The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to questions 42 and 81 of the morning session of the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Worku took the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the examination for licensure to practice as an engineer intern on April 15, 2000. The examination is a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The examination is divided into a morning session and an afternoon session. The questions in the morning session are worth one raw point each. The questions in the afternoon session are worth two raw points each. Worku challenged questions 42 and 81, which were on the morning session of the examination. Worku received 56 raw points for the morning session and 52 raw points for the afternoon session for a total raw score of 108 on the examination. Based on the NCEES' Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 108 converts to a score of 69. A converted score of 70, which equates to a raw score of 109-113, is a passing score. Question 81 asked the examinee to identify the geometric shape that was given by an equation provided in the question. Each examinee was given a reference manual during the examination. The manual contains general formulas for the types of geometric shapes listed as possible answers to question 81. The equation given in question 81 was for a specific shape and was not listed among the general formulas in the reference manual. Worku felt that because the general equation was not used that the equation was stated incorrectly. However, the equation was stated correctly. The equation differed from the equation listed in the reference manual because it was for a special shape of the geometric figure. Worku did not answer question 81 correctly. Question 42 dealt with recrystallization as it relates to metal. The question asks the examinee to pick the answer which explains the reference to the term "recrystallization" in the question. Worku contends that there are two correct answers to question 42 and that the answer which he provided is one of the correct answers. The answer which Worku provided is not a correct answer. It refers to the process of annealing, which is the process of decreasing the toughness of a metal. Recrystallization can be a part, but is not always part of annealing. Recrystallization and annealing are not synonymous terms; thus Worku is not entitled to credit for question 42.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Amanuel Worku failed the Engineering Fundamentals Examination with a score of 69. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, 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 5th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Amanuel Worku 18492 Northwest 52nd Path Miami, Florida 33055 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 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 The issue in this case is whether the Department should give the Petitioner a passing grade on the October, 1993, Principles and Practices of Civil/Sanitary Engineering Examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Jane A. Caldera, took the October, 1993, Principles and Practices of Civil/Sanitary Engineering Examination and received a failing grade. Her grade was 67.20; passing was 70. In terms of raw scores, 48 was passing, and the Petitioner scored 45 points. During the morning session of the exam, candidates were allowed to answer any four of twelve "essay" questions. During the afternoon session, candidates were allowed to answer any four of twelve multiple-choice questions. One of the "essay" questions the Petitioner chose to answer during the morning session, number 125, had three parts. The Petitioner did not answer the second part and answered the third part correctly. On the first part, she properly set up the multiple equations necessary to answer the question but made a calculation error in the last step, and her answer was 810 linear feet instead of the correct answer of 630 linear feet. Question 125 was graded in accordance with a scoring plan that set out the following "'Problem Weighting": t' Part (a) 4 points, Part (b) 4 points, Part (c) 2 points." It also provided, in part, that a score of six points out of ten, signifying "minimum competence, required: "Correct solution to either part (a) or part (b) and part (c) or a solution with a combination of two deficiencies consisting of some series of logic errors, computation errors, or insufficient accuracy as defined above." The next highest possible score, according to the scoring plan, was score of four out of ten for "more than a rudimentary knowledge but insufficient to demonstrate competence." On question 125, the Petitioner was awarded two out of a possible four points on part (a) (in which the Petitioner's solution contained a calculating error), none of four possible points on part (b) (which the Petitioner did not answer), and both of the two possible points on part (c) (which the Petitioner answered correctly), for a total of four out of the ten possible points on question 125. The Petitioner's score on question 125 was consistent with the scoring plan, which also was applied to all of the other candidates. Both question 125 and the scoring plan were provided by the National Council of Examiners of Engineers and Surveyors. A primary purpose of the scoring plan is to ensure consistently rational scoring. To eliminate the chance of bias, questions are graded "blindly," using the scoring plan. Statistically, question 125 has achieved reliable test results. The candidates scoring higher on the examination overall also scored better on question 125. The Petitioner contended that there is a better scoring plan for question 125 under which she would have scored six out of a possible ten points. While the Petitioner's