Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen P. Hamner, Jr., has applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architectural licensure examination, administered by the Respondent, consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year, and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for the 12-hour "Part A" examination in June, 1980. The examination consists of a drafting or sketching problem and is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, designing elevations, building cross sections, facades and floor plans, as well as taking into consideration numerous criteria such as human traffic flow, parking, access to all areas, heating and cooling, including solar heating potential, prevailing climate conditions, use of natural lighting, and numerous other esthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida, as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination was adopted in Florida pursuant to the above-cited rules. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by that applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner was expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself, the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and building design problem submitted to him by the NCARB and the Florida board. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine whether an applicant, such as the Petitioner, is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, esthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on the same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the design and site portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of 20 states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to this site and design problem, including the Petitioner's, in a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, as well as in Respondent's Exhibit Three. The graders are instructed to note the areas of strength and weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to those grading criteria and then determine, based on an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of three or four as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution in order to pass that portion of the examination. The Petitioner herein received two "1's" and one "2" on the examination, all of which were failing grades. Although he demonstrated an effort to comply with instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre-examination booklet, he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. The testimony of the Respondent's witnesses (Herbert Coons, Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture and a grader in this examination, and Mr. Dan Branch, a grader of the petitioner's own examination) shows that the petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based on the criteria required to be considered and complied with by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. Many technical errors were pointed out by these witnesses, as well as by the petitioner's own admissions. The record thus discloses that the Petitioner's examination solution was deficient in its allowance for parking space and the ability of vehicular ingress to egress from the parking lot surrounding the building to be designed. There were no room designations on the rooms in the floor plan; there was only one rest room space and one set of toilets for men and women where two spaces and sets of facilities were required by the instruction program. The Petitioner failed to mark the building elevations on the building floor plans, did not depict where furniture would be located, and two different elevation drawings and two sectional drawings required to be depicted on the examination were not. The Petitioner did not show what type of material would be used in the roof nor what type of insulation, nor did he show what type and uses of glass were to be made. The Petitioner failed to give adequate consideration to grading and site planning, failed to adequately make notation of the types of materials to be used in the elevation's floor plans and wall sections, and generally did not adequately adhere to the program presented him. In general, it was shown by these witnesses that while the Petitioner had made a substantial effort to pass the examination, he had failed to place within the solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine clearly that his program or design could be a successful one. The Petitioner's own admissions show that he approached the examination in question in such a manner as to substitute his own judgment and opinion regarding which techniques and components were architecturally sound for the problem for those required to be treated as essential elements of the site and design problem posed him in the instructions. The program presented to the Petitioner assumed he would be in the hypothetical position of an "architect" presented with a program which had already reached a point of completion as to design ideas and site location. The insertion of his own ideas and judgment regarding various elements of the project is contrary to established architectural practice, for a program which had already reached the point of completion, in terms of initial design decisions, as that presented to the examination candidates in this instance. In view of the above-determined deficiencies, the Petitioner did not establish that his solution to the site and design-problem posed by the examination reflected sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the failing grade conferred on the Petitioner on the June, 1980, site and design portion of the architectural examination be upheld, and that the petition be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 19th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Glen P. Hamner, Jr. 1231 Bayshore Drive Valparaiso, Florida 32580 John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samual Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jorge L. Garcia, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida is of seven parts, part of which is the written examination and the rest of which is a site and design examination, which is given in June of each year. Petitioner took the building design portion of the Architecture Registration Examination in June, 1985. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant which meets specific requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross- sections, facades, and floor plans. The program for the 1985 examination called for the design of a city administration building. Information supplied to the applicant includes a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Applicants also may study a series of solutions proposed by previous successful and unsuccessful applicants so that they may anticipate and apply successful solutions when taking their own examination. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a building design solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination therefore, allows the national testing service grading the examination, and through it, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy, and legal requirements. The grading of the building design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's proposed examination solution by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competency required for a passing grade. Each architecture grader is then asked to review various solutions by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration various criteria as set forth in Rule - 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code. Graders are instructed to make notations or areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then to determine, based upon an overall conception of each applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade of 3 or 4 as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code, has been earned. A method used to ensure independent and confidential grading of a solution is the folding of a single score sheet in such a way as to not allow subsequent graders to see the previous score. Approximately 3 and one-half minutes is utilized as the time in which each grader has to grade each applicant's exam. Page 7 of the Juror's Manual (graders manual) points out: Examinees are entitled to make some mistakes. The program analysis, design , development and drafting are hurriedly executed in a tense situation, without recourse to normal office reference materials (Sweets catalogs Architectural Graphic Standards, etc.) and without customary time for deliberation and critique by others. Jurors (graders) are permitted to recommend changes to an applicant's submission to bring it up to passing. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the at least three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant case, the Petitioner received three 2's (which are failing grades) and one 3 (which is a passing grade). Petitioner's exam solution presented a borderline case since one of the three graders who originally graded his exam gave him a passing grade. His response to notification of failure to pass this portion of the exam was a timely request for a Section 120.57(1) hearing and this proceeding ensued. While Petitioner attempted to comply with the instructions as set forth in the examination and pre-examination booklets, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve requisite minimal competency necessary to receive a passing score on the examination. The testimony of Arnold Butt, Registered Architect, former chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida and a master grader in the building design examination, is the only expert testimony of record. In Butt's opinion, Petitioner's submission contained several material departures from specific program requirements applicable to the 1985 examination. Specifically, Petitioner failed to place in his submission a delivery system, thus failing to meet program requirements, and showed no method of entry or egress. Further, there was no method of entry or egress from the river walk. Although Butt complimented Petitioner in overcoming one type of circulation problem that was overlooked by many other applicants at the same examination, Petitioner's circulation design was still full of many errors described by Mr. Butt, including life safety factors. Mr. Butt admitted that the graders had not marked life safety as a weakness present in Petitioner's exam. However, Butt's critique of Petitioner's circulation problems shows circulation overlaps into the area of "design logic." For other reasons, including but not limited to Petitioner's showing of certain features such as windows only upon the elevation sheets (as opposed to upon other sheets as well) and failure to show all of an access road, his errors and omissions also overlap into the evaluation criteria of "clarity and completeness of presentation." While Petitioner attempted to show, through use of the publication of NCARB which contains within it samples of various passing and failing examinations, that his examination submission was similar to those which had been recorded as passing grades, he was unsuccessful in discrediting the overall perception of Butt that there were significant difficulties in Petitioner's design solution which, taken as a whole, were much more numerous than the various solutions (both passing and failing) which were compared with Petitioner's solution. In a review of the sample solutions, Butt conceded that some of the errors that Petitioner made were also made by some of the candidates who achieved passing scores. However, Petitioner's examination submission contained a combination of many errors in one paper, which same errors may have existed only individually in some of the passing examples. In short, Petitioner's reliance on the NCARB-produced review booklet is misplaced in that his submitted solution to the problem presented a conglomeration of many of the errors which may have been passing if presented individually in various of the examples contained in the NCARB manual. Petitioner, who has the burden of proof in these de novo proceedings, has therefore failed to demonstrate that his examination solution exhibits minimal competency within the criteria necessary for a passing score.
Recommendation Therefore, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order affirming that Petitioner has failed the licensure examination for 1985. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2195 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Covered in Recommended Order FOF 1-3. 3-4. Covered in FOF 10. 5-7. Those portions not accepted are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence as a whole as set forth in FOF 11-12. Further, Mr. Butt testified that once the Petitioner's solutions to the problem were utilized, it was probable the graders would not give him the benefit of the doubt to recommend changes to his submitted because any reasonable solutions they might propose would require almost total redesign of his proposed building instead of the minimal changes they might be permitted to recommend. Rejected as not supported by the competent substantial evidence as covered in FOF 7. Three and 1/2 minutes was given as a fair estimate of the time actually used, not the time permitted. Covered in FOF 9; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Covered in FOF 10; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Accepted but immaterial and not dispositive of any issue at bar. The graders were not precluded from making more than three recommended marks. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Covered in FOF 1; that which is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOE 2. Covered in FOE 4 and 6. Covered in FOF 7 and 10. Covered in FOE 10. 