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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer. Petitioner took the licensure examination in October, 1992, and received an overall score of 68.10. The minimum passing score for the exam was 70. The examination used by the Department is a nationally recognized test administered and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The scoring plan utilized by NCEES in this case provided, in pertinent part, that the score of 4 would be given where the applicant's response showed more than rudimentary knowledge but was insufficient to demonstrate competence. Petitioner received the score of 4 on problem #120 and felt his answer should have received a higher grade. To receive a score of 6 on problem #120, Petitioner's solution would have shown minimum competence by indicating the required volume of solids taken as the required volume of fill with all other analysis and computations being correct. According to the scoring plan, only "modest" errors in cost analysis or volume analysis computations are permitted to receive a grade of 6. Petitioner admitted that his calculation of volume on problem #120 was incorrect, but felt that since the error was only 10-15 percent, such error was reasonable given that he had correctly analyzed the majority of the problem. Petitioner's calculations for problem #120 were approximately 5900 cubic yards from the correct answer. Since Petitioner's volume calculations were incorrect, no credit was given for the cost analysis. Petitioner's error was not a "modest" miscalculation as set forth by the scoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the professional engineer examination administered in October, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2652 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraph a) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph b) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph c) is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph d) is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ali Khalilahmadi 12755 S.W. 60 Lane Miami, Florida 33183 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Questions 132 and 294 of the Principles & Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 23, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (the NCEES).
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1999, Solorzono sat for the Principles and Practice Engineering Examination in electrical engineering. This national examination is developed, controlled, and administered by the NCEES. The examination candidates receive raw scores, which result in a converted score for the final examination score. A minimum converted score of 70 is required to pass the examination. A raw score of 48 equates to a converted score of 70. Solorzano received a raw score of 45, resulting in a converted score of 67. If a candidate is not satisfied with his examination score, he may request the NCEES to review and rescore his examination answers. Solorzano formally requested the NCEES to rescore his examination. Upon rescoring, the NCEES determined that Solozano's raw score should be decreased to 43. The examination questions at issue in this proceeding are Questions 132 and 294. Solorzano received a raw score of 4 on Question 132 and a raw score of 4 on Question 294. When the NCEES rescored the examination, it did not award any additional points for Question 132 and deducted two points for Question 294. The NCEES develops an item-specific scoring plan (ISSP) for each examination question. Question 132 was scored by the NCEES according to the ISSP for that question. Question 132 contains three subparts, which require the examinee to address five discrete requirements: The problem solution as a three-phase problem, (2) The total MW, MVAR, and MVA of the load without the capacitor bank, (3) The size of the capacitor bank in kVAR to make the power factor equal to 0.9 lagging, (4) The complex power diagrams with and without the capacitor bank (MW same for both diagrams and correct phasor directions for both diagrams), (5) The MVA load with the capacitor bank connected. Solozano correctly identified the problem as a three- phase power problem and satisfied the first requirement. Solozano incorrectly calculated the MW, MVAR, and MVA, the real power, the imaginary power, and complex power for the load on the transformer without the capacitor bank. He failed to apply the correct concepts for "Y" transformer as given in the problem statement and based his solution on the concepts for "Delta" transformer. Solorzano failed to satisfy the second requirement. Even though Solorzano's calculations carried through his error from the second requirement, he showed understanding of correcting the power factor and performed a correct analysis to size the capacitor bank. Solorzano satisfied the third requirement. Solorzano made a significant conceptual error by showing an incorrect vector direction for the calculated Q value. He showed a negative polarity for the Q component when it should have been positive. Solorzano failed to satisfy the fourth requirement. In calculating the real complex power load on the transformer, with the capacitor bank connected, Solorzano used an incorrect concept, simply subtracting the load with the capacitor bank from the transformer's rating. He failed to satisfy the fifth requirement. Having satisfied only two of the five requirements for Question 132, Solorzano is entitled to a raw score of 4 for Question 132. Question 294 requires the examinee to address the following five requirements: Correct truth table for 0-9 with at most one error. Correct truth table for 10-15. Map or table showing correct values for w,0,1 entries. Correct