The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer.
Findings Of Fact In 1994, Petitioner passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination (a ten-year academic course) in India. Petitioner passed this high school course of study with classes in the core subjects of English, Sanskrit, Hindi, Mathematics, Science, and Social Sciences. In 1996, Petitioner passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination in India. For this two-year high school course of study, Petitioner completed classes in English, Mathematics and Statistics, Physics, Chemistry, and Comprehensive Science. Petitioner completed his undergraduate degree in December 2001. He graduated from the Sardar Patel College of Engineering (SPCE), an affiliate of the University of Mumbai in Mumbai, India, with a Bachelor of Engineering Degree (Civil). The SPCE is accredited by the National Board of Accreditation of the All India Council for Technical Education (NBA-AICTE). At the time of Petitioner's graduation, the SPCE was not accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). For 75 years, ABET has accredited college and university programs in the United States in the following areas: (a) applied science; (b) computing; (c) engineering; and (d) technology. It is a federation of 28 professional and technical societies representing these fields. ABET accredits approximately 2,700 programs at over 550 colleges and universities nationwide. In April 2003, Petitioner passed the Engineer Intern Examination. Petitioner passed this eight-hour written examination in Ohio. In May 2003, Petitioner earned a Master of Science in Civil Engineering at the University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. Petitioner worked for a design engineer located in Vicksburg, Mississippi, from July 2003 to April 2004. Since May 2004, Petitioner has worked for an engineering firm located in Jacksonville, Florida. The Washington Accord, signed in 1989, is an international agreement among bodies responsible for accrediting engineering degree programs. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by signatories and recommends that graduates of programs accredited by any signatory be recognized by the other signatories as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. ABET, as a signatory of the Washington Accord, recognizes the substantial equivalency of foreign academic programs accredited by other signatory members; it does not accredit them. Further, ABET only recommends that graduates of programs from the signatories be recognized as substantially equivalent. Respondent does not follow the recommendations of ABET regarding the substantial equivalency of foreign academic programs in part because ABET and the other signatories of the Washington Accord recognize engineering technology degrees. Respondent has statutory authority to recognize engineering technology degrees only if the applicant was enrolled in a state university system prior to July 1, 1979. See § 471.013(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. In 2007, the Washington Accord members granted provisional membership status to the NBA-AICTE. As a provisional member, the NBA-AICTE must demonstrate that the accreditation system for which it has responsibility, appears to be conceptually similar to those of the other signatories of the Washington Accord. By conferring provisional status, the signatories have indicated that they consider the provisional signatory to have the potential capability to reach full signatory status; however, the awarding of provisional status does not in any way imply a guarantee of the granting of full signatory status. April 2007, Petitioner applied to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer. He specifically sought to be recognized as a civil engineer with proficiency in water resources. In order to show substantial equivalency pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(1), Petitioner had his engineering degree from SPCE evaluated by Joseph Silny and Associates, Inc. (Silny). Respondent has approved Silny to conduct the substantial equivalency evaluations required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(3). Silny's evaluation showed that Petitioner's degree from SPCE lacked 13.59 semester credit hours of math and basic sciences, and 16 semester credit hours of humanities and social sciences. Silny concluded that Petitioner’s SPCE degree failed to meet the substantial equivalency requirements rule requirements. Petitioner submitted his transcript from the University of Toledo to Respondent for further evaluation. After reviewing the transcript, Respondent gave Petitioner credit for coursework in Numerical Analysis I and Numerical Analysis II, totaling six semester credit hours toward the math and basic science requirements. The credit reduced Petitioner's academic deficiency to 7.59 semester credit hours in math and basic science. During the hearing, Petitioner submitted transcripts and his secondary school certificates as evidence of coursework prior to his Bachelor of Science degree at SPCE. This coursework is not acceptable to meet the substantial equivalency rule requirements because they are college preparatory classes taken in high school for which Petitioner received no college credit. Many of Petitioner's high school courses cover subjects also taken in his undergraduate program, such as physics, chemistry, math, and statistics. Petitioner has already received credit for these courses that cannot be counted twice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enters a final order denying Petitioner's application to take the second part of the professional engineer examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rahul Parab 496 Monet Avenue Ponte Vedra, Florida 32081 Michael T. Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Patrick Creehan, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to the issue herein, Petitioner, Ronald R. Corum, Examinee Identification No. 200619, was a candidate for licensure by examination as a professional engineer, and the Board of Professional Engineers was and is the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of Professional Engineers and the regulation of the practice of professional engineering in the state of Florida. Petitioner sat for the October 1990, Florida Professional Engineer Licensure Examination (Principles and Practice of Engineering). This part of the examination is divided into a morning session and an afternoon session. The morning session requires the examinee to choose four essay questions from a choice of twelve essay questions and produce a numerical solution to each question. The afternoon session is multiple choice and the examinee has to solve four questions from a choice of twelve questions. Each of the questions, both morning and afternoon, are worth ten points (raw score) for a total maximum raw score of 80 points, with a minimum passing raw score of 48 points. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 points. Question 124 was one of the essay question selected by Petitioner to solve in morning session of examination. Question 124 consisted three parts, 124A, B and C which required the examinee to: compute the area of traverse (in acres) a five-sided polygon; compute the net area (in acres) in the land parcel after adding sector area AB and excluding sector area DE; and compute the length of curve DE (in feet). The problems posed by Question 124 are not uncommon in the day to day practice of professional engineering and are not particularly difficult to solve. Petitioner attempted to solve Part A by using the method of coordinates which is an acceptable method of determining the area of a traverse. However, the Petitioner made a fundamental error in applying the method, not a simple mathematical error, in that he did not return to the beginning point of the traverse which resulted in an unrealistic answer. The correct answer to Part A was 16.946 acres. The Petitioner calculated the area to be 126.12 acres. In attempting to solve Part B, the Petitioner misapplied a correct methodology by erroneously expressing the central angle of the area in degrees rather than in radians. A radian is equal to approximately 57 degrees and this resulted in substantial error in Petitioner's calculation. The correct answer was 17.607 acres. Petitioner's answer was 219.63 acres which was not possible in relation to the area the Petitioner had already calculated for the traverse in Part A. This was a very serious error, a fundamental error, not a mathematical error. The maximum raw score for question 124 was ten points. Petitioner received a raw score of two points. On review, Petitioner was again granted only two points out of ten possible points. The examinee's identity is not known to the scorer during the initial scoring or the review. Both question 124 and the scoring plan used in grading question 124 were approved by the National Council of Examiners of Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The scoring of question 124 was weighted so that Parts A and B were worth four points each, and Part C was worth two points. Petitioner correctly answered Part C and received two points. The Petitioner did not receive any points for Part A or Part B. The examinee was not aware of this weighting policy at the time of the examination. The scoring plan for question 124 which was used by the NCEES grader was set up in six (6) categories from 0 - 10 in two-point increments as follows: 10 - Exceptionally competent. 8 - More than minimum competence but less than exceptionally competent. 6 - Minimum competence. 4 - More than rudimentary knowledge but insufficient to demonstrate competence. 2 - Rudimentary knowledge. 0 - Nothing presented to indicate significant knowledge of the problem. Petitioner's use of acceptable methodologies in attempting to solve the problems of Parts A and B may indicate at least rudimentary knowledge and possibly more than rudimentary knowledge but insufficient knowledge to demonstrate competence which would have entitled Petitioner to at least two points on Parts A and B each. However, the unreasonableness and the impossibility of his answers and his failure to recognize the unreasonableness and impossibility of his answers coupled with his fundamental error in solving the problems of Parts A and B were such that the Petitioner did not demonstrate significant knowledge of the problems for Parts A and B. Therefore, any credit that would have been given for using acceptable methodologies in attempting to solve the problems would be negated by this lack of significant knowledge of the problems. Because of this lack of significant knowledge of the problems the scorer correctly adjusted Petitioner's score on Part A and Part B each to zero. Unreasonable answers result in credit being deleted, and this policy is uniform among all of the states. However, the examinee is not made aware of this policy at the time of the examination. There was no instruction or guide to indicate to the examinee that if the examinee recognized that any answer was unrealistic that the examinee should so indicate on the answer sheet. Likewise, there was no instruction or guide to indicate that the examinee would be more heavily penalized if the examinee did not indicate on the answer sheet that the answer was unrealistic. An examinee's inability to recognize an unrealistic answer and to so indicate on the answer sheet without specific instruction goes to the examinee's competence as a professional engineer. Therefore, Petitioner has not been treated unfairly by the lack of instruction or guide advising him to