Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The exam consists of two parts: the written part is given in December of each year and the site and design problem is given in June of each year. Todaro graduated from Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana in 1977 and had met the requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Todaro took the design and site planning portion of the national architectural exam in June, 1980. This consists of a 12 hour sketch problem involving the design of a structure by the applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. The exam is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is used by all states. Pre-test information supplied to each applicant includes a booklet providing the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which applicants are expected to apply themselves in order to receive a passing grade. At the examination, other information is supplied to enable the applicant to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. The purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted by NCARB and allows the national testing service grading the examination (and through them the Florida Board of Architecture) to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which were tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December. The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectual registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the solution which lie is grading. The grader is instructed in how to consider the appropriate criteria. Graders are also instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is a three, and an applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant cause, Todaro received two 2's and one 3. He was therefore notified of his failure to pass the examination and of his right to this hearing. While Petitioner established that an effort had been made on his part to comply with the instructions, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation, particularly as to adequate consideration to grading and site planning, adequate consideration to marking elevations on his floor plans and adequate notation regarding the type of materials to be used in his elevations, floor plans, and wall sections. In general Todaro failed to place within his solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine that his program could be used; he failed to synthesize the information which he had learned in his educational process, in such a manner as to prepare adequate plans to respond to the requirements of good architectural practice in the formulation of design and site plans.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Stephen Todaro to change his grade on the June, 1980, site and design architectural examination be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Todaro 1507 N. E. 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 John J. Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure in the category of mechanical plans examiner should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the formal hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner has been employed as a plans examiner for the City of Melbourne (City) since 1988. Petitioner has been a certified building plans examiner since 1994. She also holds certification as a standard and limited building inspector. Sometime in October 2003, Petitioner was informed that her limited plans examiner license, No. LP 369, had been permitted to expire on November 30, 1997, for failure to pay her renewal fee. The building official in her department at the City advised her that the renewal for the license had not been paid since 1996. It has been the practice of her department to automatically renew each of her licenses with the appropriate board, each year, as it came due, as a service to its employees. Why this one license, among several, was not renewed is unknown. After notification of the expiration of her limited plans examiner license, Petitioner immediately discontinued the review of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing plans and contacted the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), reported the oversight, and requested directions on how to reinstate the limited plans examiner license, No. LP 369. No response was forthcoming; however, on October 27, 2003, DBPR issued an unsigned Notice and Order directed to Petitioner to cease and desist practicing as a limited plans examiner. Petitioner immediately complied and sought reinstatement. No formal disciplinary action was taken; however, reinstatement was denied on the grounds that her license had become null and void on November 30, 1997, pursuant to the self-executing language contained in Section 455.271, Florida Statutes. On January 3, 2005, Petitioner submitted an application to DBPR as a mechanical plans examiner. By Notice of Intent to Deny, dated July 18, 2005, DBPR notified Petitioner that it intended to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mechanical plans examiner. Citing Sections 468.607, 468.609, and 468.621, Florida Statutes, Respondent alleged that Petitioner did not have five years of combined experience in the field of construction, or a related field, or plans review corresponding to building plan review; that Petitioner did not provide an affidavit for each separate period of work experience from an architect, engineer, contractor, or building code administrator who has knowledge of Petitioner's duties and responsibilities; that Petitioner was employed by a local government authority without being properly licensed; and that she performed unlicensed activities in violation of the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has shown that she satisfied the following requirements for licensure as a mechanical plans examiner. The evidence shows that: Petitioner is more than 18 years of age and is of good moral character; Petitioner has more than five years of combined experience in the field of construction and plans review; and Petitioner's application provided an affidavit for each separate period of work experience from a building code administrator who has knowledge of Petitioner's duties and responsibilities. Petitioner has more than adequate time in plans review, she did submit an affidavit of work experience signed by her building code administrator, and the administrator has a thorough knowledge of her duties. Building Official Alan Beyer, BU 383, certified to her years of plans review. Petitioner has been reviewing plans for the City since 1988. In 1994, based on her prior experience, Petitioner received a license as a limited plans examiner. Said license was allowed to expire through non-renewal and became void on November 30, 1997. Petitioner continued to perform her job until she was notified in October 2003 that her license had expired. Petitioner immediately discontinued the review of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing plans. Nevertheless, Petitioner performed activities during the period of 1997 through 2003, for which she was not licensed. However, the evidence is clear that Petitioner did not knowingly do so. Respondent has been previously licensed by Petitioner as a limited building inspector, a standard building inspector, and a standard building plans examiner. Each of these licenses has been maintained and is current, including the standard building plans examiner license, No. PX 838. Petitioner has no history of discipline in any of these areas, since 1993, the year the state first began to regulate this occupation. Petitioner has kept current the continuing educational requirements for each category for which she holds a license, including that of limited plans examiner. The subcategory of plumbing plans examiner was recently added to the standard building plans examiner license already held by Respondent. This subcategory required the same work experience (five-year combined experience) and affidavits signed by a building code administrator. The Board approved this addition to Petitioner's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's request to complete the requirements for future standard licensing as a mechanical plans examiner. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified by endorsement as a standard building inspector.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that certifies standard building inspectors pursuant to the provisions of Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes (consisting of Sections 468.601 - 468.633). By application dated November 7, 1996, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector. This application contemplated that Petitioner would sit for the certification examination. Respondent determined that Petitioner was qualified to sit for the Principles and Practice portion and the Technical portion of the certification examination. Petitioner did not achieve a passing score on the certification examination. Consequently, his application for certification was rejected. By application dated December 22, 1997, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector without having to take the licensure examination. This was properly construed by Respondent to be an application for certification by endorsement. Petitioner requested Respondent to waive the certification examination pursuant to the provisions of Section 468.613, Florida Statutes, which provide as follows: The board shall examine other certification of training programs, as applicable, upon submission to the board for the consideration of an application for certification by endorsement. The board shall waive its examination, qualification, education, or training requirements to the extent that such examination, qualification, education, or training requirements are determined by the board to be comparable with those established by the board. By his application dated December 29, 1997, Petitioner sought certification based upon his qualifications1 and upon what his counsel referred to as "substantially equivalent" exams. The "substantially equivalent" exams to which counsel for Petitioner referred were to the examinations Petitioner passed in order to be licensed as a general contractor and as a roofing contractor. Petitioner's application reflects that he passed licensure examinations during 1983 in Broward County and in Dade County in the general contractor category. Petitioner passed a similar examination in Palm Beach County, Florida, in 1986. Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, was created by Chapter 93-166, Laws of Florida. Prior to 1993, there was no state-wide certification of building inspectors. There was no evidence as to the contents of the examinations Petitioner passed in 1983 and 1986, and there was no evidence as to the contents of the certification examination administered by Respondent to candidates for certification as building inspectors. Consequently, there is no basis upon which a comparison of these examinations can be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for certification by endorsement be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Florida licensed professional engineer, holding license number PE 45941. There have been no prior disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent. The Respondent acted as the general contractor in the construction of his personal residence, which is the structure at issue in this proceeding. There is no evidence that the structure, as built, fails to meet applicable standards and requirements. On December 16, 1999, the Respondent submitted to the City of Clearwater Building Department, 29 sheets of building plans for alterations to the Respondent's residence. Of the 29 sheets, three were apparently signed and sealed by an engineer identified as Shields E. Clark, P.E., who did not testify at the hearing. Nineteen of the 29 sheets contain the statement, "[a] windload review of this plan has been made by Shields E. Clark, P.E. and it is certified to be in compliance with Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code 1994." The plans apparently confused the Clearwater Building Department official who reviewed the material. He asked the Respondent to meet with him and explain the project. The meeting occurred on or about January 10, 2000. During the meeting, the Respondent signed and sealed 22 of the 29 sheets; afterwards, the reviewing official noted they were unsigned. Four sheets of the initial plans were not signed and sealed by anyone. The Clearwater Building Department relies on the engineering certification in determining whether plans should be approved. The Respondent signed and sealed the plans as a professional engineer and the plans were approved. As to all of the plans submitted by the Respondent to the Clearwater Building Department, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of James Owen Power, a Florida licensed engineer. Mr. Power's testimony was persuasive and is credited. (Sheet numbers identified herein reference the page numbers in Joint Exhibit 1.) According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on December 16, 1999. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to specify which of two methods was used in calculating compliance with Southern Building Code windload requirements; depiction of a three-foot overhang projection on sheet 12 which is not depicted on other pages in the same plans; lack of a footing under a center post (sheet 19); lack of a beam at the center post to indicate what is being supported (sheet 21); inadequate support of the center post (sheet 22); a failure to provide for transfer of a portion of the roof load to an appropriate support (sheet 22); inadequate support for the load being carried (sheet 23); and depiction of a sample wall section atypical of all conditions throughout the proposed construction. On March 15, 2000, the Respondent submitted a 22-page set of drawings to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 14, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 15, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to indicate whether differences in foundation, floor and roof framing, between the initial plan submission and the March 15 submission, were to be regarded as substituted plans or changes to the initial plans; the failure on five sheets to refer to windload certification; the failure to correlate position of cross beams to posts (sheet 43); differing numbers and locations of cross beams within the plan submission (sheets 43 and 44); a cantilevered wall that is identified without appropriate detailing; omission on sheet 45 of a "transverse" beam depicted on sheet 44; depiction of a wall not previously shown and two previously un-shown beams over the garage door (sheet 46); the appearance of a previously un-shown and unspecified pipe column in the middle of the garage opening (sheet 46); the lack of proper identification of a post and partition depicted on the column view (sheet 47); inconsistent identification of the dimensions of a balcony overhang (sheets 43, 49 and 52); and alteration of original rafter sizes without notice of the change (sheet 63). On March 28, 2000, the Respondent submitted an 11-page set of drawings and two sheets of cost estimates to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 28, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: omission of a footing and pipe column depicted in the second set of plans without notification of change (sheet 31); the inability to determine the intent of "back addition lower plan" (sheet 32); alteration of the notation of a wall from the second set of plans (sheet 33); inconsistent depiction of the new wall foundation at the left side of the structure (sheet 33); inconsistent identification of the footing at the center of the garage opening (sheets 31, 33, and 34); inconsistent depiction of footers (sheets 34 and 35); inconsistent depiction of columns and beams (sheets 33, 34 and 35); and alteration in the manner of depicting partitions within the structure from the depiction contained in the initial submission (sheet 37). On June 12, 2000, the Respondent submitted another 11- page set of plans to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on June 12, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: identification of beams as "optional" without defining the requirements of either option (sheets 64 and 65); depiction of knee braces not previously identified in previous plans (sheet 65); inconsistent depiction of partitions (sheets 65 and 69); alteration of wall width from second plan submission without adequate notification of change (sheets 49 and 66); depiction of knee braces without proper consideration of lateral load (sheet 66); depiction of a diagonal structure the intent of which is unclear (sheet 68); inconsistent depiction of a center joist (sheets 38 and 69); alteration to the previous depiction of rafters without notification (sheet 67); deletion of footing and a column in the center of the garage opening without notification (sheets 68 and 70); and the addition of a door to the left of the garage opening without notification of change from prior submissions. The Respondent's building plan submissions fail to meet professional standards. Structural elements were added, altered, and deleted without appropriate notification, and within submissions, elements were inconsistently depicted. The Respondent's failure to meet professional standards resulted in building plans that were ambiguous and unclear.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding Phillip J. Matonte, P.E., for negligence in this matter, and placing him on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 11th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire Tilton & Metzger, P.A. 1435 East Piedmont Drive, Suite 210 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert Powers Wheeler is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination allows the national testing service grading the examination and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine if an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states, who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis, that is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. Further, the grader does not know the grade assigned to any applicant's solution by any other grader. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and are required to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's solution, whether a passing grade of "3" or "4" should be assigned to each applicant's solution. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's solution. Petitioner received a grade of "2," which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination. Although the Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, who is also an architect, testified that Petitioner made a valiant effort to pass the examination, he identified several material areas wherein Petitioner failed to achieve minimal competency in his presentation or wherein Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. Petitioner failed to meet the owner's goals in that he approached the minimum square footage requirement while failing to provide amenities, which was a prime directive in the examination program. Petitioner had difficulty with regard to the pedestrian traffic flow on his third-floor plan. Petitioner had difficulty with his parking solution as well as with fulfilling the requirement of keeping the building architecturally compatible with surrounding structures. The Board's Executive Director, who has many years' experience in grading Site Planning and Design Tests, would have also given to Petitioner an overall grade of "2." The graders of Petitioner's examination were not uniform in identifying areas of concern regarding Petitioner's weaknesses in his solution. However, the procedure to be utilized by graders is set forth in the Grader's Manual and specifies that under the holistic grading system each grader is to determine his overall impression of a candidate's submission in order to assign a passing or a failing grade. After making his determination based upon the overall project, the grader then returns to his areas of special concern. Although the different graders may have identified different areas of concern, all graders found Petitioner's submission to be below minimal competency requirements. Although Petitioner disagrees with his grade, he presented no evidence to show that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June, 1981, architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 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 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Powers Wheeler 5501 South West 147th Terrace Miami, Florida 33158 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