assignment for w,0,1 entries to circuit with at most 1 error and no x,y,z entries. Correct polarity for truth table and circuit for w,0,1 (requires correct circuit values). Solorzano constructed a truth table for 0-9 with one mistake for polarity. He fulfilled the first requirement. Solorzano failed to complete the truth table for 10-15, arguing that the 10-15 segments were not used; therefore, it was not necessary to construct a truth table. The second requirement calls for the construction of a truth table for 10-15. It is necessary for a complete truth table to ensure that the output for segment E is not affected by an input beyond 9. He failed to meet the second requirement. Solorzano made a conceptual error by reversing the most significant bit and least significant bit, resulting in his failure to map a table showing correct values for judging zero and one. He failed to satisfy the third requirement. In his development of the fourth requirement, Solorzano carried through an earlier error. However, he correctly utilized the incorrect information, satisfying the fourth requirement. Requirement five called for the correct circuit values. Because Solorzano had used the incorrect polarity throughout his solution, he failed to meet the fifth requirement. Solorzano satisfied two of the five requirements for Question 294; thus, he is entitled to a raw score of 45. Questions 132 and 294, with their problem statements, provide all the necessary information necessary for an examinee to solve the problems. The questions are properly designed to test an examinee's competence in electrical engineering. Solorzano is entitled to a raw score of 45, equating to a converted score of 67.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Solorzano is entitled to a converted score of 67 on the electrical engineering examination given on April 23, 1999, and has failed the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Alejandro Solorzano 6675 Southwest 103 Court Miami, Florida 33173 William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for the Principles and Practice Examination has met the requirements set forth in Subsection 471.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.002(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 27, 2006, Petitioner filed an application (Application) with the Board seeking to take the Principles and Practice Examination for professional engineers. Petitioner is not licensed in any other state as a professional engineer. Petitioner is a resident of Florida, who is of good moral character, and completed his bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Ohio State University in December 1999. On August 5, 2006, Petitioner was awarded the degree of Master's of Science in Electrical Engineering from UCF. Petitioner is seeking to take the Florida Professional Engineering Examination in the area of electrical engineering. Section 7 of the Application for the Licensure by Examination directs the Applicant to do the following: List, in order, all employment experience. A minimum of four years experience must be evidenced at time of submitting your application. All engineering experience after graduation or prior to graduation shall be verified by professional or practicing engineers. Non- engineering experience or periods of unemployment shall be listed, but is not required to be verified. List employment beginning with earliest experience. Refer to attached copy of Rule 61G15-20.002. Column # 1 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to identify the Experience Number. Column # 2 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Dates of Employment, Month, Day, and Year. Column # 3 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Title of Position, Names and complete address of the firm and immediate supervisor. Column # 4 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Total Time in # of Months in Professional (Engineering Related) and Non-Professional (Non-Engineering Related) work. Column # 5 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to provide the following: Details pertaining to nature of work. Distinguish clearly between professional and non- professional duties and responsibilities. For each employment, describe explicitly, but concisely, the work you did and one engineering decision you were required to make. Attach exhibits as necessary. Refer to definitions in Section 471.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15, Florida Administrative Code, when defining work, see attached copy of rule. All experience, whether or not engineering, shall be accounted for on this application. (Emphasis in Original) Petitioner listed four separate professional experiences under Section 7. From August 1, 1995, to March 1, 2000, Petitioner served as a research assistant in the Electroscience Laboratory at the Ohio State University, while studying for his degree in electrical engineering. Petitioner assisted Ph.D. researchers to investigate electrical phenomena built electrical research devices, in a laboratory setting. From March 1, 2000, to March 1, 2001, Petitioner was employed as an electrical engineer for Weldon Technologies in Columbus, Ohio, where he worked on design, construction and manufacture of electrical systems for integration onto mobile devices. Petitioner worked on designs for digital systems, multiplying systems, vehicle systems, mobile vehicle response systems, emergency vehicles, and airplane/aerospace powered supply designs. From March 1, 2001, to December 1, 2001, Petitioner was employed as an electrical engineer for National Technical Systems in Foxborough, Massachusetts, where he worked to design, construct and perform electrical testing for domestic and international