Findings Of Fact Lee Ricciardi is a 62 year old male who, before retirement, spent most of his working life as an automobile salesman. He worked as a carpenter in construction while in high school and, since leaving the automobile business has worked for U.S. Home Corporation in home construction, has built homes in Connecticut and Massachusetts and built his own home in Tarpon Springs. Petitioner took the recommended course to prepare for the examination and he has taken the examination four times, failing on each occasion. His overall grade on the examination here challenged which was taken in October 1986 was 63.05. A grade of 70.0 is required to pass the examination. Exhibit 1 shows that on the four examinations given to applicants for licensure as residential contractors between October 1985 and October 1986 the percentage passing range from 34 percent in June 1986 to 58 percent in October 1985. Those questions excepted to by Petitioner, as shown on Exhibit 3, are the same questions shown in Exhibit 1. Most of the questions which Petitioner objected to involve calculations of the amount of materials, such as concrete, reinforcing bars, fill, etc. needed for the project comprising the examination problem. Petitioner merely contends that the concrete supplier can compute the amount of concrete needed for foundations, driveways, etc., the landscape contractor can advise the contractor the amount of fill, mulch and fertilizer that will be required, and that many of the questions asked on the exam are properly answered by the contractor's accountant. Unless the residential contractor can determine the amount of material he will need to complete the project he cannot accurately estimate the cost of materials and labor he will have to expend to complete the construction. Lacking accurate information in costs, he cannot competently bid on constructing a residence for a prospective customer. Of the four questions given the first morning of the examination which are challenged by Petitioner, 66 percent, 56 percent, 55 percent and 62 percent of the applicants taking that exam provided the correct answer. Of the five examination questions from the afternoon of the first day of the examination which are challenged by Petitioner, 51 percent, 30 percent, 42 percent, 48 percent and 38 percent of the examinees gave correct answers. Of those questions on the second day of the examination which are challenged by Petitioner, correct answers were provided by 65 percent, 76 percent, 71 percent, 70 percent, 79 percent, 67 percent, 46 percent, 54 percent, 51 percent and 58 percent of the examinees. Following an examination the answers are screened to determine the number of applicants providing correct and incorrect answers. The higher the percentage of examinees providing the correct answer the more valid the question is presumed to be. On the October 1986 examination challenged by Petitioner, the answer to only one question was deemed invalid and two answers were accepted as correct for this question.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater (City) for falsifying his pre-employment medical application, as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice (Notice) dated July 7, 2014.
Findings Of Fact From 1995 until early 1999, Respondent was employed by Pinellas County (County) as a Maintenance Worker II. See Ex. A, p. 5. In April 1998, he suffered a knee injury during a County- sponsored softball game. Due to the injury, he was dismissed from employment with the County on February 25, 1999, on the ground he was incapable of performing the essential functions of his job classification, even with a reasonable accommodation.1/ See Ex. I, p. 6. At that time, Respondent was determined to have reached maximum medical improvement with a permanent impairment rating of 36 percent. See Ex. I, p. 7. This meant that he could only perform his job duties at a 64 percent level. In return for releasing all claims, in 2005 he received a payment from the County in the amount of $100,000.00 as settlement for his on-the-job injury. See Ex. I, pp. 28-31. In October 2011, Respondent applied for a position with the City.2/ See Ex. A. As a part of the employment process, an applicant is required to complete an Application for Employment (Application). The Application required Respondent to certify that "the information contained in this application is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge" and that "any false information provided by [him] to the City may constitute grounds for immediate discharge regardless of when the information is discovered by the City." Id. at p. 4. If the City decides to hire an applicant, he must then complete and submit a Medical History Questionnaire (Questionnaire). Respondent completed and filed the Questionnaire on November 21, 2011. See Ex. C. Based upon his Application and Questionnaire, Respondent was offered a position as a Park Service Technician I, a "basic manual, landscape" entry-level position in the Parks and Recreation Department. He began working in December 2011. In January 2013, he was reclassified as a Park Service Technician II. Both positions are labor-intensive and required Respondent to lift, push, or pull items weighing up to 75 pounds. See Ex. B., p. 2. In short, the job involves physical work 100 percent of the time and is considered "one of the [City's] heaviest positions, in terms of the physical labor requirements." Because of the nature of the work, the City will not hire any applicant with an existing medical disability for these positions. The City has adopted a Performance and Behavior Management Program manual that applies to all employees and contains Citywide, Integrity, and Departmental standards of conduct. Also, pursuant to the Code of Ordinances (Code), the Civil Service Board has adopted a set of rules and regulations that apply to all positions in the civil service, including Respondent's position. Among other things, those regulations set forth additional grounds for disciplining an employee. Question 2.10 of the Questionnaire asks if the applicant has "[a]ny permanent physical condition which received an impairment rating?" Respondent answered no. In response to question 2.11, he denied having any health-related reason that might affect his ability to work as a park service technician. In response to question 2.6, he denied having any injury, operation, disease, or disability not covered by previous questions. In response to question 2.10, he denied having any physical conditions which received an impairment rating. Each of these responses was not true. He also failed to answer questions asking if he had ever filed an injury report with a previous employer (question 2.5) or had ever received a settlement for inability to work (question 2.9). In the comments section of the Questionnaire, Respondent stated that he twisted his knee in 1998, he had arthroscopy on the knee (a minimally invasive surgical procedure), but he had no existing problems. For unexplained reasons, the City either failed to notice that questions 2.5 and 2.9 were not answered, or it did not ask Respondent to complete the form. Respondent had two injuries on the job while working with the City, both of which resulted in him filing workers' compensation claims. When the second injury was being processed by the insurance carrier in May 2014, it noted that Respondent had previously filed a claim with the County in 1998 and instructed the City's Risk Department to contact the County.3/ The City then learned for the first time that Respondent had a permanent disability rating of 36 percent assigned in 1998 and that, in 2005, he had received a $100,000.00 settlement for his injury. Apparently for the first time, the City also noticed that Respondent had not answered questions 2.5 and 2.9 on his Questionnaire. After discovering this information, the Parks and Recreation Department Director recommended that Respondent be terminated for violating City rules and standards. The Director testified at hearing that had this information been initially disclosed, he would not have hired Respondent due to the labor- intensive nature of the work. Civil Service Board regulations allow an employee to present the circumstances which led to his dismissal and other mitigating evidence. See ch. 13, § 8, Rules and Regs. Pursuant to that regulation, Respondent requested a disciplinary determination meeting with the Department of Human Resources, which was conducted on July 1, 2014. Respondent was represented at the meeting by the president of his union. After considering Respondent's explanation, on July 2, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Department again recommended that Respondent be terminated. On July 7, 2014, the City Manager notified Respondent that he was being terminated effective the following day, July 8, 2014. Respondent timely requested a review of that decision by a hearing officer (administrative law judge). The record does not disclose why the case was not referred to DOAH for almost one year. The evidence shows that Respondent knew, or should have known, that by disclosing that he had a permanent disability rating, he received a settlement from the County for an injury on-the-job, and he was discharged by the County because of a disability, he would not have been hired by the City. The failure to disclose that information is contrary to City policies, standards, and regulations. Respondent testified that he probably answered the medical questions incorrectly because