proposed scoring plan is logical, and may even be a better scoring plan, the Petitioner did not prove that the scoring plan utilized by the Department was arbitrary or devoid of logic. One of the multiple choice questions the Petitioner chose to answer during the afternoon session, number 423, had ten parts, each worth one point. The Petitioner received no credit for her answers to parts (2) and ( 3 ), Parts (2) and (3) of question 423 are prefaced by a descriptor of the characteristics of a freeway section. One of the characteristics is a "V/C" of 0.60; another is a peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.90. Part (2) of question 423 asked for the "maximum number of vehicles going west during a one-hour period under these conditions." To answer the question, the Petitioner solved for "maximum service flow," assuming ideal conditions. The Petitioner did not apply the PHF of 0.90; as a result, her answer did not take PHF into consideration. It is found that part (2) of question 423 is at least ambiguous. It asked for "maximum number of vehicles . . . during a one-hour period," not the actual number of vehicles. This could lead one to believe that it asked for "maximum service flow, extended over one entire hour, without considering the PHF. On the other hand, the question specified vehicles "going west . . . under these conditions," implying the actual volume and the application of the PHF. Only 31% of the candidates answering question 423 answered part (2) correctly. (43.6% gave the same answer as the Petitioner.) In and of themselves, those statistics do not prove that the question was invalid or unreliable. But they support the finding that the question was at least ambiguous. Part (3) of question 423 asked the candidates to assume a capacity in passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl) and to solve for the "average travel speed . . . under these conditions." The Petitioner solved for the average speed at the volume of traffic that would result from the given number of pcphpl, under "ideal conditions," without applying the "V/C" ratio of 0.60. It is found that part (3) of question 423 also is at least ambiguous. After having given the candidates the characteristics of the road in the preface to question 423, including a "V/C" of 0.60, part (3) asked the candidates to assume a pcphpl. It is not clear whether the given pcphpl was intended to override, or be the result of the application of the V/C' factor of 0.60, or whether the "V/C" factor was supposed to be applied to the pcphpl. On part (3) of question 423, 52.6% of the candidates answering the question chose the answer for which credit was given; 28.3% chose the Petitioner s answer. Those statistics do not prove that the question was invalid or unreliable. But neither was there any evidence that they would be inconsistent with a finding that the question was at least ambiguous.
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 granting the Petitioner's examination challenge in part, to the extent that parts (2) and (3) of question 423 of the October, 1993, Principles and Practices of Civil/Sanitary Engineering Examination are found to be ambiguous, but nonetheless finding that the Petitioner did not successfully complete the examination. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J.LAWRENCE J JOHNSTON 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 15th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected, as not proven, that the Petitioner's proposed scoring plan is only 'appropriate, reasonable, and fair deduction for a math error," or that the deduction of two points was "a 50% deduction, or a "totally unfair and unreasonable percentage" or that it is "inappropriate . . . to tie the solutions or partial solution together." Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and argument. Rejected, as not proven, that the two-point deduction for a math error is a 50% deduction and is clearly inconsistent with" the reference material. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and argument. Rejected, as not proven, that the Petitioner received a 50% deduction on question 125, or that the NCEE scoring plan was inconsistent and should be considered arbitrary by problem chosen." Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and argument. Rejected, as not proven, that NCEE's "two point (20%) increment grading scale is an unfair, unlogical, and unreasonable means to evaluate" or that it is "too rigid to fairly evaluate detailed engineering solutions." Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. 9.-10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that question 423(2) asked for "maximum volume or "service volume," or that the PHF was added "arbitrarily, and for no reason." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found that 43.6% is a majority. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and found that question 423(3) is ambiguous. Rejected as not proven that LOS "Et" conditions should be assumed or that "A" is the best answer, or that 423(3) is "devoid of reason, capricious, and a 'trick' question." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and found that question 423(3) is ambiguous. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found that an adjustment necessarily and unambiguously follows. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found that an adjustment necessarily and unambiguously follows. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. However, PHF is used to determine actual maximum numbers of vehicles, not maximum service flow or maximum possible numbers of vehicles. Rejected. (It asked for average speed.) Rejected as contrary to facts found that an adjustment necessarily and unambiguously follows. Rejected as not established by the evidence that they are statistically valid, only that they are not statistically invalid. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane A. Caldera 5414 Deerbrooke Circle Tampa, Florida 33624 Wellington H. Meffert, II, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0764
