Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The exam consists of two parts: the written part is given in December of each year and the site and design problem is given in June of each year. Todaro graduated from Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana in 1977 and had met the requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Todaro took the design and site planning portion of the national architectural exam in June, 1980. This consists of a 12 hour sketch problem involving the design of a structure by the applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. The exam is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is used by all states. Pre-test information supplied to each applicant includes a booklet providing the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which applicants are expected to apply themselves in order to receive a passing grade. At the examination, other information is supplied to enable the applicant to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. The purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted by NCARB and allows the national testing service grading the examination (and through them the Florida Board of Architecture) to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which were tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December. The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectual registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the solution which lie is grading. The grader is instructed in how to consider the appropriate criteria. Graders are also instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is a three, and an applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant cause, Todaro received two 2's and one 3. He was therefore notified of his failure to pass the examination and of his right to this hearing. While Petitioner established that an effort had been made on his part to comply with the instructions, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation, particularly as to adequate consideration to grading and site planning, adequate consideration to marking elevations on his floor plans and adequate notation regarding the type of materials to be used in his elevations, floor plans, and wall sections. In general Todaro failed to place within his solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine that his program could be used; he failed to synthesize the information which he had learned in his educational process, in such a manner as to prepare adequate plans to respond to the requirements of good architectural practice in the formulation of design and site plans.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Stephen Todaro to change his grade on the June, 1980, site and design architectural examination be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Todaro 1507 N. E. 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 John J. Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue 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 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.
Findings Of Fact On March 9, 1973 Peterson, an architect registered in Florida, submitted a proposal "for preparation of design and construction drawings" for remodeling an existing residence to a new law office (Exhibit P-5). This was assigned on March 13, 1978 by attorney Anderson, who also remitted the required $200 retainer fee. Pertinent to this case, the contract provided for services to be rendered as: "Contract documents for permits and construction to include architectural plans (site floor plan, elevations and sections) and engineered structural and electrical drawings; "fee was $1,000 payable $200 on signing and $800 upon completed contract documents for permits." Any other services were at $20 per hour, including design changes after approval of preliminary drawings. The plans Peterson prepared showed the removal of a load bearing wall, without comment or provision for structural additions required by the demolition of the wall. Although the plans were not sealed, Anderson paid the $800 balance and bids were requested. The one bid (Exhibit R-4) was considerably more than budgeted, therefore the project was delayed. After a time, Anderson got interested in the project again but Peterson was unavailable so another architect was used and the project was completed. Thereafter, Anderson's requested reimbursement from Peterson was refused and this complaint was filed. Two registered Florida architects testified as experts for the Petitioner. Peterson's plans did not meet minimum architectural standards, particularly as to omission of substitute structural members for the removal of the load bearing wall. Although, structural changes could have been added by addendum, plans must be complete prior to obtaining permits and bids, and the acceptance of the full amount of the fee. In mitigation, Respondent agreed that he misinterpreted Anderson's understanding and desires but thought the standard procedure was followed; he indicated that this is the first time he has been in this type of situation. More particularly, Peterson intended to exercise his right to prepare an addendum that would have provided an appropriate structural substitution for the load bearing wall, after the ceiling was opened up; he considered the original plans for the wall as schematic only. He assumed the project was not going forward and the bidding process was merely to get prices.
Findings Of Fact 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.
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 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 issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Florida licensed professional engineer, holding license number PE 45941. There have been no prior disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent. The Respondent acted as the general contractor in the construction of his personal residence, which is the structure at issue in this proceeding. There is no evidence that the structure, as built, fails to meet applicable standards and requirements. On December 16, 1999, the Respondent submitted to the City of Clearwater Building Department, 29 sheets of building plans for alterations to the Respondent's residence. Of the 29 sheets, three were apparently signed and sealed by an engineer identified as Shields E. Clark, P.E., who did not testify at the hearing. Nineteen of the 29 sheets contain the statement, "[a] windload review of this plan has been made by Shields E. Clark, P.E. and it is certified to be in compliance with Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code 1994." The plans apparently confused the Clearwater Building Department official who reviewed the material. He asked the Respondent to meet with him and explain the project. The meeting occurred on or about January 10, 2000. During the meeting, the Respondent signed and sealed 22 of the 29 sheets; afterwards, the reviewing official noted they were unsigned. Four sheets of the initial plans were not signed and sealed by anyone. The Clearwater Building Department relies on the engineering certification in determining whether plans should be approved. The Respondent signed and sealed the plans as a professional engineer and the plans were approved. As to all of the plans submitted by the Respondent to the Clearwater Building Department, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of James Owen Power, a Florida licensed engineer. Mr. Power's testimony was persuasive and is credited. (Sheet numbers identified herein reference the page numbers in Joint Exhibit 1.) According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on December 16, 1999. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to specify which of two methods was used in calculating compliance with Southern Building Code windload requirements; depiction of a three-foot overhang projection on sheet 12 which is not depicted on other pages in the same plans; lack of a footing under a center post (sheet 19); lack of a beam at the center post to indicate what is being supported (sheet 21); inadequate support of the center post (sheet 22); a failure to provide for transfer of a portion of the roof load to an appropriate support (sheet 22); inadequate support for the load being carried (sheet 23); and depiction of a sample wall section atypical of all conditions throughout the proposed construction. On March 15, 2000, the Respondent submitted a 22-page set of drawings to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 14, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 15, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to indicate whether differences in foundation, floor and roof framing, between the initial plan submission and the March 15 submission, were to be regarded as substituted plans or changes to the initial plans; the failure on five sheets to refer to windload certification; the failure to correlate position of cross beams to posts (sheet 43); differing numbers and locations of cross beams within the plan submission (sheets 43 and 44); a cantilevered wall that is identified without appropriate detailing; omission on sheet 45 of a "transverse" beam depicted on sheet 44; depiction of a wall not previously shown and two previously un-shown beams over the garage door (sheet 46); the appearance of a previously un-shown and unspecified pipe column in the middle of the garage opening (sheet 46); the lack of proper identification of a post and partition depicted on the column view (sheet 47); inconsistent identification of the dimensions of a balcony overhang (sheets 43, 49 and 52); and alteration of original rafter sizes without notice of the change (sheet 63). On March 28, 2000, the Respondent submitted an 11-page set of drawings and two sheets of cost estimates to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 28, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: omission of a footing and pipe column depicted in the second set of plans without notification of change (sheet 31); the inability to determine the intent of "back addition lower plan" (sheet 32); alteration of the notation of a wall from the second set of plans (sheet 33); inconsistent depiction of the new wall foundation at the left side of the structure (sheet 33); inconsistent identification of the footing at the center of the garage opening (sheets 31, 33, and 34); inconsistent depiction of footers (sheets 34 and 35); inconsistent depiction of columns and beams (sheets 33, 34 and 35); and alteration in the manner of depicting partitions within the structure from the depiction contained in the initial submission (sheet 37). On June 12, 2000, the Respondent submitted another 11- page set of plans to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on June 12, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: identification of beams as "optional" without defining the requirements of either option (sheets 64 and 65); depiction of knee braces not previously identified in previous plans (sheet 65); inconsistent depiction of partitions (sheets 65 and 69); alteration of wall width from second plan submission without adequate notification of change (sheets 49 and 66); depiction of knee braces without proper consideration of lateral load (sheet 66); depiction of a diagonal structure the intent of which is unclear (sheet 68); inconsistent depiction of a center joist (sheets 38 and 69); alteration to the previous depiction of rafters without notification (sheet 67); deletion of footing and a column in the center of the garage opening without notification (sheets 68 and 70); and the addition of a door to the left of the garage opening without notification of change from prior submissions. The Respondent's building plan submissions fail to meet professional standards. Structural elements were added, altered, and deleted without appropriate notification, and within submissions, elements were inconsistently depicted. The Respondent's failure to meet professional standards resulted in building plans that were ambiguous and unclear.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding Phillip J. Matonte, P.E., for negligence in this matter, and placing him on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 11th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire Tilton & Metzger, P.A. 1435 East Piedmont Drive, Suite 210 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Richard Berry, an applicant for licensure as a landscape architect, was administered the Landscape Architecture License Examination in June, 1987. This exam is a standardized national test which is prepared by the Council Of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards and administered through the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. Part of the examination requires the implementation of design knowledge through practical application. Mr. Berry's score on the design implementation portion of the exam was not sufficient to constitute a passing score. A weighted score of 75 on each portion is required to pass the examination. Mr. Berry passed all other portions of the examination. Upon initially receiving the failing score, Mr. Berry requested an informal review of the grading, which resulted in an upward adjustment of his score. However the score was still insufficient to raise the score to a passing level. The remaining disagreement centered on five items in the practical examination. The items were related to architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner as required by question four of the design implementation portion of the exam. The items were as follows: 4b(2) drawing of wood deck attachment detail to wall 4b(4) drawing of concrete sidewalk grade wall detail 4b(5) drawing of metal fence detail 4b(6) qualities/quantities of materials listed 4c(2,3) drawing of deck detail At the hearing, Mr. Berry discussed the relevant exam questions and clearly articulated why he believed his responses were entitled to credit in addition to what had originally been given by the examination graders. The Department's expert witness, Mr. Buchannan, indicated that he had rescored Mr. Berry's exam responses in accordance with the "Examination Evaluation Guide" issued by the Council of Landscape Architectural Examination Boards. Mr. Buchannan testified that one point of additional credit should have been given for Mr. Berry's response on the item 4b(2) and one point of additional credit should be given for the response on item 4b(6) of the design implementation portion of the exam. No additional points were to be credited to the responses on the three remaining items. Juan Trujillo, examination development specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation testified as to the effect of the additional points. According to his testimony, the additional credit would provide Mr. Berry with, a raw score of 71.5, which equates to a weighted score of 74.5. The weighted score is rounded up by the Department to a grade of 75.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architecture, granting to Petitioner, if otherwise qualified, licensure as a landscape architect. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 21st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1376 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are accepted as modified in the Recommended Older. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Berry, pro se 6588 Southeast 78th Avenue Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 William Leffler, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Ard, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Landscape Architects 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
