The Issue The issue is whether Oliver J. Turzak violated statutes and rules governing the practice of engineering as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Clerk of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the “Board”) on October 4, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint at issue was filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (“FEMC”) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and at all times material to these proceedings has been, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 18230. Respondent’s last known address is 5405 Water Street, New Port Richey, Florida 34652. On April 20, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive, New Port Richey, Florida (“Fish Residence Project”). On June 10, 2008, Respondent signed, sealed, and dated an engineering opinion letter (“Letter”) which was addressed and sent to Champion Foundation Repair, the entity which was Respondent’s client for the Fish Residence Project. The Letter stated in material part: [Respondent], whose signature appears below, has verified placement of twenty-seven (27) exterior piers and twenty-five (25) interior jack pins as located on the drawings by the same job number. The piers all achieved sufficient load bearing characteristics to transfer the house weight to the piers and to close cracks substantially and stabilize the foundation. The remediation program was developed according to geological data supplied by Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc., dated November 2007. Similar pier reports on numerous structures with similar problems have demonstrated long term success without additional settlement. Therefore, it is the opinion of the [Respondent] that the location has been repaired and stabilized and, further, that there is no evidence of new sinkhole activity at the location. In compliance with Florida Statute 627.707, the report and remediation program was prepared under the supervision of a Registered Professional, whose field of expertise is a Geo-Technical Engineer. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (“Responsibility Rules”). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-35. Professional engineers, who perform services covered by the Responsibility Rules, are required to comply with those rules. Rule 61G15-30.002(1) mandates that Respondent, as the structural engineer of record, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared for the Fish Residence Project. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing a document that complies with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record of the Structure for the Fish Residence Project as that term is defined in rules 61G15-31.002(1) and 61G15-31.003(1). As such, all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in rule 61G15-31.002(5), as mandated by rule 61G15-31.001, setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(4) provides that negligence constitutes “failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” Rule 61G15-19.001(4) also provides that: [F]ailure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility Rules as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with this section unless the deviation or departures therefrom are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the professional engineer. Respondent’s June 10, 2008, Letter is an engineering “certification” as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-18.011(4): statement signed and sealed by a professional engineer representing that the engineering services addressed therein, as defined in section 471.005(6), F.S., have been performed by the professional engineer, and based upon the professional engineer’s knowledge, information and belief, and in accordance with commonly accepted procedures consistent with applicable standards of practice, . . . . “Certifications” are subject to the standards set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-29.001, which require that if an engineer is presented with a “certification” that “involve[s] matters which are beyond the engineer’s scope of services actually provided” that the engineer must “decline to sign . . . such certification.” Section 471.033(1)(a) provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for “[v]iolating . . . [a] rule of the [B]oard.” Section 471.033(1)(e) provides, in material part, that a professional engineer is subject to discipline for “[m]aking or filing a report or record that the licensee knows to be false” when the report is “signed in the capacity of a licensed engineer.” Rule 61G15-19.001(6) provides that: A professional engineer shall not commit misconduct in the practice of engineering. Misconduct in the practice of engineering as set forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., shall include, but not be limited to: * * * (b) Being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report, statement, or testimony whether or not under oath or omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report, statement or testimony when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, employer or the general public; . . . . The Fish Residence In 2007, the residence located at 11251 Knotty Pine Drive in New Port Richey, Florida (the “Fish Residence”), experienced structural damage from subsidence in the ground underlying the home. As a result, a claim was made to Fish’s insurance company, and an investigation was commenced. Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. (“CFTL”), a geotechnical engineering firm, performed an in-depth analysis and found, in a signed, sealed, and dated engineering report issued on November 20, 2007, that the subsidence was likely caused by a number of factors, including sinkhole activity. As a result, the Fishes hired a contractor, Champion Foundation Repair (“Champion”) to remediate the damage. Champion hired Respondent to perform the engineering services necessary to obtain a permit for the remediation, inspect the construction, and complete a report certifying the adequate completion of the work. Respondent had a long history of providing similar services to Champion in the past, having performed engineering services in over 200 projects for Champion. Respondent created, signed, sealed, and dated on April 20, 2008, a Settlement Stabilization Plan (“Plan”), which formed the design basis for the work Champion carried out. Well into the project, the Fishes became dissatisfied with the work done by Champion. Champion was terminated as the contractor before the work was finalized and before Respondent was able to perform a final inspection of the property. Litigation was commenced and Bracken Engineering (“Bracken”), a forensic structural/civil engineering firm was engaged to perform an investigation of the work performed by Champion and Respondent for the pending litigation. Bracken issued a lengthy engineering report (“Bracken Report”), under engineering seal, on June 20, 2011. The Bracken Report found Respondent’s Plan deficient, that Respondent was not adequately knowledgeable about the site, that Champion’s implementation of the Plan, and Champion’s construction work as a whole was flawed and inadequate. Subsequent to the