indicate his ability to recognize an unrealistic answer on the answer sheet. The NCEES scorer for question 124 attempted to award the same score to all examinees of the October 1990 examination who gave similar unrealistic answers to question 124 as did Petitioner without noting on the answer sheet that the answer was unrealistic. The examinees are not informed of how the scoring plan will be applied in advance of the examination or that the essay question will be scored in two- point increments only. There was no evidence that this information would be of significant benefit to the examinee. In fact, the Petitioner did allocate his time in attempting to solve question 124 similar to the weighting of the scoring plan, spending only a small part of the time on Part C. Part B should have identified the curved areas to be computed as segments, rather than sectors. Petitioner attempted to solve Part B as though it referred to segments, and did not raise this issue in the request for review. Petitioner's use of degrees rather than radians would have been equally erroneous in determining the area of a sector. There was no evidence to show that identifying the curved area as a sector rather than a segment had any effect on Petitioner's attempt to solve the problem. The official solution to Part B contained a typographical error made during the transcription of the grader's handwritten solution. This had no effect on the scoring of Part B. The solution cannot affect the answer given by the examinees, as the solution is only available after the examinee has completed the examination and is challenging the scoring. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the scores which Petitioner received on Part A and Part B of question 124 of the October, 1990 Professional Engineering Licensure Examination were incorrect, unfair or invalid, or that the examination, and subsequent review, were administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grading of his response to question 124 on the October 1990 Professional Engineer's Licensure Examination. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 26th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (2); 2 (3); 3 (3); 4 (5); 5 (5); 6 (7); 7 (9); 8 (9); 9 (13); 10 (13); 11 (12); 12 (9); 13 (5); 14 (6); 15 (9); 16 (11); 17 (7); 18 (1); 20 (16); 21 (16) and 22 (18). Proposed finding of fact 19 is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see finding of fact 11. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed findings of fact: 1 (2); 2 (3); 3 (4); 4 (5); 5 (6); 6 (6); 7 (7); 8 (8); 9 (9); 10 (12); 11 (11); 12 (15); 13 (9, 16); 14 (17); 15 (18). COPIES FURNISHED: Wellington H. Meffert, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 David W. Persky, Esquire Spicola & Larkin 806 Jackson Street Tampa, FL 33602 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
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 The issues presented are: (1) whether or not Respondent wrongfully eliminated materials from the Candidate/Petitioner during the April 19, 1990 engineering examination, and if so, (2) whether the Candidate/Petitioner received a failing grade because the materials were wrongfully eliminated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner (#100021) received a score of 69.0 on the Professional Engineer Fundamentals Examination given April 19, 1990. A minimum passing score was 70.0 on the examination which is written by National Council of Engineering Examiners and graded by Education Testing Service. (Transcript Pages 36 and 39) Prior to the April 1990 examination, the Board sent each candidate a letter, dated December 18, 1989 (Exhibit P-1) (Transcript Page 9 and 12), which said, "No review publications directed principally toward sample questions and their solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Page 31). The candidates were also provided with a "Candidate Information Booklet" dated January 1990 (Exhibit R-1, Transcript Page 77). The booklet states on page 14, "No books with contents directed toward sample questions or solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Pages 77 and 96). Petitioner, who also took the October 1989 examination had received notice at that examination that the Board of Engineers intended to change the procedure allowing reference materials in the examination. (Transcript Page 89 and Respondent's Exhibit 2.) The Board of Professional Engineers advised the examination supervisor and proctors that no engineering "review" materials would be allowed in the examination although engineering "reference" materials could be brought into and used for the examination. However the books which were excluded included books without "review" in the title, books with "reference" in the title, and books which contained problems and solutions. Before the examination began Deena Clark, an examination supervisor, read over a loud speaker system names of books that would not be permitted (Transcript Page 81). Practice examination and solution manuals were not allowed for use by engineering candidates (Transcript Pages 93 and 94). Schram's outlines and other materials were also excluded (Transcript Page 91). Also excluded was Lindeburg's 6th edition, "Engineering In Training Review Manual." (Transcript Pages 16 and 79). This decision was verified by the Board before the examination began (Transcript Page 81). After the examination had begun, Ms. Clark announced that the candidates could put certain copyrighted materials in a three-ring binder and use them which had been excluded earlier (Transcript Page 85). This was in response to candidates who needed economics tables for the examination However, no time was provided the candidate to prepare these references and only one minute was added to the examination time. (Transcript Page 85). Petitioner did