The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420. Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations. Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving". Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations. Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation. Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption. In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation. Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale". The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable". The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct". The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc." The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error. The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner does not possess the requisite criteria necessary to admit him to the examination for licensure as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 13th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Irving Joseph Armstrong 5069 Susannah Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32803 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Oliver J. Turzak violated statutes and rules governing the practice of engineering as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Clerk of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the “Board”) on October 4, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint at issue was filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (“FEMC”) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and at all times material to these proceedings has been, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 18230. Respondent’s last known address is 5405 Water Street, New Port Richey, Florida 34652. On April 20, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive, New Port Richey, Florida (“Fish Residence Project”). On June 10, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated an engineering opinion letter (“Letter”) which was addressed and sent to Champion Foundation Repair, the entity which was Respondent’s client for the Fish Residence Project. The Letter stated in material part: [Respondent], whose signature appears below, has verified placement of twenty-seven (27) exterior piers and twenty-five (25) interior jack pins as located on the drawings by the same job number. The piers all achieved sufficient load bearing characteristics to transfer the house weight to the piers and to close cracks substantially and stabilize the foundation. The remediation program was developed according to geological data supplied by Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc., dated November 2007. Similar pier reports on numerous structures with similar problems have demonstrated long term success without additional settlement. Therefore, it is the opinion of the [Respondent] that the location has been repaired and stabilized and, further, that there is no evidence of new sinkhole activity at the location. In compliance with Florida Statute 627.707, the report and remediation program was prepared under the supervision of a Registered Professional, whose field of expertise is a Geo-Technical Engineer. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (“Responsibility Rules”). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-35. Professional engineers, who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules, are required to comply with those rules. Rule 61G15-30.002(1) mandates that Respondent, as the structural engineer of record, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared for the Fish Residence Project. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing a document that complies with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record of the Structure for the Fish Residence Project as that term is defined in rules 61G15-31.002(1) and 61G15-31.003(1). As such, all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in rule 61G15-31.002(5), as mandated by rule 61G15-31.001, setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(4) provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” Rule 61G15-19.001(4) also provides that: [F]ailure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility Rules as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with this section unless the deviation or departures therefrom are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the professional engineer. Respondent’s June 10, 2008, Letter is an engineering “certification” as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-18.011(4): statement signed and sealed by a professional engineer representing that the engineering services addressed therein, as defined in section 471.005(6), F.S., have been performed by the professional engineer, and based upon the professional engineer’s knowledge, information and belief, and in accordance with commonly accepted procedures consistent with applicable standards of practice, . . . . “Certifications” are subject to the standards set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-29.001, which require that if an engineer is presented with a “certification” that “involve[s] matters which are beyond the engineer’s scope of services actually provided” that the engineer must “decline to sign . . . such certification.” Section 471.033(1)(a) provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for “[v]iolating . . . [a] rule of the [B]oard.” Section 471.033(1)(e) provides, in material part, that a professional engineer is subject to discipline for “[m]aking or filing a report or record that the licensee knows to be false” when the report is “signed in the capacity of a licensed engineer.” Rule 61G15-19.001(6) provides that: A professional engineer shall not commit misconduct in the practice of engineering. Misconduct in the practice of engineering as set forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., shall include, but not be limited to: * * * (b) Being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report, statement, or testimony whether or not under oath or omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report, statement or testimony when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, employer or the general public; . . . . The Fish Residence In 2007, the residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive in New Port Richey, Florida (the “Fish Residence”), experienced structural damage from subsidence in the ground underlying the home. As a result, a claim was made to Fish’s insurance company, and an investigation was commenced. Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. (“CFTL”), a geotechnical engineering firm, performed an in-depth analysis and found, in a signed, sealed, and dated engineering report issued on November 20, 2007, that the subsidence was likely caused by a number of factors, including sinkhole activity. As a result, the Fishes hired a contractor, Champion Foundation Repair (“Champion”) to remediate the damage. Champion hired Respondent to perform the engineering services necessary to obtain a permit for the remediation, inspect the construction, and complete a report certifying the adequate completion of the work. Respondent had a long history of providing similar services to Champion in the past, having performed engineering services in over 200 projects for Champion. Respondent created, signed, sealed, and dated on April 20, 2008, a Settlement Stabilization Plan (“Plan”), which formed the design basis for the work Champion carried out. Well into the project, the Fishes became dissatisfied with the work done by Champion. Champion was terminated as the contractor before the work was finalized and before Respondent was able to perform a final inspection of the property. Litigation was commenced and Bracken Engineering (“Bracken”), a forensic structural/civil engineering firm was engaged to perform an investigation of the work performed by Champion and Respondent for the pending litigation. Bracken issued a lengthy engineering report (“Bracken Report”), under engineering seal, on June 20, 2011. The Bracken Report found Respondent’s Plan deficient, that Respondent was not adequately knowledgeable about the site, that Champion’s implementation of the Plan, and Champion’s construction work as a whole was flawed and inadequate. Subsequent to the issuance of the Bracken Report, a complaint was filed with the Board, and these proceedings were initiated. Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence Roger Jeffery opined that the Plan failed to meet required engineering standards. The parties agree that when a structure, such as the Fish Residence Project, is initially built, the loads are directly transferred to the foundation, which then transfers the loads directly and uniformly as a continuously supported structure to the underlying soil. However, when, as occurred in this case, the structure’s loads are no longer transferred directly and uniformly to the ground through the foundation, but are transferred through pins which underlie the foundation, the foundation itself now acts as a beam or beams and is subject to the stresses applied to the beams. Respondent asserted that the foundation load would remain continuous, and therefore stable, since grouting had been poured under the Fish Residence to consolidate and stabilize the soils. However, Respondent’s plan did not call for grouting to be used. Moreover, according to the Bracken Report, no grouting was ever placed under the Fish Residence, even though it was called for in the CFTL Report to stabilize the structure. Respondent’s failure to perform a final inspection resulted in an inaccurate assumption and opinion. Respondent’s claim that grouting placed in the void under the structure reconstituted the original soil conditions is rejected, especially in light of the fact that Respondent also analyzed the pins and foundation in a beam configuration--a simple span beam. Further, Respondent’s analysis must be discounted because the calculations justifying his conclusion that the structure was adequately supported was performed in December 2013, well after these proceedings commenced and more than five years after the Plan had been created by Respondent. As a result of the changed structural support system (from ground support to pins), the position of the pins is critical to the stability of the structure. If the pins are too far apart for the strength of the foundation’s materials to accommodate the foundation, now acting as a beam or beams, the foundation will be overstressed. Cracking, at a minimum, or collapse, at a maximum, can occur. Cracking or collapse can occur because the concrete slab foundation used at the Fish Residence does not have any existing top reinforcing steel in it. When asked if perhaps reinforcing steel might have been placed within the slab itself, Mr. Jeffery stated he had never seen such use of steel in over 40 years. No evidence to support the steel within the slab theory was presented. When the newly installed pins become the structural support, a negative bending moment is introduced to the top of the foundation, now acting as a beam. The top of the foundation is made only of concrete, which has little ability to resist the induced negative moment. As a result, deflection, racking, and ultimate failure will be the result if the pin placement and the spans created by the placement are inadequately designed. Respondent’s after-the-fact calculations do not address this issue. Using a continuous beam analysis, the preferred method to evaluate the beam/pin assemblage design in structures like the Fish Residence, the spacing of the pins (usually ten feet apart) designed by Respondent coupled with the loads generated by the foundation and the lack of reinforcing steel in the top portion of the foundation would result in stress that would exceed the strength of the concrete and, at a minimum, the concrete would eventually crack. Dr. Ahmed Said, Respondent’s expert, agreed with this conclusion. Even using a simple beam analysis, the design method Respondent testified he used and that Dr. Said agreed was commonly used, movement, resulting in