The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for reexamination at the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 74.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 67.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 4, 10 and 17. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question numbers 4, 10 & 17 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. As to question number 4, the only correct response to the question was answer "B". Petitioner's answer to the question was "D", which was not acceptable. As to question number 10, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "B", was not acceptable. As to question number 17, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "A" was not acceptable. The Department's determination that answers "B", "C" and "C" were the only appropriate answers was not arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner that he be awarded a passing grade for Part III of the June 1990 certified building contractors examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Uebelacker 326 NW Catherine Avenue Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Albert Poza, applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the state of Florida. The architectural licensure examination administered by the Respondent consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for a twelve hour examination consisting of a drafting or sketching problem concerning which he was required to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, taking into consideration numerous design and site considerations such as human traffic flow, parking, access to all floors, heating and cooling, including natural heating and lighting and numerous other aesthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the state of Florida as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Counsel of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) . Pursuant to the authority delineated below, this examination has been adopted for use by Florida applicants for licensure. The examination itself is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure, the Petitioner, to design a structure for placement on a particular site, including mandatory requirements for accommodating the structure to the site, and vice versa, detailed design of elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans, as well as effective use of natural light and solar heating potential, regard for the physical and aesthetic needs of the building's occupants, its impact on the environment of the site and its locality and numerous other criteria. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by the applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself, the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and the building design problems submitted to him by NCARB. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders, and through them, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether an applicant such as the Petitioner is able to coordinate the various structural design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on these same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the site and design portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some twenty states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to the site and design problem submitted by applicants, including the Petitioner, on a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, and the evaluation criteria set forth in the grading sheet. The graders are instructed to note areas of strength and of weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to the grading criteria and then determine, based on an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of three or four as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution to the problem in order to pass the relevant portion of the exam. The Petitioner herein received two "2's", which are failing grades and one "3", which is a passing grade. The Petitioner demonstrated an effort to comply with the instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre- examination booklet. He failed, however, to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. As established by Herbert Coons, Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, and Glenn Paulsen, Professor of Architecture at the University of Michigan, both graders of the Petitioner's examination and the Respondent's expert witnesses, the Petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based upon the criteria required to be considered and complied with in the examination program and by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. The Petitioner violated the setback requirements as to the side entrance of the building in question with the result that significant alterations of the off-site and publicly owned sidewalks and easements would be required in order to effect his design solution. It is not good architectural practice, when asked to design a structure, to use land which is not part of the land owned by the client requesting the design. The examination program also specifically required that the candidate either maximize the floor space in the building by eliminating some amenities or if determining to insert amenities such as atria, balconies, large interior spaces and so forth, that these be provided in such a way to make the structure a luxury-type office building. In effect, the owner's goals in this design problem sought either a functional building with maximum floor space or a luxury building with minimal floor space, but with significant cultural amenities. In his solution, the Petitioner did not meet either of those two goals, since he included minimal floor space and yet an insufficient number of luxury features required by the program as an alternative. Other significantly deficient areas in the Petitioner's examination solution included his failure to visually relate the building's design to adjacent buildings. That is, he ignored the instructions in the program requiring him to design a building in an area of historical significance with an appearance which is compatible with adjacent historical buildings; pictures of adjacent buildings being furnished in his examination booklet. The Petitioner failed to allow adequate room in the mechanical equipment space