Findings Of Fact L.B. Thanki received a degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Durham at Kings College, Newcastle Upon Tyne in the United Kingdom in 1956. Petitioner received a batchelor of law degree from Sardar Patel University (India) in 1967. This degree is the equivalent of two years study in law. The degree obtained from the University of Durham is not the equivalent of the degree received from an ABET approved university in the United States because it lacks 16 credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented no evidence that his degree from the University of Durham or the curriculum he completed at any other university included the missing 16 hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented a certificate (which was not offered into evidence) that he had completed a course in computer services meeting the board's evidentiary requirements of computer skills.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. N. AYERS 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 May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: B. Thanki 1106 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack L. McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' February 7, 2005 Joint Prehearing Submission2: Respondent and his father are the principal owners of J.G.P. Engineering Group P.A. (JGP), an engineering firm specializing in the design of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. JGP does mainly "high end projects." It has offices in Miami, Florida, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Respondent is in charge of JGP's Miami office. The office is located at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 207. Before moving to this location, JGP occupied Suite 210 in the same building. In or around the mid-1990's, Orlando Naranjo was invited to work as an electrical engineer for JGP in its Miami office. Mr. Naranjo wanted to remain self-employed, so he turned down the offer; however, his firm and JGP subsequently worked collaboratively on "quite a few projects." Mr. Naranjo's firm and JGP were "doing so much work [together] requiring significant coordination" that in or around 1998, Mr. Naranjo decided "to move [his office to 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209] next to [JGP's office]." Mr. Naranjo's office was at this location (9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209) at all times material to the instant case. On September 20, 2001, Mr. Naranjo's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida (which was then under suspension) was revoked by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (Board). The suspension and revocation resulted from Mr. Naranjo's having failed to have taken the necessary steps to renew his license in a timely manner. Mr. Naranjo did not become aware of the Board's revocation action until "some time later," around or before the Thanksgiving holiday (that same year). Upon learning that his license had been revoked, Mr. Naranjo began the process of attempting to become relicensed. Mr. Naranjo's office (at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209) remained open, and his firm continued to engage in business, following the revocation of his license and during the time that he was seeking relicensure. Mr. Naranjo recognized that, until he got his license back, he would be unable to sign and seal documents and otherwise act as the "engineer of record" on projects. Mr. Naranjo therefore asked Respondent to help him by assuming the role of "engineer of record" on projects that Mr. Naranjo had been working on but had not yet completed. As a favor to Mr. Naranjo, Respondent agreed to do so without compensation. Among the projects of Mr. Naranjo's that Respondent undertook responsibility for were (what the parties have referred to in their February 7, 2005, Joint Prehearing Submission as) the Toras Emes project (TE Project) and the Manatee Village at Ruskin project (MV Project). "[C]ompared to the jobs that [JGP] had done with [Mr. Naranjo] in the past, these two jobs . . . [were] relatively straightforward." The TE Project involved design work for a dormitory facility consisting of "individual dormitory rooms, a hallway [connecting] them, and a common bathroom [with] showers and stalls for the people [living] in the dormitory." The architectural firm that hired Mr. Naranjo to work on the TE Project was Gustavo J. Ramos and Associates, Inc. (Ramos). Ramos had a contractual relationship with, and paid, Mr. Naranjo, not Respondent, for the work done on the TE Project. The MV Project involved design work for a residential housing development consisting of four types of "small apartment units [having] one or two bedrooms." The architectural firm that hired Mr. Naranjo to work on the MV Project was R.E. Chisholm Architects, Inc. (Chisholm). Chisholm had a contractual relationship with, and paid, Mr. Naranjo, not Respondent, for the work done on the MV Project. The MV Project required "relatively little" work since approximately "99% [of the plans that had been developed for use in a previous project] were reused" for this project. Assisting in the preparation of the plans for the TE Project and the MV Project were Mr. Naranjo's employees, Pablo Viteri and Antia Rodriguez, who (unlike Respondent) were paid by Mr. Naranjo for their efforts in connection with the projects. Mr. Viteri and Ms. Rodriguez served as draftspeople on these projects, drafting in accordance with the directions they received, as did Mr. Naranjo after he had relinquished his role as "engineer of record" on these projects (and Respondent had started "running the show"). In addition to the drafting work he did, Mr. Viteri was regularly "in touch" with the "people who were involved [o]n the architectural side" of the projects to "coordinate" with them. Mr. Viteri became a Florida-licensed professional engineer in the "beginning of 2003." (He is currently employed by JGP as an electrical engineer and computer-aided design manager.) Ms. Rodriguez was an engineer in her native country, but has not obtained a license to practice engineering in the State of