The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statues, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Richard M. Golfman, was, at all times material hereto, licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C032860, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual.1 The Feinstein project (DOAH Case No. 00-0599) On or about October 30, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Norman and Sheila Feinstein to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to enclose and remodel the screened patio, and to build a rock garden, at their home located at 5468 Northwest 20th Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. At the time, the Feinsteins paid Respondent $1,500 as the initial payment (deposit) under the terms of the contract. The contract Respondent presented and the Feinsteins executed on October 30, 1998, did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Following execution of the contract, Respondent made repeated promises to construct the rock garden; however, it was not until November 10, 1998, that Respondent appeared on-site and constructed the rock garden, albeit not to the Feinsteins' satisfaction. Subsequently, Respondent had some high-hat electrical fixture cans and a bundle of furring strips delivered to the home for the patio project but, thereafter, despite repeated requests, refused to perform any work on the project or refund any money to the Feinsteins. The value of the labor and materials Respondent invested in the rock garden, as well as the cost of the building materials (the high-hat fixtures and furring strips) delivered to the job-site, was $250, a sum considerably less than the $1,500 the Feinsteins had entrusted to Respondent under the terms of their agreement. The Burres/Berger project (DOAH Case No. 00-0600) On or about November 23, 1998, Respondent submitted a written proposal to Tanya Burres to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to replace the existing roof on her home located at 7270 Montrico Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $22,125. The proposal was a one-page preprinted form. In the upper left there appeared, printed immediately following Respondent's handwritten name, the following: THE GOLFMAN GROUP, INC. P.O. Box 811926 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 The proposal did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At the time the proposal was submitted, Tanya Burres was under contract to sell the home to Drs. Glenn Berger and Michelle Fiorillo, husband and wife (the Bergers), and Ms. Burres had agreed to split with the Bergers the cost of a new roof for the home. At the time, Ms. Burres had suggested the Respondent as a contractor to perform the work (because he had previously done satisfactory work for Ms. Burres); however, it was understood that the employment of any contractor was subject to the Bergers' approval. That the Bergers' agreement was required before any such employment would be accepted was clearly conveyed to Respondent. On November 23, 1998, Tanya Burres signed the proposal and gave Respondent a check payable to his order in the sum of $1,106.25, representing her half of the ten percent deposit called for by the proposal. The Bergers, however, declined to accept the proposal, and refused Respondent's request for the balance of the deposit. Rather, the Bergers, having received adverse information from the Department regarding Respondent's record, preferred to employ a different contractor, and Ms. Burres accorded the Bergers a monetary credit at closing (on the purchase of the home) for one-half the cost to re-roof the home. When the Bergers informed Ms. Burres (shortly after she signed the proposal on November 23, 1998) that they would not agree to use Respondent, Ms. Burres attempted to stop payment on her check; however, the check had already been cashed. Thereafter, Ms. Burres attempted on numerous occasions to contact Respondent by telephone and by his pager, but Respondent failed to return any of her calls or messages. To date, Respondent has failed to account for or return Ms. Burres' deposit of $1,106.25. The costs of investigation and prosecution As of February 25, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $234.85 for DOAH Case No. 00-0599 (the Feinstein project) and $195.65 for DOAH Case No. 00-0600 (the Burres/Berger project.) Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated August 4, 1987, which found Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (which were not revealed at hearing beyond what may be inferred from the terms of the Final Order), and resolved that Respondent suffer the following penalty: Respondent's licensure is hereby suspended for ten (10) years. Provided, Respondent may obtain termination of said suspension at anytime, without further action by the Board, upon providing the Board's Executive Director with a certified bank check in an amount sufficient to cover and pay a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), and the bad check alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and all service charges in connection therewith, and all other fees accruing as of the date Respondent seeks said termination of supervision. The second occasion Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated July 18, 1997, which approved a stipulated settlement of certain complaints then pending before the Board. That Final Order approved the dismissal of a number of counts contained in five Administrative Complaints then pending before the Board and, as to the remaining counts, agreed (without Respondent admitting or denying the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaints) to the following penalty: 3. FINE AND COSTS: Respondent shall pay a fine of Nine Hundred dollars ($900.00) and costs of Eight Hundred fifty One dollars ($851) to the Board within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. Said payment shall be in the form of a cashier's or certified check and shall be made payable to the "Construction Industry Licensing Board." To assure payment of the fine and costs, it is further ordered that all of Respondent's licensure to practice contracting shall be suspended with the imposition of the suspension being stayed for thirty (30) days. If the ordered fine and costs are paid in compliance with the terms set forth above, the suspension imposed shall not take effect. However, should payment not be timely made, the stay shall be lifted and Respondent's license shall be immediately suspended. Upon payment of the fine and costs in full, the suspension imposed shall be lifted. Respondent apparently satisfied the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as a penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $13,500.00, revokes Respondent's licensure, orders that Respondent pay restitution to Norman and Sheila Feinstein in the sum of $1,250.00 and to Tanya Burres in the sum of $1,106.25, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through February 25, 2000) in the total sum of $430.50 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of June, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation (Division) properly issued a Stop Work Order (SWO) against Respondent on August 3, 1999. Whether Respondent owes a civil penalty, and if so, how much of a civil penalty does Respondent owe.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Workers' Compensation is statutorily charged with the task of enforcing the provisions of Subsections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38, Florida Statutes (1999), requiring employers to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law. See Subsection 440.107(5) and (7), Florida Statutes. On August 3, 1999, Division Investigator Greg Mills, with two other investigators, engaged in a sweep of construction sites in Leon County to assure that the employers were in compliance with the Workers' Compensation Law. At a new private residential construction in progress at 2158 Chaires Cross Road, the investigators encountered Robert Carroll, who had just delivered Respondent's well-drilling rig to the location. Greg Mills interviewed Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll's responses at that time clearly indicated an employment relationship existed between Mr. Carroll and Respondent Bobby Cox, Sr. d/b/a C H Well Drilling. Greg Mills issued an SWO, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(3), Florida Statutes, and a penalty assessment based on the alleged employment and allegedly- evaded premiums for three years, for Mr. Carroll. At some time after Respondent had requested a hearing, the Division obtained information through discovery which convinced Division personnel to amend the SWO to include premiums and penalties based on an alleged employment relationship between Melford Sims and Respondent. Based on the 1099 tax forms received by Carroll and Sims from Respondent, the Division determined that during the three- year period preceding the SWO, Respondent had paid Carroll $7,320.30 in 1996; $33,903.50 in 1997, $34,363.50 in 1998, and $32,036.00 in 1999, and determined that Respondent had paid Sims $7,797.50 in 1997; $12,786.50 in 1998, and $11,056.00 in 1999. 2/ The National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) classifies types of employment in SCOPES and specifies applicable premiums by employment classification. Well drillers are classified as Code 6204. The premium rate for each $100.00 of compensation was 35.71 percent in 1996, 27.86 percent in 1997, 24.63 percent in 1998, and 20.94 percent in 1999. Respondent did not dispute the appropriateness of employing the foregoing formula. The procedure is authorized under Rule 38F-5.111(6), Florida Administrative Code. The foregoing formula and procedure resulted in the insurance premium for Mr. Carroll being calculated as $2,614.00 in 1996; $9,446.00 in 1997; $8,460.00 in 1998; and $6,708.00 in 1999, and resulted in the insurance premium for Mr. Sims being calculated as $2,173.00 in 1997; $3,148.00 in 1998; and $2,315.00 in 1999. The Division therefore seeks to impose a fine of twice the allegedly-evaded premiums for Mr. Carroll ($27,228 x 2 = $54,456) and for Mr. Sims ($7,636 x 2 = $15,272) totaling $69,728.00 At all times material, Respondent Bobby Cox, Sr., was licensed and engaged in the business of drilling water wells in Leon County, Florida. He operates as a sole proprietor under the name "C H Well Drilling." No evidence was presented as to any incorporation or fictitious name registration of this entity. At no time material did Respondent ever file for a workers' compensation exemption. At no time material did Respondent obtain workers' compensation coverage for himself or any employee(s). Dr. Bobby Ray Phills is the Dean of the College of Engineering Science for Technology and Agriculture at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University. He owns the property at 2158 Chaires Cross Road. He personally pulled the building permit, identifying himself as the building contractor, to construct a new residential construction. He obtained no workers' compensation insurance coverage for the project. Dr. Phills testified the he employed Selmo Bradley, a licensed general contractor, to do the framing and "manage the project" for him. Dr. Phills testified that he instructed Bradley that Bradley and all other contractors were responsible for their own workers' compensation coverage. There is no evidence that Selmo Bradley obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage for the Chaires Road project. Dr. Phills never spoke directly to Respondent. He paid no money directly to Respondent. Dr. Phills gave no evidence that he intended to pay Respondent through Mr. Bradley. Respondent testified that Mr. Bradley contacted him and negotiated with him to drill a well on Dr. Phills' property and that he expected to be paid by Mr. Bradley as the general contractor. Respondent testified that Mr. Bradley asked him if he had workers' compensation coverage for his employees for the Chaires Cross Road project and that he, Respondent, had answered "No." Respondent does not contend that Mr. Bradley ever told him that Bradley's workers' compensation coverage would protect Respondent or Respondent's employees. On August 3, 1999, Respondent directed Ralph Carroll to drive Respondent's truck, equipped with Respondent's well- drilling rig, and set up the rig on the Chaires Cross Road project. Respondent paid Mr. Carroll for his time in setting up the rig. However, drilling was not due to begin until the next day and did not begin due to Greg Mills' interrogation of Mr. Carroll and issuance of