The Issue Whether Luis A. Gonzalez earned a passing grade on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14-15, 1988?
Findings Of Fact Luis A. Gonzalez took the Professional Engineer Examination administered by the Department of professional Regulation on April 14-15, 1988. By notice dated July 22, 1988, Mr. Gonzalez was informed by the Respondent's Office of Examination Services that he had failed the Professional Engineer Examination. Question 122 on the Principles & Practices of Engineering Examination, Form 8804, involving Civil/Sanitary/Structural engineering, provided the following: SITUATION: An old, large, retirement community apartment complex has reported sewer overflow and plumbing discharge problems. You are an engineer assigned to review the flow and sizing of the one main sanitary sewer exiting and carrying the total flow of the complex, with the objective of correcting the problem. Review with the manager, and inspection of the plans, reveal there are 490 residential units with an estimated continuing residence population of 1,475. Water bills are paid individually. REQUIREMENTS: NOTE: Use and-show equations for calculations. Do not use a nomograph or hydraulic slide rule. Citing your assumptions and sources, calculate the average, maximum, and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, from the total complex. You measure the main sewer from the project and examine the plans and find it is 10" round ID, VCP, with a slope of 0.0045. Inspection leads to an estimate of n 0/015 (fair) because of age. Calculate theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge. Calculate depth and velocity of flow for your estimated maximum flow rate, if you can conclude the sewer is not overloaded. Mr. Gonzalez was instructed to include assumptions and citations in support of his answer to Question 122. The citations included by Mr. Gonzalez in answering part (a) of Question 122, although questioned by the grader of Question 122, were adequate. Mr. Gonzalez failed to list assumptions which he should have taken into account in answering part (a) of Question 122, concerning inflow, infiltration or exfiltration. In answering part (a) of Question 122, Mr. Gonzalez determined "estimated flow." In calculating estimated flow, Mr. Gonzalez multiplied the population of the complex (1,475) times an estimated water use per person of 100 gallons per day. In support of Mr. Gonzalez's use of 100 gallons per person water use, Mr. Gonzalez cited the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, Fourth Edition, and the ASCE Manual on Engineering Practice No. 36. Mr. Gonzalez also provided other references at the formal hearing to support his use of 100 gallons per day. The use of 100 gallons a day per person in answering part (a) of Question 122 by Mr. Gonzalez would be correct only if the problem involved a residential community. The citations used by Mr. Gonzalez indicate that 100 gallons per day is generally acceptable for residential communities or "[i]n the absence of any better basis . . . ." Question 122, however, involves an apartment complex and not a residential community. The weight of the evidence presented at the formal hearing indicates that for an apartment complex an estimated water use of 60 to 80 gallons per day per person should be used. Even some of the references provided by Mr. Gonzalez at the formal hearing support this conclusion. For example, Petitioner's exhibit 5 indicates that a wastewater flow of 67 to 79 gallons per person per day should be used for "[m]ultiple-family dwellings (apartments)." Mr. Gonzalez's use of 100 gallons per day in answering part (a) of Question 122 was incorrect. Mr. Gonzalez failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of flow in answering Question 122. Although Mr. Gonzalez demonstrated an understanding of full flow, he failed to demonstrate an understanding of partial flow. Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (b) of Question 122 was adequate. Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (c) of Question 122 was incorrect. Mr. Gonzalez did not dispute this conclusion at the forma1 hearing. Mr. Gonzalez was awarded a score of 4 for his solution of Question 122. Question 122 was graded pursuant to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline (DPR Exhibit #4). This Outling provides that a grade of 4 is to be awarded under the following circumstances: UNQUALIFIED: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in more than one ASPECT of one CATEGORY. BU. Fails to demonstrate an understanding of flow and velocity calculations for pipes flowing full or partially full; or contains multiple errors; or one part is missing or wrong with other gross or multiple errors; or the record is deficient; or in combination. A grade of 5 was to awarded under circumstances similar to the circumstances for awarding a score of 4, except that a score of 5 is appropriate only if an "[a]pplicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in [only] one ASPECT of one CATEGORY." The Respondent properly concluded that Mr. Gonzalez is entitled to a score of 4 for his answer to Question 122 and not a score of 5. Mr. Gonzalez failed to "demonstrate an understanding of flow . . . calculations for pipes flowing . . . partially full . . . ." His answer also "contains multiple errors" and at least "one part is . . . wrong." Finally, Mr. Gonzalez's answer to Question 122 "failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in more than one ASPECT of one CATEGORY" as opposed to "[only] one ASPECT of one CATEGORY." [Emphasis added]. Question 123 of the Principles & Practice of Engineering Examination, Form 8804, involving Civil/Sanitary/Structural engineering, includes parts (a) through (j). Mr. Gonzalez questioned parts (b), (d) and (e) of Question 123. In pertinent part, Question 123 provides the following: SITUATION: In a detailed study of traffic flow on one lane of a 2-lane urban freeway, the following data were collected: Average Distance between the front bumper of successive vehicles 75 feet Space Mean Speed = 33 mph Time Mean Speed = 32 mph REQUIREMENTS: (b) Determine the traffic density. Assuming that the 30th highest hourly volume is to be used for design purposes on this highway, what is a reasonable estimate of the 30th highest hourly volume in one direction on this facility? Briefly justify any assumptions