Florida. Mr. Viteri, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Naranjo, at all times material to the instant case, worked (on the TE Project and the MV Project ) out of Mr. Naranjo's office at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209, which outside its front door had a sign which read: N+A NARANJO+ASSOCIATES Mechanical·Electrical Consulting Engineers #209 The sign had been there since the time Mr. Naranjo had moved into the office. It remained on the door even though Mr. Naranjo's license had been revoked and he was no longer authorized to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Florida. The purpose of the sign was not to advertise, but to identify who occupied the office. Following his agreement to help Mr. Naranjo, Respondent exercised complete supervision, direction, and control of all engineering aspects of the TE Project and the MV Project, including the preparation of the engineering plans for these projects (that he signed and sealed). Upon assuming the role of "engineer of record" on these projects, Respondent first reviewed the design work that had been done prior to his involvement in the projects to determine if the "quality and validity" of the work met his satisfaction. After completing this review, Respondent oversaw the completion of the design work, making all necessary engineering decisions. Respondent had discussions with Mr. Viteri, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Naranjo about the remaining work that needed to done and gave them instructions and directions on the drafting they were to do. Respondent reviewed their finished work product to make sure that it was consistent with the instructions and directions he had given them. Only after he was satisfied that there was such consistency and that the drafting that had been done accurately reflected the engineering decisions he had made did Respondent sign and seal the plans for the projects. The title block on these plans identifying Respondent as the projects' mechanical engineer listed his address as 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209, Miami, Florida (which was the address of Mr. Naranjo's office) and his telephone number and fax number as (305) 599-9447 and (305) 599-9427, respectively (which were the telephone number and the fax number for Mr. Naranjo's office). All engineering documents related to the projects were kept, not in Respondent's office, but in Mr. Naranjo's office (where Mr. Naranjo, Mr. Viteri, and Ms. Rodriguez worked) so as to not inconvenience Mr. Viteri, who needed to have ready access to these documents on a regular basis given that he was the "person who had the direct day-to-day contact" with the project architects. Likewise, the calculations done for the TE Project were on a computer in Mr. Naranjo's office. Any documents or information that Respondent needed to fulfill his responsibilities as the "engineer of record" on the TE Project and the MV Project he could retrieve with relative ease from Mr. Naranjo's office, which was just a short distance from his office. At no time did Respondent attempt to conceal from anyone the nature and extent of his involvement in the TE Project and the MV Project, nor did he have any intent to assist Mr. Naranjo in the unlicensed practice of engineering. Respondent has never before been disciplined by the Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing all four counts of the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner does not possess the requisite criteria necessary to admit him to the examination for licensure as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Irving Joseph Armstrong 5069 Susannah Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32803 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the electrical engineer examination administered by Respondent in October 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the electrical engineer licensing examination administered by Respondent in October 1996. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the duty to regulate the practice of electrical engineering in Florida. Pursuant to Section 471.015, Florida Statutes, an applicant for licensure as an electrical engineer is required to successfully pass both parts of a licensure examination.1 The electrical engineer licensure examination at issue in this proceeding was developed and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Following the initial grading of the "Principles and Practice" section of the exam, Petitioner was awarded a score of 68. A total score of 70 was required to pass that portion of the examination. Petitioner thereafter timely challenged the grading of two questions on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the exam. His challenge was limited to Questions 130 and 132. Petitioner did not specifically challenge Question 131. In response to that challenge, Respondent sent Petitioner’s examination package back to NCEES to have the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination re-graded. NCEES re-graded all of Petitioner's answers to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination, including his responses to Questions 130, 131, and 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 130. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was not awarded any additional credit for his answer to Question 130. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 130 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional credit for his response to Question 130. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 132. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 132 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 8 points for his answer to Question 131. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 131 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. Petitioner is not entitled to a score of 8 for his answer to Question 131. Each of the three questions at issue in this proceeding is a problem that requires multiple steps and computations to solve. If a candidate correctly answers all parts of the question a score of 10 points is awarded. Partial credit can be awarded based on how many of the parts of the question are correctly answered. There is no allegation that the three questions involved in this proceeding are ambiguous or otherwise inappropriate for a licensure examination. The record is not clear when Respondent notified Petitioner of its position following the re-grading of the questions at issue. It is clear that Petitioner was aware of Respondent's position prior to the start of the formal hearing. During the formal hearing and in his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner challenged Respondent's right to re-grade Question 131 since he had not specifically challenged that question. Petitioner has not asserted that he was provided insufficient notice of Respondent's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that awards Petitioner a score of 68 on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the October 1996 licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1997.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner, Andrew Netupsky, should be granted licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times, pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC), was the state agency responsible for the licensing of professional engineers and for the regulation of the engineering profession in Florida. Petitioner, Andrew Netupsky, is a professional engineer licensed in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. He graduated from the University of British Columbia in 1971 with a Bachelor of Applied Science in Civil Engineering and was licensed as a Registered Professional Engineer (Structural) in British Columbia in 1973. He was subsequently licensed by endorsement as a Registered Professional Engineer (Structural) in Arizona in 1987. The State of Arizona accepted Petitioner's scholastic examinations as a valid basis for licensure. The State of Florida does not. Petitioner's engineering education in Canada was accredited by the Canadian Counsel of Professional Engineers (CCPE). The accrediting body within the United States is the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (EAC/ABET). By virtue of a mutual agreement between the accrediting bodies in the United States and Canada, Petitioner's Canadian schooling and accreditation is deemed equivalent to an EAC/ABET accredited engineering program. Accreditation and schooling are not at issue in this proceeding. Sometime before November 15, 1999, Petitioner applied to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (Board) for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer in Florida. By letter dated November 22, 1999, the Board notified Petitioner that his application had been deemed administratively complete and that it would be presented for review to the Board's Application Review Committee (Committee) on December 7, 1999. Though the educational programs in Canada and Florida are similar, the methods and requirements for licensure are not. In Canada, a successful graduate of an engineering program does not take a subsequent comprehensive examination as a condition of licensure. Canadian engineering graduates are permitted to practice upon graduation from an engineering course of study. After the graduate has obtained four years of acceptable engineering experience, he or she takes a Principles and Practices examination which is, in effect, an examination on the laws and rules of practice. The subject matter examinations taken by the candidate while in engineering school serve as the required technical examination. In Florida, candidates for licensure as a Professional Engineer take two examinations in addition to the course material examinations given in engineering school. One of these is the Fundamentals examination, also known as the Engineer In Training/EIT examination. It is an examination of the candidate's broad knowledge of mathematics, general sciences, and engineering sciences. This examination is generally taken shortly before or upon graduation from a baccalaureate program in engineering school. Upon successful practice of that examination, and upon four years of acceptable engineering experience, the candidate may sit for the Principles and Practice examination, also known as the Professional Engineer or PE examination. This latter examination tests the candidate's knowledge in a specific discipline. Both the Fundamentals examination and the Principles and Practice examination are prepared and provided to the states by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner took the examinations required for each of the mathematics, general science, and engineering courses required by his course of study as an engineering student in Canada, a total of 25 separate course examinations. In 1973 he also took the Professional Practice examination administered by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geo-scientists of British Columbia (APEGBC). At no time did he take either examination prepared by NCEES. Petitioner contends the course examinations he took in engineering school and the Professional Practice examination he took after graduation are equivalent to the NCEES examination process administered to candidates for licensing as professional engineers in Florida, and that he should be licensed by endorsement as a professional engineer in this state. In support of Petitioner's contention, he presented the testimony of Dr. Leslie Tremaine Russell, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, a mechanical engineer in practice since 1955, and past chairman of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE) and the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB). Dr. Russell has worked as a design engineer and has served as a university professor of engineering, being designated as Professor Emeritus for the past nine years. He has reviewed the engineering education programs in all Canadian provinces except Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan, and works in harmony with the ABET, the American equivalent to the CEAB to ensure that the engineering education programs in the two countries are as similar as is possible. As in the United States, the CCPE gains all its powers from the various provincial licensing bodies. All