The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer and/or waiver of Part I of the engineering licensing examination.
Findings Of Fact From 1969 through 1974, Petitioner attended the Lipetsk Branch of the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys. In 1974, Petitioner graduated from the Lipetsk Polytechnical Institute (Institute) in Russia, with a degree in industrial and civil engineering. The degree in civil engineering earned by Petitioner is equivalent to a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering in the United States. Upon graduation from the Institute, Petitioner commenced her professional employment as an engineer on August 30, 1974, at the LIPTSKGRAZHDANPROEKT Design Institute. In January 1976, Petitioner was employed as a professional engineer at the State Design Institute DNEPRPROEKKTSTALKONSTRUKSIYA (DNEPR), where she was continuously employed until leaving the Soviet Union in December 1993. There are no specific licensing or registration requirements in Russia with respect to engineers. Therefore, after earning a degree in industrial and civil engineering, Petitioner could work as an engineer in Russia without taking any professional examination. However, in 1979, Petitioner took an examination in Russia that allowed her to sign her own drawings and calculations. During Petitioner's tenure at the DNEPR, she achieved the status of Senior Engineer in 1986; was promoted to the position of Category II Engineer for Steel Structures in 1988; was promoted to the post of Category I Engineer for Steel Structures in 1990; and was elevated to the position of Leading Engineer in 1991. To achieve the status of Category II Engineer for Steel Structures and Category I Engineer for Steel Structures at DNEPR, Petitioner had to take an examination in 1988 and in 1990, respectively. The promotion to each of these positions was predicated upon Petitioner's passing these examinations and demonstrating expertise in the areas of economics, chemistry, mathematics, physics, building materials, corrosion prevention, resistance of materials, and construction mechanics. As a result of passing the examinations in 1988 and 1990, Petitioner was not only promoted, but also received salary increases. Petitioner believes that the two examinations she took in Russia in 1988 and in 1990, while working at the DNEPR were substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination. However, no evidence was presented to support this claim. The Fundamentals Examination is one component of the engineering licensing examination, and is designed to assess whether an individual is qualified to practice in this state as an engineer intern. This examination is usually taken either in the applicant's last year in engineering school or shortly after graduation. With regard to format, the Fundamentals Examination is an eight-hour examination and consists of 120 multiple-choice questions. The Principles and Practice Examination is the second part of the engineering licensing examination and is taken after successful completion of the Fundamentals Examination. Oscar E. Olsen, a structural engineer and owner of O.E. Olsen and Associates, a structural engineering firm, is currently Petitioner's employer. Mr. Olsen, who is generally familiar with the Fundamentals Examination, testified that the list of subjects covered on the two examinations taken by Petitioner in 1988 and 1990, coincide with the subject matter on the Fundamentals Examination. Mr. Olsen further testified that it appeared to him that the two examinations taken by Petitioner were comparable to the Fundamental Examinations required in Florida. Notwithstanding his testimony that the exams taken by Petitioner are substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination, Mr. Olsen admitted that he has never seen or reviewed the examinations taken by Petitioner while she was in Russia. It is impossible to render a reasonable opinion as to whether the two examinations taken by Petitioner in Russia are substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination, where the only information provided with regard to the former is a list of subject areas covered. Such a list gives no indication of the depth and specific content of the subject matter on the examinations; the difficulty of the examinations; the passing scores; the number and format of the questions; and the length of the examinations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, the Board of Professional Engineers, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for waiver of Part I, the Fundamentals Examination, and for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray Silverstein, Esquire Powell, Carney, Hayes, and Silverstein One Plaza, Suite 1210 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-1689 Edwin A. Bayo Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of 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 47 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested 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). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, 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 two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
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 4th day of October, 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 4th day of October, 1999.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to additional credit on the Professional Engineer Licensure Examination sufficient to receive a passing score?
