The Issue Whether Luis A. Gonzalez earned a passing grade on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14-15, 1988?
Findings Of Fact Luis A. Gonzalez took the Professional Engineer Examination administered by the Department of professional Regulation on April 14-15, 1988. By notice dated July 22, 1988, Mr. Gonzalez was informed by the Respondent's Office of Examination Services that he had failed the Professional Engineer Examination. Question 122 on the Principles & Practices of Engineering Examination, Form 8804, involving Civil/Sanitary/Structural engineering, provided the following: SITUATION: An old, large, retirement community apartment complex has reported sewer overflow and plumbing discharge problems. You are an engineer assigned to review the flow and sizing of the one main sanitary sewer exiting and carrying the total flow of the complex, with the objective of correcting the problem. Review with the manager, and inspection of the plans, reveal there are 490 residential units with an estimated continuing residence population of 1,475. Water bills are paid individually. REQUIREMENTS: NOTE: Use and-show equations for calculations. Do not use a nomograph or hydraulic slide rule. Citing your assumptions and sources, calculate the average, maximum, and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, from the total complex. You measure the main sewer from the project and examine the plans and find it is 10" round ID, VCP, with a slope of 0.0045. Inspection leads to an estimate of n 0/015 (fair) because of age. Calculate theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge. Calculate depth and velocity of flow for your estimated maximum flow rate, if you can conclude the sewer is not overloaded. Mr. Gonzalez was instructed to include assumptions and citations in support of his answer to Question 122. The citations included by Mr. Gonzalez in answering part (a) of Question 122, although questioned by the grader of Question 122, were adequate. Mr. Gonzalez failed to list assumptions which he should have taken into account in answering part (a) of Question 122, concerning inflow, infiltration or exfiltration. In answering part (a) of Question 122, Mr. Gonzalez determined "estimated flow." In calculating estimated flow, Mr. Gonzalez multiplied the population of the complex (1,475) times an estimated water use per person of 100 gallons per day. In support of Mr. Gonzalez's use of 100 gallons per person water use, Mr. Gonzalez cited the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, Fourth Edition, and the ASCE Manual on Engineering Practice No. 36. Mr. Gonzalez also provided other references at the formal hearing to support his use of 100 gallons per day. The use of 100 gallons a day per person in answering part (a) of Question 122 by Mr. Gonzalez would be correct only if the problem involved a residential community. The citations used by Mr. Gonzalez indicate that 100 gallons per day is generally acceptable for residential communities or "[i]n the absence of any better basis . . . ." Question 122, however, involves an apartment complex and not a residential community. The weight of the evidence presented at the formal hearing indicates that for an apartment complex an estimated water use of 60 to 80 gallons per day per person should be used. Even some of the references provided by Mr. Gonzalez at the formal hearing support this conclusion. For example, Petitioner's exhibit 5 indicates that a wastewater flow of 67 to 79 gallons per person per day should be used for "[m]ultiple-family dwellings (apartments)." Mr. Gonzalez's use of 100 gallons per day in answering part (a) of Question 122 was incorrect. Mr. Gonzalez failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of flow in answering Question 122. Although Mr. Gonzalez demonstrated an understanding of full flow, he failed to demonstrate an understanding of partial flow. Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (b) of Question 122 was adequate. Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (c) of Question 122 was incorrect. Mr. Gonzalez did not dispute this conclusion at the forma1 hearing. Mr. Gonzalez was awarded a score of 4 for his solution of Question 122. Question 122 was graded pursuant to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline (DPR Exhibit #4). This Outling provides that a grade of 4 is to be awarded under the following circumstances: UNQUALIFIED: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in more than one ASPECT of one CATEGORY. BU. Fails to demonstrate an understanding of flow and velocity calculations for pipes flowing full or partially full; or contains multiple errors; or one part is missing or wrong with other gross or multiple errors; or the record is deficient; or in combination. A grade of 5 was to awarded under circumstances similar to the circumstances for awarding a score of 4, except that a score of 5 is appropriate only if an "[a]pplicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in [only] one ASPECT of one CATEGORY." The Respondent properly concluded that Mr. Gonzalez is entitled to a score of 4 for his answer to Question 122 and not a score of 5. Mr. Gonzalez failed to "demonstrate an understanding of flow . . . calculations for pipes flowing . . . partially full . . . ." His answer also "contains multiple errors" and at least "one part is . . . wrong." Finally, Mr. Gonzalez's answer to Question 122 "failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in more than one ASPECT of one CATEGORY" as opposed to "[only] one ASPECT of one CATEGORY." [Emphasis added]. Question 123 of the Principles & Practice of Engineering Examination, Form 8804, involving Civil/Sanitary/Structural engineering, includes parts (a) through (j). Mr. Gonzalez questioned parts (b), (d) and (e) of Question 123. In pertinent part, Question 123 provides the following: SITUATION: In a detailed study of traffic flow on one lane of a 2-lane urban freeway, the