6-7. Covered in FOF 11 and 12 but substantially modified for independent clarity of expression. COPIES FURNISHED: Pat Ard, Executive Director DPR-Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jorge L. Garcia 1744 Southwest First Avenue Miami, Florida 33134 Jorge L. Garcia 231 Southwest 52nd Avenue Miami, Florida John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact In April 1995, Abraham S. Inlong (Petitioner) took the Electrical Engineer part of the Professional Engineering Examination (Examination). A minimum grade of 70 is required to pass the Examination. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had failed the Examination, having received a grade of 69.10. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners. Respondent issues licenses to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida and administers the Examination on behalf of the State. Petitioner challenges, the answer selected by the national examiners to Problem 433, Question 6 of the Examination, which is A. Respondent selected D as the answer, which states that A, B, and C are all correct. As part of the instructions for candidates taking the Examination, the candidates were to choose the best answer. The best answer is the correct answer. Respondent's response to Problem 433, Question 6 was regraded by the national examiners. They denied Respondent any additional credit. The best and correct answer to Problem 433, Question 6 is the answer identified by Respondent as the answer by the national examiners, i. e., A. The answer selected by Petitioner is not the best and correct answer. A diagram is part of the challenged problem and question. The diagram is clear and unambiguous. The scope of knowledge required for the challenged problem and question is not beyond the knowledge reasonably expected from a candidate for licensure. The challenged problem and question contain sufficient information for a candidate for licensure to select the best and correct answer. Additional information was unnecessary, including whether the system was balanced or unbalanced. The challenged problem and question are clear and unambiguous. The challenged problem and question are not devoid of logic and reason. The challenged problem and question are valid. Statistics indicate that 60 percent of the candidates for licensure (candidates), who took the Examination, answered Problem 433 correctly and that 48 percent of the candidates answered Problem 433, Question 6 correctly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order dismissing Abraham S. Inlong's examination challenge and denying him licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 1st day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0031 The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or not supported by the more credible evidence. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or not supported by the more credible evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5. See Preliminary Statement. 6. See Preliminary Statement. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 - 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Rejected as being subordinate, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. NOTE--Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being subordinate, irrelevant, unnecessary, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire One Datran Center, Suite 400 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7815 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Claudio Ricardo Ramos was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and the Site Planning Examination administered on June 14- 16, 1982 by the Department of Professional Regulation. He is a graduate of the University of Miami with a Bachelor of Architecture Degree and is presently employed by an architecture firm in Miami, Florida. On September 10, 1982 Petitioner was informed by the Department that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After a review of his examination he requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request initiated these proceedings. The professional architecture examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. Part A is known as the site planning and design portion of the exam. It requires a candidate to draw a solution to a problem involving (a) site plans, (b) floor plans, (c) building sections, (d) two significant building elevations, (e) diagrams of structural systems, (f) diagrams of environmental control systems, and (g) a typical wall section. Part A is blind-graded by at least two examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to evaluation criteria set out in Section 21B- 14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades ranging from 1 through 4, depending on the quality of the work, are awarded by each examiner. An applicant must have a minimum average of 3 in order to pass Part A of the examination. On the June 1982 examination, all candidates were required to design a small municipal airport terminal building in a midwestern location. The problem required a site plan, ground level plan-north elevation, second level plan, and a cross-section of the facility. While Petitioner demonstrated on his examination that an effort had been made to comply with the instructions set out in the examination and preexamination booklet, he failed in several significant areas to design a structure consistent with the program's requirements. His design for the terminal failed to fit the criteria for floor areas, entrance- exist requirements, circulation pattern through enplaning and deplaning and to comply with the required structural and mechanical details. These deficiencies in Petitioner's design cannot be explained as merely a difference in professional judgment. They are fundamental mistakes which in some respects make his design functionally unsound. It is apparent from Petitioner's design that he spent a considerable portion of his allotted time on the ground level of the airport terminal design and then was without adequate time to prepare the second level plan and integrate that plan with the ground level. Petitioner has failed to present evidence showing that the failing grade he received was given in a capricious or arbitrary manner. Petitioner's grade was well within the range of reasonable professional judgment on what is an unsuccessful performance of the Part A examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order denying the application of Claudio Ricardo Ramos for licensure as an architect on the grounds that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Claudio Ricardo Ramos 140 Northwest 87th Avenue Apartment G-222 Miami, Florida 33172 John J. Rimes III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Florida Board of Architecture Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in Florida should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated April 7, 1982, authored by Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director for the Board of Architecture, Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in Florida was denied "due to the fact that [his] application does not show evidence that [he] had the professional degree which is required pursuant to Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(a)." Petitioner was further advised that he had failed to show that he satisfied the requirements of Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(b) or that he had engaged in the practice of architecture in another state for the ten (10) years, in conformance with Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(c). Therein, Petitioner was further advised that he could appeal the Respondent's denial of his application to practice architecture. Petitioner appealed that denial, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant thereto, the matter was noticed for hearing by copy of a Notice of Hearing dated December 14, 1982, scheduling the matter for hearing on February 18, 1983, in Miami, Florida. As stated, the Petitioner, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear to prove his entitlement for approval of his application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida. Based thereon, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1983.
Findings Of Fact In October, 1973, the Petitioner filed an application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida with the Board. By letter dated November 21, 1973, the Board, through its Executive Secretary, denied the application stating that the Petitioner lacked the required degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner requested that his experience be reviewed to determine whether he had training fully equivalent to such a degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). By letter dated August 19, 1974 the Board notified the Petitioner that his educational background was insufficient, and that the application would be denied. Petitioner thereupon filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. The court adjudged that the Board was required to consider not only the Petitioner's educational training, but his private study, on-the-job training and other practical experience. A copy of the court's Final Declaratory Judgment was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 12. Petitioner again appeared before the Board and offered evidence respecting his training and practical experience. See: Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8. On June 11, 1976, the Board entered its order finding the Petitioner to be not qualified and denying the application (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing in accordance with Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1). Petitioner's application for licensure is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which commenced prior to January 1, 1975. The parties have nonetheless stipulated that the provisions of Section 120.57(1) will hereafter govern the proceeding. The Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago Technical College, Chicago, Illinois on December 17, 1954. Petitioner's course of study was architectural engineering. The Chicago Technical College was not, during the time that Petitioner attended it, and is not now on the approved list of schools and colleges of architecture adopted and published by the Board. The course of study pursued by the Petitioner at Chicago Technical College was not the same as a program in architecture. The program was a highly technical engineering program. The design studio which is perhaps the major facet of an architectural program was not present in the architectural engineering program pursued by the Petitioner. Following his graduation the Petitioner worked with other architects in the general practice of architecture. His longest periods of employment were with Cabanban and Wasserman, architects, where he worked for four years and eleven months from 1958 until 1963; and with Ohrnstein and Wasserman, with whom he was employed for four years and four months from 1966 through 1971. In each of these jobs the Petitioner performed the sort of work ordinarily performed by architects. A listing of the different projects in which the Petitioner performed design and supervisory functions is set out as a part of Hearing Officer's Exhibit 10. A wide variety of commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and private residences are included. Petitioner served as a partner in Cabanban and Wasserman, and in Ohrnstein and Wasserman. Augustine Cabanban and Earl Ohrnstein were both registered architects during the course of the partnerships. Cabanban and Ohrnstein each testified that the Petitioner performed the full range of architectural services during the course of the partnerships, and that his work was excellent. Architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner to the Board demonstrate that the Petitioner did not achieve a high level of design proficiency from his work experience. The best drawings submitted demonstrated a level of competence of approximately a third year architecture student in a five year program. Other drawings demonstrated a lack of design competence, and were inadequate. During 1972, the Petitioner passed the standard examination offered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Petitioner holds a current certificate issued by the National Council, and is registered to practice architecture in the State of Illinois. Schools or colleges of architecture approved by the Board have many common features, and the curricula offered at the schools are fairly consistent. Generally the programs and the curricula have remained consistent since approximately 1955 with minor variations, or changes of a technical sort. There is no real distinction between the sort of program which would have been approved in 1955, and the sort of program which would be approved today. Typically an approved program which operated on a quarter hour academic basis would require approximately 240 quarter hours for graduation. Approximately 75 quarter hours would be in architectural design culminating in a thesis. Approximately 60 quarter hours would be in general education subject matter, with between 30 to 35 hours in social science and humanities. The social science background is important because an architect must bring together all the factors which relate to the building environment, including social factors. The educational program followed by the Petitioner lacked the necessary design courses and social science courses which would be required in an approved architectural program. An architectural engineer is an engineer involved with buildings. The design courses in an architectural engineering program are set up to enable the engineer to work with an architect. Through on-the-job training the Petitioner received considerable design experience; however, drawings which he submitted to the Board did not evidence that he had achieved the level of design competence which would be required of a graduate of an approved architectural program. The fact that the Petitioner passed the National Council's test does not in itself establish that Petitioner reached the necessary level of competence. Petitioner did not offer evidence from which it could be concluded that his studies and experience would substitute for the social science background required of a graduate of an approved program. The Petitioner did not establish that he took social science courses, or engaged in individual study in the social sciences, or engaged in any other activities which would substitute for such an academic background.