Findings Of Fact At all times material here to, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C009484 by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent qualified Allstate Roofing & Construction Company with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Since March 1983, Respondent has also been licensed as a registered roofing contractor and qualifies Allstate Roofing & Construction Company with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board under license number RC 0043155. On March 27, 1981, as the qualifier for Allstate Roofing & Construction Company, Respondent entered into a contract with Joe Hill to reroof Hill's home for the contract price of $2,214.10. The contract further provided that workmanship would be unconditionally guaranteed for a period of five years. Respondent in turn entered into a subcontract on April 8, 1981, whereby A & A Roofing Co. subcontracted with Allstate Roofing & Construction Company to perform the work required on the Hill roof for the sum of $1,950, which contract also carried a five-year workmanship unconditional guarantee. In the meantime, Hill and his wife obtained a second mortgage on their home to pay for the replacement of the existing roof, and the mortgage company paid Respondent directly. The subcontractor with whom Respondent contracted for the work on the Hill home was a registered roofing contractor. The existing roof on the Hill home was gravel. Under the contract for replacing the roof on the Hill hoine, asphalt shingles were installed on the portion of the roof which is slanted, and new gravel and tar were installed on the portion of the roof which is flat. After the roof was completely replaced, Hill contacted Respondent to report leaks in the flat part of the roof. In response to that complaint, someone came to the Hill residence and repaired the areas where leakage was reported. Since the roof leaked again, Hill contacted Respondent, and Mr. Davis of A & A Roofing Co. reported to the Hill residence and worked on the roof. In January 1983, Hill's wife contacted Respondent regarding her leaky roof, and once again someone was sent to the Hill residence to effectuate repairs. Although the Hills testified at the formal hearing that the roof still leaked, no evidence was presented to show the precise location of any leak in order o ascertain if the leak was a new" leak or an "old" leak. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hill do admit, however, that Respondent has responded to their complaints every time they have contacted him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein and further dismissing the Administrative Complaint against him. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 20th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Clarence. S. Tate 8282 Westernway Circle, Suite 103 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact On January 8, 1988, the DOT published a Notice To Contractors that stated in pertinent part: The Florida Department of Transportation plans to receive bid proposals for the following design/build projects. This advertisement is issued to give advance notice of our design/build intentions; to allow interested parties to form design/build affiliations; and to submit letters of interest for specific project(s). For the advertised design/build projects, the contracting firm shall be prequalified with the Department in accordance with Rule 14-22 in construction class Hot Plant-Mix Bituminous Base & Surface Courses. Consultants affiliating with the contracting firm must be prequalified with the Department prior to final selection in the following types of work: Type B (Standard Roadway Design) Type K (Standard Contract Administration and Inspection) Firms shall submit a separate letter of interest for each of the following projects for which they wish to be considered: * * * State Project No. 01050-1519 CHARLOTTE COUNTY: Level, widen, and resurfacing of S.R. 776. The limits of the project will be from approximately 750 feet west of Sunnybrook Boulevard to 650 feet east of C.R. 771. Approximate length 3.3 miles. D.B.E. Goal 10.0 percent. Bonding Requirement $1,000,000. * * * Construction work may consist of resurfacing, construction of paved shoulders, extension of existing cross- drains, installation of mitered end sections on side drains, shoulder work, signing and pavement marking, sodding and grassing. Consultant services will include, but not be limited to, Construction Engineering Inspection and the preparation of construction plans in accordance with the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual (1985) and other applicable criteria, to include as appropriate: Utility Adjustment Plans, summary of pay items, signing and pavement marking plans, maintenance of traffic details, drainage design, pavement design, and Special Provisions. Any firm who has not been qualified by the Department and would like to be considered for these projects should request a Letter of Interest Submittal Package from the Bureau of Contractual Services in Tallahassee, 904/487-3487. The Department shall determine the relative ability of each firm to perform the services required for each project. Determination of ability shall be based upon staff training and experience, firm experience, location, past experience with the Departent, financial capacity, past performance and current and projected work load. The Department shall select (shortlist) not less than three firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services to proceed with preparation of bid & technical proposals. Scope of services desired, schedules, blank contracts and special instructions will be provided at pre-bid/scope of services meeting, which will be held within 2 weeks following shortlisting. * * * SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Firms desiring consideration for this project must submit two (2) copies of their qualifications to the requesting unit listed below for each project that they are interested in. Information that must be included are the name of the project(s) to which the letter of interest applies, the names of the firms involved in the affiliation, firm's experience, location, past experience with the Department, and current and projected work load. RESPONSE EVALUATION: All respondents will be evaluated and must be determined by the Department to be qualified to do business in Florida and must be prequalified to perform the advertised work requirements prior to final selection. 