cracks at the foundation slab, would occur. Again, since no reinforcing steel exists at the top of the slab, as a matter of simple physics, the concrete would have to respond to the deflection that would occur at the bottom of the foundation and, concrete being weak, would likely crack or worse at the top. Respondent provided no persuasive rebuttal to Mr. Jeffery’s analysis. First, Respondent claimed that elevations taken at the site in 2013 showed minimal deflective movement, proving the Plan design was sufficient. However, Mr. Jeffery noted that subsequent elevations taken at the completed structure would have little meaning regarding the adequacy of the design since: the design stands alone and is not affected by how the contractor implemented it; and no one could know whether the design, as constructed, would withstand the required stresses until it was subjected to full design loading, which would have to include the full wind loads to which the structure was designed. There is no evidence the structure was ever subjected to such stress in the period between its construction in 2008 and the later recorded elevations. Next, Respondent claimed the 3-foot “spreaders” attached to the pins would reduce the span of the foundation acting as a beam and thus would overcome the lack of reinforcing steel in the top of the foundation and the resulting overstress. The problem with this assertion is that the Plan does not call for “spreaders” to be placed in the design by any notations that are readily and universally cognizable. Respondent admitted that the symbol regarding the use of the spreaders was agreed to only between Champion and him, and was not included in the Plan. However, even if the notations used by Respondent could be interpreted as calling for the use of the “spreaders,” the “spreaders” would not materially impact the fact that the foundation, acting as a beam, would be overstressed, since a negative moment would still exist due to the lack of reinforcing steel at the top of the foundation. Finally, Respondent asserted that Mr. Jeffery’s analysis was flawed since Mr. Jeffery had assumed the Fish Residence was a masonry structure whereas Respondent claimed the structure was a wood frame covered with a stucco exterior. This issue is confused by the fact that both the CFTL and Bracken Reports, upon which Mr. Jeffery relied, both stated the Fish Residence was a masonry structure, although the CFTL Report notes the structure was initially constructed as wood frame. In any event, Mr. Jeffery testified that regardless of the masonry versus wood frame question, the structure would still be overstressed. Changing the construction from masonry to wood frame/stucco veneer might lessen the overstress, but not materially. In addition to the overstress created by failing to address the induced negative moment at the top of the foundation, Respondent’s design also resulted in a shear load which exceeded the maximum allowable under the American Concrete Institute 318 Concrete Code; and, since that code is incorporated into the Florida Building Code (“FBC”), the requirements of the FBC as well. The shear load factor is especially relevant since Respondent did not assure that the pins would not be placed under windows and doors where this issue is critical. Respondent did not address the shear issue as it applied to windows and doors in his after-the-fact calculations. The Plan is also deficient since it did not indicate the placement of windows and doors in the Fish Residence Project. By not doing so, the pins, when put in the ground, could be placed underneath these internal spaces which do not then form a continuous roof/wall/foundation assembly. If that occurred, and it apparently did in the Fish Residence on four occasions, the shear problem described above is exacerbated, since at either side of a door or window a point load is created and the shear stress increased. The Plan also fails to include required information. While the Plan calls for the use of a “FastSteel” product, the Plan does not include any product specification number or the strength of the material to be used. Although Respondent stated that the contractor, based upon its experience, knew what was intended, ultimately Respondent admitted that the required information was not in the Plan. Similarly, the Plan did not include the design loads and criteria used in the design and provided no building codes and standards. Respondent admitted the Plan lacked this required information. The missing information is important. Only by including such information on design documents can the engineer adequately communicate to the reviewing building code plans examiner or a contractor what the design engineer intended. By not including this required information, the reviewer can be uncertain as to whether the engineer used the correct loadings or designed the structure in accordance with the correct edition of the building code. Similarly, failing to provide sufficient information concerning the products to be used may lead a contractor to utilize the wrong product during construction. The Plan was submitted to Pasco County for issuance of a permit. The county building department issued a permit for the work to be performed. Mike Mosher of Champion believed the Plan included all the specifications he needed to identify the components to be used and the manner in which the work was to be performed. He also testified the work was completed consistent with the Plan. The June 10, 2008, Certification Letter Respondent issued the June 10, 2008 Certification Letter (“Letter”) under seal to his client before he completed the inspections necessary for the conclusions in the Letter to accurately reflect the opinions contained in it. Both Respondent and his client, Champion, agree that since the client had been denied access to the Fish Residence Project, no final inspection of the site by Respondent ever occurred. As a result, Respondent admitted that, when he signed, sealed, and issued the Letter, the engineering services, upon which the certification in the Letter