issuance of the Bracken Report, a complaint was filed with the Board, and these proceedings were initiated. Settlement Stabilization Plan for the Fish Residence Roger Jeffery opined that the Plan failed to meet required engineering standards. The parties agree that when a structure, such as the Fish Residence Project, is initially built, the loads are directly transferred to the foundation, which then transfers the loads directly and uniformly as a continuously supported structure to the underlying soil. However, when, as occurred in this case, the structure’s loads are no longer transferred directly and uniformly to the ground through the foundation, but are transferred through pins which underlie the foundation, the foundation itself now acts as a beam or beams and is subject to the stresses applied to the beams. Respondent asserted that the foundation load would remain continuous, and therefore stable, since grouting had been poured under the Fish Residence to consolidate and stabilize the soils. However, Respondent’s plan did not call for grouting to be used. Moreover, according to the Bracken Report, no grouting was ever placed under the Fish Residence, even though it was called for in the CFTL Report to stabilize the structure. Respondent’s failure to perform a final inspection resulted in an inaccurate assumption and opinion. Respondent’s claim that grouting placed in the void under the structure reconstituted the original soil conditions is rejected, especially in light of the fact that Respondent also analyzed the pins and foundation in a beam configuration--a simple span beam. Further, Respondent’s analysis must be discounted because the calculations justifying his conclusion that the structure was adequately supported was performed in December 2013, well after these proceedings commenced and more than five years after the Plan had been created by Respondent. As a result of the changed structural support system (from ground support to pins), the position of the pins is critical to the stability of the structure. If the pins are too far apart for the strength of the foundation’s materials to accommodate the foundation, now acting as a beam or beams, the foundation will be overstressed. Cracking, at a minimum, or collapse, at a maximum, can occur. Cracking or collapse can occur because the concrete slab foundation used at the Fish Residence does not have any existing top reinforcing steel in it. When asked if perhaps reinforcing steel might have been placed within the slab itself, Mr. Jeffery stated he had never seen such use of steel in over 40 years. No evidence to support the steel within the slab theory was presented. When the newly installed pins become the structural support, a negative bending moment is introduced to the top of the foundation, now acting as a beam. The top of the foundation is made only of concrete, which has little ability to resist the induced negative moment. As a result, deflection, racking, and ultimate failure will be the result if the pin placement and the spans created by the placement are inadequately designed. Respondent’s after-the-fact calculations do not address this issue. Using a continuous beam analysis, the preferred method to evaluate the beam/pin assemblage design in structures like the Fish Residence, the spacing of the pins (usually ten feet apart) designed by Respondent coupled with the loads generated by the foundation and the lack of reinforcing steel in the top portion of the foundation would result in stress that would exceed the strength of the concrete and, at a minimum, the concrete would eventually crack. Dr. Ahmed Said, Respondent’s expert, agreed with this conclusion. Even using a simple beam analysis, the design method Respondent testified he used and that Dr. Said agreed was commonly used, movement, resulting in cracks at the foundation slab, would occur. Again, since no reinforcing steel exists at the top of the slab, as a matter of simple physics, the concrete would have to respond to the deflection that would occur at the bottom of the foundation and, concrete being weak, would likely crack or worse at the top. Respondent provided no persuasive rebuttal to Mr. Jeffery’s analysis. First, Respondent claimed that elevations taken at the site in 2013 showed minimal deflective movement, proving the Plan design was sufficient. However, Mr. Jeffery noted that subsequent elevations taken at the completed structure would have little meaning regarding the adequacy of the design since: the design stands alone and is not affected by how the contractor implemented it; and no one could know whether the design, as constructed, would withstand the required stresses until it was subjected to full design loading, which would have to include the full wind loads to which the structure was designed. There is no evidence the structure was ever subjected to such stress in the period between its construction in 2008 and the later recorded elevations. Next, Respondent claimed the 3-foot “spreaders” attached to the pins would reduce the span of the foundation acting as a beam and thus would overcome the lack of reinforcing steel in the top of the foundation and the resulting overstress. The problem with this assertion is that the Plan does not call for “spreaders” to be placed in the design by any notations that are readily and universally cognizable. Respondent admitted that the symbol regarding the use of the spreaders was agreed to only between Champion and him, and was not included in the Plan. However, even if the notations used by Respondent could be interpreted as calling for the use of the “spreaders,” the “spreaders” would not materially impact the fact that the foundation, acting as a beam, would be overstressed, since a negative moment would still exist due to the lack of reinforcing steel at the top of the foundation. Finally, Respondent asserted that Mr. Jeffery’s analysis was flawed since Mr. Jeffery had assumed the Fish Residence was a masonry structure whereas Respondent claimed the structure was a wood frame covered with a stucco exterior. This issue is confused by the fact that both the CFTL and Bracken Reports, upon which Mr. Jeffery relied, both stated the Fish Residence was a masonry structure, although the CFTL Report notes the structure was initially constructed as wood frame. In any event, Mr. Jeffery testified that regardless of the masonry versus wood frame question, the structure would still be overstressed. Changing the construction from masonry to wood frame/stucco veneer might lessen the overstress, but not materially. In addition to the overstress created by failing to address the induced negative moment at the top of the foundation, Respondent’s design also resulted in a shear load which exceeded the maximum allowable under the American Concrete Institute 318 Concrete Code; and, since that code is incorporated into the Florida Building Code (“FBC”), the requirements of the FBC as well. The shear load factor is especially relevant since Respondent did not assure that the pins would not be placed under windows and doors where this issue is critical. Respondent did not address the shear issue as it applied to windows and doors in his after-the-fact calculations. The