The Issue The issue presented is whether Mr. Lord should be granted additional credit for his answer to question number 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lord (Candidate #301402) received a score of 66.3 percent on the April 20, 1991, Principals and Practice portion of the Professional Engineer examination. A minimum passing score was 70.0 percent. Mr. Lord challenged the scoring of his response to question number 144. Question number 144 is an essay question involving an assembly line problem where four separate stations are used to assemble a product in sequence. A fifth station can assist in maximizing the number of finished products produced per hour, and is capable of performing all operations. The correct answer to question number 144 was 100 products per hour, while Mr. Lord's answer was 25 pieces per hour. Petitioner received a score of 2 (out of a possible 10) points on question number 144. This was based on the scoring plan developed for the exam by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Mr. Lord used a method of averaging station assembly times to determine the maximum average number of products each station could produce. The averaging method gave a solution which did not identify the central issue presented by the essay question: identifying and eliminating the bottlenecks in production. Mr. Lord also made an assumption that the initial four stations could do all operations, thus defining the model inaccurately. This misreading allowed Mr. Lord to use an averaging methodology. Mr. Granata, the Department's expert, testified that it is a coincidence of the numbers that if you multiply Respondent's answer (25) by four (the initial number of machines) you get the Board's answer (100). Mr. Greenbaum, Petitioner's expert witness, testified that Petitioner's answer is "unique" and that he, as an expert, would have answered the question using a methodology similar to the one developed by the Department's expert, Mr. Granata, and by the NCEE (National Council of Examiners for Engineering).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the challenge to the grading of Mr. Lord's response to question 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 14th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Curtis Lord 1416A Old Lystra Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her solution to Problem 120 on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 14, 2000, 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 April 14, 2000, as part of her 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 46 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 46 converts to a score of 68. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested that her solution to Problem 120 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was referred to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 120 resulted in her receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about December 5, 2000. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated December 14, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problem 120 was worth ten raw points. Petitioner received six raw points for her solution to Problem 120. In her solution to Problem 120, Petitioner failed to properly take into consideration the height of the water table, did not compute the factor of safety for load-bearing capacity in the manner required, and made an arithmetic mistake. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES's scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that she could have received for her solution to this problem was a six, which is the score she received. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee made three errors. The solution approved by the Civil Engineering Exam committee called for a correction in requirement (a) for the mid height water table. The examinee ignored this correction. A two point grade reduction is called for. The examinee made a numerical error in evaluating the bearing capacity equation. This error called for a one point grade reduction. In evaluating the factor of safety the examinee added an erroneous load factor. A two point grade reduction is called for. With a total of five grade points lost a final grade of six is called for. SCORER'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommended score = six There has been no showing that the rescorer's analysis was in any way flawed.
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 she received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2001, 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 16th day of April, 2001.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2014),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony presented at the final hearing, exhibits accepted into evidence, and matters subject to official recognition. The Board is the state entity charged with regulating the practice of engineering, pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. FEMC provides administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. Mr. Henry obtained his professional engineering license from the state of Florida in 1992 and has been a licensed engineer for all times relevant to the issues in this case. His license number is PE 45894. In May 2014, Mr. Henry provided an estimate for engineering services to the owners of Darr Salaam Annex (“property owners”), a religious/community center in Thonotosassa, Florida. The services involved the renovation of an existing one-story building (“Project”). Initially the property owners hired another engineer who submitted the renovation plans to the appropriate agencies for a building permit: the Hillsborough County building plans review staff (“County”) and the Hillsborough County Fire Marshals’ Office (“FMO”). The County rejected the first submittal of the electrical and mechanical plans on June 26 and July 3, 2014; FMO rejected the submitted plans on June 27, 2014. The property owners retained Respondent to be the engineer of record (“EOR”) for the Project in August 2014. As the EOR, Respondent prepared, signed, sealed and submitted documentation to the County and FMO for the Project numerous times. The following is a summary of his submissions and the permitting entities’ responses. Date of Review Comments Status of Submitted Plan October 3, 2014 First resubmittal denied by FMO; second resubmittal required. October 20, 2014 Corrected electrical plan review denied by County. October 30, 2014 Building plan review denied by