was based, had not yet occurred. The evidence proved that Respondent’s last appearance at the Fish Residence Project occurred on or about May 5, 2008, and that most of the work done at the site occurred after that date with the final construction finishing on or about May 30, 2008. As a result, the conclusions and opinions contained in the Letter were not based upon accurate and contemporaneous engineering analysis. Since the Letter purports to be grounded in engineering inspections, the statements in the Letter were not fully based upon the services Respondent actually provided. While not entirely clear from the evidence and testimony, had Respondent had the ability to perform a final inspection, he would have had the opportunity to discover several deficiencies in the construction. The Bracken Report detailed several deficiencies and non-conformances with the Remediation Plan. These deficiencies included: 1) failure to drive 5/6ths of the pilings to the depth prescribed by the notes to the Plan; a large number of pins found beneath door and window openings; mis-installation of pins and pin assemblages; and 4) no grouting placed in the ground although Respondent intended that grouting be used. Respondent agreed that at least some of the Bracken Report conclusions were warranted. Respondent asserts that, although the Letter was issued prematurely, Respondent should not be held accountable since the Letter “never went public.” This contention is rejected. The Letter was a final engineering report/certification and, upon issuance to Respondent’s client, Champion, was fully subject to all engineering standards, rules, and statutes. Since the Letter contained conclusions that were inaccurate and based upon information that was not collected under Respondent’s direct supervision, issuance of the Letter constituted negligence and misconduct in the practice of engineering. Respondent’s Prior History of Discipline Respondent has previously had discipline imposed. The instant case is the first in more than 40 years of Respondent practicing engineering that involved a subsidence remediation plan. Respondent’s first prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 00-0086. In that case, Respondent was hired to correct building code issues identified by a county building department. The drawings he made violated the building code requirements, contained deficiencies, and were not in compliance with the standard practice of engineering. Respondent proceeded to hearing without benefit of legal counsel. A final order was entered by the Board reprimanding his license, fining him $1,000, plus costs of $302.93, placing him on probation for one year, and requiring he complete a course in professionalism and ethics while on probation. Respondent’s second prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 01-0079. That matter was based upon drawings that were dated February 16, 2001. Respondent was not represented by counsel in that proceeding. In that proceeding, no proof was presented that the structure depicted in the plans by Respondent was ever built. Therefore, no direct risk of harm to the public was proven. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that matter which was approved by the Board of Professional Engineers. He agreed to pay a total administrative fine of $7,000, plus $316.67 in costs and receive a reprimand on his license. He also received a one-year suspension of his license, followed by two years’ probation, and continuing education requirements. The other instance of discipline imposed against Respondent was in FEMC Case No. 2004037005. That complaint arose from plans that were signed by Respondent in June 2004. He was charged with signing plans he had not personally prepared or were not prepared under his supervision. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that case that was approved by the Board. He paid a $5,000 administrative fine and costs of $750; received a reprimand on his license; received two years of probation; and was required to make detailed reporting to the FEMC during the probationary period. No additional evidence of prior disciplinary matters was offered other than the three cases described above.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Oliver Turzak’s Professional Engineer license be reprimanded, and that the license shall be suspended for a period of one year. Upon termination of the suspension, Respondent shall be reinstated under terms and conditions of reinstatement as the Board determines are appropriate, including two years of probation with terms the Board deems appropriate. Respondent shall also be fined $1,000 per count ($2,000 total fine). Finally, Petitioner shall be entitled to assess costs which are related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs or fees associated with an attorney’s time, as provided in section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David P. Rankin, Esquire Law Office of David P. Rankin, P.A. 18540 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33548 John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Michael Reggia meets the Florida licensure requirements for a professional engineer in the field of manufacturing engineering. The issue is specifically whether the practice and principles portion of the licensing exam was valid. Procedural Matters At the final hearing, Petitioner, Michael Reggia testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of manufacturing engineer, Howard Bender. Petitioner's exhibits #1 and #2, letters from Martin Marietta Aerospace and Harris Corporation, were rejected as hearsay. Exhibit #3, selected pages from Fundamentals of Engineering, published by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, was admitted without objection. Respondent presented two witnesses: Cass Hurc, P.E. (by deposition, by agreement of the parties) and Allen Rex Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. Respondent initially submitted four exhibits: #1 and #4 were admitted without objection, #2(a) and #2(b), were admitted over Petitioner's