The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded additional credit for his answer to question number 290, and thereby be given a passing grade on the Professional Engineer examination administered on October 25, 1996, in Orlando.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of professional engineers in Florida. With the cooperation and assistance of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the Board conducts periodic examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for certification as professional engineers in this state. Such an examination was conducted in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 1996. Petitioner was a candidate at that examination. A minimum score for passing was 70. Petitioner received an overall score of 69. One of the questions posed to the candidates at that examination was question number 290, dealing with the design of a control system, which required the candidate to determine values for two parameters in such a fashion that the closed loop specifications stated as, "with K =20 the unit step response be a damped oscillation with a 10% overshoot and with a damped natural frequency of 15 rad/s" were met. In the answer to this question, the engineer has to arrive at parameters to give the desired step response within the stated percentages. According to Dr. Antonio Arroyo, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida and an expert in electrical engineering, this subject matter is taught in a standard undergraduate controls course which is required in engineering schools nation-wide. The question in issue is a classic controls problem. The candidate is to reduce the diagram displayed in the examination question and give a closed loop description. Given that, the solution proceeds by taking the percentage of error and using it to back- track and arrive at the requested parameters, step by step. The examination is an open book examination. Because of the many formulae used in engineering, the candidate is permitted to use printed resources to assist in the solving of the problems. This formula involved in this problem is standard. Only the parameters cited in the test problem are different. In his answer to the question Petitioner cited to the page in his reference material where the solution is to be found, and he used the appropriate formula. In doing so, he could take the numbers presented in the problem and apply them to the standard problem solution contained in the reference book he had with him. It is a "plug and chug" situation wherein the candidate inserts the problem numbers into the given formula and makes the calculations. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, however, the candidate must decide how to use the information given. In this case, the problem involved a damped frequency of 15 hz and the candidate was required to calculate an undamped frequency. The Petitioner did not show that calculation in his solution, and it appears to Dr. Arroyo he missed the fact of the difference between the two frequencies. In Petitioner's solution, he listed what he saw as the data given, and though at no place did the problem show "Omega d", Petitioner put down "Omega d" but used "Omega n". In the expert opinion of Dr. Arroyo, an engineer should, at least, check his calculations. Examiners will give credit to a candidate if the candidate shows the appropriate knowledge of the concepts involved in the problem. In the instant case, Petitioner's answer to question 290 far exceeded the allowable 10% overshoot. His answer for "a" was 0.895, whereas the correct answer was 1.099. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference was .110, Petitioner’s overshoot was .204. His answer for "b" was 11.25, whereas the correct answer was 17.3. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference here was 1.73, Petitioner’s overshoot was 6.05. To Dr. Arroyo, this shows a concept error rather than a calculation error In substance, Petitioner utilized the correct formulae, but used incorrect data, and the use of the wrong data is sufficient to indicate his ignorance of the appropriate concepts. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, who did not see the problem utilized in the examination and relied on information provided by Petitioner, concluded that Petitioner’s margin of error was within the 10% limitation. Here, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Dr. Garrett, Petitioner's solution missed the authorized overshoot by a significant amount, far more than the allowable 10%. He should have known something was wrong when this happened and should have looked to see what he did wrong. In the opinion of Dr. Arroyo, the Petitioner did not adequately evaluate the problem consistent with acceptable engineering standards since the final product of his calculations did not meet the specifications of the problem. This is the purpose behind the professional certification process, and Petitioner should have recognized that his answer did not meet the required specifications. Petitioner received a score of six out of a possible ten for his solution to question 290. Dr. Arroyo is satisfied that the scoring plan of the NCEES for this problem is fair and he supports it. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, a professional engineer and long-time professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, disagrees. In his evaluation of the problem and the grading process used here, Dr. Garrett notes that problem 290 consisted of five parts, for each of which two points could be awarded. Petitioner correctly answered the first three parts and received a grade of six points. He missed part four, and part five was to use the results of parts three and four, with the proper equations, to determine the two answers required. Since Petitioner used the proper equations to figure his answer to part five, even though he did not get a correct answer to part four, which resulted in his numeric answer to part five being incorrect, Dr. Garrett is of the opinion that he should have received an additional two points for applying the proper formula in part five. Review of the scoring plan developed for this problem indicates that Petitioner met all the qualifications for award of six points, but he did not recognize the relationship of damped as opposed to undamped. He used incorrect data to arrive at "a" and "b" in that he did not identify the relationship between natural frequency