the SWO. When interviewed on August 3, 1999, Mr. Carroll described himself as working for Respondent and the man assisting him with the rig as "just a friend." He did not mention owning his own business and alluded to Respondent's getting the Chaires Cross Road job and telling Mr. Carroll where to go. To the degree his testimony at hearing varied from these statements, it is discredited. Additionally, at hearing, it developed that Mr. Carroll was "not actually in" the business of pump repair and well water service on August 3, 1999. As of the date of hearing, Mr. Carroll was still trying to get set up to do such business on his own beginning January 1, 2000. He was still buying some of his equipment. There is no dispute that Mr. Carroll had been employed as an employee by Respondent until August 1, 1996. Until that date, Respondent provided Mr. Carroll with W-2 tax forms, kept timesheets on him, and withheld the required federal tax and benefits. As of August 1, 1996, Respondent began to treat Mr. Carroll as an independent contractor, ceased withholding, and issued him 1099 tax forms for federal tax purposes. The Division also alleged that Melford Sims was an "employee" of Respondent, but it could not establish that Mr. Sims had ever been on Respondent's payroll or that any creative bookkeeping had been indulged-in to create an "independent contractor" façade for Mr. Sims. Respondent, Mr. Carroll, and Mr. Sims each testified that after August 1, 1996, when payment was received for a job worked by Mr. Sims or Mr. Carroll, expenses would first be paid, i.e., if equipment or casing broke, it would be paid from the proceeds. Then the profit, if any, would be split equally between Respondent and whichever of the other two men had done the job. If there was a problem on the job, satisfactory completion was the responsibility of Sims or Carroll, whichever had done the job, and there was no extra compensation paid by the customer or Respondent to correct the problem unless the well had to be drilled deeper. Respondent testified that after August 1, 1996, checks for well-drilling work were made out to him, usually by a general contractor, and that Respondent disbursed funds to Carroll and Sims as set out above. Despite Respondent's and Mr. Carroll's testimony to the effect that after August 1, 1996, they were each independent sole proprietors who assisted one another, subtracted the costs of doing business, and then split the profit of various well- drilling jobs, the following are indices that from 1996 through 1999, Mr. Carroll remained Respondent's "employee": Mr. Carroll owned a truck, tractor, and "ditch witch." He did not own a well-drilling rig, and he used Respondent's rig. Respondent held an occupational license to drill wells. Mr. Carroll did not. Respondent advertised in the telephone book yellow pages. Mr. Carroll did not. Mr. Carroll relied exclusively on Respondent to get well-drilling jobs for him. Respondent was Mr. Carroll's sole source of income 1996- 1999. Mr. Carroll did not file for a workers' compensation exemption during 1996-1999. He filed for one only after August 3, 1999. Mr. Carroll did not secure workers' compensation insurance for himself during 1996-1999. Mr. Carroll did not provide Respondent with an affidavit that met statutory requirements during 1996-1999. The following indices of Mr. Sims' situation 1996-1999 are mixed. Mr. Sims owns a truck, tractor, and "ditch witch." He does not own a well-drilling rig, but he occasionally "leases" Respondent's well-drilling rig for jobs of his own. Otherwise, he splits profits on jobs he gets with Respondent after costs are deducted as described above. The following indices of Mr. Sims's situation 1996-1999 are indicative of his independent contractor status: Mr. Sims holds his own occupational license separate from Respondent's. Mr. Sims advertises in the telephone book yellow pages with his own location and telephone number. The following indices are indicative of Mr. Sims's employee status 1996-1999: Mr. Sims did not file for a workers' compensation exemption during 1996-1999. Mr. Sims did not secure workers' compensation insurance for himself during 1996-1999. Mr. Sims did not provide Respondent with an affidavit that met statutory requirements during 1996-1999. At all times material, Respondent worked approximately 75 percent of the time for general contractors, who paid him by check. Twenty-five percent of the time, Respondent was paid directly by others, besides general contractors. Respondent worked for Thomas L. Baldwin, certified general contractor, and for Ken Seay, licensed residential contractor, among other contractors, during the three-year period 1996-1999. These two named contractors testified to being covered by workers' compensation insurance carriers during this period. Respondent testified that he had also worked for 30-50 other general contractors during this period of time and that at all times he had relied upon these contractors covering him and his employees through Florida's statutory workers' compensation scheme, which holds general or prime contractors liable for injuries to their subcontractors and subcontractors' employees if the subcontractors have not obtained their own workers' compensation coverage. Respondent provided a sampling of applications for, and certificates of, insurance from the two named contractors and other contractors, some of which were workers' compensation policies, some of which were employers' general liability policies, and none of which covered the entire three-year period. Respondent did not establish the specific dates he worked for each general contractor.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a Final Order that Affirms the Stop Work Order. Affirms the $100 penalty related to Mr. Carroll's employment, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes; and Assigns only an additional penalty, based solely upon the "wages" of Mr. Carroll, in the amount of $54,457.00, plus statutory interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 March, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a certified water and wastewater treatment operator whose certification renewal fees were increased by amended Rule 17-16.14. A notice of proposed rulemaking, a notice of a workshop on the proposed rule, and a notice of a public hearing on the proposed rule were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 9, No. 20, May 20, 1983. Petitioner attended and made comments at both the public workshop on June 1, 1983, and at the public hearing on June 21, 1983. Although the June 21, 1983, public hearing on the amendment to Rule 17- 16.14 was held open for 14 days in order for the petitioner to provide additional information to the Respondent, Respondent indicated at the public hearing that it intended to adopt the rule after 14 days without further notice unless it received additional information. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-16.14 was adopted by Respondent on July 14, 1983, and filed with the Secretary of State on July 15, 1983. The Economic Impact Statement includes the statement, "Essentially, the burden of supporting the operator certification program will be shifted from all of the taxpayers of the state to the operators themselves." The Economic Impact Statement makes no mention of the fact that many public utilities may pass the increased certification cost on to the consumers of their services. Respondent currently charges a $15 fee for processing applications, a $25 biennial certification renewal fee, and no fee for certification itself. Prior to the amendment to Rule 17-16.14, Respondent charged a $20 biennial certification renewal fee. The increase in certification renewal fees provides a continuous, efficient, and increasing source of revenue for the certification program. The costs and administrative difficulties with collecting two fees or with increasing application processing fees make raising the certification renewal fee reasonable. Robert Hall, Respondent's Certification Officer, made several references at the June 21, 1983, public hearing to a report by the Auditor General which stated that Respondent should not charge two separate fees for processing and issuing certificates and further stated that renewal fees should be raised rather than processing fees. Following the hearing, it was discovered that Mr. Hall was in error in his references to the Auditor General report and that such a report from the Auditor General did not, in fact, exist.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing in this case, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on stipulations and admissions of the parties The Petitioners, John Eugene Harden and Dova Cauthen, qualified for and were administered the January 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examination. After their examinations were graded and regraded, Petitioners were notified that they had not received a "Passing" score of 75 or more. The Petitioners, John Eugene Harden and Dova Cauthen, qualified for and were administered the July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examination. After their examinations were graded and regraded, Petitioners were notified that they had not received a "Passing" score of 75 or more. Both Petitioners reside in Dade County, Florida. The Respondent Department of Professional Regulation (hereafter DPR or the "Department") is an agency of the State of Florida. The Respondent Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board (hereafter referred to as the "Board") is an agency of the State of Florida statutorily responsible, along with DPR, for licensing certified electrical contractors. The Office of the Executive Director of the Board is located at 130 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The business address of Petitioner Harden is Harden Electric, 311 N.E. 8th Street, Homestead, Florida 33030. The business address of Petitioner Cauthen is 959 N.E. 79th Street, Miami, Florida 33138. 8. On March 20, 1981, Rules 21GG-6.01 (2), 21GG-6.01 (3), 21GG-6.01 (4), of the Rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, were amended. Rule 21GG-6.01 (2) altered the format of the licensing examination so that the formerly entirely open book examination became a part open book, part closed book examination. Rule 21GG-6.01 (4) raised the passing grade on the licensing examination from 70 to 75. Rule 21GG-6.01 (3) altered the technical format. On December 3, 1981, Susan Tully, counsel to the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, caused a change to be made in Rule 21GG-6.01 (1) (c) of the Rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. This change was made without formal notice or informal notice to the public and without a vote of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, although the change was discussed at a Board meeting. None of the procedures set forth in Section 120.54 of the Florida Statutes were followed in amending this Rule. Liz Cloud was the Bureau Chief of the Division of Elections, Bureau of Administrative Code, Department of State. The address of the Bureau is Room 1802, The Capitol Building, Tallahassee, Florida. The change in Rule 21GG-6.01 (1)(c) eliminated parts 72 A, B, C and D and indicated that the entire Fire Safety Code (and not just the aforementioned parts) would be a subject of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examinations. In fact, the reason for the alleged "technical change" was that the Board intended and tested examinees in the January and July 1982 Licensing Examinations on materials in parts of the Fire Safety Code in addition to those contained in 72 A, B, C and D of the Fire Safety Code. Petitioner Harden specifically requested to review his January and July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examinations. On March 25, 1982, Petitioner Harden went to Tallahassee, Florida to review his January 1982 Licensing Examination papers, but although he requested an "examination review" he was never provided with his own examination booklet or a copy thereof. During this alleged "examination review" Mr. Harden wrote written objections to the January 1982 examination on the forms provided to him based on the master copy of the examination provided to him. On August 31, 1982, Petitioner Harden went to Tallahassee, Florida to review his July 1982 Licensing Examination papers, but although he requested an "examination review" he was never provided with his own examination booklet or a copy thereof. During this alleged "examination review" Mr. Harden wrote written objections to the July 1982 examination on the