he failed to pay close attention to the information being requested and he filled out the form quickly. He further explained that he was always under the impression that the County did not discharge him in 1999 because of a disability, but rather because it could not hold his position open for more than ten months. The evidence, however, shows otherwise. See Endnote 1. He had no explanation for failing to answer questions 2.5 and 2.9, except that he may have overlooked those items. Had he completed the Questionnaire accurately and completely, he would not have been hired. At hearing, Respondent testified that the investigation which led to his dismissal was triggered by bad relations with his landscape manager, who became upset when he observed Respondent using a handicapped license plate to park his car in a handicapped space and did not believe Respondent was disabled. Respondent suggested that this led to the City's examination of his Application and Questionnaire, and his ultimate dismissal. Respondent obtained the special license plate in 1999 when he was given a disability rating by the County, and he continued to renew the tag for around 15 years. However, the issue concerning the license plate played no role in the City's decision to terminate Respondent. Respondent had a blemish-free record while working with the City. He testified without dispute that even with a disability rating and a brace on his left leg, he performed every assigned task and was always given good evaluations by his supervisors. He wants to continue working for the City in order to support his wife and seven children. While termination may be a harsh penalty, the City has ample authority under its Code to take that action. Whether Respondent is eligible to be hired in another position that requires no physical labor is not of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board make a determination that the charges in the Notice are sustained, and that Respondent be terminated as a Park Service Technician II. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of October, 2015.
The Issue Whether the petitioner is entitled to credit for the answers given to the challenged questions in the General Contractor’s examination administered October 18, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency with jurisdiction over the examination and regulation of general contractors in the State of Florida. Sections 489.107(4) and .113(1), Florida Statutes. Mr. Simmons sat for the General Contractor examination on October 18, 1995, and received a failing grade of 68.75 percent on the business and financial administration portion of the examination. Even though he passed the other two portions of the examination, Mr. Simmons failed the examination as a result of the failing grade on this portion of the examination. Mr. Simmons subsequently filed a timely challenge to unspecified test questions on the business and financial administration portion of the examination. He presented evidence at the hearing concerning the sufficiency of his answers to questions 13 and 22 of the financial administration section of the examination and claimed that he would have presented evidence relating to questions 18 and 39 of the business administration section but could not because he was not certain that the questions included in the review materials provided to him by the respondent were the same as the questions included in the test booklet he used on October 18, 1995. Question 13 of the financial administration section of the examination is an objective, multiple choice question. The applicant is to choose the correct answer from among four choices. The correct answer to question 13 is “C," but Mr. Simmons incorrectly chose “B.” Question 22 of the financial administration section of the examination is an objective, multiple choice question. The applicant is required to choose the correct answer to the question from among four answers provided and is to choose the correct answer based only on the information included in the question. The correct answer to question 22 is “C," but Mr. Simmons incorrectly chose “A.” Mr. Simmons failed to prove that questions 18 and 39 of the business administration section of the examination included in the review manual provided to him by the respondent were not the same questions included in the test booklet he used on October 18, 1995. Because he failed to present any evidence regarding the sufficiency of his answers to these questions, he is deemed to have abandoned any substantive challenge to them. Question 13 of the business administration section of the examination is clear and unambiguous, and only one correct answer was included among the answer choices. The correct answer is found in the reference material which Mr. Simmons was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. The respondent correctly gave no credit to Mr. Simmons for his answer to this question because it was the wrong answer. Question 22 of the business administration section of the examination is clear and unambiguous, and only one correct answer was included among the answer choices. The method for determining the correct answer from the information provided in the question is contained in the reference materials Mr. Simmons was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. The respondent correctly gave no credit to Mr. Simmons for his answer to this question because it was the wrong answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, issue a final order dismissing Alfred Simmons’s challenge to the subject examination and that the examination questions and answers provided at the hearing be sealed and not open to public inspection. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred Simmons 7755 West Kismet Street Miramar, Florida 33023 R. Beth Atchison, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On April 19, 1990, petitioner, Don R. Blackburn, was a candidate on the engineering intern portion of the professional engineer examination given in Miami, Florida. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Professional Engineers (Board). On July 25, 1990, the Board issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that he had received a grade of 66 on the examination. A grade of 70 is necessary to pass this part of the examination. By letter dated August 15, 1990, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his score. In his letter, Blackburn generally contended that the examination was unfairly administered because certain books were allowed to be used by some but not all candidates, untrained proctors were given the authority to scan review materials and determine which could or could not be used by the candidates, and because of the chaos and confusion that occurred during the examination, he was unable to attain a score that he otherwise would have been able to achieve. Blackburn is an engineer for Lee County and is seeking to pass the engineering intern portion of the examination. A passing grade on that portion is a prerequisite to sitting on the second part of the professional engineer examination. He has taken the examination on a number of occasions and has gradually improved his score to just short of passing. Indeed, on the October 1989 examination, Blackburn scored a 69, or just one point less than the required 70. Prior to the April 1990 examination, the engineering intern portion of the professional engineer examination was an unrestricted open book examination. This meant candidates could use any and all reference and review materials during the examination. Beginning with the April 1990 examination, the Board imposed certain restrictions on the use of review materials. As early as October 9, 1989, the Board's executive director sent a memorandum to all candidates on the October 1989 examination, including Blackburn, concerning the new restrictions. The memorandum stated in part: Please be advised of certain restrictions listed in the Candidate Information Booklet which will not be implemented until the April 1990 examination. These restrictions are found in the "Examination Administration Information" section and are concerning the following two areas: * * * 2. Books or information containing sample questions or engineering problems may also be brought provided they are bound. Again, the new restrictions listed in the Candidate Information Booklet regarding the above two areas WILL NOT be implemented until the April 1990 examination. All candidates on the April 1990 examination were given a Candidate Information Booklet prepared in January 1990 by DPR's Bureau of Examination Services. On pages 13 and 14 of the booklet was found the following information: This is an open book examination. Candidates may use textbooks, handbooks, notes, and reference materials which are bound, copyrighted and printed. The term "bound" refers to material that is bound permanently, hard or paperback stitched or glued, or spiral, plastic or three-ringed bound. The printed material must remain contained (bound) in its cover during the entire examination. No writing tablets, unbound tablets or unbound "loose notes" will be allowed. No books with contents directed toward sample questions or solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room. Examinees are not permitted to exchange reference materials or aids during the examination. (Emphasis in original) What the emphasized language meant is that "review" manuals, which contain problems and solutions, were prohibited from use during