The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether the examination, its administration, or its grading were arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Su-Jung Shiuey sat for the acupuncture licensure examination on July 18 through 20, 1986, in Orlando, Florida. The examination included a requirement for candidates to demonstrate practical clinical skills including sanitation, needling technique, and point location. A passing score of 70 on the clinical practical portion of the examination is required of candidates. Su-Jung Shiuey failed to locate four points in the point location portion of the examination. See Respondent's exhibits 3 and 4. No evidence was presented that this portion of the examination was not fair or was not graded fairly. Su-Jung Shiuey failed to demonstrate proper needling techniques. See Respondent's exhibits 2 and 3. No evidence was presented that this portion of the examination was not fair or was not graded fairly. Each of the examiners was a licensed acupuncturist in Florida. Each of the examiners worked with a co-examiner, and all examiners are required to score candidates independently. Each of the examiners' grade sheets for these two portions of the examination made the same findings and similar observations. Su-Jung Shiuey received 66 points on the clinical practical portion of the examination and was denied licensure. Su-Jung Shiuey presented no independent testimony or evidence to discredit the qualifications of Respondent's witnesses or evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Dr. Su-Jung Shiuey's request for increased score, or reexamination without fee, should be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 9th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Su-Jung Shiuey (Petitioner's husband) 331 Bloomfield Avenue Nutley, New Jersey 07110 Jeffrey H. Barker, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marcelle Flanagan, Executive Director Board of Acupuncture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Benton, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 primary issue is whether the process used by the Department of Education (Department) for evaluating and ranking the proposals submitted in response to Request For Proposal (RFP) 99-03 for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) administration contract was contrary to the provisions of the RFP in a way that was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The RFP for the FCAT describes a five stage process for evaluating proposals. In Stage I, the Department’s Purchasing Office determined whether a proposal contained certain mandatory documents and statements and was sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. Stage II involved the Department’s evaluation of a bidder’s corporate qualifications to determine whether the bidder has the experience and capability to do the type of work that will be required in administering the FCAT. Stage III was the Department’s evaluation of a bidder’s management plan and production proposal. In Stage IV, the Department evaluated a bidder’s cost proposal. Stage V involved the ranking of proposals based on points awarded in Stages II-IV. If a proposal did not meet the requirements at any one stage of the evaluation process, it was not to be evaluated in the following stage. Instead, it was to be disqualified from further consideration. Stages II and III of the evaluation process were conducted by an evaluation team comprised of six Department employees: Dr. Debby Houston, Ms. Lynn Joszefczyk, Dr. Peggy Stillwell, Dr. Cornelia Orr, Dr. Laura Melvin, and Ms. Karen Bennett. Dr. Thomas Fisher, head of the Department’s Assessment and Evaluation Services Section, and Dr. Mark Heidorn, Administrator for K-12 Assessment Programs within the Department’s Assessment and Evaluation Services Section, served as non-voting co-chairs of the evaluation team. The focus of this proceeding is Stage II of the evaluation process addressing a bidder’s corporate qualifications. RFP Provisions Regarding Corporate Qualification The FCAT administration contractor will be required to administer tests to approximately one and a half million students each year in a variety of subject areas at numerous grade levels. The FCAT program involves a complex set of interrelated work activities requiring specialized human resources, technological systems and procedures. The FCAT must be implemented annually within limited time periods. The FCAT administration contractor must meet critical deadlines for the delivery of test materials to school districts and the delivery of student scores prior to the end of the school year. In developing the RFP, the Department deliberately established a set of minimum requirements for corporate qualifications that a bidder was to demonstrate in order for its proposal to be eligible for further evaluation. The purpose of the RFP’s minimum corporate qualifications requirements was to limit bidding to qualified vendors who have demonstrated prior experience in successfully administering large-scale assessment projects like the FCAT, thereby providing the Department with some degree of assurance that the winning bidder could successfully administer the FCAT. The instructions to bidders regarding the minimum requirements for corporate qualifications are contained in RFP Section 10, which gives directions on proposal preparation. Section 10.1, which lists certain mandatory documents and statements to be included in the bidder’s proposal, requires that a transmittal letter contain "[a] statement certifying that the bidder has met the minimum corporate qualifications as specified in the RFP." These "minimum corporate qualifications" are set forth in RFP Appendix J. RFP Section 10.2 identifies what a bidder is required to include in its proposal with respect to corporate qualifications. The first paragraph of Section 10.2 directs a bidder generally to describe its qualifications and experience performing tasks similar to those that it would perform in administering the FCAT, in order to demonstrate that the bidder is qualified where it states: Part II of a bidder’s proposal shall be entitled Corporate Qualifications. It shall provide a description of the bidder’s qualifications and prior experience in performing tasks similar to those required in this RFP. The discussion shall include a description of the bidder’s background and relevant experience that qualifies it to provide the products and services required by the RFP. RFP Section 10.2, however, is not limited to a directive that qualifications and past experience be described generally. Instead, Section 10.2, also communicates, in plain and unambiguous terms, that there are specific minimum corporate qualifications a bidder must demonstrate: The minimum expectations for corporate qualifications and experience are shown in Appendix J. There are two separate sets of factors, one set of eight for the developmental contractor and another set of nine for the administration contractor. Bidders must demonstrate their Corporate Qualifications in terms of the factors that are applicable to the activities for which a bid is being submitted -- development or administration. For each criterion, the bidder must demonstrate that the minimum threshold of experience has been achieved with prior completed projects. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, Section 10.2 singles out for emphasis, in relation to the administration component of the RFP, the importance placed on a bidder’s ability to demonstrate experience processing a large volume of tests: The [bidder’s prior completed] projects must have included work tasks similar to those described herein, particularly in test development or processing a comparable number of tests. The bidder will provide a description of the contracted services; the contract period; and the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for each of the contracting agencies. This description shall (1) document how long the organization has been providing similar services; (2) provide details of the bidder’s experience relevant to the services required by this RFP; and (3) describe the bidder’s other testing projects, products, and services that are similar to those required by this RFP. (Emphasis added.) The Department thus made clear its concern that bidders demonstrate experience with large-scale projects. RFP Appendix J sets forth nine different criteria (C1 through C9) for the administration contractor. As stated in RFP Section 10.2, "[f]or each criterion, the bidder must demonstrate that the minimum threshold of experience has been achieved with prior completed projects . . . ." (emphasis added). Appendix J contains a chart which lists for each criterion: (1) a summary of the related FCAT work task, (2) the detailed criteria for the bidder’s experience related to that work task, and (3) the necessary documentation a bidder must provide. Criterion C4 and Criterion C6 include work tasks that involve the use of image-based scoring technology. C4 and C6 are the only corporate qualifications criteria at issue in this proceeding. RFP Provisions Involving Corporate Qualifications for Image-Based Scoring "Handscoring" is the test administration activity in which open-ended or performance-based student responses are assessed. This practice involves a person reading something the student has written as part of the test, as distinguished from machine scoring multiple choice responses (i.e., the filled-in "bubbles" on an answer sheet). There are two types of handscoring: (1) paper-based handscoring, and (2) image-based handscoring. Paper-based handscoring requires that a student response paper be sent to a reader, who then reviews the student’s response as written on the paper and enters a score on a separate score sheet. Image-based handscoring involves a scanned image of the student’s response being transmitted to a reader electronically. The student’s response is then projected on a computer screen, where the reader reviews it and assigns a score using the computer. The RFP requires that the reading and math portions of the FCAT be handscored on-line using imaging technology beginning with the February 2000 FCAT administration. The RFP provides that the writing portion of the FCAT may be handscored using either the paper-based method or on-line imaging technology during the February 2000 and 2001 FCAT administrations. However, on-line image-based scoring of the writing portion of the FCAT is required for all FCAT administrations after February 2001. An image-based scoring system involves complex computer technology. William Bramlett, an expert in designing and implementing large-scale imaging computer systems and networks, presented unrefuted testimony that an image-based scoring system will be faced with special challenges when processing large volumes of tests. These challenges involve the need to automate image quality control, to manage the local and wide area network load, to assure adequate server performance and storage requirements, and to manage the work flow in a distributed environment. In particular, having an image-based scoring system process an increasing volume of tests is not simply a matter of adding more components. Rather, the system’s basic software architecture must be able to understand and manage the added elements and volume involved in a larger operation. According to Bramlett, there are two ways that the Department could assess the ability of a bidder to perform a large- scale, image-based scoring project such as the FCAT from a technological perspective: (1) have the bidder provide enough technological information about its system to be able to model or simulate the system and predict its performance for the volumes involved, or (2) require demonstrated ability through completion of prior similar projects. Dr. Mark Heidorn, Administrator for Florida’s K-12 Statewide Assessment Programs, was the primary author of RFP Sections 1-8, which describe the work tasks for the FCAT -- the goods and services vendors are to provide and respond to in their technical proposals. Dr. Heidorn testified that in the Department’s testing procurements involving complex technology, the Department has never required specific descriptions of the technology to be used. Instead, the Department has relied on the bidder’s experience in performing similar projects. Thus, the RFP does not specifically require that bidders describe in detail the particular strategies and approaches they intend to employ when designing and implementing an image-based scoring system for FCAT. Instead, the Department relied on the RFP requirements calling for demonstrated experience as a basis to understand that the bidder could implement such an image-based scoring system. Approximately 717,000 to 828,000 student tests will be scored annually by the FCAT administration contractor using imaging technology. The RFP, however, does not require that bidders demonstrate image-based scoring experience at that magnitude. Instead, the RFP requires bidders to demonstrate only a far less demanding minimum level of experience using image-based scoring technology. Criterion C4 and Criterion C6 in Appendix J of the RFP each require that a bidder demonstrate prior experience administering "a minimum of two" assessment programs using imaged- based scoring that involved "at least 200,000 students annually." The requirements for documenting a "minimum of two" programs or projects for C4 and C6 involving "at least 200,000 students annually" are material because they are intended to provide the Department with assurance that the FCAT administration contractor can perform the large-scale, image-based scoring requirements of the contract from a technological perspective. Such experience would indicate that the bidder would have been required to address the sort of system issues described by Bramlett. Dr. Heidorn testified that the number 200,000 was used in C4 and C6 "to indicate the level of magnitude of experience which represented for us a comfortable level to show that a contractor had enough experience to ultimately do the project that we were interested in completing." Dr. Fisher, who authored Appendix J, testified that the 200,000 figure was included in C4 and C6 because it was a number judged sufficiently characteristic of large-scale programs to be relevant for C4 and C6. Dr. Fisher further testified that the Department was interested in having information that a bidder’s experience included projects of a sufficient magnitude so that the bidder would have experienced the kinds of processing issues and concerns that arise in a large-scale testing program. The Department emphasized this specific quantitative minimum requirement in response to a question raised at the Bidder’s Conference held on November 13, 1998: Q9: In Appendix J, the criteria for evaluating corporate quality for the administration operations C4, indicates that the bidder must have experience imaging as indicated. Does this mean that the bid [sic] must bid for using [sic] imaging technology for reading and mathematics tests? A: Yes. The writing assessment may be handscored for two years, and then it will be scored using imaging technology. To be responsive, a bid must be for imaging. The corporate experience required (200,000 students annually for which reports were produced in three months) could be the combined experience of the primary contractor and the subcontractors. (Emphasis added.) Criterion C4 addresses the RFP work tasks relating to handscoring, including both the image-based handscoring of the reading and math portions of the FCAT for all