following data were collected: Average Distance between the front bumper of successive vehicles 75 feet Space Mean Speed = 33 mph Time Mean Speed = 32 mph REQUIREMENTS: (b) Determine the traffic density. Assuming that the 30th highest hourly volume is to be used for design purposes on this highway, what is a reasonable estimate of the 30th highest hourly volume in one direction on this facility? Briefly justify any assumptions made. Determine the most widely accepted value of the capacity of a freeway lane operating under ideal conditions of uninterrupted flow. Mr. Gonzalez was instructed to include assumptions and citations in support of his answer to Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez answered part (b) of Question 123 by calculating a density of 70.40. The grader of Question 123 circled this answer and wrote "DECIMAL." The Respondent agreed at the formal hearing that the use of decimals by Mr. Gonzalez was insignificant. In answering part (d) of Question 123 Mr. Gonzalez failed to include adequate assumptions. Although the statements made by Mr. Gonzalez in answering part (d) of Question 123 are correct, his equation is wrong. Mr. Gonzalez did not offer adequate proof at the formal hearing that his response to part (d) of Question 123 was correct. In answering part (e) of Question 123 Mr. Gonzalez assumed a capacity of 2,000 cars per hour. The grader of Question 123 indicated that this capacity is an "obsolete value." The Solutions to be used in grading the Professional Engineer Examination and, in particular, Question 123, indicates the following: Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual or other similar sources, the capacity of a multi-lane freeway lane operating under ideal conditions is 2,000 vehicles per hour. ANSWER Although Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (e) of Question 123 is consistent with this solution, the capacity of a multi-lane freeway lane operating under ideal conditions, based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual is actually 2,800 vehicles per hour and not 2,000 vehicles per hour. The answer to part (e) of Question 123 provided in the Solutions used by graders of the Professional Engineer Examination and Mr. Gonzalez's answer are therefore incorrect. The Solutions provided to graders are to be used only to assist graders and are not binding on them. Although Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (e) of Question 123 is consistent with the Solutions provided, the answer is incorrect. Therefore, the grader properly took into account Mr. Gonzalez's incorrect solution to part (e) of Question 123. Even if Mr. Gonzalez is given credit for his response to part (e) of Question 123, his grade for Question 123 will not change. Mr. Gonzalez correctly answered parts (a)-(c) and (f)-(j) of Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez was awarded a score of 8 points for his answer to Question 123. Question 123 was graded pursuant to a Six Level Item Specific Scoring Plan (155P). The Plan provides that a grade of 8 is to be awarded under the following circumstances: CLEARLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied with at least one at a higher than minimum level. Correct approach but a solution with math errors or answers outside allowable tolerances for parts (d), (e), and (h) or An [sic] slightly incomplete solution. The next highest grade which can be awarded for Question 123 is 10 points, the maximum award possible for Question 123. Ten points are to be awarded under the following circumstances: HIGHLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied. -Presentation -may lack in completeness or equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. Results within allowable tolerance. Correct approach and correct solution within allowable tolerances for parts (d), (e), and (h) and correct interpretation of results. All parts complete. The Respondent properly concluded that Mr. Gonzalez is entitled to a score of 8 for his answer to Question 123 and not a score of 10. Mr. Gonzalez did not satisfy all categories and he failed to arrive at the "correct solution within allowable tolerances for parts (d), [and] (e) . . . " in answering Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez failed to prove that he should have been awarded a score of 10 for Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez failed to prove that he should be awarded an additional point on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14-15, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Engineers issue a final order concluding that Luis A. Gonzalez's grade on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14- 15, 1988, was a failing grade. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 6th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX Case Number 88-6056 Mr. Gonzalez has submitted a letter dated March 21, 1989, containing proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. Mr. Gonzalez's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Paragraphs 1-2, 6 Not proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 3 The first sentence is a statement of the issue concerning Question 122. The second and third sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation established water per day usage is for regulatory purposes and not necessarily consistent with the engineering principles to be used in answering questions on the Professional Engineer Examination. References which should have been used in answering Question 122 indicate that a water use rate of 67 to 79 gallons per day should have been used for apartments. The letter referred to was not accepted into evidence and can not form any basis for a finding of fact. Paragraph 4 The first and fifth sentences are accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21. The second and fourth sentences are not relevant to this proceeding. The third sentence is based upon a letter