the examination while "reference" books were not. However, the booklet did not list the specific names of published materials that would be permitted or excluded. In order to ascertain which books he might use on the next examination, on March 27, 1990, Blackburn telephoned the Board in Tallahassee and spoke with a female employee named "B. J." who advised him that "review publications directed principally towards the solution of engineering problems" would be excluded. When asked if "Lindeburg's Sixth Edition" would be authorized, B. J. told Blackburn she wasn't sure and that it would be left up to the proctors in the room. She did say, however, that a review manual authored by Schaum could be used. The engineering intern examination in April 1990 was administered in two separate rooms at the Radisson Hotel in Miami, Florida. Blackburn was in a "very large" upstairs room with approximately thirty other candidates while a similar number took the examination in a downstairs room. The examination in the upstairs room began at 8:43 a.m. after various instructions were read to the candidates by the examination supervisor, Jeannie Smith, a veteran of twenty years in proctoring and supervising professional examinations. According to Smith, there was "considerable confusion" concerning which books could be used by the candidates, particularly since this was the first examination given with the new restrictions. She also acknowledged that there was "chaos" prior to the beginning of the examination and that this was, "extremely upsetting" to the examinees. However, before the examination began, Smith announced on a microphone the names of certain books which the Board had given her that were either prohibited or could be used by candidates. She further advised that if candidates had any questions they were to come to a bulletin board by the microphone where she had posted Xerox copies of the covers of various books. If a book could be used, it had the word "YES" printed on the cover while a "NO" was printed on those covers of books that could not be used. 1/ It is noted that only one cover sheet with a "YES" was posted, that being the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, Fourth Edition, Michael R. Lindeburg. However, at least three candidates who took the examination that morning, including petitioner, did not see the posted materials nor hear the invitation for candidates to come to the bulletin board. One book in issue that was specifically prohibited was Engineer In Training Review Manual, Sixth Edition, Michael R. Lindeburg, which contained 378 solved problems, and thus fell within the general prohibition of review manuals described on page 14 of the Candidate Information Booklet. However, those candidates who had the Seventh Edition of the same book were allowed to keep and use that manual even though it contained 422 solved problems, or some 44 more solved problems than was contained in the prohibited Sixth Edition. By allowing those students having the Seventh Edition to use the same even though it contained "review" materials, DPR violated the instructions contained in the Candidate Information Booklet and gave an advantage to those candidates not enjoyed by others, including petitioner. In addition, at least one other candidate in the upstairs group was allowed to use a prohibited review manual (Schaum's Outline Series, Theory and Problems of Electric Power Systems) but still that candidate did not attain a passing grade. Petitioner also contended that candidates taking the examination in the downstairs room were allowed to use language dictionaries during the morning part of the examination while those upstairs could not. 2/ Petitioner's contention is grounded upon hearsay evidence and accordingly it is found that no competent proof to support this claim was submitted. However, there was obviously some confusion over this matter because, after receiving complaints of this nature from two candidates, Smith telephoned the Board's offices in Tallahassee during the lunch break to ascertain whether such books could be used. Upon learning that they could not, she advised the upstairs group at the beginning of the afternoon session that dictionaries were not allowed. Blackburn also established that during the examination proctors went from desk to desk examining the materials that each candidate had in his possession. If a candidate had what the proctor perceived to be a book containing solutions to problems, the candidate was told to put the book on the floor. In the alternative, she candidates were told that if they tore the offending pages out of the book, they could continue using the remaining materials. Petitioner has complained that the proctors were not engineers and they were untrained in determining whether a book was acceptable or not. The Board has conceded that engineers do not proctor examinations but asserted that they are intelligent enough to determine whether books fall within the proscribed category. According to Blackburn's proctor at the examination, George Walton, a retired Coast Guard captain and engineering graduate of the Coast Guard Academy, he relied upon the list of approved and disapproved books supplied by the Board prior to the examination in determining whether materials would be excluded or not. Walton also stated that if he examined a book and found it contained solutions, he would disallow the same unless the offending pages were removed. A DPR expert in testing and measurements, Dr. Joseph A. Klock, examined the pass/fail rate for the examination taken by Blackburn and compared that rate to the October 1989 examination rate. Doctor Klock found no significant difference in the two rates and concluded that there was no statistically significant difference in performance of candidates over those time periods despite the confusion which occurred during the April 1990 examination. Blackburn did not present any evidence to show that if he had used the Seventh Edition of the Engineer In Training Review Manual, he would have been able to achieve more points on a particular problem and thus would have had a passing grade. Blackburn's principal complaint was that he had spent many hours preparing for the examination in question, that he was forced to guess which books to bring to the examination, and because of the confusion and chaos that took place at the beginning of the examination as well as his awareness that others were using a review manual with solved problems, it was impossible for him to give his best effort on the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on the April 1990 professional engineer examination be DENIED. However, petitioner should be entitled to retake the next examination at no charge. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of November, 1990.
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
Findings Of Fact In June, 1987, petitioner, J. Frank Smith, was an examinee on Division (C) of the professional architectural examination. Successful completion of the examination is a prerequisite to the issuance of a license as an architect by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture (Board or Department). Petitioner had previously received passing grades on all other parts of the examination. By notice dated October 9, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Department's Office of Examination Services that he had received a "Fail" score on Division (C). After participating in an informal grade review session concerning his examination score, 1/ Smith requested a formal hearing by letter dated December 2, 1987. Although the letter did not identify any alleged errors in the manner in which the examination was graded, Smith's concerns were brought out during final hearing. Division (C) is a twelve hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. On the examination in question, the candidates were required to design a downtown athletic club including a site and first floor plan, a second floor plan, elevations and building section. To receive a passing score, the candidate had to prepare "minimally acceptable solutions" in the following major categories: (a) program requirements, (b) design logic, (c) code compliance, (d) technical aspects, and (e) completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. By rule, the Board has established a passing score to be a 3 or 4 while a fail score is 2, 1 or 0. In order to pass, a candidate is required to receive at least two passing scores from the graders. For the June, 1987 examination, approximately 150 professional architects were used to grade the candidates' examinations in two regional locations. The graders were experienced architects who had graded examinations in prior years. Before actually grading the solutions, the graders were given one-half day training sessions which consisted of receiving instructions in the grading process, reviewing the grading criteria and practicing on sample solutions that had already been graded by master jurists. The instruction was given by the director of examinations development for the National Council of Architecture Registration Boards (NCARB). The NCARB is the organization that prepares the examination questions. The live grading began on the afternoon of the first day of the examination. The graders used a holistic grading approach which meant they reviewed the entire examination and made a pass-fail judgment. If a failing grade was assigned, the grader was required to check up to three so-called "weakness