provinces require graduation from an accredited engineering program, and accreditation of the programs is done at the request of the university presenting the program. All students who seek to graduate from an accredited engineering program in Canada must meet all requirements of the accrediting board. Before a candidate may be licensed as an engineer in Canada, he or she must both be a graduate of an accredited engineering program and have four years' experience in the practice of engineering. The CEAB monitors engineering programs at all Canadian engineering schools to ensure that the programs are adequate to guarantee uniformity and safety. If so, the graduates are not required to take other comprehensive examinations. The engineering department at the University of British Columbia has been accredited since 1965. While the Canadian and United States programs are similar, Dr. Russell concedes that similar is not identical. An international agreement forged under the North American Free Trade Act in 1995, and applying to engineering education and licensing in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, calls for reciprocal accreditation of individuals with a four- year degree from an accredited institution and eight years of satisfactory experience. This agreement was signed by NCEES, ABET, and NSPE in the United States, but it requires ratification by the individual licensing bodies in order to become effective. The agreement has been ratified by all provinces in Canada, but only by Texas in the United States. Dr. Russell, in his many years of experience, has taken both eight-hour examinations, such as the NCEES examinations, and shorter ones as well. He is not convinced that the NCEES examinations, being made up of true/false and multiple choice questions, are particularly reflective of a candidate's actual knowledge. They are somewhat superficial. On the other hand, a university examination requires a full issue analysis. Dr. Russell is comfortable with the conclusions that the Canadian university subject examinations, which Petitioner took while in engineering school, are the equivalent of the NCEES examination on the same subject matter. Dr. Melvin W. Anderson, currently Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of South Florida, also reviewed the examinations presented by Petitioner and agreed that many had questions that were typical of the questions asked on final examinations in university engineering courses. However, some of those courses claimed by Petitioner to be fundamentals of engineering courses, such as those in English, Russian, Surveying, and Biology, have little to do with engineering science and are not subjects covered by the NCEES Fundamentals examination. Dr. Anderson also opined that the university examinations taken by Petitioner cannot be considered equal to the NCEES examinations. Further, according to Dr. Anderson, the NCEES examinations are developed by a panel of experts and administered nation-wide by state licensing bodies. The Fundamentals portion of the examination is taken by university seniors or graduates and deal with engineering and fundamental science and mathematics. The Principles and Practice examination is administered after four years of practice and deals with problem solving. Scores on the NCEES examinations are based on national assessment by practicing engineers who establish a cut score which is based on the assessed difficulty of the examination. The cut score is then equated to a passing score. When the examination is taken, it is "blind graded" which avoids any potential for the grader to be influenced by knowledge of the examinee. While the quality of engineering education in Canada has been shown to be the equivalent of that in the United States, and while the licensing process in Canada has been shown to be comprehensive and effective, the differences in the systems, in particularity the requirement for a comprehensive examination as required in the United States, render the systems different and not equivalent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew Netupsky 1275 West 75th Avenue Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6P 3G4 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a duly-licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida having been issued License No. PE0035663. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with interpreting, enforcing, and regulating concerning the licensure and professional practice standards for professional engineers in the State of Florida embodied in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. The Respondent practices engineering as Dr. S.K. Nayak & Associates, Regulatory, Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultants. That engineering firm is not licensed as a professional engineering firm in the State of Florida. On September 20, 1988, the permit to the JNC by the Department for its domestic waste-water treatment and disposal system expired. Thereafter, on June 16, 1989, an application to operate such a system was submitted to the Department by Mr. Cordes on behalf of the JNC. The Respondent was the professional engineer of record depicted on that application. On or about July 14, 1989, the Department issued a notice of permit denial concerning that application and cited six deficiencies as the basis for the denial. The notice of permit denial identified the JNC's reclaimed water distribution system as not being designed in accordance with sound engineering principles and practices, as delineated in Rule 17-6.070(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and the design as not being provided in the manner required by Rule 17-610.414, Florida Administrative Code. The permit applicant was thus advised by the notice of permit denial that some modifications for the water distribution and storage system would have to be undertaken and completed in order for permitting to be effected. Thereafter, on or about January 30, 1990, the Respondent submitted a design statement for a reclaimed water disposal system to the Department. The design must conform to certain criteria enunciated in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The