2/ * * * Pursuant to DOT Rule 14-25.024(1), any person adversely affected by not being selected to provide aid proposals must file with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Mail Station 58, Room 562, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458, a written Notice of Protest within 72 hours of the posting of the firms selected to prepare proposals. The firms selected to prepare bid proposals will be posted with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings on the 19th day of February, 1988. After filing a written Notice of Protest (within 72 hours of posting), a formal written protest setting forth a short and plain statement of the matters asserted by the Protestor shall be filed with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings within ten days after filing of the Notice of Protest. A failure to file a timely protest constitutes a waiver of Chapter 120 proceedings. At the time of the Notice To Contractors, and until March 13, 1988, there was no DOT rule establishing design-build procedures under Section 337.11(5), Florida Statutes (1987). Six design-build teams submitted letters of interest in response to the Notice To Contractors. Two teams later were eliminated, leaving four: (1) Ajax (the contractor)/Hole, Montes (the design consultant/construction engineering inspector (CEI)); (2) APAC/Harris; (3) Harper Bros./Aim Engineering; and (4) Wendel Kent-Gator Asphalt/Kunde, Sprecher, Yaskin. Before February 18, 1988, both DOT's central office in Tallahassee and its district office, District I, in Bartow, compiled rankings for the firms that had submitted letters of interest. Although both offices attempted to do the same thing--compile evaluations based on certain criteria--they set about their tasks differently. In Tallahassee, Mr. William Laufman and his staff developed evaluation forms complete with instructions. The forms outlined the weight to be assigned each criterion when evaluating the contractor, the design consultant, and the CEI (Construction Engineering Inspection) ability of the consultant firm. The instructions set forth the method by which the evaluations were to be done. The idea behind the evaluation forms was to promote uniformity among the evaluators. The forms were developed during the two weeks before February 16, 1988, and were completed on that date. The weight to be assigned each criterion was determined by a consensus of people within the construction, design, and CEI departments. These decisions were made when the forms were developed. The forms and the backup data used in Tallahassee to do the evaluations were "faxed" to the district office to be used when doing its evaluations. The letter of interest packets were also provided. According to the evaluation forms used in Tallahassee to evaluate contractors, the firms' overall experience, past DOT performance grades, and current and projected workload were most heavily weighted. These items were twice as important as financial capacity and location. For consultant firms and CEI ability, past performance grades on DOT jobs was most important while location was least important. The firm's experience, staff training, and current and projected workload were weighted equally. The information the central office considered necessary to do the evaluations included information contained in the letter of interest packets, the prequalification file of the contractors and consultants, and DOT documents regarding DOT experience. Some information related to certain criteria could only be gleaned from a review of the prequalification file. For example, overall firm experience and staff training and experience would be detailed in that file. All of this information was available to DOT to do the evaluations. The central office staff ranked APAC/Harris highest with a combined 82 score (contractor-62, design consultant-11, CEI consultant-9). The central office staff ranked Wendel Kent-Gator/Kunde, Sprecher & Yaskin second highest with a 78 score (contractors-56, design consultant-11, CEI consultant-11). The central office staff ranked Harper Brothers/Aim Engineering third highest with a 66 (contractor-48, design consultant-7, CEI consultant-11). The central office staff ranked Ajax/Holes, Montes fourth with a 63 (contractor-50, design consultant-7, CEI consultant-6). In contrast, the district office performed its evaluation and ranking on the morning of February 18, 1988, the date established for a teleconference meeting at which the "shortlist" would be determined. That morning, Mr. John Dewinkler, District I Director of Production, assigned Marshal Dougherty, District I Professional Services Engineer, the task of ranking the design-build teams. Dougherty had only a list identifying the teams from which to work. Dougherty ranked the design-CEI components of the teams and enlisted Donald Prescott, District I Assistant to District Construction Engineer, to rank the construction contractor component of the teams. Due to time constraints and problems experienced by the central office