made. Determine the most widely accepted value of the capacity of a freeway lane operating under ideal conditions of uninterrupted flow. Mr. Gonzalez was instructed to include assumptions and citations in support of his answer to Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez answered part (b) of Question 123 by calculating a density of 70.40. The grader of Question 123 circled this answer and wrote "DECIMAL." The Respondent agreed at the formal hearing that the use of decimals by Mr. Gonzalez was insignificant. In answering part (d) of Question 123 Mr. Gonzalez failed to include adequate assumptions. Although the statements made by Mr. Gonzalez in answering part (d) of Question 123 are correct, his equation is wrong. Mr. Gonzalez did not offer adequate proof at the formal hearing that his response to part (d) of Question 123 was correct. In answering part (e) of Question 123 Mr. Gonzalez assumed a capacity of 2,000 cars per hour. The grader of Question 123 indicated that this capacity is an "obsolete value." The Solutions to be used in grading the Professional Engineer Examination and, in particular, Question 123, indicates the following: Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual or other similar sources, the capacity of a multi-lane freeway lane operating under ideal conditions is 2,000 vehicles per hour. ANSWER Although Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (e) of Question 123 is consistent with this solution, the capacity of a multi-lane freeway lane operating under ideal conditions, based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual is actually 2,800 vehicles per hour and not 2,000 vehicles per hour. The answer to part (e) of Question 123 provided in the Solutions used by graders of the Professional Engineer Examination and Mr. Gonzalez's answer are therefore incorrect. The Solutions provided to graders are to be used only to assist graders and are not binding on them. Although Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (e) of Question 123 is consistent with the Solutions provided, the answer is incorrect. Therefore, the grader properly took into account Mr. Gonzalez's incorrect solution to part (e) of Question 123. Even if Mr. Gonzalez is given credit for his response to part (e) of Question 123, his grade for Question 123 will not change. Mr. Gonzalez correctly answered parts (a)-(c) and (f)-(j) of Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez was awarded a score of 8 points for his answer to Question 123. Question 123 was graded pursuant to a Six Level Item Specific Scoring Plan (155P). The Plan provides that a grade of 8 is to be awarded under the following circumstances: CLEARLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied with at least one at a higher than minimum level. Correct approach but a solution with math errors or answers outside allowable tolerances for parts (d), (e), and (h) or An [sic] slightly incomplete solution. The next highest grade which can be awarded for Question 123 is 10 points, the maximum award possible for Question 123. Ten points are to be awarded under the following circumstances: HIGHLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied. -Presentation -may lack in completeness or equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. Results within allowable tolerance. Correct approach and correct solution within allowable tolerances for parts (d), (e), and (h) and correct interpretation of results. All parts complete. The Respondent properly concluded that Mr. Gonzalez is entitled to a score of 8 for his answer to Question 123 and not a score of 10. Mr. Gonzalez did not satisfy all categories and he failed to arrive at the "correct solution within allowable tolerances for parts (d), [and] (e) . . . " in answering Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez failed to prove that he should have been awarded a score of 10 for Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez failed to prove that he should be awarded an additional point on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14-15, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Engineers issue a final order concluding that Luis A. Gonzalez's grade on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14- 15, 1988, was a failing grade. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 6th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX Case Number 88-6056 Mr. Gonzalez has submitted a letter dated March 21, 1989, containing proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. Mr. Gonzalez's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Paragraphs 1-2, 6 Not proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 3 The first sentence is a statement of the issue concerning Question 122. The second and third sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation established water per day usage is for regulatory purposes and not necessarily consistent with the engineering principles to be used in answering questions on the Professional Engineer Examination. References which should have been used in answering Question 122 indicate that a water use rate of 67 to 79 gallons per day should have been used for apartments. The letter referred to was not accepted into evidence and can not form any basis for a finding of fact. Paragraph 4 The first and fifth sentences are accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21. The second and fourth sentences are not relevant to this proceeding. The third sentence is based upon a letter apparently received after the formal hearing. It cannot be taken into account in this proceeding. The sixth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The grader used the correct information and not "personal conviction." Although it is true that Mr. Gonzalez used the most recent data he was aware of concerning vehicles per hour, the fact remains that the value he used at the time of the examination was incorrect. Paragraph 5 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Gonzalez included two references with his letter of March 21, 1989, which were not offered at the formal hearing. Those references cannot be relied upon in this case and have played no part in making the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Luis A Gonzalez 7419 Sandy Bluff Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by the Board of Professional Engineers.