County. December 21, 2014 Corrected electrial plan review denied by County. December 22, 2014 Building plan review denied by County. January 2, 2015 Second resubmittal denied by FMO; resubmittal required. February 6, 2015 Third resubmittal denied by FMO. February 18, 2015 Corrected electrical plan approved by County. February 20, 2015 Building plans review denied by County. February 25, 2015 Corrected building plan approved by County. March 2, 2015 Corrected mechanical plan approved by County. March 13, 2015 Fourth resubmittal denied by FMO. March 16, 2015 Building plan approval rescinded by County. The parties presented no evidence as to whether the County and FMO ultimately approved the building plans or issued a building permit. The last plans Mr. Henry prepared and submitted to the County and FMO consisted of five illustrations including: (1) a demolition plan; (2) a lighting/safety plan; (3) wall details; (4) canopy details (structural plan); and (5) elevation drawings. The demolition plan contains a section titled “SCOPE OF WORK,” which states: THE THREE DECORATIVE CANOPIES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS PER THESE PLANS THE EXISTING 1ST FLOOR INTERIORS TO BE RENOVATED AS PER THESE PLANS THE RENOVATED BATHROOMS ARE TO BE WIRED ALL OTHER EXISTING LIGHTING TO BE RETAINED OUTLETS ON THE WALL REMOVED ARE [TO] BE DISCARDED THE EXISTING AC SYSTEMS ARE TO BE RETAINED[.] On March 20, 2015, Kevin McGuire, the Plans Reviewer for the FMO filed a complaint with the Board (“McGuire Complaint”) regarding Respondent. Mr. McGuire claimed Mr. Henry had been repeatedly told the plans were deficient and also been told how to correct them, but that Petitioner failed to address the issues raised by the FMO in the revised submittals. Mr. McGuire also stated in his Complaint that--in his opinion-- Mr. Henry lacked basic knowledge of the Florida Building Code and the Fire Prevention Code. Petitioner notified Respondent of the allegations in the McGuire Complaint. Mr. Henry responded he was not responsible for the electrical, mechanical and structural plans and that the Project was not a “straight forward situation.” After receipt of the McGuire Complaint and Mr. Henry’s response, the Board’s Probable Cause Panel authorized FEMC to initiate an investigation. These documents, as well as the final building plans submitted to the County and FMO, were provided to four FEMC consultants for review: Mr. Ooten (electrical and mechanical elements); Gerald Zadikoff, P.E. (structural elements); Mr. Jeffery (second review of the structural elements); and Sarah Maman, P.E. (fire safety and protection elements).3/ Based on the engineering reports prepared by these consultants, the Board filed the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Henry alleging deficiencies in the electrical, mechanical and structural design documents. Overall Violations As an initial matter, most of Mr. Henry’s violations (described in detail below) arise out his lack of description and specificity in the engineering documents. The overwhelming evidence establishes most of the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner could have been avoided had Mr. Henry simply provided the details required by the rules to (1) describe the specifications of the new electrical, plumbing and structural features; and (2) distinguish the existing systems more clearly from those that were being affected by the renovations. Respondent’s failure, if not refusal, to do so was one of the reasons the plans were repeatedly rejected by the County and FMO. In general, Mr. Henry accepted responsibility at the hearing for the Project plans, but he maintained that any departures from the FBC or rules were justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and his sound professional judgment. He did not, however, establish what those specific or special circumstances were. Both experts’ testimony and reports established that departures from the rules, even if they are justified by circumstances and the professional judgment of the engineer—-which these were not--must be documented. Again, Mr. Henry’s lack of attention to detail in the documents was his downfall; it cannot be excused by any specific circumstance or his professional judgment. Respondent also claimed he was not responsible for describing the existing elements that he did not design. Again, it is difficult to discern from the documents alone what was in place before the renovation and what would be affected by the renovation. Mr. Henry admitted, “I don’t have a list of move this bathroom or move this outlet or move this here.” Mr. Henry could have used different colors or methods to distinguish the changes from the original structure, but he did not. None of the Project documents cite to the relevant codes, rules, or ordinances that Respondent relied upon as required by rule 61G15-30.003(1)(b). The plans simply state they comply with the FBC without noting which version or year Respondent was using. Mr. Henry believed that his general citation to the FBC put the plan reviewers and contractors on notice of all of the construction code requirements. This assertion is rejected based on the testimony of Mr. Ooten and Mr. Jeffery, which established: it is common practice in the profession to make specific citations; and plan reviewers and contractors have difficulty in evaluating and interpreting building plans without citations to specific statutes, codes, and rules. Similarly, Mr. Henry testified he did not have to provide the sizing and specifications of construction materials in writing because they were known by the contractor he was working with at the time. This contention is rejected based on Mr. Henry’s own testimony that others may need this information to complete the project, and his own admission there was no guarantee that the specific contractor he was working with would complete the Project. Electrical Violations The Board alleges the electrical “Legend” section lacked sufficient symbols or explanations as required by rule 61G15-33.004. The small copies of the drawings presented by the Board were difficult, if not impossible, to read. At the hearing, however, Respondent brought actual–size copies of the drawings he had submitted to the County and FMO and was able to show that although some information was missing from the “Legend” section, this information was located elsewhere in the documents. As such, the “Legend” is compliant and does not violate the Responsibility Rules. The Board, however, provided clear and convincing