The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420. Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations. Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving". Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations. Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation. Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption. In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation. Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale". The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable". The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct". The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc." The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error. The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's applications for licensure should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed applications with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) for certifications as a plumbing inspector and electrical inspector. The Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors (Board), which is part of DBPR, is the state agency charged with certification of plumbing and electrical inspectors, pursuant to Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Petitioner previously received provisional certification to perform plumbing and electrical inspections as a result of the Board’s failure to take timely action on Petitioner’s applications for provisional licenses. He is currently employed with the City of Deland as a commercial and residential inspector and has been employed there since September 17, 2007. Accompanying his applications was a statement of “experience history”, provided on a Board form. The experience history listed four places of employment covering four periods of time: 1976 to 1986: Job Foreman for Ron Abel Contracting; 2001 to 2005: Standard Inspector for the City of Winter Springs; 2005 to 2007: Standard Inspector for GFA International; and 2007 to present: Standard Inspector for the City of Deland. Accompanying his applications were three affidavits relating to the 1976-1986 employment with Ron Abel Contracting; two affidavits relating to his 2001-2005 employment with the City of Winter Springs; one affidavit relating to his 2005-2007 employment with GFA International; and one affidavit regarding Petitioner’s employment with the City of Deland from 2007 to present. The first affidavit relating to the 1976 to 1986 period of time was from Daniel Kittinger, a licensed general contractor, who attests that when working in his father’s construction business, Petitioner “assisted in the home building process, acted as foreman to oversee [sic] the subcontracting was done in a timely manner and that specifications met code requirements for residential buildings.” The second affidavit for the 1976 to 1986 period was from Carleen Abel, Vice President of Ronald E. Abel Contracting, and states the following: Mr. Jay Abel is the son of the owner and worked as a field foreman from 1976-1986. During his tenure with Abel Contracting, Jay provided supervision of the field operation on overseeing trade contractors. His principle responsibilities included hands on supervision of framing, electrical, plumbing and HVAC sub-contractors for both residential and commercial work. He primarily was to assure that the jobs were properly constructed, completed on time and confirmed that the appropriate codes were satisfied. The third affidavit relating to 1976-1986 did not include the license number of the affiant. Therefore, it was not considered, and is not considered herein, as it does not comply with the statutory requirement that a licensed architect, engineer, contractor, or building code examiner affirm an applicant’s experience by affidavit. Regarding Petitioner’s employment with the City of Winter Springs, an affidavit was submitted by a person whose first name is David (last name begins with an “A” but is not legible) which states that Petitioner was employed as a residential inspector under the direction of Dennis Franklin and under supervision of a senior inspector. This affidavit referenced an attached affidavit of Dennis Franklin which states as follows: I have personal knowledge that Jay Abel worked as a residential inspector in Winter Springs during the time of his licensure as per Chapter 468 F.S. One affidavit was submitted relating to Petitioner’s work experience from 2005 to 2007. The affidavit of Jeffrey D. DeBoer states as follows: During Jay’s tenure at CFA International he performed inspections of 1 + 2 family dwellings and was in training to perform plan review of both mechanical, electrical and plumbing disciplines. This training was done under the supervision of other certified plans examiners for each discipline. The affidavit of Joseph R. Crum was submitted regarding Petitioner’s current employment with the City of Deland. It states in pertinent part as follows: Jay Abel is employed with the City of Deland as an inspector. He is required to perform inspections on commercial buildings and structures for Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and gas installations. He is also required to perform inspections on Residential buildings and structures for all of the trades including, Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and gas installations. Jay currently holds a standard one and two family dwelling inspector license #BN4928. He also holds provisional licenses as follows: Building #PBI 1573, Commercial Electrical: #PCE 651, Mechanical: #PMI 549 and Plumbing: #PPI 582. Having these licenses means he has met the qualifications for each and should be issued the appropriate license as he passes the individual exams.