The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the Building Design section of the June, 1989, architecture licensure examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: The architecture licensure examination utilized by the Department of Professional Regulation is a national examination prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). In June, 1989, Petitioner took the Building Design section of this licensure examination, which was the only section of the examination he had not previously passed. A candidate must pass all sections of the examination to qualify for licensure. The Building Design section of the examination is a practical test. Candidates are given a test booklet which contains a description of the environmental and programmatic requirements for a hypothetical building and site and then directs the candidates to "synthesize this information into a coherent, aesthetic concept for the building and site and to graphically convey [their] solution in the required drawings." The required drawings must be completed within twelve hours. Because of its length, this portion of the examination can be physically demanding. Moreover it is typically difficult to pass. Normally only 35-40% of the candidates receive a passing grade on this section of the examination. 1/ The candidates' solutions are graded by jurors who are selected in accordance with guidelines developed by NCARB. Jurors must have a minimum of five years experience as a licensed architect. Jurors gather at regional sites throughout the country where they grade the solutions over a two and a half to three day period. Each juror is furnished with a NCARB Jurors' Manual in advance of the grading session. The manual provides detailed information regarding the standards and criteria the jurors are expected to apply in evaluating the drawings submitted by the candidates. The jurors also receive training and instruction regarding the grading process at the grading site before they begin grading the candidates' solutions. The training and instruction are provided by master jurors, who have considerable experience in grading this portion of the examination. Each master juror oversees approximately eight to ten jurors. A master juror will not permit a juror under his or her supervision to commence grading until he or she is satisfied that the juror understands the grading process and will reasonably apply the requisite standards and criteria in evaluating the candidates' drawings. The master juror's supervisory responsibilities with respect to a juror do not end when the decision is made to allow the juror to begin grading. The master juror regularly monitors the grades given by the juror. If the juror's grades are on the average markedly higher or lower than the grades given by the other jurors, the juror will be counseled by the master juror. Jurors are reminded throughout the grading session that, in grading the candidates' work, they should take into consideration that the candidates merely need to demonstrate that they can perform "at minimum level capability" and that the candidates had only 12 hours to prepare their drawings. Test solutions are randomly distributed to the jurors for grading. The jurors are unaware of the identities of the candidates whose drawings they are evaluating. Generally, jurors spend approximately three to five minutes reviewing a candidate's drawings before deciding on the grade to give the candidate. This is a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the candidate's work. After coming to a decision on the matter, the grade is recorded on a score sheet and entered in a computer. The juror must assign one of the following five numeric grades to each set of drawings he or she reviews: 0 (when the candidate submits blank pieces of paper); 1 (very poor); 2 (unacceptable); 3 (acceptable); and 4 (very good). The latter two grades are passing grades. The remaining grades are failing grades. The grade given is intended to reflect the juror's assessment of the candidate's entire work product on this portion of the examination. In addition to assigning one of the foregoing numeric grades, the juror is required to check the appropriate box on the score sheet to indicate "up to three areas of weakness" if he or she has assigned a failing grade. Each candidate's drawings are graded by a least two different jurors,. They assign grades without knowing what grade the other juror has given. If the candidate receives a grade of 3 or 4 from both jurors, he or she passes. If the candidate receives a grade of 0 or 1 from both jurors, he or she fails. If the candidate receives any other combination of grades, a third juror will review and grade the candidate's drawings. If the third juror assigns a grade of 3 or 4 and one of the other juror's had also assigned a grade of 3 or 4, the candidate passes. If the third juror assigns a grade of 0, 1 or 2 and one of the other jurors had also assigned a grade of 0, 1 or 2, the candidate fails, unless his or her three grades are 1/2/3, 2/3/2, 2/4/2 or 2/2/3. Under such circumstances, the candidate's work product will be reviewed and graded by a master juror. If the master juror assigns a grade of 3 or 4, the candidate passes. If the master juror assigns a grade of 0, 1 or 2, the candidate fails. The Building Design section of the June, 1989, examination involved the design of a two-story religious life center on a college campus located in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The test booklet that Petitioner and the other candidates received upon their arrival at the testing location described in a clear and concise manner the environmental and programmatic requirements of the project, as well as the type of drawings that had to be produced, to wit: an upper level floor plan/site, lower level floor plan, east elevation and building section. In addition, the booklet