certification requirements and compliance verification. From December 1, 2001, to the present, Petitioner has been employed as an electrical engineer for the Harris Corporation in Palm Bay, Florida, where he works to design and analyze electrical systems for performance and qualification verification on aircraft, mobile vehicles, and space communication systems. Although staff had recommended that Petitioner's application be approved, Petitioner understood that the Board had to hear and approve the application. Petitioner completed the application form himself and felt that he had fulfilled all of the requirements set forth in the Application, including those contained in Column 5 of Section 7. Although Petitioner testified as to the details of the nature of the work he did at each of his employments after graduation, Petitioner failed to describe explicitly the work he did as required in Section 7, Column 5. Petitioner was required to describe explicitly, but concisely, one engineering decision he was required to make during the course of his employment. Petitioner failed to do so on his application or at the formal hearing. Petitioner has failed to show that he has met the requirements, set for in the Florida Statutes and in the Florida Administrative Code Rules, that he is entitled to sit for the Principles and Practice Examination for Professional Engineers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying the application of Petitioner, Larry Freeman, for application for the Principles and Practice Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 23rd day of February, 2007.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to one additional point on the October 1996 Professional Civil Engineer Examination so as to achieve a passing score for licensure in Florida?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Civil Engineer Examination given in October 1996. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated February 17, 1997, that she had earned a score of 69.00 on the Civil Engineer Examination. The minimum passing score for the Civil Engineer Examination is 70.00. Petitioner timely requested formal hearing and challenged only Question 120, for which she received no points. Petitioner is trained as a materials engineer. Question 120 is a soils and foundation problem outside her concentrated area of study. It is an open book examination question. Petitioner selected the correct equation from the applicable manual, but acknowledged that she solved the variables of that equation incorrectly. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) produced, distributed, and was responsible for grading the examinations. Petitioner contended that the examiner who graded her answer sheet applied different criteria than the examination criteria published by the NCEES. Petitioner further contended that since one criterion her grader actually used was merely to "write the correct equation," she should be awarded at least one point on that basis. However, a comparison of the actual grader's handwritten "summary" on Petitioner's Solution Pamphlet (Respondent's Exhibit 3) and the NCEES's Solutions and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) does not bear out Petitioner's theory. It is clear that out of five possible parts of the question, which five parts total two points' credit each, merely selecting the correct equation from an open text would not amount to two points, or even one point, credit. I accept as more competent, credible and persuasive the testimony of Eugene N. Beauchamps, the current Chairman of the NCEES Examination Policy Committee and a Florida licensed Professional Engineer, that the grader's "summary" describes what he actually reviewed in Petitioner's written solution to Question 120 rather than establishing one or more different grading criteria. In order to receive a score of two on Question 120, the candidate was required to demonstrate any one of five requirements listed in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan for "2-Rudimentary Knowledge." The first requirement in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) for receiving a score of two points is, "Determines effective overburden stress at mid- depth of clay layer." The remaining four NCEES scoring criteria required that the examinee: Computes the change in effective stress at mid- depth of the clay layer due to placement of the fill. Computes the primary consolidation settlement, based on a change in effective stress, due to the fill surcharge. Evaluates the Average Degree of Consolidation and the Time Factor. Determines the waiting period after fill placement recognizing the existence of double-drained conditions. In order to gain two more points (total 4 points) so as to demonstrate "More Than Rudimentary Knowledge But Insufficient to Demonstrate Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have to have met two of the five bulleted criteria. For two more points (total 6 points) for "Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have had to score three bullets. For two more points (total 8 points) for "More than Minimum But Less Than Exceptional Competence," Petitioner would have had to score four bullets. Finally, to attain "Exceptional Competence" for 10 total points, Petitioner would have had to score all five bullets. In the first correct equation for answering Question 120, "p sub zero" (p naught) equals the present effective overburden pressure, which represents what clay was present before anything was put on top of the clay layer. "P" equals the total pressure acting at mid-height of the consolidating clay layer or the pressure of the dirt and the water in the dirt. "H" equals the thickness of the consolidating clay layer. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, "determining the effective overburden stress at mid-depth of clay layer," indicated p sub zero (p naught) as the "present effective overburden pressure," but it incorrectly calculated p sub zero equaling 125 pounds multiplied by 13 feet. This is incorrect because the effective overburden pressure would not include 13 feet of fill. The 13 feet of fill is not part of p sub zero, the present effective overburden pressure. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, also multiplied water, represented by 62.4, by 12, which is incorrect. She should have used a multiplier of 10 to receive credit for this problem. The grader indicated the correct equation was used incorrectly by Petitioner because of the two foregoing incorrect calculations. The equation, as Petitioner stated it, was correct and her multiplication was correct. Her solution identified P sub zero as present effective overburden pressure but present effective overburden pressure would not include the fill. Petitioner had the correct equation for the present effective overburden pressure and her mathematics were correct. However, she did not use the consolidation equation correctly, not obtaining the correct percentage of primary consolidation. As stated, the problem did not consider the fill as part of the present effective overburden pressure. Her solution also contained the correctly written time rate of settlement equation but failed to use it, and no waiting period was determined. The practical result of Petitioner's error could range from a cracked building to a collapsed building, depending upon the degree of error to site and materials.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and affirming her score as one point below passing. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Wilson 3581 Jose Terrace Jacksonville, Florida 32217 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a registered electrical contractor doing business as Howard Hall Electric. On October 16, 1979, Petitioner filed his application to become a certified electrical contractor. Prior to filing his application, Petitioner knew the next examination for such certification was scheduled to be given on November 2, 1979. At its meeting on October 18 and 19, 1979, the board approved Petitioner's application to sit for the Electrical Contractors' Certification Examination. By letter dated October 24, 1979, the Board advised Petitioner of the approval and provided Petitioner with information concerning the November 2, 1979, examination. The information provided included a listing of those areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination, and specifically set forth that the examination would include problems relating to accounting. Petitioner was provided by the Board a reference book list of those books permitted to be utilized during the "open-book" examination. The list did not include a reference book for accounting. Petitioner took the examination on November 2, 1979. On December 3, 1979, the Board directed a letter to the Petitioner advising him that he had failed the examination, having achieved a score of 67. The rules of the Board require that a score of 70 be attained in order to pass the examination. Of the candidates taking the examination on November 2, 1979, 20 persons of the 26 sitting for the examination were successful. Further, 19 of the 24 persons taking the accounting portion of the examination were successful. Petitioner requested a review of his examination, and such review was afforded to him by the Board. Additionally, an analysis of the examination itself was performed by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The Board, which had drafted the examination, reviewed the examination and Petitioner's answers to the questions thereon and determined that the examination was fair and properly graded as to the Petitioner. The Office of Examination Services performed an item analyzation as to the number of candidates responding correctly and incorrectly as to each question on the examination. Although the Office of Examination Services determined that several questions on the examination could have misled some candidates, most candidates responded correctly, and most candidates successfully passed the examination. Although one of the books on the reference list provided by the Board was out of print and unavailable, the examination contained no questions dealing with that subject matter In performing its analysis of the examination, the Office of Examination Services contacted Professor William Hillison of Florida State University to obtain his opinion of the questions in the accounting section of the examination. Dr. Hillison felt that most of the questions in the accounting section were capable of being answered correctly by Florida State University students in their sophomore year in the introductory accounting courses offered by that school. Although Professor Hillison believed that several of the questions in the accounting section were problematic as to the terminology utilized, no testimony was presented that his students would be unable to answer the questions or that the questions were beyond a level of expertise expected to be possessed by a businessman having a general knowledge of management, finance, accounting, and any other functional areas of business.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor be denied. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Lehrman, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia R. Gleason, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Legal Section Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
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