[1/] In addition to the affidavits submitted by Petitioner, Petitioner’s current supervisor testified at hearing. Matthew J. Adair is the chief building official with the City of Deland. He supervises all of the building division which includes code enforcement and building inspections personnel. He is familiar with the work performed by Petitioner in his current employment with the City of Deland. At hearing, Mr. Adair described Petitioner’s work: Jay is our commercial and residential inspector at this time. He does primarily commercial work for us. I’ve personally overseen the inspections that he conducts on a daily basis. . . [t]o include installation of electrical and plumbing systems in new commercial buildings, main distribution panels, underground electric, overhead, receptacles, feeders. And on the plumbing side the same thing, water, sewer lines, undergrounds, sewer connections even back-load preventers. . . . He’s very competent. He knows the codes, but on top of just knowing the codes he knows how systems are supposed to be installed in the field. He is a competent inspector.. . . He is one of my most valued employees.[2/] Petitioner also submitted an “Educational History” which represents that he holds an associate of arts degree in business. Further, the “Examination History” portion of the form represents that he passed the Florida Principles and Practice Examination. The Board has created an application review committee (committee), consisting of three members of the Board, to review all applications and make a recommendation to the Board as to whether each application should be approved or denied. Dennis Franklin is a member of the Board and the review committee. According to Mr. Franklin, the committee reviews the applications, and makes a determination as to whether an application should be approved or denied. The determination is made by majority vote of the committee. The decision of the committee is then presented to the Board which ratifies the committee’s decision at a Board meeting. The Board generally does not otherwise independently review the applications, but simply ratifies the decision of the committee. The committee met at some point prior to the Board’s April 10, 2009, meeting. The committee reviewed Petitioner’s applications and determined that his applications should be denied. The decision of the committee was ratified by the full Board on April 10, 2009. Robert McCormick is Chairman of the Board and is a member of the committee. According to Mr. McCormick, the Board interprets the statutory requirement of five years’ combined experience to mean that an applicant must demonstrate an equivalent of five years’ full-time experience. Mr. McCormick applied what he described as a “rule-of-thumb,” in which he divided five years into an average of full-time work hours of 2,000 work hours per year and 10,000 work hours for a five-year period of employment. Mr. McCormick determined that Petitioner’s application did not establish that he had worked five years full-time in either the electrical or plumbing trade and, therefore, determined that his applications should be denied. Gary Hiatt is the chief building official of Flagler County and is responsible for the day-to-day management of plumbing and electrical inspectors in that county. He reviewed Petitioner’s applications and is of the opinion that Petitioner “has demonstrated through his background in contracting and licensure as well as his educational background to meet the requirements to be able to sit for that examination.”
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting Petitioner's applications for standard certification as a plumbing and electrical inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Question No. 130 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 23, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dennis Vann (Petitioner), is an applicant for licensure as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. On April 23, 1999, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice Engineering Examination portion of the engineer licensure examinations. This is a national examination developed, controlled, and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Petitioner received a raw score of 45 on this examination. For the electrical engineering discipline, a raw score of 45 results in a converted score of 67. A minimum converted score of 70 is required to pass this examination. A raw score of 48 results in a converted score of 70. Therefore, Petitioner needs an additional 3 raw score points to earn a passing score on the examination. Petitioner challenged the scoring of Question No. 130 on the examination and formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to the question. The NCEES rescored Question No. 130 and determined that Petitioner was not entitled to any additional points for Question No. 130. For Question No. 130, the maximum score achievable was Petitioner received a score of 4 on that item. The NCEES developed and used an Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) for each examination question. Question No. 130 was scored by the NCEES according to the ISSP for that question. Question No. 130 contains two subparts, which require the examinee to address four discrete requirements. Petitioner correctly calculated the bus current (requirement 3). However, Petitioner failed to properly calculate the busway loading and determination of adequacy (requirement 1), the bus impedance (requirement 2), and percent voltage drop (requirement 4). Petitioner's response to Question No. 130 was initially assigned a score of 4. However, if graded correctly, that response would have resulted in a score of 6. The credible testimony of Respondent's expert was that under the ISSP for Question No. 130, Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 for his response. With a score of 6 for Question No. 130, Petitioner's raw score is increased to 47. A raw score of 47 results in a converted score of 69. Even with the 2 additional points awarded to Petitioner's response to Question No. 130, his score on the professional engineering licensure examination is still below 70 and is not a passing score. Question No. 130 provides all the necessary information for an examinee to solve the problem. Moreover, Question No. 130 is properly designed to test an examinee's competence in electrical engineering.