Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1956 Petitioner received his degree of Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. In 1956 Petitioner took and passed a fundamentals of engineering examination in Oklahoma. This was in furtherance of his licensure as an Engineer-in-Training. It dealt with basic engineering subjects. He also took a principles and practice examination in that year in Oklahoma. The fundamentals of engineering examination was Part I and the principles and practices examination was Part II. The State Licensing Board in Oklahoma did not recognize the results of Part II. As Petitioner explains it, based upon his understanding of the circumstances, that state had revised its laws pertaining to licensure of engineers in 1961. In 1960, to his understanding, those changes were in the draft form concerning the legislation. The changes that were brought about in 1961 required that a candidate for licensure have four years of experience before he or she would be able to stand a mandatory principle and practices Part II portion of an examination process. Because Petitioner had not gained four years experience before standing examination on principles and practices Part II the licensing authority in Oklahoma removed the reference to Petitioner's successful completion of the principles and practices Part II portion of the examination. Moreover it does not appear that candidates for licensure as professional engineers when Petitioner received his certificate of registration as a professional engineer granted by the State of Oklahoma on May 13, 1960 had to stand an examination before receiving that license. Prior to the receipt of registration as a professional engineer and following his graduation from the University of Oklahoma, Petitioner had held the Engineer-in-Training License. Petitioner had not received his professional engineer's registration in 1956 because the State of Oklahoma required a minimum three years of professional experience after graduation from engineering school before it would grant that registration. The verification of registration form that was completed by the Oklahoma Board of Engineering indicated that the Petitioner's registration as a professional engineer was based upon five years of formal education in his engineering course work, an examination associated with a license as Engineer- in-Training, and three years of work experience beyond that five year course. Records of the licensing authority in Oklahoma have not shown the Petitioner as having taken a professional engineer's examination as contrasted with his examination for an Engineer-in-Training license. Further, Petitioner is without tangible evidence that he stood the principles and practices portion Part II, as part of a professional engineer's examination in Oklahoma. After graduation, Petitioner worked for Continental Oil Company, Poncaca City, Oklahoma from June, 1956 until October, 1957 in a position whose title was automotive engineer. In this employment he designed special equipment for different departments within that company. This included all terrain vehicles for seismograph work and heavy duty trucks to haul drilling rigs. It involved design of seismographs and a shaker that was intended to replace drilling a hole and shooting dynamite charges. From October, 1957 until February, 1958 Petitioner worked as a sales engineer for Parkersburg Refrigeration and Reel Company in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This work was involved with a pumping unit that had gear systems in it. The pump had to be designed economically. The pump had to be designed to withstand a certain amount of torque. If a system was too large for a well then it cost the customer money. If it was too small it would strip the gears. A piece of equipment also involved beams. It included a sucker rod strain that had to be sized so that it did not overly stretch as the pump lifted. There was a concern that the design be such that it would not achieve harmonic balance causing a bungee cord effect. This experience involved picking pump sizes or specific pieces of equipment and matching those with the client's or customer's needs. One had to be careful about the sucker rod size in that the rod was introduced two miles into the earth to lift oil. From January, 1959 until July, 1960 Petitioner worked at the Oklahoma City Air Defense Station in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in a position entitled mechanical engineer (general). This work involved designing a maintenance program for mechanical equipment in diesel electric generating plants. From August, 1960 until October, 1963 Petitioner held the position of employment as a mechanical engineer (diesel). This was in association with the headquarters of the Air Defense Command, Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado. In this assignment he worked in 138 different stations as opposed to 11 stations in the prior position he held. In addition to working to design maintenance programs, he also was involved in work on overhauls by designing a program for determining when overhauls were necessary on the diesel electric generators. Petitioner was also a trouble shooter. If there was trouble with a unit, others would send the Petitioner to the station and he would analyze the problem and recommend necessary corrective action. Petitioner prepared programs and told mechanics what to do in the way of maintenance. From November, 1963 until November, 1985 Petitioner was employed as a consulting engineer and general contractor for Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company in Yukon, Oklahoma. The engineering portion of this enterprise had to do with designs of varying kinds. As to things built by his company, this included buildings, building foundations, and building trusses. It also included electrical systems, plumbing systems and mechanical systems. Those latter items were required to