Findings Of Fact By the stipulations recited in the preliminary statement, Petitioner needed only to demonstrate entitlement to one raw point in order to achieve an adjusted score of 70 (raw score of 48) so as to pass the Florida Professional Engineer Examination, created and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. The disputed part of the challenged question dealt with the equations necessary to calculate the amount of excess air applied to a combustion source that produced flue gas which contained specified concentrations of oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen. This presents a chemical engineering problem. Subpart one of the question provided four reaction equations. Petitioner selected answer "E". The Board claims another answer is the correct answer. Subpart one of the question required that the examinee select an answer showing the minimum number of equations needed to solve the problem. The answer designated by the Board contained two equations. The answer selected by Petitioner contained three equations. Petitioner, Petitioner's Professional Engineer expert in combustion, and the Board's Professional Engineer expert in chemical engineering all recognized that the problem could be appropriately solved either by the Orsat method or the Board's preferred method. However, Petitioner and his expert maintained that the Board's preferred method was less precise than the Orsat method because the Board's method was based on a presumption of complete oxygen combustion or theoretical oxygen. Petitioner based his analysis on the concept that the problem's acknowledgment of the presence of carbon monoxide indicated incomplete combustion and rendered the calculation of air indeterminate. The determination of excess air is covered in five standard reference books authorized for use on the examination. All these books recognize the Orsat equation for the calculation of excess air with respect to incomplete combustion. Petitioner utilized the Orsat equation. The Orsat formula is appropriate for solving the question, but it is derived from three equations. Petitioner and his expert contended that subpart one of the question was both a trick question and that the Board was requiring an incorrect answer because the examinee obtained a correct answer to subpart ten of the question by the Orsat approach and that when subpart ten is solved by the Board's preferred method, an incorrect answer was obtained. This testimony was not persuasive in light of the apparent agreement of Petitioner that the correct numerical answer would be closer to the Board's preferred numerical answer than to his own numerical answer. (TR110112). Nor does it necessarily follow that because the Board has conceded that Petitioner's answer to subpart ten was correct, that concession automatically renders his answer to subpart one correct. As explained more reasonably by Dr. Benjamin Keith Harrison, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Alabama, there were at least two correct ways to work the problem related to an analysis of incomplete combustion. The Orsat method uses carbon dioxide while the Board's preferred method uses a different chemical "tie" element to compare the theoretical oxygen required to the amount of oxygen actually in the system. The examinee is free to choose the method (i.e. tie element) he prefers. The Orsat formula, chosen by Petitioner, is entirely correct to do that, and the numerical answer the Petitioner got in subpart ten was within acceptable limits. However, the equations the Petitioner indicated in the other part of his answer were not those used to derive the Orsat formula. (TR8288) More succinctly, according to Dr. Harrison, the examinees were free to use either the Orsat formula or the Board's preferred formula to get subpart ten. Petitioner chose the Orsat formula and got a sufficiently correct answer for subpart ten. However, in subpart one, the other formula was asked for and Petitioner chose the wrong combination of three subsets. (TR89) Therefore, the greater weight of the credible evidence is that the Petitioner's answer is wrong on two points: first, that his response does not indicate a minimum set of equations and two, the three equations he selected were not the equations used in deriving the Orsat formula. Likewise, items one and ten of the question request different information/responses. Part ten requests a numerical response; part one requests the selection of the minimum number of equations necessary. Dr. Joseph Allen Klock, was accepted as an expert psychometrician. His statistics and the testimony of Dr. Harrison are credible and persuasive that the challenged question subpart one contained enough correct information to allow an examinee of minimal competency for licensure to selec tthe correct response and did not require knowledge which was beyond the scope of knowledge that could be expected from a candidate for licensure and that Question No. 417 as a whole was a fair test of the examinees' knowledge in the field of chemical engineering .
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying the Petitioner the one point at issue, and thus a passing grade on the April 1995 licensure examination. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 4889675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 9216847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William Leffler, III, Esquire 2000 North Meridian Road Apartment 312 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer.