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered concluding that Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his response to Question No. 130, and recalculating Petitioner's total score on the examination on the basis of that conclusion. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 21st day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Vann Post Office box 23054 Tampa, Florida 33623 William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1884 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner should receive credit for any of the 15 challenged questions in two parts of the certified general contractors examination given in June, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the general contractors examination given on June 29- 30, 1993. The examination consisted of three parts. The minimum score required to pass each part was 70. Petitioner passed the Business and Finance part of the examination with a score of 70. Petitioner failed the other two parts of the examination. He received a score of 61 on the Contract Administration part of the examination and a score of 67 on the Project Management part of the examination. Petitioner challenged eight questions on the Contract Administration part of the examination and seven questions on the Project Management part of the examination. The part of the examination on which each question appeared, the question number, the correct answer, and the answer chosen by Petitioner are as follows: EXAM PART QUESTION CORRECT ANSWER PETITIONER'S ANSWER Contract Admin. 2 B C Contract Admin. 5 D A Contract Admin. 10 D C Contract Admin. 11 C D Contract Admin. 13 C B Contract Admin. 20 C D Contract Admin. 22 C D Contract Admin. 37 B D Project Mgmt. 7 C D Project Mgmt. 9 D C Project Mgmt. 10 C A Project Mgmt. 11 B C Project Mgmt. 13 B A Project Mgmt. 23 D A Project Mgmt. 37 A D For each of the foregoing questions, the correct answer was the answer identified by Respondent and not the answer chosen by Petitioner. Petitioner presented no competent and substantial evidence to support his answers. The challenged questions were clearly and unambiguously worded. The challenged questions contained enough correct information to allow the candidate to select the correct response. The correct response for each of the challenged questions was supported by approved reference materials. The correct response did not require knowledge which was beyond the scope of knowledge that reasonably could be expected from a candidate for licensure. All current techniques were taken in account when the correct response was determined by Respondent. The examination was open book. Petitioner was allowed to refer to the Standard Building Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein DENY Petitioner's challenge to the questions at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 1994. DANIEL 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 27th day of April, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire William M. Woodyard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Behzad Khazraee 142 Tollgate Trail Longwood, FL 32750
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to enough points so as to be considered to have passed the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination?
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination. Petitioner received a score of 68 on the examination. A score of 70 is required to pass. A score of 70 is a converted raw score of 48. Petitioner's score of 68 is a converted raw score of 46. Therefore, Petitioner needs two raw-score points to achieve a passing score. Petitioner challenged the scoring of Questions 28, 62, 114, and 119. Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) to be re-scored. The re-score resulted in no additional points being added to Petitioner's score. No significant evidence was presented with regard to Questions 28 and 62, and Petitioner's expert agreed that they had been scored correctly with zero points awarded. Question 114 is an essay question. Petitioner received a raw score of 4 on this question, (40 percent of a possible 10 points). Question 119 is an essay question. Petitioner received a raw score of 2 on this question, (20 percent of a possible 10 points). Neither Petitioner's nor Respondent's expert was pleased with the scoring method established by NCEES, but both experts agreed that applicants are bound by the scoring plan established by whatever entity devised the test and scoring system, in this case NCEES. The NCEES scoring system is called the Solution and Scoring Plan. It contemplates that if an examinee's answer meets some criteria specified by NCEES for 4 points (but not all the criteria for 4 points) and also meets some criteria specified by NCEES for 2 points (but not all the criteria for 2 points), the examinee is to be awarded only 2 points, not 1 point or 3 points. Petitioner received a score of 4 on Question 114, a gas absorption problem. Petitioner got the correct answer but did not do much to justify the assumptions he made. He wrote his assumption in the body of his calculations instead of at the beginning, where he must have actually made the assumption in order to work the problem. According to Dr. Narayanan, Petitioner merely made an assumption of diluteness. Dr. Peters explained that Petitioner had assumed that the percent removal would be identical for the two cases contained in the problem. Petitioner had