boxes" on the grading sheet to indicate in which areas the grader found the candidate to be deficient. A grader was also allowed to make brief written comments next to the checked boxes to elaborate on the perceived weaknesses. After being graded by the first grader, the examination was given to a second and third grader, both of whom were unaware of the scores assigned by the others. If a mixed score occurred, that is, two 2's and a 3 or two 3's and a 2, a master jurist then graded the examination. Therefore, it was possible for the same examination to be graded four times before a final score was assigned. In Smith's case, he initially received two 2's and a 3, or an overall fail score. A master jurist reviewed the solutions and assigned a grade of 2. Thus, Smith did not pass Division (C). Grader 1217-153 assigned a score of 2 and noted that Smith was weak in category M, or completeness and clarity of presentation, adherence to test instructions, or required drawing(s) missing. Grader 1232-155 assigned a score of 2 and checked off areas A, G and K which meant Smith was weak in the areas of program requirements, code compliance and technical aspects, respectively. Finally, Grader 9929-075 concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate since he believed Smith was weak in areas D, E and G. Areas D and E pertained to design logic (circulation) and design logic (spatial relationships/ proportions/adjacencies) while Area G, as noted above, related to technical aspects. The fourth grader assigned a passing score of 3. At hearing, Smith testified on his own behalf and generally reviewed his solution pointing out what he perceived to be his strengths and weaknesses. As he saw it, he attained a passing score. Smith is a graduate, with high honors, of the University of Florida School of Architecture in 1976 and received a master's degree in architecture from the university of Illinois in 1983. He is president of a construction firm in Fort Lauderdale that designs and constructs various projects, both large and small, and his partner is a registered architect. In addition to his own results, Smith offered into evidence the solutions prepared by five other candidates who received passing scores on the June, 1987 examination. Smith then attempted to point out that, even though their solutions contained various flaws, the candidates nonetheless received passing grades. Expert witness Butt, who is a registered architect, was a long time professor and former chairman of the School of Architecture at the university of Florida. He continues to do consulting work for the Board. Butt has been a grader on many examinations and was a master jurist as recently as 1987. Butt regraded Smith's examination and concluded that a score of 2 was appropriate. This was because he noted major deficiencies in the areas of design logic (circulation), code compliance, and completeness, clarity and presentation of the solution as to the structural system. More specifically Smith failed to adequately address certain public circulation questions on the building's first floor. This raised serious concerns as to petitioner's design logic and compliance with building codes. In addition, the structural system, which was required to be shown as part of the transverse section, was incomplete and contained several errors. Further, no structural system was shown on the west side of the building. Other difficulties included poor circulation around the monumental staircase, questionable design logic as to fire safety requirements in front of the building and the use of two hour rated firewalls throughout the entire building even though the fire code required only one hour rated firewalls. Butt's testimony as to the appropriate grade to be assigned Smith's examination is found to be more credible than that of Smith and is hereby accepted. Although several errors were noted on the other solutions of passing candidates, those errors were not so serious in nature as to require a failing grade. Further, such errors were solvable without major modifications in the design intent of the subject, and the candidates had completed all program requirements on the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of J. Frank Smith to receive a passing score on Division (C) of the June, 1987 professional architectural examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of September, 1988.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should be awarded credit for his response to question numbered 30 of Part III of the October, 1989, certified general contractor examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the certified general contractor examination which was administered on October 21, 1989. After taking that examination, Petitioner had achieved passing scores on two of three parts of the certified general contractor examination. Petitioner was awarded a score of 69 on Part III of the examination, which is one point short of a passing score. Petitioner timely and properly challenged one question, question numbered 30, from Part III of the examination. If awarded credit for his answer to question numbered 30, Petitioner would achieve a passing score and be granted a certificate of licensure. Question numbered 30 is an objective (multiple choice) question pertaining to accounting, which asks the examinee to identify indirect costs from among four possible choices. The examination questions, including question numbered 30 on Part III, were developed by ACSI/NAI, a private organization under contract with the Department of Professional Regulation to develop the examination. ACSI/NAI originally keyed the grading of question numbered 30 so that answer "A" was the only correct response. After the examination was administered, ACSI/NAI determined that two additional answers, "B" and "C," were also correct and advised Respondent to award credit to candidates who chose answers "A," "B," or "C." ACSI/NAI advised that no credit should be awarded for answer "D" as this answer was incorrect. While taking Part III, which is an open book examination, Petitioner realized that choices "A," "B," and "C" were correct answers pursuant to page 94 of the approved reference book. Petitioner believed that only one answer could be correct for each question. Since he knew that three of the four answers were correct as the question was written, Petitioner decided that the question was incorrectly written, mentally deleted the word "not" which appeared in the question thereby making answer "D" the only correct response, and marked answer "D" on his answer sheet. Petitioner was awarded no credit as answer "D" to question numbered 30 as written is not correct. No candidates were awarded credit for choosing answer "D" on question numbered 30. Question numbered 30 is not ambiguous. It is clear in the response it is seeking. Although questions are not drafted to have more than one correct response, question numbered 30 did. Therefore, all examinees choosing one of the correct answers was given credit. Question numbered 30 is adequate for testing a candidate's knowledge in the subject area being tested. Examinees are graded solely according to the answers given on their answer sheets. No partial credit is awarded, and no credit is awarded for examinees' comments written either on official comment forms or in the examinee's test booklet. The Directions on the examination booklet instructed the examinees to mark only one answer per question. The Directions further advised the examinees in boldfaced type: "You will be graded only on the answers recorded on the answer sheet."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's challenge to question numbered 30 on the October, 1989, certified general contractor examination. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1990 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-1214 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 4- 7, 9-11, 14-16, 29-31, 37, 40, 41, 44, 48, 51, 53, and 55 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 8, 17, 26, 27, 34, 35, 45, 46, and 54 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12, 13, 18-25, 28, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, and 52 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 2 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Copies furnished: Michael J. Kurzman, Esquire LEIBY AND ELDER Penthouse 2 290 Northwest 165 Street Miami, Florida 33169 Robert G. Harris Qualified Representative Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On August 16, 1991, respondent, Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), issued Request for Proposal No. 92-002 (RFP) to various firms inviting them to submit proposals for assisting DPR and the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) in the production and scoring of the Florida Real Estate and Appraisal Examination for the period beginning January 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993, with a renewal option for one to two years. More specifically, the contract called for the successful firm to develop examinations from a bank of questions provided by the Commission, administer periodic examinations, score and analyze tests, and perform other related support services. Such proposals were to filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 20, 1991. Thereafter, and in accordance with the RFP, a six-person committee composed of representatives of the DPR, Commission and Division of Real Estate (Division) would evaluate the