administrations and the writing portions of the FCAT for later administrations. The "Work Task" column for C4 in Appendix J of the RFP states: Design and implement efficient and effective procedures for handscoring student responses to performance tasks within the limited time constraints of the assessment schedule. Handscoring involves image-based scoring of reading and mathematics tasks for all administrations and writing tasks for later administrations at secure scoring sites. Retrieve and score student responses from early district sample schools and deliver required data to the test development contractor within critical time periods for calibration and scaling. The "Necessary Documentation" column for C4 in Appendix J states: Bidder must document successful completion of a minimum of two performance item scoring projects for statewide assessment programs during the last four years for which the bidder was required to perform as described in the Criteria column. (Emphasis added.) The "Criteria" column for C4 in Appendix J, like the related work tasks in the RFP, addresses both image-based handscoring of reading and math, as well as paper-based or image- based handscoring of writing. In connection with all handscoring work tasks, "[t]he bidder must demonstrate completion of test administration projects for a statewide program for which performance items were scored using scoring rubrics and associated scoring protocols." With respect to the work tasks for handscoring the reading and math portions of the FCAT, "[t]he bidder must demonstrate completion of statewide assessment programs involving scoring multiple-choice and performance items for at least 200,000 students annually for which reports were produced in three months." In addition, for the reading and math work tasks, "[e]xperience must been shown in the use of imaging technology and hand-scoring student written responses with completion of scoring within limited time restrictions." This provision dealing with "imaging technology" experience self-evidently addresses the reading and math components, because separate language addresses imaging experience in connection with the writing component. The relevant handscoring experience for the reading and math aspects of the program is experience using image-based technology. By contrast, with respect to the work tasks for scoring the writing portions of the FCAT, "the bidder must also demonstrate completion of statewide assessment programs involving paper-based or imaged scoring student responses to writing assessment prompts for at least 200,000 students annually for which reports were produced in three months." (Emphasis added.) Criterion C6 addresses work tasks relating to designing and implementing systems for processing, scanning, imaging and scoring student responses to mixed-format tests within limited time constraints. The "Work Task" column for C6 in RFP Appendix J states: Design and implement systems for the processing, scanning, imaging, and scoring of student responses to test forms incorporating both multiple-choice and constructed response items (mixed-format) within the limited time constraints of the assessment schedule. Scoring of student responses involves implementation of IRT scoring tables and software provided by the development contractor within critical time periods. The "Necessary Documentation" column for C6 in Appendix J states: Bidder must document successful completion of a minimum of two test administration projects for statewide assessment programs during the last four years in which the bidder was required to perform as described in the Criteria column. (Emphasis added.) The Criteria column for C6 in Appendix J states: The bidder must demonstrate completion of test administration projects for statewide assessment programs or other large-scale assessment programs that required the bidder to design and implement systems for processing, scanning, imaging, and scoring responses to mixed-format tests for at least 200,000 students annually for which reports were produced in three months. Experience must be shown in use of imaging student responses for online presentation to readers during handscoring. (Emphasis added.) RFP Provisions Per Corporate Qualifications The procedure for evaluating a bidder’s corporate qualifications is described in RFP Section 11.3: The Department will evaluate how well the resources and experience described in each bidder’s proposal qualify the bidder to provide the services required by the provisions of this RFP. Consideration will be given to the length of time and the extent to which the bidder and any proposed subcontractors have been providing services similar or identical to those requested in this RFP. The bidder’s personnel resources as well as the bidder’s computer, financial, and other technological resources will be considered in evaluating a bidder’s qualifications to meet the requirements of this RFP. Client references will be contacted and such reference checks will be used in judging a bidder’s qualifications. The criteria to be used to rate a bidder’s corporate qualifications to meet the requirements of this RFP are shown in Appendix J and will be applied as follows: * * * Administrative Activities. Each of the nine administration activities criteria in Appendix J will be individually rated by members of the evaluation team. The team members will use the rating scale shown in Figure 1 below. Individual team members will review the bidder’s corporate qualifications and rate the response with a rating of one to five. The ratings across all evaluators for each factor will be averaged, rounded to the nearest tenth, and summed across all criteria. If each evaluator assigns the maximum number of points for each criterion, the total number of points will be 45. To meet the requirements of Stage II, the proposal must achieve a minimum rating of 27 points and have no individual criterion for which the number of points averaged across evaluators and then rounded is less than 3.0. Each proposal that receives a qualifying score based on the evaluation of the bidder’s qualifications will be further evaluated in Stage III. Figure 1 Evaluation Scale for Corporate Qualifications 5 Excellent 4 3 Satisfactory 2 1 Unsatisfactory The bidder has demonstrated exceptional experience and capability to perform the required tasks. The bidder has demonstrated that it meets an acceptable level of experience and capability to perform the required tasks. The bidder either has not established its corporate qualifications or does not have adequate qualifications. RFP Section 11.3 provides that each of the nine corporate qualifications criteria for administration operations in Appendix J (C1 through C9) will be individually rated by the six members of the evaluation team using a scale of one to five. A rating of three is designated as "satisfactory" which means that "[t]he bidder has demonstrated that it meets an acceptable level of experience and capability to perform the required tasks." In order to be further evaluated, Section 11.3 provides that there must be no individual corporate qualifications criterion for which the bidder’s proposal receives a score less than 3.0 (average points across evaluators). Dr. Fisher, the primary author of Section 11.3 of the RFP, referred to the 3.0 rating as the "cut score." (Emphasis added.) The RFP’s clear and unambiguous terms thus establish the "minimum threshold" of experience that a bidder "must demonstrate" in its proposal for Criterion C1 through Criterion C9. The "minimum threshold" of experience that a bidder must demonstrate for each criterion is described in Appendix J of the RFP. If a proposal failed to demonstrate that the bidder meets the minimum threshold of experience for a particular criterion in Appendix J, the bidder obviously would not have