evidence, primarily through the testimony and report of Mr. Ooten, that the electrical engineering drawings Mr. Henry prepared were deficient. The drawings contain an Electrical Riser Diagram, but no short circuit values and no voltage drop calculations for the feeders, as required by of rule 61G15-33.003(2)(a) and (f). The drawings do not depict any surge protective devices nor do they explain why such devices were not necessary, as is required by rule 61G15-33.003(2)(d). The drawings do not specify the type of conductor insulation that is necessary or should be used, as required by rule 61G15-33.003(2)(b). The drawings contain incomplete circuitry of electrical outlets, equipment and devices such as air handlers, water heaters, lighting fixtures and receptacles, and ground fault circuit interrupter receptacle, as required by rule 61G15- 33.003(2)(g). The grounding conductors reflected in the drawings are inadequate and insufficient to satisfy the requirements of rule 61G15-33.003(2)(i). The electrical information omitted by Respondent is necessary to assure the circuit breakers, wires, conductors and other electrical components are adequate for the power usage, because undersized components can overheat and cause fires. Likewise, the grounding information is necessary to ensure the building is safe in the event of lightning or an electrical power surge. Lighting Violations The Board also provided clear and convincing evidence that the lighting plan Mr. Henry prepared was deficient. The drawings lack any light fixture specifications, as required by rule 61G15-33.004(2)(a). The drawings fail to provide for an appropriate number of exit lights, in violation of the Florida Fire Prevention Code and rule 61G15-33.004(2)(b). The drawings show no circuiting for any lighting fixtures, no calculated values for energy usage, and do not establish that the lighting plan complies with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction, as required by rule 61G15- 33.004(2)(d) and (e). Mr. Henry claimed he was not required to make these notations because the renovation incorporated the existing lighting. Mr. Henry admitted, however, he could have labeled the existing lighting fixtures that were not going to be modified as “N/A” or “existing,” but did not think he needed to do so because “the contractor understands this.” Unfortunately, what was existing lighting and what was being changed was not apparent to the plan reviewers, Mr. Ooten, or the ALJ. Plumbing Violations The Board alleged numerous deficiencies in the plumbing plan, including that the potable water diagram shown on Sheet 3 of the drawings lacked designation of the total water fixture units, as required by rule 61Gl5-34.007(2)(c). Mr. Henry, however, clarified at the hearing that this information was contained in the documents, but not on the sheet related to plumbing. As such, the Board did not show the water diagram was insufficient. The Board, however, did present sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Henry’s plumbing drawings lack necessary data or provide incorrect information in violation of the FBC and applicable Responsibility Rules as follows: The drawings fail to designate fixture requirements, back flow prevention devices, water supply line locations or hot or cold water line locations other than sewage, as required by the FBC. The drawings lack plumbing equipment descriptions, or material specifications (i.e. sizes and strengths of the materials to be used), as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(a), (l), and (m). The drawings lack designation of storm riser and area drainage calculations, as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(e). The drawings lack piping layouts, as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(f). The drawings fail to list the applicable plumbing codes, design standards or requirements, as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(i). These omissions could result in inadequate water and sewer capabilities. The lack of drainage calculations make it difficult to assess the impact the renovations will have on the existing storm water runoff system. Again, Mr. Henry denied he was responsible for making these designations because the renovations, he claims, did not affect the existing plumbing. The testimony of Mr. Ooten, however, established: the additional bathroom features would affect the total plumbing system, and Mr. Henry should have better designated what portions would not be affected by the renovations. The Board also established that the Project plans fail to designate a handicap accessible bathroom stall as required by rule 61G15-34.007(2)(j). Although at the hearing, Mr. Henry showed a larger space where these bathrooms were located on the plans, they were not clearly marked as “handicap” stalls. Mr. Henry admitted as much and noted, “I could have also put a note in the [the plans that] this was a handicap bathroom, okay, but the dimensions speak for themselves. . . . I did not put a detail for the handicap bathroom. My mistake. All right. Everybody makes mistakes.” Structural Violations The Project renovations included widening the building’s doorways and adding canopies to the rooftop. These are changes affecting the structural elements of the building. Based on Mr. Jeffery’s testimony and report, the Board presented clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s structural engineering design documents were professionally and legally deficient. The structural plans fail to provide the live or dead loads for the roof, as required by the FBC and rule 61G15- 31.002(5). Although Mr. Henry testified these were not necessary because no changes were made to the roof, the plans reflect there was an addition of three decorative canopies. The structural plans do not indicate that the live or dead loads remain unchanged despite these additions. To the contrary, Mr. Jeffery’s testimony and report established that the canopies (even if decorative) coupled with the changes in doorways would affect the structural loads. Thus, the structural plans were noncompliant. There are no structural notes indicating applicable code or strength of materials for masonry, grout, reinforcing steel and wood, as required by rule 61G15-31.003(1)(a). Mr. Henry claimed that providing the size of the structure beams was enough to satisfy the rule. This contention is rejected based on Mr. Jeffery’s testimony: [Mr. Henry]: I have here a 2-by-6 ridge beam. A 2-by-6 ridge beam . . . is established what load a 2 by 