design for such a system must be accompanied with an engineering report to document geohydrological conditions at the site and to document that a ground water mounding analysis has been performed for the percolation pond systems, in order to verify that the systems will perform satisfactorily under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The Department considered the design submitted by the Respondent to constitute the necessary design for the application for a new operating permit for the JNC. Expert witness Bryant Marshall's testimony establishes clearly that the creation of the design and its submittal to the Department constitutes a specific type of engineering practice and moreover that that sort of design requires a specific type of geotechnical and geohydrological engineering experience. Upon reviewing the design statement submitted by the Respondent, the Department advised Mr. Cordes of numerous items of incompleteness which would need to be addressed before an evaluation of the proposal, including design, could be performed. Mr. Cordes was informed of this by letter from the Department of February 23, 1990, which was copied to the Respondent. See, Exhibit B in evidence. Upon reviewing the design submitted, the Department determined that, because of the limited data and analyses and absence of calculations in that design document, that the Respondent had not demonstrated that he was qualified to perform such geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, with pertinent calculations and depictions as was required for a project such as that proposed, nor had that type of required engineering work been done. Ultimately, therefore, it filed a complaint against the licensure of the Respondent with the Petitioner licensing agency. On April 9, 1990, the Respondent submitted a signed and sealed withdrawal of the design statement previously submitted to the Department. The Respondent contends that he never intended that the design statement originally submitted should constitute the final "as built" design for the water reclamation facility involved. Rather, he contends that it was intended by the Department, by himself, and by his client to be merely a preliminary or suggested design solely for purposes of negotiation concerning the permit denial and an attempt to work out a satisfactory arrangement with the Department in terms of the Department's conditions and requirements for design and construction, so that the proposed facility could be permitted. The Respondent contends that that was not the practice of engineering but, rather, submittal of a preliminary design statement which he claims the Department required of him. He thus submitted the design statement with the full understanding that it was not intended by him, or by the Department for that matter, to be a feasible final proposal or design and knowing that it was not up to standard or intended to be and knowing that it did not comply with certain applicable rules and regulations, he did not sign or seal it. Mr. Marshall, the expert witness put forward by the Petitioner, opined that the submission of substandard work, merely because another party has requested it for negotiating purposes, or for whatever reason, still is not acceptable practice for a licensed professional engineer. Merely because one is of the intent and opinion that submittal of the work will not be the final work product, by which the facility in question is to be built, is no excuse for not complying with proper standards of professional engineering practice. The Respondent's soil and ground water data was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate because it did not provide for the necessary calculations which could indicate whether the performance of the system will actually meet the design criteria, given the geotechnical soil and hydrogeological conditions prevailing at the site, which were not adequately allowed for by their entry into proper calculations which should have been performed by the Respondent. The Respondent's professional history moreover does not reflect adequate geotechnical or hydrogeological experience and training necessary for a project such as the JNC at issue. It has been established by Mr. Marshall's testimony, which is adopted, that standards of practice were not followed because an appropriate subsurface exploration geotechnical investigation, laboratory soil testing, engineering analysis, and ground water mounding analysis was not performed. Even if the Respondent had adequate training in geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, he promulgated a deficient engineering document in terms of this design, regardless of whether or not it was signed or sealed, because it constituted the practice of professional engineering and yet he failed to perform and to indicate on his design that the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations required for such work had been performed. The document was based only on a review of available published information regarding surficial and sub-surficial soil conditions. No test borings were done in accordance with standard practice. The percolation testing performed by the Respondent was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate under the circumstances of the project for which design was being considered. The proper geotechnical exploration, in keeping with standard engineering practice, would require the use of soil test borings to depths of 20 to 30 or perhaps 40 feet below ground surface. This would be necessary to properly characterize the aquifer and subsurface conditions and to evaluate the properties of the soil within that zone to determine what the actual hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface profiles would be. It would then be necessary to perform laboratory permeability testing on the soil samples from the various depths so as to properly characterize the aquifer performance or predicted aquifer performance for the entire depth zone to those significant depths. Just the top 18 or 20 inches of soil is not an adequate investigation. Further, the Respondent provided no documentation for his conclusions regarding