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 The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Rule 61G15-22.011(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Peter J. Singhofen is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida. He is the President and sole stockholder of Petitioner Streamline. In the 1980’s, Mr. Singhofen had a need for and developed engineering software that specialized in stormwater management for the terrain found in Florida. The software had to be specific to Florida because the terrain in the state is different from the terrain in many other parts of the country, and the Florida Statutes and rules governing stormwater management are some of the most stringent in the country. The software that Mr. Singhofen developed uses the Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing model (ICPR). This system performs complex calculations utilized in stormwater management and planning. It was the first proprietary model to be formally reviewed and accepted as a nationally accepted hydraulic model. ICPR is also extensively used by local and state government agencies throughout Florida, both to review stormwater permit applications as well as for the development of stormwater management master plans. Some of the users of Petitioners’ software are the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns Water Management District, and Department of Transportation. Indeed, ICPR may be the most popular program of its type in the State of Florida. Streamline sells the stormwater management software and offers training and technical support for the software it sells. Clearly Petitioners have a direct financial interest in the engineering software they developed and own. As part of its business, Streamline conducts eight-to- ten workshops each year. Many of the state and local agencies that use ICPR send their engineers to these training programs. These workshops take three days. The first two days consist of intense lectures supported by hands-on exercises on computers provided by Petitioners. On the third day participants perform a "real world" project, using aerial photographs and survey notes to work on the project. The evidence was clear that these workshops are not “shill” presentations that are tantamount to product promotions or advertisements. Florida Statutes require licensed professional engineers to obtain a minimum of four professional development hours in the licensees' area of practice each biennium, or two hours per year. The Board approved Streamline as a CE provider during the 2001-2003 and 2003-2005 bienniums. However, Streamline's application for approval for the 2005-2007 biennium was denied as a result of amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-22.011(2), effective August 8, 2005. The amendment to the Rule in question reads as follows: . . . The continuing education provider shall not have any financial or commercial interest, direct or indirect, in any technology that is the subject of the instruction. The denial, and thus the Rule, has the potential to affect Petitioners’ substantial interests in its product since their training can no longer qualify for CE credits for the engineers who need training and technical support in order to better use this complex software. The Notice of Rulemaking published in the Florida Administrative Weekly listed the authority for the Rule as Section 471.017(3), Florida Statutes. Section 471.017(3), Florida Statutes, grants the Board rulemaking authority and requires that the CE rules be consistent with the guidelines of the National Council of Examiners for engineering and Surveying (NCEES) for multijurisdictional licensees. The Notice of Rule Development published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, as well as the Notice of Rulemaking, stated the purpose and effect of the Rule was to include a prohibition of conflict of interest as an added requirement for Board approval of CE providers. The same reason was provided in the Additional Statement to the Secretary of State under the Statement of Facts and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rule. However, there was no discussion or finding by the Board prior to engaging in rulemaking that a CE provider who taught about technology over which he or she had a commercial interest would be engaging in a conflict of interest. In fact, the NCEES guidelines do not contain such a prohibition. According to the Board’s Director, the statement that the purpose and effect of the Rule was to avoid a conflict of interest was "erroneous" and that "it was erroneous three times if it was published three times." Indeed, other than minor references in various minutes of Board meetings, there was very little official Board discussion about the Rule prior to its adoption. The evidence on the rationale behind the Rule showed that there was general concern by the Board over prohibiting “shill” CE courses that were nothing more than product promotions or advertisements. The fact that the published purpose of the Rule was erroneous is a material failure to follow the rulemaking process since notice to the public of the Rule’s purpose is an important aspect of rulemaking. Notably, the Board does not directly approve individual courses. It approves CE providers. Under the Rule the courses must be offered or sponsored by an approved CE provider. NCEES model rules do recognize that a governmental authority may approve CE providers. In Appendix C, the guidelines indicate that provider approval be