not bring any economic tables to the examination site except those contained in books which were not allowed in the examination. (Transcript Page 19). Petitioner did not remove the economic tables and permitted references from the Lindeburg's review manual until lunch and these tables were not available to him on the morning examination. (Transcript Pages 22 and 88). Of the six engineering economics questions on the morning portion for the examination, the candidate correctly answered four. No data was provided on the nature of these questions. The Candidate correctly answered 53 questions in the morning (weighted x 1) and 23 questions in the afternoon (weighted x 2) for a total of 99 weighted required points. He answered eight questions correctly in the "addition" portion of the examination. The table for eight additional questions correct in the "Scoring Information Booklet" used in determining the candidates final grade shows the adjusted equated score was 126 and his scaled score was 69. (Page 21 of booklet). The value of each economics question converted to final scoring scale was enough that passage of one economics question would have resulted in passage of the examination. The exclusion of certain materials from the examination was arbitrary and capricious and was done by a few individuals without any stated objective standard published by the board. Further, the board knew before the examination which books were to be excluded and could have notified examinees of the exact items to be excluded. The Board's generally poor handling of this matter is exemplified in announcing after the examination had begun that items previously excluded could be used if placed in a ring binder but not allowing any time to prepare such materials. (Tx. pgs., 74-80, 84-86, and 91-97) The Petitioner would have used several tables which were excluded if the announcement had been made before the morning examination began with time to put the items in acceptable form. After notifications in October 1989, December 1989, and January 1990, Petition admitted that he did not call the Board of Professional Engineers to ask for guidance on books that would not be allowed on the April 1990 examination (Transcript Page 29). However, a final decision on books to be excluded was not made until approximately two weeks before the examination. The Petitioner did not show that the two questions which he missed on the Engineering Economics portion of the morning examination were missed for lack of the tables. The examination is a national examination and there is no evidence that the requirements and limits established by the Board in Florida were applicable nationwide. To alter the national instructions locally potentially adversely affects Florida results.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to take the examination without charge on one occasion. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of March, 1991. 1/ The general information provided to examinees by the State Board regarding the values of questions on the examination and scoring it misleading or inaccurate because neither the weighted required score nor the adjusted score was 48% of 80, 280, or any other number related to the scaled score of 70. The manner in which these values are associated with the scale score of 70 is contrary to the Board's explanation and is not self evident. This is a potential problem if the matter were formally challenged, and it appears the Board needs to reassess its procedures and instructions. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5728 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. The Respondent submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or reject for the reasons stated: Adopted. Issue not fact. - 4. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. 5. -12. Adopted. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as preliminary statement. Adopted. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan K. Garman Civil-Tech, Inc. 3573 Commercial Way Street B Spring Hill, FL 34606 William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rex Smith Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street 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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer. Petitioner took the licensure examination in October, 1992, and received an overall score of 68.10. The minimum passing score for the exam was 70. The examination used by the Department is a nationally recognized test administered and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The scoring plan utilized by NCEES in this case provided, in pertinent part, that the score of 4 would be given where the applicant's response showed more than rudimentary knowledge but was insufficient to demonstrate competence. Petitioner received the score of 4 on problem #120 and felt his answer should have received a higher grade. To receive a score of 6 on problem #120, Petitioner's solution would have shown minimum competence by indicating the required volume of solids taken as the required volume of fill with all other analysis and computations being correct. According to the scoring plan, only "modest" errors in cost analysis or volume analysis computations are permitted to receive a grade of 6. Petitioner admitted that his calculation of volume on problem #120 was incorrect, but felt that since the error was only 10-15 percent, such error was reasonable given that he had correctly analyzed the majority of the problem. Petitioner's calculations for problem #120 were approximately 5900 cubic yards from the correct answer. Since Petitioner's volume calculations were incorrect, no credit was given for the cost analysis. Petitioner's error was not a "modest" miscalculation as set forth by the scoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the