computer system that morning, neither was able to resort to information normally available in the central office. Dougherty relied on his own knowledge of team members and information available at the district office in Bartow. Prescott telephoned the four resident offices in District I for input on the relative abilities of the construction contractors. Prescott and Dougherty took 1 1/2 - 2 hours to do their work. Dougherty then prepared team rankings that combined his ranking with Prescott's, giving equal weight to each. Their evaluations did not strictly follow the weighted criteria set out in the central office evaluation forms. Of the four, Mr. Prescott ranked Harper Brothers first, Wendel Kent- Gator second, Gator third, APAC fourth, and Ajax fifth. The letter of interest using Gator Asphalt as the independent contractor was eliminated as a result of the competition conflict. Of the four, the district's overall rankings were Wendel Kent- Gator/Kunde first, Harper/Aim second, APAC/Harris third and Ajax/Hole, Montes last. On the afternoon of February 18, 1988, the Technical Committee convened by conference call to determine the shortlist for the projects listed on the Notice To Contractors. The members of the committee included Wally Giddens, Director of Division of Preconstruction and Design; Murray Yates, Director of Construction; John Dewinkler, Director of Production; and Donald Prescott, Assistant to District Construction Engineer in District I, Bartow. Messrs. Dewinkler and Prescott participated by telephone from their offices in Bartow; the others were in Tallahassee. Several other people were present in Tallahassee for the meeting. They included: William Laufman, Project Manager; Jack Trickey, Chief of the Bureau of Adjunct Value Engineering; Ken Morefield, Bill Dayo, and Chuck Robshaw. The central office staff (Tallahassee) recommended that Ajax be among the firms to be shortlisted. However, the district people, Messrs. Dewinkler and Prescott, expressed concerns over Ajax and requested Ajax not be placed on the shortlist. The district's "concerns" included lack of familiarity with Ajax's design team, present problems on current jobs with respect to performance and schedules, and the potential for claims on existing contracts. The concerns expressed by the district were not apparent in the information available to the central office, and some discussion was held. Since the project was going to be performed in the district, the committee deferred to the district's request and did not shortlist Ajax. The firms placed on the shortlist by the committee included: APAC/Harris; Wendell Kent-Gator/Kunde; and Harper/Aim. APAC is a top rated contractor with a lot of DOT experience. It was prequalified to do the type of work required for this project when it submitted its letter of interest. Its average grade on reports on past performance as a contractor or subcontractor for the DOT is 89.81. APAC's consultant, Harris, was also rated highly and has substantial DOT experience. Harper Brothers is a contractor prequalified for the work required for this project. While Harper Brothers has not done work for FDOT in the past three years, it still rates higher than any other contractor working in the Ft. Myers area based on past DOT work. Harper remains prequalified and has received an ability factor rating of 14, equating to a 93-98 ability score. Its design consultant, Aim Engineering, has DOT experience. Wendell Kent is a contractor that was not prequalified for the type of work required for this project--hot bituminous asphalt mix work--when it submitted its letter of interest. Wendell Kent has DOT experience, although not in this type of work, and that experience consists of only one job within the past eight years in the district where this job will be performed. Wendel Kent's average grade on reports of past performance as a contractor or subcontractor for the DOT is 93.86. Wendel Kent affiliated with Gator Asphalt, which was prequalified for this project. Gator Asphalt's average grade on reports of past performance as a contractor or subcontractor for the DOT is 89.84. Wendell Kent is to be the prime contractor on this project. It would be responsible for the overall administration of the project and construction of all items except the asphalt paving, which would be done by Gator. Wendel, Kent-Gator Asphalt's design consultant, Kunde, Sprecher, Yaskin has done design work for the DOT in the past and performed well. Ajax is prequalified and has DOT experience, including recent experience. In the last three years, Ajax has done eight or nine DOT jobs amounting to approximately $11.4 million of work. The DOT concedes that Ajax is a capable contractor. But Ajax's average grade on past performance as a contractor or subcontractor for the DOT is 86, lowest of the four. In addition, comments relating to Ajax are somewhat more negative than those of other contractors. Only Ajax received negative comments on its ability to schedule construction work, a factor to be specifically considered in the selection of a design/build contractor. For example, the comment for FDOT Project #01050-3514 in Charlotte County was: "They don't provide day-to-day supervision on the- project. They generally leave that up to whatever sub is working on the project. From a project engineer's standpoint, Ajax makes a good subcontractor but a poor prime contractor." For Project #12070-3513 in Lee County, the comment was: "This contractor could have taken more interest in controlling construction operations to achieve a better quality of construction." Ajax's more significant scheduling problems arose during the first few years of operations in Florida. After DOT criticism, Ajax has improved in this area. Of the eight or nine DOT jobs