6 ridge bema from the American Wood Council. The American Wood Council has a sort of table that I use. I don’t put in in every plan because I establish my own table based on information from the American Wood Council. A 2-by-6 ridge—yes [?] [Mr. Jeffery]: First of all, you haven’t even said what species of wood it is, so each species of wood has a different strength. Secondly, with any species, there’s at least five or six different grades, and each of those grades has a different strength. So you’ve got maybe 10 to 15 options that could be picked from by the contractor, and you’ve not told him which one to pick. The wind loads indicated on the diagrams are inadequate in that they do not reflect the new canopies and do not establish that the structure could withstand or resist the minimum wind speed. Although the testimony conflicted about whether the 2005 or 2010 standards were applicable, Mr. Jeffery provided sufficient testimony to establish that the calculations on the plan that showed the canopy details were insufficient under either standard. Although knowledgeable about designing the renovations, Mr. Henry failed to utilize due care in performing as the EOR and failed to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles in the preparation and submission of the engineering documents he signed and sealed for the Project. It was clearly and convincingly shown that Mr. Henry was negligent in the preparation and submission of the building plans for the Project. There is nothing in the record to indicate Respondent has a history of discipline or has had any other complaints filed against him in his 25 years as a licensed professional engineer in Florida. The Project was a renovation of an existing building with no major changes. There was no evidence the Board interviewed the property owners or Project contractor, nor was there evidence of any actual damages suffered by the public as a result of Mr. Henry’s negligence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers: Finding Earl E. Henry engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 19.001(4); Imposing a two-year probation; and Awarding costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case as described in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 9th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The single issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to at least three more points on his response to question #121. If not, he has failed the examination.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth A. Carper graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor's degree from the University of Central Florida. In the nine years since graduation he has worked for an engineering firm primarily in the area of drainage design. Question #121 is the type of problem he deals with daily. The ultimate objective of the question is to determine whether the flow of an open channel with given specifications is subcritical or supercritical. The question required the computation of the channel's critical depth and normal depth. In the hypothetical situation described by the question, certain extraneous information was given. An appropriate answer required that this "red herring" be ignored. The ISSP is a standardized grading device by which a person subjectively grading a problem will consistently apply a score based upon specified types and numbers of deficiencies. The intent is to reduce the chance of over-leniency or an overly strict approach by different graders. The ISSP developed by the National Council of Engineering Examiners for question #121 provides in pertinent part: 10. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution, well organized, all relevant ASPECTS fully addressed. Correct approach; numerical answers correct within rounding errors; conclusion correct; adequate written records. All parts are of equal weight (3 parts). 9. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution but exces- sively conservative in choice of working values; or presen- tation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. All correct, as in 10 above, except for a single math/units error; or inadequate written record. 8. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, errors attributable to misread table or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct. All correct, as in 10 above, except for multiple math/units errors; or inadequate written record; or in combination. 7. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied. Obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable. Same as 8 above, except for more gross errors; or in combination; or a single part of three parts required completely wrong or missing, with the other two parts correct. 6. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, applicant demonstrates minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant ASPECTS of the item. Multiple math/units/records errors; or in combination; or one part completely missing or wrong, with other errors; or in combination. (Joint Exhibit 1) The grader of Carper's examination did not testify, but provided notations on the answer sheet. The solution required selection of an appropriate formula, which Carper did; it also required a trial and error mathematical computation of the value of "y." In the first part of the question Carper found "y" to be "... between 9.2 and 9.3, say 9.3'." The grader crossed out this answer with the notation,-- "not an engineering answer-Finish iteration to a close enough' final value." The grader's answer was 9.24. In the second part of the question, Carper indicated "y" was "... between 6.8 and 7.0, say 7.0'." The grader's answer was 6.99, and similar notations, were made, "not an engineering answer. Finish the iteration." It is apparent that the grader felt that the solution should be carried out to the nearest hundredth place. Yet, in a very similar question (#421), also requiring computation of normal depth, Carper's answer, 4.7' was marked "OK", and he received the full 10 points for his solution. Nothing in the instructions specifically requires a solution to the nearest hundredth. This is left to the judgement of the engineer. "Real world" engineering practice would not require a solution to the nearest hundredth place. The design of a large open channel is substantially less precise than the design of a bridge or multi-story building. In hydraulics, the practice is often to round up, for example, from a 9.8 to 10, as a conservative measure. It is also common to use