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for the answer given in the General Contractor Examination, Contract Administration, Question No. 3, thus improving his grade and allowing him to pass the examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a candidate to be licensed as a general contractor in Florida, took the General Contracting Examination on June 29 and 30, 1993. The examination instrument was prepared by the National Assessment Institute through an agreement with Respondent to prepare and deliver the examination to determine minimal competence of candidates as a perquisite to licensure in the field of general contracting in Florida. The examination that was given was constituted of two parts. Part I was Contract Administration. Part II was Project Management. To be a successful candidate one must have scored a minimum grade of 70 on each part. Petitioner received a score of 67 in the Contract Administration part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the score received on Question No. 3 within that part. If his challenge is successful he will have passed that part and the overall examination. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 contains the examination question, possible answers, correct answer and solution to the problem. To assist Petitioner and other candidates in preparing for the examination Respondent provided a candidate information booklet. The candidate information booklet explained the subject matter about which the candidates would be examined, the purpose of examination and the method of grading the examination. In addition Petitioner and other candidates were provided a general building and residential building reference list to assist in answering the questions in the examination instrument. Finally, the candidates were reminded that some questions were based upon field experience and knowledge of trade practices within the construction business. Having in mind the preparatory information, Petitioner believes the correct answer to Question No. 3 is (D), whereas the answer called for in the examination instrument is (C). Petitioner places emphasis on the belief that field experience and knowledge of trade practices would have caused the candidate to conclude that (D) was the proper answer. Moreover, Petitioner has placed emphasis on the means the Respondent employs to ascertain the propriety of the examination challenge. Those factors are in turn: Was the item clearly and unambiguously worded? Was enough information presented to allow you to select the correct response? Did approved reference materials support the correct response? Were all current techniques taken into account when the correct response was determined? Did responding correctly to the item require knowledge which was beyond the scope of knowledge that should be expected of the candidate for licensure? With this information as the background Petitioner has also included his drawings within Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, which Petitioner describes as "what went on in Petitioner's mind after reviewing said examination question", considered in the context of associated examination drawings and specifications provided to assist in the solution and as found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The examination question at issue referred the candidate to the drawings and specifications found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The candidate was then directed to prepare formwork to substitute concrete for concrete masonry in elevator shaft walls depicted in the drawings and specifications. The candidate was told the labor cost per square foot for erecting forms for the "concrete contact surface area". The candidate was reminded of the dimensions of the formed openings for the elevator door. The candidate was told to assume that the form work abutted boxed columns located at the intersections of certain grid lines and to deduct measurements for door openings and to include forms for door jams and headers. With these assumptions in mind the candidate was provided four possible answers as the labor costs to erect the forms for the elevator shaft wall between the finished second and third floor elevations. To arrive at the solution the candidate need only perform mathematical calculations consistent with the instructions. The correct answer is depicted in the solution to Question No. 3 found in Respondent's Exhibit 1. By performing the proper calculation, the correct answer is (C). The question was unambiguous and the solution obvious. Nothing in the question or the pre-examination explanations made from Respondent to Petitioner called for reference to the fire code in arriving at the answer to Question No. Therefore, it was inappropriate for Petitioner to try and calculate the answer by attempting to ascertain the appropriate material for boxing the column associated with the elevator shaft taking into account fire code requirements. Petitioner assumed the necessity to utilize fire retardant materials to encase the boxed column located at the intersection of grid lines D and 3 as the column abutted the formwork that was described in the problem. Placement of fire retardant material around the column was not necessary and contributed to Petitioner's miscalculation of the answer to the question. Moreover, in Petitioner's calculation, contrary to the instructions which said to assume that the form work abutted the boxed column at the intersection of grid lines D and 3, Petitioner made his calculations along the centerline and not as these surfaces abutted. This meant that the lineal footage determination should have been 35 and not 36 as calculated by the Petitioner. Petitioner also calculated by using two headers and two jams pertaining to the doorway on the second floor to the elevator. Only one header was required in that the bottom of the doorway was not an area where concrete was being poured which would require a form to hold the concrete in place while it was being poured. This caused the Petitioner's measurement to be 23 feet instead of the anticipated 19 foot measurement. In summary, it is the attempt to try and develop an answer which takes into account the fire code in boxing the column and the other errors in calculation specifically referred to here that led the Petitioner to obtain the incorrect answer.