demonstrated "that it meets an acceptable level of experience and capability to perform the required tasks." Thus, in that setting, an evaluator was to have assigned the proposal a rating of less than "satisfactory," or less than three, for that criterion. (Emphasis added.) The fact that a score less than "3" was expected for -- and would eliminate -- proposals that did not demonstrate the "minimum threshold" of experience does not render meaningless the potential scores of "1" and "2." Those scores may reflect the degree to which a bidder’s demonstrated experience was judged to fall below the threshold. Although some corporate capability minimums were stated quantitatively (i.e., "minimum of two," or "at least 200,000"), others were open to a more qualitative assessment (i.e., "large-scale," "systems," or "reports"). Moreover, a proposal that included demonstrated experience in some manner responsive to each aspect of Appendix J might nevertheless be assigned a score of less than "3," based on how an evaluator assessed the quality of the experience described in the proposal. By the terms of the RFP, however, an average score across evaluators of less than 3 represented essentially a decision that the minimum threshold of experience was not demonstrated. Had the Department truly intended Appendix J to reflect only general targets or guidelines, there were many alternative ways to communicate such an intent without giving mandatory direction about what bidders "must demonstrate" or without establishing quantitative minimums (i.e. "a minimum of two," or "at least 200,000"). RFP Appendix K, for instance, sets forth the evaluation criteria for technical proposals in broad terms that do not require the bidder to provide anything in particular. Even within Appendix J, other than in Criterion C4 and Criterion C6, bidders were to show experience with "large-scale" projects rather than experience at a quantified level. Pursuant to the RFP’s plain language, in order to meet the "minimum threshold" of experience for Criterion C4 and Criterion C6, a bidder "must demonstrate," among other things, successful completion of a "minimum of two" projects, each involving the use of image-based scoring technology in administering tests to "at least 200,000 students annually." Department’s Evaluation of Corporate Qualifications In evaluating Harcourt’s proposal, the Department failed to give effect to the plain RFP language stating that a bidder "must document" successful completion of a "minimum of two" testing projects involving "at least 200,000 students annually" in order to meet the "minimum threshold" of experience for C4 and C6. Dr. Fisher was the primary author of Sections 10, 11 and Appendix J of the RFP. He testified that during the Stage II evaluation of corporate qualifications, the evaluation team applied a "holistic" approach, like that used in grading open-ended written responses in student test assessments. Under the holistic approach that Dr. Fisher described, each member of the evaluation team was to study the proposals, compare the information in the proposals to everything contained in Appendix J, and then assign a rating for each criterion in Appendix J based on "how well" the evaluator felt the proposal meets the needs of the agency. Notwithstanding Dr. Fisher’s present position, the RFP’s terms and their context demonstrate that the minimum requirements for corporate qualifications are in RFP Appendix J. During the hearing, Dr. Fisher was twice asked to identify language in the RFP indicating that the Department would apply a "holistic" approach when evaluating corporate qualifications. Both times, Dr. Fisher was unable to point to any explicit RFP language putting bidders on notice that the Department would be using a "holistic" approach to evaluating proposals and treating the Appendix J thresholds merely as targets. In addition, Dr. Fisher testified that the Department did not engage in any discussion at the bidders’ conference about the evaluation method that was going to be used other than drawing the bidders’ attention to the language in the RFP. As written, the RFP establishes minimum thresholds of experience to be demonstrated. Where, as in the RFP, certain of those minimum thresholds are spelled out in quantitative terms that are not open to interpretation or judgment, it is neither reasonable nor logical to rate a proposal as having demonstrated "an acceptable level of experience" when it has not demonstrated the specified minimum levels, even if other requirements with which it was grouped were satisfied. The plain RFP language unambiguously indicates that an analytic method, not a "holistic" method, will be applied in evaluating corporate qualifications. Dr. Fisher acknowledged that, in an assessment using an analytic method, there is considerable effort placed up front in deciding the specific factors that will be analyzed and those factors are listed and explained. Dr. Fisher admitted that the Department went into considerable detail in Appendix J of the RFP to explain to the bidders the minimums they had to demonstrate and the documentation that was required. In addition, Dr. Orr, who served as a member of the evaluation team and who herself develops student assessment tests, stated that in assessments using the "holistic" method there is a scoring rubric applied, but that rubric does not contain minimum criteria like those found in the RFP for FCAT. The holistic method applied by the Department ignores very specific RFP language which spells out minimum requirements for corporate qualifications. Harcourt’s Corporate Qualifications for C4 and C6 Harcourt’s proposal lists the same three projects administered by Harcourt for both Criterion C4 and Criterion C6: the Connecticut Mastery Test ("CMT"), the Connecticut Academic Performance Test ("CAPT") and the Delaware Student Testing Program ("DSTP"). Harcourt’s proposal also lists for Criterion C4 projects administered by its proposed scoring subcontractors, Measurement Incorporated ("MI") and Data Recognition Corporation ("DRC"). However, none of the projects listed for MI or DRC involve image- based scoring. Thus, the MI and DRC projects do not demonstrate any volume of image-based scoring as required by C6 and by the portion of C4 which relates to the work task for the imaged-based scoring of the math and reading portions of the FCAT. Harcourt’s proposal states that "[a]pproximately 35,000 students per year in grade 10 are tested with the CAPT." Harcourt’s proposal states that "[a]pproximately 120,000 students per year in grades 4, 6 and 8 are tested with the CMT." Harcourt’s proposal states that "[a]pproximately 40,000 students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10" are tested with the DSTP. Although the descriptions of the CMT and the CAPT in Harcourt’s proposal discuss image-based scoring, there is nothing in the description of the DSTP that addresses image-based scoring. There is no evidence that the evaluators were ever made aware that the DSTP involved image-based scoring. Moreover, although the Department called the Delaware Department of Education ("DDOE") as a reference for Harcourt’s development proposal, the Department did not discuss Harcourt’s administration of the DSTP (including whether the DSTP involves image-based scoring) with the DDOE. Harcourt overstated the number of students tested in the projects it referenced to demonstrate experience with image-based scoring. Harcourt admitted at hearing that, prior to submitting its proposal, Harcourt had never tested 120,000 students with the CMT. In fact, the total number of students tested by Harcourt on an annual basis under the CMT has ranged from 110,273 in the 1996- 97 school year to 116,679 in the 1998-99 school year. Harcourt also admitted at hearing that, prior to submitting its proposal, Harcourt