Findings Of Fact In 1994, Petitioner passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination (a ten-year academic course) in India. Petitioner passed this high school course of study with classes in the core subjects of English, Sanskrit, Hindi, Mathematics, Science, and Social Sciences. In 1996, Petitioner passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination in India. For this two-year high school course of study, Petitioner completed classes in English, Mathematics and Statistics, Physics, Chemistry, and Comprehensive Science. Petitioner completed his undergraduate degree in December 2001. He graduated from the Sardar Patel College of Engineering (SPCE), an affiliate of the University of Mumbai in Mumbai, India, with a Bachelor of Engineering Degree (Civil). The SPCE is accredited by the National Board of Accreditation of the All India Council for Technical Education (NBA-AICTE). At the time of Petitioner's graduation, the SPCE was not accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). For 75 years, ABET has accredited college and university programs in the United States in the following areas: (a) applied science; (b) computing; (c) engineering; and (d) technology. It is a federation of 28 professional and technical societies representing these fields. ABET accredits approximately 2,700 programs at over 550 colleges and universities nationwide. In April 2003, Petitioner passed the Engineer Intern Examination. Petitioner passed this eight-hour written examination in Ohio. In May 2003, Petitioner earned a Master of Science in Civil Engineering at the University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. Petitioner worked for a design engineer located in Vicksburg, Mississippi, from July 2003 to April 2004. Since May 2004, Petitioner has worked for an engineering firm located in Jacksonville, Florida. The Washington Accord, signed in 1989, is an international agreement among bodies responsible for accrediting engineering degree programs. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by signatories and recommends that graduates of programs accredited by any signatory be recognized by the other signatories as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. ABET, as a signatory of the Washington Accord, recognizes the substantial equivalency of foreign academic programs accredited by other signatory members; it does not accredit them. Further, ABET only recommends that graduates of programs from the signatories be recognized as substantially equivalent. Respondent does not follow the recommendations of ABET regarding the substantial equivalency of foreign academic programs in part because ABET and the other signatories of the Washington Accord recognize engineering technology degrees. Respondent has statutory authority to recognize engineering technology degrees only if the applicant was enrolled in a state university system prior to July 1, 1979. See § 471.013(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. In 2007, the Washington Accord members granted provisional membership status to the NBA-AICTE. As a provisional member, the NBA-AICTE must demonstrate that the accreditation system for which it has responsibility, appears to be conceptually similar to those of the other signatories of the Washington Accord. By conferring provisional status, the signatories have indicated that they consider the provisional signatory to have the potential capability to reach full signatory status; however, the awarding of provisional status does not in any way imply a guarantee of the granting of full signatory status. April 2007, Petitioner applied to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer. He specifically sought to be recognized as a civil engineer with proficiency in water resources. In order to show substantial equivalency pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(1), Petitioner had his engineering degree from SPCE evaluated by Joseph Silny and Associates, Inc. (Silny). Respondent has approved Silny to conduct the substantial equivalency evaluations required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(3). Silny's evaluation showed that Petitioner's degree from SPCE lacked 13.59 semester credit hours of math and basic sciences, and 16 semester credit hours of humanities and social sciences. Silny concluded that Petitioner’s SPCE degree failed to meet the substantial equivalency requirements rule requirements. Petitioner submitted his transcript from the University of Toledo to Respondent for further evaluation. After reviewing the transcript, Respondent gave Petitioner credit for coursework in Numerical Analysis I and Numerical Analysis II, totaling six semester credit hours toward the math and basic science requirements. The credit reduced Petitioner's academic deficiency to 7.59 semester credit hours in math and basic science. During the hearing, Petitioner submitted transcripts and his secondary school certificates as evidence of coursework prior to his Bachelor of Science degree at SPCE. This coursework is not acceptable to meet the substantial equivalency rule requirements because they are college preparatory classes taken in high school for which Petitioner received no college credit. Many of Petitioner's high school courses cover subjects also taken in his undergraduate program, such as physics, chemistry, math, and statistics. Petitioner has already received credit for these courses that cannot be counted twice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enters a final order denying Petitioner's application to take the second part of the professional engineer examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 14th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rahul Parab 496 Monet Avenue Ponte Vedra, Florida 32081 Michael T. Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Patrick Creehan, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether certain questions within the June 2002 construction building contractor examination are invalid, and whether Petitioner should receive credit for certain answers scored as incorrect.