professional engineer examination administered in October, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2652 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraph a) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph b) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph c) is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph d) is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ali Khalilahmadi 12755 S.W. 60 Lane Miami, Florida 33183 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Leo Y. Lewis, from 1969 to date had been employed by the State of Florida as Internal Audit Coordinator for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Respondent applied for and was issued a reciprocal certificate by the State Board of Accountancy on January 28, 1972. The reciprocal certificate was issued under the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 473.201. 473.201 Certificates granted to holders from other states Upon application, the board shall issue a reciprocal certificate to the holder of a valid, unrevoked certificate issued by, or under the authority of, another state or political subdivision of the United States only if: The original certificate was secured as the result of a written examination which in the judgment of the board was the equivalent of the examination given by the board at the time the applicant passed such written examination; provided, however, that if such written exami- nation did not include the subject of ethics the application shall not be denied for that reason. In any event, the board shall require all applicants to take and pass the same current open book examination in ethics given to applicants for the written examination in the state before issuance of a reciprocal certificate; The applicant meets all the requirements in effect, at the time of the application, for applicants to take the Florida examination; The applicant is a resident of and domiciled in the state; The applicant intends to enter into the full-time, year-round practice of public accounting in the state; and The board is otherwise fully satisifed as to the moral and technical fitness of applicant." The Board now seeks to revoke the reciprocal certificate issued to Respondent for failure to comply with Section 473.201(2), Florida Statutes, "(2) Failure of the holder of a certificate issued under this section to be domiciled in and practice public accounting on a substantially full-time basis in the state for a continuous period of three years immediately after issuance of much certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the lack of the requisite intent and sufficient grounds for revocation of the reciprocal certificate issued by the board.", contending that Respondent has not been practicing public accounting for the three years immediately subsequent to the issuance of his certificate. There was no contention by the Board in its original revocation procedures that the Respondent has failed to meet all of the requirements of Section 473.201(1) and (2), Florida Statute, with the exception of the contention that Respondent has not practiced "public accountancy". At the hearing and in the Memorandum of Law there is an argument by the Petitioner that the Respondent did not actually intend to practice public accounting at the time that he received a reciprocal certificate. There is no showing that any fraud was involved and the grounds upon which the motion for revocation of Respondent's license is on the ground that Mr. Lewis did not engage in the practice of public accounting on substantially full-time basis for a period of three years after issuance of his reciprocal certificate. His intent at the time he received his reciprocal certificate is not necessary to the determination of the issue at hand. Petitioner contends: That Respondent is not in the practice of public accounting; That Section 473.08(2)(c) applies only to the Auditor General and tlie Chief Auditor of the Public Service Commission and that Section 473.08(2)(c), infra, is an exception to the general requirement that persons who have taken and passed an examination and become CPA's must have one year of public accounting experience or equivalent education in order to obtain their CPA certificates; and That the exception is not a recognition that either the Auditor General or the Chief Auditor of the Public Service Cotmission is engaged in the practice of public accounting. Respondent contends: That he is in fact a Florida practitioner engaged in the practice of public accounting; That the legislature and the Board have recognized that works similar to that which the Respondent performs constitutes the practice of public accounting. Said statute as passed by the legislature is Section 473.08, Florida Statutes. "473.08 Qualifications of applicant for examination; certificates to successful examinees; standards A person who qualifies to take such examination pursuant to provisions of subsection (1) and who takes and passes such examination shall receive a certificate as a certified public accountant issued by the board and shall be permitted to practice public accounting in this state if he:... Shall have completed one year of employment in the office of a Florida practitioner or an out-of-state practitioner or shall have successfully completed an additional one year accounting course at an accredited college or university. However: Any person employed as an accountant in the accounting department of the Florida public service commission who is qualified to take an examination for the purpose of determining whether or not such person shall be permitted to practice in this state as a certified public accountant, and who takes and passes such examination, shall be entitled to receive a certificate under the provisions of authorizing practice in this