contingent upon the provider permitting a Board to attend courses and review course material to determine whether the course meets the standards of the Board. In the process of applying for CE provider status, the Board requires the applicant to provide course descriptions, syllabuses, and a list of courses intended to be provided. Section 456.025(7), Florida Statutes, mandates that: [e]ach board . . . shall establish, by rule, a fee not to exceed $250 for anyone seeking approval to provide continuing education courses or programs and shall establish by rule a biennial renewal fee not to exceed $250 for the renewal of providership of such courses. The fees collected from continuing education providers shall be used for the purposes of reviewing course provider applications, monitoring the integrity of the courses provided, covering legal expenses incurred as a result of not granting or renewing a providership, and developing and maintaining an electronic continuing education tracking system. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-22.011 provides that: The Board retains the right to audit and/or monitor courses [61G15-22.011(7)], which the guidelines require the provider to permit; The Board retains the right to review course materials [61G15-22.011(7)], which the guidelines require the provider to supply; The provider must provide a description of the type of courses or seminars the provider expects to conduct [61G15- 22.011(3)(a)] and a sample of intended course materials [61G15-22.011(3)(d) and the course curriculum [61G15-22.011(3)(f)], which the guidelines require a provider to supply; The provider must demonstrate the education and/or experience necessary to instruct engineers in the conduct of their practice [61G15-22.011(2)], which reflects the guideline requirement that providers ensure instructors are qualified; The provider must list anticipated locations to conduct the course [61G15- 22.011(3)(3)], which the guidelines require the provider to supply after the course is presented. Based upon information an applicant has provided, the Board has in the past denied applications for CE providers proposing to offer "shill" courses. Additionally, an existing rule of the Board, as well as NCEES guidelines, specifically provides that equipment demonstrations or trade show displays do not qualify as continuing education activities. See Fla. Admin. R. 61G15- 22.005. The evidence was not clear on how denial of CE provider status, because the provider had a financial interest in the technology which is the subject of a CE course, would prohibit “shill” courses without limiting otherwise legitimate CE courses such as the one here. Indeed, the most logical person to present a course on the software at issue here would be Petitioners, since they are the developers of the software. The NCEES guidelines at Section 2 set forth model rules for continuing professional competency. NCEES guideline 2B4 defines course/activity as any qualifying course or activity with a clear purpose and objective that will maintain, improve, or expand the skills and knowledge relevant to the licensee's field of practice. Rule 61G15- 22.002(5) defines course/activity as any qualifying course or activity with a clear purpose and objective that will maintain, improve or expand the skills and knowledge relevant to the licensee's area of practice. Clearly, Petitioners’ workshops meet these definitions. NCEES guideline 2C sets forth the ways licensees can earn the necessary CE credit through patenting inventions, active participation as an officer in professional or technical societies, authoring published papers, articles, books or accepted licensing exam items, teaching or instructing college courses or continuing education courses, completion of college courses, CE courses, correspondence, televised, videotaped and other short courses or tutorials, seminars, in-house courses, attendance at workshops, professional and technical presentations made at meetings, conventions or conferences. Similarly, Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-22.003, sets forth qualifying activities for the area of practice requirements and generally lists the same types of activities as the NCEES guidelines. Petitioners’ course specifically falls within both the NCEES guidelines and the Board’s rules defining qualifying activities for CE credit. Thus, the Board’s amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-22.011 results in a qualifying activity being excluded from such recognition, and thereby is inconsistent with NCEES guidelines. Such inconsistency is outside of the Board’s rulemaking authority and the amendment to Florida Administrative Rule 61G15-22.011(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted extra credit for questions numbers 320, 321, 322, and 323, for which he gave allegedly incorrect answers, on the October 1996, Environmental Engineer Examination administered by the Department.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency responsible for the professional testing and licensing of professional engineers, and the regulation of the engineering profession in Florida. Petitioner is a graduate engineer, specializing in environmental engineering, who took the Environmental Engineer Examination administered by the Bureau on October 25 and 26, 1996. By Examination Grade Report dated February 17, 1997, the Bureau notified Petitioner that he had achieved a score of 67.00 on the examination; that a minimum score of 70.00 is required for passing the examination; and, therefore, that Petitioner had failed the examination. Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal of the examination results, challenging the grading of questions numbers 320, 321, 322, and 323 of the examination in question. Question 320 tests the candidate’s ability to understand the characteristics of pumps both in series and parallel. The engineering principle involved is Bernouli’s Theory. The problem is in two parts, A and B. The first part asks which of two impellers are in the pump, based on a given set of data using Bernouli’s Principle. Petitioner answered Part A correctly. Part B repeats Part A, except that the candidate has to recognize the difference between series and parallel pumps, and Petitioner did not get the question correct. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) published a scoring plan for each question on the examination. The maximum award a candidate can receive on this question is “10.” The NCEES’ scoring plan for this question provides a score of “4,” which Petitioner received, when the candidate gets one part of the question correct and one part incorrect. To earn a score of “6” for the question, the candidate must present a correct parallel pump analysis, and in this case, Petitioner doubled head pressure instead of flow. Question 321 also consists of two parts and deals with a sewer which is facing overload based on population projections. A relief sewer is proposed and the candidate must do two things. He must first analyze the flow of the existing sewer, and then determine what the invert of the new sewer line would be at the outer end of that sewer In this instance, Petitioner got the second part of the problem correct but not the first. Petitioner started off correctly, but then incorrectly used a piece of information that was given. The problem must be solved using Manning’s Equation, and then checked for scouring velocity. Petitioner used the minimum velocity in determining what the flow is and, according to Mr. Hutchinson, this is not the way to solve the problem. Hutchinson suggests that in solving the problem, the candidate first finds out how much flow will exist in the years ahead by knowing the population and the flow per capita. Then, using Manning’s Equation, the candidate calculates the flow the existing sewer can take. Subtracting the second from the first, the answer is the flow the new pipe will have to be designed for. In the examination question, all the required information is given except the diameter, which is determined through the use of Manning’s Equation. Once that is done, the candidate must check the new scouring velocity. This is done by calculating the velocity in the new sewer to be sure it is in excess of the number given in the problem statement. Here, Petitioner took the minimum scouring velocity and used that figure to calculate the size of the pipe. As a result, he arrived at the wrong answer of ten inches, when the correct answer was twenty-four inches. Petitioner was awarded a grade of “4” for his answer to problem number 321. According to NCEES’ Scoring plan, a “4” reflects the candidate got only one of the two parts correct. Question 322 deals with a hazardous waste incinerator. The first part of the problem calls for a determination of the amount of air needed to complete combustion if the additional air (excess air) is 100 percent. This means twice the air needed to perfectly combust the material. The candidate must first put down the chemical equation, all the constituents of which are given in the problem. Then, the candidate must balance the equation, and for 100 percent excess air, one multiplies the air input by a factor of two. The second part of the problem asks for the amount of water necessary to quench the gasses. Petitioner did not correctly balance the chemical equation called for in the first part even though he made an effort, and he was given some credit for trying. His answer to the second part was twice what it should have been. Since Petitioner did not do either part of the problem correctly, the award of “4” for his answer was, in Hutchinson’s opinion, generous. Question 323 involves a situation wherein a vehicle which gives off carbon monoxide is used inside a facility. Some of the workers have experienced dizziness. Readings are given for the carbon monoxide levels. The candidate is asked to calculate several factors. The first is what the eight-hour time weighted exposure is. There are certain limits involved. The second is how much ventilation air would be necessary to reduce the concentration to a lower stipulated level in one hour. The size and other specifics of the facility are given. The third part of the question is a non-mathematical essay question wherein the candidate is asked to define the disadvantages of having a combustion engine internal to a facility. The fourth part of the problem asks why mere dilution of the pollution is not the solution to the problem. Petitioner answered the first part of the problem correctly. He overstated the amount of air called for in part two of the problem by a magnitude of two. Petitioner answered the third part of the problem correctly, but in the fourth part, provided only one of the two reasons called for. He was awarded a score of “4” for his answer to this problem. The NCEES’ scoring plan indicates a score of “4” is appropriate when the candidate gets the first part correct; commits a logic error in the second part; and provides only two of three answers called for in the combined third and fourth parts. This is exactly what Petitioner did. In Mr. Hutchinson’s opinion, none of the problems in issue here were beyond the scope of knowledge that should be expected of a candidate for licensure. In addition, the questions as written are not ambiguous or unclear, and they give the candidate enough information to properly answer the questions. The examination is not a test of a candidate’s ability to do mathematical calculations. The examiners look at the ability to calculate as something which a high school student should be able to do. What is