Findings Of Fact In June 2002, Petitioner sat for the construction building contractor examination. Shortly following the exam, Petitioner was advised that he incorrectly answered 17 of the 50 exam questions and did not attain the minimum passing score of 70 percent, but received a failing scaled score of 66 percent. Petitioner timely challenged the validity and scoring of eight questions, including questions 8, 14, 17, 33, 34, 38, 43, and 44. In order for Petitioner to acquire a passing score, Petitioner must prove that certain challenged questions are invalid or demonstrate that he is entitled to receive credit for his answers. Specifically, Petitioner must demonstrate that either three questions should be stricken from the exam providing Petitioner with 70.2 percent, two questions should be stricken and one answer scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70.8 percent or two answers should scored as correct providing Petitioner with 70 percent. QUESTION 8 Exam Question 8 asks, "According to AIA-A201, who determines the interest rate that the contractor can charge on due and unpaid payments?" Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, argues that the parties to the contract are not defined within the question and it is therefore misleading. However, the credited answer D, "all the parties must agree on the rate" is within the provided reference material and is clearly the best answer. It is not misleading and Petitioner's argument lacks merit. In addition, 89.47 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 8. QUESTION 14 Exam Question 14 is wordy and involves computations. It requires the test-taker to calculate the number of "labor" hours required per 100 pieces to build a wall, given certain pricing and wall construction information. Question 14 is ambiguous and confusing on its face. While the question asks for labor hours, the facts provide a fixed combined hourly cost for a mason and laborer's hour. There is no distinction made between "labor" hours and a "laborer's" hours. Mr. Collier admitted that there is some apparent confusion between "labor" costs and the "laborer's" costs. Mr. Palm further agreed and indicated that he fully understood Petitioner's rationale to divide the labor costs in half and choose answer A. Furthermore, it is clear that Petitioner's perception of the question was not unique. In fact, only 46.62 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 14. QUESTION 17 Exam Question 17 asks, "During the bid process, which document has priority in the event of conflicting information?" Clearly, the correct answer is B, "addenda." Petitioner's argument regarding "competitively bid projects" is without merit. Mr. Palm succinctly explained that Petitioner's selection was obviously incorrect because "plans don't change during the bid process unless there is an addenda issued." Moreover, 75.56 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 17. QUESTION 33 Exam Question 33 identifies a situation that where drawings differ from written specifications and where there is no legal precedent that one is more binding than the other. The question specifically calls for the best procedure according to the listed and available reference. While Mr. Uman argues that the answer does not appear within the reference material in a clear manner, the exact text of the question and answer are in fact within the material. Petitioner's argument lacks credibility. QUESTION 34 Exam Question 34 asks the test-taker "what is the EARLIEST workday for completing the masonry work?" given the number of crew, the number of hours required, and the ratio constant of the crew. Although 80.45 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 34, Mr. Uman argues that the question could have been answered without reference to the Builder's Guide to Accounting material and therefore, was misleading. Petitioner's argument is devoid of common sense. QUESTION 38 Exam Question 38 asks the test-taker to identify the activity that "a specialty structural contractor is qualified" to perform. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Uman, again argues that the question is misleading since the credited correct answer "perform non-structural work" is not written verbatim in the provided reference material. To the contrary however, all of the alternative choices are clearly listed in the reference material as activities specifically prohibited by specialty structure contractors. Furthermore, page 2B17 to 61G415.015 of the Contractor's Manual specifically states that: The specialty structure contractor whose services are limited shall not perform any work that alters the structural integrity of the building including but not limited to roof trusses. Respondent's experts, Mr. Collier and Mr. Palm, agree that Question 38 is clear. Moreover, 53.38 percent of test- takers correctly answered the question. While the question appears to require enhanced reasoning skills and is generally more difficult, it is not misleading. Petitioner's assertions are without merit. QUESTION 43 Exam Question 43 asks, "Which accounting method should be used by a contractor if the contractor is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of progress to date on a job or the total costs remaining to fulfill the contract?" Mr. Uman argues that the question is ambiguous and the reference material is "not terribly clear." He further alleges that when a contractor cannot estimate progress, the contractor cannot establish a "completed contract method," the credited correct answer. Respondent's experts disagree. While it is true that Mr. Palm agreed that all of the choices are accounting methods which is inconsistent with Mr. Collier's testimony, the reference material is clear. In fact, 58.65 