and damped frequency. This is a basic problem of control systems which an undergraduate should be able to solve correctly. It is basic electrical engineering knowledge and not beyond that expected of an electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in the field. Had Petitioner utilized the formula he used with the proper data, he would have been awarded credit for a correct answer even if his calculations were incorrect. Here, however, while Petitioner utilized the correct formula, he applied it to incorrect data, and it is this use of incorrect data which makes an award of a higher score inappropriate. The professional engineers’ examination is designed to test the individual's familiarity with engineering concepts and his ability to cast the problem into those concepts to solve the problem. Petitioner contends that his understanding of the concepts involved was correct and, therefore, even though he used the wrong figures, he should received credit for a correct answer or, at most, only 2 rather than 4 points should have been deducted. Though Petitioner utilized the correct formula for his solution to question 290, he applied the wrong values in the use of the formula. This indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, and even though Petitioner used the proper formula, that formula came from the book he was permitted to use for the examination. He cannot be given full credit for copying the formula from the book. Had he used the correct values in his solution to the problem, he would have been given appropriate credit even if his calculations were wrong. After being notified of his unsuccessful exam results, Petitioner requested that his answer to question number 290 be resubmitted to NCEES for re-scoring, and this was done. By memorandum in response, dated July 10, 1997, the NCEES scorer concluded: The error in using undamped natural frequency for damped natural frequency in the examinee's solution is a major error. Whether the examinee did not recognize the function was in fact the undamped natural frequency, as given in the problem statement, or whether it was an oversight, it is still a major error since the outcome is significantly affected. The scorer, whose knowledge of the identity of the candidate was limited to a number only, recommended a score of "six" for Petitioner answer to this problem. There was no change from the initial scoring.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner additional credit for his answer to question number 290 on the principles and practice portion of the electrical engineering examination administered for the Board of Professional Engineers on October 25 and 26, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bahman Behzadi Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer and/or waiver of Part I of the engineering licensing examination.
Findings Of Fact From 1969 through 1974, Petitioner attended the Lipetsk Branch of the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys. In 1974, Petitioner graduated from the Lipetsk Polytechnical Institute (Institute) in Russia, with a degree in industrial and civil engineering. The degree in civil engineering earned by Petitioner is equivalent to a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering in the United States. Upon graduation from the Institute, Petitioner commenced her professional employment as an engineer on August 30, 1974, at the LIPTSKGRAZHDANPROEKT Design Institute. In January 1976, Petitioner was employed as a professional engineer at the State Design Institute DNEPRPROEKKTSTALKONSTRUKSIYA (DNEPR), where she was continuously employed until leaving the Soviet Union in December 1993. There are no specific licensing or registration requirements in Russia with respect to engineers. Therefore, after earning a degree in industrial and civil engineering, Petitioner could work as an engineer in Russia without taking any professional examination. However, in 1979, Petitioner took an examination in Russia that allowed her to sign her own drawings and calculations. During Petitioner's tenure at the DNEPR, she achieved the status of Senior Engineer in 1986; was promoted to the position of Category II Engineer for Steel Structures in 1988; was promoted to the post of Category I Engineer for Steel Structures in 1990; and was elevated to the position of Leading Engineer in 1991. To achieve the status of Category II Engineer for Steel Structures and Category I Engineer for Steel Structures at DNEPR, Petitioner had to take an examination in 1988 and in 1990, respectively. The promotion to each of these positions was predicated upon Petitioner's passing these examinations and demonstrating expertise in the areas of economics, chemistry, mathematics, physics, building materials, corrosion prevention, resistance of materials, and construction mechanics. As a result of passing the examinations in 1988 and 1990, Petitioner was not only promoted, but also received salary increases. Petitioner believes that the two examinations she took in Russia in 1988 and in 1990, while working at the DNEPR were substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination. However, no evidence was presented to support this claim. The Fundamentals Examination is one component of the engineering licensing examination, and is designed to assess whether an individual is qualified to practice in this state as an engineer intern. This examination is usually taken either in the applicant's last year in engineering school or shortly after graduation. With regard to format, the Fundamentals Examination is an eight-hour examination and consists of 120 multiple-choice questions. The Principles and Practice Examination is the second part of the engineering licensing examination and is taken after successful completion of the Fundamentals Examination. Oscar E. Olsen, a structural engineer and owner of O.E. Olsen and Associates, a structural engineering firm, is currently Petitioner's employer. Mr. Olsen, who is generally familiar with the Fundamentals Examination, testified that the list of subjects covered on the two examinations taken by Petitioner in 1988 and 1990, coincide with the subject matter on the Fundamentals Examination. Mr. Olsen further testified that it appeared to him that the two examinations taken by Petitioner were comparable to the Fundamental Examinations required in Florida. Notwithstanding his testimony that the exams taken by Petitioner are substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination, Mr. Olsen admitted that he has never seen or reviewed the examinations taken by Petitioner while she was in Russia. It is impossible to render a reasonable opinion as to whether the two examinations taken by Petitioner in Russia are substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination, where the only information provided with regard to the former is a list of subject areas covered. Such a list gives no indication of the depth and specific content of the subject matter on the examinations; the difficulty of the examinations; the passing scores; the number and format of the questions; and the length of the examinations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, the Board of Professional Engineers, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for waiver of Part I, the Fundamentals Examination, and for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray Silverstein, Esquire Powell, Carney, Hayes, and Silverstein One Plaza, Suite 1210 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-1689 Edwin A. Bayo Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Should Petitioner be deemed to have passed the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Exam?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination on April 1O, 1987. The examination consisted of an applicant completing eight problems. On each problem, an applicant could receive from 1 to 10 points. A score of 5 or less was considered "unqualified", a score of 6 or more was considered "qualified". In order to pass the examination, an applicant needed to receive a total raw score of 48 or more, out of a possible score of 80. Petitioner received a raw score of 43 on his examination. Petitioner is challenging the scores for problems 110, 111, and 414. On problem 110, Petitioner received a score of 1. On problems 111 and 414, Petitioner received scores of 4. An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) was prepared for each examination problem. The ISSP was to be used by the persons grading the exam to assure that all solutions were graded consistently. The ISSP set forth the criteria to be used in grading the solution to a problem and set forth guidelines to be used in determining the points to be given to the solution. In addition to the ISSP, a preferred solution was prepared for each problem. The scores of 4 given for Petitioner's solutions to problems 111 and 414 are consistent with the ISSPs for those problems. The score of 1 given to Petitioner's solution for problems 110 is not consistent with the ISSP and the preferred solution for that problem. In order to receive a score of 8, the ISSP requires that a solution contain the following: ALL CATEGORIES satisfied, errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct. An operable system is presented, containing all the key elements, but calculations may involve minor errors in math or transcribing data. Answers obtained for requirement (b) are reasonable. May have assumed an excessively high, but not obviously unreasonable, exit water temperatures, c.g. 150F. Petitioner's solution to problem 110 presented an operable system containing all key elements. The errors committed by Petitioner were caused by misreading a table and by transcribing the wrong data. Petitioner's solution to problem 110 should have received a score of 8. Petitioner should have received a raw score of 50 on the exam.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order giving Petitioner a passing grade on the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4412 Petitioner filed a post-hearing submission consisting of a two page letter containing nine paragraphs. The second to fourth paragraphs are numbered 1., 2. and 3. The findings of fact contained in the letter are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Paragraph in Letter Ruling and Recommended Order Paragraph Number First Not a finding of fact. Second, Third and Fourth Rejected as not supported by the evidence for solution to problems 111 and 414. Accepted for solution to problem 110. RO6-10. Fifth Argument. Sixth First sentence accepted. RO11. Rest of paragraph is irrelevant. Seventh Rejected as argument and contrary to weight of the evidence. Eighth Argument. Ninth Not a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin K. Middleswart 3805 Dunwoody Drive Pensacola, Florida 32503 John B. Carr, Esquire 320 West Cervantes Pensacola, Florida 32501 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, states: The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). The proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, state: The passing grade for the Engineering Fundamentals Examination is 70 or better. The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. The passing grade for the Principles and Practice Examination is 70 or better. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). Petitioner resides in Tampa, Florida. On April 11, 2003, Petitioner took a national examination that Petitioner must pass to be licensed by the state as a professional engineer. On July 1, 2003, Petitioner received a letter from the Board advising Petitioner that he had received a failing grade on the examination. On July 2, 2003, Petitioner unsuccessfully requested the raw scores on his examination from a representative of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The NCEES is the national testing entity that conducts examinations and determines scores for the professional engineer examination required by the state. On July 9, 2003, Petitioner submitted a formal request to the Board for all of the raw scores related to Petitioner "and all past P.E. Exams that the Petitioner had taken." A representative of the Board denied Petitioner's request explaining that the raw scores are kept by the NCEES and "it is not their policy to release them." The Board's representative stated that the Board was in the process of adopting new rules "that were in-line with the policies of the NCEES." On July 31, 2003, Petitioner requested the Board to provide Petitioner with any statute or rule that authorized the Board to deny Petitioner's request for raw scores pursuant to Section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On the same day, counsel for the Board explained to Petitioner that the Board is not denying the request. The Board is unable to comply with the request because the Board does not have physical possession of