The Issue Whether Petitioner's response to the questions on the October 1990 Florida Professional Engineers Examination were sufficient to allow him to receive a passing grade. Whether problems in Petitioner's examination occurred which were due to the Department's change in the list of reference materials allowed into the examination room.
Findings Of Fact In order to obtain licensure as a Professional Engineer in Florida, Petitioner is required to successfully complete the licensure examination. Petitioner sat for the October 1990 National Engineering Licensure Exam. He received an overall score of 69.1%. A passing score for the examination was 70.0%. The Professional Engineer Candidate Information Booklet advised candidates that the reference materials taken into the examination room had to be formally bound, copyrighted and published. The only exception to this rule was the Standard Building Code, which is contained in a three-ring binder. On the first day of the examination, Petitioner learned that the Board of Engineers had approved the use of additional codes, standards and manuals that are bound in three ring binders during the examination. One of these newly approved references was the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. Petitioner did not have his copy of the Highway Capacity Manual with him at the examination site because of the prior prohibition against its use during the exam. Petitioner did not object to the last minute expansion of the reference materials list until after he received his test results. The examination questions and answers challenged by Petitioner are Questions #124 and #425. Question #124 involved a five-sided figure that contained curves in two of its sides. According to the situation given as part of the test question, this figure was a parcel of land. The engineer was required to compute the area of the parcel. The first requirement for part (a) of the question was the computation of the area of traverse ABCDEA in acres. The figure provided some of the sector measurements in feet as well as a stated radius for each curved area. A review of Petitioner's calculations for part (a) reveals that he did not close the figure. Closure is required in a problem involving land boundaries. Thus, he was not able to compute the area and convert the measurement to acres, as required. Each side had to be included to obtain the proper area measurement. Petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to credit for his incorrect answer to part (a) because he did not follow the instructions or demonstrate competency in the engineering principles tested by this question. The scoring plan for the examination did not provide partial credit for the incomplete calculations made by Petitioner on this portion of the exam. Petitioner received full credit for part (b) of Question #124 during the original grading of the exam so that portion of the question is not in dispute. Part (c) of Question #124 required the exam candidates to compute the length of curve DE in feet. The measurement for sector DE was provided in feet along with the measurement for the radius. Petitioner's answer to Question #124, part (c) was 514.39 feet. The correct answer was 514.79 feet. Although Petitioner's solution is similar to the correct answer, he did not compute the length of the curve for the side DE as required by the exam instructions. Instead, he computed the central angle for the circular arc DE. Even in his computation of the central angle, Petitioner used a central angle of 58.94 instead of the correct angle of 58.99. The examination sought to test Petitioner's ability to compute the length of a curve. Petitioner ignored the instruction and used a different calculation method that was not requested. As a result, no credit was given for the wrong answer. Petitioner did not demonstrate competency in the engineering principles being tested. Question #425 was a multiple-choice problem with ten parts. The responses were to be made from five alternatives for each part. Petitioner received eight of the ten possible points for the question. Only subparts (3) and (4) were answered incorrectly. Petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to credit for his incorrect answer to subpart (3) of Question #425. He did not provide evidence to support his theory that his answer "D" (1,390 gallons) was within a reasonable margin of error and should be given credit. The correct answer is "E" (1,410 gallons). The necessary calculations reveal that the actual answer is 1,408 gallons. The question asks for the multiple choice selection which is "most nearly" accurate based on the information given in subpart (2). Based upon the problem itself, Petitioner's additional input regarding temperature and expansion possibilities are without merit. The problem was not solved as presented. Petitioner did not demonstrate his ability to properly calculate the amount of substance occupying a particular volume. Subpart (4) of Question #425 deals with the symbols for roadway materials. The candidates were expected to select one of the listed materials as the one most likely used at a particular stage of roadway construction. Petitioner was unable to reference the Highway Capacity Manual when answering this question because the original instructions in the Professional Engineer Candidate Information Booklet instructed candidates that the only three-ring binder book allowed into the exam was the Standard Building Code. Although the decision prohibiting the entry of the Highway Capacity Manual into the examination room was changed prior to the exam, Petitioner was not alerted in time to have it available for his use. Prior to final hearing, Petitioner contended that if he had been given sufficient notice, he could have used the Highway Capacity Manual to define the symbols in subpart (4) of Question #425. At final hearing, Petitioner stated the answer could be in that manual or one of the other handbooks in the same series. The Highway Capacity Manual does not contain definitions for the symbols set forth in subpart (4). The Asphalt Handbook may contain such symbols. This reference would have been allowed into the examination even prior to the changed ruling on references contained in three-ring binders. The Hearing Officer was unable to find all of the symbols in subpart (4) in the pages provided by Petitioner. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the change in the Department's policy regarding references in three-ring binders affected his ability to correctly answer subpart (4) of Question #425. He should not be given credit for his incorrect response on the answer sheet.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department should enter a Final Order which denies Petitioner's challenges to Questions #124 and #425. The exhibits marked "confidential" should remain sealed and not open to public inspection. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 12th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14. There was no number 20 in Petitioner's findings. Rejected. It was Petitioner's responsibility to meet this burden. Rejected. Improper argument. Rejected. Argument as opposed to factual finding. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #23. Rejected. Speculative and contrary to evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except for the disadvantage issue. Speculative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Improper summary. Argumentative. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11 and #14. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #18-#19. Accepted. See HO #23. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Russell A. Ferlita 1220 LaBrad Lane Tampa, FL 33613 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-07950