apparently received after the formal hearing. It cannot be taken into account in this proceeding. The sixth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The grader used the correct information and not "personal conviction." Although it is true that Mr. Gonzalez used the most recent data he was aware of concerning vehicles per hour, the fact remains that the value he used at the time of the examination was incorrect. Paragraph 5 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Gonzalez included two references with his letter of March 21, 1989, which were not offered at the formal hearing. Those references cannot be relied upon in this case and have played no part in making the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Luis A Gonzalez 7419 Sandy Bluff Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the allegations of the administrative complaints are correct, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is charged with responsibility for regulation of the practice of engineering within the State of Florida. At all times material to these cases, the Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a professional engineer holding license PE40904. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Joseph Berryman, P.E., a professional engineer licensed by the State of Florida. Mr. Berryman was accepted as an expert in structural engineering design, including aluminum structure design. Mr. Berryman's testimony regarding deficiencies in the Respondent's design of the projects referenced herein was clear and persuasive. In response, the Respondent testified that the referenced projects met applicable professional standards, including load and stress standards. The Respondent's primary engineering experience has apparently been in the realm of civil, not structural, engineering. According to Mr. Berryman, the Respondent's calculations included material errors, reflected structural elements other than those identified in the design documents, and revealed misunderstanding and misapplication of engineering precepts. The Respondent's testimony has been rejected. Mr. Berryman's testimony has been credited. DOAH Case No. 12-1635PL (Del Vecchio) On October 7, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a one-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at "3611 Throle" in Rockledge, Florida (the "Del Vecchio" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the Florida Building Code (FBC) and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to identify the size of the "K-bracing" elements included in the design, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and referenced a design element that had been superseded elsewhere in the document. Additionally, the frame spacing dimensions set forth on the document failed to conform to the width of the proposed structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the Aluminum Design Manual (ADM). The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the standard set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and purlins) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed by the Respondent has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Del Vecchio project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1636PL (Nunez) On September 20, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 4128 Southwest 102nd Lane Road, in Ocala, Florida (the "Nunez" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise and failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, purlins, cable bracing, anchor bolts, and gusset plates used in a roof beam splice) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Nunez project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1637PL (Dunaway) On September 8, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 8538 Southwest 135th Street, in Ocala, Florida (the "Dunaway" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the gable rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and failed to identity the metal alloy of a clip used at a detailed shoulder connection. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed by the Respondent's design document using the information set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and shoulder connection fasteners) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Dunaway project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Petitioner, and imposing a fine of $6,000 against the Respondent. Additionally, the final order should prohibit the Respondent from the practice of structural engineering until the Respondent submits to the Petitioner proof of his successful completion of an appropriate examination to be designated by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 29th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Scott Guy Campbell Apartment 805 250 58th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5268 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should receive additional credit for his answers to questions 121 and/or 222 on the civil/sanitary engineer examination administered on April 18 and 19, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state and for the regulation of the engineering profession. Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December 1990, with a degree in geo-technical engineering, a sub-specialty of civil engineering. He is not, nor does he claim to be, a structural engineer. He has practiced in the field of geo-technical engineering since his graduation and has taught soil mechanics at the master’s level at the university. He sat for the professional engineer’s examination administered by the Respondent in April 1997. Thereafter, by grade report dated July 29, 1997, the Department’s Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner that he had earned a score of 69.00 on the examination he had taken. Since a passing score for the examination which Petitioner took is 70.00, Petitioner failed the examination. Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the grading of examination questions numbers 121 and 222, on each of which he earned a score of four. The maximum obtainable score on each question is ten. On question 121, the candidate is given a situation involving a sheet-pile wall section, and is asked to (a) sketch and dimension the earth pressure diagram acting on the wall after the proposed dredging has been completed; and (b) determine the factor of safety against the kick-out after the dredging. Scoring of the Petitioner’s examination was done by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (Council). The Council determined that, with regard to requirement (a), Petitioner’s pressure distribution was of the correct form, but the labeling of the distribution had a major error. Petitioner assumed an incorrect factor which was deemed to be a major error calling for, under the approved scoring plan, a minimum four-point deduction. With regard to requirement (b), Petitioner chose not to solve for the factor of safety as he was required to do. This resulted in a minimum reduction of two additional points. This evaluation was concurred by Mr. Adams, the Board’s expert witness, in his testimony at hearing. Mr. Adams noted that where, as here, the engineer is dealing with soil mechanics, the at-rest conditions are one thing. The active and passive (A and P) conditions are the more dynamic, and here, where the problem calls for removal of soil from in front of a retaining wall, A and P pressures should have been used instead of at-rest pressures. Adams also concluded that Petitioner’s cited authority was not valid in this case. This authority used the at-rest pressure coefficient when all the authorities Mr. Adams could find used the A and P pressure coefficient. Petitioner admits that the coefficients utilized in determining earth pressures are A, P and at-rest (O). In this case, the whole problem must be considered. A tie-back system is presented, and in that case the sheet pile and the tie-back are assumed to hold the soil behind the wall in an at-rest condition so long as the sheet-pile wall does not move or deflect. Petitioner contends that Mr. Adams’ determination that removing the soil would destroy stasis and cause the wall to move is erroneous. In fact, he contends, the sheet-pile wall and the anchor system must move before the Board’s argument holds. He cites an authority in support of his position which was also cited to the Council scorer who, at Petitioner’s request, rescored his answer. The Council official who rescored Petitioner’s answer did not have access to Petitioner’s cited authority but rejected the citation as either incorrectly cited or incorrect in itself. Petitioner’s error called for a four-point reduction in score as to (a). Further, as to requirement (b), Petitioner, though asked to solve for the factor of safety against rotation, chose not to do so. This calls for an additional two-point reduction. Independent review of Petitioner’s answer, including an evaluation of his cited authority, and consideration of the other evidence pertinent to this issue, including his testimony, that of his witness, and the rescoring results by the Council, does not satisfy the undersigned that Petitioner’s answer merits additional credit. The score of four, as awarded, is appropriate. Question 222 deals with a cantilevered retaining wall with a wide foundation and piling in two rows, some in front and some in back, to support it. The candidate is required to determine the total lateral thrust per linear foot acting on the wall in issue; to determine the vertical load on a front row pile; and to explain possible ways that the pile foundation can resist the lateral thrust. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner incorrectly calculated the lateral load by omitting the proper depth of the wall. With regard to the vertical loading, the Petitioner did not get to the proper vertical load on the front pile but received partial credit for other calculations he performed. As for the last requirement, one part of Petitioner’s answer was incorrect in that he did not explain passive pressures properly. What Petitioner mentioned was incorrect, and he did not mention battering of the piles, which was expected to be noted. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner got two parts of the question correct, each of which is worth two points. Therefore, he received a score of four points. Petitioner contends that the Board and the Council are being too restrictive in their approach to the problem and not taking into account the whole problem. He claims that though he arrived at the wrong figure in calculating the lateral load, that does not justify his receiving no credit for that segment since the method he used for calculating the thrust was correct. He admits to having erroneously neglected the weight of the soil, but contends that his method of determining the solutions to resist lateral thrust is as good as that of the Board and the Council. Petitioner was given only partial credit for his use of the correct equation to calculate the lateral thrust because he used the wrong depth. His answer to the second part was wrong in that he completely neglected the weight of the soil and calculating the pile load, even though he used the correct figure to multiply the load per foot of the wall. His answer to the third requirement, dealing with lateral resistance of the pile, was insufficient to warrant a full award. Taken together, his answer, in the opinion of the Council’s scorer, merited only an award of four points. Petitioner did not show sufficient basis for increasing this award. The evidence presented by the Board clearly established that both questions in issue provided enough information to allow the candidate to answer them correctly, and both are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The scoring plan for these questions was not shown to be inappropriate, and there is no evidence that it was not properly utilized.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order in this matter denying Petitioner additional credit for his answers to Questions 121 and 222 on the April 1997 Civil Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri V. Jean 3273 Tanglewood Trail Palm Harbor, Florida 34685 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by the Board of Professional Engineers.