proposals and make a recommendation to the Secretary of DPR, who retained final authority to award the contract. Proposals were timely filed by three firms, including petitioner, Professional Testing Service, Inc. (PTS), Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. (AMP), and National Assessment Institute (NAI). After these proposals were evaluated by the committee, AMP was recommended for award of the contract. By a 4-3 vote, the Commission concurred with this recommendation. On October 24, 1991, the Secretary of DPR selected AMP as the recipient of the contract, and notice to that effect was posted. Citing various alleged irregularities in the review process, PTS filed its formal protest to the award of the contract on November 4, 1991. After efforts to informally resolve this dispute were unsuccessful, this proceeding ensued. The Vendors Who Submitted Proposals Petitioner is a Florida corporation with offices located at 223 Pasadena Place, Orlando, Florida. It has provided various licensure examination services to DPR for the past eighteen years. Except for a two year break in 1984 and 1985, for the last eleven years PTS has held the contract with DPR to provide licensure examination services on the real estate examination, and pending resolution of this dispute, it continues to provide such services. AMP did not intervene as a party in this cause. However, according to its proposal, AMP is a Kansas corporation with offices at 8310 Nieman Road, Lenexa, Kansas, and has been in the business of developing and administering examinations since 1984. Among other things, it now provides assistance to the State of Michigan for the real estate licensure examination. AMP maintains no offices or personnel in the State of Florida. Although NAI submitted a response to the RFP, it is not a party to this action. Located in Clearwater, Florida, with branch offices in other cities in Florida and throughout the country, NAI has provided assessment services to various state governments since 1976. It has administered the DPR contractor examination for the last fourteen years. Events Leading to the Issuance of RFP 92-002 In May 1991, DPR issued RFP 91-009 requesting proposals for assistance in the development and administering of real estate examinations. That RFP requested proposals on three components of the real estate examination services, including (a) application processing, (b) test development, grading and review, and (c) administration of the examination. Items (a) and (c) and a portion of item (b) had previously been handled by the Division, the administrative arm of the Commission. In response to RFP 91-009, proposals were filed by PTS, AMP, NAI, and two other vendors. PTS was recommended for award of the contract as to two components while AMP was recommended for the award of the contract as to one component even though its proposal had been deemed to be nonresponsive. However, DPR eventually decided to reject all proposals and issue a new RFP. The new RFP (91-002) did not call for proposals on items (a) and (c) and the test development portion of item (b) since the Division determined that it would continue to perform those functions. Even so, while RFP 91-002 was more narrow in scope of services than was 91-009, it nonetheless contained some of the same terms, conditions and requirements as did the earlier RFP. It is also noted that, with one minor exception relating to on-site grading, the scope of services under the existing contract held by PTS and those enumerated in RFP 91- 002 are the same. Prior to the time for submitting responses to RFP 91-009, the Division, whose director was designated as contract manager, and Commission conducted a pre-bid conference with interested vendors to answer questions concerning the RFP. Both RFP 91-009 and 91-002 contained an identical requirement that the successful firm "(m)aintain an office/center in the greater Orlando area." In response to a question by a vendor as to whether DPR would "accept proposals that identify Tallahassee as the office/center site for the provider's office in lieu of Orlando", the response given was "no, Orlando is the designated site." Other questions and answers concerning the same topic were as follows: Q. Would the Department consider allowing the contractor (for application processing function only) to maintain offices in Tallahassee instead of Orlando, provided that 1)regular meetings are held in Orlando, and 2) reports can be delivered to the Department's offices in Orlando? A. No. Because the application processing function relating to deficient applications must be closely coordinated with the records section, the investigative section, the legal section, administrative section of the Division of Real Estate and the Florida Real Estate Commission. Florida Statutes require that the office of the Division of Real Estate and the Florida Real Estate Commission be located in Orlando. Therefore, Divisional functions must be performed in the Orlando area. Q. Is Orlando the only site the Department will agree to, or is the Department flexible to the location if all requirements can be met from another site in the State of Florida? Orlando is the only site. The above questions and answers, together with others asked and answered at the conference, were transcribed by DPR and then furnished to all interested vendors. Since AMP filed a proposal in response to RFP 91-009, it may be reasonably inferred that AMP was privy to the above clarifying information. It is noted that there was no pre-bid conference prior to the filing of proposals in response to RFP 91-002. The RFP A copy of RFP 91-002 is found on pages 90 through 108 of petitioner's composite exhibit 1. The RFP includes sections relating to statement of need, purpose, scope of work, DPR responsibilities, provider responsibilities, general information, documents required in submitting a proposal, the proposal format, proposal rating criteria, and an appendix delineating the manner in which points would be awarded in the evaluation process. Prior to the submission of the proposals, no vendor formally challenged any provision in the RFP as being unreasonable, ambiguous, or otherwise unlawful in any respect. A number of provisions within RFP 91-002 are relevant to this controversy and are cited below. First, there is a general requirement found in Article VIII which requires all responses to be prepared in a manner consistent with the requirements of the RFP. More specifically, this article provided that Respondents must follow the proposal format as set forth under Section III in this request for proposal. The provider shall refer to the request for proposal to ensure all required information is submitted. By following the designed format of proposals, respondents will have a uniform method of presenting information helping assure complete fairness by the review team in evaluating proposals. Next, Article VII set forth those documents that were required to be submitted with the proposal. Among them was a requirement in paragraph 1 that the vendor submit "evidence that the organization is a legal entity." The purpose of this requirement was to ensure that DPR could enforce the agreement in the event the successful firm later attempted to back out of its commitment. The RFP also prescribed twenty-three major services that were within the scope of work to be provided by the successful firm. Indeed, the RFP stated in unequivocal language that "(t)he provider shall perform the following services as outlined below." (Emphasis added) Specifically, paragraphs 22 and 23 of Article III specified that the successful firm would Furnish to each candidate an unofficial grade report at the examination site at no additional cost to the candidate according to specifications approved by the Department. Maintain an office/center in the greater Orlando area. These two requirements, both unambiguous, were reasonably construed by participating vendors to mean that (a) the successful firm would furnish, at no cost to the candidate, on-site grade reports to those candidates who desired an unofficial grade after the examination was completed, and (b) the successful firm would maintain an office in the Orlando area to provide technical and other assistance to Commission and Division personnel regarding the examination. The interpretation as to paragraph 23 was especially reasonable since it conformed to clarifying information given to vendors at the pre-bid conference prior to the submission of proposals for RFP 91-009. Finally, despite DPR's contention to the contrary at hearing, the requirements in paragraphs 22 and 23 were considered material by the Division and Commission. From DPR's perspective, an important consideration was the costs to be charged both the candidate who sat for the examination and the candidate who made application but did not take the examination. This was because DPR's experience indicated that each year a large number of candidates apply for the examination but then fail to appear and sit for the examination. Indeed, during the most recent fiscal year of record, DPR had received 38,886 applications to take the various real estate and appraiser examinations but almost 3,000 did not appear. These figures were contained in RFP 91-009 and thus were available to all vendors, including AMP. Accordingly, DPR inserted a provision in the RFP directing each vendor to develop a cost schedule reflecting the cost for both the candidates scheduled for examination and the candidates who were actually examined. This material requirement was embodied in paragraph 1 of Article VI, which provided the following instructions to the vendors: The costs schedule for this proposal shall be priced on a per candidate examined for the first year and each of the option years provided. *Differences between the number of candidates scheduled for exam and the number of candidates examined shall be compensated for at a specific rate per candidate to be set forth by the provider.