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the licensure examination for architects administered in June of 1994. The examination consisted of various divisions. Division A covered the subject of pre-design. The questions in this division of the examination were machine-graded, multiple choice questions. Petitioner received a failing score of 72 on Division A. Question 6 of Division A asked the examinee to identify the term used to describe the separate management units formed by ridge lines that divide the land and determine regional drainage patterns. These management units are called watersheds. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 6 of Division A was "D." Petitioner selected "A," "swales," as his answer to the question. Swales, however, while they are used as drainage areas, are not, unlike watersheds, regional in character. Petitioner's answer to Question 6 of Division A therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 8 of Division A asked the examinee to identify which of the four drawings shown on the question sheet depicted a symmetric, hierarchal pattern of land use. The correct answer to the question was "B." Petitioner selected "C" as his answer to the question. "C," however, depicted an axial, rather than a hierarchal, pattern. Petitioner's answer to Question 8 of Division A therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 13 of Division A tested the examinee's knowledge of the impact the increase in the number of young, professional dual-income families has had on residential neighborhoods. The increase in the number of young, professional dual-income families has increased property values in older established neighborhoods, led to the building of large new suburban tracts, reduced the availability of residences that moderate income families can afford and accelerated the restoration of older neighborhoods. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 13 of Division A was "D." Petitioner selected "B" as his answer to the question, which was clearly incorrect. Question 20 of Division A tested the examinee's knowledge of the possible components of a market study. A market study might include a windshield survey, data obtained from questionnaires and/or an analysis of competing projects. A detailed financial package, however, would not be part of a market study. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 20 of Division A was "C." Petitioner selected "A" as his answer to the question, which was clearly incorrect. 1/ Question 28 of Division A tested the examinee's knowledge of the requirements of the national building code relating to multistory buildings. The code allows, in a multistory building, two fire exits on one corridor, fan coil units utilized in office space and a fire exit that intersects two corridors. A corridor utilized as a return-air plenum, however, is not permitted under the code. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 28 of Division A was "C." Petitioner selected "D" as his answer to the question, which was clearly incorrect. Question 53 of Division A asked the examinee to identify the most dominant design feature of the structures depicted on the question sheet. The correct answer to Question 53 of Division A was "C," "facade rhythm." The structures depicted did not display vertical harmony inasmuch as their facades were different. Accordingly, the answer selected by Petitioner, "A," "vertical harmony," was clearly incorrect. Division E of the examination covered the subject of lateral forces. The questions in this division of the examination were machine-graded, multiple choice questions. Petitioner received a failing score of 73 on Division E. Question 14 of Division E tested the examinee's knowledge of the factors which determine the maximum lateral-load and shear capacity of a plywood roof diaphragm. These factors include nail size, nail penetration, plywood thickness and plywood species. Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 14 of Division E was "D," not "C," the answer Petitioner selected. 2/ Division H of the examination covered the subject of materials and methods. The questions in this division of the examination were machine-graded, multiple choice questions. Petitioner received a failing score of 74 on Division H. Question 21 of Division H tested the examinee's knowledge of the requirements of the model building code relating to the dimensions of a Class A interior stairway in a newly constructed multistory building serving an occupant load of 100. The correct answer to the question was "D," "60 inches." Petitioner selected "C," "48 inches," as his answer to the question. Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that Class A interior stairways in multistory buildings have a minimum clear width of 48 inches between the handrails, question 21 of Division H was based upon the requirements of the model building code, not the requirements of the ADA. Accordingly, Petitioner's answer to the question was clearly incorrect. Questions 121 through 123 of Division H tested the examinee's knowledge of the components of an inverted (IRMA) roof system. There were two correct answers to Question 123, "F-9" ("membrane") and "K-7" ("vapor barrier"). Petitioner selected one of these answers, "F-9," and received credit for answering the question correctly. Each of the foregoing questions (Questions 6, 8, 13, 20, 28 and 53 of Division A, Question 14 of Division E, and Questions 21 and 123 of Division H) was clearly and unambiguously worded, provided sufficient information to select a correct response and required the application of knowledge that a qualified candidate for licensure as a registered architect should possess.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing scores he received on Divisions A, E and H of the licensure examination for architects administered in June of 1994. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of April, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent provides services to the residents of Immokalee from office space which it is currently leasing from Sunburst. The lease of the present facilities expires on August 31, 1985. DHRS is in need of more office space than it currently fills in order to meet the growing demand for its services in the Immokalee area. Therefore, DHRS issued an invitation to bid, inviting interested persons to submit bids for its required office space. Three bidders responded: Badcock Furniture Corporation, Sunburst Urethane Systems, Inc., and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. Badcock Furniture Corporation is not a party to these proceedings in that it did not seek an administrative remedy under Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The bid acquisition has been designated by DHRS as Lease No. 590:1590. DHRS formed a bid evaluation committee to evaluate the bids which were submitted. The committee, consisting of William Samford, Residential Service's Director for Development Services, Frank Last, Senior Human Services Program Manager for Economic Services, Frances H. Clendenin, Administrative Services Director, John S. Cato, General Services Manager, and Ed Gauthier, Human Services Program Administrator for the Immokalee programs, visited the three prospective bid sites and evaluated the bid proposals. Each member individually reviewed and rated the bids and recorded his or her ratings on a form entitled Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors). The individual ratings were admitted into evidence as HRS Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. After the individual review, the committee met together for purposes of reaching a consensus evaluation. Based on that consensus, the committee generated a memorandum to the Department of General Services outlining the twelve evaluation criteria used and the points awarded to each bidder. On or about March 7, 1984, DHRS published its notice of intent to award Lease No. 590:1590 to Chuck Bundschu, Inc., as the successful bidder. By stipulation, only four of the evaluation criteria are in dispute as to the points awarded to each bidder. Those criteria resulted in the following ratings: Criteria 1 - Rental rate including projected operating expenses to be paid by lessor. Out of a total rating of 30 points, Sunburst received 30 points because it had the lowest rental rate during the term of the lease and the option years. Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received 27 points based on a formula designed by the committee. Under the formula, the maximum of 30 points was awarded to the low bidder if that bid was below the rent that had been set as the area rate and the other bidders then received points based on a ratio between their bid and the low bidder. Criteria 2 - Conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid. A total of 20 points was available to each bidder in this criteria. Sunburst received 18 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received the entire 20 points. The basis for the lower point award to Sunburst was that some of the proposed office space was in a residential building and the second floor of the two-story building was being and would be used for migrant farm housing. The property of Chuck Bundschu, Inc., was totally suitable and was well located. Criteria 4 - Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposal will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. Both Sunburst and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. would provide space in not more than two locations. However, Sunburst's buildings did not have a covered walkway connecting the buildings and the Bundschu property did. Therefore, Sunburst received 8 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. received the maximum 10 points. Criteria 6 - The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Sunburst received two points and Bundschu received the maximum of five points because the characteristics of the neighborhood and the actual layout of the property was more conducive to the conduct of Departmental operations. Specifically, Sunburst's property had a congested parking lot where many people gathered including some undesirable persons. These people and their activities resulted in a higher crime rate in the area. Further, migrant housing would exist on the floor above the offices that would house valuable food stamps, thereby creating a security threat. Finally, a proposed additional parking site would result in cars traveling across a walkway where clients and employees might be injured. Bundschu's property had none of these drawbacks. The memorandum from the bid evaluation committee to the Department of General Services stated the committee's findings and point award totals for the twelve criteria. That memorandum indicated that Badcock Furniture Corporation received a total of 59 points, Sunburst received 79 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received 93 points. It is undisputed that a clerical error occurred in the memorandum and the totals as reported were incorrect. At hearing, testimony was given that the corrected totals should have been 91 points for Sunburst and 95 points for Chuck Bundschu, Inc. However, even these totals do not agree with simple addition of the points as they are listed separately by criteria. It is found that the correct totals for the separate points awards as stated in the memorandum is 90 points for Sunburst and 95 points for Chuck Bundschu, Inc. Despite the discrepancy in the actual point totals is reported in the memorandum, a review of the individual evaluation forms shows that each evaluator independently awarded Sunburst fewer points than Bundschu. While there was contradictory evidence regarding the actual total points awarded and the method by which the consensus was reached, the clear and convincing evidence is that Bundschu was evaluated to be the best bidder by every evaluator and the evaluators properly applied the criteria. It is undisputed that the property offered by Chuck Bundschu, Inc., is on property partially zoned "VR", and before offices could go into the building, a provisional use variance must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County. The bid evaluation committee did not consider zoning in evaluating the bids because zoning was not an element specified in the invitations to bid. The invitation to bid does not require the proposed site to be compatibly zoned in order for the bid to be valid and responsive. If the contract is awarded and the successful bidder fails to make the space available as agreed, whether because of zoning or otherwise, the successful bidder shall be liable to DHRS for liquidated damages for each day that the property is unavailable. Zoning is not an element to be considered in the award of the bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which awards the contract for Lease No. 590:1590 to Chuck Bundschu, Inc., as having submitted the lowest and best bid proposal. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Grguric, Esquire 900 Sixth Avenue South Suite 201 Naples, Florida 33940 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Esquire Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to Question 10 and to Question 19 on the October 1990, general contractor's examination were incorrectly scored.