forms provided to him based on the master copy of the examination provided to him. Petitioner Cauthen specifically requested an "examination review" with respect to her January and July 1982 Licensing Examination papers. On March 17, 1982, Petitioner Cauthen went to Tallahassee, Florida to review her January 1982 Licensing Exami-nation papers, but although she requested an "examination review" she was never provided with her own examination booklet or a copy thereof. During this alleged "examination review" Ms. Cauthen wrote written objections to the January 1982 examination on the forms provided to her based on the master copy of the examination provided to her. On August, 19, 1982 Petitioner Cauthen went to Tallahassee, Florida to review her July 1982 Licensing Examination papers, but although she requested an "examination review" she was never provided with her own examination booklet or a copy thereof. During this alleged "examination review" Ms. Cauthen wrote written objections to the July 1982 examination on the forms provided to her based on the master copy of the examination provided to her. Petitioners Harden and Cauthen sought Board review of their January and July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examinations. Petitioners were advised in July 1983 that no copies of their actual booklets exist; Petitioners were advised in October 1983 that their actual booklets were shredded. At the November 8, 1982, meeting of the Board, Ms. Ida Cameron representing DPR, presented to the Board a package of information (assembled in package form) for the Board to consider during the examination review. With regard to Question Number 71 on the afternoon portion of the July 1982 Licensing Examination, two of the four possible responses, "A" and "C" were credited. Candidates like Petitioner Cauthen who answered "B" received no credit for the question. Petitioners Harden and Cauthen have requested Chapter 120.57 hearings with respect to their January and July 1982 licensing examinations and the review, grading and agency action with respect to same. Although request for production was specifically made for said packages of information with respect to the January 1982 and July 1982 licensing examinations in February, 1983, no packages have been produced to date. DPR destroyed the Petitioners' examination booklets before the end of the two year period immediately following each of the 1982 examinations. That Section 455.217 of the Florida Statutes requires the Board "by rule" to designate areas of competency to be covered by each licensing examination. That Section 455.217 states that the Board shall "by rule specify the general areas of competency to be covered by each examination, the relative weight to be assigned in grading each area tested, and the score necessary to achieve a passing grade." That the amendment of Rule 21GG-6.01 (2) required candidates to commit to memory portions of the electrical code, accounting, law, worker's compensation rules, federal employer's tax guide, A1A General Conditions, business practices; legal and insurance requirements. In the July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examination candidates were given one hour more time in which to take the examination than was given during the January 1982 examination. Rule 21GG-6.01 (4) was amended in conjunction with Rules 21GG-6.01 (1)(a), (2) and (3) at a board hearing in March, 1981. Rule 21GG-6.01 (4) raised the passing score on the January 1982 Electrical Contractors' Examination and the July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Examination from 70 to 75. The amendment to Rule 21GG-6.01 (4) required that electrical contractors pass the certification examination with a score of 75 percent, whereas all other construction industry licensing board contractors licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation (13 other categories) were merely required to achieve a 70 percent pass score. That Section 455.217 of the Florida Statutes provides that "The board shall make rules providing for reexamination of any applicants who have failed the examination." That DPR did not and has never provided Petitioners, their attorneys or agents with their own examination booklets for the January and July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examinations. DPR has provided Petitioners only with copies of "master" examinations for their review. That Section 455.217 of the Florida Statutes provides that the Board shall make available an examination review procedure for applicants. That the Respondents produced Notice of Destruction of Examination Booklets and Other Examination Materials dated April 14, 1982, which allegedly evidences destruction of Petitioners' examination booklets for the January 7, 1982, Examination on April 14, 1982. That the Respondents produced Notice of Destruction of Examination Booklets and Other Examination Materials dated October 15, 1982, which allegedly evidences destruction of Petitioners' examination booklets for the July 13, 1982, Examination on October 15, 1982. The findings in paragraphs 1 through 33, immediately above, are based directly on the stipulations of the parties, most of which stipulations were memorialized at the beginning of the hearing. The findings in the following paragraphs are based primarily on testimony and exhibits, but some of them are also based in whole or in part on stipulations. In the findings which follow there are certain to be at least some repetitious findings in the course of putting matters into context and making additional findings which are related to some of the stipulated findings. I have tried to avoid all unnecessary repetition, but a certain amount is necessary for clarity and a certain amount is unavoidable due to the sheer size of the task at hand. Findings on background matters and on matters relating to more than one rule Both of the Petitioners in this rule challenge proceeding are individuals who have applied to the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board for licensure as certified electrical contractors. Both of them have been approved to sit for the licensure examination. Petitioner Harden took the Board's licensure examination on each of the following occasions: July 1981, January 1982, July 1982, and January 1983. The Board has not given him a passing grade on any of those' four examinations. Petitioner Cauthen took the Board's licensure examination on two occasions: January 1982 and July 1982. The Board has not given her a passing grade on either of those two examinations. The grade notifications received by these Petitioners show, inter alia, that Petitioner Cauthen received a grade of 73 on the July 1982 examination. Both of these Petitioners have presently pending formal proceedings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, in which they are challenging various matters related to the preparation of, administration of, scoring of, and inherent validity of the Board's January 1982 and July 1982 licensure examinations. The Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board certification examination is different from a master electrician examination. However, the two examinations are in many ways similar because of the overlap in the nature of the subject matter to be tested on both examinations. The passing score or cut score on the local master electrician examination administered by Dade County is 70 percent. Most of the questions on that examination are about the National Electric Code. Part of the Dade County master electrician exam is closed book. Prior to 1972, persons wishing to engage in electrical contracting in the state of Florida were required to be licensed by the local governments in the areas in which they sought to operate. Since 1972, persons wishing to engage in electrical contracting in the state of Florida must be licensed by a unit of local government or by the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. Persons who are licensed by the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board are known as certified electrical contractors. A certified electrical contractor can engage in electrical contracting anywhere in the state of Florida without local licensure. Persons who are licensed by one or more local governments (typically a municipality or a county) are known as registered electrical contractors. Registered electrical con-tractors are licensed to engage in electrical contracting only in the geographic areas encompassed by the boundaries of the local government entities that issued their local licenses. There is, however, a certain amount of reciprocity from one local government to another. Certification as a state certified electrical contractor does not authorize the electrical contractor to work as an electrician, although a certified electrical contractor can pull permits. A person does not have to be a licensed electrician in order to become a state certified electrical contractor, although many electrical contractors are also licensed as journeyman or master electricians. Candidates for the electrical contractor licensure examination have a great $ variety in the nature and scope of their background and experience. This variety in background and experience is among the reasons which cause testing for minimum competence as an electrical contractor not to be an exact science. As between certification and registration, certification by the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board is not a major factor in the ability to compete for business. A person who has a statewide certification can save some money by avoiding the expense of obtaining local competency cards, but as a general rule a registered electrical contractor can work just about anywhere in the state due to reciprocity. Especially, a person who has passed a Block master electrician examination or a Block local electrical contractor's examination can work just about anywhere in the state because most counties in Florida accept the Block examination. Registered electrical contractors regularly compete for business with certified electrical contractors. For example, Petitioner Cauthen's company is presently licensed in Monroe, Dade, and Broward counties, where it does a considerable amount of business. Petitioner Cauthen's company bids on lots of contracts and submits bids in competition with both registered and certified electrical contractors. Thus, the company is already in competition with certified electrical contractors. Similarly Board Member Isaacs, whose certified company does 90 percent of its work in Duval County, has regular competition from registered electrical contractors. Board Member Isaacs competes with approximately 250 electrical contractors. Of that 250, approximately 175 are registered and the others are certified. A much bigger factor in competition than the registration versus certification issue is the cost of doing business in more than one area or the cost of doing business at a location that is distant from one's primary base of operations. Only about fifty electrical contracting firms regularly compete for business over the entire state of Florida. Accordingly, a restriction on the number of persons licensed by the Board as certified electrical contractors would have minimal, if any, limitation on the competition faced by those members of the Board who are certified electrical contractors. The Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board admin-istered its own certification licensure examination from 1972 through 1980. During that period of time the Board administered the examination a total of twenty-two times. During those twenty-two sessions of Board administered examinations, a total of 824 candidates sat for the examination, of which 392 were successful. Although the percentage of candidates who were successful on a particular Board administered examination ranged from a low of 20.7 percent to a high of 78.8 percent, the average passing rate of all candidates on all twenty- two of the Board administered examinations was 47.57 percent. (By way of comparison, it is interesting to note that the percentage of candidates who are successful on the Block master electrician examination is between 30 percent and 35 percent of those who take the examination.) Further, on fifteen of the twenty-two occasions on which the Board administered the examination, the percentage of candidates who were successful was 50 percent or less. In 1979, the regulation of professions and occupations was reorganized. The Department of Professional Regulation (the Department) was created as an umbrella agency over numerous boards, including the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board and the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The responsibility for examining applicants, which in the case of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board had been handled by the Board members themselves, was taken over by the Office of Examination Services (O.E.S.). Toward the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1981, O.E.S. did not like what the Board was doing and the Board did not like what O.E.S. was doing. There was a general lack of trust between the two entities, there was poor communication between the two entities, and the relationship between them at that time might best be described as estranged. Although both entities made efforts at cooperation with the other, such efforts were not always effective or well received. As a result of the poor communication between the two entities, certain personal concerns over Board actions by individuals within the O.E.S. were never communicated to the Board (and therefore could not be answered. 