assumed that the percent removal of ammonia in condition one, which is 85 percent, is exactly the same as condition two. However, in Dr. Peters' view, there is no justification for that assumption. The Petitioner had calculated the new Yout based solely on the ratio of the two cases, without proving that the approach is valid. Therefore, although Dr. Narayanan would have scored Petitioner with 5 or 6 points, instead of 4 points on this problem, Dr. Peters' view was that achieving the correct answer from an incorrect procedure did not demonstrate more than 4 points on the established scoring system. Upon all the evidence, I find that Petitioner's answer to Question 114 meets the criteria set forth for a score of 4 under the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan. Accordingly, Petitioner was entitled only to a score of 4 for that problem. Petitioner received a score of only 2 points on Question 119. Overall, Petitioner selected the proper equations and demonstrated the solution procedure correctly with the correct mass balances, but the scoring plan required that for a score of 4 on Question 119, examinees had to at least attempt to sketch the heat release curve, which Petitioner did not do. Petitioner admitted that he did not even attempt to draw the curve because he ran out of time. More specifically, Part A of Question 119 required Petitioner to determine the temperature at which the flash cooler must be operated and the composition, in mole percent, of the liquid stream removed. Petitioner did not demonstrate the calculation for the mole fractions in the liquid phase composition. Instead, he calculated the vapor phase composition. Although there is no way he could calculate the correct temperature, which he did, without somehow calculating the liquid phase compositions coming out of the process, Petitioner still did not fulfill all of the requirements of Part A of Question 119, as that question was posed on the examination. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Narayanan, partially agreed with the official scoring of Question 119. However, he stated that Petitioner's failure to report the liquid phase compositions, rather than the gas phase compositions, was merely an oversight. Petitioner calculated something correctly that was not required, but he did not calculate at all one element which was required. More specifically, Part B of Question 119 required Petitioner to sketch the heat release curve. Petitioner determined enough raw data for plotting the curve, but did not plot the curve due to the time factor. Completing all requirements of each problem posed was part of the testing procedure. Petitioner made no reasonable attempt to sketch the heat release curve, and therefore, Petitioner did not get any part of Part B of Question 119 correct. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I accept as persuasive the testimony of Respondent's expert, Dr. Peters, that the scorer applied the NCEES scoring plan correctly, without a subjective component, and that Petitioner is not entitled to any more points on the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination than those which were originally awarded to him.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order confirming Petitioner's score of 46 on the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ashok Raichoudhury 9917 Northwest 6th Court Plantation, Florida 33324 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In April 1995, Abraham S. Inlong (Petitioner) took the Electrical Engineer part of the Professional Engineering Examination (Examination). A minimum grade of 70 is required to pass the Examination. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had failed the Examination, having received a grade of 69.10. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners. Respondent issues licenses to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida and administers the Examination on behalf of the State. Petitioner challenges, the answer selected by the national examiners to Problem 433, Question 6 of the Examination, which is A. Respondent selected D as the answer, which states that A, B, and C are all correct. As part of the instructions for candidates taking the Examination, the candidates were to choose the best answer. The best answer is the correct answer. Respondent's response to Problem 433, Question 6 was regraded by the national examiners. They denied Respondent any additional credit. The best and correct answer to Problem 433, Question 6 is the answer identified by Respondent as the answer by the national examiners, i. e., A. The answer selected by Petitioner is not the best and correct answer. A diagram is part of the challenged problem and question. The diagram is clear and unambiguous. The scope of knowledge required for the challenged problem and question is not beyond the knowledge reasonably expected from a candidate for licensure. The challenged problem and question contain sufficient information for a candidate for licensure to select the best and correct answer. Additional information was unnecessary, including whether the system was balanced or unbalanced. The challenged problem and question are clear and unambiguous. The challenged problem and question are not devoid of logic and reason. The challenged problem and question are valid. Statistics indicate that 60 percent of the candidates for licensure (candidates), who took the Examination, answered Problem 433 correctly and that 48 percent of the candidates answered Problem 433, Question 6 correctly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order dismissing Abraham S. Inlong's examination challenge and denying him licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 1st day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0031 The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or not supported by the more credible evidence. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or not supported by the more credible evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5. See Preliminary Statement. 6. See Preliminary Statement. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 - 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Rejected as being subordinate, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. NOTE--Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being subordinate, irrelevant, unnecessary, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire One Datran Center, Suite 400 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7815 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to four problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 45 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 45 converts to a score of 67. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 26, 1999) that his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to Natalie Lowe of the Board, who forwarded it to the NCEES. Appended to Petitioner's letter to Ms. Lowe were two pages of "scratch paper" on which Petitioner had written during his post-examination review on March 19, 1999. On the first page were written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 120 and 125. On the second page were the following written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 220 and 222: 220 a, b, & c 2 parts b & c correct. Min. mark I should get[:] At least 5 instead of 2 and maybe 7. There is an error. 222 ok The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on May 12, 1999. The Board subsequently referred the matter to the Division to conduct an administrative hearing. At the administrative hearing that was held pursuant to the Board's referral, Petitioner challenged the grading of his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 220 of the Examination, and indicated that he had "no dispute concerning the grading of [his solution to Problem] 222," notwithstanding that he had requested, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, that his solution to Problem 222 be rescored. Petitioner explained that he had made this request as a result of inadvertence and that he had actually intended to seek rescoring of his solution to Problem 220, not Problem 222. Problems 120, 125, and 222 were worth ten raw points each. Problem 120 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received four raw points for his solution to Problem 120. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Petitioner solved two subparts of Problem 120 correctly (subparts (a) and (b)). The solutions to the other two subparts of Problem 120 (subparts (c) and (d)), however, were incorrect inasmuch as Petitioner had neglected, in making the lateral force calculations and drawing the diagrams required by these subparts, to include the force attributable to the movement of the groundwater referred to in the problem. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Problem 125 contained three subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125. Upon rescoring, no change was made this raw score. Petitioner correctly solved only one of the three subparts of Problem 125 (subpart (c)). In his solution to subpart (a) of Problem 125, Petitioner did not provide, as required by this subpart, the quantities of water, cement, and aggregate necessary for the project described in the problem. Petitioner's solution to subpart (b) did not describe one of the acceptable slump increasing methods that the candidates were required describe in their solution to this subpart. Accordingly, giving Petitioner a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 220. He did not request, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, a rescoring of his solution to this problem, and, as a result, his solution was not rescored. At the administrative hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf regarding the scoring of this solution and, during his testimony, contended that the score he received was too low; however, neither a copy of the problem, nor a copy of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, was offered into evidence. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to support a finding that the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 220 was undeservedly low in light of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner initially received a raw score of eight for his solution to Problem 220. Rescoring resulted in this score being reduced two points to a six. Petitioner did not present any evidence supporting the position (which he advances in his Proposed Recommended Order) that he should have received a higher score for his solution to this problem, and, consequently, Respondent's expert, in his testimony at hearing, did not address the matter. While there were exhibits offered (by Respondent) and received into evidence relating to the scoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 222, it is not apparent from a review of these exhibits that such scoring deviated from the requirements of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem (which was received into evidence as part of Respondent's Exhibit 12).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1999.