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the general contractors licensing examination administered by Respondent in October 1990. The overall examination consisted of three parts. Petitioner has passed Parts I and III of the examination, but he failed Part II of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 67 on Part II of the examination while a score of 69.01 is required to pass that part of the examination. Petitioner initially challenged nine questions on Part II of the examination. Prior to hearing, Petitioner abandoned his challenges to all questions except for questions 10, 19, and 20. Evidence as to all three questions was presented by the parties at the formal hearing. In his post- hearing submittal, Petitioner abandoned his challenge to question 20. Consequently, only the challenges to Questions 10 and 19 need to be resolved. Question 10 and Question 19 are each worth four points. If Petitioner is given additional credit worth 2.01 points, he will have passed Part II. The challenged questions are multiple choice questions with only one response being considered by Respondent to be the correct response. For each challenged question, Petitioner selected a response other than the response Respondent considered to be the correct response. For each of the challenged questions, Petitioner received a score of zero. Question 10 requires the candidate to make certain calculations to determine the cost of a change order for a construction project. Petitioner contends that the question is unfair because of the narrow band between the possible answers. Respondent established that the question contained all information necessary to make the required computations. While Petitioner is correct in that some other questions may be less difficult because of the greater margin of error in the calculations required by those less difficult questions, his answer to Question 10 is nevertheless incorrect. Petitioner is entitled to no credit for his incorrect answer to Question 10. Question 19 provides certain information in the stem of the question and pertains to the time constraints on the service of a notice to owner by a subcontractor under the Florida Mechanics Lien Law. From the information provided in the stem of the question, the candidate can determine the date the subcontractor first furnished materials or labor. The stem of the question also informs the candidate of the date on which final payment was made to the contractor in reliance on the final contractor's affidavit. The answer to the question contains four multiple choice dates from which the candidate is to choose his answer. Preceding the answers is the following: "According to the Florida Construction Law Manual, in order to meet the requirements of the Mechanics Lien Law, concerning proper filing of the Notice to Owner, the concrete subcontractor's Notice to Owner must be served to the owner no later than:". The pertinent portions of the Florida Construction Law Manual provide as follows: Notice to the owner must be served on the owner within the earliest of the following time periods: One, before or within 45 days of the first commencement to furnish labor and materials on the job site, or within 45 days of starting to make specialty manufactured materials. Two, before final payment is made in reliance on the final contractor's affidavit. 1/ Petitioner contends that Question 19 is ambiguous because the stem of the question does not identify whether the contract referred to in the stem of the question is between the contractor and the owner or between the contractor and the subcontractor. Petitioner is correct in his contention that the question refers to the date that a contract was signed without identifying whether the contract was that between the owner and the contractor or that between the contractor and the subcontractor. The absence of that information is not fatal because the question enables the candidate to determine the date the subcontractor started work and provides the date of final payment was made to the contractor, which is the information necessary to correctly answer the question. Petitioner also contends that Question 19 is ambiguous because the answer considered by Respondent to be the correct answer is not the last date upon which the notice to owner can be served upon the owner. The correct response to Question 19 from the dates provided as possible answers to the question according to Respondent is the day before final payment was made to the contractor in reliance on the affidavit. The day that the final payment was made was not one of the four possible answers. Petitioner argues in his post- hearing submittal (but not at the formal hearing) that the question is misleading because the notice to owner could have been served on the day of final payment if the notice was served prior to the final payment by the owner. While the date of the final payment may arguably be a better choice than the date preceding the date of final payment, the date of final payment is not one of the choices. Of the choices offered the date preceding the date of final payment is clearly the best possible response. Petitioner's response to Question 19 was based on the statutory provision permitting the subcontractor to perfect service within 45 days of the date the subcontractor first furnished labor or material. The question informed the candidate that final payment to the contractor was made in reliance on a final contractor's affidavit six days prior to the date selected by Petitioner. Petitioner's answer to Question 19 was clearly wrong because a notice to owner from a subcontractor must be served before final payment to the contractor. The question is not misleading or unfair. Petitioner is entitled to no credit for his incorrect response to question 19.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's challenges to questions 10 and 19 of the October 1990 general contractor's examination. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer and enforce provisions of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes, regulating the granting or denial of applications for Home Improvement Contractor Licenses. On November 30, 1988, Petitioner submitted an application on behalf of a corporation known as "The Durocoat Company" (Durocoat) to Respondent for licensure as a home improvement contractor. On that application, Petitioner disclosed the identity of the two principals of the corporation and the position held by those two individuals. Petitioner listed himself as the president of the corporation and another individual, Russell W. Black, as the corporation's vice-president. Each principal owns 50 percent of the corporation. Following the section of the application providing for the disclosure of the identities and addresses of business principals, a number of questions are listed and the person executing the form is required to provide an "X" in a block to indicate a "yes" or "no" answer to each of those questions. Question number four reads as follows: Are there unpaid judgments against the applicant or any of the persons listed above? If "yes" attach a copy of the complaint and judgment(s). Petitioner placed an "X" in the space allotted for a "yes" answer to the inquiry regarding unpaid judgments against the persons listed as business principals, namely himself and Mr. Black. Petitioner then attached a copy of a document entitled "Notice of Levy" issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States Department of the Treasury. In sum, the notice certifies the existence of a tax lien against Mr. Black, Durocoat's