* (Emphasis added between *) The above provision was consistent with the manner in which the existing contract holder (PTS) had calculated its candidate costs for DPR during the preceding five years. Very simply, this meant that the proposal had to include one cost figure for candidates examined and another cost figure for scheduled candidates who did not appear. In calculating the costs for scheduled candidates, Appendix I, Section IV, page 3 of 3, required that all vendors develop a cost for services, including a "cost per candidate scheduled" to be made up of eight cost components: scan sheet costs, examination booklet production costs, scanning and microfilming costs, on-site grading costs, scoring costs, grade reporting/grade summary costs, security costs, and item bank maintenance costs. Therefore, each vendor was required to segregrate its costs per candidate into the eight prescribed categories, with the sum of those eight components representing the total costs per candidate scheduled. The Responses A copy of AMP's proposal filed on September 20, 1991, is found at pages 257 through 392 of petitioner's exhibit 1. In response to the requirement that the vendor give "evidence that the organization is a legal entity", AMP responded that it was a private stock corporation incorporated in 1982 in the State of Kansas. Although AMP represented that "a Certificate of Good Standing with the State of Kansas is available upon request," no such certificate was enclosed with its proposal. Documentation offered by PTS confirmed that AMP is not a Florida corporation, and there is no evidence to show that AMP, as an out- of-state corporation, has registered with the Department of State to transact business in the State of Florida. In its proposal, AMP provided an overall price "per candidate" but failed to differentiate between the costs incurred for candidates examined and candidates who were scheduled to take the examination but did not appear. This was contrary to the requirement in Article VI that such costs be identified for both categories and caused the proposal to be nonresponsive in a material respect. Although the RFP specifically required the vendor to set out eight cost components in developing the cost per candidate scheduled, AMP submitted nine specific costs as follows: 1. Test Development $3.72 2. Scan Sheet 0.10 3. Examination Booklet Production 2.47 4. Scanning 1.01 5. Scoring 1.05 6. Grade Tape Preparation 0.43 7. Security 0.32 8. Item Bank Maintenance 0.50 9. On-Site Grading 0.20 TOTAL $9.80 It should be noted that the first item, "Test Development" costs, which included 38 percent of AMP's total price, was not a category contained in or authorized by the RFP. Thus, the proposal was nonresponsive in this material respect. According to its proposal, AMP did not intend to maintain an office/center in the greater Orlando area. Rather, it proposed that: as an alternative to staffing an office in Orlando, AMP proposes to conduct regular monthly meetings in Orlando with the Division and key AMP project staff, typically the doctorate level Program Director and a Test Development Specialist. AMP will bring its portable computer equipment, and paper and computer files of the draft test and the item banks to these meetings. Any changes to examinations, as required by the Division, can then be immediately made in the draft tests and reviewed by the Division. It is AMP's opinion that this procedure will provide the Division with the direct responsiveness desired, and ensure efficient communication between the Division and the key project staff, without information being filtered through a lesser qualified individual in a satellite office. Additional urgent concerns can be discussed using the telephone or FAX equipment with the Program Director. (page 272, petitioner's exhibit 1) By filing this response, AMP contravened the material requirement in paragraph 23 of Article III that it maintain an office/center in the greater Orlando area. In response to the material requirement that it "furnish to each candidate an unofficial grade report at the examination site at no additional cost to the candidate according to specifications approved by the Department", AMP responded that it would: train the Department's test administration personnel to use this equipment to this end . . . . AMP's cost proposal is based on using the Department's personnel. If this is not possible, an additional per candidate fee will be determined based on using AMP personnel. Thus, AMP's response unilaterally modified the RFP requirement that AMP personnel rather than DPR personnel perform the task of providing unofficial grade reports at the examination site. Moreover, AMP's proposal did not state what its price per candidate would be if DPR enforced the RFP requirement. Under AMP's proposal, it calculated a cost of 20 cents per candidate for providing this service assuming DPR personnel were used. This was $2.27 less per candidate than the charge given by PTS ($2.47). Thus, AMP gained an economic advantage by its failure to provide on-site grading with its own personnel. Accordingly, this portion of the proposal was nonresponsive. The proposal of PTS was responsive to the RFP in all respects. This finding was not contradicted by DPR. It is noteworthy that two potential vendors, H. H. Block & Associates, Inc., a Gainesville, Florida firm, and Psychological Services, Inc., a firm located in Glendale, California, both advised DPR in writing that because of the requirement in the RFP that the successful vendor locate a center/office in the greater Orlando area, they would not be filing a proposal. The latter two vendors were obviously prejudiced by DPR's failure to advise them that it did not intend to enforce the requirement in paragraph 23 of Article III. This failure by DPR to enforce the provision also gave AMP an economic advantage over other vendors since AMP did not have to incur the costs of operating an Orlando office. The Evaluation Process The committee selected to evaluate the proposals was made up of six individuals appointed by the Secretary of DPR. It met in Tallahassee on September 30, 1991, to evaluate the proposals. The committee was chaired by Ella D. Hall, a DPR psychometrician. In accordance with the instructions in the RFP, the committee reviewed only the technical aspects of the proposals and did not review the cost data. Article IX of the RFP outlined the responsibilities of the evaluation committee and the procedure for evaluating proposals. Among other things, the committee was assigned the responsibility to: first determine if all required documents are included, that the proposal format is followed, and that all responses to the request's responsibilities of the provider are properly addressed. The cost data will not be reviewed as part of the technical evaluation. The committee utilized both a scoring guide and an evaluation guide in arriving at its recommendation. A total of 300 possible points were to be given to a vendor, of which 226 were related to technical matters. As noted above, the committee did not consider cost in its evaluation. Contrary to Article IX of the RFP, the committee did not initially determine whether the proposals were responsive. More specifically, the committee did not "first determine if all required documents (were) included, that the proposal format (was) followed, and that all responses to the request's responsibilities of the provider (were) properly addressed." According to the committee's chairperson, the committee was never told to determine if the proposals were responsive before evaluating them on their merits. Indeed, the chairperson assumed, albeit incorrectly, that someone else had previously evaluated the proposals in terms of responsiveness. As it turned out, none of the proposals were evaluated for responsiveness prior to or during the committee evaluation process. Through its chairperson, the committee issued a written report on October 9, 1991, recommending that AMP be awarded the contract. Although the committee considered the responses by AMP and PTS to be almost equal in terms of technical ratings, it gave a slight edge to AMP's proposal in the cost rating and recommended that AMP be awarded the contract. NAI was a very distant third in the evaluation process. Because of the committee's report, and AMP's announcement on October 16, 1991, as discussed below, that its price per candidate scheduled but not examined would be zero, the Commission voted 4-3 to endorse the committee's recommendation. The Secretary received the proposals in that posture. Events Occurring After the Committee Evaluation On October 4, 1991, or before the contract was awarded but after the committee evaluation was completed, AMP's president, Steven K. Bryant, sent a letter to the Secretary of DPR. The letter was received by DPR on October 9, 1991, and a copy of same has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit It provides in relevant part as follows: Dear Secretary Stuart: At the request of Lou Ritter, I am writing to