objection, and #3 was withdrawn. The parties requested and were given 20 days to submit post-hearing briefs and proposed orders. On September 15, 1986, Petitioner filed his arguments and summary of she testimony and evidence. Nothing was filed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Michael Reggia resides in Titusville and works at the Kennedy Space Center. He is licensed in the state of California as a professional engineer and has practiced in the field of manufacturing engineering. California, like Florida, does not license an individual in a particular discipline of engineering but requires that an individual select an area in which he or she will be tested. Mr. Reggia took the professional engineering license exam in Florida in October 1985. For part two of the examination, Professional Practice and Principles, he chose to be tested in his field of manufacturing engineering. He achieved a score of 64.4; in order to pass, a score of 70 is required. The examination given in Florida is a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) for certification or licensure throughout the United States. The October 1985 exam was developed based upon an extensive survey study initiated by NCEE in 1979. A report of that study was published in March 1981 as "A Task Analysis of Licensed Engineers". (Respondent's exhibit #4) The primary purpose of the study was to aid NCEE in developing"... fair, meaningful, uniform, and objective standards with which to measure minimum competency for professional licensure." (exhibit #4, page E1) In drafting an exam the NCEE relies on the societies representing various engineering disciplines to submit examination problems for consideration. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, through its professional registration committee, provides that service on behalf of the manufacturing engineers. The October 1985 examination for manufacturing engineers did not include questions relating to electrical engineering, which is Mr. Reggia's sub- area of emphasis in the area of manufacturing engineering. Since manufacturing engineering includes overlap into the basic engineering disciplines, Mr. Reggia contends the exam was one-sided and invalid as he felt it concentrated on tool designing and mechanical engineering. Some industries, particularly the aerospace industries now include a substantial number of electrical engineers on their staff. Engineering is an evolving discipline and manufacturing engineering has undergone changes with new technologies in recent years. One way of addressing the diversity and changes in the field is to provide a two-book exam that would offer the applicant a wider variety of problems from which he or she could select. This has been recommended to the NCEE by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Another approach, and the one utilized by the NCEE, is to conduct periodic surveys to determine the tasks which engineers are actually performing and the level of judgement required to perform the tasks effectively. It would be impossible, and perhaps inappropriate to develop an exam that would test each individual only on his or her particular expertise. In the area of manufacturing engineering the exams developed by NCEE are passed by 65- 75 percent of the candidates, a rate which is comparable to that of the mechanical engineers for their exam. Seven out of ten applicants passed the same exam which Mr. Reggia took in October 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' February 7, 2005 Joint Prehearing Submission2: Respondent and his father are the principal owners of J.G.P. Engineering Group P.A. (JGP), an engineering firm specializing in the design of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. JGP does mainly "high end projects." It has offices in Miami, Florida, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Respondent is in charge of JGP's Miami office. The office is located at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 207. Before moving to this location, JGP occupied Suite 210 in the same building. In or around the mid-1990's, Orlando Naranjo was invited to work as an electrical engineer for JGP in its Miami office. Mr. Naranjo wanted to remain self-employed, so he turned down the offer; however, his firm and JGP subsequently worked collaboratively on "quite a few projects." Mr. Naranjo's firm and JGP were "doing so much work [together] requiring significant coordination" that in or around 1998, Mr. Naranjo decided "to move [his office to 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209] next to [JGP's office]." Mr. Naranjo's office was at this location (9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209) at all times material to the instant case. On September 20, 2001, Mr. Naranjo's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida (which was then under suspension) was revoked by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (Board). The suspension and revocation resulted from Mr. Naranjo's having failed to have taken the necessary steps to renew his license in a timely manner. Mr. Naranjo did not become aware of the Board's revocation action until "some time later," around or before the Thanksgiving holiday (that same year). Upon learning that his license had been revoked, Mr. Naranjo began the process of attempting to become relicensed. Mr. Naranjo's office (at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209) remained open, and his firm continued to engage in business, following the revocation of his license and during the time that he was seeking relicensure. Mr. Naranjo recognized that, until he got his license back, he would be unable to sign and seal documents and otherwise act as the "engineer of record" on projects. Mr. Naranjo therefore asked Respondent to help him by assuming the role of "engineer of record" on projects that Mr. Naranjo had been working on but had not yet completed. As a favor to Mr. Naranjo, Respondent agreed to do so without compensation. Among the projects of Mr. Naranjo's that Respondent undertook responsibility for