Findings Of Fact In October 1997, Jamal Jamilzadeh (Petitioner) took the Principles and Practice part of the Environmental Engineering Examination (Examination). The minimum score required to pass the Examination was The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had not successfully completed the Examination, having received a score of 68. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners, i. e., the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). A scoring plan is used for grading each question. Each person sitting for the Examination is referred to as a candidate. By letter dated April 8, 1998, Petitioner notified Respondent that he was challenging questions numbered 320 and 323 on the Examination. In his letter, Petitioner indicated the basis for the correctness of his answers to both questions. For question numbered 323, Petitioner included together with his letter a supporting statement, regarding the correctness of his answer, from a Certified Environmental Trainer (CET). At hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge to question numbered 320. Only question numbered 323 was now being challenged by Petitioner. For question numbered 323, the highest score achievable was 10. Petitioner received a score of 2. Petitioner's Examination was returned to the NCEES for review and rescoring. NCEES' rescorer used the same scoring plan that was used for the Examination. NCEES' rescorer had, for review and consideration, Petitioner's letter dated April 8, 1998, including the supporting statement of Petitioner's CET. NCEES' rescorer did not have access to and had no knowledge of Petitioner's original score for question numbered 323. NCEES' rescorer recommended that Petitioner receive no additional points for question numbered 323. Question numbered 323 contains three parts regarding an underground storage tank. The first part required a candidate to justify whether the underground storage tank was a confined space. NCEES' rescorer recommended that Petitioner receive full credit for this part. At hearing Petitioner's CET agreed that Petitioner should receive full credit for the first part. However, Respondent's expert disagreed and opined that Petitioner should not receive full credit because Petitioner provided only one of the three necessary requirements for a correct response. Petitioner correctly answered the first part.2 Petitioner should receive full credit for the first part. The second part required a candidate to list seven confined space program elements for initial entry and inspection of the underground storage tank. NCEES' rescorer found Petitioner's answer to be partially correct in that Petitioner failed to address three major procedural elements. At hearing, Petitioner's CET opined that Petitioner addressed five of the seven elements. However, Respondent's expert opined that, even though Petitioner addressed six elements, the elements addressed by Petitioner were different variations of two of the seven elements. Petitioner correctly addressed five of the seven elements.3 Petitioner should receive additional credit for part two. The third part required a candidate to specify the correct type of respiratory protection and to justify the answer. In reviewing this part, NCEES' rescorer also used the caveats or conditions specified in the supporting statement of Petitioner's CET, which was included with Petitioner's letter dated April 8, 1998. NCEES' rescorer found Petitioner's answer to be incorrect in that Petitioner failed to completely justify his answer. At hearing, Petitioner's CET opined that Petitioner's answer contained the concept, the intent, and the basis needed, which showed that Petitioner had the knowledge to answer the question presented, but that Petitioner's answer was not as detailed as it could or should have been. Respondent's expert opined that Petitioner failed to reference any monitoring with respect to the use of an air purifying respirator. Petitioner's CET agreed that monitoring was required but opined that monitoring was contained in Petitioner's answer. Petitioner failed to completely justify his answer in part three.4 Petitioner should receive no additional credit for part three. Petitioner's answers were not arbitrarily or capriciously graded. The grading process was not devoid of logic and reason, except for part two of question numbered 323.5 The scoring plan was properly used. The evidence presented was insufficient to warrant additional credit to Petitioner on question numbered 323. According to the scoring plan, Petitioner is entitled to 2 additional points, bringing his total score to 4 for question number 323. Petitioner's score on the Examination should be 70. Petitioner has obtained the minimum score required to pass the Examination.
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 finding Jamal Jamilzadeh eligible for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of April, 1999.