Ajax has done in the last three years, there has been a net total of four days overtime on all jobs. (This net total is arrived at by subtracting the number of days "undertime" from the overtime days to arrive at the net number of days over the time allowed by the contracts.) But of the last 13 jobs Ajax has done for the DOT, Ajax was behind schedule on seven. On two jobs started in 1984, Ajax was considerably behind schedule (15 days) on one and extremely behind schedule (51 days) on the other. Ajax knows of no potential claims on its current job. In the last three years, Ajax has had only one claim, for $6,000, that was resolved in favor of Ajax. Ajax does have a pending claim on a 1984 job that is not yet resolved. The claim is on behalf of a subcontractor. Until resolved, the claim is just a difference of opinion or a difference of contract interpretation. Ajax was also involved in a potential claim on a project known as "the embankment job." There was an error in the plans for this job at the time the contract was bid. Ajax brought this to the attention of Carson Carner, the resident engineer, who advised Ajax to bid the project as it was. Ajax did and was awarded the contract. Shortly, thereafter, Ajax requested a change order to allow for extra materials considered necessary due to the error Ajax saw-in the plans. Ajax pursued this because this error equalled approximately 10 percent of the job, which amounted to approximately $200,000. District DOT officials refused to see the error and denied the request for the change order. Ajax ultimately retained an attorney who convinced DOT of the error in the plans, and the change order was approved. Finally, mention should be made of the non-contractor components of the design/build teams. APAC's partner, Frederick R. Harris, has done design work for FDOT in the past. Harper Brothers' partner, Aim Engineering, has construction engineering inspection (CEI) experience with the Department, including a large amount of work in the Lee County area. Wendel Kent-Gator's consultant, Kunde, Sprecher and Yaskin, had considerable design experience with the Department and also had done CEI work for the agency. Ajax selected the design, CEI firm of Hole, Montes as its consultant. This firm was Ajax's second choice and was selected only when Aim Engineering was submitted by Harper Brothers. While prequalified to do so, Holes, Montes had done neither design nor CEI work for the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, enter a final order excluding the Ajax/Hole, Montes team from the short list for State Project No. 01050-1519 if that is how the DOT chooses A exercise its discretion. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of June, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert C. Kany, P.E., committed the acts or omissions alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether those acts or omissions constitute the violations alleged; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed (as submitted in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Submission).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a licensed Professional Engineer with license PE 16739. On or about February 12, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed two pages of plans for a project described as "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando." Respondent did not have a contract with or any communication with the Curryford Road owner. Between April 26, 2002, and on or about July 8, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed five pages of plans for a project identified a "2008 Corena Drive." Respondent did not have a contract with or any communication with the Corena Drive owner. Petitioner is the State of Florida agent that provides investigative and prosecutorial services for the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. The Florida Board of Professional Engineers regulates the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes (2001). Joint Exhibit 1, "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando," and Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," contain deficiencies regarding mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design. Some deficiencies can be cured by the plans examiner's refusing to approve the plans and requesting clarifying information regarding the noted deficiency. In Florida, an electrical contractor can assume responsibility for electrical design requirements for residential properties that require less than 600 amps systems. However, when an engineer seals the plans, the engineer assumes that responsibility. The initial step in plans approval in Orange County, Florida, is submission of the plans to the Orange County Zoning Department. Both sets of plans in question were initially reviewed by the zoning department. The "Curryford" plans were submitted to the Orange County Building Department for review and were not approved. While the "Corena" plans were retained by Orange County, there is no evidence that these plans were submitted for building department review. It is not atypical for plans to be rejected by the Orange County Building Department and returned to the engineer for additions or corrections. While one small deficiency exists to the structural design of Joint Exhibit 1, "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando," there was no threat to public safety. There are myriad structural engineering deficiencies in Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," which are the sealed plans for the residence at that address. The deficiencies may be a result of the fact that the plans were incomplete due to the owners' failure to decide on a cathedral or closed ceiling. If the plans were preliminary, Respondent should