Findings Of Fact In October 1997, Jamal Jamilzadeh (Petitioner) took the Principles and Practice part of the Environmental Engineering Examination (Examination). The minimum score required to pass the Examination was The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had not successfully completed the Examination, having received a score of 68. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners, i. e., the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). A scoring plan is used for grading each question. Each person sitting for the Examination is referred to as a candidate. By letter dated April 8, 1998, Petitioner notified Respondent that he was challenging questions numbered 320 and 323 on the Examination. In his letter, Petitioner indicated the basis for the correctness of his answers to both questions. For question numbered 323, Petitioner included together with his letter a supporting statement, regarding the correctness of his answer, from a Certified Environmental Trainer (CET). At hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge to question numbered 320. Only question numbered 323 was now being challenged by Petitioner. For question numbered 323, the highest score achievable was 10. Petitioner received a score of 2. Petitioner's Examination was returned to the NCEES for review and rescoring. NCEES' rescorer used the same scoring plan that was used for the Examination. NCEES' rescorer had, for review and consideration, Petitioner's letter dated April 8, 1998, including the supporting statement of Petitioner's CET. NCEES' rescorer did not have access to and had no knowledge of Petitioner's original score for question numbered 323. NCEES' rescorer recommended that Petitioner receive no additional points for question numbered 323. Question numbered 323 contains three parts regarding an underground storage tank. The first part required a candidate to justify whether the underground storage tank was a confined space. NCEES' rescorer recommended that Petitioner receive full credit for this part. At hearing Petitioner's CET agreed that Petitioner should receive full credit for the first part. However, Respondent's expert disagreed and opined that Petitioner should not receive full credit because Petitioner provided only one of the three necessary requirements for a correct response. Petitioner correctly answered the first part.2 Petitioner should receive full credit for the first part. The second part required a candidate to list seven confined space program elements for initial entry and inspection of the underground storage tank. NCEES' rescorer found Petitioner's answer to be partially correct in that Petitioner failed to address three major procedural elements. At hearing, Petitioner's CET opined that Petitioner addressed five of the seven elements. However, Respondent's expert opined that, even though Petitioner addressed six elements, the elements addressed by Petitioner were different variations of two of the seven elements. Petitioner correctly addressed five of the seven elements.3 Petitioner should receive additional credit for part two. The third part required a candidate to specify the correct type of respiratory protection and to justify the answer. In reviewing this part, NCEES' rescorer also used the caveats or conditions specified in the supporting statement of Petitioner's CET, which was included with Petitioner's letter dated April 8, 1998. NCEES' rescorer found Petitioner's answer to be incorrect in that Petitioner failed to completely justify his answer. At hearing, Petitioner's CET opined that Petitioner's answer contained the concept, the intent, and the basis needed, which showed that Petitioner had the knowledge to answer the question presented, but that Petitioner's answer was not as detailed as it could or should have been. Respondent's expert opined that Petitioner failed to reference any monitoring with respect to the use of an air purifying respirator. Petitioner's CET agreed that monitoring was required but opined that monitoring was contained in Petitioner's answer. Petitioner failed to completely justify his answer in part three.4 Petitioner should receive no additional credit for part three. Petitioner's answers were not arbitrarily or capriciously graded. The grading process was not devoid of logic and reason, except for part two of question numbered 323.5 The scoring plan was properly used. The evidence presented was insufficient to warrant additional credit to Petitioner on question numbered 323. According to the scoring plan, Petitioner is entitled to 2 additional points, bringing his total score to 4 for question number 323. Petitioner's score on the Examination should be 70. Petitioner has obtained the minimum score required to pass the Examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Jamal Jamilzadeh eligible for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of April, 1999.