being tested is the candidate’s understanding of the engineering particulars and concepts. For example, in problem 320, the examiners are testing the candidate’s understanding of the difference between parallel flow and series flow for a pump. Under the scoring plan, that issue carries as much or more weight that the ability to solve the mathematics. Petitioner did not demonstrate the requisite understanding. The examination is structured so as to administer four questions in the morning session and four questions in the afternoon session. The examination is made up of questions which are submitted by members of that committee of the NCEES which drafts the examinations. The proposed questions are tested by committee members who solve each question in no more than twenty minutes. If the committee members judge the question to be appropriate and acceptable, it goes into a question bank and is subsequently reviewed several times before it is first incorporated in an examination two or more years later. In each question, the subject matter and the language of the question are reviewed to determine that there is no trick information involved; that all information necessary to correctly solve the question is incorporated; and that the scoring plan is valid. If any changes are made to a question during the evaluation time, two additional independent reviews are required. The examination is given nation-wide at the same time. At that time, the NCEES selects fifty to sixty tests at random, which are sent in for scoring. Of those, ten are selected and sent to a monitor to insure uniformity of scoring and appropriateness of the scoring plan. Once the examination is determined to be satisfactory, fifteen expert judges are called in to evaluate the fifty to sixty tests and to review them for demonstrated minimum competence by the candidates whose examinations are under scrutiny. At that point, a minimum numerical score is reached, and the remaining tests are graded. In his cross examination of the Respondent’s expert Mr. Hutchinson, regarding not only each of the examination problems in issue but also the methodology of the development and grading of the examination, Petitioner prefaced his questions by extensive, comprehensive statements of his position as to the matter at issue. Notwithstanding frequent and repeated reminders by the Administrative Law Judge that the matters being expressed were unsworn and not testimony, and therefore could not be considered as evidence, Petitioner persisted. The majority of his comments and arguments made in his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions are based on that material and it is impossible for the undersigned to recommend Petitioner be granted the relief he proposes, based on the evidence admitted at hearing, as his testimony, when received, was not persuasive. Petitioner also submitted at hearing, as his Composite Exhibit 1, a series of documents which, for the most part, include personal information regarding his credentials, and copies of the pleadings, orders, and correspondence which make up the case file. Also included was a letter from Petitioner’s supervisor testifying to his hard work, industry, and professionalism; and a breakdown of the raw scores he achieved on the examination in question. None of this has a significant bearing on the merits of his challenge.
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 in this matter denying Petitioner additional credit for his answers to problems 320, 321, 322, and 323, on the October 1996 Environmental Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1998, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott D. Walker 14535 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard Number 918 Tampa, Florida 33613 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by the Board of Professional Engineers.
Findings Of Fact In October 1996, Henry A. Vidal (Petitioner) took the Principles and Practice part of the Electrical Engineer Examination (Examination). A minimum score of 70 is required to pass the Examination. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had not successfully completed the Examination, having received a score of 67. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners. Petitioner challenges questions numbered 131 and 133 on the Examination. A scoring plan is used for grading each question. For question numbered 131, the highest score achievable is 10. According to the scoring plan, correctly solving any one part of the problem in the challenged question earns a score of 2; correctly solving any two parts, earns a score of 4; correctly solving any three parts, earns a score of 6; correctly solving any four parts, earns a score of 8; and correctly determining five specific items, even though the solution need not be perfect, earns a score of 10. Petitioner received a score of 4 on question numbered 131. Regarding question numbered 131, under the scoring plan, Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points. Even though Petitioner may have indicated his knowledge of the problem in the challenged question, he failed to solve the problem correctly, e.g., omitting a component and miscalculating. Petitioner solved two parts correctly, earning a score of 4. For question numbered 133, the highest score achievable is 10. According to the scoring plan, there are ten parts to the problem in the challenged question and correctly solving one or two parts, earns a score of 2; correctly solving three or four parts, earns a score of 4; correctly solving five or six parts, earns a score of 6; correctly solving seven or eight parts, earns a score of 8; and correctly solving nine or ten parts, earns a score of 10. Petitioner received a score of 8 on question numbered 133. Regarding question numbered 133, under