estimates; for example, the roughness coefficient (resistance of the channel walls) is a textbook figure, rather than one derived from the structure itself. Given the lack of precision inherent in the formula, the computation of value beyond the tenth place serves no valid purpose. The sample solution to #121 provided by the grader specifically states "ignore backwater curve." While Carper's solution does ignore the "red herring," his work sheet does not affirmatively note that he did. Respondent claims that the grader could not know whether the back water curve was properly ignored, or just overlooked. At worst, this minor deficiency constitutes an inadequate written record. The appropriate score, based on the ISSP table reflected in paragraph 4, above, is "9." Carper selected the proper formula, performed the mathematics and arrived at answers reflecting acceptable engineering practice. The descriptions of deficiencies for the scores of less than 9 do not apply to Carper's solution for this question. Respondent's expert conceded that the solution did not contain a mathematics error. In making these findings I have considered and weighed the opinions of the three experts who testified in this proceeding. Both experts presented by Petitioner were qualified, without objection, in the engineering fields of hydraulics, hydrology and water resource management. They both have over 30 years of extensive practical experience in those fields, and they both have lectured or taught in colleges and universities. The weight of their testimony is tempered by their personal knowledge of Petitioner for eight or nine years and by their knowledge of the score he needed to pass the examination. Nothing in the substance of their testimony, however, revealed a bias in favor of their colleague, and their testimony was considered candid and forthright. They would have scored #121 as "9" or "10". Respondent's expert, a consulting engineer, employed as an Associate Professor in the University of Florida Civil Engineering Department did not know Carper, nor was he advised of the score he would need to pass. He would have given Carper a "6" or "7" on question #121, but more likely a 7, based on Carper's failure to carry his answer to "three significant figures." This opinion was not adequately explained in terms of acceptable engineering practice, but rather was based on acceptance of the test grader's judgement. (Joint Exhibit #2, Deposition, p. 29) Respondent's expert was less qualified than Petitioner's experts. His primary experience as a consulting engineer has been in review of the work of others, rather than active design.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, awarding Kenneth Carper 9 points for question #121, thereby providing a passing grade for the engineering examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4979 The following constitute my rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner 1-5. Addressed in Background. 6-7. Adopted in paragraph #11. 8. Addressed in Background. Respondent Addressed in Background. Adopted in substance in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #10. Adopted in substance in paragraph #10. Adopted in paragraph #9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. Rejected as unsubstantiated speculation. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian E. Currie, Esquire SANDERS, McEWAN, MIMS & MARTINEZ, P.A 108 East Central Boulevard Post Office Box 753 Orlando, Florida 32802-0753 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neal, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, 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 29, 1999, 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 mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical 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 (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
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 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, 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 13th day of October, 2000.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified electrical contractor pursuant to the provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner, William Davidson Schaefer (Petitioner), was a licensed electrical contractor, having been issued License No. ER-0008163. This license, issued to Petitioner after he fulfilled the competency requirements of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, allows him to practice electrical contracting in Pinellas County, Florida. To meet the competency requirements of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board necessary to obtain an electrical contracting license, Petitioner had to successfully complete a written examination. In 1981, when Petitioner received his license, the test required by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was administered by Construction Exams, Inc., the sole test provider for Pinellas County. Petitioner took the Electrical Contractor's Examination administered by Construction Exams, Inc. on June 26, 1981, and earned a passing score of 86.5%. Petitioner has practiced electrical contracting in Pinellas County since 1981 and has been sole owner of Lester Electric, Inc., an electrical contracting company, since 1983. Petitioner's license is active and in good standing. Moreover, during the time that Petitioner has practiced electrical contracting, he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. On or about May 8, 2000, Petitioner applied to the Electrical Contractors' Board (Board) for certification as an electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes. On or about May 26, 2000, the Board denied Petitioner's application for certification as an electrical contractor because he did not provide information upon which the Board could determine that the examination administered by Construction Exams, Inc. is substantially similar to the state examination. The exam administered by Construction Exams, Inc. contained a technical section and a general business section. However, Petitioner does not recall if the examination included a section or questions on safety. On the Examination Verification Form submitted to the Board as part of Petitioner's application, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board verified that the examination taken by Petitioner in 1981 included a technical section and a general business section. However, in response to a question on the form asking if the examination had