were (what the parties have referred to in their February 7, 2005, Joint Prehearing Submission as) the Toras Emes project (TE Project) and the Manatee Village at Ruskin project (MV Project). "[C]ompared to the jobs that [JGP] had done with [Mr. Naranjo] in the past, these two jobs . . . [were] relatively straightforward." The TE Project involved design work for a dormitory facility consisting of "individual dormitory rooms, a hallway [connecting] them, and a common bathroom [with] showers and stalls for the people [living] in the dormitory." The architectural firm that hired Mr. Naranjo to work on the TE Project was Gustavo J. Ramos and Associates, Inc. (Ramos). Ramos had a contractual relationship with, and paid, Mr. Naranjo, not Respondent, for the work done on the TE Project. The MV Project involved design work for a residential housing development consisting of four types of "small apartment units [having] one or two bedrooms." The architectural firm that hired Mr. Naranjo to work on the MV Project was R.E. Chisholm Architects, Inc. (Chisholm). Chisholm had a contractual relationship with, and paid, Mr. Naranjo, not Respondent, for the work done on the MV Project. The MV Project required "relatively little" work since approximately "99% [of the plans that had been developed for use in a previous project] were reused" for this project. Assisting in the preparation of the plans for the TE Project and the MV Project were Mr. Naranjo's employees, Pablo Viteri and Antia Rodriguez, who (unlike Respondent) were paid by Mr. Naranjo for their efforts in connection with the projects. Mr. Viteri and Ms. Rodriguez served as draftspeople on these projects, drafting in accordance with the directions they received, as did Mr. Naranjo after he had relinquished his role as "engineer of record" on these projects (and Respondent had started "running the show"). In addition to the drafting work he did, Mr. Viteri was regularly "in touch" with the "people who were involved [o]n the architectural side" of the projects to "coordinate" with them. Mr. Viteri became a Florida-licensed professional engineer in the "beginning of 2003." (He is currently employed by JGP as an electrical engineer and computer-aided design manager.) Ms. Rodriguez was an engineer in her native country, but has not obtained a license to practice engineering in the State of Florida. Mr. Viteri, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Naranjo, at all times material to the instant case, worked (on the TE Project and the MV Project ) out of Mr. Naranjo's office at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209, which outside its front door had a sign which read: N+A NARANJO+ASSOCIATES Mechanical·Electrical Consulting Engineers #209 The sign had been there since the time Mr. Naranjo had moved into the office. It remained on the door even though Mr. Naranjo's license had been revoked and he was no longer authorized to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Florida. The purpose of the sign was not to advertise, but to identify who occupied the office. Following his agreement to help Mr. Naranjo, Respondent exercised complete supervision, direction, and control of all engineering aspects of the TE Project and the MV Project, including the preparation of the engineering plans for these projects (that he signed and sealed). Upon assuming the role of "engineer of record" on these projects, Respondent first reviewed the design work that had been done prior to his involvement in the projects to determine if the "quality and validity" of the work met his satisfaction. After completing this review, Respondent oversaw the completion of the design work, making all necessary engineering decisions. Respondent had discussions with Mr. Viteri, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Naranjo about the remaining work that needed to done and gave them instructions and directions on the drafting they were to do. Respondent reviewed their finished work product to make sure that it was consistent with the instructions and directions he had given them. Only after he was satisfied that there was such consistency and that the drafting that had been done accurately reflected the engineering decisions he had made did Respondent sign and seal the plans for the projects. The title block on these plans identifying Respondent as the projects' mechanical engineer listed his address as 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209, Miami, Florida (which was the address of Mr. Naranjo's office) and his telephone number and fax number as (305) 599-9447 and (305) 599-9427, respectively (which were the telephone number and the fax number for Mr. Naranjo's office). All engineering documents related to the projects were kept, not in Respondent's office, but in Mr. Naranjo's office (where Mr. Naranjo, Mr. Viteri, and Ms. Rodriguez worked) so as to not inconvenience Mr. Viteri, who needed to have ready access to these documents on a regular basis given that he was the "person who had the direct day-to-day contact" with the project architects. Likewise, the calculations done for the TE Project were on a computer in Mr. Naranjo's office. Any documents or information that Respondent needed to fulfill his responsibilities as the "engineer of record" on the TE Project and the MV Project he could retrieve with relative ease from Mr. Naranjo's office, which was just a short distance from his office. At no time did Respondent attempt to conceal from anyone the nature and extent of his involvement in the TE Project and the MV Project, nor did he have any intent to assist Mr. Naranjo in the unlicensed practice of engineering. Respondent has never before been disciplined by the Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing all four counts of the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for the Principles and Practice Examination has met the requirements set forth in Subsection 471.