be done by a professional engineer in Oklahoma during the period in question, in those instances involving public access whether into private or public buildings. During Petitioner's association with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company, approximately 50% of his time was spent as a consulting engineer and the other 50% as a general contractor. In the period November, 1985 until August, 1989, Petitioner was still associated with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company as a consulting engineer and contractor; however, he had moved to Port Mansfield, Texas. At this point Petitioner did some professional engineering work in Oklahoma even though he was residing in Texas. Petitioner indicated that he obviously did not do as much work as a professional engineer while residing in Texas. The engineering work that he did in Texas proper was not of a professional level. The work in Texas involved redesigning boats. From the period August, 1989 until April, 1991, Petitioner worked as a real estate salesman for Heritage Realty in Tallahassee, Florida. He has done some professional engineering work in Oklahoma while residing in Florida, but not as much as when he lived in Oklahoma. Dr. Robert Kersen who holds a baccalaureate degree, masters degree, and doctorate in civil engineering, testified concerning which activities constitute the practice of engineering. Among the positions which Dr. Kersen has held which would give him insight in commenting on engineering practice was that of Dean of the Engineering School at the University of Central Florida. He was dean for approximately 20 years. This gave him the occasion to evaluate individuals concerning their engineering backgrounds. In addition he served on the State Board of Engineers in Florida for about 6 years and was on the application committee which allowed him to review candidate files for licensure that came before the State Board of Engineers. In particular he has had the opportunity to investigate background experience of those candidates. Given his credentials, Dr. Kersen was qualified as an expert to state his opinion, to comment on the nature of activities that would constitute the practice of engineering. As established by Dr. Kersen, the prime function of an engineer is to devise the system, components, structure, machine, or whatever item, according to sound engineering principles and standards of practice. By contrast, contractors are responsible for building, constructing, and erecting structures according to the engineer's plan. Notwithstanding the distinction between the activities of engineers and contractors, it has been the custom and practice of the Board of Professional Engineers in Florida, to Dr. Kersen's knowledge, to accept contracting experience in lieu of engineering experience in satisfying engineering experience requirements for licensure. That experience in contracting is discounted by 50%. This concept is reasonable and is accepted. Applied to Petitioner's experience while working with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company in Yukon, Oklahoma in the period November, 1963 until November, 1985, Petitioner would be entitled to 11 years credit as an engineer and five and one-half years credit as a contractor, for a total of 16 1/2 years in that work cycle. This experience when added to the other positions which Petitioner held from June, 1956 until November, 1963 gives Petitioner approximately 24 years of continuing engineering experience. The period beyond November, 1985 until August, 1989 constituting approximately three and one-half years additional experience is unclear concerning which portion was associated with professional engineering, contracting and engineering practice not of a professional level. In any event, even should the Petitioner be credited with that latter period, the total amount of continuous work as an engineer from June, 1956 until August, 1989 would be slightly in excess of 27 1/2 years. Petitioner's explanation of the period of August, 1989 through April, 1991 did not clearly identify the portion of his time which was spent in engineering practice as opposed to what appears to be his principal employment as a real estate salesman and he is not credited for that period.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached it RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which denies the application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1992, 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 4th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-3635 The following discussion is given concerning the fact finding proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioners facts were presented together with his legal argument in such a manner as to not allow specific discussion concerning those proposed facts. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 14 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 19 does not change the impression of the work which Petitioner did which has been credited as engineering work. Paragraph 20 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. Stout No. 229 2775 Jewel Drive Tallahassee, FL 32310 and 916 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues presented are: (1) whether or not Respondent wrongfully eliminated materials from the Candidate/Petitioner during the April 19, 1990 engineering examination, and if so, (2) whether the Candidate/Petitioner received a failing grade because the materials were wrongfully eliminated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner (#100021) received a score of 69.0 on the Professional Engineer Fundamentals Examination given April 19, 1990. A minimum passing score was 70.0 on the examination which is written by National Council of Engineering Examiners and graded by Education Testing Service. (Transcript Pages 36 and 39) Prior to the April 1990 examination, the Board sent each candidate