for heating and air conditioning equipment, which the size and type building would require. Additionally Witness Coons established, by scaling the Petitioner's design solution, that the building was too large for the site on which it was to be constructed. Portions of it would encroach upon public property and violate local zoning ordinances. In a more serious vein, it was established that the building design did not contain an adequate allowance for structural support as to the various spans over the columns. The column spacing was appropriate, but the beams depicted are not of a sufficient size and type to safely support the structure and there is a danger that a building so constructed would collapse. Additional deficiencies noted involved poor human traffic circulation in the third floor lobby area design, insufficient storage space included in the design for the third floor lecture room and inadequate provision for landscaping. Other less significant deficiencies were noted including, as admitted by the Petitioner that the square footage on the upper floors was in error. In short, significant program requirements were not provided for or complied with by the Petitioner. In view of the above determined deficiencies, the Petitioner failed to establish that his solution to the site and design problem posed by the examination reflects sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating building code administrators and inspectors. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed standard building inspector, license number BN 0001750. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Martin County Building Department as a Building Inspector. Harriet R. Edwards owns a residence located at 2595 Hickory Avenue, Jensen Beach, Florida. This home is located in Martin County, Florida. At some point in early 1996, it became Ms. Edwards' desire to construct an addition to the residence. She retained a contractor to perform the work and returned to her second home in Ohio during the time of the construction. When Ms. Edwards returned to Florida in December of 1996, she was dissatisfied with the quality of the construction work performed on her home. Mr. Joyce, Ms. Edwards' friend, stated that they had expressed a desire for, and had requested, a high quality of work for the addition to Ms. Edwards' home. Upon investigation it was discovered that the permit card located at the construction site had been initialed by an unlicensed building inspector, James L. Brown. This led the homeowner to suspect that the work performed did not meet inspection code standards. Building code inspections are to verify that the work performed by contractors meets certain minimum standards set forth in adopted building code regulations. By implication the highest quality of construction performance would generally exceed code requirements. One inspection item in particular concerned Ms. Edwards' friend, Mr. Joyce. This homeowner believed the new addition did not have a proper footer. All of the inspections listed on the permit card for this project occurred prior to December 17, 1996. The footer/slab inspection was performed on October 4, 1996. The Respondent asserts that at the time he performed the footer/slab inspection, the structures were in place to assure that the poured foundation would meet minimum code requirements. The Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Brown, an unlicensed inspector in training, initialed the permit card and transmitted by radio the inspection results. Mr. Brown was assigned to work with the Respondent during his training period prior to receiving licensure from the state. Mr. Brown ultimately received his provisional license on or about December 17, 1996. The Respondent asserts that a final inspection was not performed on Ms. Edwards' home. Consequently, no final verification was completed to assure the home addition was constructed in accordance with the plans and the forms on the ground for the footer/slab foundation. In this case there is no allegation that the construction plans for the addition for the Edwards' home failed to meet minimum code requirements. Presumably the footer/slab foundation as reflected on the plans would have specified at least a minimum compliance with code mandates. The footer/slab inspection was performed with the forms and reinforcements in place according to the approved plans. The Respondent maintains that the forms and reinforcements met minimum code requirements and that if such forms were altered after inspection he would not have known. Typically, once the footer/slab foundation forms and reinforcements are approved by an inspector the contractor calls for the delivery of concrete to be poured into the foundation forms. The date the concrete was poured for the subject footer/slab is unknown. Whether there was a delay between the footer/slab inspection date and the construction date is unknown. In any event when Ms. Edwards and Mr. Joyce returned from Ohio to view the addition the foundation did not appear adequate. Efforts were then pursued to attempt to ascertain whether the footer/slab did meet code. In this case the record is inconclusive as to whether the footer/slab foundation as constructed at Ms. Edwards' addition meets minimum code requirements. The pictures in evidence do not clearly establish the depth of the slab. Some of the photographs suggest that the minimum depth was achieved. A visual inspection performed at the site did not verify the depth nor compare the interior finished grade with the exterior measurements. The final grading of the exterior of the home around the addition was never completed. As a result the photographs may have a distorted view of the foundation and portions should have been back-filled along the edge of the slab. In any event, no definitive measurements have been offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Building Code Administrators and Inspectors enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bobby T. Chambers 3520 Northeast Linda Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should receive additional credit for his answers to three questions on the October 1991 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner received a score of 68 on Part I of the Certified Building Contractor Examination administered in October 1991. That score is less than the minimum passing score required. Part I of that examination consisted of questions relating to business and financial management. Petitioner has challenged three of the questions contained in that portion of the examination. Petitioner chose answer "A" as the correct answer to question numbered 36. At the final hearing, Petitioner agreed that his chosen answer was not correct and that answer "B," the answer chosen by the Department, was the only correct answer. 