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.002(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 27, 2006, Petitioner filed an application (Application) with the Board seeking to take the Principles and Practice Examination for professional engineers. Petitioner is not licensed in any other state as a professional engineer. Petitioner is a resident of Florida, who is of good moral character, and completed his bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Ohio State University in December 1999. On August 5, 2006, Petitioner was awarded the degree of Master's of Science in Electrical Engineering from UCF. Petitioner is seeking to take the Florida Professional Engineering Examination in the area of electrical engineering. Section 7 of the Application for the Licensure by Examination directs the Applicant to do the following: List, in order, all employment experience. A minimum of four years experience must be evidenced at time of submitting your application. All engineering experience after graduation or prior to graduation shall be verified by professional or practicing engineers. Non- engineering experience or periods of unemployment shall be listed, but is not required to be verified. List employment beginning with earliest experience. Refer to attached copy of Rule 61G15-20.002. Column # 1 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to identify the Experience Number. Column # 2 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Dates of Employment, Month, Day, and Year. Column # 3 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Title of Position, Names and complete address of the firm and immediate supervisor. Column # 4 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Total Time in # of Months in Professional (Engineering Related) and Non-Professional (Non-Engineering Related) work. Column # 5 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to provide the following: Details pertaining to nature of work. Distinguish clearly between professional and non- professional duties and responsibilities. For each employment, describe explicitly, but concisely, the work you did and one engineering decision you were required to make. Attach exhibits as necessary. Refer to definitions in Section 471.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15, Florida Administrative Code, when defining work, see attached copy of rule. All experience, whether or not engineering, shall be accounted for on this application. (Emphasis in Original) Petitioner listed four separate professional experiences under Section 7. From August 1, 1995, to March 1, 2000, Petitioner served as a research assistant in the Electroscience Laboratory at the Ohio State University, while studying for his degree in electrical engineering. Petitioner assisted Ph.D. researchers to investigate electrical phenomena built electrical research devices, in a laboratory setting. From March 1, 2000, to March 1, 2001, Petitioner was employed as an electrical engineer for Weldon Technologies in Columbus, Ohio, where he worked on design, construction and manufacture of electrical systems for integration onto mobile devices. Petitioner worked on designs for digital systems, multiplying systems, vehicle systems, mobile vehicle response systems, emergency vehicles, and airplane/aerospace powered supply designs. From March 1, 2001, to December 1, 2001, Petitioner was employed as an electrical engineer for National Technical Systems in Foxborough, Massachusetts, where he worked to design, construct and perform electrical testing for domestic and international certification requirements and compliance verification. From December 1, 2001, to the present, Petitioner has been employed as an electrical engineer for the Harris Corporation in Palm Bay, Florida, where he works to design and analyze electrical systems for performance and qualification verification on aircraft, mobile vehicles, and space communication systems. Although staff had recommended that Petitioner's application be approved, Petitioner understood that the Board had to hear and approve the application. Petitioner completed the application form himself and felt that he had fulfilled all of the requirements set forth in the Application, including those contained in Column 5 of Section 7. Although Petitioner testified as to the details of the nature of the work he did at each of his employments after graduation, Petitioner failed to describe explicitly the work he did as required in Section 7, Column 5. Petitioner was required to describe explicitly, but concisely, one engineering decision he was required to make during the course of his employment. Petitioner failed to do so on his application or at the formal hearing. Petitioner has failed to show that he has met the requirements, set for in the Florida Statutes and in the Florida Administrative Code Rules, that he is entitled to sit for the Principles and Practice Examination for Professional Engineers.
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 denying the application of Petitioner, Larry Freeman, for application for the Principles and Practice Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 23rd day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issues presented are: (1) whether or not Respondent wrongfully eliminated materials from the Candidate/Petitioner during the April 19, 1990 engineering examination, and if so, (2) whether the Candidate/Petitioner received a failing grade because the materials were wrongfully eliminated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner (#100021) received a score of 69.0 on the Professional Engineer Fundamentals Examination given April 19, 1990. A minimum passing score was 70.0 on the examination which is written by National Council of Engineering Examiners and graded by Education Testing Service. (Transcript Pages 36 and 39) Prior to the April 1990 examination, the Board sent each candidate a letter, dated December 18, 1989 (Exhibit P-1) (Transcript Page 9 and 12), which said, "No review publications directed principally toward sample questions and their solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Page 31). The candidates were also provided with a "Candidate Information