a letter, dated December 18, 1989 (Exhibit P-1) (Transcript Page 9 and 12), which said, "No review publications directed principally toward sample questions and their solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Page 31). The candidates were also provided with a "Candidate Information Booklet" dated January 1990 (Exhibit R-1, Transcript Page 77). The booklet states on page 14, "No books with contents directed toward sample questions or solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Pages 77 and 96). Petitioner, who also took the October 1989 examination had received notice at that examination that the Board of Engineers intended to change the procedure allowing reference materials in the examination. (Transcript Page 89 and Respondent's Exhibit 2.) The Board of Professional Engineers advised the examination supervisor and proctors that no engineering "review" materials would be allowed in the examination although engineering "reference" materials could be brought into and used for the examination. However the books which were excluded included books without "review" in the title, books with "reference" in the title, and books which contained problems and solutions. Before the examination began Deena Clark, an examination supervisor, read over a loud speaker system names of books that would not be permitted (Transcript Page 81). Practice examination and solution manuals were not allowed for use by engineering candidates (Transcript Pages 93 and 94). Schram's outlines and other materials were also excluded (Transcript Page 91). Also excluded was Lindeburg's 6th edition, "Engineering In Training Review Manual." (Transcript Pages 16 and 79). This decision was verified by the Board before the examination began (Transcript Page 81). After the examination had begun, Ms. Clark announced that the candidates could put certain copyrighted materials in a three-ring binder and use them which had been excluded earlier (Transcript Page 85). This was in response to candidates who needed economics tables for the examination However, no time was provided the candidate to prepare these references and only one minute was added to the examination time. (Transcript Page 85). Petitioner did not bring any economic tables to the examination site except those contained in books which were not allowed in the examination. (Transcript Page 19). Petitioner did not remove the economic tables and permitted references from the Lindeburg's review manual until lunch and these tables were not available to him on the morning examination. (Transcript Pages 22 and 88). Of the six engineering economics questions on the morning portion for the examination, the candidate correctly answered four. No data was provided on the nature of these questions. The Candidate correctly answered 53 questions in the morning (weighted x 1) and 23 questions in the afternoon (weighted x 2) for a total of 99 weighted required points. He answered eight questions correctly in the "addition" portion of the examination. The table for eight additional questions correct in the "Scoring Information Booklet" used in determining the candidates final grade shows the adjusted equated score was 126 and his scaled score was 69. (Page 21 of booklet). The value of each economics question converted to final scoring scale was enough that passage of one economics question would have resulted in passage of the examination. The exclusion of certain materials from the examination was arbitrary and capricious and was done by a few individuals without any stated objective standard published by the board. Further, the board knew before the examination which books were to be excluded and could have notified examinees of the exact items to be excluded. The Board's generally poor handling of this matter is exemplified in announcing after the examination had begun that items previously excluded could be used if placed in a ring binder but not allowing any time to prepare such materials. (Tx. pgs., 74-80, 84-86, and 91-97) The Petitioner would have used several tables which were excluded if the announcement had been made before the morning examination began with time to put the items in acceptable form. After notifications in October 1989, December 1989, and January 1990, Petition admitted that he did not call the Board of Professional Engineers to ask for guidance on books that would not be allowed on the April 1990 examination (Transcript Page 29). However, a final decision on books to be excluded was not made until approximately two weeks before the examination. The Petitioner did not show that the two questions which he missed on the Engineering Economics portion of the morning examination were missed for lack of the tables. The examination is a national examination and there is no evidence that the requirements and limits established by the Board in Florida were applicable nationwide. To alter the national instructions locally potentially adversely affects Florida results.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to take the examination without charge on one occasion. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. 1/ The general information provided to examinees by the State Board regarding the values of questions on the examination and scoring it misleading or inaccurate because neither the weighted required score nor the adjusted score was 48% of 80, 280, or any other number related to the scaled score of 70. The manner in which these values are associated with the scale score of 70 is contrary to the Board's explanation and is not self evident. This is a potential problem if the matter were formally challenged, and it appears the Board needs to reassess its procedures and instructions. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5728 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. The Respondent submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or reject for the reasons stated: Adopted. Issue not fact. - 4. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. 5. -12. Adopted. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as preliminary statement. Adopted. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan K. Garman Civil-Tech, Inc. 3573 Commercial Way Street B Spring Hill, FL 34606 William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rex Smith Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