state as a certified public accountant upon completion of one year of accounting work for said commission under the supervision and direction of a certified public accountant serving as director of commission's accounting department. Any person employed as an accountant or post auditor on the staff of the auditor general who is qualified to take an examination for the purpose of determining whether or not such person shall be permitted to practice in this state as a certified public accountant, and who takes and passes such examination, shall be entitled to receive a certificate, under the provisions of this authorizing such person to practice in this state as a certified public accountant upon the completion of one year of experience as an accountant or post auditor under the supervision and direction of a certified public accountant serving as auditor general. Proof of compliance with the provisions of this introductory paragraph of this subsection shall be established in such form as is prescribed by the board;. The Florida Statutes do not clearly define the term "public accounting", but the definitions in Section 473.011 are helpful. "473.011 Definitions of terms used in chapter whenever the terms `certified public or public accountant are used in this chapter, except as used in subsection (3), they shall be deemed and construed to mean a person holding a certificate to practice as such, issued by the state under this chapter, or any law of the state heretofore in force and effect. [(3) not applicable] whenever the term `Florida practitioner' is used in this chapter it shall be deemed and construed to mean a certified public accountant or public accountant, as defined in subsection (1), engaged in the practice of public accounting in Florida, whether as an individual, a partner or employee of a partner- ship, or a stockholder, officer, or employee of a professional corporation. It shall also be deemed and construed to mean a partnership or professional corporation of Florida practitioners. (5) Thenever the term `public accounting is used in this chapter, it shall be deemed and construed to mean: All services offered to or performed for the public by a Florida practitioner or an out of state practitioner involving the use of accounting skills, specifically including, but not limited to, management services, and All services offered to or performed for the public by any other person, acting as an individual, as a partner or employee of a partnership, as a stockholder, officer or employee of a professional corporation, or as an officer or employee of any other corporation, involving the use of accounting skills, except as follows: (not applicable) Under the definition section of Rule 21A-1.10 of the Florida Administrative Code, practice of or practicing public accounting is defined as: "Practice of, or practicing public accounting. 'Practice of, or practicing public accounting' shall be deemed and construed to mean offering to perform, performing, or holding oneself out as being qualified to perform, those services described in Section 473.011(5), F.S." [supra] as: Rule 21A-1.11 of the Florida Administrative Code defines practitioner "'Practitioner' shall be defined as either a Florida practitioner (as defined in Section 473.011(2), F.S.), or an out of-state practitioner (as defined in Section 473.011(3), F.S.), engaged in the practice of public accounting in Florida under a special permit." Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, defines public as: "PUBLIC, adj. Pertaining to a state, nation, or community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use. Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 786, 14 Am.Rep. 640; Crane v. Waters, C.C.Mass., 10 F. 621. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community. People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373, 111 A.L.R. 721." Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, defines accounting as: "ACCOUNTING. An act or system of making up or settling accounts; a statement of account, or a debit and credit in financial transactions. Kansas City v. Burns, 137 Kan. 905, 22 P.2d 444." The Hearing Officer finds: That the work the Respondent does in his position as Internal Audit Coordinator for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services involves the use of accounting skills and includes management services and that he is a Florida practitioner as defined in Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, and in Chapter 21A-I, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner contends that the Respondent is a state employee and therefore cannot be independent of his client However, the evidence shows that much of the work performed by Respondent and his staff are for agencies and organizations outside the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which employs Respondent. There is no employee-employer relationship between Respondent and these organizations. Further, no showing has been made that the employer, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, attempts to or has ever directed the work of Respondent or in any way exercised control over the audits of Respondent. Respondent is in the practice of public accounting in his capacity as Internal Audit Coordinator.