included "fire alarm questions," the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board marked the response, "Not sure." The company, Construction Exams, Inc., that administered the examination that Petitioner took in 1981 is no longer in business. Petitioner sought to obtain a copy of the examination from the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, but learned that the local board did not have a copy of the examination. Except for the time he was taking the examination, Petitioner never had nor has he been able to obtain a copy of the examination from any source. Although Petitioner does not recall if the examination that he took in 1981 included questions on safety and/or fire alarms, he was able to obtain information about some of the areas covered on the examination. Based on the document Petitioner was able to obtain, it appears that the examination he took included questions relative to the mechanics' lien law, workers' compensation law, first aid, OSHA regulations, federal tax law and the national electrical code. The state's Certified Electrical Contractor Exam includes a technical section, a general business section, and a safety section. The examination consists of 150 multiple choice questions, is an open-book test, and includes both a morning session and an afternoon session. Given that Petitioner took the examination more than 20 years ago, it is understandable that he can not recall all the questions and/or sections that were covered on the examination, and that he was unable to obtain a copy of the examination from any source. However, without a copy of the examination or other documents which sufficiently detail the contents of the examination Petitioner took in 1981, it is impossible to determine if that examination is substantially similar to the state examination. Petitioner failed to provide the Board with any information upon which it could make a determination that the examination he took is substantially similar to the state examination required for certification as an electrical contractor.
Recommendation Base on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Decker, Esquire Decker Beeler, P.A. 25 Second Street, North, Suite 320 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Barbara R. Edwards Assistant General Counsel Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to one additional point on the October 1996 Professional Civil Engineer Examination so as to achieve a passing score for licensure in Florida?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Civil Engineer Examination given in October 1996. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated February 17, 1997, that she had earned a score of 69.00 on the Civil Engineer Examination. The minimum passing score for the Civil Engineer Examination is 70.00. Petitioner timely requested formal hearing and challenged only Question 120, for which she received no points. Petitioner is trained as a materials engineer. Question 120 is a soils and foundation problem outside her concentrated area of study. It is an open book examination question. Petitioner selected the correct equation from the applicable manual, but acknowledged that she solved the variables of that equation incorrectly. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) produced, distributed, and was responsible for grading the examinations. Petitioner contended that the examiner who graded her answer sheet applied different criteria than the examination criteria published by the NCEES. Petitioner further contended that since one criterion her grader actually used was merely to "write the correct equation," she should be awarded at least one point on that basis. However, a comparison of the actual grader's handwritten "summary" on Petitioner's Solution Pamphlet (Respondent's Exhibit 3) and the NCEES's Solutions and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) does not bear out Petitioner's theory. It is clear that out of five possible parts of the question, which five parts total two points' credit each, merely selecting the correct equation from an open text would not amount to two points, or even one point, credit. I accept as more competent, credible and persuasive the testimony of Eugene N. Beauchamps, the current Chairman of the NCEES Examination Policy Committee and a Florida licensed Professional Engineer, that the grader's "summary" describes what he actually reviewed in Petitioner's written solution to Question 120 rather than establishing one or more different grading criteria. In order to receive a score of two on Question 120, the candidate was required to demonstrate any one of five requirements listed in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan for "2-Rudimentary Knowledge." The first requirement in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) for receiving a score of two points is, "Determines effective overburden stress at mid- depth of clay layer." The remaining four NCEES scoring criteria required that the examinee: Computes the change in effective stress at mid- depth of the clay layer due to placement of the fill. Computes the primary consolidation settlement, based on a change in effective stress, due to the fill surcharge. Evaluates the Average Degree of Consolidation and the Time Factor. Determines the waiting period after fill placement recognizing the existence of double-drained conditions. In order to gain two more points (total 4 points) so as to demonstrate "More Than Rudimentary Knowledge But Insufficient to Demonstrate Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have to have met two of the five bulleted criteria. For two more points (total 6 points) for "Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have had to score three bullets. For two more points (total 8 points) for "More than Minimum But Less Than Exceptional Competence," Petitioner would have had to score four bullets. Finally, to attain "Exceptional Competence" for 10 total points, Petitioner would have had to score all five bullets. In the first correct equation for answering Question 120, "p sub zero" (p naught) equals the present effective overburden pressure, which represents what clay was present before anything was put on top of the clay layer. "P" equals the total pressure acting at mid-height of the consolidating clay layer or the pressure of the dirt and the water in the dirt. "H" equals the thickness of the consolidating clay layer. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, "determining the effective overburden stress at mid-depth of clay layer," indicated p sub zero (p naught) as the "present effective overburden pressure," but it incorrectly calculated p sub zero equaling 125 pounds multiplied by 13 feet. This is incorrect because the effective overburden pressure would not include 13 feet of fill. The 13 feet of fill is not part of p sub zero, the present effective overburden pressure. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, also multiplied water, represented by 62.4, by 12, which is incorrect. She should have used a multiplier of 10 to receive credit for this problem. The grader indicated the correct equation was used incorrectly by Petitioner because of the two foregoing incorrect calculations. The equation, as Petitioner stated it, was correct and her multiplication was correct. Her solution identified P sub zero as present effective overburden pressure but present effective overburden pressure would not include the fill. Petitioner had the correct equation for the present effective overburden pressure and her mathematics were correct. However, she did not use the consolidation equation correctly, not obtaining the correct percentage of primary consolidation. As stated, the problem did not consider the fill as part of the present effective overburden pressure. Her solution also contained the correctly written time rate of settlement equation but failed to use it, and no waiting period was determined. The practical result of Petitioner's error could range from a cracked building to a collapsed building, depending upon the degree of error to site and materials.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and affirming her score as one point below passing. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Wilson 3581 Jose Terrace Jacksonville, Florida 32217 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues presented are: (1) whether or not Respondent wrongfully eliminated materials from the Candidate/Petitioner during the April 19, 1990 engineering examination, and if so, (2) whether the Candidate/Petitioner received a failing grade because the materials were wrongfully eliminated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner (#100021) received a score of 69.0 on the Professional Engineer Fundamentals Examination given April 19, 1990. A minimum passing score was 70.0 on the examination which is written by National Council of Engineering Examiners and graded by Education Testing Service. (Transcript Pages 36 and 39) Prior to the April 1990 examination, the Board sent each candidate a letter, dated December 18, 1989 (Exhibit P-1) (Transcript Page 9 and 12), which said, "No review publications directed principally toward sample questions and their solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Page 31). The candidates were also provided with a "Candidate Information Booklet" dated January 1990 (Exhibit R-1, Transcript Page 77). The booklet states on page 14, "No books with contents directed toward sample questions or solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Pages 77 and 96). Petitioner, who also took the October 1989 examination had received notice at that examination that the Board of Engineers intended to change the procedure allowing reference materials in the examination. (Transcript Page 89 and Respondent's Exhibit 2.) The Board of Professional Engineers advised the examination supervisor and proctors that no engineering "review" materials would be allowed in the examination although engineering "reference" materials could be brought into and used for the examination. However the books which were excluded included books without "review" in the title, books with "reference" in the title, and books which contained problems and solutions. Before the examination began Deena Clark, an examination supervisor, read over a loud speaker system names of books that would not be permitted (Transcript Page 81). Practice examination and solution manuals were not allowed for use by engineering candidates (Transcript Pages 93 and 94). Schram's outlines and other materials were also excluded (Transcript Page 91). Also excluded was Lindeburg's 6th edition, "Engineering In Training Review Manual." (Transcript Pages 16 and 79). This decision was verified by the Board before the examination began (Transcript Page 81). After the examination had begun, Ms. Clark announced that the candidates could put certain copyrighted materials in a three-ring binder and use them which had been excluded earlier (Transcript Page 85). This was in response to candidates who needed economics tables for the examination However, no time was provided the candidate to prepare these references and only one minute was added to the examination time. (Transcript Page 85). Petitioner did not bring any economic tables to the examination site except those contained in books which were not allowed in the examination. (Transcript Page 19). Petitioner did not remove the economic tables and permitted references from the Lindeburg's review manual until lunch and these tables were not available to him on the morning examination. (Transcript Pages 22 and 88). Of the six engineering economics questions on the morning portion for the examination, the candidate correctly answered four. No data was provided on the nature of these questions. The Candidate correctly answered 53 questions in the morning (weighted x 1) and 23 questions in the afternoon (weighted x 2) for a total of 99 weighted required points. He answered eight questions correctly in the "addition" portion of the examination. The table for eight additional questions correct in the "Scoring Information Booklet" used in determining the candidates final grade shows the adjusted equated score was 126 and his scaled score was 69. (Page 21 of booklet). The value of each economics question converted to final scoring scale was enough that passage of one economics question would have resulted in passage of the examination. The exclusion of certain materials from the examination was arbitrary and capricious and was done by a few individuals without any stated objective standard published by the board. Further, the board knew before the examination which books were to be excluded and could have notified examinees of the exact items to be excluded. The Board's generally poor handling of this matter is exemplified in announcing after the examination had begun that items previously excluded could be used if placed in a ring binder but not allowing any time to prepare such materials. (Tx. pgs., 74-80, 