Plan is also deficient since it did not indicate the placement of windows and doors in the Fish Residence Project. By not doing so, the pins, when put in the ground, could be placed underneath these internal spaces which do not then form a continuous roof/wall/foundation assembly. If that occurred, and it apparently did in the Fish Residence on four occasions, the shear problem described above is exacerbated, since at either side of a door or window a point load is created and the shear stress increased. The Plan also fails to include required information. While the Plan calls for the use of a “FastSteel” product, the Plan does not include any product specification number or the strength of the material to be used. Although Respondent stated that the contractor, based upon its experience, knew what was intended, ultimately Respondent admitted that the required information was not in the Plan. Similarly, the Plan did not include the design loads and criteria used in the design and provided no building codes and standards. Respondent admitted the Plan lacked this required information. The missing information is important. Only by including such information on design documents can the engineer adequately communicate to the reviewing building code plans examiner or a contractor what the design engineer intended. By not including this required information, the reviewer can be uncertain as to whether the engineer used the correct loadings or designed the structure in accordance with the correct edition of the building code. Similarly, failing to provide sufficient information concerning the products to be used may lead a contractor to utilize the wrong product during construction. The Plan was submitted to Pasco County for issuance of a permit. The county building department issued a permit for the work to be performed. Mike Mosher of Champion believed the Plan included all the specifications he needed to identify the components to be used and the manner in which the work was to be performed. He also testified the work was completed consistent with the Plan. The June 10, 2008, Certification Letter Respondent issued the June 10, 2008 Certification Letter (“Letter”) under seal to his client before he completed the inspections necessary for the conclusions in the Letter to accurately reflect the opinions contained in it. Both Respondent and his client, Champion, agree that since the client had been denied access to the Fish Residence Project, no final inspection of the site by Respondent ever occurred. As a result, Respondent admitted that, when he signed, sealed, and issued the Letter, the engineering services, upon which the certification in the Letter was based, had not yet occurred. The evidence proved that Respondent’s last appearance at the Fish Residence Project occurred on or about May 5, 2008, and that most of the work done at the site occurred after that date with the final construction finishing on or about May 30, 2008. As a result, the conclusions and opinions contained in the Letter were not based upon accurate and contemporaneous engineering analysis. Since the Letter purports to be grounded in engineering inspections, the statements in the Letter were not fully based upon the services Respondent actually provided. While not entirely clear from the evidence and testimony, had Respondent had the ability to perform a final inspection, he would have had the opportunity to discover several deficiencies in the construction. The Bracken Report detailed several deficiencies and non-conformances with the Remediation Plan. These deficiencies included: 1) failure to drive 5/6ths of the pilings to the depth prescribed by the notes to the Plan; a large number of pins found beneath door and window openings; mis-installation of pins and pin assemblages; and 4) no grouting placed in the ground although Respondent intended that grouting be used. Respondent agreed that at least some of the Bracken Report conclusions were warranted. Respondent asserts that, although the Letter was issued prematurely, Respondent should not be held accountable since the Letter “never went public.” This contention is rejected. The Letter was a final engineering report/certification and, upon issuance to Respondent’s client, Champion, was fully subject to all engineering standards, rules, and statutes. Since the Letter contained conclusions that were inaccurate and based upon information that was not collected under Respondent’s direct supervision, issuance of the Letter constituted negligence and misconduct in the practice of engineering. Respondent’s Prior History of Discipline Respondent has previously had discipline imposed. The instant case is the first in more than 40 years of Respondent practicing engineering that involved a subsidence remediation plan. Respondent’s first prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 00-0086. In that case, Respondent was hired to correct building code issues identified by a county building department. The drawings he made violated the building code requirements, contained deficiencies, and were not in compliance with the standard practice of engineering. Respondent proceeded to hearing without benefit of legal counsel. A final order was entered by the Board reprimanding his license, fining him $1,000, plus costs of $302.93, placing him on probation for one year, and requiring he complete a course in professionalism and ethics while on probation. Respondent’s second prior discipline was in FEMC Case No. 01-0079. That matter was based upon drawings that were dated February 16, 2001. Respondent was not represented by counsel in that proceeding. In that proceeding, no proof was presented that the structure depicted in the plans by Respondent was ever built. Therefore, no direct risk of harm to the public was proven. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that matter which was approved by the Board of Professional Engineers. He agreed to pay a total administrative fine of $7,000, plus $316.67 in costs and receive a reprimand on his license. He also received a one-year suspension of his license, followed by two years’ probation, and continuing education requirements. The other instance of discipline imposed against Respondent was in FEMC Case No. 2004037005. That complaint arose from plans that were signed by Respondent in June 2004. He was charged with signing plans he had not personally prepared or were not prepared under his supervision. Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation in that case that was approved by the Board. He paid a $5,000 administrative fine and costs of $750; received a reprimand on his license; received two years of probation; and was required to make detailed reporting to the FEMC during the probationary period. No additional evidence of prior disciplinary matters was offered other than the three cases described above.