Findings Of Fact David F. Ramsey, Respondent, is a registered professional engineer holding registration No. 15307 and a registered land surveyor holding registration No. 2545 and at all times relevant hereto he was so registered. In April 1974 Respondent was President and qualifying professional engineer for Ramsey and Associates, Inc. , the engineering firm retained to prepare plans and specifications for a mobile home park known as Heritage Village. Approved financing for this project was near expiration date and the plans had not been approved by Indian River County officials. Before the plans for the sewage treatment plant and percolation pond associated therewith could he approved, a subsoil percolation test was required. On April 24, 1974, Respondent, in company with Larry Brown, General Manager of Brown Testing Laboratory, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ramsey and Associates, Inc., proceeded to the site of the Heritage Village project. There five test holes were dug to obtain subsoil conditions and prepare Subdivision Analysis Form (Exhibit l) for submission to Indian River County so the plans could be approved. No hole was dug deeper than 3.2 feet. Brown testified only a posthole digger was available for digging while Respondent recalled a hand auger also being available. Since Brown did the digging, his memory may be the better. During the procedure, Respondent took notes as the holes were excavated. Hardpan was found 2-1/2 to 3 feet below the surface, but the thickness of this hardpan was not ascertained. No water was put in the holes to ascertain the percolation rate for the subsoil. After the testing was completed, Respondent and Brown retired to the Holiday Inn for lunch where Respondent prepared page 4 of Exhibit 1, which is titled "Survey of Subsoil Conditions". Thereon for the 5 holes reported he included the percolation time for water in the test holes to drop one inch. These figures were estimated by Respondent based upon the type of soil observed in the holes. These figures were certified by Respondent to be representative of existing subsoil conditions at the time the test was made. It is this certification, which was submitted to Indian River County to get the plans approved, which forms the basis for the charge here under consideration. While Respondent was under investigation, and after being fully advised of his rights, he told an investigator that he had estimated the percolation rates because no water was available in the vicinity and submission of the subsoil report was urgent due to the financing deadline. In his defense, Respondent did not deny the percolation figures submitted on Exhibit 1 were estimates rather than the measurements they purported to be, but contended that the percolation rates and subsoil conditions shown on Exhibit 1 accurately represent conditions as they existed. Evidence to support this position was included in the tests conducted and reported in Exhibit 3. Standard procedure for taking percolation tests is to fill the hole with water and observe the time it takes the water level to drop three inches. It is also standard to dig a 6-foot deep hole. Here it was testified that hardpan prevented the hole depth from exceeding 3.2 feet. However, when a proper test was made shortly before the hearing, no difficulty was encountered getting to a depth of 6 feet using a hand auger. It is difficult to dig deeper than about 3 feet with a posthole digger.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his answer to Item 264 on the "Principles and Practice" part of the October 1993 Fire Protection Engineer Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a Fire Protection Engineer with Respondent, the state agency responsible for the licensure of Fire Protection Engineers in Florida. Petitioner was required to successfully complete an examination administered by the Respondent to become licensed as a Fire Protection Engineer. Petitioner sat for the licensing examination for Fire Protection Engineer administered by Respondent on October 29 and 30, 1993. A score of 70 is required to pass the "Principles and Practice" part of the licensure examination. Petitioner received a score of 66.30 on that part of the examination, which is a failing grade. Item 264 is a question for which a completely correct answer would have been awarded 10 points. Item 264 contained a diagram of a building and required the applicants to properly space heat or smoke detectors in the building and to justify the type of detection device used in a particular area. Petitioner was awarded a total of four points for his partially correct answer to Item 264. Petitioner would have passed the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination had he been awarded eight or more points for his answer to Item 264. At Petitioner's request, his response to Item 264 was regraded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), a consulting firm utilized by Respondent to develop and score licensure examinations. When Petitioner's response to the exam was initially scored, he received a score of 4 points. The regrading of the examination did not change that score. The report prepared by NCEES in conjunction with the regrading of Petitioner's answer to Item 264 stated the following 1/ in explaining the score awarded for Petitioner's answer: The examinee did not reference the NFPA 72 A, D, and E standards 2/ to answer the question. The lounge area requires heat detectors rather than smoke detectors. The smoke detectors would be sending false alarms and they would be disconnected to stop the alarms. The heat detectors would be more reliable. The examinee's solution did not show detectors in the corridor, locker room, and boiler room; all of which are required. The examinee's solution did not space the detectors according to NFPA 72. According to the NCEES approved scoring plan, the examinee's solution demonstrates less than minimum competence (score of 4 points). Pursuant to the scoring standards that have been adopted, a score of four represents a borderline unqualified response, which is explained as being: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable, but marginally so. Petitioner's answer to Item 264 failed to properly space detectors in his answer, failed to place detectors in the corridor, locker room, and boiler room, and incorrectly placed smoke detectors in the lounge area instead of heat detectors. Petitioner did not establish that the standards used to score the examination were arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. Petitioner did not establish that the application of those scoring standards to Petitioner's response to Item 264 was arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. Item 264 is a reliable and valid test item. Respondent established that Petitioner's response to Item 264 was fairly graded. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Item 264.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and which DENIES Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of his answer to Item 264 of the October 1993 Fire Protection Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of November 1994. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November 1994.