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 43. Petitioner presented insufficient evidence that he should receive credit for his answer or that Question 43 should be invalidated. QUESTION 44 Exam Question 44 provides detailed information regarding a standard form contract and asks, "Based ONLY on the information given above, what is the amount of the current payment due?" In addition, however, as Mr. Uman points out, the standard form referred to in the problem was mistakenly misidentified as Form 201 instead of Form 702. While it is clear that the referenced form was mislabeled, the precise form number was incidental, unrelated to the question, and unnecessary to compute the answer. In fact, Mr. Palm explains that the problem was "just a mathematical exercise." According to Mr. Collier, the question was not misleading, and the incorrect reference was irrelevant. "It's simple math, industry knowledge." Furthermore, Petitioner's answer is clearly incorrect because "he failed to deduct the retainage." Finally, 54.89 percent of the test-takers correctly answered Question 44.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered invalidating only Question 14, re-computing Petitioner's examination score, and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nickolas Ekonomides, Esquire 791 Bayway Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33767 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James Ilardi, was an unsuccessful candidate for the June, 1989 General Contractor's Construction Examination in the State of Florida. He is an experienced contractor and is licensed in the State of South Carolina. He is the past President of the Charleston Contractor's Association in South Carolina. He has experience with most types of building construction, including office buildings, military facilities, hospitals, factories and other large projects. He served as Chief Executive Officer for a design and construction firm for a period of ten years. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering the certified general contractor's examination and with regulating the licensure and practice of construction contractors in the State of Florida. The Petitioner sat for the certified general contractor's examination in June, 1989. He has challenged the scoring of his answers to questions 2, 11, 12, 17, 19 and 33 on that examination. During the course of the hearing, he abandoned his challenges to questions 2, 17, 19 and 33. If he were accorded correct answers to either of the remaining challenged questions, numbers 11 or 12, he would have a sufficient score to obtain a passing grade of 70 on that examination. Both questions 11 and 12 used a "critical path network diagram" for use in working out the correct answer to the questions. The Petitioner criticized the diagram as being obscure, difficult to read and containing error. He maintained that it was not supported by the representations found in the reference materials recommended by the Respondent, in its "Instructions to Candidates", as being the material to use to arrive at answers to the questions. The Petitioner contends that the size of the diagram, "the multiple fonts, the difference in the intensity of the print, and the use of symbols all contribute to the obscurity and illegibility of the diagram, itself". In particular, he complains that the symbol listing includes a symbol which he did not find on the diagram. That is, the symbol for "structural steel" and "steel bar joists, which is two straight vertical parallel lines. He also complains that general practice in the construction industry, in his experience, and as indicated in the reference work "Construction Contracting", pages 325-326, one of the references listed for candidates to use in answering these questions, recommends against the use of symbols in lieu of abbreviated notations for description of activities on such a diagram. The main complaint he had concerning the use of symbols, however, was the fact that use of symbols, and having to constantly defer to the symbol legend on the exam materials, was time-consuming and was not generally accepted industry practice or procedure. He contends that the diagram contains error or is obscure and does not conform to the Respondent's recommended reference materials nor to industry standards and. is deficient in format, design and reproductive quality. Thus, he maintains that questions 11 and 12 do not adequately test the knowledge or skills necessary for licensure as a general contractor. The Petitioner acknowledged that the questions at issue had been reviewed twice by the Respondent's examination content specialist and that an "item analysis and review process" by the Respondent's expert resulted in the Respondent maintaining its position that the two questions and supporting materials were valid in fairly testing the knowledge of general contractor licensure candidates. In summary, the Petitioner contends that as to question 11, the symbol for steel bar joists, the two parallel vertical lines, does not appear on the diagram; therefore, he was unable to determine whether his answer was correct or not. As to question number 12, he maintains, in essence, that the use of symbols instead of brief abbreviated descriptions of the activities involved, accompanying the arrows in the diagram which indicate the critical path for the activity in question (paint work), render answering the question confusing and time consuming in having to constantly refer to the symbol legend and look for the symbols. He states that, in his 20 years of construction industry experience, he has not had to use symbols in working with a critical path diagram. The Petitioner did not demonstrate, however, that the use of symbols was incorrect