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Oliver Turzak’s Professional Engineer license be reprimanded, and that the license shall be suspended for a period of one year. Upon termination of the suspension, Respondent shall be reinstated under terms and conditions of reinstatement as the Board determines are appropriate, including two years of probation with terms the Board deems appropriate. Respondent shall also be fined $1,000 per count ($2,000 total fine). Finally, Petitioner shall be entitled to assess costs which are related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs or fees associated with an attorney’s time, as provided in section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2014, 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 6th day of May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David P. Rankin, Esquire Law Office of David P. Rankin, P.A. 18540 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33548 John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a structural engineer should be approved. This case arose as a result of a determination by Respondent that Petitioner had not passed the reexamination for licensure as a structural engineer which was held on October 25, 1985. Petitioner contends that he was disadvantaged by the time allowed to study for the examination, the time taken to publish the results of the examination, the esoteric nature of a steel beam problem, and the design method required for a reinforced concrete structure. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner was not so disadvantaged, but that even if he were, it is not sufficient to increase his grade to a passing score. The respective contentions of the parties were embodied in a pre-hearing stipulation which was received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. Petitioner appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel and was therefore advised of his rights and the procedures to be employed in the administrative proceeding. He indicated that he understood his rights and such procedures, and elected to represent himself. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted six exhibits which were received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of James A. Power, a consulting structural engineer and Allen R. Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. In addition, Respondent submitted six exhibits in evidence, which were admitted. Petitioner's application for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. The parties were given until September 2, 1986, in which to file any posthearing submissions. However, Respondent failed to file any such submission and Petitioner's written argument was untimely filed on September 3, 1986.
Findings Of Fact By application received by Respondent on August 13, 1985, Petitioner Max E. Lambie applied for the Professional Engineer's Reexamination to be held on October 25, 1985. The application reflected that Petitioner had previously passed the "Fundamentals" part of a previous examination on April 19, 1985, and that his application was to take the "Principles and Practice" part for reexamination in the discipline of structural engineering. By a letter dated August 21, 1985, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the application and applicable fees. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Petitioner thereafter received from Respondent's Office of Examination Services, a "Notice to Appear for October 24-25, 1985, Professional Engineer (PE) Examination." The notice included information that Part II of the examination was to be based on Professional Principles and Practice, and devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of the candidate's discipline. It further stated as follows: In the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, candidates are required to solve eight (8) problems; four (4) in the morning session and four (4) in the afternoon session, drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (H) STRUCTURAL: Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces. The notice also stated that a passing grade on Part II of the examination was defined as a grade of seventy (70) or better, and that within approximately three (3) months after the examination date, the applicant would receive written notification of the examination results. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) By a Memorandum from Allen R. Smith, Jr., Director, Board of Professional Engineers, dated September 20, 1985, applicants applying for licensure by examination in the structural engineering discipline were advised that the examination was now given once a year and that the schedule was October 24 and 25, 1985, and October 23 and 24, 1986. The Memorandum further noted that the Board of Professional Engineers had amended Rule 21H- 21.02, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to the discipline of structural engineering to require that applicants were required to answer questions dealing specifically with structural engineering, and that applicants must answer four out of six questions on the a.m. and four out of six questions on the p.m. portions of the Principles and Practice examination. Enclosures to the Memorandum reflected the subject matter and numbers of the examination questions. A copy of Chapter 21H- 21 of the Respondent's Rules, dated July, 1985, was attached to the Memorandum. Rule 21H-21.02(2) provided in part as follows: Part two of the examination shall be based on Professional Practices and Principles and shall be devoted primarily to the field of the applicant's finding solutions to problems designed to test the applicant's ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of his discipline. Applicants for registration must select one of the listed specializations in which to be examined. . . . In Part Two of the examination the applicant will usually be required to solve from seven to ten problems which the applicant may choose from approximately twenty problems drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows: (h) STRUCTURAL--"Structural Concrete, Structural Steel and Light Metal, Bridges or Bridge Elements, Wood, Masonry, Lateral Forces." Finally, the Memorandum included an enclosure entitled "Design Reference Codes, Standards and Manuals" which listed various manuals and codes to be used as references for the review and use of applicants. The Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and Basic Building Code, had an asterisk after their listings. A note at the bottom of the listing stated "Use code with which you are familiar and/or currently using in your practice." One of the listings also was "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318- 83." It was not followed by an asterisk on the listing. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Petitioner took the October, 1985, examination which was a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) and available for certification or licensure throughout the United States. Respondent's Rule 21H-21.01 provides that the examination "shall be provided by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE)." (Stipulation (Joint Exhibit 1), Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Testimony of Petitioner) Petitioner did not receive his examination grades until March, 1986. The uniform grade notice, dated March 21, 1986, advised him that his examination grade was 66.3 which was failing and that a minimum passing score was 70. The reason for the delay in mailing the examination scores was that one of Respondent's graders for a specific portion of the examination was unavailable due to illness or accident. (Testimony of Smith, Respondent's Exhibit 5) At the hearing, Petitioner testified that the late notification by Respondent that only questions on structural engineering would be on the October examination disrupted his preparation and left him insufficient time to adequately prepare for the examination. He testified that in prior examinations it was possible for a candidate to select questions not specifically related to structural engineering, such as economics, and that he had to "scramble" to obtain texts to study for new subjects. He also claimed that the note at the bottom of Respondent's Design Reference Codes, Standards and Materials (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) which had accompanied Respondent's September 20, 1985 Memorandum to applicants (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) was misleading in that he construed the note to permit him to use whatever building code he was familiar with, and that it was not until he arrived at the examination that he found out that he had made the wrong assumption in that regard. The facts show, however, that the prior examination taken by Petitioner was not solely in the structural engineering discipline, but was a Civil/Sanitary/ Structural examination. Further, Respondent's note on the listing of reference manuals clearly indicated that it applied only with respect to the Southern Standards Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and the Basic Building Code, and not to the other codes and manuals listed therein. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 2- 3, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner claimed that the examination contained questions requiring the application of building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318- 83, which had only been in effect for the past two years and was not familiar to applicants of his age group and past experience. He contended that he had to hurriedly prepare himself utilizing unfamiliar texts that had become available only a few months prior to the examination. ACI 318-83 deals with a concept called "ultimate strength design," but Petitioner was familiar with an older concept called "working strength design." He further claimed that the South Florida Building Code was based entirely on the latter concept. However, expert testimony presented by the Respondent showed that the ultimate strength design concept had been part of the ACI code since 1956 and always had been required in designing prestressed concrete members. He also testified that working strength design is still permitted as an alternative concept in ACI 318-83, that both the South Florida Building Code and Standard Building Code require conformance to ACI 318-83, and that such requirements have been in both codes for at least 25 years. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioner's claims that he was prejudiced by the use of ACI 318-83 in problems on the examination are without merit. In this regard, it is also noted that the April 19, 1985 examination required the use of the latest ACI code and one question required the use of the ultimate strength method. (Testimony of Petitioner, Tower, Respondent's Exhibits 1-6) Respondent also contended at the hearing that question no. 275 of the October, 1985 examination contained a typographical error which required assumption of a different criterion for the solution, and that his expenditure of time in resolving the situation resulted in a score of five out of a possible ten. However, no evidence was presented that his solution was incomplete or that the score awarded by the graders was incorrect. Petitioner brought the typographical error to the attention of the Board by a letter stating that the error induced "extraordinary anxiety which contributed to a loss of concentration" and asked that his observation be passed on to the NCEE. At the hearing, he claimed that past typographical errors on examinations had resulted in adjustment of score points and that such should have been done with regard to the error which he pointed out to Respondent. Again, however, it is found that there was insufficient evidence presented to establish that the error noted by Petitioner had affected the grading of his solution. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 6.) Petitioner's claim that the late grading of the examination precluded him from applying for the Spring, 1986 examination is found to be irrelevant to the question of his failure of the October, 1985 examination. Further, his complaint that the new structural examination is used only in six states and that Florida was one of the first states to adopt the new examination provides no grounds for relief. The Board's purpose in changing the examination format was due to the belief that structural engineers should be more qualified in that particular discipline. In any event, the new Board rule established such format and no challenge to the rule was filed by Petitioner. (Testimony of Petitioner, Smith)
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a duly-licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida having been issued License No. PE0035663. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with interpreting, enforcing, and regulating concerning the licensure and professional practice standards for professional engineers in the State of Florida embodied in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. The Respondent practices engineering as Dr. S.K. Nayak & Associates, Regulatory, Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultants. That engineering firm is not licensed as a professional engineering firm in the State of Florida. On September 20, 1988, the permit to the JNC by the Department for its domestic waste-water treatment and disposal system expired. Thereafter, on June 16, 1989, an application to operate such a system was submitted to the Department by Mr. Cordes on behalf of the JNC. The Respondent was the professional engineer of record depicted on that application. On or about July 14, 1989, the Department issued a notice of permit denial concerning that application and cited six deficiencies as the basis for the denial. The notice of permit denial identified the JNC's reclaimed water distribution system as not being designed in accordance with sound engineering principles and practices, as delineated in Rule 17-6.070(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and the design as not being provided in the manner required by Rule 17-610.414, Florida Administrative Code. The permit applicant was thus advised by the notice of permit denial that some modifications for the water distribution and storage system would have to be undertaken and completed in order for permitting to be effected. Thereafter, on or about January 30, 1990, the Respondent submitted a design statement for a reclaimed water disposal system to the Department. The design must conform to certain criteria enunciated in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The design for such a system must be accompanied with an