84-86, and 91-97) The Petitioner would have used several tables which were excluded if the announcement had been made before the morning examination began with time to put the items in acceptable form. After notifications in October 1989, December 1989, and January 1990, Petition admitted that he did not call the Board of Professional Engineers to ask for guidance on books that would not be allowed on the April 1990 examination (Transcript Page 29). However, a final decision on books to be excluded was not made until approximately two weeks before the examination. The Petitioner did not show that the two questions which he missed on the Engineering Economics portion of the morning examination were missed for lack of the tables. The examination is a national examination and there is no evidence that the requirements and limits established by the Board in Florida were applicable nationwide. To alter the national instructions locally potentially adversely affects Florida results.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to take the examination without charge on one occasion. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of March, 1991. 1/ The general information provided to examinees by the State Board regarding the values of questions on the examination and scoring it misleading or inaccurate because neither the weighted required score nor the adjusted score was 48% of 80, 280, or any other number related to the scaled score of 70. The manner in which these values are associated with the scale score of 70 is contrary to the Board's explanation and is not self evident. This is a potential problem if the matter were formally challenged, and it appears the Board needs to reassess its procedures and instructions. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5728 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. The Respondent submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or reject for the reasons stated: Adopted. Issue not fact. - 4. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. 5. -12. Adopted. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as preliminary statement. Adopted. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan K. Garman Civil-Tech, Inc. 3573 Commercial Way Street B Spring Hill, FL 34606 William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rex Smith Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the allegations of the administrative complaints are correct, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is charged with responsibility for regulation of the practice of engineering within the State of Florida. At all times material to these cases, the Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a professional engineer holding license PE40904. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Joseph Berryman, P.E., a professional engineer licensed by the State of Florida. Mr. Berryman was accepted as an expert in structural engineering design, including aluminum structure design. Mr. Berryman's testimony regarding deficiencies in the Respondent's design of the projects referenced herein was clear and persuasive. In response, the Respondent testified that the referenced projects met applicable professional standards, including load and stress standards. The Respondent's primary engineering experience has apparently been in the realm of civil, not structural, engineering. According to Mr. Berryman, the Respondent's calculations included material errors, reflected structural elements other than those identified in the design documents, and revealed misunderstanding and misapplication of engineering precepts. The Respondent's testimony has been rejected. Mr. Berryman's testimony has been credited. DOAH Case No. 12-1635PL (Del Vecchio) On October 7, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a one-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at "3611 Throle" in Rockledge, Florida (the "Del Vecchio" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the Florida Building Code (FBC) and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to identify the size of the "K-bracing" elements included in the design, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and referenced a design element that had been superseded elsewhere in the document. Additionally, the frame spacing dimensions set forth on the document failed to conform to the width of the proposed structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the Aluminum Design Manual (ADM). The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the standard set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and purlins) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed by the Respondent has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Del Vecchio project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1636PL (Nunez) On September 20, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 4128 Southwest 102nd Lane Road, in Ocala, Florida (the "Nunez" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise and failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, purlins, cable bracing, anchor bolts, and gusset plates used in a roof beam splice) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Nunez project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1637PL (Dunaway) On September 8, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 8538 Southwest 135th Street, in Ocala, Florida (the "Dunaway" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the gable rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and failed to identity the metal alloy of a clip used at a detailed shoulder connection. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed by the Respondent's design document using the information set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and shoulder connection fasteners) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Dunaway project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Petitioner, and imposing a fine of $6,000 against the Respondent. Additionally, the final order should prohibit the Respondent from the practice of structural engineering until the Respondent submits to the Petitioner proof of his successful completion of an appropriate examination to be designated by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 29th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Scott Guy Campbell Apartment 805 250 58th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5268 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