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 The issue in this case is whether the challenged portions of Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined by Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Respondent The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of building and maintaining the state’s transportation system. Each year the Department lets out hundreds of road and bridge construction projects totaling over one billion dollars. The projects range from sidewalk improvements to major bridge construction. Accordingly, there is a wide range of expertise and qualifications necessary for the different kinds of projects let by the Department in Florida. Section 337.14(1), Florida Statutes, requires any person desiring to bid on any Department construction contract in excess of $250,000 to first be certified by the Department as qualified to perform the work to be let. Pursuant to Section 337.164, Florida Statutes, the Department qualifies contractors to preserve the integrity of the public contracting process, to ensure an open and competitive environment for the benefit of the taxpayers, and to ensure a quality project in terms of public works. Pursuant to Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, persons seeking to bid on contracts in excess of $250,000 must first file an application for a Certificate of Qualification with the Department. The statute specifically authorizes the Department to enact rules addressing the qualification of persons to bid on contracts in excess of $250,000, including requirements with respect to competency, responsibility, equipment, past record, experience, financial resources, and organizational personnel of the applicant. Gregory Xanders is the State Construction Engineer. His duties include setting policy and reviewing contractor responsibility and qualifications under Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code. In conjunction with reviewing a contractor’s qualifications, the State Construction Engineer’s Office receives input from other personnel, including contract managers in the field, the Department General Counsel’s Office, the Department Inspector General’s Office, and other cities and counties who may work with the contractor. The State Construction Engineer’s Office also reviews any intended decision to deny, suspend, or revoke a contractor’s Certificate of Qualification with the Assistant Secretary of the Department. When the State Construction Engineer’s Office makes a preliminary determination that a contractor’s Certificate of Qualification should be suspended, revoked, or denied, the contractor is notified and informed of its rights to an administrative hearing to contest the intended decision under Section 120.569, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner MBI is a company which engages in road building and asphalt paving. Since the early 1980s MBI has been qualified to bid on and awarded several Department projects. Approximately 80 percent of MBI's workload involves Department projects. Pursuant to Department rules, MBI annually submits an application to renew or obtain an updated Certificate of Qualification in order to continue bidding and performing Department projects. In 1997, MBI was denied qualification to bid on Department projects for approximately ten months. However, MBI was subsequently qualified by the Department during calendar year 1999. On or about March 31, 2000, MBI filed an Application for Qualification with the Department. By letter dated May 18, 2000, the Department gave MBI notice of its intent to deny MBI’s Application for Qualification, and stated that any subsequent application would not be considered for a period of two years. The Department’s letter advised MBI that the denial of the application constituted "a determination of non-responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract" for the same period. Specifically, the letter provided: Please be advised that pursuant to Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14- 22, Florida Administrative Code, it is the intent of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter Department) to deny Mitchell Brothers, Inc.’s (hereinafter Mitchell Brothers) Application for Qualification dated March 31, 2000. This denial shall preclude consideration of any subsequently submitted Application for Qualification for a period of two (2) years. Additionally, this denial shall constitute a determination of non- responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract and shall prohibit Mitchell Brothers from acting as a material supplier, contractor, or consultant on any Department contract during the period Mitchell Brothers is not qualified by the Department. The Department’s Notice of Intent denied MBI’s Application based upon a determination that MBI had demonstrated "a pattern of exorbitant and false, deceptive or fraudulent statements, certifications, or materials in claims for payment," and "a lack of management expertise and continuity." By Petition for Formal Hearing dated May 30, 2000, MBI challenged the Department’s Notice of Intent to Deny MBI’s Application for Qualification. MBI’s Petition for Formal Hearing was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 00-2431. On September 18, 2000, the Department served on MBI a Modified Notice of Intent to Deny MBI’s application. The Modified Notice gave additional grounds for the Department’s decision to deny MBI’s Application for Qualification. Among the additional grounds for denying MBI’s