engineering report to document geohydrological conditions at the site and to document that a ground water mounding analysis has been performed for the percolation pond systems, in order to verify that the systems will perform satisfactorily under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The Department considered the design submitted by the Respondent to constitute the necessary design for the application for a new operating permit for the JNC. Expert witness Bryant Marshall's testimony establishes clearly that the creation of the design and its submittal to the Department constitutes a specific type of engineering practice and moreover that that sort of design requires a specific type of geotechnical and geohydrological engineering experience. Upon reviewing the design statement submitted by the Respondent, the Department advised Mr. Cordes of numerous items of incompleteness which would need to be addressed before an evaluation of the proposal, including design, could be performed. Mr. Cordes was informed of this by letter from the Department of February 23, 1990, which was copied to the Respondent. See, Exhibit B in evidence. Upon reviewing the design submitted, the Department determined that, because of the limited data and analyses and absence of calculations in that design document, that the Respondent had not demonstrated that he was qualified to perform such geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, with pertinent calculations and depictions as was required for a project such as that proposed, nor had that type of required engineering work been done. Ultimately, therefore, it filed a complaint against the licensure of the Respondent with the Petitioner licensing agency. On April 9, 1990, the Respondent submitted a signed and sealed withdrawal of the design statement previously submitted to the Department. The Respondent contends that he never intended that the design statement originally submitted should constitute the final "as built" design for the water reclamation facility involved. Rather, he contends that it was intended by the Department, by himself, and by his client to be merely a preliminary or suggested design solely for purposes of negotiation concerning the permit denial and an attempt to work out a satisfactory arrangement with the Department in terms of the Department's conditions and requirements for design and construction, so that the proposed facility could be permitted. The Respondent contends that that was not the practice of engineering but, rather, submittal of a preliminary design statement which he claims the Department required of him. He thus submitted the design statement with the full understanding that it was not intended by him, or by the Department for that matter, to be a feasible final proposal or design and knowing that it was not up to standard or intended to be and knowing that it did not comply with certain applicable rules and regulations, he did not sign or seal it. Mr. Marshall, the expert witness put forward by the Petitioner, opined that the submission of substandard work, merely because another party has requested it for negotiating purposes, or for whatever reason, still is not acceptable practice for a licensed professional engineer. Merely because one is of the intent and opinion that submittal of the work will not be the final work product, by which the facility in question is to be built, is no excuse for not complying with proper standards of professional engineering practice. The Respondent's soil and ground water data was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate because it did not provide for the necessary calculations which could indicate whether the performance of the system will actually meet the design criteria, given the geotechnical soil and hydrogeological conditions prevailing at the site, which were not adequately allowed for by their entry into proper calculations which should have been performed by the Respondent. The Respondent's professional history moreover does not reflect adequate geotechnical or hydrogeological experience and training necessary for a project such as the JNC at issue. It has been established by Mr. Marshall's testimony, which is adopted, that standards of practice were not followed because an appropriate subsurface exploration geotechnical investigation, laboratory soil testing, engineering analysis, and ground water mounding analysis was not performed. Even if the Respondent had adequate training in geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, he promulgated a deficient engineering document in terms of this design, regardless of whether or not it was signed or sealed, because it constituted the practice of professional engineering and yet he failed to perform and to indicate on his design that the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations required for such work had been performed. The document was based only on a review of available published information regarding surficial and sub-surficial soil conditions. No test borings were done in accordance with standard practice. The percolation testing performed by the Respondent was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate under the circumstances of the project for which design was being considered. The proper geotechnical exploration, in keeping with standard engineering practice, would require the use of soil test borings to depths of 20 to 30 or perhaps 40 feet below ground surface. This would be necessary to properly characterize the aquifer and subsurface conditions and to evaluate the properties of the soil within that zone to determine what the actual hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface profiles would be. It would then be necessary to perform laboratory permeability testing on the soil samples from the various depths so as to properly characterize the aquifer performance or predicted aquifer performance for the entire depth zone to those significant depths. Just the top 18 or 20 inches of soil is not an adequate investigation. Further, the Respondent provided no documentation for his conclusions regarding established ground water movement, established surface water flow, and confirmed ground water table elevations. According to Mr. Marshall, it is safe to assume that surface water flow might be to the southeast given the site's topography and the fact that the ground slopes downward toward the southeast and generally toward the east, as well. However, the Respondent provided no documentation of any test borings or other site-specific geotechnical investigation work done to verify anything about the direction of ground water flow nor the ground water table elevation. Apparently the Respondent relied upon general information contained in a soil survey of Jefferson County but did not do site-specific investigatory work, in keeping with standard engineering practice, which would allow him to make those types of conclusions in a legitimate fashion. Mr. Marshall thus opined and established that the submission of the work by the Respondent was substandard work and that it is not justifiable engineering practice to submit such substandard engineering work, even if it is done at the request of another party with an understanding between the engineer and the other party and the client that this work is merely to be a preliminary design for purposes of negotiation between the regulator and the client. It is also no excuse for such substandard engineering practice that the Respondent submitted it without it being signed or sealed in his capacity as an engineer. The lack of the signing or sealing does not render it immune from having to comport with standard, acceptable engineering practice. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in these particulars, with regard to his participation and design concerning the JNC project. Because the Respondent intended that this be a preliminary submittal, solely for the purposes of negotiation between himself, his client, and the regulatory agency and did not intend that it be a final design to be built in an attempt to comply with regulatory requirements, he has not been shown to have intentionally committed misconduct in the practice of engineering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Professional Engineers finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, to the extent that he is guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering and that he be issued a reprimand and that his licensure be placed in probationary status for a period of one year with reasonable terms to be decided by the Board, including the requirement of continuing professional education in the area of compliance with appropriate professional practice standards. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7994 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted, to the extent they are consistent with the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer and otherwise as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence; to some extent, irrelevant; and to some extent, as being legal conclusions and not proposed findings of fact. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence, as constituting an incorrect conclusion of law, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 4-5. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, and being an incorrect conclusion of law. 6. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, as being an incorrect conclusion of law, and to some extent, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cammarata, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Shrinivas K. Nayak 3512 Shirley Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0755
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent George W. Morrison was a registered residential contractor holding license number RR 0021945. On April 28, 1979, respondent entered into a contract with T. Joseph Feeney to construct a residence and pool on Sanibel Island "according to plans and specifications approved and signed by both parties" for the sum of $100,200.00. Construction on the residence was begun by respondent in late August, 1979. In January, the Feeneys desired to move into the home because they were having difficulty locating rental property. At that time, construction was not completed and neither a final inspection nor a Certificate of Occupancy had been obtained. Although construction had not yet been completed and respondent advised Mr. Feeney that it would be against the law to move into the house before a Certificate of Occupancy was obtained, Mr. Feeney and his family moved into the house on or about January 12, 1980. During the first week of occupancy, Mr. Feeney noticed that there was a sag in the bearing wall of the kitchen and that the house "swayed considerably." According to Mr. Feeney, after he was advised by Mr. Benson, a structural engineer, to either move out of the house or to "shore the house up, he attempted to contact the respondent. Mr. Feeney could not recall whether this occurred in late January, February or March of 1980. Being unable to contact the respondent, Mr. Feeney found his carpenter, Doug Hale, and explained the problem to him. Hale saw respondent that same day and respondent instructed Hale and his crew to go out to the Feeney residence that afternoon and shore the house up. Mr. Hale did notice a deflection and observed that one span was sagging down a small amount. He observed that the bridging work had been nailed from the top and recalled that the bottom nailing was to be performed after the house had settled. When performing the preventive shoring, Mr. Hale noticed that the bolts had been properly installed with washers. The bolts would have been retightened after the wood had dried and before calling in for a final inspection. Upon learning of the structural deficiencies in the Feeney residence, respondent hired his own structural engineer, Charles Wunder, and took the plans and specifications for the Feeney residence to him. Mr. Wunder found that the original drawings, plans and specifications caused the deflection problem in that the framing members used for the ledger beams were not of sufficient strength to hold up in the area where they were placed. Wonder's remedial plan was to use additional beam supports and steel flitch plates. He so advised the respondent by a letter dated February 12, 1980 and an attached sketch for the remedial work. After receiving Mr. Wunder's plans to remedy the structural defects, respondent ordered the steel plates and had them delivered to the Feeney residence. When respondent went there to perform the work, Mr. Feeney informed him that he wanted the work performed according to Mr. Benson's plans and blueprints. Benson's plans were much more involved and extensive, and respondent did not have the materials available to perform the work. Thereafter, an impasse occurred between Mr. Feeney and the respondent as to the manner in which the structural remedial work should be performed, and respondent was terminated by Mr. Feeney on or about April 13, 1980. Both respondent and his engineer, Mr. Wonder, believed that Mr. Benson's plans were "overdesigned" and massive compared to what needed to be done to make the residence structurally sound. Respondent testified that his engineer's plans for remediation would result in a cost of about $1,000.00. Mr. Feeney testified that he incurred costs of approximately $21,000.00 to have the remediation work performed according to Mr. Benson's plans. There was evidence that at least a portion of this figure was attributable to decorative and swimming pool work, as opposed to structural work. In late February or early March, 1980, after the preventive shoring had been completed by Doug Hale, the Building Official for Sanibel, George E. Blain, inspected the Feeney residence at Mr. Feeney's request. Mr. Blain found that the flooring and joist system had been installed according to the plans and specifications submitted and approved for the building permit. He could not give an opinion as to the cause of the deflection of the beams, but felt that there appeared to be a problem with the construction which could be corrected in the normal construction phase. A violation of the Southern Standard Building Code would occur only if the problem were not corrected at the time of final inspection, and this project had not yet been called up for