4/ The first examination administered by the O.E.S. was in January 1981. Of the fifty candidates who took the January 1981 examination, forty-six were successful. This was a passing rate of 92 percent. In view of the Board's experience when it was administering its own examination, the Board was understandably surprised and concerned when the percentage of candidates passing the first O.E.S. administered examination was almost twice the average passing percentage on the Board administered examinations. The Board had no evidence that the overall qualifications or capabilities of the applicants examined by O.E.S. at the January 1981 examination were any higher than the capabilities of those examined previously. To the contrary, a review of their qualifications based on the information in their applications indicated that their qualifications were substantially the same as those of previous candidates tested by the Board. Also, the admission standards for the January 1981 examination were the same as those for prior examinations. The Board concerns about the O.E.S. administered January 1981 examination included the following matters, among others, memorialized at a Board meeting discussing the examinations: The candidates had been allowed to take any reference material desired into the exami- nation. Previously the Board had allowed only reference books listed as part of the application form. There was a very high pass rate in compar- ison to all past examinations. There appeared to be too few calculation questions. The questions had been placed on the paper in sequence with the reference book materials. There was a possibility that notes were taken into the examination which would have given advantage to the candidates. The Board's Examination Committee had been under the assumption that the entire examination would be presented for review of the questions. Instead the only questions presented were ones questionable under Department criteria for measuring competency. It was explained, from past experience, that persons conducting the seminars for exams had obtained the entire exam content from persons taking the examination in the past. It had been done with a camera which was taken into the examination. The Board, when administer- ing the examination, had been very strict on what was used in performing the examination. In the last exam the security was very poor. The Board felt there were so few calculation questions on the O.E.S. administered examination in January of 1981 that the examination was not a proper or sufficient examination. This was due at least in part to the fact that O.E.S. had difficulty covering all areas of the examination with the desired number of questions because the O.E.S. bank of questions was very limited at that time. Previous Board examinations were open book with certain reference material allowed. When the Office of Examination Services took over the administration of the January 1981 exams, it sent to the candidates a form letter adapted from the Construction Industry Licensing Board. This form letter instructed the candidates that they would be able to bring into the examination any notes and other materials desired. This was contrary to the past practice of the Board and contrary to the Board's wishes. The Board was very frustrated and concerned about the circumstances which led up to the January 1981 examination because the O.E.S. had refused to allow the Board to have any input into the examination and the Board thought the O.E.S. had come up with an apprentice level examination. In the Board's opinion, the January 1981 examination prepared by O.E.S. clearly tested at a level less than that of minimum competency. And, although O.E.S. did not agree with the Board that the January examination was invalid, O.E.S. did agree that the examination was a lot easier than they had thought it would be. The Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board did not conduct any formal studies or formal analysis prior to making the 1981 amendments to Rule 21GG-6.01 changing the format of the examination and the cut score. However, the Board's Rules Committee did a great deal of work on the matter and the matter was discussed extensively at Board meetings. In this regard it is important to keep in mind that the Board members (with the exception of the two lay members) were all experienced practicing electrical contractors who were familiar with the requirements of day-to-day electrical contracting. The Board's decision to change part of the examination to closed book was due to a concern that people with no electrical knowledge could become licensed if the examination was all open book and had a low percentage of technical questions. The Board felt that more than half of the examination should be technical questions. The closed book National Electrical Code questions were for the purpose of testing what a person with experience in the field of electrical contracting should know about everyday matters. The primary, if not the sole, motivation for the Board's 1981 amendments to Rule 21GG-6.01 was the Board's concern about the quality of the O.E.S. administered examination and the Board's feeling that, due to its estranged relationship with O.E.S., the only vehicle through which it could effectively influence the quality of future examinations was through rule- making. Those amendments were not motivated by any desire on the part of the Board to restrict competition in the field of electrical contracting. During the past few years the job requirements of an electrical contractor have remained substantially the same. Block and Associates (hereinafter "Block") is a company based in Gainesville, Florida, that writes licensure examinations for contractors in various trades. Block writes such examinations for cities, counties, and states. Block has prepared electrical contracting licensure examinations for the states of Florida, Georgia, and Oklahoma, as well as for St. Johns County, Florida. Block prepares licensure examinations for just about anything that involves electricity, including such things as electrical contracting, electrical journeyman, electrical-master, low voltage, elevator, burglar alarm and fire alarm Block prepares master electrician examinations for over one hundred governmental entities. The Block electrical master exams and the Block electrical contractor exams use some of the same questions. Subsequent to the 1982 examinations which form the gravamen of these Petitioners' related proceedings under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, the ECLB has contracted with Block and Associates to prepare the Board's certification licensure examination. The Board has never said anything to Block about wanting to achieve any particular passing rate or wanting to have any particular percentage of the candidates taking the examination achieve a passing score. The Board has never interfered with Block's autonomy in the preparation of the electrical contractor exam. All of Block's electrical contractor examinations include business questions. It is important to test for business skills because an electrical contractor who gets into business trouble may start cutting corners and cutting corners is a hazard to the public. Some of Block's electrical contractor examinations also have specific sections on safety. Block always does a post-administration statistical analysis of the examinations questions it uses. The reason for this is to find out if anything is wrong with the questions; in other words, to determine whether the questions are valid. The computer program used by Block to check the validity of its tests was prepared for Block by a professor in the College of Education at the University of Florida. Block uses a computer to conduct a validity analysis of each test it administers. Findings regarding Rule 21GG- 6.01(1)(c) of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Rule 21GG-6.01(1)(c) of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board reads as follows (with the portion challenged by the Petitioners underscored): The areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination shall be as follows: (a) *** (c) Safety, which shall include but not be limited to, OSHA regulations, life safety codes, and the Fire Safety Code (NFPA). Prior to the December 1981 amendment which is challenged here, Rule 2100-6.01(1)(c) read as follows: The areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination shall be as follows: (a) *** (c) Safety, which shall include but not be limited to, OSHA regulations, life safety codes, and the fire safety code (NFPA 72A, B, C and D). The Board's purpose in amending the rule to delete the reference to "72A, B, C and D" was to make it clear to candidates for examination that the Board' intended to include in the safety portion of its examinations questions from portions of Volume Seven of the NFPA other than Chapters 72 A, B, C, and D of that volume. Volume Seven of the NFPA contains quite a bit of material in addition to the material included in Chapters 72 A, B, C, and D of that volume. In view of the modifying phrase "shall include but not be limited to," the amendment to delete the reference to Chapters 72 A, B, C and D was not a necessary prerequisite to the use of examination questions based on other portions of Volume Seven of the NFPA. The Board could ask the same examination questions before and after the amendment. Several weeks before each examination, the Department of Professional Regulation sent all candidates for examination, including these Petitioners, a notice to appear for the examination. The notice to appear included a list of reference books on which the examination was to be based. That list of reference books contained a specific reference to Volume Seven of the NFPA. All sixteen volumes which comprise the entire NFPA were not listed as reference books. Neither of these Petitioners demonstrated that he or she was genuinely confused or misdirected by the amendment to Rule 21GG-6.01(1)(c). Neither Petitioner contended he or she had studied all sixteen volumes of the NFPA. Instead, both Petitioners studied from the books on the reference list. Neither Petitioner has an application for the examination pending; neither claims an intention to take the examination again. Findings regarding Rule 21GG- 6.01(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board At the time of the examinations which are the subject of these Petitioners' related cases under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, Rule 21GG- 6.01(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board read as follows, in pertinent part: The areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination shall be as follows: Technical, which shall include, but not be limited to, electrical calculations, estimating, designs, and electrical schematics; and which shall be divided into two (2) separate areas, one containing electrical calculations, the other containing Code-related questions not requiring calculations. General business, which shall include but not be limited to, problems relating to accounting, law, insurance, workers' compen- sation and social security; The format of the examination shall be as follows: The portions of the examination con- taining the electrical calculations and $ safety questions shall be open book. The applicant is responsible for bringing and may.. use during these portions the applicable code books, reference materials as approved by the Board, and noiseless mechanical or non- mechanical instruments he wishes to use. The portions of