gave notice that these drawings would be evaluated in accordance with the following grading criteria: Your solution will be graded based on the following categories. To pass this examination, a solution must be at least minimally acceptable in every major category. Program Requirements Development of All Programmed Spaces Conformance to Square Footage Requirements Compliance with Required Spatial Relationships Design Logic Circulation Spatial Relationships/Proportions/ Adjacencies Compatibility to Existing Context Code Compliance Fire Wall Separations Means of Egress Handicapped Accessibility Requirements Technical Aspects Material Selection and Wall, Floor and Roof Assemblies Structural Systems, their Appropriateness and Integration Mechanical Systems Completeness and clarity of Presentation, Adherence to Test Instructions, or Required Drawing(s) Missing NOTE: Solutions which have a required drawing missing, are unintelligible, or are drawn with the use of color, press- on letters, or transfer drawings, will automatically receive a grade of FAIL. Petitioner's drawings were reviewed and graded by three jurors and a master juror. He received grades of 2, 3 and 2 from the jurors and a grade of 2 from the master juror. The score sheets submitted by the master juror and the jurors who gave Petitioner a grade of 2 reflect the following: one found Petitioner's drawings to be weak in the areas of design logic-circulation and technical aspects-structural systems 2/; another deemed the drawings to be deficient in the areas of design logic- circulation and code compliance-means of egress; and the third was of the view that the drawings were unacceptable in the area of code compliance-means of egress. Petitioner's drawings, in fact, were deficient in all of these areas 3/ and he therefore deserved to receive a failing grade on the Building Design section of the June, 1989, licensure examination. 4/ CONCLUSION$ OF LAW Any person seeking a license to practice architecture in the State of Florida must apply to the Department of Professional Regulation to take a licensure examination if he or she is not qualified for licensure by endorsement. Section 481.209(1), Fla. Stat. The licensure examinations given by the Department must "adequately and reliably measure an applicant's ability to practice [architecture.]" Section 455.217(a)(a), Fla. Stat. The Department must "use professional testing services to prepare, administer, grade and evaluate the examinations, when such services are available and approved by the [B]oard of Architecture." Section 455.217(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) offers professional testing services that have been approved by the Board of Architecture by rule. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 21B-14.001. In accordance with the mandate of Section 455.217(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department utilizes these services in testing applicants seeking to become licensed architects. NCARB's "testing format . . . recognizes that some subjectivity is inherently part of the examination [grading process]. But the testing system seeks to minimize professional bias of individual graders by a training and testing format which [is designed to produce] fairly uniform results." Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, 484 So.2d 1333, 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). An applicant who fails to attain a passing grade on the licensure examination is entitled to an administrative hearing on the matter conducted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Sections 455.229 and 455.230, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code Rule 21-11.012. The burden is on the applicant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his examination was erroneously graded. See Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, 484 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)("Ordinarily one who fails a licensure examination would shoulder a heavy burden in proving that a subjective evaluation by an expert is arbitrary"); Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Career Service Commission 289 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)("the burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative on an issue before an administrative tribunal"'). The proof Petitioner submitted at hearing was insufficient to satisfy this burden of proof. Indeed, the preponderance of the record evidence establishes that the failing grade Petitioner received on the Building Design section of the June, 1989, licensure examination was warranted. In addition to alleging that he should have been given a passing grade on this portion of the examination, Petitioner also advanced the following claims in his petition for an administrative hearing filed in the instant case: 1) the exam was graded improperly insufficient time was allotted for the proper grading of the exam by jurors. a subjective process is used to grade the exam. see additional specific items below. * * * the grading process is unfair confidentiality of previous jurors grades are not kept from subsequent jurors. confidentiality of test taker's probable nationality, etc. is not maintained. the ETS was contracted by the State of Florida without proper bidding procedures. 