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, committed the offenses alleged in a four-count Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on July 11, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Chs. 455 and 489, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, is and has been at all times material hereto a certified general contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1506071. Mr. Acevedo is also a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license number CCC 1326888. Both licenses were issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board) and are in “current active” status. At all times material, Mr. Acevedo was the primary qualifying agent for All Design Systems, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “All Design”). All Design is a Florida corporation. Mr. Acevedo is an officer of the corporation. All Design’s certificate of authority, License Number QB 26737, was issued on September 4, 2003. The license expired on August 31, 2007, and was in delinquent status from September 1, 2007, to May 14, 2008. Mr. Acevedo remained the qualifying agent during the delinquent period. All Design employed three to four sales agents who “sold” construction projects to commercial and residential property owners on behalf of All Design. All Design utilized these individuals because it believed they had experience in the construction industry and that they held licenses or certifications which would allow them to perform estimates on construction projects and make appropriate bids. The sales agents were to find customers for All Design and enter into contracts with them on behalf and in the name of All Design. In August of 2005, Mr. Acevedo was approached by Eduardo Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez offered to locate potential home remodeling customers for All Design in exchange for a percentage commission. Mr. Acevedo agreed. At no time relevant to this matter was Mr. Rodriguez licensed in Florida to engage in contracting as a state certified or registered contractor. Nor was Mr. Rodriguez’s business entity, Eduardo’s Construction, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Eduardo’s Construction”), licensed with a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified business. Mr. Rodriguez was the president and sole officer of Eduardo’s Construction. Eduardo’s Construction was not incorporated in Florida. Some time during 2005, Grace Esposito obtained a business card for Eduardo’s Construction. She obtained the card after discussing with a neighbor construction work that was being performed by Eduardo’s Construction on the neighbor’s residence. The neighbor informed her that Mr. Rodriguez was the contractor performing the work. The business card incorrectly represented that Mr. Rodriguez was licensed and insured. Ms. Esposito called the number listed for Eduardo’s Construction and spoke with a man who identified himself as Eduardo Rodriguez. In August 2005, Mr. Rodriguez met with Ms. Esposito at her condominium residence, located at 20301 West Country Club Drive, Aventura, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). Ms. Esposito discussed with Mr. Rodriguez the work which she desired. Based upon representations from Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito believed that he was licensed to perform the work being discussed. The evidence failed to prove, as suggested by Mr. Acevedo, that Mr. Rodriguez “bid on the Esposito job, [and] orally agreed to essential terms with Esposito on behalf of All Design Systems, Inc., Respondent’s Firm.” Mr. Acevedo’s testimony in this regard was uncorroborated hearsay and was contradicted by the credible testimony of Ms. Esposito. On September 5, 2005, Ms. Esposito entered into a written contract with Mr. Rodriguez, doing business as Eduardo’s Construction, for the remodeling of the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”). Ms. Esposito agreed in the Contract to pay $24,000.00 for the remodeling. Upon execution of the Contract, Ms. Esposito paid Eduardo’s Construction with three checks totaling $12,000.00 for the remodeling. Mr. Rodriguez informed Mr. Acevedo of the project in September 2005. At that time, without reviewing the Contract, Mr. Acevedo executed a building permit application which Mr. Rodriguez provided him for the project. The permit application had not been signed by Ms. Esposito. In October 2005, Mr. Rodriguez presented the building permit application to Ms. Esposito for her signature. The permit application was then submitted to the building department. The building permit was subsequently approved and issued under Mr. Acevedo’s license and in the name of All Design. Ms. Esposito had been told that part of the work would be completed in October. When this representation proved untrue, she began contacting Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez told her that it was taking time to get the permit due to delays at the building department. Eventually, when she was no longer able to contact Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito went directly to the building department where she learned that All Design was the contactor of record and not Eduardo’s Construction. On or about October 31, 2005, Ms. Esposito telephoned All Design and spoke with Mr. Acevedo. She informed Mr. Acevedo about the Contract. Mr. Acevedo agreed to meet with her. On November 1, 2005, Mr. Acevedo visited Ms. Esposito at the Subject Property. She showed him the work that had been performed and explained the details of the Contract and what had transpired with Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that his relationship with Mr. Rodriguez was that he merely allowed Mr. Rodriguez to use his license to pull permits in exchange for $150.00. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that he would attempt to get Mr. Rodriguez to complete the job. This meeting was memorialized in a letter to Mr. Acevedo written by Ms. Esposito. At some time in November, work recommenced on the project. Within approximately three days, however, work stopped. Ms. Esposito sent four emails to Mr. Acevedo describing the work performed and the cessation of the project. Ms. Esposito made a final request that the project be completed. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to the emails. On or about November 17, 2005, Ms. Esposito sent a letter to Mr. Acevedo outlining the events, requesting termination of the Contract, and the removal of Mr. Acevedo from the building permit. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to this letter. The building permit was cancelled by Mr. Acevedo in December 2005. The total investigation costs incurred by the Department, excluding those costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $381.83. Mr. Acevedo has not previously been disciplined by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Daniel F. Acevedo violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(d), (i), and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; imposing fines of $250.00 for Count I, $1,000.00 for Count II, and $2,000.00 for Count III; requiring that Mr. Acevedo pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; placing Mr. Acevedo’s licenses on probation for a period of two years, conditioned upon his payment of the fines, payment of the costs incurred by the Department; and any other conditions determined to be necessary by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 11th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian P. Coats, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Daniel Acevedo All Designs Systems, Inc. 2813 Executive Drive Weston, Florida 32388 Kenneth Stein, Esquire 8436 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, Florida 33351 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her response to question nos. 122 and 222 of the civil engineering examination administered on October 31, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the civil professional engineering licensing examination. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. Petitioner challenged the scoring of question nos. 122 and 222. As part of the examination challenge process, Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying where it was re-scored. In the re-score process, the grader deducted points from Petitioner's original score. Petitioner was given the same raw score of 6 on question number 122; however, on question number 222 her raw score of 4 was reduced to a 2. Petitioner needed a raw score of 48 in order to achieve a passing score of 70; she needed at least three additional raw score points to obtain a passing raw score of 48. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on problem number 122. The solution and scoring plan for that problem required the candidate to obtain a culvert size in the range of 21-36 inches. The Petitioner incorrectly answered 3.1 feet or 37.2 inches. She is not entitled to additional credit for problem number 122 because she answered the question with the wrong size culvert. Problem number 122 required the candidate to use a predevelopment peak flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Petitioner used 58.33 cfs. She chose the maximum flow rather than the predevelopment peak flow. In solving problem number 122, Petitioner chose a design headwater depth of 4.8 feet. The correct solution required a design headwater depth of 5.7 feet. Petitioner made another mistake in problem number 122; she failed to check the water depth in the downstream swale. Petitioner concedes she was given sufficient information to solve problem number 122. She understood what the question was asking of her. She admits that she did not compute the critical depth of the water and that she did not complete the solution. Question number 222 had three parts. The candidate was required to determine the footing size, to select the reinforcing steel, and to provide a sketch for a concrete column located along the edge of a building. Petitioner understood the question and was provided enough information to solve the problem. Petitioner correctly checked the footing size as required by the first part; however, she did not select the reinforcing steel or show the required sketch. Therefore, Petitioner did not complete enough of the problem to qualify for a score of 4 points. She is entitled to a score of 2 points. The examination questions at issue here were properly designed to test the candidate's competency in solving typical problems in real life. The grader (re-scorer) utilized the scoring plan correctly. Petitioner has been in the United States for approximately eleven years. She lived in Romania before she came to the United States. In Romania, Petitioner used only the metric system in her professional work. While she has used the English system since moving to the United States, Petitioner is more familiar with the metric system. The Principles and Practice examination is an open-book examination. Petitioner took a book entitled the Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook to the examination. When the proctor examined her books, she told the Petitioner she was not permitted to keep the handbook. The proctor took the handbook from the Petitioner. Petitioner protested the confiscation of her reference book because she had used the same book in two previous tests. About ten minutes later, the proctor's supervisor returned the book to Petitioner. Petitioner's book was returned at least ten minutes before the test began. She was permitted to use the book during the test. There is no persuasive evidence that the proctor's mistake in temporarily removing Petitioner's reference book caused her to be so upset that she failed the test. Candidates were not permitted to study their books prior to the beginning of the examination. Petitioner may have been nervous when the test began. However, Petitioner received a perfect score of ten points on the first problem she worked, problem number 121.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the examination and dismissing the Petitioner's challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Bartin, President Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