the examination con- taining the noncalculation technical questions and all business questions shall be closed-book. The applicant will not be permitted to use the reference materials listed in 2(a) or any other reference materials. Security measures as set forth by the Department shall be followed during both portions of the examination. The relative grading weight to be assigned to each area of competency shall be approximately as follows: Technical - 60 percent Electrical Calculations-40 percent of Test Code-related questions-20 percent of Test General business - 30 percent Safety - 10 percent An applicant shall be required to achieve a score of a general average of not less than seventy-five percent (75 percent) in order to pass the examination and be certified for licensure. There shall not be a practical or clinical examination. The language quoted above is the language of the relevant portions of the rule as it read after the March 1981 amendments to the rule. The principal amendments in March of 1981 may be summarized as follows: (1) changes which divided technical questions on the examination into two separate areas, (2) changes which made part of the examination open book and part closed book [it was previously all open book, and (3) a change in the minimum passing score from 70 percent to 75 percent. These Petitioners challenge the validity of all three of the principal amendments. As originally proposed, the March 1981 amendments to subsection (2)(a) of Rule 21GG-6.01 would have permitted a candidate to bring "any notes" to the open book portion of the examination. During the adoption process the words "and any notes" were deleted from the amendment by the Board. The words "and any notes" did not appear in Rule 21GG-6.01 prior to the 1981 amendments. Nor was it the practice of the Board prior to 1981 to permit candidates for examination to take any notes into the examination when it was administered by the Board. Findings regarding examination content and relative grading weights In November of 1983 the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board again amended Rule 21GG-6.01(3) to change the relative grading weights of the areas of competency to be tested. After November of 1983 the relative grading weights of the areas of competency were as follows: Technical increased from 60 percent to 65 percent; electrical calculations increased from 40 percent to 45 percent; code related questions remained 20 percent of the examination; general business was decreased from 30 percent to 25 percent of the examination; and safety remained 10 percent of the examination. 5/ The licensing examination given by the Board has historically contained materials testing knowledge of electrical work and also materials testing the business qualifications of the applicants. Since the inception of the Board's licensing exam, the electrical work portions have contained electrical calculations. Throughout the time the Board has been administering licensure examinations for certification, the percentages of the examination devoted to particular subject areas have been based upon the Board's belief as to the appropriate levels of knowledge needed by a certified electrical contractor. The weighting of the examination was equitable when it was weighted 60 percent technical, 30 percent business, and 10 percent safety, and it is still equitable now that it is weighted 65 percent technical, 25 percent business, and 10 percent safety. The Board changed to the current percentages at the suggestion of Block and Associates. The Board's examination has had similar ratios for a long time, at least as far back as 1971. The proportions of the examination devoted to each particular subject matter did not change due to the March 1981 amendments. With the exception of the January 1981 examination put together by O.E.S., electrical calculations had historically been 40 percent of the test. Since the Board felt this percentage should be maintained, and since it was necessary to divide those calculations from the other portion of the technical section (since one would be tested in the closed book portion and the other in the open book portion), the division of the technical part of the exam was set out in the rule. On an electrical contractor licensure examination it is appropriate to include in the area of "technical" questions, questions dealing with the following subjects: electrical calculations, parts of estimating, and designs and electrical schematics. In the "business" portion of an electrical contractor examination, it is appropriate to include questions dealing with the following: accounting, worker compensation, and social security. Findings regarding closed book versus open book examinations Local licensing examinations had, in 1981, included a closed book portion. Local licensing examinations and state licensing examinations given in other states still include such a closed book portion. The basic Block examination has always included a closed book portion. Closed book examinations are not all that unusual in occupational and professional licensure testing. The CPA an Nursing examinations are closed book. Also, virtually all of the electrical examinations administered by Block and Associates include a closed book portion. The advantage of a closed book examination technique is that it is easier to identify the candidates who have had practical experience in the subject matter being tested. A closed book examination is a better test for field experience and for general knowledge of the subject matter being tested. Certain questions known as "anchor" questions was given both in the open book examination before the format change and in the closed book section after the format changed. The relative performance by candidates on the same questions in the two formats shows the format change not to have prejudiced the candidates. Further, an examination analysis of the results of the closed book portions of the ECLB examinations reveals that, based on candidate performance, the closed book portion of the examinations was easier than the open book portion. This also shows that the format change did not prejudice the candidates. Findings regarding "cut scores" From 1972 until the rule changes in 1981, the minimum passing score, or "cut score," set by the Board for the certification licensure examination was 70 percent. Cut scores of both 70 percent and 75 percent are very common cut scores for licensure examinations in the fields of electrical contracting, journeyman electrician, and master electrician, as well as licensure examinations in other occupations and professions. Many local licensure examinations have a 75 percent cut score. Standing alone, the cut score to be applied to a future examination is somewhat lacking in specific significance. A cut score must be considered in relation to the content of the examination to which it is to be applied. All of the testing experts who testified at the hearing agreed that setting an examination cub score is an inherently arbitrary decision. In the final analysis it is a judgment call that cannot be made with scientific exactitude and is unavoidably arbitrary to a certain extent. As explained by one of the Petitioners' testing experts, even though statistical methodology is available for the determination of cut scores, to a large extent the cut score is a random decision, the validity of which can be assessed only in relationship to the specific testing instrument to which it is applied. For example, during the course of Block's preparation of its first licensure examination in 1958 for the City of Ormond Beach, when it came time to decide what cut score to use, the five experts who were preparing the examination talked it over and decided that 75 percent was the equivalent' of a good. "C" when compared to academic grades, and they decided to use 75 percent as their cut score. It is not possible to be much more scientific or precise than that in setting cut scores, especially when one has a group of candidates of varied experience and background taking the examination. A skilled test preparer can construct an examination of equal validity within a range of cut scores from 65 percent to 80 percent if the test preparer knows at the time of constructing the examination what the cut score will be. With any cut score in that range, a skilled test preparer can raise or lower the percentage of candidates who will actually pass the examination by careful selection of the questions to be used on the examination. By using easy questions, the person preparing the examination can insure that more people will pass a test with a high cut score. Similarly, by using hard questions, the person preparing the examination can insure that fewer people will pass an examination with a low cut score. On some standardized licensure examinations the cut score is determined after the examination results are examined. In other words, the examination results are "curved" based on the performance of the group of candidates who take a particular session of the examination and the actual cut score is determined in relationship to the raw scores achieved by each particular group of candidates. This flexible method of setting cut scores seems to work well on standardized examinations which are administered to large numbers of candidates, but it is questionable whether it would work very well with small groups of candidates. The Board's examinations have historically been administered to small groups of candidates. Findings regarding the effects of changes on testing instruments. In order for a licensure examination to accomplish the purpose for which it is administered, it should, of course, be valid and reliable. Several of the Petitioners' expert witnesses described what might be characterized as the best way to make changes to an examination or as the ideal way to make changes to an examination. Nevertheless, the manner in which the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board went about making the changes to the examination which were incorporated in the March 1981 rule changes was a reasonable and logical response to the circumstances faced by the Board. It was perhaps not the best way to have resolved matters, but it was a reasonable response. The Board's action in this regard was not arbitrary or capricious. Even the Petitioners' most persuasive expert in the field of testing conceded that if the content experts (in this case the Board members) felt that given a specific content domain and given a specific item bank the testing instrument measured less than minimum competency, a logical response would be to raise the cut score. Another logical reaction to that situation would be to change a portion of the examination from open book to closed book. Both actions would be reasonable and logical responses to that type of problem. Where there has been a modification in the format of a testing instrument, an accepted methodology for analysis of the effects of format modification is the use of repetitive questions from prior testing instruments. These repetitive questions are known as "anchor" questions. If a statistically significant deviation in performance on the anchor questions is demonstrated, the format modification requires further analysis through other statistical tools. However, if an analysis of the anchor questions shows inconclusive or mixed results on the anchor questions (such as equal or improved candidate performance on those questions), it may then be concluded that the format change is not significant to candidate performance and may be an appropriate format change relative to the profession or occupation being examined. Content validity is the most practical' measure of the validity of a licensure examination. The content validity of an examination depends on the extent to which the questions on an examination may be accepted as representative of performance within a specifically defined content domain of which the examination instrument is a sample. Content validation would be the best way to determine the validity of the examinations which were administered in 1982 pursuant to the March 1981 rule amendments. One method of establishing content validity is to have a group of experts identify the domains of knowledge that are applicable to the profession or occupation being tested. The establishment of content validity relies heavily on the opinions and judgments of people who are experts in the relevant profession or occupation. Expert judgment plays a integral part in developing the definition of the content domain to be tested. To the extent that the content domain of Boar