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
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, 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 30, 1998, 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 civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the civil 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 the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, 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 two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
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 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, 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 4th day of October, 1999.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to additional credit on the Professional Engineer Licensure Examination sufficient to receive a passing score?
Findings Of Fact By the stipulations recited in the preliminary statement, Petitioner needed only to demonstrate entitlement to one raw point in order to achieve an adjusted score of 70 (raw score of 48) so as to pass the Florida Professional Engineer Examination, created and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. The disputed part of the challenged question dealt with the equations necessary to calculate the amount of excess air applied to a combustion source that produced flue gas which contained specified concentrations of oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen. This presents a chemical engineering problem. Subpart one of the question provided four reaction equations. Petitioner selected answer "E". The Board claims another answer is the correct answer. Subpart one of the question required that the examinee select an answer showing the minimum number of equations needed to solve the problem. The answer designated by the Board contained two equations. The answer selected by Petitioner contained three equations. Petitioner, Petitioner's Professional Engineer expert in combustion, and the Board's Professional Engineer expert in chemical engineering all recognized that the problem could be appropriately solved either by the Orsat method or the Board's preferred method. However, Petitioner and his expert maintained that the Board's preferred method was less precise than the Orsat method because the Board's method was based on a presumption of complete oxygen combustion or theoretical oxygen. Petitioner based his analysis on the concept that the problem's acknowledgment of the presence of carbon monoxide indicated incomplete combustion and rendered the calculation of air indeterminate. The determination of excess air is covered in five standard reference books authorized for use on the examination. All these books recognize the Orsat equation for the calculation of excess air with respect to incomplete combustion. Petitioner utilized the Orsat equation. The Orsat formula is appropriate for solving the question, but it is derived from three equations. Petitioner and his expert contended that subpart one of the question was both a trick question and that the Board was requiring an incorrect answer because the examinee obtained a correct answer to subpart ten of the question by the Orsat approach and that when subpart ten is solved by the Board's preferred method, an incorrect answer was obtained. This testimony was not persuasive in light of the apparent agreement of Petitioner that the correct numerical answer would be closer to the Board's preferred numerical answer than to his own numerical answer. (TR110112). Nor does it necessarily follow that because the Board has conceded that Petitioner's answer to subpart ten was correct, that concession automatically renders his answer to subpart one correct. As explained more reasonably by Dr. Benjamin Keith Harrison, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Alabama, there were at least two correct ways to work the problem related to an analysis of incomplete combustion. The Orsat method uses carbon dioxide while the Board's preferred method uses a different chemical "tie" element to compare the theoretical oxygen required to the amount of oxygen actually in the system. The examinee is free to choose the method (i.e. tie element) he prefers. The Orsat formula, chosen by Petitioner, is entirely correct to do that, and the numerical answer the Petitioner got in subpart ten was within acceptable limits. However, the equations the Petitioner indicated in the other part of his answer were not those used to derive the Orsat formula. (TR8288) More succinctly, according to Dr. Harrison, the examinees were free to use either the Orsat formula or the Board's preferred formula to get subpart ten. Petitioner chose the Orsat formula and got a sufficiently correct answer for subpart ten. However, in subpart one, the other formula was asked for and Petitioner chose the wrong combination of three subsets. (TR89) Therefore, the greater weight of the credible evidence is that the Petitioner's answer is wrong on two points: first, that his response does not indicate a minimum set of equations and two, the three equations he selected were not the equations used in deriving the Orsat formula. Likewise, items one and ten of the question request different information/responses. Part ten requests a numerical response; part one requests the selection of the minimum number of equations necessary. Dr. Joseph Allen Klock, was accepted as an expert psychometrician. His statistics and the testimony of Dr. Harrison are credible and persuasive that the challenged question subpart one contained enough correct information to allow an examinee of minimal competency for licensure to selec tthe correct response and did not require knowledge which was beyond the scope of knowledge that could be expected from a candidate for licensure and that Question No. 417 as a whole was a fair test of the examinees' knowledge in the field of chemical engineering .