procedure as delineated in the reference materials supplied to the candidates and which they were instructed to use in answering the questions on the examination. The Respondent produced the testimony of Mr. Olson, a Florida certified general contractor, who is also employed with the National Assessment Institute which developed this examination. Mr. Olson, however, did not, himself, have a hand in developing the examination. Mr. Olson did, however, review the Petitioner's challenges to the questions at issue and his responses, reviewed questions 11 and 12, as well as the Respondent's asserted correct answers to those questions and the methodology used in reaching those answers. Mr. Olson established that this was an "open-book" examination and the candidates were informed of and supplied all necessary reference materials to answer these two questions. The only optional consideration was that candidates could have used a calculator to speed up their calculations and were informed that it was permissible to use a calculator. Question 11 required candidates to calculate the total time necessary to install structural steel and steel bar joists in interpreting the activity network represented by the diagram in question. They were asked to calculate whether the installation was ahead of schedule or behind schedule and by how much. Mr. Olson established that the correct response was "C", which is two days behind schedule. Mr. Olson demonstrated that it was quite possible for a candidate to make this calculation and track this in formation on the diagram provided the candidates, through reading the path with the symbols, which alphabetically represent the activity, and which are numerical in representing the time in days. He established that this is very typical of the construction industry, related to the preparation, reading and interpreting of blueprints. A tremendous amount of symbols and legends are typically used in preparing and interpreting blueprints. Mr. Olson established that the pertinent number, 85 days, could be calculated for installation of structural steel and steel bar joists, based upon the information supplied to the candidates. By using the diagram and the information supplied with the question, the candidate can calculate that the actual number of days that were taken for the job was 87 days and therefore, that the project, at that point, was two days behind schedule. Mr. Olson performed this calculation by using the actual diagram the Petitioner used and reference information the Petitioner was given to use in answering the actual examination question at issue. He also established that the two parallel lines representing steel bar joists and structural steel on the diagram, and in the symbol legend supplied with the diagram, were indicated on the diagram supplied to Mr. Ilardi at the examination. Mr. Olson also established that the reference quoted for question number 11 was walkers Building Estimator's Reference Book, which, indeed, listed the type of activity network depicted in the diagram used by candidates for question number 11 and 12. Mr. Olson also established that question number 12 requires a candidate to work through an activity network diagram to find the amount of days necessary from the beginning of a project to the time the painting activity begins. He established that the answer could be obtained without the use of any other reference materials other than the information depicted on the diagram, itself, associated with the question. He established that the only correct answer from that information on the diagram could be "D" or 153 days. The Petitioner did not establish that his answer to question number 12, nor to question number 11 for that matter, was a correct answer and did not establish that there was any misleading quality or ambiguity in the wording of the questions and the associated information which would mislead a candidate into calculating the wrong answers or that there was erroneous information depicted in the reference materials or the diagram which would result in the candidate being misled into giving a wrong answer to questions 11 and 12.. Mr. Ilardi challenged the examination as to the testing environment, as that relates to the ambient light level in the examination room and to the acoustic qualities of the room. He also asserted that the test was not standardized throughout the State and was biased due to age, because of the perceived hearing and vision difficulties which he believed were caused by the acoustics in the examination room and the light available. Other than stating his opinions in this regard, he produced no testimony or evidence concerning these alleged qualities of the testing environment. It was demonstrated by she Respondent that, indeed, the test is standardized throughout the State and is the one given to all candidates in Florida, regardless of the test location.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on the certified general contractor's licensure examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3784 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected. The Petitioner was not qualified as an expert witness. Other than that, this finding is accepted. Rejected, as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant weight of the evidence. 4.A.-4.C. Accepted. 4.D. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not constituting a finding of fact, but rather a quotation from the transcript of the proceedings. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as immaterial and not probative of the issues of whether the questions were ambiguous or misleading or whether the Petitioner's answers were correct. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence, and as not materially dispositive. 4.1. Rejected, as not materially dispositive. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial. Accepted, but not a matter of factual dispute and immaterial. Respondent's Findings of Fact 1-10. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth D. Easley, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. James Ilardi P.O. Box 8095 Jacksonville, FL 32239