examinations was established by the March 1981 amendments to Rule 21GG-6.01(3), the content domain was established on the basis of the expert judgment of persons who were experts in the field of electrical contracting, namely, the members of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. The relative grading weights established in the 1981 amendments to Rule 21GG-6.01(3) have at least a possible correlation to electrical contractor competence. In fact, the persuasive expert testimony establishes that those relative grading weights did bear a reasonable relationship to electrical contractor competence. The current slightly different relative grading weights also bear a reasonable relationship to electrical contractor competence even though there has been no recent change in the nature of the responsibilities of electrical contractors. In this regard it must be remembered that testing is not an exact science and no test for minimum competency can ever be expected to be an exact model of actual work experience. The best that can be expected is a reasonable model. There are various accepted methodologies for the creation of standardized examinations, adherence to which tends to enhance the likelihood that the examination instrument finally produced will be valid and reliable. However, adherence to those accepted procedures is not a necessary prerequisite to creation of a valid and reliable examination. This is particularly true when one is going to be testing small groups of people with varied backgrounds instead of the massive groups of people with similar backgrounds for whom standardized tests are more typically designed. In the final analysis the only practical and reliable measure of the validity of an examination is by statistical analysis of the examination after it has been administered. Given the nature of the circumstances faced by the Board at the time of the March 1981 amendments to the examination format and cut score, given the nature of the pool of candidates to be examined, given the nature of the changes contemplated by the Board, and given the very nature of the process of testing for minimum competency--which involves perhaps as much art as it does science-- there is no study or data which would have been particularly useful to the Board in helping to determine exactly what the effect of their changes would be. Such effects can only be determined or measured with any degree of accuracy after the administration of an examination that incorporated the changes. Following the administration of such an examination, it is possible to perform a statistical analysis of all questions used on the examination and to eliminate or give credit for any questions which are shown by statistical analysis to be invalid or unreliable. This is precisely the process that is used by Block in the validation of their examinations and is an accepted testing procedure. It would have served no useful purpose to have conducted a trial run of an examination using licensed certified electrical contractors as a test group for the new examination format. First, it would be virtually impossible to try to put together an accurate cross-section of certified electrical contractors to use as a test group. Second, one would expect them all to pass the examination, so when they did so nothing of value would have been learned. Finally, the administration of such a trial run would risk the possibility of compromising examination question security. One aspect of accepted methodology for the preparation of standardized examinations is the definition of the content domain of the examination, i.e., a determination of what knowledge is essential to demonstrate that the candidates for licensure are minimally competent. This aspect of examination preparation is often accomplished by performing a formal job analysis, which is, in essence, a study of all of the usual tasks performed by a person engaged in the occupation or profession to be tested, including an evaluation of the relative importance of each of those tasks to minimum competence. The content domain can also be defined on the basis of the judgment of a group of experts in the occupation or profession to be tested. With the exception of the lay members who were added in recent years, all of the members of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board are, and have been, persons certified to engage in electrical contracting in the state of Florida and actively engaged in the electrical contracting business. Therefore, at all relevant times all of the professional members of the Board had extensive personal knowledge of what was involved in the practice of electrical contracting, which personal knowledge was as useful in defining content domain as would have been a formal job analysis. (In this regard it is important to note that even with the addition of lay members to the Board in recent years, the experienced professional members have continued to constitute a substantial majority of the Board.) Findings regarding Rule 21GG-6.0 of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Rule 21GG-6.03 of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board reads as follows: An examinee is entitled to review his examination questions, answers, papers, grades and grading key used in the certification examination; however, no applicant may copy any materials provided for his review. Such review shall be conducted during regular business hours, in the presence of a representative of the Board at the Board's official headquarters. If, following the review of his exami- nation, an examinee believes that an error was made in the grading of his examination, or in the evaluation of his answers, he may request the Board to review his examination. Requests for Board review must be in writing, state with specificity the reason why review is requested, and be received within thirty (30) days after the examinee received notice that he failed the examination. (3) Upon receipt of a request for Board review, the examination shall be reviewed by the Board at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. If it is found that an error was made, the grade received by the examinee may be adjusted to reflect the correction. The examinee shall be notified of the final decision. The Petitioners' only challenge to Rule 21GG-6.03 is predicated upon their concern that it may be misapplied to them by the Board. Findings regarding Rule 21-11.11(3) of the Department of Professional Regulation as it existed prior to the October 1982 amendments Prior to the October 1982 amendments, Rule 21-11.11(3) of the Department of Professional Regulation read as follows: (3) Examination grade reviews shall be conducted at a site designated by the Department. The candidate and his/her attorney or other qualified representative shall be allowed to attend the examination grade review. A candidate may attend only one review per examination administration. The above quoted version of the rule was in effect at the time of the Petitioners' reviews of their January and July 1982 examinations. Findings regarding Rule 21-11.11(3) of the Department of Professional Regulation, as amended in October of 198 Rule 21-11.11(3) of the Department of Professional Regulation, as amended in October of 1982, reads as follows, in pertinent part: A candidate taking a Department exam- nation may request and receive an appointment for review until such times as the exam- ination records are destroyed in accordance with Chapters 455, 119 and 267, Florida Statutes. However, unless otherwise provided by a rule of the appropriate Board within the Department, candidates may review their exam- ination for the purpose of filing objections to the examination for the Board's consideration under the following conditions and time frame: Within thirty (30) days of the date of the grade notification letter the candidate shall notify the Department of his/her desir to review the examination for the purpose of filing objections for consideration. Such review shall have been completed within the next thirty (30) days after the first thirty (30) days defined in (a) above. At the examination review, the candi- date shall be permitted to record on forms provided by the Department any and all objections to the examination the candidate desires the appropriate Board to review. Such forms shall remain in the custody of the Office of Examination Services for presen- tation to the appropriate Board at the next available Board meeting as an official agenda item. The candidate shall not copy" questions from the test booklet. The candidate may write on a separate paper in the presence of the Office of Examination Services employee, any objection or question he/she has to the written examination. The candidate shall leave the written objections and questions with the Office of Examination Services employee when he/she leaves the review room but she/she shall be permitted to leave with a form listing the question numbers he/she finds to be controversial. In the instance of a written exami- nation, all objections will be presented to the appropriate Board for consideration. Upon completion of the Board's review of written examination items the Department shall notify the reviewing candidate of the Board's decision. If the Board does not concur with the candidate's objections then the candidate will be notified in writing of this and the thirty (30) day appeal time per- iod shall begin to run from the date of this notice. Findings regarding Rule 21- 11.11(13) of the Department of Professional Regulation (later renumbered as Rule 21-11.11(3)(1)j Rule 21-11.11(13) of the Department of Professional Regulation, which was later renumbered as Rule 21-11.11(3)(1), reads as follows: If the consultant finds that the original grade was not rendered in accordance with the grading criteria, then he/she twill regrade that portion, or the entire examination, whichever is appropriate, pursuant to appli- cable statutes and rules. If it is not possible to regrade the examination, the candidate will be allowed to retake the examination at no charge. It is clear from the text of Rule 21-11.11(3)(j) that the language of Rule 21-11.11(3)(1) quoted immediately above is intended to apply only to practical examinations. It does not purport to apply to written examinations. These Petitioners took only written examinations, they have not taken any practical examinations. Findings regarding Rule 21-11.14 of the Department of Professional Regulation Rule 21-11.14 of the Department of Professional Regulation reads as follows, in pertinent part: Unless otherwise provided by a rule of the appropriate board within the Department, Security and Monitoring procedures shall be as follows: (10) Disposition of Test Booklets. Secured processing of Answer Sheets Test booklets for the state devel- oped examinations shall be disposed of and filed in accordance with the following procedure: 1. Ten copies of the examination book- lets shall be retained for ninety (90) days. This procedure shall insure that there are adequate copies of the booklets available for the board to review in their review of preliminary analysis of the examination and review sessions if review responsibilities are retained by the board. After the above defined ninety (90) day period the retention schedule shall change from ten copies to four copies. In the event any irregularity occurs during the examination with any state developed booklet, it shall be the examination supervisor's responsibility to prepare a detailed report of such irregularity and to retain the booklet in question in the secured files for a period of ninety (90) days. Destruction of examination booklets and related materials described in B.2.b., above: When in accordance with procedure, it is appropriate to destroy test booklets, it shall be the Archives's responsibility to schedule such destruction. In all instances there shall be evidenced in writing by the examination supervisor and a witness on a form which shall evidence the date of destruction and the official in charge of such destruction and a witness. When examination booklets are being prepared by the Department of Professional Regulation prior to an examination, the booklets are carefully inspected to make sure that all of the booklets are identical. Following that inspection the booklets are sealed and stored in a secure place in order to insure, among other things, that no changes are made to any of the examination booklets before they are handed out to the candidates. After an examination is given, the Department of Professional Regulation retrieves all of the examination booklets, including all