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying the Petitioner the one point at issue, and thus a passing grade on the April 1995 licensure examination. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 4889675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 9216847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William Leffler, III, Esquire 2000 North Meridian Road Apartment 312 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner herein, Kristina V. Tignor, took the Professional Engineers Examination for the State of Florida in Orlando on April 9 and 10, 1987. On July 22, 1987 she was advised by the Department of Professional Regulation's Office of Examination Services that she had failed the examination and was given a cummulative score of principles and practice of 69.1 percent. In her initial request for review and reconsideration, Petitioner objected to the points assigned to her solutions for three problems on the test, Numbers 425, 421, and 124. She contended that as a working engineer, certain criteria and assumptions must be made in approaching any engineering problem and, because the portion of the examination in issue is graded subjectively, her answered should be reconsidered and evaluated in that light. At the hearing, Petitioner contested only the grading of questions number 124 and 421, thereby accepting the grade given for question 425. With regard to Question 124, Ms. Tignor was awarded a score of 5 on her solution to this problem. The National Council of Engineering Examiners, in its Standard Scoring Plan Outline awards a "qualified" evaluation to scores from 10 down to 6 on this question. Scores from 5 to 0 are rated, "unqualified." A score of 5 indicates the applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one aspect of one category. Specifically, a rating of 5 in this question indicates that the examinee displayed an inadequate knowledge of weight/volume and concrete mix design. Her computations were displayed and an incomplete or erroneous solution was arrived at which gave a generally unrealistic result. Dr. Bruce A. Suprenant a civil engineer registered in four states and who teaches engineering at the University of South Florida, reviewed the question, the Petitioner's solution, the solution proposed by the examiners, and the grading scheme for this problem and found a number of illogical items in Petitioner's solution which, to him, were difficult to understand. He found several items which had no basis and which were possibly assumed. As to Part a of Petitioner's answer, a mixture of answers, (correction for moisture), which should have been in Part b, was located in Part a. As to density, the value used by Petitioner does not appear to be reasonable based on information provided in the problem. In Dr. Suprenant's opinion, there are at least three approaches to this problem. One is the water/cement ration method. Another is the weight method. The third is the absolute volume method. The water/cement ratio method would be difficult to apply here and neither Petitioner nor the examiners used it. As to the weight method, much the same problem exists. There is insufficient information provided to satisfactorily apply this method and while the examiners did not use it, Petitioner did. Petitioner's answer has a correction for moisture in the absolute volume method on the first page of the solution form at the top. The calculations by Petitioner are assumed information not known, (volume). In addition the correction for moisture in the second part of page one is included on the top of page two. It is not a part of the solution for subpart a and should not be there. Petitioner used 150 pounds per cubic foot for concrete density in her solution and this choice is not explained. Most publications utilized by engineers suggest using tables which were not provided to the examinees and it is, therefore, illogical to assume concrete density with no history for that assumption. Petitioner's answer of 5.41 cubic yards is only slightly off the suggested answer of 5.44 cubic yards but the fact that the answers are close does not justify her assumption. It might well not come so close in other cases. As to Part b of the question calling for the water/cement ratio, the corrections for moisture of fine and coarse aggregate on page one are acceptable. On the second page, a problem arises in when the correction for moisture should decrease. Petitioner got the right factor but applied it in the wrong manner. As a result, her answer to Part b of the examination question is wrong. Her answer was 4.40 as opposed to the correct answer of 4.34. This small degree of error can be attributed to the smallness of the amount in question. Were the amounts greater, the error would be greater. As to part c of the question, which deals with the cement factor in a yard of concrete, Petitioner's approach of dividing sacks of cubic yards is correct, but the cubic yard content was determined from Part a of the question, and Dr. Suprenant does not agree with how she got her solution. He therefore questions her carryover. The standard weight of a sack of concrete is 94 pounds. The individual grading Petitioner's response to Question 124 indicates she displayed inadequate knowledge and reached a solution which gives "unrealistic results." Dr. Suprenant agrees, contending that Petitioner's performance in regard to this question indicates inadequate knowledge of weight/volume relationship. She made inadequate assumptions in formulating her answer to the question. The fact that in this problem she arrived at a solution close to the correct one does not indicate that in other problems, she would achieve the same closeness using the same procedure. In his opinion, Petitioner showed some confusion regarding the basis for solving this problem and Dr. Suprenant believes that a grade of 5 as awarded by the examiner is correct. Petitioner questioned the fact that the various technical weights and volumes, such as 94 pounds in a sack of concrete, 8.33 pounds for a gallon of water, and 27 cubic feet in a cubic yard do not appear in the problem statement. This, in the opinion of Dr. Suprenant, compounds the gravity of Petitioner's deficiency. They are routine "givens" generally accepted in the practice by engineers and it would be difficult to assume that anyone familiar with the practice of engineering would use different "givens" for these specifics. Petitioner's employer, Mr. Bishop, himself a registered civil engineer in Florida since 1958, also reviewed Petitioner's solution to Question 124. He admits that on the first page of the answer sheet, Petitioner began solving the problem in an inappropriate way. Her