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Questions 23 and 27 of the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor licensure examination administered in July 1996, and, if so, whether the additional credit would give him a passing grade. Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Questions 11, 23, and 35 of the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor licensure examination administered in April 1997 and, if so, whether the additional credit would give him a passing grade.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor’s licensure examination in July 1996 and in April 1997. Between the two exams, Petitioner passed all sections of the examination except the Contract Administration section. Petitioner’s score on the Contract Administration section of the July 1996 examination, as graded by Respondent’s Bureau of Testing, was 65. His score on the Contract Administration section of the April 1997 examination was 67.5. For both examinations, there were 40 questions on the Contract Administration section. A candidate had to achieve a score of 70 to pass that section of the examination. Because each question was equally weighted, a candidate would have to correctly answer 28 questions to earn the passing score. All questions challenged by Petitioner were multiple- choice questions where the candidate was instructed to give the best answer from four possible choices. Prior to the examinations, the candidates were given a list of approved reference materials. The candidates were permitted to refer to those reference materials while taking the examinations. Respondent’s score of 65 on the July 1996 examination was based on the Bureau of Testing’s determination that Petitioner correctly answered 26 of the 40 questions. To earn a passing grade on the Contract Administration section of the July 1996 examination, Petitioner would have to receive credit for correctly answering two additional questions. His score of 67.5 on the April 1997 was based on the determination that he correctly answered 27 of the 40 questions. To earn a passing grade on the Contract Administration section of the April 1997 examination, Petitioner would have to receive credit for correctly answering one additional question. QUESTION 23 OF THE JULY 1996 EXAM The correct answer for Question 23 of the July examination is choice “D.” Of the four possible responses, choice “D” is the best answer to the question. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “A.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the best answer. The answer selected by Petitioner would not be the most accurate and cost-effective because the methodology he selected would not detect errors made by the first person performing the computations. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 23 of the July 1996 exam. QUESTION 27 OF THE JULY 1996 EXAM The correct answer for Question 27 of the July examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “B.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 27 of the July 1996 exam. QUESTION 11 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The correct answer for Question 11 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “D.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 11 of the April 1997 exam. QUESTION 23 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The best answer for Question 23 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “A.” While there is some support in the reference material for Petitioner's answer, the greater weight of the evidence established that his choice was not the best answer. Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the best answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 23 of the April 1997 exam. QUESTION 35 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The correct answer for Question 11 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “D.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 11 of the April 1997 exam.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that dismisses the challenges brought by Petitioner to Questions 23 and 27 on the July 1996 exam and to Questions 11, 23, and 35 of the April 1997 exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Kenneth Marshall 624 Southwest 11th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 John Preston Seiler, Esquire 2900 East Oakland Park Boulevard, No. 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should be given a passing grade on the April, 1987, professional engineering examination. At the hearing the specific issues in dispute were narrowed to whether the Petitioner should be given a higher grade on each of three questions on the examination. At the hearing the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of two other witnesses. He also offered several documentary exhibits into evidence. The Respondent offered the testimony of one witness and also offered several exhibits. Subsequent to the hearing a transcript of the hearing was filed with the Hearing Officer and the parties were given a reasonable time thereafter within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed post-hearing submissions containing proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations. The parties' proposals have been given careful consideration in the preparation of this recommended order. All findings of fact proposed