The Issue Should Petitioner be deemed to have passed the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Exam?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination on April 1O, 1987. The examination consisted of an applicant completing eight problems. On each problem, an applicant could receive from 1 to 10 points. A score of 5 or less was considered "unqualified", a score of 6 or more was considered "qualified". In order to pass the examination, an applicant needed to receive a total raw score of 48 or more, out of a possible score of 80. Petitioner received a raw score of 43 on his examination. Petitioner is challenging the scores for problems 110, 111, and 414. On problem 110, Petitioner received a score of 1. On problems 111 and 414, Petitioner received scores of 4. An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) was prepared for each examination problem. The ISSP was to be used by the persons grading the exam to assure that all solutions were graded consistently. The ISSP set forth the criteria to be used in grading the solution to a problem and set forth guidelines to be used in determining the points to be given to the solution. In addition to the ISSP, a preferred solution was prepared for each problem. The scores of 4 given for Petitioner's solutions to problems 111 and 414 are consistent with the ISSPs for those problems. The score of 1 given to Petitioner's solution for problems 110 is not consistent with the ISSP and the preferred solution for that problem. In order to receive a score of 8, the ISSP requires that a solution contain the following: ALL CATEGORIES satisfied, errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct. An operable system is presented, containing all the key elements, but calculations may involve minor errors in math or transcribing data. Answers obtained for requirement (b) are reasonable. May have assumed an excessively high, but not obviously unreasonable, exit water temperatures, c.g. 150F. Petitioner's solution to problem 110 presented an operable system containing all key elements. The errors committed by Petitioner were caused by misreading a table and by transcribing the wrong data. Petitioner's solution to problem 110 should have received a score of 8. Petitioner should have received a raw score of 50 on the exam.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order giving Petitioner a passing grade on the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4412 Petitioner filed a post-hearing submission consisting of a two page letter containing nine paragraphs. The second to fourth paragraphs are numbered 1., 2. and 3. The findings of fact contained in the letter are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Paragraph in Letter Ruling and Recommended Order Paragraph Number First Not a finding of fact. Second, Third and Fourth Rejected as not supported by the evidence for solution to problems 111 and 414. Accepted for solution to problem 110. RO6-10. Fifth Argument. Sixth First sentence accepted. RO11. Rest of paragraph is irrelevant. Seventh Rejected as argument and contrary to weight of the evidence. Eighth Argument. Ninth Not a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin K. Middleswart 3805 Dunwoody Drive Pensacola, Florida 32503 John B. Carr, Esquire 320 West Cervantes Pensacola, Florida 32501 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her response to question nos. 122 and 222 of the civil engineering examination administered on October 31, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the civil professional engineering licensing examination. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. Petitioner challenged the scoring of question nos. 122 and 222. As part of the examination challenge process, Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying where it was re-scored. In the re-score process, the grader deducted points from Petitioner's original score. Petitioner was given the same raw score of 6 on question number 122; however, on question number 222 her raw score of 4 was reduced to a 2. Petitioner needed a raw score of 48 in order to achieve a passing score of 70; she needed at least three additional raw score points to obtain a passing raw score of 48. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on problem number 122. The solution and scoring plan for that problem required the candidate to obtain a culvert size in the range of 21-36 inches. The Petitioner incorrectly answered 3.1 feet or 37.2 inches. She is not entitled to additional credit for problem number 122 because she answered the question with the wrong size culvert. Problem number 122 required the candidate to use a predevelopment peak flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Petitioner used 58.33 cfs. She chose the maximum flow rather than the predevelopment peak flow. In solving problem number 122, Petitioner chose a design headwater depth of 4.8 feet. The correct solution required a design headwater depth of 5.7 feet. Petitioner made another mistake in problem number 122; she failed to check the water depth in the downstream swale. Petitioner concedes she was given sufficient information to solve problem number 122. She understood what the question was asking of her. She admits that she did not compute the critical depth of the water and that she did not complete the solution. Question number 222 had three parts. The candidate was required to determine the footing size, to select the reinforcing steel, and to provide a sketch for a concrete column located along the edge of a building. Petitioner understood the question and was provided enough information to solve the problem. Petitioner correctly checked the footing size as required by the first part; however, she did not select the reinforcing steel or show the required sketch. Therefore, Petitioner did not complete enough of the problem to qualify for a score of 4 points. She is entitled to a score of 2 points. The examination questions at issue here were properly designed to test the candidate's competency in solving typical problems in real life. The grader (re-scorer) utilized the scoring plan correctly. Petitioner has been in the United States for approximately eleven years. She lived in Romania before she came to the United States. In Romania, Petitioner used only the metric system in her professional work. While she has used the English system since moving to the United States, Petitioner is more familiar with the metric system. The Principles and Practice examination is an