vice-president, in the amount of $27,546.25. It is undisputed by the parties that creditors held unpaid judgments against Petitioner at the time he submitted the application on November 30, 1988, and that he failed to attach copies of those judgments to the application. Further, Petitioner acknowledged at the final hearing that he was aware at the time of submittal of the application of the existence of one of these judgments. That judgement, entered in favor of The American Express Company (American Express) for $7,602, has existed since September of 1987. In mitigation of his failure to disclose the American Express judgement, Petitioner testified at hearing that he didn't have a copy of the judgement at the time he filed the application and was unaware of the requirement that he should attach a copy. In view of his action in attaching a copy of the existing tax lien against Mr. Black to the application, Petitioner's testimony that he was unaware that he should attach copies of unpaid judgments is not credited. A copy of Petitioner's credit report, introduced at final hearing by Petitioner, discloses that a business known as "Speeler Marine" obtained a judgement against him in the amount of $250 in March of 1986. Petitioner testified at hearing that he was unaware of the existence of this judgement. No settlement discussions have been initiated by him with the creditor. Petitioner's credit report further discloses that an outstanding loan to Petitioner in 1985 in the amount of $36,000 by a financial institution identified as "Sun Bank" is classified as a "bad debt, placed for collection." Petitioner testified that this debt represents loan funds obtained in a previous business venture and is the subject of settlement negotiations and that he has repaid $4,000 of the amount at the present time. Petitioner's testimony also establishes that the credit report's disclosure of a 1987 foreclosure certificate of title to real estate represented real property located in Gainesville, Florida, which Petitioner had taken in trade for money owed to him. In view of the distance to that city, Petitioner testified that he simply chose not to pay off the existing mortgage on the property or oppose foreclosure action by the mortgage holder. A representative of Nationwide Chemical Coating Company (Nationwide) testified at the final hearing regarding that company's business relationship with Petitioner's corporation. Since February of 1988, Nationwide has sold supplies valued at $250,000 to Durocoat. The company has always paid charges within the 30 day required time limit and is considered to be a "class A" customer. In regard to the federal tax lien which Petitioner attached to the application, Russell W. Black testified that the lien resulted from the disallowance by IRS of a tax shelter investment of $34,000 made by Black in 1977 or 1978. Black was notified by IRS in 1981 that the tax shelter was not considered to be a valid deduction for tax purposes. The amount owed by Black to IRS in 1981 was $20,630.64. The amount is now $27,546.25 and, according to Black, is still unpaid because he doesn't have the money. On advice of counsel, he has not contacted IRS to schedule payments on the debt. Respondent denied Petitioner's application by letter dated January 13, 1989, stating that Petitioner's failure to attach copies of the unpaid judgments against himself constituted a material misstatement of fact sufficient to authorize the denial. The letter further stated that the unpaid judgments, along with the federal tax lien against Mr. Black, demonstrated a lack of financial responsibility by both individuals and constituted an additional ground for denial of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 24th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. Petitioner's proposed findings consisted of 10 unnumbered paragraphs which have been numbered 1-10 and are treated as follows: 1-8. Addressed in part, remainder rejected as unnecessary. Rejected, unsupported by direct admissible evidence. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1-2. Addressed. 3-4. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-11. Addressed in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Riley, Esq. 2325 Fifth Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33713 William W. Byrd, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Office Of The Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, FL 33602-3394 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Charles Stutts, Esq. General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In February 1989, petitioner, Michael J. Millillo, Jr., was a candidate on the certified building contractor examination. The test is prepared and administered by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department or Board). Petitioner later received written advice from the Department that he had made a grade of 63 on Part II of the examination. According to agency rules, a score of at least 69.1 is required for passing. Petitioner then filed an appeal of his examination results contending that question 8 was ambiguous and that question 20 contained more than one correct answer. That prompted this proceeding. As a result of a stipulation by counsel at hearing, petitioner was given credit for his answer to question 20 and his grade was raised to 67. Accordingly, the appeal is now limited to question 8. The examination was prepared by the National Assessment Institute and requires an examinee to use "entry level" knowledge in formulating his responses. Question 8 was a mathematics question having a value of four points on a candidate's overall score. It is undisputed that if Millillo had received four additional points he would have passed the examination. Question 8 was a multiple choice question containing four possible answers. Although the question cannot be repeated verbatim here because of confidentiality constraints, it required a candidate to make nine separate mathematical calculations in order to arrive at the correct solution. Petitioner's challenge is limited to the first calculation, and more specifically, to the wording in the question. He contends that the wording was so ambiguous that a candidate could easily arrive at a different answer than suggested by the Board. In general terms, the subpart in dispute provided a candidate with an annual payroll cost for a general superintendent who was the supervisor on a project taking one hundred fifty days to complete. The candidate was required to calculate the superintendent's cost assuming he spent 15% of his time on the project. The solution was derived by multiplying a .15 factor X 150/360 X the annual payroll cost. Petitioner testified on his own behalf and suggested that the question assumed the superintendent devoted 15% of his total time for the entire year to the project, and that the appropriate cost would be obtained by multiplying that percentage factor times the individual's annual payroll cost. The resulting number was approximately twice as great as the Board's correct solution. Respondent's consultant, George Bruton, is a licensed contractor and assisted in the preparation of the examination questions. He considered the question to be clear and unambiguous and required a student to recognize that the superintendent spent 15% of his total time on the project for five months, which was the life of the project. This interpretation is logical and reasonable, consistent with the wording in the question, and is found to be correct. The witness added that because 78% of all candidates on the examination obtained the correct answer, it reinforces his contention that the question was not ambiguous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on the February 1989 certified building contractor's examination. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4312 Respondent: 1. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 1. 2-4. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 2. 5. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 5. 6-7. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick F. Rudzik, Esquire One Fourth Street, North Suite 800 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 E. Harper Field, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71 of the April 1991 Mental Health Counselor's Examination were incorrectly scored. Whether Question 71 of said examination is an improper question.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Mental Health Counselor's Examination administered by Respondent in April 1991. Petitioner was credited with 102 correct answers out of 140 questions on the professional counseling section of the examination. A score of 103 correct answers out of 140 questions was required to pass the section. Petitioner abandoned all challenges except the challenges to the scoring of her responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71. Petitioner also asserts that Question 71 is unfair because it is ambiguous. All three of the questions involved in this proceeding are multiple choice questions, each with four possible answers. The candidates are instructed to select the best answer to the question. Question 38 pertains to an expression used to described adolescence and asks the candidate to select the best answer that explains the meaning of that expression. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 4 as her answer to the question. Respondent established that multiple choice number 1 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 38 because she did not select the best answer to the question. Question 53 pertains to a patient who rambles during an interview and requires the candidate to select from among the four multiple choice answers the best answer that names the technique used by the interviewer to bring the patient back to the main purpose of the discussion. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 1 as her answer to the question. Respondent contends that multiple choice number 4 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner contends that multiple choice number 4 is not a technique and that, consequently, number 4 cannot be the best answer to the question. The greater weight of the evidence, including the literature submitted as exhibits by the parties, is that multiple choice number 4 is a technique and that multiple choice number 4 is the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 53 because she did not select the best answer to the question. Question 71 pertains to an employee at an industrial plant who has sought out the mental health counselor in the employee assistance program. Petitioner contends that the question is ambiguous because insufficient information is given for the reasons the employee sought out the mental health counselor. Respondent established that sufficient information was provided by the root of the question to enable the candidate to select the best answer to the question. Consequently, it is concluded that the question is not impermissibly ambiguous. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 1 as her answer to Question Number 71. Respondent established that multiple choice number 2 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 71 because she did not select the best answer to the question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which upholds the validity of Question 71 and which denies Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of her responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71 of the professional counseling section of the Mental Health Counselor's Examination administered by Respondent in April 1991. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearing The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are discussed as preliminary matters. The proposed findings are unnecessary as findings of fact and are, consequently, rejected. The proposed findings of fact contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 2.a.(1) are rejected because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The candidates are instructed to select the best answer to the question. All four choices may be correct answers. While it may arguably be a correct answer, the answer selected by the Petitioner was not the best answer to the question. The proposed findings of fact contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 2.a.(1) are rejected because they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact contained in Paragraph 2.a.(2) are rejected because they are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact contained in Paragraph 2.a.(3) are rejected because they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.b.(1) are rejected as being the recitation of testimony that was considered in making the finding that the question is not ambiguous. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.c.(1) are rejected as being the recitation of testimony that was considered in making the findings reflected herein. The question called for the candidate to state what the phrase means, not whether the phrase is an improper use of a word of art. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.c.(2) are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraphs 1 and 2 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 3 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Caren Glassman 1231 SE 1 Street Apt. 13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Mental Health Counselors 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 475.021, the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, is empowered to perform examination services as required by Chapter 475. On February 2, 1987, an examination was administered for licensure as a real estate salesman. Petitioner, Ray Gold, sat for that examination. Mr. Gold received a score of 72, which was not a passing grade. Rule 2IV-2.029, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The answers to the Broker, Salesman and Instructor examination shall be graded on the basis of 100 points for a perfect examination. An applicant who receives a grade of 75 points or higher shall be deemed to have successfully completed the licensure examination. The salesman's examination shall be based upon a knowledge, understanding and application of real estate principles and practices, real estate law and