4. Petitioner chose answer "B" as the correct answer to question numbered 35. At the final hearing, Petitioner agreed that his chosen answer was not correct and that answer "D," the answer chosen by the Department, was the only correct answer. 5. Petitioner chose answer "A" as the correct answer to question numbered At the final hearing, Petitioner agreed that his chosen answer was not correct and that answer "C," the answer chosen by the Department, was the only correct answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on Part I of the October 1991 Certified Building Contractor Examination. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. 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 5th day of August, 1992. Copies furnished: Vytas J. Urba, Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Jose F. Montano 5888 Southwest 31st Street Miami, Florida 33155 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed applications with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) for a provisional plans examiner license and a standard building plans examiner license.1/ The Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors (Board), which is part of DBPR, is the state agency charged with certification of building code administrators, plans examiners, and building code inspectors, pursuant to Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accompanying her applications were: a statement of educational history; an affidavit from her then current employer, Robert Olin of the Orange County Building Division; an "Experience History" page; and notarized statements from two construction companies listed on the Experience History page, JE Activities Construction Managers, Inc., and BFC Construction Corp., regarding Petitioner's employment with those companies. DBPR reviewed her applications and sent her two letters dated August 9, 2005, both of which read in pertinent part as follows: If you are using your education as experience, you will need to have an official transcript sent from your institution. Have them send it to attention building codes, CIU. (There's no need to send the one for the psychology coursework, only the engineering.) The paperwork you sent from New York is not sufficient. You will need to use the affidavit form in your packet, such as Mr. Olin used. They need to fill out the form completely (please note it does not have to be notarized.) The affidavits must be filled out by a state licensed architect, engineer, contractor or building official (see application instructions.) They must include their state license number and tell what the license is (i.e. general contractor). If they are one of these professions but are not licensed in New York because it is not necessary in that state, they need to send a separate letter so stating, which is notarized. You need to send a new experience history page which includes your position in Orange County. (emphasis in original) Additionally, the August 9, 2005, letter regarding her application for a provisional license advised Petitioner the following: Please be advised that in order to be eligible for provisional license, you must be hired into the position of a building plans examiner. . . . You will need to send a new affidavit from your CBO stating that you have been hired into the position, and the effective date of such hire. (Please see Rule 61G19-6.012(6) showing you are eligible to perform the duties of a building plans examiner when hired for a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the application for provisional licensure) under direct supervision of a CBO. . . . Petitioner responded to the August 9, 2005, letters by supplying the requested documentation. Specifically, Petitioner provided a revised affidavit from Robert C. Olin, Manager/Building Official with the Orange County Building Division, which stated as follows: Ms. Georges was hired as a Plans Examiner on 6/13/05. She is applying for her Provisional Plans Examiner License and also to take the Building Plans Examiner exam. Presently her responsibility is to complete her training for the position of Plans Examiner, and to obtain a Provisional, and then a Standard Plans Examiner License. Petitioner also provided a revised Experience History page which included her position in Orange County listing the dates of employment as June 13, 2005 to present. Further, Petitioner provided revised statements/affidavits, on the affidavit form specified in the August 9, 2005, letter to Petitioner, regarding her work experience in New York. One of the affidavits was written by Ernest Jochen, vice president of JE Activities, Inc., who listed her dates of employment as February 2003 to June 2005, and her years of supervisory experience as "2 years 3 months." The other affidavit was written by Garfield Stewart, Senior Project Manager, of BFC Construction Corp., who listed her dates of employment as May 2000 to January 2003, and her years of supervisory experience as "2 years 8 months." The substance of the original statements of Mr. Jochen and Mr. Stewart regarding Petitioner's work experience was essentially the same as in the revised affidavits. The revisions were of a technical nature only, i.e., on the correct forms. Petitioner's work experience in these jobs, i.e., managing gut renovations of city-owned multi-family apartment buildings, is in the field of construction. Petitioner also ordered an official transcript from Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, New York, which was received by Respondent on October 5, 2005. The transcript indicates that Petitioner attended Polytechnic University from the fall of 1996 through the fall of 2000, earning 123.50 credits over four years with a major in Civil Engineering. The Board denied Petitioner's applications at a meeting held on December 9, 2005, and issued the Notice of Intent to Deny on