open-book examination. Petitioner took a book entitled the Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook to the examination. When the proctor examined her books, she told the Petitioner she was not permitted to keep the handbook. The proctor took the handbook from the Petitioner. Petitioner protested the confiscation of her reference book because she had used the same book in two previous tests. About ten minutes later, the proctor's supervisor returned the book to Petitioner. Petitioner's book was returned at least ten minutes before the test began. She was permitted to use the book during the test. There is no persuasive evidence that the proctor's mistake in temporarily removing Petitioner's reference book caused her to be so upset that she failed the test. Candidates were not permitted to study their books prior to the beginning of the examination. Petitioner may have been nervous when the test began. However, Petitioner received a perfect score of ten points on the first problem she worked, problem number 121.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the examination and dismissing the Petitioner's challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Bartin, President Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to additional credit on the Professional Engineer Licensure Examination sufficient to receive a passing score?
Findings Of Fact By the stipulations recited in the preliminary statement, Petitioner needed only to demonstrate entitlement to one raw point in order to achieve an adjusted score of 70 (raw score of 48) so as to pass the Florida Professional Engineer Examination, created and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. The disputed part of the challenged question dealt with the equations necessary to calculate the amount of excess air applied to a combustion source that produced flue gas which contained specified concentrations of oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen. This presents a chemical engineering problem. Subpart one of the question provided four reaction equations. Petitioner selected answer "E". The Board claims another answer is the correct answer. Subpart one of the question required that the examinee select an answer showing the minimum number of equations needed to solve the problem. The answer designated by the Board contained two equations. The answer selected by Petitioner contained three equations. Petitioner, Petitioner's Professional Engineer expert in combustion, and the Board's Professional Engineer expert in chemical engineering all recognized that the problem could be appropriately solved either by the Orsat method or the Board's preferred method. However, Petitioner and his expert maintained that the Board's preferred method was less precise than the Orsat method because the Board's method was based on a presumption of complete oxygen combustion or theoretical oxygen. Petitioner based his analysis on the concept that the problem's acknowledgment of the presence of carbon monoxide indicated incomplete combustion and rendered the calculation of air indeterminate. The determination of excess air is covered in five standard reference books authorized for use on the examination. All these books recognize the Orsat equation for the calculation of excess air with respect to incomplete combustion. Petitioner utilized the Orsat equation. The Orsat formula is appropriate for solving the question, but it is derived from three equations. Petitioner and his expert contended that subpart one of the question was both a trick question and that the Board was requiring an incorrect answer because the examinee obtained a correct answer to subpart ten of the question by the Orsat approach and that when subpart ten is solved by the Board's preferred method, an incorrect answer was obtained. This testimony was not persuasive in light of the apparent agreement of Petitioner that the correct numerical answer would be closer to the Board's preferred numerical answer than to his own numerical answer. (TR110112). Nor does it necessarily follow that because the Board has conceded that Petitioner's answer to subpart ten was correct, that concession automatically renders his answer to subpart one correct. As explained more reasonably by Dr. Benjamin Keith Harrison, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Alabama, there were at least two correct ways to work the problem related to an analysis of incomplete combustion. The Orsat method uses carbon dioxide while the Board's preferred method uses a different chemical "tie" element to compare the theoretical oxygen required to the amount of oxygen actually in the system. The examinee is free to choose the method (i.e. tie element) he prefers. The Orsat formula, chosen by Petitioner, is entirely correct to do that, and the numerical answer the Petitioner got in subpart ten was within acceptable limits. However, the equations the Petitioner indicated in the other part of his answer were not those used to derive the Orsat formula. (TR8288) More succinctly, according to Dr. Harrison, the examinees were free to use either the Orsat formula or the Board's preferred formula to get subpart ten. Petitioner chose the Orsat formula and got a sufficiently correct answer for subpart ten. However, in subpart one, the other formula was asked for and Petitioner chose the wrong combination of three subsets. (TR89) Therefore, the greater weight of the credible evidence is that the Petitioner's answer is wrong on two points: first, that his response does not indicate a minimum set of equations and two, the three equations he selected were not the equations used in deriving the Orsat formula. Likewise, items one and ten of the question request different information/responses. Part ten requests a numerical response; part one requests the selection of the minimum number of equations necessary. Dr. Joseph Allen Klock, was accepted as an expert psychometrician. His statistics and the testimony of Dr. Harrison are credible and persuasive that the challenged question subpart one contained enough correct information to allow an examinee of minimal competency for licensure to selec tthe correct response and did not require knowledge which was beyond the scope of knowledge that could be expected from a candidate for licensure and that Question No. 417 as a whole was a fair test of the examinees' knowledge in the field of chemical engineering .