5/ non-subjective grading is a prerequisite for fair grading and was not provided. The Dept. of Professional Regulation has allowed a campaign by private interests to influence the grading and licensure of architect candidates. The American Institute of Architects has acted on a campaign to increase architect's compensation by limiting the number of professionals licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation. This influenced the grading of the exam and licensure of architects in Florida. No non-A1A member architects are state board members and A1A membership is a de facto requirement. The attempts to limit the number of architects to be licensed comes at a time when large numbers of women and minority applicants are applying for licensure. d. Mr. Garcia is a minority applicant and was substantially affected. Petitioner's claim that "a subjective process is used to grade the exam" finds support in the record. That subjectivity plays some role in the grading process, however, is not, standing alone, a basis upon which to overturn the results of a licensure examination. To prevail, an unsuccessful applicant must also show that those who subjectively evaluated his or her examination acted arbitrarily or without reason or logic in giving him or her a failing grade. See Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board Qf Architecture, 484 So.2d 1333, 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Board of Electrical Examiners for Jacksonville Beach, 101 So.2d 583, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). No such showing was made in the instant case. The remaining allegations made in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of Petitioner's petition are not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, these allegations are also without merit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture reject Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the Building Design section of the June, 1989, architecture licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of April, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 17th day of April, 1990.
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 12, 1984, a probable cause panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board met to receive and review an investigative report resulting from complaints received from Carl Mayer Forrest Morgan, and Walter Booth concerning certain activities of Ronald D. Nutt, Petitioner. The panel found probable cause that Petitioner's activities had violated applicable statutory and rule provisions, and subsequently, on or about July 19, 1984, a five-count Administrative Complaint was issued against Petitioner charging him with disregarding an applicable building code, abandoning a construction project, making misleading and false representations, and engaging in fraud and misrepresentation in the practice of contracting. Petitioner disputed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing. The case was sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to issue a Recommended Order based thereon. The matter was given Division of Administrative Hearing's Case Number 84-2920, and a hearing was held on March 27, 1985 before R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer. At the hearings one count arising from the Booth complaint was voluntarily dismissed. On June 13, 1985, a Recommended Order was issued in Case Number 84-2920 which recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Ronald D. Nutt. On or about July 11, 1985, the Board considered the Recommended Order, and after a review of the complete record adopted the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendation contained in the Recommended Order. The Board issued its Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case Number 84-2920 on August 7, 1985. In pertinent part, the following facts were found in Case Number 84-2920 by both the Hearing Officer and the Construction Industry Licensing Board: The principal disagreement (between Nutt, who was the Respondent in this prior case, and Mayer, the complaining witness) concerned the roof design, which Respondent contends was improper. Mayer initially refused to agree to modifications suggested by Respondent and would not retain an architect to clarify his intended design. Other disagreements led to Mayer's withholding of scheduled draw payments. Mayer refused to pay the first draw on completion of the foundation, even though it had been approved by the Melbourne Building Department. By August, 1983, Respondent's firm had completed work to the approximate point of the third draw, but had still received no draw payments. By this time Mayer had retained an attorney, and several unproductive meetings had been held regarding difficulties in completing the project. Mayer subsequently contacted the Melbourne Building Department to complain that the roof was being constructed according to plans not filed with the Building Department. This complaint was verified and a stop work order was placed on the project on August 10, 1983. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Respondent had changed Mayer's roof design to one he believed was correct, but had failed to obtain Mayer's approval or file the change with the Building Department. The change made by Respondent was, according to his testimony, necessary to correct Mayer's design deficiency. Mayer's testimony to the contrary is rejected. Mayer refused to retain an architect as suggested by Respondent, and demonstrated no expertise in building design. Respondent's testimony on this point is, therefore, accepted. Further efforts to resolve disputes were unsuccessful. On February 1, 1984, Hallmark Builders, Inc. filed a claim of lien on the Mayer property for $28,559. Mayer counter-claimed, and the suits were ultimately settled through payment of $21,000 by Mayer to Hallmark Builders, Inc. Based upon these findings of fact, the following conclusion of law was reached by the Hearing Officer and Board in Case Number 84-2920: Respondent is guilty of violating a local building code by failing to file his change in plans prior to commencing construction under the change. He acknowledged this, but believed it was sufficient com- pliance to file such plans before the next inspection. This violation is not a serious one, and no disciplinary action was taken by local authorities other than the stop work order. Therefore, the charge under Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., should