should have: (1) stated his criteria for the design of the truss (Respondent did not do this); (2) stated the qualifications of the designer (Respondent did not do this); (3) submitted clear instructions regarding his design (Respondent's are unclear and unsatisfactory). Mr. Power also indicates that in his experience, bracing for the trusses is installed at the building site and that only the basic truss is constructed at the truss company's plant. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the practice in Brevard County is for the building designer, as here, to give the basic specifications needed for the truss, and thereafter, the truss designer, working for the truss company, designs and builds the complete truss for delivery to the site. If Mr. Power's position is to be believed, personal supervision of the designer would be required at the site once the basic truss was delivered. Here, however, Mr. Power operates out of Miami and Petitioner has failed to show that he is familiar with the trade practice in the area involved in this dispute. Respondent's position is somewhat supported by the fact that his plans contain a disclaimer of supervision and no issue was made that this is a forbidden or unaccepted practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that Respondent's design of the trusses in this case was faulty. Mr. Power also identified several "design deficiencies" in Respondent's work. Among these were that there was no requirement for the use of reinforced masonry which is different from concrete and that Respondent's drawings provided no details or standards for the mortar or grout, the substance used to fill the holes in concrete blocks which should have a minimum slump of 8 inches. (If one tried to fill these cells from the top of a 14 foot wall, it is most likely that the cell, the hole within the blocks, would not be filled.) Further, the formulae used by Respondent in his calculations are for solid materials in the walls -- not for cinder block which was the material called for here. On the basis of the above discrepancies, it appeared to Mr. Power that Respondent did not understand the difference between the requirements for construction with concrete block and those for construction with reinforced masonry. In addition, according to Mr. Power, the reinforcing walls inserted in the design by the Respondent after the collapse of the building are of materials not permitted by the SBC. Also the SBC requires that the ratio of length to width of roof diaphragm should be no more than 4. The purpose of this is to provide support to the top of the wall so as to resist loads placed upon it by the force of wind. Here, Respondent's design has not adequately provided this reinforcement, in Mr. Power's judgment, and the design does not meet the SBC requirement. The SBC also requires designs of buildings to be constructed in the Palm Bay area to be able to withstand 90 mph winds. Mr. Power's calculations based on Respondent's plans and drawings show it is questionable that a building built pursuant to Respondent's plans would sustain 90 mph winds. The fact that the chances are only one in fifty that in any given year winds of this speed would be reached is immaterial. As to the filling of the holes (cells) in the concrete block, Mr. Power contends that it is a good practice to show in the drawing a breakout in the block at the bottom of the wall so that the builder can see that the concrete has in fact gone all the way down to the bottom as it should. Here, however, the building code does not require this to be done. Again, considering the Respondent's use of cement instead of grout to fill the cells, the Respondent followed county practice and the SBC does not specifically require the use of grout. Nonetheless, Mr. Power is of the opinion that even though Respondent's drawings indicated that he would not inspect at the site, it was unreasonable for Respondent to expect the cells to be filled since it is well known that many contractors do not inspect to insure that the cells are filled as called for. Mr. Power is also of the opinion that the lintels as described in one of the amendments to the basic drawings, though permissible for use, are inadequate to handle the indicated roof load and the drawings prepared by Respondent did not show the lintel capacity. Mr. Power contends that the SBC requires drawings to show sufficient detail to indicate the intent of the designer to allow the contractor using the drawings to conform to code standards. Admittedly, this is subjective criteria, not an objective one, as to what constitutes sufficient detail. The amendments added to the original designs helped somewhat to correct the deficiencies, but do not make them adequate. Taken as a whole, the drawings are not adequate, in the opinion of Mr. Power, to comply with the SBC. They are not adequate to pass on the designer's intent to the contractor and they are not adequate to show the designer's understanding of design elements. These errors and deficiencies described above are, in the opinion of Mr. Power, significant and not minor. Based on his analysis of the overall drawings and situation, he concluded that Respondent has not demonstrated his capability to handle this particular task which, in the opinion of Mr. power, is relatively simple. Respondent's drawings and the other documents pertinent to the project in issue here including calculations, correspondence, photos, and the investigative report, were also reviewed by Ernest C. Driver, a Florida licensed consultant engineer operating in Cairo, Georgia. Mr. Driver also reviewed Mr. Power's reports and is in complete agreement with his conclusions. He did some calculations on his own and on the basis of them, formed an opinion of Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project. He found that the reinforcing of the cinder block cells on the walls were too widely spaced at 12 foot centers instead of 4 to 8 foot centers. In addition, he did not agree with the engineering conclusions drawn by the Respondent. The calculations performed by Respondent were, in his opinion, improper and as a result, the design is over-stressed by approximately 215 percent. This came about, apparently, because Respondent designed a wall as though there were no doors in it. In addition, the way the tie beam is designed, it is impossible to get the reinforcing concrete into the "U." Further, the hurricane straps required to affix the roof trusses to the tie beam cannot be attached to the beam itself. Also, the design called for concrete block to be installed above the doors. This procedure placed as much as four times the load the lintel should carry. Mr. Driver also found that the diaphragm used by Respondent was of gypsum board which, in his opinion, is not a proper material for diaphragms. Also, according to Mr. Driver's interpretation of Respondent's plan, there is no way that the wind shear force applied to the diaphragm can be transmitted to the side wall and thence down to the earth. This is a definite deficiency and