you due to our concerns about the opportunity for our company to fairly compete for testing services business in your state. The recent rebidding of the Florida Cosmetology and Real Estate Programs have generated some serious questions in my mind as to whether or not it is in our interest to continue to respond to Florida RFPs. I hope you will investigate the following concerns and use the power of your office to correct these circumstances: The second RFP regarding real estate was clearly written to ensure that the current vendor retains the contract. The requirement that the vendor have an office in Orlando staffed by an individual whose only job would be to serve as a liaison with the Real Estate Commission makes it basically impossible for any organization based outside of the state of Florida to compete with the current vendor. An organization such as ours cannot afford to put a doctorate level individual in an office in Florida to be at the beck and call of the Real Estate Commission to answer examination development questions and economically survive. At best, we could put a clerical person in an office in Orlando who would be unable to answer any of the Commission's test development concerns. In our response to the RFP, we indicated that we would not establish an Orlando office, but would provide a doctoral level measurement expert and a test development specialist to meet once a month with the Real Estate Commission to revise the real estate examinations to their specifications using very highly qualified individuals. The second real estate RFP also requires that the examination booklets be printed and shipped to Florida examination centers within a seven day time frame, after the examinations are reviewed by the Real Estate Commission. This item was clearly written for the current vendor, which is basically photocopying examination materials as soon as the Commission provides approval on examination copy. There is no real reason why the examinations could not be reviewed and approved by the state to allow a longer time frame for printing, so that higher quality offset printed examination booklets could be prepared and shipped to Florida by a vendor residing out of state. In fact, we could provide several months of examinations in advance for the Commission's approval and avoid the crisis mode of printing which a seven day turnaround would cause. Although, we could provide the seven day turnaround through the use of overnight air carriers and the like, clearly the Real Estate Commission had in mind the current vendor when making this unreasonable requirement. * * * The letter also carries a handwritten note by the Secretary in the upper right hand corner which reads "Discussed with Lou Ritter/Steve Bryant - file 10/21". According to the Secretary, Ritter (a former Secretary of DPR) is now a consultant for AMP. The Secretary acknowledged that he spoke with Ritter and Bryant concerning the letter and advised them the agency was proceeding with the RFP. The Secretary's assertion that he followed up on the letter only to the extent that he wanted to ascertain if AMP had been unfairly penalized in the evaluation process was not contradicted. On October 16, 1991, Bryant sent a second letter on behalf of AMP to the Secretary of DPR. It read as follows: Dear Secretary Stuart: This is to confirm our telephone discussion regarding our price proposal for RFP #92-002 (sic) for Real Estate Examination Services. Since the RFP calls for AMP to provide examination booklets to the test centers the department administers, it was our intention to charge the state $9.80 per candidate tested, based on the number of answer sheets actually scored by AMP. Thus, there would not be a charge for candidates who do not appear for testing. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information. Please let me know if there are any other questions. The above letter was solicted by the Secretary after he and Bryant spoke by telephone on or about October 15, 1991. The purpose of the letter was to allow AMP to clarify and amend its proposal which failed to include a cost for candidates who were scheduled to take the examination but did not appear. In contrast, neither PTS nor NAI were offered the opportunity to clarify or change their proposals after being filed. Thus, AMP was allowed to correct a material deviation from the terms of the RFP thereby giving it an advantage over its competitors. The contract was thereafter awarded to AMP on or about October 24, 1991. Summary of Errors in the RFP Process By failing to file evidence that it was a "legal entity", failing to file a cost per candidate scheduled but not examined, and submitting a price per candidate based on nine cost components rather than the prescribed eight, AMP failed to follow the proposal format required of all vendors by Article VIII. AMP's proposal was materially nonresponsive in four respects. First, it failed to differentiate between costs incurred for candidates examined and candidates who were scheduled but did not appear. Second, it utilized nine cost components in developing the cost per candidate scheduled instead of the eight components specified by the RFP. Third, in declining to establish an office in the greater Orlando area, AMP deviated from a material requirement. Fourth, contrary to the RFP, AMP proposed that DPR personnel rather than its own personnel provide unofficial grade reports to candidates at the examination sites. If this was unsatisfactory to DPR, AMP proposed to assess DPR an unspecified charge for providing this service. By waiving the enforcement of a material requirement (paragraph 23, Article III) after the proposals had been filed and evaluated, DPR gave a competitive advantage to AMP not enjoyed by other vendors. Further, by allowing AMP to correct a material variance from the RFP on October 16, 1991, as to the price charged for candidates scheduled but who did not take the examination, DPR gave a competitive advantage to AMP not enjoyed by other vendors. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that (a) the proposal submitted by AMP was materially nonresponsive and should be rejected, and (b) DPR created unfair competition and favoritism by waiving material requirements and allowing AMP to amend its proposal after being filed and evaluated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by respondent rejecting the proposal filed by Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. in response to RFP 91- 002 and awarding the contract to one of the other vendors who filed a response. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner: Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in findings of fact 11, 12, 13 and 22. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in findings of fact 2, 3 and 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 24. Partially adopted in findings of fact 10 and 14. Partially adopted in findings of fact 7, 11, 17, 19 and 29. Partially adopted in findings of fact 11, 18 and 29. Partially adopted in findings of fact 12, 15, 28 and 29. Partially adopted in findings of fact 13, 16, 28 and 29. Respondent:* 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 2-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 22. Partially adopted in findings of fact 1, 20 and 24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 6a. Partially adopted in findings of fact 3, 15 and 19. 6b. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 6c. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. 7-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 24. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 26. Partially adopted in findings of fact 10 and 14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 17. The second sentence is specifically rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 18. Rejected as being unnecessary. * Respondent's proposed findings of fact included numbers 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6. Therefore, the second set of findings numbered 4, 5 and 6 have been renumbered 6a, 6b and 6c for purposes of this Appendix. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, redundant, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Post Office Box 1116 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to Question 10 and to Question 19 on the October 1990, general contractor's examination were incorrectly scored.