Booklet" dated January 1990 (Exhibit R-1, Transcript Page 77). The booklet states on page 14, "No books with contents directed toward sample questions or solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Pages 77 and 96). Petitioner, who also took the October 1989 examination had received notice at that examination that the Board of Engineers intended to change the procedure allowing reference materials in the examination. (Transcript Page 89 and Respondent's Exhibit 2.) The Board of Professional Engineers advised the examination supervisor and proctors that no engineering "review" materials would be allowed in the examination although engineering "reference" materials could be brought into and used for the examination. However the books which were excluded included books without "review" in the title, books with "reference" in the title, and books which contained problems and solutions. Before the examination began Deena Clark, an examination supervisor, read over a loud speaker system names of books that would not be permitted (Transcript Page 81). Practice examination and solution manuals were not allowed for use by engineering candidates (Transcript Pages 93 and 94). Schram's outlines and other materials were also excluded (Transcript Page 91). Also excluded was Lindeburg's 6th edition, "Engineering In Training Review Manual." (Transcript Pages 16 and 79). This decision was verified by the Board before the examination began (Transcript Page 81). After the examination had begun, Ms. Clark announced that the candidates could put certain copyrighted materials in a three-ring binder and use them which had been excluded earlier (Transcript Page 85). This was in response to candidates who needed economics tables for the examination However, no time was provided the candidate to prepare these references and only one minute was added to the examination time. (Transcript Page 85). Petitioner did not bring any economic tables to the examination site except those contained in books which were not allowed in the examination. (Transcript Page 19). Petitioner did not remove the economic tables and permitted references from the Lindeburg's review manual until lunch and these tables were not available to him on the morning examination. (Transcript Pages 22 and 88). Of the six engineering economics questions on the morning portion for the examination, the candidate correctly answered four. No data was provided on the nature of these questions. The Candidate correctly answered 53 questions in the morning (weighted x 1) and 23 questions in the afternoon (weighted x 2) for a total of 99 weighted required points. He answered eight questions correctly in the "addition" portion of the examination. The table for eight additional questions correct in the "Scoring Information Booklet" used in determining the candidates final grade shows the adjusted equated score was 126 and his scaled score was 69. (Page 21 of booklet). The value of each economics question converted to final scoring scale was enough that passage of one economics question would have resulted in passage of the examination. The exclusion of certain materials from the examination was arbitrary and capricious and was done by a few individuals without any stated objective standard published by the board. Further, the board knew before the examination which books were to be excluded and could have notified examinees of the exact items to be excluded. The Board's generally poor handling of this matter is exemplified in announcing after the examination had begun that items previously excluded could be used if placed in a ring binder but not allowing any time to prepare such materials. (Tx. pgs., 74-80, 84-86, and 91-97) The Petitioner would have used several tables which were excluded if the announcement had been made before the morning examination began with time to put the items in acceptable form. After notifications in October 1989, December 1989, and January 1990, Petition admitted that he did not call the Board of Professional Engineers to ask for guidance on books that would not be allowed on the April 1990 examination (Transcript Page 29). However, a final decision on books to be excluded was not made until approximately two weeks before the examination. The Petitioner did not show that the two questions which he missed on the Engineering Economics portion of the morning examination were missed for lack of the tables. The examination is a national examination and there is no evidence that the requirements and limits established by the Board in Florida were applicable nationwide. To alter the national instructions locally potentially adversely affects Florida results.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to take the examination without charge on one occasion. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. 1/ The general information provided to examinees by the State Board regarding the values of questions on the examination and scoring it misleading or inaccurate because neither the weighted required score nor the adjusted score was 48% of 80, 280, or any other number related to the scaled score of 70. The manner in which these values are associated with the scale score of 70 is contrary to the Board's explanation and is not self evident. This is a potential problem if the matter were formally challenged, and it appears the Board needs to reassess its procedures and instructions. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5728 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. The Respondent submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or reject for the reasons stated: Adopted. Issue not fact. - 4. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. 5. -12. Adopted. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as preliminary statement. Adopted. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan K. Garman Civil-Tech, Inc. 3573 Commercial Way Street B Spring Hill, FL 34606 William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rex Smith Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