Recommendation Dismiss the petition of the State Board of Accountancy. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building, Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1976.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 29, 1999, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2000.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to one additional point on the October 1996 Professional Civil Engineer Examination so as to achieve a passing score for licensure in Florida?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Civil Engineer Examination given in October 1996. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated February 17, 1997, that she had earned a score of 69.00 on the Civil Engineer Examination. The minimum passing score for the Civil Engineer Examination is 70.00. Petitioner timely requested formal hearing and challenged only Question 120, for which she received no points. Petitioner is trained as a materials engineer. Question 120 is a soils and foundation problem outside her concentrated area of study. It is an open book examination question. Petitioner selected the correct equation from the applicable manual, but acknowledged that she solved the variables of that equation incorrectly. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) produced, distributed, and was responsible for grading the examinations. Petitioner contended that the examiner who graded her answer sheet applied different criteria than the examination criteria published by the NCEES. Petitioner further contended that since one criterion her grader actually used was merely to "write the correct equation," she should be awarded at least one point on that basis. However, a comparison of the actual grader's handwritten "summary" on Petitioner's Solution Pamphlet (Respondent's Exhibit 3) and the NCEES's Solutions and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) does not bear out Petitioner's theory. It is clear that out of five possible parts of the question, which five parts total two points' credit each, merely selecting the correct equation from an open text would not amount to two points, or even one point, credit. I accept as more competent, credible and persuasive the testimony of Eugene N. Beauchamps, the current Chairman of the NCEES Examination Policy Committee and a Florida licensed Professional Engineer, that the grader's "summary" describes what he actually reviewed in Petitioner's written solution to Question 120 rather than establishing one or more different grading criteria. In order to receive a score of two on Question 120, the candidate was required to demonstrate any one of five requirements listed in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan for "2-Rudimentary Knowledge." The first requirement in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) for receiving a score of two points is, "Determines effective overburden stress at mid- depth of clay layer." The remaining four NCEES scoring criteria required that the examinee: Computes the change in effective stress at mid- depth of the clay layer due to placement of the fill. Computes the primary consolidation settlement, based on a change in effective stress, due to the fill surcharge. Evaluates the Average Degree of Consolidation and the Time Factor. Determines the waiting period after fill placement recognizing the existence of double-drained conditions. In order to gain two more points (total 4 points) so as to demonstrate "More Than Rudimentary Knowledge But Insufficient to Demonstrate Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have to have met two of the five bulleted criteria. For two more points (total 6 points) for "Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have had to score three bullets. For two more points (total 8 points) for "More than Minimum But Less Than Exceptional Competence," Petitioner would have had to score four bullets. Finally, to attain "Exceptional Competence" for 10 total points, Petitioner would have had to score all five bullets. In the first correct equation for answering Question 120, "p sub zero" (p naught) equals the present effective overburden pressure, which represents what clay was present before anything was put on top of the clay layer. "P" equals the total pressure acting at mid-height of the consolidating clay layer or the pressure of the dirt and the water in the dirt. "H" equals the thickness of the consolidating clay layer. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, "determining the effective overburden stress at mid-depth of clay layer," indicated p sub zero (p naught) as the "present effective overburden pressure," but it incorrectly calculated p sub zero equaling 125 pounds multiplied by 13 feet. This is incorrect because the effective overburden pressure would not include 13 feet of fill. The 13 feet of fill is not part of p sub zero, the present effective overburden pressure. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, also multiplied water, represented by 62.4, by 12, which is incorrect. She should have used a multiplier of 10 to receive credit for this problem. The grader indicated the correct equation was used incorrectly by Petitioner because of the two foregoing incorrect calculations. The equation, as Petitioner stated it, was correct and her multiplication was correct. Her solution identified P sub zero as present effective overburden pressure but present effective overburden pressure would not include the fill. Petitioner had the correct equation for the present effective overburden pressure and her mathematics were correct. However, she did not use the consolidation equation correctly, not obtaining the correct percentage of primary consolidation. As stated, the problem did not consider the fill as part of the present effective overburden pressure. Her solution also contained the correctly written time rate of settlement equation but failed to use it, and no waiting period was determined. The practical result of Petitioner's error could range from a cracked building to a collapsed building, depending upon the degree of error to site and materials.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and affirming her score as one point below passing. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Wilson 3581 Jose Terrace Jacksonville, Florida 32217 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