had never tested 35,000 students in grade 10 with the CAPT. Instead, the total number of grade 10 students tested by Harcourt on an annual basis with the CAPT ranged from 30,243 in 1997 to 31,390 in 1998. In addition, Harcourt admitted at hearing that, prior to submitting its proposal, it had conducted only one "live" administration of the DSTP (as distinguished from field testing). That administration of the DSTP involved only 33,051, not 40,000, students in grades 3, 5, 8 and 10. Harcourt itself recognized that "field tests" of the DSTP are not responsive to C4 and C6, as evidenced by Harcourt’s own decision not to include in its proposal the number of students field tested under the DSTP. Even assuming that the numbers in Harcourt’s proposal are accurate, and that the description of the DSTP in Harcourt’s proposal reflected image-based scoring, Harcourt’s proposal on its face does not document any single project administered by Harcourt for C4 or C6 involving image-based testing of more than 120,000 students annually. When the projects are aggregated, the total number of students claimed as tested annually still does not reach the level of "at least 200,000;" it comes to only 195,000, and it reaches that level only once due to the single administration of the DSTP. Moreover, even if that 195,000 were considered "close enough" to the 200,000 level required, it was achieved only one time, while Appendix J plainly directs that there be a minimum of two times that testing at that level has been performed. The situation worsens for Harcourt when using the true numbers of students tested under the CMT, CAPT, and DSTP, because Harcourt cannot document any single image-based scoring project it has administered involving testing more than 116,679 students annually. Moreover, when the true numbers of students tested are aggregated, the total rises only to 181,120 students tested annually on one occasion, and no more than 141,663 tested annually on any other occasion. Despite this shortfall from the minimum threshold of experience, under the Department’s holistic approach the evaluators assigned Harcourt’s proposal four ratings of 3.0 and two ratings of 4.0 for C4, for an average of 3.3 on C4; and five ratings of 3.0 and one rating of 4.0 for C6, for an average of 3.2 on C6. Applying the plain language of the RFP in Sections 10 and 11 and Appendix J, Harcourt did not demonstrate that it meets an acceptable level of experience and capability for C4 or C6, because Harcourt did not satisfy the minimum threshold for each criterion by demonstrating a minimum of two prior completed projects involving image-based scoring requiring testing of at least 200,000 students annually. Harcourt’s proposal should not have received any rating of 3.0 or higher on C4 or C6 and should have been disqualified from further evaluation due to failure to demonstrate the minimum experience that the Department required in order to be assured that Harcourt can successfully administer the FCAT program. NCS’s Compliance With RFP Requirements Even though the NCS proposal did not meet all of the mandatory requirements, and despite the requirement of Section 11.2 that the proposal be automatically disqualified under such circumstances, the Department waived NCS’s noncompliance as a minor irregularity. The factors in C4 and C6 were set, minimal requirements with which NCS did not comply. For example, one of the two programs NCS submitted in response to Criteria C4 and C6 was the National Assessment of Educational Progress program ("NAEP"). NAEP, however, is not a "statewide assessment program" within the meaning of that term as used in Criteria C4 and C6. Indeed, NCS admitted that NAEP is not a statewide assessment program and that, without consideration of that program, NCS’s proposal is not responsive to Criteria C4 and C6 because NCS has not have submitted the required proof of having administered two statewide assessment programs. This error cannot be cured by relying on the additional experience of NCS’s subcontractor because that experience does not show that its subcontractor produced reports within three months, and so such experience does not demonstrate compliance with Criteria C4. The Department deliberately limited the competition for the FCAT contract to firms with specified minimum levels of experience. As opined at final hearing, if the Department in the RFP had announced to potential bidders that the type of experience it asked vendors to describe were only targets, goals and guidelines, and that a failure to demonstrate target levels of experience would not be disqualifying, then the competitive environment for this procurement would have differed since only 2.06 evaluation points (out of a possible 150) separated the NCS and Harcourt scores. Dr. Heidorn conceded that multiple companies with experience in different aspects of the FCAT program -- a computer/imaging company and a firm experienced in educational testing -- might combine to perform a contract like the FCAT. Yet, that combination of firms would be discouraged from bidding because they could not demonstrate the minimum experience spelled out in the RFP. Language in the RFP, indicating the "holistic" evaluation that was to be applied, could have resulted in a different field of potential and actual bidders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Education, enter a Final Order rejecting the bids submitted by Harcourt and NCS for the administration component of the RFP. The Department should then seek new proposals. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Walker, Esquire Holland and Knight, LLP Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mark D. Colley, Esquire Holland and Knight, LLP Suite 400 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20037 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Christopher B. Lunny, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant and Yon, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-7741 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420. Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations. Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving". Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations. Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation. Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption. In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation. Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale". The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable". The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct". The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc." The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error. The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on the morning of April 15, 2000, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On April 15, 2000, as part of his effort to obtain a license to practice as an engineer intern in the State of Florida, Petitioner sat for the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination (Examination). This was a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The Examination was divided into two sessions: a morning session (AM Part), which tested "lower division subjects" (that is, "the first 90 semester credit hours . . . of engineering course work for a typical bachelor engineering degree program"), and an afternoon session (PM Part), which tested "upper division subjects" (that is, "the remainder of the engineering course work"). Questions on the AM Part were worth one raw point each. Questions on the PM Part were worth two raw points each. The NCEES provided candidates taking the Examination with a Fundamentals of Engineering, Discipline Specific, Reference Handbook (Reference Handbook) that they were allowed to refer to during the Examination. The Reference Handbook, as noted in its Foreword, "contain[ed] only reference formulas and tables; no example problems [we]re included." Petitioner received a total raw score of 104 on the Examination (54 for the AM Part and 50 for the PM Part). According to the NCEES's Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 104 converted to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 (or 107-109 raw points) was needed. Accordingly, Petitioner fell three raw points short of receiving a passing score. Petitioner has formally requested that the grading of his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 of the AM Part be reviewed. He received no credit for any of these answers. Had these answers been deemed correct (and he received one raw point for each answer), he would have passed the Examination (with a converted score of 70). Question 34 of the AM Part was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that covered subject matter (integral calculus) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. There was only one correct answer to this question, and it was among the responses from which the candidates had to choose. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect because it represented a particular solution or expression, and not the "general expression" (representing all solutions) called for by the question. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Questions 65 and 75 of the AM Part, like Question 34, were clear and unambiguous multiple choice questions that covered subject areas (centroids and thermodynamics, respectively) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. Each of these questions, again like Question 34, had only one correct answer that was listed among the choices from which the candidates had to choose. To answer each question correctly, the candidates had to use a formula that was set forth in the Reference Handbook (on page 21 in the case of Question 65 and on page 46 in the case of Question 75). Petitioner selected neither the correct answer to Question 65, nor the correct answer to Question 75, and therefore was not entitled to any credit for his answers to these questions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the April 15, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On April 19, 1990, petitioner, Don R. Blackburn, was a candidate on the engineering intern portion of the professional engineer examination given in Miami, Florida. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Professional Engineers (Board). On July 25, 1990, the Board issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that he had received a grade of 66 on the examination. A grade of 70 is necessary to pass this part of the examination. By letter dated August 15, 1990, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his score. In his letter, Blackburn generally contended that the examination was unfairly administered because certain books were allowed to be used by some but not all candidates, untrained proctors were given the authority to scan review materials and determine which could or could not be used by the candidates, and because of the chaos and confusion that occurred during the examination, he was unable to attain a score that he otherwise would have been able to achieve. Blackburn is an engineer for Lee County and is seeking to pass the engineering intern portion of the examination. A passing grade on that portion is a prerequisite to sitting on the second part of the professional engineer examination. He has taken the examination on a number of occasions and has gradually improved his score to just short of passing. Indeed, on the October 1989 examination, Blackburn scored a 69, or just one point less than the required 70. Prior to the April 1990 examination, the engineering intern portion of the professional engineer examination was an unrestricted open book examination. This meant candidates could use any and all reference and review materials during the examination. Beginning with the April 1990 examination, the Board imposed certain restrictions on the use of review materials. As early as October 9, 1989, the Board's executive director sent a memorandum to all candidates on the October 1989 examination, including Blackburn, concerning the new restrictions. The memorandum stated in part: Please be advised of certain restrictions listed in the Candidate Information Booklet which will not be implemented until the April 1990 examination. These restrictions are found in the "Examination Administration Information" section and are concerning the following two areas: * * * 2. Books or information containing sample questions or engineering problems may also be brought provided they are bound. Again, the new restrictions listed in the Candidate Information Booklet regarding the above two areas WILL NOT be implemented until the April 1990 examination. All candidates on the April 1990 examination were given a Candidate Information Booklet prepared in January 1990 by DPR's Bureau of Examination Services. On pages 13 and 14 of the booklet was found the following information: This is an open book examination. Candidates may use textbooks, handbooks, notes, and reference materials which are bound, copyrighted and printed. The term "bound" refers to material that is bound permanently, hard or paperback stitched or glued, or spiral, plastic or three-ringed bound. The printed material must remain contained (bound) in its cover during the entire examination. No writing tablets, unbound tablets or unbound "loose notes" will be allowed. No books with contents directed toward sample questions or solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room. Examinees are not permitted to exchange reference materials or aids during the examination. (Emphasis in original) What the emphasized language meant is that "review" manuals, which contain problems and solutions, were prohibited from use during the examination while "reference" books were not. However, the booklet did not list the specific names of published materials that would be permitted or excluded. In order to ascertain which books he might use on the next examination, on March 27, 1990, Blackburn telephoned the Board in Tallahassee and spoke with a female employee named "B. J." who advised him that "review publications directed principally towards the solution of engineering problems" would be excluded. When asked if "Lindeburg's Sixth Edition" would be authorized, B. J. told Blackburn she wasn't sure and that it would be left up to the proctors in the room. She did say, however, that a review manual authored by Schaum could be used. The engineering intern examination in April 1990 was administered in two separate rooms at the Radisson Hotel in Miami, Florida. Blackburn was in a "very large" upstairs room with approximately thirty other candidates while a similar number took the examination in a downstairs room. The examination in the upstairs room began at 8:43 a.m. after various instructions were read to the candidates by the examination supervisor, Jeannie Smith, a veteran of twenty years in proctoring and supervising professional examinations. According to Smith, there was "considerable confusion" concerning which books could be used by the candidates, particularly since this was the first examination given with the new restrictions. She also acknowledged that there was "chaos" prior to the beginning of the examination and that this was, "extremely upsetting" to the examinees. However, before the examination began, Smith announced on a microphone the names of certain books which the Board had given her that were either prohibited or could be used by candidates. She further advised that if candidates had any questions they were to come to a bulletin board by the microphone where she had posted Xerox copies of the