calculations for moisture content were correct, however. On the second paged the correction factor was put in with the wrong sign and the aggregate was given the wrong factor. As a result, the answer was off. In his practice, however, the error committed by Petitioner in these regards is both minimal and acceptable. Her choice of 150 pounds per square foot is reasonable and produced a close result, and while it is true that if the project were of a greater scale, the error might be significant for a test question, as here, the error, in his opinion, is insignificant. He feels much the same way regarding the error in Part c of the examination question. While the factors used by petitioner were wrong, the process used was correct and the answer was not unreasonably incorrect for a test solution. In an examination situation, the calculations are not being done on a continuous basis, and he feels the grade of 5 awarded is unduly harsh since the error was numerical rather than operational. In his opinion, a more reasonable grade would have been a 6 or 7. Petitioner began her solution to this problem by using one similar to that used by the examiners in their publications. Shortly, however, she realized she would not get the answer she needed by doing so and abandoned her solution. She forgot to cross it out, however, and now recognizes she should have done so. She thereafter began to accomplish a series of new calculations on the first page of the answer sheet but did not necessarily utilize that data for her solution to Part a. She admits she made an error in calculation for moisture on the second page. In that calculation, she used the study manual and admits now that she should have cited the figure she used. As to Parts b and c, her use of some figures from Part a may have thrown her answer off somewhat. However, the 5 awarded her, indicating her solution was unrealistic, is, in her opinion unfair as she considers her answer to be quite realistic. The problem did not state what solution method to use and she feels her use of givens from recognized manuals such as the 150 pounds, should not be held against her. 94 pounds for a sack of cement used by the grader was also not given and her use of other accepted numbers should not, she contends, be held against her. Petitioner believes a grade of 7 would more accurately describe the quality of her answer. A 7 means that the examinee obtained an appropriate solution but chose a less than optimum approach. The solution is, therefore, awkward but nonetheless resonable. Ms. Tignor believes that while her approach may have been awkward, she achieved reasonable solution demonstrated by the fact that it was only slightly off the correct figure. Therefore, she believes a grade of 6 would be appropriate. This examination was an open book examination and Petitioner had her manuals with her. She could have easily determined the appropriate weights an "givens" from these manuals without choosing those she used. Ms. Tignor's conclusions that her results are realistic are contradicted by the Board's expert. Realistic results are, in engineering practice, not only the figure reached but also the method used in arriving at that figure. Here, though Petitioner's results are close, the approach utilized in arriving at her solution is unrealistic. Her approach showed an inadequate knowledge of weight/volume and calculations. Consequently it is found the grade is valid and was not arbitrarily assigned. According to the Standard Scoring Plan Outline, each score from 10 through 6 has an indispensable criteria that all categories must be satisfied. Since Ms. Tignor's examination response did not satisfy all categories, the best she can be given is a 5 and that award appears to be justified by the evidence presented. Question 421 was a four part drainage problem. Petitioner used as a part of her solution calculations based on a 100 year storm and this was determined by the examiners to be inappropriate. Ms. Tignor was awarded a grade of 8 and contends she was not given appropriate credit. She relates that even Mr. Smith, the Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers, advised her she may not have been given full credit for her answer. She was given full credit for Part a but lost two points for part c which included a calculation error to which Petitioner admits. She contends however, it was so minor, only one point should have been deducted. Were Petitioner to receive an additional one point on this question, she would pass the examination which she failed by only one point. However, this issue must be resolved on the basis of lawfully admitted evidence and Mr. Smith's comment, being unsupported hearsay evidence, cannot itself sustain the rasing of the grade. The Standard Scoring Plan Outline for this question reflects that to receive an 8, the examinee must demonstrate that all categories are satisfied, that errors are attributable to misread tables or calculating devices, and that errors would be corrected by routine checking. The results must be reasonable if not correct. For a 9, the examinee must demonstrate that all categories are satisfied; that a correct solution is arrived at but the examinee has been excessively conservative in the choice of working values; and that examinee's presentation is lacking in completeness or equations diagrams or orderly steps in solution, etc. Subqualifications for a 9 indicates that the answer is correct but that the organization of the solution is not logical. One error in calculation in any of the Parts from a to d, which does not affect the other parts of the solution, is acceptable. Mr. Kenneth Weldon, the Assistant State Drainage Engineer for the Department of Transportation, an expert in the area of drainage to which this problem relates, reviewed the question and the Petitioner's answer thereto and would award a grade of 8 to her answer. He found various numerical mathematical errors which led to the wrong solution. In addition, Petitioner made various assumptions that, though supposedly supported, were, he felt, in error through her misinterpretation. In general, none of the actual solutions she arrived at were correct. Specifically, that portion of the problem to determine the cross sectional area of the waterway for establishing normal depth flow was done incorrectly. Because the Petitioner used incorrect equations throughout the problem, the depth flow computed is high. Petitioner did no analysis to determine whether or not any of the several situations relating to flow control were pertinent. Mr. Weldon initially felt Petitioner's answer to the question merited a grade of 6. This means that the examinee knew all the proper steps but