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which dismisses the Petitioner's challenge to the examination results and upholds the determination that Petitioner did not pass the General Contractor's Licensing Examination given on June 29 and 30, 1993. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 24th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6616 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 10 through 57 are rejected as they attempt to justify the Petitioner's choice of answers to Question No. 3 in the examination instrument. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Centola, Jr. 532 Ponte Vedra Boulevard Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Raymond E. Hirst, Jr., professional engineer, was licensed as such by the State of Florida under license number PE 0017307. Prior to March 22, 1983, the Respondent, for Mech-Mar Engineering Company, Inc., designed a storage bay and mini- warehouse project to be built by Ruth Stein Construction for William M. Kwasniki, to be located on South Babcock Street in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner designed the facility and signed the plans for construction on March 22, 1983. A note clearly marked on the sheet index on the upper right hand corner of the first page of the plan set reflects, "The engineer's services do not include supervision of the construction of this project." The plans consist of three sheets of drawings, each of which is sealed and signed by the Respondent. The first sheet reflects the foundation plan. The second shows the electrical riser and firewall detail, and the third reflects the elevations. On or about April 3, 1983, the contractor, Ruth Stein, submitted these plans to the City of Palm Bay building department. The plans were approved for construction by the office of the chief building official, Paul Olsen, and formed the basis for the issuance of the construction permit. Neither the engineer's specifications nor calculations were submitted and filed with the plans. However, calculations were not required by the City of Palm Bay at that time. Two amendments to the plans were filed by the Respondent on May 31, and August 10, 1983. No revised drawings were submitted, however. The drawings that were submitted by Ms. Stein, but drawn by Respondent, were used to insure that the plans conformed to standard building codes, zoning codes, etc., but were not reviewed by the city for compliance with engineering standards and no engineering analysis was done by the city on these or any other plans at that time. The need to do so was apparently recognized later, however, as such analyses are now done on a routine basis. The plans were also to be used by the city's inspection staff to compare work being done by the contractor with the plans to insure that the work conforms to them. During construction, the building being erected according to Respondent's plans, a concrete block structure, collapsed. This collapse occurred sometime prior to May 20, 1983. After the structure collapsed, the city building office again approved the plans drawn by Respondent for reconstruction. The contractor was told to clean up the site and was then allowed to rebuild. Not only the original plans but the amendments referred to above, including that dated August 10, 1983, called for partitions within the building. After rebuilding, the structure was inspected by the city and a certificate of occupancy was issued in August, 1983. No complaints have been filed regarding this construction since that time. After the collapse, an inspection of the collapse site revealed that in some areas on the west part of the structure, cells of the concrete blocks being used to form the walls had not been filled with concrete as was required by the design submitted by Respondent. In the opinion of Mr. Olsen, this defect was a fault not of the Respondent but of the contractor. No determination was made by the city as to: whether the block walls as designed by Respondent met Standard Building Code (SBC) requirements; whether the walls were supported laterally as required; whether anchorage of the roof trusses to the walls was accomplished; whether Respondent properly, or at all, designed a roof diaphragm for this project; whether the walls were adequate to meet the wind load requirements (the SBC suggests that maximum wind velocity standard is 90 mph.); whether the lentils were adequate; and whether the truss anchorage limits were satisfactory. (According to Mr. Olsen, this decision is left up to the engineer who designs the structure.) The city found, however, that a part of the reason for the collapse of this structure was that the trusses for the roof were set too soon, were not adequately braced, contained questionable materials, and wore questionably fabricated. Though the city was not critical in its analysis of Respondent's performance, the experts retained by Petitioner to evaluate his drawings were. Mr. James O. Power, who has been a registered structural engineer since 1947 did not examine the building site but is aware of the project in question. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Respondent, photos taken of the site, the investigative report, letters and correspondence from Respondent with calculations contained therein, and the Respondent's amendments to the original drawings. On the basis of this evidence, he formed an opinion as to Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project and prepared several letters on the subject dated July 6 and October 21, 1983, and January 30 and September 7, 1984, all of which constitute his opinion as to Respondent's performance. In substance he concluded that Respondent's engineering performance on this project was unsatisfactory showing basic negligence and lack of due care as well as a lack of understanding of the basic engineering requirements for the job. In his opinion, overall, the drawings lack sufficient detail. For example, they, (a) show no interior partitions (partitions were defined in an amendment to the drawing filed after the collapse); (b) show that while the southern wall has few openings, the north wall has many, (this is significant in that because of the lack of partitions, the walls must resist the winds playing upon them as vertical cantilevers); (c) show that the number 5 vertical bars in the fill cells are 12 feet apart, (to serve as reinforced masonry, they should be 4 but no more than 8 feet apart depending on the circumstances); (d) reflect a ceiling height of 14 feet whereas later drawings show a difference in elevation; (e) show that the tie beam is to be constituted of inverted masonry U-beam 