by all parties are addressed in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The April, 1987, professional engineering examination required an applicant to work four problems in the morning session and four problems in the afternoon session, for a total of eight problems. In order to pass the examination, the applicant had to achieve an average score of six points for all eight problems, or a raw score of forty-eight points. Mr. Schmidt's examination was given a total score of forty points, comprised of scores as follows: 10, 8, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, and 1. Mr. Schmidt, therefore, needs eight additional raw points in order to receive a passing grade on the examination. An additional requirement is that in order to receive a passing grade on the examination, the applicant must score six points or more on at least five of the eight questions. Mr. Schmidt is challenging three questions on the exam, questions 114, 411 and 418. On question 114, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of four. On question 411, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of five. On question 418, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of three. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent stipulated that Mr. Schmidt's score of question 418 should be increased to five. The Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) is a device utilized to standardize graders so that a person grading a specific problem for various different candidates would consistently apply the same score to the same type of deficiency throughout the scoring process. There was an individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for each problem given on the subject examination. Each of the Item Specific Scoring Plans contains objective criteria for assigning from 0 to 10 points to a candidate's answer to each question. There is no evidence that the Item Specific Scoring Plans are defective or arbitrary and capricious. The percentage of successful candidates on the chemical engineering examination has been rather low on recent examinations. Approximately 15% passed the April, 1986, exam. Only 2.9% passed the October, 1986, exam, and 25% passed the April, 1987, exam. During that same period of time the success rate was generally (but not always) higher for candidates for licensure in other fields of engineering. The grade of four given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 114 is consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The grade of five given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 411 is consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The grade of three given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 418 is not consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The parties have stipulated that Mr. Schmidt's grade on question number 418 should be at least five. The evidence is insufficient to show that Mr. Schmidt is entitled to a higher grade than five on question number 418.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Board of Professional Engineers issue a final order to the following effect: Increasing Petitioner's score on question 418 from three to five, leaving Petitioner's other scores unchanged, and assigning to Petitioner a final grade of forty-two. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4175 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 114 are essentially correct summaries of the testimony as far as they go. Nevertheless, most of them have been omitted as unnecessary subordinate details, particularly in view of the further testimony of Dr. O'Connell to the effect that he had no quarrel with the ISSP for this question and to the testimony of both Dr. O'Connell and Dr. Hanley to the effect that the grade given to Petitioner on this question is consistent with the ISSP. Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 411 have for the most part been rejected as irrelevant on the basis of testimony by both Dr. O'Connell and Dr. Hanley to the effect that the ISSP required evidence of a trial and error solution and that such a solution is not shown in the Petitioner's answer. Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 418 are essentially correct summaries of the testimony as far as they go. Nevertheless, most of them have been omitted as unnecessary subordinate details, in view of additional evidence to the effect that the Petitioner's boxed answer to this question was not a reasonable answer. With regard to the penultimate paragraph of the Petitioner's proposed findings, the first two sentences are essentially correct, but also irrelevant, because the burden of proof is on the Petitioner rather than on `the Respondent. With regard to the remainder of the penultimate paragraph, I have made findings regarding the success rate of chemical engineers, but find that evidence, standing along, insufficient to establish any impropriety in the examination. The final paragraph of the Petitioner's proposed findings is more in the nature of argument than proposed facts. It may well be that the Petitioner received less prehearing information from the Respondent than he was entitled to receive, but those are matters which should be raised before rather than after the hearing, and are matters which are waived if not timely asserted. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. Paragraph 4: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. Paragraph 5: The essence of this paragraph has been accepted, but most details have been omitted an unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel B. Schmidt 2209 Northeast 15th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32601 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