covers of various books. If a book could be used, it had the word "YES" printed on the cover while a "NO" was printed on those covers of books that could not be used. 1/ It is noted that only one cover sheet with a "YES" was posted, that being the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, Fourth Edition, Michael R. Lindeburg. However, at least three candidates who took the examination that morning, including petitioner, did not see the posted materials nor hear the invitation for candidates to come to the bulletin board. One book in issue that was specifically prohibited was Engineer In Training Review Manual, Sixth Edition, Michael R. Lindeburg, which contained 378 solved problems, and thus fell within the general prohibition of review manuals described on page 14 of the Candidate Information Booklet. However, those candidates who had the Seventh Edition of the same book were allowed to keep and use that manual even though it contained 422 solved problems, or some 44 more solved problems than was contained in the prohibited Sixth Edition. By allowing those students having the Seventh Edition to use the same even though it contained "review" materials, DPR violated the instructions contained in the Candidate Information Booklet and gave an advantage to those candidates not enjoyed by others, including petitioner. In addition, at least one other candidate in the upstairs group was allowed to use a prohibited review manual (Schaum's Outline Series, Theory and Problems of Electric Power Systems) but still that candidate did not attain a passing grade. Petitioner also contended that candidates taking the examination in the downstairs room were allowed to use language dictionaries during the morning part of the examination while those upstairs could not. 2/ Petitioner's contention is grounded upon hearsay evidence and accordingly it is found that no competent proof to support this claim was submitted. However, there was obviously some confusion over this matter because, after receiving complaints of this nature from two candidates, Smith telephoned the Board's offices in Tallahassee during the lunch break to ascertain whether such books could be used. Upon learning that they could not, she advised the upstairs group at the beginning of the afternoon session that dictionaries were not allowed. Blackburn also established that during the examination proctors went from desk to desk examining the materials that each candidate had in his possession. If a candidate had what the proctor perceived to be a book containing solutions to problems, the candidate was told to put the book on the floor. In the alternative, she candidates were told that if they tore the offending pages out of the book, they could continue using the remaining materials. Petitioner has complained that the proctors were not engineers and they were untrained in determining whether a book was acceptable or not. The Board has conceded that engineers do not proctor examinations but asserted that they are intelligent enough to determine whether books fall within the proscribed category. According to Blackburn's proctor at the examination, George Walton, a retired Coast Guard captain and engineering graduate of the Coast Guard Academy, he relied upon the list of approved and disapproved books supplied by the Board prior to the examination in determining whether materials would be excluded or not. Walton also stated that if he examined a book and found it contained solutions, he would disallow the same unless the offending pages were removed. A DPR expert in testing and measurements, Dr. Joseph A. Klock, examined the pass/fail rate for the examination taken by Blackburn and compared that rate to the October 1989 examination rate. Doctor Klock found no significant difference in the two rates and concluded that there was no statistically significant difference in performance of candidates over those time periods despite the confusion which occurred during the April 1990 examination. Blackburn did not present any evidence to show that if he had used the Seventh Edition of the Engineer In Training Review Manual, he would have been able to achieve more points on a particular problem and thus would have had a passing grade. Blackburn's principal complaint was that he had spent many hours preparing for the examination in question, that he was forced to guess which books to bring to the examination, and because of the confusion and chaos that took place at the beginning of the examination as well as his awareness that others were using a review manual with solved problems, it was impossible for him to give his best effort on the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on the April 1990 professional engineer examination be DENIED. However, petitioner should be entitled to retake the next examination at no charge. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1990.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his admission to the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida on August 30, 1982, Petitioner Evans attended a three-year full-time Mechanical Engineering Diploma Program at the College of Arts, Science and Technology in Kingston, Jamaica. Upon completion of the program, Petitioner was awarded the College Mechanical Engineering Diploma. The diploma from the College of Arts, Science and Technology was conferred in an educational system based upon the English System of Education. The diploma was not a university degree, such as a Bachelor of Science. It is more akin to a certificate from a specialized training program. Such diplomas are often called Associate Degrees when they are issued by junior colleges in the United States. 750 credit hours were transferred from the College of Arts, Science and Technology and were applied to the lower level requirements for the Mechanical Engineering Program when Petitioner was enrolled at the University of South Florida. As with all transfers from other schools of higher education, Petitioner was not given credit for those courses in the grade point average (GPA) he was required to achieve at the university. Throughout his enrollment at the university prior to the actual award of his Bachelor of Science (BS) degree, Petitioner Evans was in the Mechanical Engineering Program. During the thirteen terms the Petitioner attended the university before he was awarded his BS degree, he repeated the following engineering department courses: EGN 3313 STATICS (3 times); EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2 (2 times); ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I (3 times) and EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO (4 times). Petitioner ultimately achieved a "A" in EGN 3313 STATICS; a "C" in EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2, as well as ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I. His final grade in the coursework for EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO was a "B". At all times while Petitioner was in attendance at the university, the Mechanical Engineering Department required students to have a GPA of 2.2 or better in a specific schedule of coursework before a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (BSME) degree would be awarded by the faculty of the Department. The curriculum for the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida was accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) based upon the program requirement that a degree in mechanical engineering would be conferred only on students with a 2.2 or better GPA. The fall term of August 24, 1987 - December 12, 1987, was designated as Petitioner's final term of his senior year as an undergraduate seeking a BSME degree. Although the means used by the Mechanical Engineering faculty to calculate a GPA during this particular time period was