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying the Petitioner the one point at issue, and thus a passing grade on the April 1995 licensure examination. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 4889675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 9216847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William Leffler, III, Esquire 2000 North Meridian Road Apartment 312 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether petitioner suffered age discrimination for which Black & Veatch is answerable, when an employee of Black & Veatch objected to petitioner's becoming the safety engineer for M. A. Mortenson Company, the general contractor on a project for the Orlando Utilities Commission for which Black & Veatch was construction manager?
Findings Of Fact Since 1940, petitioner Jack Keels has been in the construction business, "95 percent of it would be . hydroelectric dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers." (T.13) He has worked as a laborer, carpenter, an iron worker, a craft superintendent, a shift superintendent, a general superintendent, a craft foreman, a shift foreman and a general foreman. Aside from a wealth of practical experience, he has taken "probably 200 or 250 hours of classes on safety and first aid." (T. 13, 14) He has "been acting safety director on five or six jobs" (T.14) and once was responsible for the safety of 300 men. When he began work for M.A. Mortenson Company (Mortenson), however, on the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center job (Stanton) , a coal-fired plant Mortenson was building for the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), Mr. Keels was a crane Coordinator without "assigned responsibility for safety." (T.93) But Mr. Keels offered suggestions about how to improve safety and spoke to Mortenson's Bill King regularly on such topics as safety latches for the hooks, proper nets, electrical splices, man baskets that were not regulation, and the like. When a new crane arrived on the site, Mr. Keels asked the general superintendent where the blocks were to test the crane and was told there were none and they had not been testing the cranes. There were other "flagrant violations" of safety regulations including widespread disregard for the rules requiring workmen to wear hard hats and forbidding them to bring glass containers onto the construction site. Although another contractor at Stanton, Babcock & Willcox, seemed to be doing worse as far as safety, Mortenson's practices were below average in Mr. Keels' opinion. This was also the impression key personnel at Black & Veatch had of Mortenson's performance. As the owner's representative at Stanton, Black & Veatch had invoked OUC's right under "option BC. 4. 1. of the . . . contract," Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, to require Mortenson to appoint a full-time safety engineer, in May of 1984. Bill King was Mortenson's safety director or designated safety engineer, when Mr. Keels started. Bill King left the job in February of 1985, and Mortenson's Mr. Barbato suggested replacing him with petitioner Keels. Mortenson did not propose this formally in writing, but Mr. Barbato explained to Richard F. King, Black & Veatch's project loss control manager at Stanton, that the work had reached a point that Mr. Keels' services as crane coordinator were no longer needed and that naming him safety engineer would make it possible to keep him on. He never told anybody at Black & Veatch about Mr. Keels' considerable background in construction safety. Petitioner and Black & Veatch's Paul William Weida had twice differed with each other on issues of safety: Once Mr. Weida objected to work on a generator pedestal going forward without a handrail in place. At the time, carpenters working for Mortenson were installing concrete forms on top of the pedestal, some distance above ground. Mr. Keels pointed out that they were wearing safety belts, and argued that a handrail could constitute a hazard as they moved around bolting and nailing the forms. The other dispute about which both men testified had to do with a bent crane lattice. The lessor of the crane told petitioner there was no need to replace that section of the lattice, but a representative of the manufacturer told Mr. Weida replacement would be best. Over petitioner's strenuous objection, Mr. Weida insisted that the damaged lattice be replaced. These confrontations left Mr. Weida with the impression that petitioner would be difficult to work with and also made him skeptical about petitioner's commitment to safety, a skepticism to which petitioner vehemently and perhaps justifiably objects. Under the contract between OUC and Mortenson, Black & Veatch had the right, as OUC's representative, to veto any candidate for safety engineer. The agreement provided, "During the life of the contract, replacement personnel will also be subject to interview and approval by the Owner." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Weida objected to Mr. Keels, and Richard F. King backed him up. Neither Mr. Weida's nor Mr. Richard King's opposition to Mr. Keels' being named safety engineer was in any way related to Mr. Keels' age, which, incidentally, was not proven with any specificity. After receiving indications from Black & Veatch that Mr. Keels would not be an acceptable safety engineer at Stanton, Mortenson laid him off, in February of 1985. By November of 1985, Mortenson had finished its work at Stanton.