16 inches deep filled with concrete and reinforcing steel without providing for any obvious way to insert the concrete within the beam; (f) failed to show with detail the strap makeup or method of connection for the hurricane straps to be used to hold down the roof trusses to the walls, (the drawings show that the strap is to loop over the truss and if the straps do not do so, the connection is weak); (g) reflect that the door height at the openings on the north and south side doors are different than the tie beam height but there is no showing of how the weight of the roof is to be distributed over the door head only 8 inches below the tie-beam (this could contribute to the collapse of the building); and (h) failed to show drawings of trusses by the Respondent. In this regard, the truss company's drawings and specifications are insufficient. Since the Respondent's drawings do not define with particularity how the trusses are to be constructed, the truss fabricator must make assumptions as to the stress and load to be applied. With regard to the pre-engineered and pre-manufactured roof trusses, Mr. Power is of the opinion that the designer, Respondent, should have: (1) stated his criteria for the design of the truss (Respondent did not do this); (2) stated the qualifications of the designer (Respondent did not do this); (3) submitted clear instructions regarding his design (Respondent's are unclear and unsatisfactory). Mr. Power also indicates that in his experience, bracing for the trusses is installed at the building site and that only the basic truss is constructed at the truss company's plant. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the practice in Brevard County is for the building designer, as here, to give the basic specifications needed for the truss, and thereafter, the truss designer, working for the truss company, designs and builds the complete truss for delivery to the site. If Mr. Power's position is to be believed, personal supervision of the designer would be required at the site once the basic truss was delivered. Here, however, Mr. Power operates out of Miami and Petitioner has failed to show that he is familiar with the trade practice in the area involved in this dispute. Respondent's position is somewhat supported by the fact that his plans contain a disclaimer of supervision and no issue was made that this is a forbidden or unaccepted practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that Respondent's design of the trusses in this case was faulty. Mr. Power also identified several "design deficiencies" in Respondent's work. Among these were that there was no requirement for the use of reinforced masonry which is different from concrete and that Respondent's drawings provided no details or standards for the mortar or grout, the substance used to fill the holes in concrete blocks which should have a minimum slump of 8 inches. (If one tried to fill these cells from the top of a 14 foot wall, it is most likely that the cell, the hole within the blocks, would not be filled.) Further, the formulae used by Respondent in his calculations are for solid materials in the walls -- not for cinder block which was the material called for here. On the basis of the above discrepancies, it appeared to Mr. Power that Respondent did not understand the difference between the requirements for construction with concrete block and those for construction with reinforced masonry. In addition, according to Mr. Power, the reinforcing walls inserted in the design by the Respondent after the collapse of the building are of materials not permitted by the SBC. Also the SBC requires that the ratio of length to width of roof diaphragm should be no more than 4. The purpose of this is to provide support to the top of the wall so as to resist loads placed upon it by the force of wind. Here, Respondent's design has not adequately provided this reinforcement, in Mr. Power's judgment, and the design does not meet the SBC requirement. The SBC also requires designs of buildings to be constructed in the Palm Bay area to be able to withstand 90 mph winds. Mr. Power's calculations based on Respondent's plans and drawings show it is questionable that a building built pursuant to Respondent's plans would sustain 90 mph winds. The fact that the chances are only one in fifty that in any given year winds of this speed would be reached is immaterial. As to the filling of the holes (cells) in the concrete block, Mr. Power contends that it is a good practice to show in the drawing a breakout in the block at the bottom of the wall so that the builder can see that the concrete has in fact gone all the way down to the bottom as it should. Here, however, the building code does not require this to be done. Again, considering the Respondent's use of cement instead of grout to fill the cells, the Respondent followed county practice and the SBC does not specifically require the use of grout. Nonetheless, Mr. Power is of the opinion that even though Respondent's drawings indicated that he would not inspect at the site, it was unreasonable for Respondent to expect the cells to be filled since it is well known that many contractors do not inspect to insure that the cells are filled as called for. Mr. Power is also of the opinion that the lintels as described in one of the amendments to the basic drawings, though permissible for use, are inadequate to handle the indicated roof load and the drawings prepared by Respondent did not show the lintel capacity. Mr. Power contends that the SBC requires drawings to show sufficient detail to indicate the intent of the designer to allow the contractor using the drawings to conform to code standards. Admittedly, this is subjective criteria, not an objective one, as to what constitutes sufficient detail. The amendments added to the original designs helped somewhat to correct the deficiencies, but do not make them adequate. Taken as a whole, the drawings are not adequate, in the opinion of Mr. Power, to comply with the SBC. They are not adequate to pass on the designer's intent to the contractor and they are not adequate to show the designer's understanding of design elements. These errors and deficiencies described above are, in the opinion of Mr. Power, significant and not minor. Based on his analysis of the overall drawings and situation, he concluded that Respondent has not demonstrated his capability to handle this particular task which, in the opinion of Mr. power, is relatively simple. Respondent's drawings and the other documents pertinent to the project in issue here including calculations, correspondence, photos, and the investigative report, were also reviewed by Ernest C. Driver, a Florida licensed consultant engineer operating in Cairo, Georgia. Mr. Driver also reviewed Mr. Power's reports and is in complete agreement with his conclusions. He did some calculations on his own and on the basis of them, formed an