the scoring plan, Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points. Even though Petitioner may have indicated his knowledge of the problem in the challenged question, he failed to solve the problem correctly, e.g., using the incorrect quantity. Petitioner solved eight parts correctly, earning a score of 8. The examiners for the Examination re-graded Petitioner's answers to questions numbered 131 and 133. Petitioner was denied additional credit for the challenged questions by the examiners. Petitioner's answers were not arbitrarily or capriciously graded. The grading process was not devoid of logic and reason. The scoring plan was properly used. Questions numbered 131 and 133 are not beyond the scope of knowledge that is required of a candidate for licensure as an electrical engineer and are capable of being answered by such a candidate for licensure. Considering the proof, the opinions of Respondent's expert were more persuasive. The evidence presented was insufficient to warrant additional credit to Petitioner on questions numbered 131 and 133.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order dismissing the examination challenge of Henry A. Vidal and denying him licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry A. Vidal, pro se 5832 Alton Road Miami Beach, Florida 33140 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 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 Question No. 130 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 23, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dennis Vann (Petitioner), is an applicant for licensure as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. On April 23, 1999, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice Engineering Examination portion of the engineer licensure examinations. This is a national examination developed, controlled, and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Petitioner received a raw score of 45 on this examination. For the electrical engineering discipline, a raw score of 45 results in a converted score of 67. A minimum converted score of 70 is required to pass this examination. A raw score of 48 results in a converted score of 70. Therefore, Petitioner needs an additional 3 raw score points to earn a passing score on the examination. Petitioner challenged the scoring of Question No. 130 on the examination and formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to the question. The NCEES rescored Question No. 130 and determined that Petitioner was not entitled to any additional points for Question No. 130. For Question No. 130, the maximum score achievable was Petitioner received a score of 4 on that item. The NCEES developed and used an Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) for each examination question. Question No. 130 was scored by the NCEES according to the ISSP for that question. Question No. 130 contains two subparts, which require the examinee to address four discrete requirements. Petitioner correctly calculated the bus current (requirement 3). However, Petitioner failed to properly calculate the busway loading and determination of adequacy (requirement 1), the bus impedance (requirement 2), and percent voltage drop (requirement 4). Petitioner's response to Question No. 130 was initially assigned a score of 4. However, if graded correctly, that response would have resulted in a score of 6. The credible testimony of Respondent's expert was that under the ISSP for Question No. 130, Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 for his response. With a score of 6 for Question No. 130, Petitioner's raw score is increased to 47. A raw score of 47 results in a converted score of 69. Even with the 2 additional points awarded to Petitioner's response to Question No. 130, his score on the professional engineering licensure examination is still below 70 and is not a passing score. Question No. 130 provides all the necessary information for an examinee to solve the problem. Moreover, Question No. 130 is properly designed to test an examinee's competence in electrical engineering.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered concluding that Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his response to Question No. 130, and recalculating Petitioner's total score on the examination on the basis of that conclusion. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2000, 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 (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 21st day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Vann Post Office box 23054 Tampa, Florida 33623 William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1884 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest (raw) score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be allowed to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter without repeating the Minimum Standards Course.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Laurie J. Rudock (Rudock), failed the practical portion of the initial Minimum Standards Certification Examination for firefighters given on August 12, 1997. Petitioner retook the Minimum Standards Certification Examination on October 13, 1997, and failed that examination. After being duly noticed of the final hearing in this proceeding, Petitioner did not appear at the final hearing and failed to present any evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner, Laurie J. Rudock, is not entitled to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination without first retaking the Minimum Standards Course. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Karuna P. Rao, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Laurie J. Rudock, pro se 1819 North Victoria Park Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305