Respondent's drawings and notes are not complete enough to allow a clear determination of what is required as to materials to be used and how the work should be accomplished. Other deficiencies are seen in that the drawings show a 230 foot long building without an expansion joint. In Mr. Driver's opinion, this is far too long for construction without such a joint. In addition, the 26 foot high end wall is not addressed in the design which has no indication of how the roof is to be attached to it. Mr. Driver concurs with Mr. Power's opinion regarding the insufficiency of the plans and specifications offered by Respondent for the roof trusses in that there is no framing plan nor are there specifications identified for the trusses. Shop drawings should have been provided instead of only a cut sheet. While this witness does not know what the current Brevard County practice regarding the design and construction of trusses is, he is convinced that it is as Respondent says it is, to wit: that they are completely fabricated at the shop and delivered completed for installation to the job site, this is a poor practice. Connected to the issue of roof trusses is that regarding the metal hurricane straps which Respondent indicated his plans called for. These metal straps, which can easily be bent by hand are, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, a poor method of affixing the trusses to the tie beam. There are too many things that can go wrong such as hinging, the lack of a firm seating for the strap in the concrete, the bending of the metal, and the pulling of the affixing nails through the holes in the strap thereby resulting in no grip. In addition to his dissatisfaction with the use of concrete to fill the cells in the cinder blocks, Mr. Driver also feels that the use of concrete to fill a continuous 14 foot cell is improper. In his opinion, the drawings should call for a solid block every 4 feet and for weep holes through which compaction can be noted periodically throughout that distance. All of this should be in the engineer's notes. The notes by Respondent do not identify these areas. Even though Respondent's notes called for the 14 feet to be filled, his plans failed to provide methods to insure that complete filling was accomplished. Examination of the pictures of the wall after the collapse reveals that complete filling was not accomplished and this failure on the part of Respondent to provide a reasonably foolproof method of insuring complete compaction cannot be excused and responsibility shifted to the contractor by the mere statement by Respondent on the plans that he would not inspect. Engineering practice is made up of judgment as well as the specific formulae which can be obtained from engineering textbooks. There are assumptions which may be made -- some good and some bad. In the opinion of Mr. Driver, the defects described above indicate that Respondent's assumptions were bad. As a result, his judgment was bad. He feels that, in light of all the evidence, Respondent was negligent, failed to use due care, failed to conform to accepted engineering principles, failed to accomplish drawings sufficiently detailed to instruct the contractor as to exactly what needed to he done, and failed to provide drawings which, if followed exactly as presented, would by themselves, enable a builder to construct a safe structure. Here, based on the drawings prepared and submitted by Respondent, a builder would have to demonstrate a high and exceptional degree of expertise in order to fill in the omitted details required to make the building safe. Acceptable drawing standards are not defined with specificity in the SBC. Much is subjective rather than objective. For example, nothing in the SBC prohibits the use of gypsum board as a horizontal diaphragm, but, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, it is not common practice to use it for such. This goes to the question of judgment. In any event, the code may be erroneous in some particulars and not all answers are contained in it. It is for this reason that the law requires the use of a licensed engineer whose judgment fills in the gaps left by the code. Here all the defects identified in Respondent's drawings are within the province of an engineer. These are the items an engineer is needed for to accomplish. Here, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, there are too many defects and Respondent's work does not conform to any of the standards used in the engineering community as to schooling, information gained from working with other engineers, or the witness's personal experience. In rebuttal to the above, Respondent presented no experts of his own, but testified as to his disagreement with the analyses of Petitioner's experts. The testimony by Mr. Power and Mr. Driver is found to be accurate and descriptive of the defects in Respondent's performance. There are a few exceptions such as where local Brevard County practice differs from the experience of these experts, however, taken as a whole, the evidence clearly indicates Respondent's shortcomings for the most part. The testimony of the experts has established a series of defects in Respondent's performance which he has failed to satisfactorily rebut.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, RAYMOND HIRST, be placed on probation for one year, that he be reprimanded, and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Raymond Hirst 379 Franklyn Avenue Indiatlantic, Florida 32903 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Board of professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 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
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen Hamner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The examination consists of two parts. "Part B," which is a written examination, is given in December of each year and has already been successfully passed by the Petitioner. The other portion, "Part A," consists of a site plan and design problem and is administered in June of each year. The Petitioner met all the preliminary requirements for admittance to the licensure examination and took the subject design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, adopted in Florida, in June of 1980. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour drafting or sketch problem involving design and site plan criteria and considerations. It 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 all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB). The examination problem involves requirements for placing a structure on a site, designing and drawing the elevations, the building cross-sections, the facades and the floor plan. There are few factual questions disputed in this cause. The Board of Architecture has long required examination prior to a candidate being licensed as a registered architect in the State of Florida. This statutory authorization was continued in Section 481.213(2), Florida Statutes, when it was adopted by the Legislature in 1979. The original examination administered by the Board prior to 1974 was a seven-part, 36-hour examination, including as two of its parts a site plan and design problem essentially identical to that administered in the present "Part A" of the Professional Architectural Examination which is the subject matter of this proceeding. This original seven-part examination had been administered for many years by the Board until the Board, in consultation with NCARB and other jurisdictions who are members of NCARB, determined that examination did not adequately test minimal competency to practice architecture. This ultimate determination was made after a thorough review by NCARB prior to 1974 and ultimately resulted in the creation of a new professional examination, which was adopted by all the member states and which consisted of what is now "Part B" of the Professional Architectural Examination (the written examination). The Executive Director of NCARB, Samuel Balin, was instrumental in the preparation of the initial professional examination. His testimony described the concern the National Council and the Boards had regarding the original seven-part examination, that it was an extremely technical examination, aside from the site and design plan problem, designed primarily to cover subjects which had already been covered in most accredited college degree programs. Thus, at the time the NCARB and member boards were in the process of changing over from the seven-part examination to what is now the "Part B" professional examination, NCARB and the member boards of each state were also rapidly moving toward requiring the completion of architectural degrees by candidates as a prerequisite to entry into the architectural profession. As established by this witness, NCARB research showed that much of the material contained in the seven- part examination was already adequately taught in the various universities offering architectural degree programs, and thus the examination necessary for registration should focus on the professional aspects of architecture and the practical methods by which an architect actually must provide his services to the public, rather than merely being an examination consisting of a review of what had already been taught in the colleges and universities. Based on this intensive review regarding the most appropriate means to test architectural competency based upon what candidates were already receiving in various degree programs, the two-day "Part B" examination was developed and first offered in 1973, concurrently with the seven-part examination previously in effect. It was determined by the Respondent, other state boards and the NCARB that, since many individuals had successfully completed large portions of the seven-part examination, it would be unfair to not allow them to finish the examinations they had originally begun. A minimal number of parts passed on the seven-part examination was thus required in order for a candidate to continue to attain licensure based upon that examination during the 1974 examination session. Subsequent to 1974, an individual who had not already successfully completed the entire seven-part examination was required by the Board to take what is presently "Part B" of the current examination. Thus, from 1975 through 1977, the sole licensure examination, requirement in Florida was the "Part B" written examination provided to the Florida Board by NCARB and adopted by the Florida Board in its rules as Rule 21B-2.02(1), Florida Administrative Code (1974). During the period 1974 to 1977, the Board became increasingly concerned with deficient graphic abilities of examination candidates in drafting plans, as well as their physical ability to synthesize the problems faced by an architect in building design into overall solutions and to incorporate those solutions into appropriate building and site plans for clients. Accordingly, a number of states expressed to NCARB their desire to have a site and design plan problem again incorporated into the National Architectural Examination. As a result of these requests, NCARB initiated a study to determine whether such a site and design plan problem was really a legitimate tool to test the competency of an architect in synthesizing building and construction design problems and expressing in a graphic manner the various component skills or abilities required to practice the profession of architecture and, corollarily, whether or not the lack of it in the "Part B" examination rendered it a substandard tool for determining minimal competence. The study resulted in a report by a distinguished panel of architects from various jurisdictions which recommended that, in fact, the site plan and design problem should be included in the professional examination. Florida then, in 1977, determined, based upon the evidence presented to it by NCARB, as well as through its own professional expertise, that a site and design plan problem was indeed a necessary component in determining minimal competency of architectural licensure candidates. The NCARB, at its meeting of June, 1977, thus adopted the site and design plan problem as part of the uniform National Professional Architectural Examination. The Florida Board subsequently thereto, and after receiving detailed information regarding the contents of the new portion of the national examination, proposed its own Rule 21B-2.02(2), on March 31, 1978, by notice contained in the Florida Administrative Weekly, which rule constituted Florida's adoption of the new site and design plan problem added to the National Professional Architectural Examination by NCARB. A hearing was held before the Florida Board on April 28, 1978, and the rule was certified and filed with the Secretary of State on May 30, 1978. Documents required to be filed with that rule pursuant to Chapter 120 were admitted into evidence in this proceeding. The effective date of Rule 21B-2.02(2) was June 19, 1978, therefore, subsequent to that date the professional architectural examination in Florida has consisted of two parts. One part being "Part A" which was the new site and design plan problem and the other part being the previously adopted "Part B" (multiple choice examination). The Legislature in 1979 pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, "sunsetted" all professional boards. The Board of Architecture was reconstituted pursuant to Chapter 79-273, Laws of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 79-273 it was provided that all rules in existence would be repealed as of January 1, 1980. Accordingly, on December 3, 1979, the Florida Board readopted, pursuant to Section 481.209, Florida Statutes, and Section 455.217, Florida Statutes, examination rules set out in Rules 21B-14.01, 14.02 and 14.03, Florida Administrative Code (the successors to the above-cited rule) . There have been no substantive amendments to those rules since their effective date of December 23, 1979, and the issues with which the Petitioner's challenge to the rules are concerned have not been substantially affected by that readoption procedure.