failed to interpret some of the criteria properly. He could not award her a grade of 9 which would indicate all categories were satisfied and the solution was correct, if conservative. Petitioner's solutions were incorrect. He subsequently changed his award to an 8, however, on the basis that the Petitioner's errors were attributable to a misread table or calculating device and would be corrected by routine checking. The result was reasonable, though not correct. Mr. Weldon did not like this question even though he believed it appropriate for a one-hour exam. As written, it involves establishing and making judgements beyond what someone minimally competent would be expected to do. It requires materials that are beyond what are normally available to someone taking the exam. However, Petitioner failed to make proper provision to protect herself in a case where the question is inappropriate or incomplete. If she felt something was wrong with the question, she should have clearly stated the assumption she was making to solve the problem. This was her responsibility and she failed to do so. In Mr. Weldon's opinion, Petitioner's answer might merit a grade slightly higher but not significantly higher. His reasoning is that Petitioner misinterpreted the criteria she stated for writing the problem. Her comment that the Department of Transportation uses 100 year storm criteria was incorrect even though that statement is made in outdated Department of Transportation publications. The basis for her answer is not well established or correct, or based on engineering calculations or judgement, and at best he could award no more than an 8.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 124 and 421, respectively, of the Civil Engineering Examination administered to her in April, 1987. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1988, at 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 10th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5110 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner None For the Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated except for the characterization of several assumptions as guesses. No evidence exists to support such a characterization even though they are incorrect. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristina V. Tignor, pro se 2160 North Oval Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director DPR, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact By Application executed July 1, 1992, Petitioner requested licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement. The application showed that Petitioner has been licensed or registered as a professional engineer for 25 years, so this is not an issue. The sole issue in the case is whether Petitioner has 30 years' continuous professional experience as a professional engineer. The application shows continues employment from June, 1960, through "present." In fact, the last job listed on the application ended on December 31, 1992. Respondent has already given Petitioner full credit for continuous professional experience from June, 1960, through April, 1962; and January, 1965, through February, 1987. The periods for which Petitioner received 50% credit are April, 1962, through January, 1965; and October, 1988, through December, 1992. For one period, Petitioner received no credit: March, 1987, through October, 1988. The time for which the Board has already given Petitioner credit totals 329 months. Petitioner requires credit for another 31 months in order to qualify for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. Petitioner received half credit for his work from May, 1989, through December, 1992, for SuperAmerica. He received half credit because his application disclosed that he merely supervised construction of convenience stores during these 44 months. However, only 40% of Petitioner's time was spent supervising construction. The remaining 60% was spent doing design and design coordination. This latter work is entitled to full credit because it involved relatively complex engineering work in connection with the design and layout of underground fuel storage tanks, monitoring systems, and recovery systems. By dividing Petitioner's work during the above-described 44-month period between the construction-supervision work and the design work, Petitioner worked 17.5 months on construction supervision and 26.5 months on design. Reducing the construction-supervision work by half, Petitioner is entitled to a total of 35.25 months of credit for the SuperAmerica work. Rounded down to 35 months, this gives Petitioner an additional 13 months than what the Board gave him, for a new total of 342 months. The remaining two periods for which Petitioner received only half credit involve 41 months when he taught civil engineering from April, 1962, through January, 1965, and October, 1988, through May, 1989. He received half credit because the nature of the material taught did not warrant full credit. However, during these periods, Petitioner spent about half of his time doing outside consulting work on various engineering jobs. The nature of the work was of a complexity comparable to that typically performed by a professional engineer in the course of his or her employment. The credit should be adjusted for the above-described 41-month period. Half of this time was spent on teaching, for which half credit is appropriate; thus, Petitioner earns 10.25 months for this work. The other half is entitled to full credit, so Petitioner earns 20.5 months for this work. The resulting total of 30.75 months, which is rounded off to 31 months, is 11 months more than the credit given him by the Board. The extra 11 months give Petitioner 353 months. Petitioner did not contend at the hearing that he was entitled to any credit for the period from October, 1988, through May, 1989. During this time, he was employed as a real estate broker and appraiser. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner lacks the requisite 360 months of professional experience. Even if the recommended adjustments had resulted in a recalculation of 360 months, there has been a clear break in professional employment from March, 1987, through October, 1988, during which time Petitioner's employment as a real estate broker and appraiser had nothing to do with professional engineering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. ENTERED on May 7, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on May 7, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayo Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 George G. Briggs 26171 Hickory Blvd. Bonita Springs, FL 33923 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