established ground water movement, established surface water flow, and confirmed ground water table elevations. According to Mr. Marshall, it is safe to assume that surface water flow might be to the southeast given the site's topography and the fact that the ground slopes downward toward the southeast and generally toward the east, as well. However, the Respondent provided no documentation of any test borings or other site-specific geotechnical investigation work done to verify anything about the direction of ground water flow nor the ground water table elevation. Apparently the Respondent relied upon general information contained in a soil survey of Jefferson County but did not do site-specific investigatory work, in keeping with standard engineering practice, which would allow him to make those types of conclusions in a legitimate fashion. Mr. Marshall thus opined and established that the submission of the work by the Respondent was substandard work and that it is not justifiable engineering practice to submit such substandard engineering work, even if it is done at the request of another party with an understanding between the engineer and the other party and the client that this work is merely to be a preliminary design for purposes of negotiation between the regulator and the client. It is also no excuse for such substandard engineering practice that the Respondent submitted it without it being signed or sealed in his capacity as an engineer. The lack of the signing or sealing does not render it immune from having to comport with standard, acceptable engineering practice. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in these particulars, with regard to his participation and design concerning the JNC project. Because the Respondent intended that this be a preliminary submittal, solely for the purposes of negotiation between himself, his client, and the regulatory agency and did not intend that it be a final design to be built in an attempt to comply with regulatory requirements, he has not been shown to have intentionally committed misconduct in the practice of engineering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Professional Engineers finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, to the extent that he is guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering and that he be issued a reprimand and that his licensure be placed in probationary status for a period of one year with reasonable terms to be decided by the Board, including the requirement of continuing professional education in the area of compliance with appropriate professional practice standards. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7994 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted, to the extent they are consistent with the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer and otherwise as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence; to some extent, irrelevant; and to some extent, as being legal conclusions and not proposed findings of fact. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence, as constituting an incorrect conclusion of law, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 4-5. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, and being an incorrect conclusion of law. 6. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, as being an incorrect conclusion of law, and to some extent, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cammarata, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Shrinivas K. Nayak 3512 Shirley Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0755
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to questions 42 and 81 of the morning session of the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Worku took the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the examination for licensure to practice as an engineer intern on April 15, 2000. The examination is a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The examination is divided into a morning session and an afternoon session. The questions in the morning session are worth one raw point each. The questions in the afternoon session are worth two raw points each. Worku challenged questions 42 and 81, which were on the morning session of the examination. Worku received 56 raw points for the morning session and 52 raw points for the afternoon session for a total raw score of 108 on the examination. Based on the NCEES' Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 108 converts to a score of 69. A converted score of 70, which equates to a raw score of 109-113, is a passing score. Question 81 asked the examinee to identify the geometric shape that was given by an equation provided in the question. Each examinee was given a reference manual during the examination. The manual contains general formulas for the types of geometric shapes listed as possible answers to question 81. The equation given in question 81 was for a specific shape and was not listed among the general formulas in the reference manual. Worku felt that because the general equation was not used that the equation was stated incorrectly. However, the equation was stated correctly. The equation differed from the equation listed in the reference manual because it was for a special shape of the geometric figure. Worku did not answer question 81 correctly. Question 42 dealt with recrystallization as it relates to metal. The question asks the examinee to pick the answer which explains the reference to the term "recrystallization" in the question. Worku contends that there are two correct answers to question 42 and that the answer which he provided is one of the correct answers. The answer which Worku provided is not a correct answer. It refers to the process of annealing, which is the process of decreasing the toughness of a metal. Recrystallization can be a part, but is not always part of annealing. Recrystallization and annealing are not synonymous terms; thus Worku is not entitled to credit for question 42.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Amanuel Worku failed the Engineering Fundamentals Examination with a score of 69. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ Susan B. Kirkland Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Amanuel Worku 18492 Northwest 52nd Path Miami, Florida 33055 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed by the State of Florida as a laboratory technologist. Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a supervisor. On February 2, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's application to take the supervisory examination for the stated reason that Petitioner did not have ten years of experience. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Fine Arts from Florida International University. Petitioner has supplemented his education by taking additional science courses. The science courses taken before and after Petitioner received his Bachelor's degree total 26 semester credits. The courses taken after receipt of his degree have been specifically related to his field. Petitioner has been employed by the Miami Heart Institute since July 11, 1976, except for the period between September, 1976, and August, 1977. Dr. Jerome Benson is a pathologist and is the Director of Laboratories at the Miami Heart Institute. He is also Vice Chairman of the National Accreditation for Clinical Laboratory Sciences, the organization which accredits approximately 1,000 programs in the medical technology field and which is responsible for the Committee on Higher Education and Accreditation of the United States Office of Education, which accredits laboratories. He is familiar with accreditation of medical technology programs throughout the country and locally. He serves on the Advisory Committee at Miami-Dade Community College, and he planned the curriculum for the medical technology programs at both Miami- Dade Community College and at Florida International University. He was recognized as an expert by both parties. Dr. Benson believes that Petitioner is qualified to sit for the supervisory examination in terms of education, in terms of experience time, in terms of intent of the law, and in terms of protecting the public safety. He further believes that the science courses Petitioner has taken, both pre-baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate, qualify Petitioner for a Bachelor's degree in medical technology. Norman Bass was formerly Petitioner's immediate supervisor. He evaluates Petitioner's performance in the laboratory as excellent and believes that Petitioner is qualified through experience and academic courses to sit for the supervisory examination. At the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Petitioner had a total of 12,935 hours of work time at the Miami Heart Institute. Respondent considers 37.5 hours as constituting a full work week. George S. Taylor, Jr., reviewed Petitioner's application on behalf of Respondent. The application was received on January 18, 1982, and was denied on February 2, 1982, for the reason that Petitioner did not have ten years' experience. At the time, Respondent did not have current transcripts reflecting courses taken by Petitioner. Respondent did not request any, but simply used transcripts on file with Respondent which had been filed when Petitioner applied for his technologist's license, even though Petitioner's application for licensure as a supervisor reflected that he had taken various science courses at Miami-Dade Community College. Taylor is of the opinion that an applicant with 120 college credits must have between 25 and 30 of those credits in science courses in order to have a major in science; an applicant with 90 semester hours in college is required to have 17 to 24 credits in science in order to have a science major.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the examination for a supervisor's license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel S. Forman, Esquire The Counsel Building 2016 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Department 1350 North West 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her solution to Problem 120 on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 14, 2000, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On April 14, 2000, as part of her effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 46 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 46 converts to a score of 68. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested that her solution to Problem 120 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was referred to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 120 resulted in her receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about December 5, 2000. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated December 14, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problem 120 was worth ten raw points. Petitioner received six raw points for her solution to Problem 120. In her solution to Problem 120, Petitioner failed to properly take into consideration the height of the water table, did not compute the factor of safety for load-bearing capacity in the manner required, and made an arithmetic mistake. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES's scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that she could have received for her solution to this problem was a six, which is the score she received. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee made three errors. The solution approved by the Civil Engineering Exam committee called for a correction in requirement (a) for the mid height water table. The examinee ignored this correction. A two point grade reduction is called for. The examinee made a numerical error in evaluating the bearing capacity equation. This error called for a one point grade reduction. In evaluating the factor of safety the examinee added an erroneous load factor. A two point grade reduction is called for. With a total of five grade points lost a final grade of six is called for. SCORER'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommended score = six There has been no showing that the rescorer's analysis was in any way flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score she received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2001.