the raw scores. Petitioner and counsel for Respondent engaged in subsequent discussions that are not material to this proceeding. On August 6, 2003, Petitioner requested counsel for Respondent to provide Petitioner with copies of the proposed rule changes that the Board intended to consider on August 8, 2003. On August 27, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition with the Board challenging existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004. The petition alleged that parts of the existing rule are invalid. Petitioner did not file a challenge to the existing rule with DOAH. The Petition for Hearing states that Petitioner is filing the Petition for Hearing pursuant to Subsections 120.56(1) and (3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). However, the statement of how Petitioner's substantial interests are affected is limited to the proposed changes to the existing rule. During the hearing conducted on January 29, 2004, Petitioner explained that he does not assert that the existing rule is invalid. Rather, Petitioner argues that the Board deviates from the existing rule by not providing examinees with copies of their raw scores and by failing to use raw scores in the determination of whether an applicant achieved a passing grade on the exam. Petitioner further argues that the existing rule benefits Petitioner by purportedly requiring the Board to use raw scores in the determination of passing grades. The elimination of that requirement in the proposed rule arguably will adversely affect Petitioner's substantial interests. The Petition for Hearing requests several forms of relief. The Petition for Hearing seeks an order granting Petitioner access to raw scores, a determination that Petitioner has met the minimum standards required under the existing rule, and an order that the Board grant a license to Petitioner. The Petition for Hearing does not request an order determining that the proposed rule changes constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Mr. Lord should be granted additional credit for his answer to question number 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lord (Candidate #301402) received a score of 66.3 percent on the April 20, 1991, Principals and Practice portion of the Professional Engineer examination. A minimum passing score was 70.0 percent. Mr. Lord challenged the scoring of his response to question number 144. Question number 144 is an essay question involving an assembly line problem where four separate stations are used to assemble a product in sequence. A fifth station can assist in maximizing the number of finished products produced per hour, and is capable of performing all operations. The correct answer to question number 144 was 100 products per hour, while Mr. Lord's answer was 25 pieces per hour. Petitioner received a score of 2 (out of a possible 10) points on question number 144. This was based on the scoring plan developed for the exam by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Mr. Lord used a method of averaging station assembly times to determine the maximum average number of products each station could produce. The averaging method gave a solution which did not identify the central issue presented by the essay question: identifying and eliminating the bottlenecks in production. Mr. Lord also made an assumption that the initial four stations could do all operations, thus defining the model inaccurately. This misreading allowed Mr. Lord to use an averaging methodology. Mr. Granata, the Department's expert, testified that it is a coincidence of the numbers that if you multiply Respondent's answer (25) by four (the initial number of machines) you get the Board's answer (100). Mr. Greenbaum, Petitioner's expert witness, testified that Petitioner's answer is "unique" and that he, as an expert, would have answered the question using a methodology similar to the one developed by the Department's expert, Mr. Granata, and by the NCEE (National Council of Examiners for Engineering).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the challenge to the grading of Mr. Lord's response to question 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 14th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Curtis Lord 1416A Old Lystra Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 29, 1999, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2000.
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has not completed an approved engineering curriculum. From 1955 through 1958, he was enrolled in an engineering program at the University of Florida. He received an associate in arts degree. During 1961 he was enrolled for three semesters in an engineering program. Petitioner's other educational experiences have not been in the field of engineering. Since the Petitioner did not complete the requirements for a degree program, it is appropriate that his educational experience be viewed as engineering work experience in order to determine his eligibility to take the examination for licensure as a professional engineer. Since he has completed only the earlier stages of an engineering program, it is not appropriate that his years of educational background be credited directly as years of work experience. It is appropriate, however, that he be considered as having had one year of engineering work experience as an engineer based upon his total educational background. From 1964 until 1970, Petitioner worked for the Department of of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering at the University of Florida. He was in charge of field experiments considering littoral drift on the east coast of Florida. He assisted in setting up programs for beach erosion control. Petitioner was in charge of conducting various experiments to observe beach erosion, to locate sources of offshore sand for use in erosion prevention, and in developing models to establish techniques for stabilizing sand movements. Some of the work he performed was clearly engineering work, but a significant portion of it would more properly be classified as surveying work. The Petitioner was directly supervised by James A. Purpura, who was a professional engineer. Unfortunately, Mr. Purpura is deceased. Only three-quarters of a year of the experience that the Petitioner had with the Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering has been verified by a registered professional engineer as engineering experience. In view of