such final inspection. While Mr. Blain found that some of the bolts were not properly placed or tightened at the time of his inspection, he found nothing to indicate that the required number of nails were not in place. After his inspection, Mrs. Blain wrote a letter to the respondent expressing his opinion that extensive remedial work was necessary to stabilize the floor support system of the Feeney residence. Respondent was instructed to have a registered engineer examine the floor support system and submit a report detailing the requirements necessary for loads stability. This report was to be received by Mr. Blain's office prior to the commencement of any corrective work by the respondent. Mr. Blain never received a response from the respondent to his March 5, 1980 letter. Respondent explained that he did not receive this letter from Mr. Blain until some time near the time that he and Mr. Feeney had reached an impasse situation with regard to the manner in which the remedial work was to be done. He therefore did not respond to Mr. Blain's letter because he did not believe that he would be performing the work.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against George Morrison on March 8, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 10th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street (Suite 204) Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allan T. Griffith, Esquire Griffith & Griffith, P.A. 9150 S. Cleveland Ave. (Suite 1) Ft. Myers, Florida 33907 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Subhash C. Jethi, was a candidate on Division C of the national professional architectural examination given in June, 1984. The test is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is administered by the Educational Testing Service in Berkeley, California. Florida candidates take the national examination pursuant to an agreement between NCARB and respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Board of Architecture (Board). The examination consists of nine divisions administered over a four day period. Division C relates to building design and contains one graphic or sketch problem to be solved by the candidate in not more than twelve hours. The purpose of the examination is to require an applicant to prepare a design solution in response to the program submitted by the NCARB. Prior to the examination, the candidate is given a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements expected of the candidate to receive a passing grade. Each graphic solution to Division C is blind graded by three examiners (architects) designated and approved by the NCARB. The examiners are drawn from a pool of architects who have been selected by the various architectural registration boards of some twenty states. They are given training by NCARB prior to the examination to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Among other things, they are instructed to grade holistically, that is, to review each solution quickly for an overall impression and to score on the basis of that first impression. They do not regrade solutions or analyze specific points of presentation. The examinee is always given the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Candidates may receive a score ranging from 0 to 4. These numbers represent the following grades: 0-totally blank solution pad (fail) 1-incomplete (or extremely poor solution)(fail); 2-poor(fail); 3-minimally acceptable (pass): 4- good (pass). In order to pass, a candidate must receive at least two pass grades from the examiners. In Jethi's case, three examiners graded his solution and gave scores of 3, 2 and 2, respectively. Because the first grader gave him a 3, a fourth grader (also known as a coordinating grader) independently reviewed his examination and assigned a score of Therefore, he received an overall score of 2 which is a failing grade. This proceeding arose as the result of Jethi's request for an administrative hearing to contest that grade. Jethi's solution to Division C was introduced into evidence as respondent's exhibit 2. In support of his claim that he was entitled to a passing grade, Jethi presented the testimony of a registered architect, Miles A. Price, Jr., who reviewed Jethi's solution and found it to be acceptable and consistent with the requirements of the problem. However, Price had no experience in grading the national examination, and his comments were given in the context of a practicing architect rather than as a grader. Petitioner also offered a letter from an architect essentially adopting the position of Price. Jethi testified at length on his own behalf, and basically disagreed with most of the criticisms given by the examiners. He also attempted to show that his solution was better in certain respects than a sample solution to the problem which was deemed to be minimally acceptable for a passing grade. Respondent presented the testimony of Professor Arnold Butt, who was accepted as an expert in grading architectural examinations. Professor Butt was chairman of the University of Florida department of architecture for some fourteen years, has graded the examination in question since 1970, and is presently the chairman of the master jurors committee which performs the fourth grading on these examinations when required. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and persuasive than that presented by petitioner, and is hereby accepted as dispositive of the issue of whether petitioner's solution to Division C should receive a passing score. In this regard it is noteworthy that three of the four graders reviewing petitioner's examination, including Professor Butt, found the examination to be below the minimum requirements. On this particular examination, Division C required candidates to design a two-story architectural pavilion for a world's fair site in Chicago, Illinois. The candidates were specifically told the structure was to be an "architectural gem" and was to take maximum advantage of a scenic overlook of Chicago's downtown loop area. The primary deficiency in petitioner's solution was his failure to make maximum use in his design of the scenic overlook relating to Chicago's loop area as required by the problem. In addition, his solutions as to the location of service access, book store and restrooms, structural system, pedestrian circulation, and building site were shown to be deficient. Taken as a whole, they rendered his solution to Division C less than minimally acceptable for passing. Therefore, the overall score of 2 should not be changed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's failing grade received on Division C of the June, 1984 national architectural examination not be changed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22 day of October, 1985. APPENDIX* 1. Proposed findings 1 through 7 have been essentially incorporated in the findings of this Recommended Order. *Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Subhash C. Jethi 1101 Oriole Avenue Miami Springs, FL 33166 John J. Rimes, III, Esq. The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. 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 of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