opinion of Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project. He found that the reinforcing of the cinder block cells on the walls were too widely spaced at 12 foot centers instead of 4 to 8 foot centers. In addition, he did not agree with the engineering conclusions drawn by the Respondent. The calculations performed by Respondent were, in his opinion, improper and as a result, the design is over-stressed by approximately 215 percent. This came about, apparently, because Respondent designed a wall as though there were no doors in it. In addition, the way the tie beam is designed, it is impossible to get the reinforcing concrete into the "U." Further, the hurricane straps required to affix the roof trusses to the tie beam cannot be attached to the beam itself. Also, the design called for concrete block to be installed above the doors. This procedure placed as much as four times the load the lintel should carry. Mr. Driver also found that the diaphragm used by Respondent was of gypsum board which, in his opinion, is not a proper material for diaphragms. Also, according to Mr. Driver's interpretation of Respondent's plan, there is no way that the wind shear force applied to the diaphragm can be transmitted to the side wall and thence down to the earth. This is a definite deficiency and Respondent's drawings and notes are not complete enough to allow a clear determination of what is required as to materials to be used and how the work should be accomplished. Other deficiencies are seen in that the drawings show a 230 foot long building without an expansion joint. In Mr. Driver's opinion, this is far too long for construction without such a joint. In addition, the 26 foot high end wall is not addressed in the design which has no indication of how the roof is to be attached to it. Mr. Driver concurs with Mr. Power's opinion regarding the insufficiency of the plans and specifications offered by Respondent for the roof trusses in that there is no framing plan nor are there specifications identified for the trusses. Shop drawings should have been provided instead of only a cut sheet. While this witness does not know what the current Brevard County practice regarding the design and construction of trusses is, he is convinced that it is as Respondent says it is, to wit: that they are completely fabricated at the shop and delivered completed for installation to the job site, this is a poor practice. Connected to the issue of roof trusses is that regarding the metal hurricane straps which Respondent indicated his plans called for. These metal straps, which can easily be bent by hand are, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, a poor method of affixing the trusses to the tie beam. There are too many things that can go wrong such as hinging, the lack of a firm seating for the strap in the concrete, the bending of the metal, and the pulling of the affixing nails through the holes in the strap thereby resulting in no grip. In addition to his dissatisfaction with the use of concrete to fill the cells in the cinder blocks, Mr. Driver also feels that the use of concrete to fill a continuous 14 foot cell is improper. In his opinion, the drawings should call for a solid block every 4 feet and for weep holes through which compaction can be noted periodically throughout that distance. All of this should be in the engineer's notes. The notes by Respondent do not identify these areas. Even though Respondent's notes called for the 14 feet to be filled, his plans failed to provide methods to insure that complete filling was accomplished. Examination of the pictures of the wall after the collapse reveals that complete filling was not accomplished and this failure on the part of Respondent to provide a reasonably foolproof method of insuring complete compaction cannot be excused and responsibility shifted to the contractor by the mere statement by Respondent on the plans that he would not inspect. Engineering practice is made up of judgment as well as the specific formulae which can be obtained from engineering textbooks. There are assumptions which may be made -- some good and some bad. In the opinion of Mr. Driver, the defects described above indicate that Respondent's assumptions were bad. As a result, his judgment was bad. He feels that, in light of all the evidence, Respondent was negligent, failed to use due care, failed to conform to accepted engineering principles, failed to accomplish drawings sufficiently detailed to instruct the contractor as to exactly what needed to he done, and failed to provide drawings which, if followed exactly as presented, would by themselves, enable a builder to construct a safe structure. Here, based on the drawings prepared and submitted by Respondent, a builder would have to demonstrate a high and exceptional degree of expertise in order to fill in the omitted details required to make the building safe. Acceptable drawing standards are not defined with specificity in the SBC. Much is subjective rather than objective. For example, nothing in the SBC prohibits the use of gypsum board as a horizontal diaphragm, but, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, it is not common practice to use it for such. This goes to the question of judgment. In any event, the code may be erroneous in some particulars and not all answers are contained in it. It is for this reason that the law requires the use of a licensed engineer whose judgment fills in the gaps left by the code. Here all the defects identified in Respondent's drawings are within the province of an engineer. These are the items an engineer is needed for to accomplish. Here, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, there are too many defects and Respondent's work does not conform to any of the standards used in the engineering community as to schooling, information gained from working with other engineers, or the witness's personal experience. In rebuttal to the above, Respondent presented no experts of his own, but testified as to his disagreement with the analyses of Petitioner's experts. The testimony by Mr. Power and Mr. Driver is found to be accurate and descriptive of the defects in Respondent's performance. There are a few exceptions such as where local Brevard County practice differs from the experience of these experts, however, taken as a whole, the evidence clearly indicates Respondent's shortcomings for the most part. The testimony of the experts has established a series of defects in Respondent's performance which he has failed to satisfactorily rebut.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, RAYMOND HIRST, be placed on probation for one year, that he be reprimanded, and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Raymond Hirst 379 Franklyn Avenue Indiatlantic, Florida 32903 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Board of professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