Application were the following: MBI submitted false, deceptive, fraudulent, erroneous or unreasonable statements, certifications, or materials in its claims for payment to the Department, the City of Tallahassee, the Leon County School Board, and other owners; MBI submitted claims or statements for services not performed or expenses not incurred; MBI failed to avoid, diminish or otherwise mitigate the effects of construction delays; and MBI failed to reasonably cooperate with the Department’s efforts to investigate the accuracy of MBI’s delay claims and statements. On October 13, 2000, MBI filed it’s Petition Seeking Administrative Determination that Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority (DOAH Case No. 00-4234RX). Specifically, in paragraph 11 of its Petition, MBI alleges that the Rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes specific provisions of the law implemented, and that the Rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. MBI later alleged that the Department had also exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority. A three-week final hearing was scheduled to commence in DOAH Case No. 00-2431 on October 26, 2000. Shortly prior to hearing, Petitioner filed a Motion to consolidate DOAH Case Nos. 99-2431 and 00-4234RX. The Department opposed the motion based on their counsel's inability to be adequately prepared for the 00-4234RX rule challenge proceeding. In lieu, the parties agreed to temporarily break from the 00-2431 hearing during the second week and commence the rule challenge. However, on the morning of October 26, 2000, MBI filed a Notice of its Withdrawal of its Petition for Formal Hearing in DOAH Case No. 00-2431. Consequently, DOAH Case No. 00-4234RX was scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2000. Based on MBI’s Notice of Withdrawal of its Petition, an Order Closing File was entered in DOAH Case No. 00-2431 on November 1, 2000. On November 2, 2000, the Department entered a Clerk’s Order of Dismissal of MBI’s Petition challenging the denial of its Application for Qualification. "Good Cause" Defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, provides: For reasons other than delinquency in progress, the department, for good cause, may determine any contractor not having a certificate of qualification nonresponsible for a specified period of time or may deny, suspend, or revoke any certificate of qualification. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, circumstances in which a contractor or the contractor’s official representative: Makes or submits to the department false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements or materials in any bid proposal to the department, any application for a certificate of qualification, any certification of payment pursuant to s. 337.11(10), or any administrative or judicial proceeding; Becomes insolvent or is the subject of a bankruptcy petition; Fails to comply with contract requirements, in terms of payment or performance record, or to timely furnish contract documents as required by the contract or by any state or federal statute or regulation; Wrongfully employs or otherwise provides compensation to any employee or officer of the department, or willfully offers an employee or officer of the department any pecuniary or other benefit with the intent to influence the employee or officer’s official action or judgment; Is an affiliate of a contractor who has been determined nonresponsible or whose certificate of qualification has been suspended or revoked and the affiliate is dependent upon such contractor for personnel, equipment, bonding capacity, or finances; Fails to register, pursuant to chapter 320, motor vehicles that he or she operates in this state. Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, or revoke an Application for Qualification based upon a determination of "good cause." "Good cause" is defined by six examples specified in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, but the statute further provides that "good cause includes, but is not limited to" the six circumstances specified in the statute. "Good Cause" Defined in the Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled: "Suspension, Revocation, or Denial of Qualification." Subsection (1) of this Rule provides in pertinent part: (1) The Department will, for good cause, as that term is defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, suspend, revoke, or deny any contractor’s qualification to bid. A suspension, revocation, or denial for good cause pursuant to this rule shall prohibit the contractor from bidding on any Department construction contract for which prequalification is required by Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, and shall constitute a determination of non- responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract and from acting as a material supplier, subcontractor, or consultant on any Department contract or project during the period of suspension, revocation, or denial. As provided in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, such good cause shall include, but shall not be limited to, the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (e) below. When a specific period of revocation, denial, or suspension is not specified by this rule, the period shall be based on the criteria of Rule 14-22.0141(4), F.A.C., as well as Department contractor certification activities. (a) The contractor’s Certificate of Qualification shall be denied or revoked for at least one year when it is determined by the Department that any of the following has occurred: One of the circumstances specified under Section 337.16(2)(a), (b) or (d), Florida Statutes, has occurred. Affiliated contractors submitted more than one proposal for the same work. In this event the Certificate of Qualification of all of the affiliated bidders will be revoked or denied. All bids of affiliated bidders will be rejected. The