real estate mathematics as contained in the Commission prescribed prerequisite education course for licensure as a real estate salesman to the extent these subject areas can reasonably be separated, 45 points shall be based on law, 45 points on principles and practices and 10 points on real estate mathematics... Mr. Gold originally objected to the answers to Questions 29, 31, 37, 52, 56, 64, 75, and 97. In the course of the final hearing, Mr. Gold abandoned his objection to Questions 29, 31, 52, and 75. Question 37 asks essentially whether the name of the broker or the brokerage firm must appear in all advertising. Mr. Gold believed that the correct answer is the name of the broker. In arriving at this answer Mr. Gold relied upon page 179 of the Florida Real Estate Commission Handbook. However, the edition upon which Mr. Gold relied was outdated. The current edition, FREC Handbook, 1986 edition, sets forth Rule 2IV-10.025. That rule clearly requires that advertising must contain the license name of the brokerage firm. Accordingly, it is determined that Mr. Gold's answer to Question 37 was incorrect and he should not receive credit for his answer. Question 56 inquires regarding the appraisal technique known as the comparable sales approach to value. In this appraisal technique, Mr. Gold believes answer C -- "market value of the subject property is adjusted to comparables" -- is the correct answer. The answer deemed correct by the Respondent is answer D -- "sales price of comparables are adjusted to the subject property. "Mr. Gold relies upon a copy of a residential appraisal report form, FNMA Form 1004. The Respondent however relies upon a text, Florida Real Estate Principles, Practices, and Law, by G. Gaines, Jr., and D. S. Coleman. This text is one of the designated and approved texts for use in teaching the FREC Course I. All persons must take and pass this course in order to be eligible to sit for the examination. At page 265 of that text, it is clearly stated: "All adjustments necessary to achieve the maximum degree of similarity must be made to each comparable property, not to the subject property." Based upon this authority, it is determined that the answer D is the only correct answer to Question 56. Mr. Gold is not entitled to receive credit for his answer. Question 64 asks which types of loss in value are usually incurable. Mr. Gold believes that both answer C -- "Economic obsolescence" -- and answer D -- "Straight-line depreciation" -- are correct. Mr. Gold gave answer D on his examination. The answer recognized as correct by the Respondent is answer C. At page 269 of the above-cited Gaines and Coleman text, three main types of depreciation are identified and it is clearly indicated that external (economic or locational) obsolescence is incurable. Straight-line depreciation is not indicated to be incurable. Accordingly, it is determined that answer C is the correct answer to Question 64 and that Mr. Gold is not entitled to credit for his incorrect answer. Question 97 involves calculation of the estimated value of a house and land using the cost approach to value. The question specifically gives separate information for calculation of the value of the house and the value of the land. The question then inquires, "What is the estimated value of the house?" Mr. Gold correctly applied the cost approach method and arrived at the estimated value of the house only which is reflected in answer A -- "$41,600.00." The information given specifies that the lot is worth $15,000.00. Answer B, the correct answer according to the Respondent, is "$56,600.00" -- the value of the house and the lot. Page 267 of the above-cited Gaines and Coleman text describes the steps in estimating value by the cost approach method. There it states that to determine the value of the property, one essentially calculates the value of the house and the value of the land as if it were vacant and then adds the two values together. Because the question only asked the estimated value of the house, and not the estimated value of the property, it is determined that the question was ambiguous and that Mr. Gold's answer A is equally correct. Accordingly, it is determined that Mr. Gold should receive additional credit for this correct answer. Each question on the examination is worth one point. Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Gold is entitled to receive one additional point added to his score. As recalculated, Mr. Gold is entitled to a score of 73 on the examination. This score is insufficient to pass the exam.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a Final Order and therein award credit to Ray Gold for a correct answer on Question 97, but deny licensure to Mr. Gold based upon his failure to achieve a passing score on the subject examination. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day December, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 17th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Gold Daytona Beach Pin Co. Post Office Box 5792 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Chester G. Senf, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's examination challenge should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice architecture. Respondent is also responsible for administering examinations for such licenses on behalf of the state. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner has been unlicensed as an architect. Petitioner took the Predesign part of the Architecture Examination given in June, 1995. Respondent's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated September 6, 1995, that Petitioner had earned a score of 74 on the Predesign part of the examination. The minimum score needed to pass the Predesign part of the examination is 75. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. A formal hearing was conducted on March 12, 1996. At the formal hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 74 and 105. Petitioner also challenged Respondent's failure to award credit for 10 pretest, or "pilot," questions included in the examination. Petitioner selected answer D to question 74. The correct answer is B. Petitioner selected answer A to question 105. The correct answer is D. The correct answer to each question is the answer identified by Respondent. The correct answer to each question is not the answer selected by Petitioner. Questions 74 and 105 are clear and unambiguous. Each question contains enough correct information to allow Respondent to select the correct response. Questions 74 and 105 are supported by reference materials which are approved and generally accepted in the architectural community. The correct responses to questions 74 and 105 do not require knowledge which is beyond the scope of knowledge that reasonably could be expected from a candidate for licensure. Pretest questions or "pilot items" are questions that are placed within an examination to determine their validity and reliability. No candidate, including Petitioner, may receive credit for correctly answering pretest questions. Before administering the examination, Respondent notified all candidates, including Petitioner, that pretest questions would be