not have sealed them. The plans depicted in Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," do not meet minimum engineering standards; the engineer of record, Respondent, was negligent in sealing these plans. It is acceptable practice in the engineering community for an engineer to work with a designer who drafts design documents and is independently employed. It is also acceptable practice in the engineering community for an engineer working with a designing draftsman not to visit a particular project site if sufficient detail of the project is related to the engineer by the draftsman. It is acceptable practice in the engineering community for a draftsman to design complete drawings and then present the drawings to an engineer for engineering review and approval as long as the draftsman is known to the engineer and the engineer is aware of the draftsman's skill and expertise. Respondent has practiced his profession for 65 years, the last 25 in Florida. He has known Robert Thomas, the individual who drafted both sets of plans in question, for seven or eight years. Respondent considers Mr. Thomas to be a "darn good" draftsman with considerable knowledge of the building industry. When Mr. Thomas brings plans to Respondent for review, they discuss the project and the plans; Respondent then makes appropriate changes to assure that the plans comply with or exceed code. This process meets the "responsible charge" standard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers reprimand Respondent, Robert C. Kany, P.E., for his negligence in sealing incomplete plans. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 14th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel M. Greene, Esquire Kirwin & Morris 338 West Morse Boulevard, Suite 150 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the certification examination for general contractors administered on May 18, 1994. The contract administration portion of the examination consisted of 40 questions. The first twenty questions were worth four points each. The remaining twenty questions were worth one point apiece. To pass this portion of the examination, a total of 70 points was needed. Question 21 of this portion of the examination was a multiple choice question which required the candidate to identify factors which, according to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," should be taken into consideration in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. According to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding "depend[s] on many conditions: the type of job to be done, whether interior or exterior; ground conditions; height and width, as well as load to be carried; and length of time it will be in use." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 21 was clearly "B." Petitioner selected answer "A," which included "wire rope block size" as one of the factors needed to be considered in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. Wire rope block, however, is used in suspended scaffolding, not in tubular steel scaffolding. Petitioner's answer to question 21 therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 31 of the contract administration portion of the May 18, 1994, certification examination was also a multiple choice question. It required the candidate to select the number of days within which, according to the "American Institute of Architects' Document A401" (AIA-A401), a contractor must make a progress payment to a subcontractor following the contractor's receipt of payment from the owner. Section 11.3 of AIA-A401 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he Contractor shall pay the Subcontractor each progress payment within three working days after the Contractor receives payment from the Owner." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 31 was clearly "B." Petitioner's answer to the question was "C," which was clearly incorrect. Petitioner erroneously based this answer upon Section 4.7 of AIA-A401, 1/ which addresses the subject of "remedies for nonpayment" and does not, unlike Section 11.3 of that document, specify the time frame within which the contractor must pay the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the contract administration portion of the certification examination for general contractors for which he sat on May 18, 1994. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of October, 1994.
The Issue The issue for resolution in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his response to question 124 in the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examinees for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer. On October 30, 1998, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the examination in civil engineering. This is a national examination developed, controlled, and administered by the NCEES. Respondent is a Florida non-profit corporation created by Section 471.038, Florida Statutes, to provide administrative and other services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (Board). Petitioner was notified in January 1999, that his raw- score on the examination was 45, which converted to a full score of 67, was below the required passing score of 70. He contested the score and asked for a rescore of his responses to examination questions 123 and 124. NCEES reviewed the responses and awarded two additional points for question 123; it awarded no additional points for question 124. The rescore resulted in a raw-score of 47 and a full score of 69, still short of a passing grade. Petitioner then requested a formal administrative hearing and, as stated above, confined his challenge to his score on question 124. Question 124 involved computations for a detour roadway during a bridge replacement