contractor made or submitted to the Department false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements, certifications, or materials in any claim for payment or any information required by any Department contract. The contractor defaulted on any Department contract or the contract surety took over any Department contract from the contractor. Rule 14-22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, or revoke a contractor’s qualification to bid based on a determination of "good cause" as that term is defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes. The term is defined by examples contained in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and in the Rule, but it is not exhaustive. In addition to the list of examples of "good cause" specified in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14- 22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, the Department consistently considers other criteria contained in Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, which relate to the qualifications of a contractor. Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, requires the Department to consider a contractor’s equipment, past record, experience, financial resources and organizational personnel. Other factors considered are contained in Rule 14-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, which addresses the rating of the applicant, work performance record, quality of work performed, history of payment, timeliness of completing projects, cooperative attitude, contract litigation, claims, defaults, integrity, and responsibility. Both Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, provide the industry with sufficient guidance as to the criteria for "good cause." Responsibility A contractor bidding on projects of less than $250,000 is presumed to be responsible unless one of the circumstances specified in Rule 14-22.0141, Florida Administrative Code, occurs, in which case the contractor may be deemed "non- responsible." In addition to being "qualified," a contractor seeking to bid on projects over $250,000 must also be deemed to be "responsible." By statute, a contractor must be "responsible" as a prerequisite to being "qualified." Section 337.14(3), Florida Statutes, provides: (3) Upon the receipt of an application for certification, the department shall examine it, verify its statements when necessary, and determine whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work. The Department must consider the responsibility of the contractor during the review of its Application for Qualification. If a contractor’s qualification has been denied, suspended, or revoked for "good cause," then the contractor is deemed to be non-responsible and not allowed to bid on any project. Under Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, the Department may determine the time period in which a contractor is deemed to be non-responsible. Period of Disqualification As to the period of disqualification, Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provide a framework of guidelines and, in some instances, detailed timeframes relating to specific circumstances. For example, Section 337.165(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes, specifically requires the Department to deny or revoke a contractor's certification for a period of 36 months when the Department determines that the contractor has been convicted of a contract crime. This statute provides a frame of reference for the Department in establishing the period of disqualification. Within the framework provided by Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, the Department considers a period of disqualification ranging from 0 to 36 months. Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, states that when a Certificate of Qualification is denied or revoked for any of the specified reasons in Rule 14-22.012(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the denial or revocation is "for at least one year." This revocation period only provides a lower limit. Rule 14-22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, further provides: "When a specific period of revocation, denial, or suspension is not specified by this rule, the period shall be based on the criteria of Rule 14-22.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Department contractor certification activities." Rule 14-22.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a contractor will be "ineligible to bid on Department contracts for a period of time based on the seriousness of the deficiency." Rule 14022.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides examples of factors affecting the seriousness of the deficiency. Under the Rule, the examples of factors affecting the seriousness of the deficiency include impacts on project schedule, cost, quality of work, unsafe conditions allowed to exist, complaints from the public, delay or interference with the bidding process, and the potential for repetition. It is not possible to codify in a rule the precise time period of disqualification for every single instance. Because the facts and circumstances supporting a determination of "good cause" vary, it is impracticable to compile an exhaustive list for each instance.