booklets that were used by all of the candidates, and retains them in a secure place until the excess booklets can be destroyed. The examination supervisor selects the booklets which are to be retained from among the booklets that were not handed out to the candidates at the examination. In the normal course of events all of the examination booklets that were actually handled by the candidates at the examination are destroyed within a very few months of the date of the examination. With the exception of the examination booklet of one other candidate (which exception is not relevant to the disposition of this rule challenge proceeding), all of the examination booklets which were handed out to candidates during the examinations taken by these two Petitioners were destroyed approximately 90 days after each of the examinations. When such destruction took place, the Department retained copies of the examination booklets which had not been used by any candidate, which copies were identical to the copies that had been handed out to the candidates during the examination. As part of the examination instructions, all candidates for examination are advised not toe write anything in their examination booklets because all of the booklets used by the candidates will be shredded. They are specifically told to do all of their computations on sheets of work paper that are provided to them at the examination. All candidates are specifically told that the only things they turn in that will be saved are their answer sheets and their sheets of work paper. Findings regarding "unwritten" and "unpublished" rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. The findings of fact immediately below relate to the eight "unwritten" and "unpublished" alleged rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board which are described in subparagraphs (F), (O), (P), (V), (X), (Y), (Z), and (FF) at pages 1 through 5 of the Petition. (The descriptions of these alleged rules are quoted at pages 2 through 6 of this Final Order.) One of these "unpublished" rules is alleged to be a rule to the effect that the Board requires more than minimum competency in order for a candidate to receive state certification and licensure as an electrical contractor. The other seven "unwritten" or "unpublished" rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board alleged in the Petition are all related in one way or another to the Board's alleged free form actions in the course of its review of the two examinations which have been challenged by these Petitioners in related proceedings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. None of the evidence regarding these matters proved the existence of an agency statement of general applicability purporting in and of itself to have the direct and consistent effect of law. For reasons which are explained in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Final Order, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board has any "unwritten" or unpublished5? rules such as those described in subparagraphs (F), (O), (P), (V), (X), (Y), (Z), and (FF) of the Petition. 6/ Findings regarding "unwritten" and "unpublished" rules of the Department of Professional Regulation The findings of fact immediately below relate to the six "unwritten" and "unpublished" alleged rules of the Department of Professional Regulation which are described in subparagraphs (G), (J), (1), (L), (Q), and (R) at pages 1 through 5 of the Petition. The descriptions of these alleged rules are quoted at pages 2 through 6 of this Final Order.) These six "unwritten" or "unpublished" alleged rules of the Department of Professional Regulation are all related in one way or another to actions of functionaries of the Department in the course of performing the Department's role in the administration and review of the two examinations which have been challenged by these Petitioners in related proceedings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. None of the evidence regarding these matters proved the existence of an agency statement of general applicability purporting in and of itself to have the direct and consistent effect of law. For reasons which are explained in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Final Order, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Department of Professional Regulation has any "unwritten" or "unpublished" rules such as those described in subparagraphs (G),(J), (I), (L), (Q), and (R).7 Findings regarding "unwritten" and "unpublished" rules of both the E1Electrical -Contractors' Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation The findings of fact immediately below relate to the ten "unwritten" and "unpublished" alleged rules of both the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation which are described in subparagraphs (M), (N), (S), (T), (U), (AA), (BB), (CC), (DD), and (EE) at pages 1 through 5 of the Petition. (The descriptions of these alleged rules are quoted at pages 2 through 6 of this Final Order.) These ten "unwritten" or "unpublished" alleged rules of both the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation are all related in one way or another to actions allegedly taken by the Board and the Department in the performance of their respective functions related to the administration and review of the two examinations which have been challenged by these Petitioners in related proceedings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. None of the evidence regarding these matters proved the existence of an agency statement of general applicability purporting in and of itself to have the direct and consistent effect of law. For reasons which are explained in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Final Order, the evidence is insufficient to establish that both the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation have any "unwritten" or "unpublished" rules such as those described in subparagraphs (M), (N), (S), (T), (U), (AA), (BB), (CC), (DD), and (EE) of the Petition.8
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”), notice of intent to award a contract to Intervenor, Blue Ray’z Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC (“Blue”), for maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) equipment and components located at various facilities along Florida’s Turnpike System, is contrary to DOT’s governing statutes, rules, or the bid specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact DOT is an agency of the state of Florida tasked with procuring the construction of all roads designated as part of the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, or any roads placed under DOT’s supervision by law. On March 10, 2017, DOT published its bid solicitation for ITB-DOT-16/17-8017-AC (the “ITB”), seeking bids from contractors for maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement of HVAC equipment and components at various facilities along Florida’s Turnpike (SR 91) milepost 172.0 to milepost 312.0; Southern Connector (SR 417) milepost 0.0 to milepost 6.5; Beachline Expressway (SR 528) milepost 0.0 to milepost 8.4; Seminole Expressway (SR 417) milepost 37.7 to milepost 55.0; and Daniel Webster Western Beltway (SR 429) milepost 0.9 to milepost 11.0. The scope of work of the ITB requires all labor, materials, and incidentals necessary to provide maintenance and repair of 232 HVAC units located at 65 facilities along Florida’s Turnpike System. The contract is for one year, with three one- year renewal periods. The 65 facilities span the distance from Wildwood in the north at milepost 304 to past Yeehaw Junction in the south to milepost 172, and from a westernmost point on State Road 429 at milepost 11 (Orlando area) to the easternmost section of State Road 417. Under the ITB, the vendor is required to conduct bimonthly preventative maintenance services on each HVAC unit; a total of five visits per site, per year. The vendor is also required during the first month of the contract and any subsequent annual renewal periods to conduct one annual preventative maintenance service. The annual maintenance is typically more extensive than the 60-day maintenance. However, the bi-monthly and annual maintenance services require, on average, 30 minutes for each of the 232 HVAC units. The vendor is also required to provide unscheduled, emergency services to diagnose problems and make necessary repairs of units that are not operating properly. An unscheduled repair could take several hours to complete, and there have been occasions where more than one unit needed a repair at the same time. The vendor must be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, to provide unscheduled, emergency services. Most air conditioning work is treated as an emergency, which requires the vendor to respond within three hours. The ITB includes specifications, schedules, a list of facilities, and other materials. Section 9.1 of the ITB requires bidders to meet certain minimum qualifications, including demonstrating the experience necessary to satisfactorily perform the services within the scope of work. Of particular relevance to the instant case is the following language on page 12 of the ITB: Certification of Experience The organized business enterprise (e.g. corporation, LLC or sole proprietorship) shall have been licensed and actively involved in the type of business requested for a minimum of three (3) years. Prior experience shall specifically be related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the Scope of Work for this Contract. Submit documentation of the work experience with the bid package. Pursuant to section 9.2, “[f]ailure by the bidder to provide the above item(s) will constitute a non-responsive determination. Bids found to be non-responsive will not be considered.” The Certification of Experience requirement is also referenced on page 2 of the ITB, followed by this statement: “The Department will review carefully to determine if the Vendor is responsive, responsible and qualified in the area of work contemplated by this Contract.” A two-page “Certification of Experience Documentation” form is located on pages 23 and 24 of the ITB. The form reiterates, in pertinent part: Prior experience shall specifically be related to the technical scope and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work for this Contract. Submit documentation of the work experience with the bid package. The Department will review carefully to determine if the Vendor(s) is responsive, responsible and qualified in the area of work contemplated by this Contract. Describe your work experience in detail for the minimum period required, beginning with your current or most recent project. Use a separate block to describe each project. (Print out additional copies of the form or attach additional sheets as necessary.) The form includes many lines, spaces, and separate blocks for bidders to provide the client names, addresses, and telephone numbers; dates of service; dollar value of each project; client project manager for each project; and a description of each project. The form includes enough lines and spaces for bidders to provide the required information for up to seven clients. The bidders are directed to attach additional sheets as necessary. The deadline for submission of bids was Tuesday, April 4, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. On April 4, 2017, DOT received and opened bids from four vendors in response to the ITB, which revealed the following bid tabulation prices: (1) All Seasons ($158,446.00); (2) Blue ($128,630.00); (3) Kenyon & Partners, LLC ($279,183.00); and (4) Florida Drawbridges, Inc. ($331,183.00). On April 4, 2017, DOT posted a notice of intent to award the contract for the work described in the ITB to Blue. Notwithstanding the requirement for each bidder to demonstrate prior experience “specifically . . . related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the Scope of Work for this Contract,” Blue failed to demonstrate such experience in the Certification of Experience Documentation form. The first client listed on Blue’s Certification of Experience Documentation form is the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”). With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of June 2015 to present and a project dollar value of $5,000.00 per year. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Provide HVAC Maintenance, Repair & Service @ Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center.” At hearing, Mr. Davis, the sole owner and operator of Blue, conceded the work involved a total of only 12 HVAC units, in two DJJ buildings, and at the same location. The second client listed is Florida Environmental Compliance Corp. (“FECC”). With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of 2012 to present and no dollar value for the project was provided. As to the project description, Blue stated: “HVAC Maintenance, Repair & Service. Installation.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for FECC involved a total of only eight HVAC units at two locations (Polk County–two units, and Orlando-six units). The third client listed is DOT. With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of July through August 2015, and the dollar value of the project was $21,300.00. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Installation of Recorder Room Ductless split system.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for DOT involved the installation of only three HVAC units in three locations at a cost of $7,100.00 each. The fourth client listed is CVS. With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of July through August 2014, and the dollar value of the project was $17,000.00. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Installation of Mini split system in CVS store clinics.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for CVS involved the installation of only two HVAC units at one store location.2/ DOT did not review Blue’s Certification of Experience Documentation form to determine whether Blue demonstrated the necessary qualifications and experience required by the ITB. At hearing, none of the witnesses presented by DOT could testify as to Blue’s demonstration of prior experience, specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. Leonard Robinson, a contract manager for Jacobs Engineering, the consultant for the project, testified he was involved only “to a very small extent” in the review of Blue’s bid. Mr. Robinson testified that “the only thing I had to do was to award the bid per the lowest bidder as written in the contract and state the reason why I’m doing so and also sign the Conflict of Interest form. That is it.” Mr. Robinson did not review Blue’s qualifications or past experience, and he could not say that Blue could perform the work described in the ITB. Alan Chua is the capital improvement procurement administrator for Jacobs Engineering. Mr. Chua evaluated Blue’s bid to determine whether it corresponded to the engineer’s estimate. He testified he reviewed the Certification of Experience Documentation form, but only as to the dates and to the limited extent necessary to determine whether the projects listed by Blue satisfied the three years of experience required by the contract. Mr. Chua conceded he did not review the project descriptions for the four referenced clients identified on the form, and he could not say whether any of the four projects identified on the form were similar in volume or technical scope to that specified in the ITB. Trisa Thomas is a contracts development manager for Jacobs Engineering. Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the Certification Experience Documentation form. Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the dates to determine whether the projects listed by Blue satisfied the three years or more of experience required by the contract. She further testified she reviewed the dates, project manager, and project descriptions. As to the project descriptions, Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the type of work Blue did for the company to see if it was related to the work specified in the ITB. However, she did not consider the volume of Blue’s work. Significantly, Ms. Thomas testified: Q: Okay. All right. Do you know why the dollar value of the project is on the Certification of Experience Documentation? A: Just to get an idea what they--how much they probably performed. Q: So would that help you get an idea of the volume of work that they performed for that client? A: I’m not even really sure if that played a factor. Q: And when you say, I’m not sure if that played a factor, what--what are you referring to? A: Well I guess what I’m saying is, I’m-- that’s really not where my concentration is. I’m looking at the years, the project description, what they--the type of work they performed for the--for that agency, and if the references are credible or, you know, satisfactory. Q: Okay. And when you say they’re satisfactory, what do you look at to determine if they’re satisfactory? A: Based on the service that they provided to them, the vendor will let us know how pleased they were with the work that they provided to their agency. Q: All right. Looking at this Joint Exhibit 5, pages 5 and 6, which places did Blue Ray’z perform HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and repair services that were of the same technical scope as the Invitation to Bid? A: I see on the Certification of Experience where they provided HVAC repair and service installation. Also I see where they provided installation of a recorder room. But the volume, there’s--I don’t--I wouldn’t be able to determine that. Q: And let me ask my question again. So which places did Blue Ray’z perform HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services that were of the similar technical scope? A: I don’t know. Q: What maintenance, repair and installation or replacement services did Blue Ray’z provide to another vendor that was similar to the volume of work specified in the Invitation to Bid? A: The volume work? I don’t know. Q: Do you know if the bid by Blue Ray’z was reviewed by anybody to determine if the experience was similar in size, technical scope and volume of work specified in the Scope of Work? A: I don’t know. Tr., Vol. I, pp. 121-123. Santiago Alvarez is the facilities and telecommunications administrator for the Turnpike Enterprise, which is part of DOT. Mr. Alvarez testified he did not review the Certification of Experience Documentation form in any detail. He just looked to confirm the documents were included in the bid package. Sheree Merting is the contract services administrator for DOT’s Turnpike Enterprise. Ms. Merting testified she was not involved in the evaluation of Blue’s bid. Amanda Cruz is a contract analyst for DOT. She did not review Blue’s bid to determine whether Blue was qualified by having the experience required by the ITB. DOT established specific requirements for the ITB to determine responsiveness and then failed to determine if Blue had prior work experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. DOT awarded the bid to Blue because it was the lowest bidder, without considering whether Blue demonstrated prior experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. DOT awarded the bid to Blue because it was the lowest bidder, even though Blue failed to demonstrate in the Certification of Experience Documentation form that it had prior experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. In sum, Blue is not a responsive and responsible vendor, and DOT’s proposed action is contrary to the bid specifications, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary and capricious.3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Transportation, enter a final order rescinding the proposed award to Intervenor, Blue Ray’z Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 28th day of August, 2017.
The Issue The central issue in this case is Petitioner's challenge to part III of the licensure examination as set forth in his letter dated September 8, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert E. Rosser, is a candidate for licensure as a general contractor. Petitioner has taken the examination to become a licensed general contractor consecutively over the last four years. As a result of the twelve attempts at the examination, Petitioner has passed parts I and II on two separate test dates. In his attempts to pass the examination Petitioner has enrolled in and studied for the examination with two approved construction schools. Petitioner scored a 68 on part III of the general contractor's examination for the June 16, 1994 test date. Petitioner timely challenged questions related to part III (Project Management) of the general contractor's examination given on June 16, 1994. Petitioner attended a review session and claimed that as to question 2 his scratch sheet from the examination demonstrates he had used formulas properly and that he had inadvertently marked the incorrect response on the answer grid sheet. The minimum score required to pass part III of the examination was 70. For each of the challenged questions in part III (2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 20) Respondent presented competent evidence to support the correct answer as scored by the Department. The Petitioner did not present credible evidence to dispute the accuracy of the answers which had been deemed correct by the Department. Based upon those answers, the Petitioner's score sheet was tabulated correctly. The questions challenged were clearly and unambiguously worded and contained sufficient factual information to reach a correct answer. The examination was open book and applicants were allowed to use reference materials. All current techniques were considered before the correct answer was chosen. All knowledge needed to reach a correct answer was within a candidate's expected range of expertise. The Department's scoring of part III was not arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. For each of the challenged questions, the correct answer was scored at a higher percentage than the answers marked by Petitioner. In fact, for question 4, for example, 79 percent of the examinees scored the correct answer while only 3 percent marked the same answer as Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Testing enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the general contractor's examination. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5214 Rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner did not number the paragraphs denoted as "STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS". The lettered paragraphs are addressed as listed; but where no letter identified the paragraph, the rulings are as to the paragraphs in the order of presentation. Paragraph [A] is accepted. Paragraph [B] is accepted to the extent it identifies Petitioner as a candidate otherwise rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.005 is an error. It is accepted that the minimum passing grade for the challenged part is 70 percent out of 100 percent. Paragraph [C] is accepted in substance; however, Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.003 is an error. The next paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is accepted as a correct statement of procedural review. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 4 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 7 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 9 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 11 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 17 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 18 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 20 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph [D] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. Paragraph [E] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Department and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [F] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [G] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Division and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [H] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [I] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [J] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [K] is rejected as contrary to the record in this case since an order of prehearing instruction was not entered in this case and interrogatories were not served. Paragraph [L] is rejected as irrelevant, not a statement of fact, and contrary to the record. Moreover, Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. Paragraph [M] is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [N] is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [O] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [P] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 4 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 1 is accepted as statement of procedural information. Paragraph 2 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. Paragraph 3 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Rosser P.O. Box 560541 Miami, Florida 33256-0541 William M. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-6310