included as part of the examination. Petitioner is not entitled to credit for pretest questions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's examination challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 29th day of April 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Architecture and Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vasantro Shere, pro se 117 Rabun Court Sanford, Florida 32773 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner, Gary P. Santoro (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Santoro”), undeservedly received a failed grade on the Construction Business and Finance Examination (“Examination”) for licensure as an air-conditioning contractor; whether any questions on the examination had more than one correct answer; whether the examination is unfair; whether there is transparency in the examination review process; and whether the examination grading process is arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Santoro took the Examination on November 16, 2018. Petitioner failed the Examination because he scored less than 70 percent correct. The Examination contains 125 questions, 120 of which are scored. The other five are not scored and are considered “pilot” questions for potential use on future examinations. In order to pass the Examination, a candidate must obtain a score of at least 70 percent. All scored questions on the Examination are weighted equally. As a result of failing to pass the Examination, Petitioner was notified of his results. All questions on the Examination had a single correct answer. Cynthia Woodley, Ph.D., employed by Professional Testing, Inc. (“PTI”), as the chief operating officer, is an expert in psychometrics and exam development. She holds a master’s degree in vocational education and a doctorate in curriculum and instruction with a specialization in measurement. Her current position calls for her to manage a number of licensure and certification exam programs. She explained at length how specific questions become part of a professional licensure exam. To develop questions, her company brings in any number of subject matter experts, people actually employed in the professions being tested, and they help develop subject matter questions for a particular exam. That was the process used for development of the Examination in this matter. Once the subject matter experts are trained in exam question writing techniques, they write questions, which are reviewed by other subject matter experts to determine whether the questions are fair and understandable enough to be answered by prospective test takers. Generally, five subject matter experts review each question before it makes its way onto an exam. PTI measures the “P value” of the questions by determining what percent of individuals taking a given exam answer a particular question correctly. For example, a P value of .90 means that 90 percent of the people taking the exam answered a particular question correctly. PTI looks for a wide range of P values in its exam questions. If a P value is too low, say .40, the company might reexamine that question to determine whether it should be removed from future exams since fewer than half the people taking the exam answered it correctly. The business and finance portion of the exam is given to all contractors, regardless of their specialty, with the exception of pool service contractors. Here, Petitioner, a HVAC contractor was administered the same Examination as plumbing contractors, electrical contractors, general contractors, etc. Each of the 120 questions on the exam in this case was equally weighted. There were also five pilot questions inserted into the exam, which did not count towards the total score, but were included as test questions for future exams. Petitioner provided hearsay documents regarding computer hacking and computer glitches associated with some exams administered around the United States. However, he did not connect the articles submitted into evidence to the exam administered in this case or any exam administered by the Department in Florida. Dr. Woodley was familiar with the allegations of computer glitches in testing, but testified that the problems were with K-12 testing in schools, not with professional licensure exams, such as administered by the Department. Therefore, since the hearsay evidence was not linked to the exam at issue or similar professional licensure exams given in Florida, it is entitled to no weight in arriving at the decision in this case. Question BF 1290 has a single correct answer, which is answer “C.” Petitioner selected answer “B.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 0473 has a single correct answer, which is answer “A.” Petitioner selected answer “C.” This question asks for an answer of general applicability. Petitioner’s claim that his answer is equally correct is based on a narrow exception in law. Accordingly, Petitioner was not able to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 0162 has a single correct answer, which is answer “B.” Petitioner selected answer “C.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 1691 has a single correct answer, which is answer “C.” Petitioner selected answer “D.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Petitioner was unable to submit sufficient evidence to show that the Examination is unfair, that there is insufficient transparency in the examination review process, or that the examination grading process is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, he cannot prevail in his challenge to the Examination. Petitioner testified that he took and passed the HVAC contractors special license examination on his first attempt. He has taken the Examination on numerous occasions and is yet to be successful. He testified he studied hard for every administration of the exam, but just cannot reach the finish line successfully. While that is unfortunate, the evidence does not support that his failure to succeed on the Examination is the fault of the exam itself or of the Department either in its contracting to have the exam created or in the administration of the exam. From the way he conducted himself at hearing, Petitioner appears to be an intelligent, diligent, and successful individual in his HVAC business. For some unknown reason he has been unable to successfully complete the Examination. His persistence in retaking the Examination multiple times is admirable and should ultimately pay off with his successful passage of the Examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order upholding the Department’s Amended Grade Report finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on the Construction Business and Finance Examination, which he took on November 16, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas G. Thomas, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Gary Peter Santoro Hometown Air & Services 8229 Blaikie Court Sarasota, Florida 34240-8323 (eServed) Ray Treadwell, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Daniel Biggins, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Halsey Beshears, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed)