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the general contractors licensing examination administered by Respondent in October 1990. The overall examination consisted of three parts. Petitioner has passed Parts I and III of the examination, but he failed Part II of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 67 on Part II of the examination while a score of 69.01 is required to pass that part of the examination. Petitioner initially challenged nine questions on Part II of the examination. Prior to hearing, Petitioner abandoned his challenges to all questions except for questions 10, 19, and 20. Evidence as to all three questions was presented by the parties at the formal hearing. In his post- hearing submittal, Petitioner abandoned his challenge to question 20. Consequently, only the challenges to Questions 10 and 19 need to be resolved. Question 10 and Question 19 are each worth four points. If Petitioner is given additional credit worth 2.01 points, he will have passed Part II. The challenged questions are multiple choice questions with only one response being considered by Respondent to be the correct response. For each challenged question, Petitioner selected a response other than the response Respondent considered to be the correct response. For each of the challenged questions, Petitioner received a score of zero. Question 10 requires the candidate to make certain calculations to determine the cost of a change order for a construction project. Petitioner contends that the question is unfair because of the narrow band between the possible answers. Respondent established that the question contained all information necessary to make the required computations. While Petitioner is correct in that some other questions may be less difficult because of the greater margin of error in the calculations required by those less difficult questions, his answer to Question 10 is nevertheless incorrect. Petitioner is entitled to no credit for his incorrect answer to Question 10. Question 19 provides certain information in the stem of the question and pertains to the time constraints on the service of a notice to owner by a subcontractor under the Florida Mechanics Lien Law. From the information provided in the stem of the question, the candidate can determine the date the subcontractor first furnished materials or labor. The stem of the question also informs the candidate of the date on which final payment was made to the contractor in reliance on the final contractor's affidavit. The answer to the question contains four multiple choice dates from which the candidate is to choose his answer. Preceding the answers is the following: "According to the Florida Construction Law Manual, in order to meet the requirements of the Mechanics Lien Law, concerning proper filing of the Notice to Owner, the concrete subcontractor's Notice to Owner must be served to the owner no later than:". The pertinent portions of the Florida Construction Law Manual provide as follows: Notice to the owner must be served on the owner within the earliest of the following time periods: One, before or within 45 days of the first commencement to furnish labor and materials on the job site, or within 45 days of starting to make specialty manufactured materials. Two, before final payment is made in reliance on the final contractor's affidavit. 1/ Petitioner contends that Question 19 is ambiguous because the stem of the question does not identify whether the contract referred to in the stem of the question is between the contractor and the owner or between the contractor and the subcontractor. Petitioner is correct in his contention that the question refers to the date that a contract was signed without identifying whether the contract was that between the owner and the contractor or that between the contractor and the subcontractor. The absence of that information is not fatal because the question enables the candidate to determine the date the subcontractor started work and provides the date of final payment was made to the contractor, which is the information necessary to correctly answer the question. Petitioner also contends that Question 19 is ambiguous because the answer considered by Respondent to be the correct answer is not the last date upon which the notice to owner can be served upon the owner. The correct response to Question 19 from the dates provided as possible answers to the question according to Respondent is the day before final payment was made to the contractor in reliance on the affidavit. The day that the final payment was made was not one of the four possible answers. Petitioner argues in his post- hearing submittal (but not at the formal hearing) that the question is misleading because the notice to owner could have been served on the day of final payment if the notice was served prior to the final payment by the owner. While the date of the final payment may arguably be a better choice than the date preceding the date of final payment, the date of final payment is not one of the choices. Of the choices offered the date preceding the date of final payment is clearly the best possible response. Petitioner's response to Question 19 was based on the statutory provision permitting the subcontractor to perfect service within 45 days of the date the subcontractor first furnished labor or material. The question informed the candidate that final payment to the contractor was made in reliance on a final contractor's affidavit six days prior to the date selected by Petitioner. Petitioner's answer to Question 19 was clearly wrong because a notice to owner from a subcontractor must be served before final payment to the contractor. The question is not misleading or unfair. Petitioner is entitled to no credit for his incorrect response to question 19.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's challenges to questions 10 and 19 of the October 1990 general contractor's examination. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the February, 1993 General Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David W. Kradin (Kradin), took the February, 1993 General Contractor Examination and received a score of 65 on the project management portion. A minimum score of 70 is required to pass that portion of the examination. Kradin challenged questions numbered 6, 12, 19 and 30. Joint Exhibit 1 is a composite exhibit of the challenged questions. Joint Exhibit 2 is a drawing included in the examination relating to question number 6. Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 are deemed to be confidential pursuant to Section 455.229, Florida Statutes. Question number 6 required the calculation of the square feet of concrete contact surface for formwork for an elevator pit depicted in Joint Exhibit 2. Kradin challenged the question on the basis that the drawing was unclear because the elevation line appeared to drop slightly in one place. The drawing was sufficiently clear to determine the correct answer. The height of the concrete contact surface could be determined by the height shown on the drawing and the height of the expansion joint. Kradin failed to answer the question correctly because of an error in his calculations. Question number 12, an entry level question, dealt with comparing the estimated cost per cubic yard with the actual cost per cubic yard for excavation work based only on the information in the job cost ledger provided in the question. The job cost ledger contained costs and the net profit made from the sale of spoil. Kradin challenged the question as unclear and imprecise because the job cost ledger contained information on the net profit from the sale of spoil. The parties stipulated that it is improper, incorrect, an error, and a mistake to have job profit in any job cost ledger. Kradin included the net profit when he calculated the actual costs for the project. As a result his answer was incorrect because the profit should not have been included in the calculation of the actual cost for the excavation work. Question number 19 concerned the calculation of the amount of money that should be deducted from a subcontractor's application payment for the cost of worker's compensation insurance premiums. Kradin challenged the question, stating that the question was improper because he read the question to mean that the subcontractor and contractor did not have a written agreement before the work was performed and that the contractor would pay the premium and deduct the premium amount from the subcontractor's pay request. He viewed the scenario set up in the question to mean that the subcontractor was violating the law because he did not have worker's compensation coverage and the general contractor was violating the law because he hired a subcontractor without worker's compensation coverage. Additionally, he read the question to mean that the general contractor was subjecting himself to civil liability because of the lack of worker's compensation coverage. Question number 19 is not a difficult question. The contractor and subcontractor have agreed that the general contractor will provide worker's compensation coverage for the work done and will deduct the amount of the coverage from the subcontractor's application for pay. The question gives the amount of the pay request and the cost of the worker's compensation insurance per $100 worth of billing. The candidate is supposed to calculate the amount that will be deducted. The question does not deal with the legalities of the arrangement between the subcontractor and general contractor nor would a reasonable person read the question as such. Kradin's answer was not a correct calculation of the amount to be deducted. The examination is an open book examination and the candidates are allowed to bring specified reference materials with them, including the Contractor's Manual. Question number 30 deals with material found in the Contractor's Manual, relating to project schedules. Here, the question asks the candidate to pick out the entity not listed in the manual. Kradin picked out an entity which was listed in the manual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner requesting that he be awarded a passing grade for the Project Management portion of the February, 1993, General Contractor Examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 23rd day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3936 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 and 2 accepted. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Kradin 1525 J Spring Harbor Drive Delray Beach, Florida 33445 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