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is qualified for certification of qualification for licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement, pursuant to section 471.015(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In 1982, Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in construction engineering from Florida International University. Petitioner does not have a doctorate in engineering. On June 24, 2009, the state of North Carolina issued Petitioner a license as a professional engineer. This is his only professional engineer license. Because Petitioner had over 20 years' progressive experience on engineering projects acceptable to the North Carolina State Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, he was eligible for a professional engineer license by, among other things, passing Part II of the National Council for Examiners of Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), which is also known as the Principals and Practices Examination. Due to his experience, North Carolina did not require Petitioner to pass Part I of the NCEES, which is also known as the Fundamentals Examination. By application dated August 27, 2009, Petitioner applied for Florida licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. Ultimately, Respondent declined to certify to the Florida Engineers Management Corporation the application for licensure by endorsement because Petitioner had not passed Part I of the NCEES. Except for not having passed Part I of the NCEES examination (or, if applicable, not having met one of the other two alternatives set forth in section 471.015(5)(a), as discussed in the Conclusions of Law), Petitioner otherwise meets the education and experience requirements set forth in section 471.013(1), Florida Statutes, for certification for licensure by endorsement.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification of qualification for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 11th day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Todd Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Kristine M. Johnson, Esquire 10620 Griffin Road, Suite 106-B Cooper City, Florida 33328 Carrie A. Flynn, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 John Rimes, Esquire Chief prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on the morning of April 15, 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 15, 2000, as part of his effort to obtain a license to practice as an engineer intern in the State of Florida, Petitioner sat for the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination (Examination). This was a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The Examination was divided into two sessions: a morning session (AM Part), which tested "lower division subjects" (that is, "the first 90 semester credit hours . . . of engineering course work for a typical bachelor engineering degree program"), and an afternoon session (PM Part), which tested "upper division subjects" (that is, "the remainder of the engineering course work"). Questions on the AM Part were worth one raw point each. Questions on the PM Part were worth two raw points each. The NCEES provided candidates taking the Examination with a Fundamentals of Engineering, Discipline Specific, Reference Handbook (Reference Handbook) that they were allowed to refer to during the Examination. The Reference Handbook, as noted in its Foreword, "contain[ed] only reference formulas and tables; no example problems [we]re included." Petitioner received a total raw score of 104 on the Examination (54 for the AM Part and 50 for the PM Part). According to the NCEES's Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 104 converted to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 (or 107-109 raw points) was needed. Accordingly, Petitioner fell three raw points short of receiving a passing score. Petitioner has formally requested that the grading of his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 of the AM Part be reviewed. He received no credit for any of these answers. Had these answers been deemed correct (and he received one raw point for each answer), he would have passed the Examination (with a converted score of 70). Question 34 of the AM Part was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that covered subject matter (integral calculus) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. There was only one correct answer to this question, and it was among the responses from which the candidates had to choose. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect because it represented a particular solution or expression, and not the "general expression" (representing all solutions) called for by the question. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Questions 65 and 75 of the AM Part, like Question 34, were clear and unambiguous multiple choice questions that covered subject areas (centroids and thermodynamics, respectively) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. Each of these questions, again like Question 34, had only one correct answer that was listed among the choices from which the candidates had to choose. To answer each question correctly, the candidates had to use a formula that was set forth in the Reference Handbook (on page 21 in the case of Question 65 and on page 46 in the case of Question 75). Petitioner selected neither the correct answer to Question 65, nor the correct answer to Question 75, and therefore was not entitled to any credit for his answers to these questions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the April 15, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2000.
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
The Issue The issue is whether Rules 21H-21.002(1) and 21H-21.004(1) are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Ronnie F. Taylor, of Post Office Box 697, Cedar Key, Florida, is employed by the engineering firm of Ingley, Campbell, Moses and Associates of Gainesville, Florida, which engages in mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering. Taylor has been with this engineering firm for four years and is currently a vice president in charge of production of electrical engineering documents. Prior to this employment, Taylor spent 14 years as an electrical engineer with the engineering firm of Reynolds, Smith and Hill of Jacksonville, Florida. When Taylor left Reynolds, Smith and Hill, he was the senior design engineer. Taylor served in the military as an electrician. Upon completing military service in 1967, Taylor entered Florida Junior College. He received an Associate of Science degree in Electrical Engineering Technology in 1970 from that institution. Following that degree, Taylor began employment with Reynolds, Smith and Hill, where his responsibilities included the design of electrical projects for commercial buildings, including writing specifications, making cost estimates and producing a finished product. Taylor has spent his entire career in electrical engineering and has no experience with other specialties of engineering. He has extensive experience in electrical engineering having designed and completed numerous large commercial projects. However, because Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer, a licensed professional engineer must oversee all projects during the course of design and completion and must sign and seal all completed work. Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer because he has failed to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) portion of the engineering examination. He has failed in fourteen attempts to pass the FE exam. Taylor did pass the Principles and Practices (P & P) portion of the exam in 1982. Licensure requirements specify that both sections must be passed prior to licensure. Taylor became qualified to take the engineering exam in 1977 pursuant to Section 471.21(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), which permitted an applicant to take the exam with "a specific record of 10 years or more of active practice in engineering work of a character indicating that the applicant is competent to be placed in responsible charge of such work." This so-called 10 year cycle permitted an applicant to qualify for the exam without the otherwise required 4- year college degree and 4 additional years of experience. In 1979, Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, was enacted, allowing persons in the final year of engineering school to take the FE exam to qualify as an engineer intern. This provision has been in effect since 1979. The FE exam, as required by Rule 21H-21.002(1), which is challenged here, includes questions on the subjects of mathematics, mathematical modeling of engineering systems, nucleonics and wave phenomena, chemistry, statistics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics/heat transfer, computer programming, electrical circuits, statics, structure of matter, engineering mechanics, electronics and electrical machinery. While Taylor scored highly on the subjects relating to electrical engineering, he had difficulty with other areas of the exam. The course work completed by Taylor in 1970 did not include some of these areas with which Taylor had difficulty. Taylor has had no course work in computer programming, thermodynamics, statistics, nucleonics and wave phenomena. The subjects tested in the FE exam are updated in order to test applicants on the most current information and knowledge of engineering fundamentals. Herbert A. Ingley is a licensed professional engineer and holds a Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering, a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Environmental-Mathematics. He taught full time on the faculty of the University of Florida in Mechanical Engineering for 11 years. In his opinion, it is more difficult for applicants to pass the FE exam the further they are from their formal education and, therefore, applicants in the 10 year cycle have more difficulty passing the exam. According to Ingley, the requirement that persons such as Taylor wait 10 years before taking the FE exam is not logical. However, Ingley also opined that it is important for a professional engineer to have a fundamental knowledge of engineering and that there is a need to test the fundamental basics of engineering for each person who is going to become a licensed professional engineer. George Edward Rabb is a licensed professional engineer, having been licensed in 1965. He was grandfathered and therefore only had to pass the P & P exam. The FE exam was waived based on specific portions of statute and rule which waived the FE exam for persons with fifteen years experience. The waiver was only available to persons qualifying prior to November, 1970. According to Rabb, an engineer needs to have a working knowledge of fundamentals and to understand the general concepts of engineering. Robert D. Kersten, who has been the Dean of the Department of Engineering at the University of Florida for 20 years, has a Bachelors degree in Mathematics and Chemistry, a Masters degree in Civil Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, Water Resource/Hydrologic Engineering. Dean Kersten has served in numerous capacities with both state and national professional associations involved in accreditation of engineers and served on the Board of Professional Engineers in Florida and on the National Council of Engineering Examiners. The FE exam is prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners and is designed to cover the fundamental areas essential to the basic practice of engineering. The FE exam tests both the common body of knowledge that is essential to practice in the profession and the ability to apply that knowledge. According to Dean Kersten the FE exam tests items which should be within an engineer's basic knowledge and which are necessary to communication between engineers in a design team approach to project design. Dean Kersten acknowledges that the FE exam is more difficult for applicants who lack a degree or who have been out of the academic area for a period of time, but opines that those factors do not excuse an applicant from mastering and retaining the basic fundamentals important to the practice. In fact, the FE exam is designed so that 70 percent of the applicants with-the 4- year college educational background pass the exam. Only 40 percent of the applicants in the 10 year cycle pass the exam.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 29, 1999, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2000.