be dismissed. The parties stipulated that at the conclusion of the Department of Professional Regulations Construction Industry Licensing Board's case-in-chief in Case Number 84-2920, Nutt moved for a directed verdict on the four counts remaining in the Administrative Complaint on which evidence was presented and this motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. Petitioner herein has established that his reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs associated with Case Number 84- 2920 were $13,153.28. Petitioner has established that he is a "small business party" as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, since he operated as a professional practice and also a corporation with his principal office in Florida, and did not have more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of more than two million dollars when the action in Case Number 84-2920 was initiated by the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board on or about July 12, 1984 with the finding of the probable cause panel. Petitioner has established that he was a prevailing small business party in Case Number 84-2920 since the Board's Final Order dismissing the charges in the Administrative Complaint was clearly in his favor and was not appealed. Petitioner has not established that the actions in Case Number 84-2920 of Respondent herein constituted unreasonable governmental action. This prior proceeding was therefore substantially justified at the time it was initiated on July 12, 1984 with the finding of the probable cause panel.
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.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether certain questions within the June 2002 construction building contractor examination are invalid, and whether Petitioner should receive credit for certain answers scored as incorrect.
Findings Of Fact In June 2002, Petitioner sat for the construction building contractor examination. Shortly following the exam, Petitioner was advised that he incorrectly answered 17 of the 50 exam questions and did not attain the minimum passing score of 70 percent, but received a failing scaled score of 66 percent. Petitioner timely challenged the validity and scoring of eight questions, including questions 8, 14, 17, 33, 34, 38, 43, and 44. In order for Petitioner to acquire a passing score, Petitioner must prove that certain challenged questions are invalid or demonstrate that he is entitled to receive credit for his answers. Specifically, Petitioner must demonstrate that either three questions should be stricken from the exam providing Petitioner with 70.2 percent, two questions should be stricken and one answer scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70.8 percent or two answers should scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70 percent. QUESTION 8 Exam Question 8 asks, "According to AIA-A201, who determines the interest rate that the contractor can charge on due and unpaid payments?" Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, argues that the parties to the contract are not defined within the question and it is therefore misleading. However, the credited answer D, "all the parties must agree on the rate" is within the provided reference material and is clearly the best answer. It is not misleading and Petitioner's argument lacks merit. In addition, 89.47 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 8. QUESTION 14 Exam Question 14 is wordy and involves computations. It requires the test-taker to calculate the number of "labor" hours required per 100 pieces to build a wall, given certain pricing and wall construction information. Question 14 is ambiguous and confusing on its face. While the question asks for labor hours, the facts provide a fixed combined hourly cost for a mason and laborer's hour. There is no distinction made between "labor" hours and a "laborer's" hours. Mr. Collier admitted that there is some apparent confusion between "labor" costs and the "laborer's" costs. Mr. Palm further agreed and indicated that he fully understood Petitioner's rationale to divide the labor costs in half and choose answer A. Furthermore, it is clear that Petitioner's perception of the question was not unique. In fact, only 46.62 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 14. QUESTION 17 Exam Question 17 asks, "During the bid process, which document has priority in the event of conflicting information?" Clearly, the correct answer is B, "addenda." Petitioner's argument regarding "competitively bid projects" is without merit. Mr. Palm succinctly explained that Petitioner's selection was obviously incorrect because "plans don't change during the bid process unless there is an addenda issued." Moreover, 75.56 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 17. QUESTION 33 Exam Question 33 identifies a situation that where drawings differ from written specifications and where there is no legal precedent that one is more binding than the other. The question specifically calls for the best procedure according to the listed and available reference. While Mr. Uman argues that the answer does not appear within the reference material in a clear manner, the exact text of the question and answer are in fact within the material. Petitioner's argument lacks credibility. QUESTION 34 Exam Question 34 asks the test-taker "what is the EARLIEST workday for completing the masonry work?" given the number of crew, the number of hours required, and the ratio constant of the crew. Although 80.45 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 34, Mr. Uman argues that the question could have been answered without reference to the Builder's Guide to Accounting material and therefore, was misleading. Petitioner's argument is devoid of common sense. QUESTION 38 Exam Question 38 asks the test-taker to identify the activity that "a specialty structural contractor is qualified" to perform. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, again argues that the question is misleading since the credited correct answer "perform non-structural work" is not written verbatim in the provided reference material. To the contrary however, all of the alternative choices are clearly listed in the reference material as activities specifically prohibited by specialty structure contractors. Furthermore, page 2B17 to 61G415.015 of the Contractor's Manual specifically states that: The specialty structure contractor whose services are limited shall not perform any work that alters the structural integrity of the building including but not limited to roof trusses. Respondent's experts, Mr. Collier and Mr. Palm, agree that Question 38 is clear. Moreover, 53.38 percent of test- takers correctly answered the question. While the question appears to require enhanced reasoning skills and is generally more difficult, it is not misleading. Petitioner's assertions are without merit. QUESTION 43 Exam Question 43 asks, "Which accounting method should be used by a contractor if the contractor is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of progress to date on a job or the total costs remaining to fulfill the contract?" Mr. Uman argues that the question is ambiguous and the reference material is "not terribly clear." He further alleges that when a contractor cannot estimate progress, the contractor cannot establish a "completed contract method," the credited correct answer. Respondent's experts disagree. While it is true that Mr. Palm agreed that all of the choices are accounting methods which is inconsistent with Mr. Collier's testimony, the reference material is clear. In fact, 58.65 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 43. Petitioner presented insufficient evidence that he should receive credit for his answer or that Question 43 should be invalidated. QUESTION 44 Exam Question 44 provides detailed information regarding a standard form contract and asks, "Based ONLY on the information given above, what is the amount of the current payment due?" In addition, however, as Mr. Uman points out, the standard form referred to in the problem was mistakenly misidentified as Form 201 instead of Form 702. While it is clear that the referenced form was mislabeled, the precise form number was incidental, unrelated to the question, and unnecessary to compute the answer. In fact, Mr. Palm explains that the problem was "just a mathematical exercise." According to Mr. Collier, the question was not misleading, and the incorrect reference was irrelevant. "It's simple math, industry knowledge." Furthermore, Petitioner's answer is clearly incorrect because "he failed to deduct the retainage." Finally, 54.89 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 44.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered invalidating only Question 14, re-computing Petitioner's examination score, and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nickolas Ekonomides, Esquire 791 Bayway Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33767 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is a building contractor. He obtained his license (License Number CB C028158) to engage in the contracting business in the State of Florida in 1984. Respondent's license expired on August 31, 1996, without Respondent having made any effort to renew it. On September 1, 1996, the Department placed Respondent's license on "a delinquent status for non-renewal." 5/ It considers the license to be invalid for the 1996-98 licensing period. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for Loma Linda Homes Corporation (Loma Linda). In late 1993 or early 1994, Loma Linda entered into a written contract (Contract) with Carmen Bennett and her daughter-in-law, Virginia Bennett, in which it agreed to construct a residence for the Bennetts at 5403 Loma Vista Loop in the Loma Vista subdivision in Davenport, Florida. The Contract had a "[t]ime is of the essence" provision. 6/ The Contract further provided that is was "conditioned upon Purchaser[s, the Bennetts] obtaining a mortgage loan commitment within sixty days from the date of this contract for a term not to exceed thirty (30) years at the prevailing market interest rate at time of closing." The Bennetts timely obtained such a commitment. Prior to the execution of the Contract, Loma Linda had received a $1,000.00 deposit from the Bennetts. At or around the time the Contract was executed, the Bennetts provided Loma Linda with an additional deposit in the amount of $9,813.00. The Contract provided that "[i]f Seller [Loma Linda] fails, neglects, or refuses to perform this Contract, the Purchasers [the Bennetts] shall receive the return of all sums paid to the Seller." Loma Linda failed to meet its obligations under the Contract. Construction of the residence that Loma Linda agreed to build for the Bennetts never commenced. All that Loma Linda did in furtherance of its contractual obligations was to clear the lot on which the home was to be built. The Bennetts have not received back any of the $10,813.00 in deposit monies that they paid Loma Linda.