January 4, 2006. Subsequent to issuance of the Notice of Intent to Deny,2/ Petitioner provided separate letters from Mr. Stewart and Mr. Jochen which read as follows: A license to complete gut renovations on multi-family structures is not required in the State of New York. The firm is only required to be bonded and insured. Although Petitioner was employed by Orange County at the time she submitted her applications and for several months thereafter, she explained at hearing that she left her employment with Orange County in June 2006, and was employed there for exactly one year. This meant at the time she made application, Petitioner was employed by an agency of government, but not at the time of hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for provisional certification as a building plans examiner, and granting Petitioner's application for standard certification as a building plans examiner, thus allowing her to sit for the standard certificate examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 24th day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a structural engineer should be approved. This case arose as a result of a determination by Respondent that Petitioner had not passed the reexamination for licensure as a structural engineer which was held on October 25, 1985. Petitioner contends that he was disadvantaged by the time allowed to study for the examination, the time taken to publish the results of the examination, the esoteric nature of a steel beam problem, and the design method required for a reinforced concrete structure. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner was not so disadvantaged, but that even if he were, it is not sufficient to increase his grade to a passing score. The respective contentions of the parties were embodied in a pre-hearing stipulation which was received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. Petitioner appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel and was therefore advised of his rights and the procedures to be employed in the administrative proceeding. He indicated that he understood his rights and such procedures, and elected to represent himself. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted six exhibits which were received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of James A. Power, a consulting structural engineer and Allen R. Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. In addition, Respondent submitted six exhibits in evidence, which were admitted. Petitioner's application for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. The parties were given until September 2, 1986, in which to file any posthearing submissions. However, Respondent failed to file any such submission and Petitioner's written argument was untimely filed on September 3, 1986.
Findings Of Fact By application received by Respondent on August 13, 1985, Petitioner Max E. Lambie applied for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination to be held on October 25, 1985. The application reflected that Petitioner had previously passed the "Fundamentals" part of a previous examination on April 19, 1985, and that his application was to take the "Principles and Practice" part for reexamination in the discipline of structural engineering. By a letter dated August 21, 1985, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the application and applicable fees. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Petitioner thereafter received from Respondent's Office of Examination Services, a "Notice to Appear for October 24-25, 1985, Professional Engineer (PE) Examination." The notice included information that Part II of the examination was to be based on Professional Principles and Practice, and devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of the candidate's discipline. It further stated as follows: In the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, candidates are required to solve eight (8) problems; four (4) in the morning session and four (4) in the afternoon session, drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (H) STRUCTURAL: Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces. The notice also stated that a passing grade on Part II of the examination was defined as a grade of seventy (70) or better, and that within approximately three (3) months after the examination date, the applicant would receive written notification of the examination results. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) By a Memorandum from Allen R. Smith, Jr., Director, Board of Professional Engineers, dated September 20, 1985, applicants applying for licensure by examination in the structural engineering discipline were advised that the examination was now given once a year and that the schedule was October 24 and 25, 1985, and October 23 and 24, 1986. The Memorandum further noted that the Board of Professional Engineers had amended Rule 21H- 21.02, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to the discipline of structural engineering to require that applicants were required to answer questions dealing specifically with structural engineering, and that applicants must answer four out of six questions on the a.m. and four out of six questions on the p.m. portions of the Principles and Practice examination. Enclosures to the Memorandum reflected the subject matter and numbers of the examination questions. A copy of Chapter 21H- 21 of the Respondent's Rules, dated July, 1985, was attached to the Memorandum. Rule 21H-21.02(2) provided in part as follows: Part two of the examination shall be based on Professional Practices and Principles and shall be devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's finding solutions to problems designed to test the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of his discipline. Applicants for registration must select one of the listed specializations in which to be examined. . . . In Part Two of the examination the applicant will usually be required to solve from seven to ten problems which the applicant may choose from approximately twenty problems drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (h) STRUCTURAL--"Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces." Finally, the Memorandum included an enclosure entitled "Design Reference Codes, Standards and Manuals" which listed various manuals and codes to be used as references for the review and use of applicants. The Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and Basic Building Code, had an asterisk after their listings. A note at the bottom of the listing stated "Use code with which you are familiar and/or currently using in your practice." One of the listings also was "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318- 83." It was not followed by an asterisk on the listing. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Petitioner took the October, 1985, examination which was a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) and available for certification or licensure throughout the United States. Respondent's Rule 21H-21.01 provides that the examination "shall be provided by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE)." (Stipulation (Joint Exhibit 1), Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Testimony of Petitioner) Petitioner did not receive his examination grades until March, 1986. The uniform grade notice, dated March 21, 1986, advised him that his examination grade was 66.3 which was failing and that a minimum passing score was 70. The reason for the delay in mailing the examination scores was that one of Respondent's graders for a specific portion of the examination was unavailable due to illness or accident. (Testimony of Smith, Respondent's Exhibit 5) At the hearing, Petitioner testified that the late notification by Respondent that only questions on structural engineering would be on the October examination disrupted his preparation and left him insufficient time to adequately prepare for the examination. He testified that in prior examinations it was possible for a candidate to select questions not specifically related to structural engineering, such as economics, and that he had to "scramble" to obtain texts to study for new subjects. He also claimed that the note at the bottom of Respondent's Design Reference Codes, Standards and Materials (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) which had accompanied Respondent's September 20, 1985 Memorandum to applicants (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) was misleading in that he construed the note to permit him to use whatever building code he was familiar with, and that it was not until he arrived at the examination that he found out that he had made the wrong assumption in that regard. The facts show, however, that the prior examination taken by Petitioner was not solely in the structural engineering discipline, but was a Civil/Sanitary/ Structural examination. Further, Respondent's note on the listing of reference manuals clearly indicated that it applied only with respect to the Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and the Basic Building Code, and not to the other codes and manuals listed therein. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 2- 3, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner claimed that the examination contained questions requiring the application of building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318- 83, which had only been in effect for the past two years and was not familiar to applicants of his age group and past experience. He contended that he had to hurriedly prepare himself utilizing unfamiliar texts that had become available only a few months prior to the examination. ACI 318-83 deals with a concept called "ultimate strength design," but Petitioner was familiar with an older concept called "working strength design." He further claimed that the South Florida Building Code was based entirely on the latter concept. However, expert testimony presented by the Respondent showed that the ultimate strength design concept had been part of the ACI code since 1956 and always had been required in designing prestressed concrete members. He also testified that working strength design is still permitted as an alternative concept in ACI 318-83, that both the South Florida Building Code and Standard Building Code require conformance to ACI 318-83, and that such requirements have been in both codes for at least 25 years. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioner's claims that he was prejudiced by the use of ACI 318-83 in problems on the examination are without merit. In this regard, it is also noted that the April 19, 1985 examination required the use of the latest ACI code and one question required the use of the ultimate strength method. (Testimony of Petitioner, Tower, Respondent's Exhibits 1-6) Respondent also contended at the hearing that question no. 275 of the October, 1985 examination contained a typographical error which required assumption of a different criterion for the solution, and that his expenditure of time in resolving the situation resulted in a score of five out of a possible ten. However, no evidence was presented that his solution was incomplete or that the score awarded by the graders was incorrect. Petitioner brought the typographical error to the attention of the Board by a letter stating that the error induced "extraordinary anxiety which contributed to a loss of concentration" and asked that his observation be passed on to the NCEE. At the hearing, he claimed that past typographical errors on examinations had resulted in adjustment of score points and that such should have been done with regard to the error which he pointed out to Respondent. Again, however, it is found that there was insufficient evidence presented to establish that the error noted by Petitioner had affected the grading of his solution. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 6.) Petitioner's claim that the late grading of the examination precluded him from applying for the Spring, 1986 examination is found to be irrelevant to the question of his failure of the October, 1985 examination. Further, his complaint that the new structural examination is used only in six states and that Florida was one of the first states to adopt the new examination provides no grounds for relief. The Board's purpose in changing the examination format was due to the belief that structural engineers should be more qualified in that particular discipline. In any event, the new Board rule established such format and no challenge to the rule was filed by Petitioner. (Testimony of Petitioner, Smith)