project. The question had four parts, thus requiring four computations (a-d). Segments of the detour were expressed in metric lengths (meters) in the question. A beginning station was described as 5 + 000.000. The question required that all computations be carried out to the appropriate significant digits. As described by the scoring plan for question 124, a perfect score was 10 points for an "exceptionally competent" response. The next highest score was 8 points for "more than minimum but less than exceptional competence," described as: Failure to provide answers to the required accuracy and a correct solution to requirements (a)-(d) OR an incorrect solution to one of the requests (a)-(d) with all answers within the required accuracy. Failure to provide the answers to the required accuracy will result in a deduction of two points at any level of scoring. (Respondent's Exhibit no. 8) The NCEES scorers awarded Petitioner a "6" for question 124, both initially and upon his requested review. Six points indicated "minimum competence," described as: Demonstrated a competent knowledge of reverse curves with a correct solution to at least two of the requirements meeting the required accuracy or a correct solution to at least three of the four possible requirements but answer(s) fail to meet the required accuracy. (Respondent's Exhibit no. 8) A solution is the methodology or process employed to reach a numerical result or answer in the examination problem, according to the competent credible testimony of Petitioner's experts. Those experts would have scored Petitioner's responses to question 124 as an "8" or "9". On rescoring, the NCEES score's comments in assigning a score of "6" were: SCORER'S COMMENTS: Requirement (a)-Failed to meet accuracy requirements of +/-0.015m. Requirement(b)-Decimal error was made. The station was in km and the curve length was in meters. Requirement(c)-Same error as in Requirement (b). No points were deducted for this error. Requirement (d)-Solution is correct. Minimum competence was shown by this solution. The grading process for the portions of the examination of which question 124 was a part was subjective within the guidelines provided by NCEES. Different scorers could award different points for the same answer. Petitioner's experts and Respondent's expert, all competent, credible witnesses, differed as to the score they would award. Petitioner's response to (a) of question 124 was not accurate within +/- 0.015m. That error alone would have resulted in a 2-point penalty. However, he also mis-read the initial stationing provided in the problem statement, resulting in inaccurate answers for (b) and (c). A correct solution generally includes the appropriate use of available data. In this case Petitioner's error in reading the correct station position was a technical error only and was caused by a misleading expression of the position in the question itself. His solutions to (a)-(d) were otherwise correct. In Florida, the only engineers who use the metric system are consultants for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and even that agency is phasing out the use of metrics. The use of metric measurements is not the standard of practice for Florida Professional Engineers. Out of the 30 projects that Respondent's expert has done since he was licensed, only one involved the use of the metric units. J. Keith Dantin, P.E., one of Petitioner's experts, has never in his 14 years of experience worked on a roadway or surveying problem in metric units. The Candidate Information Booklets provided by the Respondent to the examinees are conflicting and confusing. The February 1998 version states: "Examinees should be prepared to solve bridge problems using either metric or English units of measure. All other problems are in English units." (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1). The October 1998 version states under the category Structural Design Standards: "All problems are in English units" (Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, boldface in original). When FDOT uses metric units it still expresses those units in English terminology. Thus, where question 124 positioned the beginning station at 5 + 000.000, the English translation would have been 50 + 00. It is evident that Petitioner read the station to be 5 + 00, missing one of the O's; if he had used the 5 + 000, or if the question had expressed the position at 50 + 00 (the English terminology used by the FDOT), all of Petitioner's answers would have been correct and his solutions would not have included the merely mechanical error of utilizing the wrong beginning station position. While he felt that he, personally, would understand the problem, Respondent's expert agreed there might be a bit of confusion. Respondent's expert was candid and credible but his professional experience was substantially less than Petitioner's experts, who also were candid and, on balance, more competent. Petitioner should have been scored an 8 on question 124. His solutions were basically correct and his answers were off merely due to the confusing expression of the beginning station. In real practice his error would have been caught before it reached the field and the error in no way betrayed a lack of fitness to practice as a professional engineer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's challenge to his score on question 124 be sustained and that his score be upgraded by 2 points, from a "6" to "8". DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 3rd day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 227 South Calhoun street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeff G. Peters, Esquire Cedar Woods Office Center 1266 Paul Russell Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