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, III and V of the Administrative Complaint; (2) penalizing Respondent for having committed these violations by imposing on him a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and requiring him to pay $10,813.00 in restitution to the Bennetts and to reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs, excluding attorney's fees, associated with the Department's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in Counts I, III and V of the Administrative Complaint; 10/ and (3) dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of January, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen P. Hamner, Jr., has applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architectural licensure examination, administered by the Respondent, consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year, and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for the 12-hour "Part A" examination in June, 1980. The examination consists of a drafting or sketching problem and is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, designing elevations, building cross sections, facades and floor plans, as well as taking into consideration numerous criteria such as human traffic flow, parking, access to all areas, heating and cooling, including solar heating potential, prevailing climate conditions, use of natural lighting, and numerous other esthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida, as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination was adopted in Florida pursuant to the above-cited rules. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by that applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner was expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself, the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and building design problem submitted to him by the NCARB and the Florida board. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine whether an applicant, such as the Petitioner, is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, esthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on the same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the design and site portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of 20 states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to this site and design problem, including the Petitioner's, in a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, as well as in Respondent's Exhibit Three. The graders are instructed to note the areas of strength and weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to those grading criteria and then determine, based on an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of three or four as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution in order to pass that portion of the examination. The Petitioner herein received two "1's" and one "2" on the examination, all of which were failing grades. Although he demonstrated an effort to comply with instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre-examination booklet, he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. The testimony of the Respondent's witnesses (Herbert Coons, Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture and a grader in this examination, and Mr. Dan Branch, a grader of the petitioner's own examination) shows that the petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based on the criteria required to be considered and complied with by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. Many technical errors were pointed out by these witnesses, as well as by the petitioner's own admissions. The record thus discloses that the Petitioner's examination solution was deficient in its allowance for parking space and the ability of vehicular ingress to egress from the parking lot surrounding the building to be designed. There were no room designations on the rooms in the floor plan; there was only one rest room space and one set of toilets for men and women where two spaces and sets of facilities were required by the instruction program. The Petitioner failed to mark the building elevations on the building floor plans, did not depict where furniture would be located, and two different elevation drawings and two sectional drawings required to be depicted on the examination were not. The Petitioner did not show what type of material would be used in the roof nor what type of insulation, nor did he show what type and uses of glass were to be made. The Petitioner failed to give adequate consideration to grading and site planning, failed to adequately make notation of the types of materials to be used in the elevation's floor plans and wall sections, and generally did not adequately adhere to the program presented him. In general, it was shown by these witnesses that while the Petitioner had made a substantial effort to pass the examination, he had failed to place within the solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine clearly that his program or design could be a successful one. The Petitioner's own admissions show that he approached the examination in question in such a manner as to substitute his own judgment and opinion regarding which techniques and components were architecturally sound for the problem for those required to be treated as essential elements of the site and design problem posed him in the instructions. The program presented to the Petitioner assumed he would be in the hypothetical position of an "architect" presented with a program which had already reached a point of completion as to design ideas and site location. The insertion of his own ideas and judgment regarding various elements of the project is contrary to established architectural practice, for a program which had already reached the point of completion, in terms of initial design decisions, as that presented to the examination candidates in this instance. In view of the above-determined deficiencies, the Petitioner did not establish that his solution to the site and design-problem posed by the examination reflected sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the failing grade conferred on the Petitioner on the June, 1980, site and design portion of the architectural examination be upheld, and that the petition be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 19th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Glen P. Hamner, Jr. 1231 Bayshore Drive Valparaiso, Florida 32580 John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samual Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The sole issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, which he took in June, 1982. Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The architectural examination in Florida is administered in two parts: a written examination given in December of each year, and the design and site planning examination given in June of each year. Canavan met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Canavan took the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1982. This examination consisted of various design and site problems to be resolved in drawings to be completed within 12 hours. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The examination is prepared and supplied to the Office of Examination Services by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The design and site planning portion of the examination for June of 1982 required the design of a small airport terminal by the applicant to include drawings of the structure on the site, exterior elevations, interior floor plans and cross-sections of the building interior. Canavan, together with the other applicants, was supplied information and a preexamination booklet setting forth generally the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which the applicants would be expected to sketch. At the time of the examination, other information was supplied to the applicants to enable them to more adequately design the structure requested and meet the necessary architectural requirements. The examination of the Petitioner, together with the examinations of the applicants from some 20 states using the NCARB standardized examination, were graded at one time by graders of the NCARB. Each state participating in the examination process provides at least two qualified architects to function as graders. These graders are given specific training by NCARB to standardize their grading approach to the examination. The examinations of all the applicants are divided among the various graders on a blind grading basis in such a manner that the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination he is grading. Graders look at the applicant's overall plan to determine whether the applicant has met or failed to meet the requirements. The grader makes notations of specific areas of weakness based upon the grading criteria and based upon the overall conception of the applicant's submission. Each examination is graded by a minimum of two graders, who grade the examination independently. If the examination receives a failing grade from each of the independent graders, it is graded by a third grader. The Petitioner's examination was graded in accordance with the above process and received a failing grade, indicating that it was graded by three independent graders. The Petitioner was notified of his failure to pass the examination and given notice of his right to a formal hearing. Jeff Hoxie, who was one of the graders on the June 1982 examination and who is an experienced architect licensed in the State of Florida, reviewed the Petitioner's examination in the manner that it would have been assessed by the graders, explaining the process generally and explaining the specific deficiencies which he noted. He used the original grader's comments regarding the deficiencies noted as a point of departure to explain his assessment of the Petitioner's examination. The Petitioner failed to follow specific examination requirements as to the required sizes of specific floor areas, failed to follow building code requirements in his design of the kitchen and restaurant, and failed to properly draw the sketch required of the structural and mechanical elements of the building. While there were other areas of weakness noted, Mr. Hoxie stated that the major failures listed above would justify a failing grade. Petitioner's testimony revealed that he had made a mistake in sketching one plan, and that, because of this mistake and the corrections which Petitioner made, he ran out of time, which resulted in the specific failings noted by the three graders at the national level and confirmed by Mr. Hoxie.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture of the State of Florida fail the Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination taken by Canavan in June, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel T. Canavan 814 Avenida Hermosa West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent entered into a contract with Anthony Cocco and his wife in August of 1977, to construct a single-family residence. By June of 1978, work on the project had virtually ceased, although Respondent caused some landscaping work to be done after that date. In October, 1978, Respondent gave notice to Cocco of a default on the contract. This led to civil litigation on the contract between the parties which was unresolved at the time of the subject hearing. Respondent was licensed as a residential contractor in 1970. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. The Respondent was also licensed at the time of the hearing. See Petitioner's Exhibit #2. No evidence was received that the Respondent was licensed at any time between the date he entered into the contract with Cocco and the date that Respondent gave notice of default. Regarding the Respondent's licensure between August of 1977, and October, 1978, the only evidence received was the Petitioner's Exhibit #2, which states in pertinent part: ... Said licensee was licensed September 1970 and has been current for all years licensed.
Recommendation Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Respondent's Motion for Directed Verdict is granted, and it is recommended that this cause be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jane E. Heerema, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 George E. Tragos, Esquire 487 Mandalay Avenue Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