the fact that significant portions of the Petitioner's work from 1964 to 1970 was not engineering work, and the fact that his work cannot be verified as engineering work, it is not appropriate that he be credited with more than three-fourths year of engineering work experience for this period. From 1970 until 1972, Petitioner was employed with Global Oceanic, Inc. Petitioner testified that during this period he designed a submersible dredge; was involved in restoration of beach property in the Bahamas; and designed and constructed a marina, a water desalination plant, various seawalls, and roads. Petitioner testified that he was employed as field engineer during this period. Petitioner presented no verification from a registered professional engineer as to the nature of his work experience with Global Oceanic, Inc. He testified that his director-supervisor, who was a professional engineer, died. From 1972 until 1973, Petitioner was employed with his own company, McGill and Associates. His work during this period was to complete activities with Global Oceanic, Inc., after his employer died. Petitioner testified that his work with McGill and Associates was as a field engineer. Again, however, there has been no verification of his work experience by a registered professional engineer. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's experience wit Global Oceanic, Inc., and with McGill and Associates from 1972 until 1973 has not been verified by a professional engineer as engineering work experience, it is not appropriate that the Petitioner be credited with experience by the Board of Engineers. From 1973 until 1975, Petitioner was employed by Kunde and Associates, an engineering firm. During this period, he oversaw various construction projects, and monitored them to assure that they were being constructed in accordance with engineering specifications. He served as a field engineer, directly responsible for various dredging and road building projects. Petitioner's work experience while at Kunde and Associates has been verified by a professional engineer as engineering work experience, and there does not appear to be any dispute that he should be credited with two years of engineering work experience for this period. Since 1975, the Petitioner has worked with his own company, McGill and Associates. He has been in the business of designing and constructing swimming pools and whirlpool spas. He has spent a fair amount of his time engaged in the original design of whirlpools. He has also participated in designing swimming pools, but in order to receive construction permits, registered engineers have had to evaluate and approve his designs. A considerable amount of the work that Petitioner has performed since 1975 has been engineering work; however, limited engineering know-how is required in swimming pool and whirlpool design and construction. Only approximately one year of non-repetitive engineering experience can appropriately be credited to such activities. Crediting Petitioner with one year of engineering work experience resulting from his educational background, three-fourths year of engineering work experience with the Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering at the University of Florida, two years of engineering work experience with Kunde and Associates, and one year of engineering work experience with McGill and Associates, the Petitioner has four and three-fourths years of valid engineering work experience.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor and took the electrical contractor examination given July 26, 1983. Petitioner's initial grade was 70 percent. Additional credit was given based on certain objections and Petitioner's grade was raised to 73.5 percent. The minimum passing score on this examination is 75 percent. See Rule 21GG- 6.01(4), F.A.C. Respondent concedes that Petitioner's answer to question #11 should be credited since the .80 multiplier utilized by the Board in its calculation was not correct pursuant to note 10A of Table 310-16 of the National Electrical Code. Petitioner's grade is thereby further raised to 74.5 percent. Question #13 involves the calculation of electrical service for a lobby room of an apartment house. There was no listing for a lobby on the Table 220- 25 of the National Electrical Code and since this lobby is found in an apartment building, the service should be the same as a residence which is three watts. Furthermore, Petitioner made mistakes on the percentage he utilized on both motor loads and incorrectly multiplied the fire alarm service by 1.25. Petitioner incorrectly answered question #16, in part because he utilized two watts instead of three watts for the lobby computation. As noted above, the lobby was in an apartment house and should have been assigned the residential rate. Question #23 reads as follows: The owner is thinking of taking 2400 square feet of the lobby and adding a barber shop with 120/208 single phase panel. There would be a 9 KW hot water heater (at 125 percent) and 15 other receptacles, a reverse cycle air conditioner, 3 HP, 208 volt. How many amps would this add to the service? The accepted answer to the above question is computed by adding the additional current requirements to the existing lobby area. Petitioner followed this procedure but went one step further. He deducted the current required for the 2400 feet of lobby space which would no longer exist if the barber shop were added. Question #23 clearly contemplates removal of 2400 feet of lobby space. Therefore, the best answer to the question is derived by following Petitioner's procedure rather than Respondent's. Petitioner should be given credit for his answer to this question, thus raising his grade to 75.5 percent. Petitioner marked the wrong answers on his answer sheet for questions 49 and 60. He was not given credit for his correct calculations on his work sheet since the Board does not grant credit for any information which is not reflected on the answer sheet. This has been a consistent Board policy.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner a grade of 75.5 percent on the July, 1983 electrical contractor examination. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David G. Budd, Esquire 660 Ninth Street, North Naples, Florida 33940 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry W. Hendry, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Hoard 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