unavailable, there is no dispute that the faculty applied its policy and determined that a BSME could not be awarded to Petitioner because he did not meet the academic standard of 2.2 or better GPA in the scheduled courses. Due to the averaging required to arrive at a GPA, Petitioner's repetition of so many courses lowered his overall GPA even though he successfully completed each course on his final attempt. When Petitioner was personally informed of the faculty's decision by his assigned faculty adviser, he questioned whether he could retake some of the courses to bring his GPA status up to the level demanded by the faculty. This idea was discouraged by his adviser because Petitioner would have to repeat a large number of courses over a lengthy period of time. The averaging techniques used to compute a GPA makes such an endeavor very time consuming with small results for the effort spent. Based upon the advice he received, Petitioner acquiesced in the faculty's decision to award him a B.S. in Engineering-Option in General and accepted the degree. At the close of his undergraduate academic pursuits, Petitioner had an overall GPA of 2.082 and a GPA in departmental course work of 1.79. This departmental GPA was calculated by eliminating 3 "Fs" from his transcript, per the university's forgiveness policy. All other course repeats lowered his overall GPA and his departmental GPA. In spite of the overall GPA and departmental GPA determination, Petitioner did take and successfully passed every course within the curriculum of the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida. The B.S. degree awarded to Petitioner is an alternate degree within the university. It is designed for students who have either completed a specialized program but were unable to meet a faculty's higher GPA standard or for those students who never designated a specialty within the engineering school, but met general university degree requirements. This program has never been accredited by ABET. ABET relied upon the faculty's representation that students who received BSME degrees would obtain a 2.2 or better GPA in the program before the degree was awarded when accreditation was granted by the board. It is unknown as to whether the program would have been approved if a lower success standard had been set for the students. On July 9, 1990, Petitioner's application for the Fundamentals Examination was received by the Department. The application was rejected on September 24, 1990, because the Department determined Petitioner did not meet the statutory and rule provisions governing admissions to the examination. From August 27,, 1984 - December 11, 1987, Petitioner was in the final year of an approved engineering curriculum in a university approved by the Board. He successfully completed the courses in the curriculum, but his GPA in the program was lowered by his numerous repetitions of the same courses before successful completion occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the examination administered by the Department for the Board be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 20th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Pages 1-2: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement Issue I-Page 3: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #11. Paragraph two. Accepted. See HO #7. Paragraph three. Accepted. See HO #3. Paragraph four. Accepted. See HO #8. Paragraph five. Accepted. See HO #4, #10, #11 and #12. Paragraph six. Accepted. Paragraph seven. Accepted. See HO #15. Paragraph eight. Accepted. See HO #12. Paragraph nine. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Rejected. Cumulative. Issue II-Page 7: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #13. Issue III-Page 8:Paragraph one. Accepted. Paragraph two. Rejected. Cumulative. Paragraph three. Accepted. Paragraph four. Rejected. Mixed Question of Law and Fact. Witness Incompetent to determine. Paragraph five. Rejected. Cumulative. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. Accepted. See HO #8 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Insufficient facts presented. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. COPIES FURNISHED: Weldon Earl Brennan, Esquire SHEAR NEWMAN HAHN & ROSENKRANZ, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Executive Director Jack McRay, General Counsel Florida Board of Professional Department of Professional Engineers Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the electrical engineer examination administered by Respondent in October 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the electrical engineer licensing examination administered by Respondent in October 1996. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the duty to regulate the practice of electrical engineering in Florida. Pursuant to Section 471.015, Florida Statutes, an applicant for licensure as an electrical engineer is required to successfully pass both parts of a licensure examination.1 The electrical engineer licensure examination at issue in this proceeding was developed and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Following the initial grading of the "Principles and Practice" section of the exam, Petitioner was awarded a score of 68. A total score of 70 was required to pass that portion of the examination. Petitioner thereafter timely challenged the grading of two questions on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the exam. His challenge was limited to Questions 130 and 132. Petitioner did not specifically challenge Question 131. In response to that challenge, Respondent sent Petitioner’s examination package back to NCEES to have the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination re-graded. NCEES re-graded all of Petitioner's answers to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination, including his responses to Questions 130, 131, and 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 130. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was not awarded any additional credit for his answer to Question 130. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 130 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional credit for his response to Question 130. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 132. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 132 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 8 points for his answer to Question 131. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 131 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. Petitioner is not entitled to a score of 8 for his answer to Question 131. Each of the three questions at issue in this proceeding is a problem that requires multiple steps and computations to solve. If a candidate correctly answers all parts of the question a score of 10 points is awarded. Partial credit can be awarded based on how many of the parts of the question are correctly answered. There is no allegation that the three questions involved in this proceeding are ambiguous or otherwise inappropriate for a licensure examination. The record is not clear when Respondent notified Petitioner of its position following the re-grading of the questions at issue. It is clear that Petitioner was aware of Respondent's position prior to the start of the formal hearing. During the formal hearing and in his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner challenged Respondent's right to re-grade Question 131 since he had not specifically challenged that question. Petitioner has not asserted that he was provided insufficient notice of Respondent's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that awards Petitioner a score of 68 on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the October 1996 licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of December, 1997.
