The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Mr. Danforth was licensed by the Board as a professional engineer, having been issued license number PE 44653. On March 5, 1996, Mr. Danforth was issued a Special Inspector license, license number 1103, by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Mr. Danforth submitted an application for the Special Inspector's license (Application) to DCA on January 29, 1996, based upon his experience and hours of structural design course work. In his Application, Mr. Danforth represented that, during 1995 through 1996, he had inspected the structural elements of four threshold type buildings. From October 1993 through April 1998, Mr. Danforth was employed by Fraser Engineering & Testing, Inc. (FET). The owner of FET, Alexander Fraser, who, at the times material hereto, was a licensed engineer, testified at hearing. Mr. Fraser's testimony is uncontroverted and found to be credible. FET performed threshold inspections as part of its business, but such inspections comprised a minority part of its business. FET did not engage in any structural design. Mr. Danforth was the most senior geotechnical engineer for FET in charge of foundation investigations. Mr. Fraser was the Special Inspector in charge of and responsible for the projects referred to in Mr. Danforth's Application. According to Mr. Fraser, Mr. Danforth supervised all threshold projects for FET and periodically visited project sites, including the four threshold projects in Mr. Danforth's Application. As to structural engineering special inspections by FET, Mr. Fraser testified that Mr. Danforth supervised FET's inspectors, who performed the day-to-day inspections, and would perform periodic site inspections to make sure that the day-to- day inspections were being properly made by the inspectors. Mr. Fraser further testified that to make certain that the inspectors were performing in accordance with "proper engineering," Mr. Danforth had to be "intimately involved in the inspections" by making on-site visits, discussing the projects with the inspectors when they returned at night, and reviewing the daily reports generated on the sites. If the inspectors who performed the day-to-day inspections had questions or problems, they went to Mr. Danforth. At the time for the final reports, Mr. Danforth would sign the final reports, followed by Mr. Fraser who would sign them as the Special Inspector. Mr. Fraser had complete confidence in Mr. Danforth. The former operations manager of FET, David Alker, who was employed with FET during the time period of the four threshold projects, testified that all structural inspection issues, regarding the projects, were referred to Mr. Danforth. Mr. Alker's testimony is found to be credible. The Board presented the testimony of an expert witness, Jose R. Danon, Ph.D., P.E., who was a structural engineer. Among other things, Mr. Danon reviewed Mr. Danforth's Application to DCA for the Special Inspector's license, documents regarding Mr. Danforth's engineering experience, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.043, which was the rule, at the time of Mr. Danforth's Application, setting forth the minimum qualifications for the Special Inspector's license. Mr. Danon testified that Mr. Danforth's Application material did not provide sufficient information for him (Mr. Danon) to make a determination as to whether Mr. Danforth was qualified for a Special Inspector's license; and that the description of Mr. Danforth's engineering experience was insufficient to make a determination as to whether Mr. Danforth had sufficient engineering experience to qualify for a Special Inspector's license. Accordingly, Mr. Danon opined that Mr. Danforth failed to meet the minimum qualifications for a Special Inspector's license. Mr. Danon's opinion is not found to be credible. He is not a Special Inspector and has never applied for or been issued a Special Inspector's license. Mr. Danon essentially testified that, because of the lack of sufficient information, he was unable to make a determination that Mr. Danforth was qualified to be licensed as a Special Inspector. No testimony was presented by Mr. Danon applying the facts, as he knew them from the documents provided to him by the Board, to the minimum qualifications set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B- 3.043. Mr. Danon had no knowledge as to how DCA interpreted the said Rule. Moreover, Mr. Danon had no knowledge as to what criteria DCA used to issue Mr. Danforth the Special Inspector's license. Mr. Danon did not opine in any way, form or fashion that Mr. Danforth submitted false, fraudulent, or misleading information or negligently submitted information regarding his Application and/or engineering experience. Mr. Danon testified that he had no opinion, that he did not know, as to whether the information was false, fraudulent, or misleading. A finding is made that the evidence fails to show that Mr. Danforth submitted false, fraudulent, or misleading information or negligently submitted information for his Special Inspector's license. Mr. Danon heard the testimony of all the witnesses, including Mr. Danforth. Having heard all of the testimony, Mr. Danon was not called or re-called to testify as to whether his opinion had changed regarding whether Mr. Danforth met the minimum qualifications for a Special Inspector's license in 1996. The evidence does not show that DCA failed to properly apply the minimum criteria of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.043. Mr. Danforth was also a former employee of Professional Engineering and Inspection Company, Inc. (PEICO). He was one of PEICO's professional engineers and Special Inspectors and had become one of its officers. On January 27, 2003, Mr. Danforth signed and sealed a Threshold Inspection Completion Statement (Completion Statement), as Special Inspector, for a PEICO project, the Jefferson at Camino Real, located in Boca Raton, Florida. The Completion Statement was submitted to the City of Boca Raton Building Department. Mr. Danforth certified in the Completion Statement that "To the best of our knowledge and belief, the construction of all structural load bearing components described in the threshold plan complies with the permitted documents, and the shoring and reshoring conformed with the shoring and reshoring plans submitted to the enforcing agency." Also, on January 27, 2003, Mr. Danforth signed and sealed a Special Inspector Certificate (Certificate), as Special Inspector for the PEICO project. The Certificate was also submitted to the City of Boca Raton Building Department. The certificate provided Mr. Danforth, with certifying that he agreed “to be present on the project at all times when construction activities for which I am Special Inspector, to check the work for compliance with approved drawings and applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Boca Raton, and to submit both periodic reports and the Certificate of Completion . . ." Mr. Danforth was not the original Special Inspector on the PEICO project. Gary H. Elzweig, P. E., was the original Special Inspector for the PEICO project, but he had been fired and was in litigation with PEICO. Mr. Danforth was not on the project as a Special Inspector, so he had not been making periodic on-site inspections, discussing the project with the day-to-day, on-site inspectors, and reviewing reports. Mr. Danforth testified that, prior to signing the Completion Statement and the Certificate, he conferred with the Board and the City of Boca Raton Building Department to determine what were the necessary requirements to change the qualifying Special Inspector on the project and certify the project. He testified that the Board advised him that the requirements of the local jurisdiction, i.e., the City of Boca Raton, controlled. Mr. Danforth further testified that the City of Boca Raton Building Department advised him that the same documents submitted by the original Special Inspector at the beginning of the project must be re-submitted by the new Special Inspector and that the Completion Statement must be submitted by the new Special Inspector. Mr. Danforth's testimony is found to be credible. Furthermore, prior to signing the Completion Statement, Mr. Danforth acted as he thought was "prudent and within the standard duty of care to be able to sign-off" on the project. He reviewed the inspection reports; interviewed all the day-to-day, on-site inspectors to make sure that no remaining issues existed regarding the threshold inspection; and visited the project himself, making an on-site inspection. Mr. Danforth was satisfied that he could execute the Completion Statement. On February 3, 2003, Mr. Danforth submitted to the City of Boca Raton Building Department a revised Completion Statement. He certified that Mr. Elzweig was no longer employed by PEICO and no longer the Special Inspector; that he (Mr. Danforth) was replacing Mr. Elzweig as the Special Inspector; and that "To the best of our knowledge and belief, the construction of all structural load bearing components described in the threshold plan complies with the permitted documents, and the shoring and reshoring conformed with the shoring and reshoring plans submitted to the enforcing agency." Mr. Danon opined that "any qualified Special Inspector (SI) working for the company PEICO could have signed the Certificate of Completion (COC) for their project as long as the SI had reviewed and concurred with the documentation Mr. Elzweig had approved during his working relationship with PEICO." Furthermore, Mr. Danon opined that Mr. Danforth committed no wrongdoing in signing the COC. Mr. Elzweig testified that Mr. Danforth committed no wrongdoing in signing the COC. The signing of the Completion Statement, or the COC, and the revised Completion Statement by Mr. Danforth is found to be in compliance with the requirements of the local jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Michael Reggia meets the Florida licensure requirements for a professional engineer in the field of manufacturing engineering. The issue is specifically whether the practice and principles portion of the licensing exam was valid. Procedural Matters At the final hearing, Petitioner, Michael Reggia testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of manufacturing engineer, Howard Bender. Petitioner's exhibits #1 and #2, letters from Martin Marietta Aerospace and Harris Corporation, were rejected as hearsay. Exhibit #3, selected pages from Fundamentals of Engineering, published by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, was admitted without objection. Respondent presented two witnesses: Cass Hurc, P.E. (by deposition, by agreement of the parties) and Allen Rex Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. Respondent initially submitted four exhibits: #1 and #4 were admitted without objection, #2(a) and #2(b), were admitted over Petitioner's objection, and #3 was withdrawn. The parties requested and were given 20 days to submit post-hearing briefs and proposed orders. On September 15, 1986, Petitioner filed his arguments and summary of she testimony and evidence. Nothing was filed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Michael Reggia resides in Titusville and works at the Kennedy Space Center. He is licensed in the state of California as a professional engineer and has practiced in the field of manufacturing engineering. California, like Florida, does not license an individual in a particular discipline of engineering but requires that an individual select an area in which he or she will be tested. Mr. Reggia took the professional engineering license exam in Florida in October 1985. For part two of the examination, Professional Practice and Principles, he chose to be tested in his field of manufacturing engineering. He achieved a score of 64.4; in order to pass, a score of 70 is required. The examination given in Florida is a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) for certification or licensure throughout the United States. The October 1985 exam was developed based upon an extensive survey study initiated by NCEE in 1979. A report of that study was published in March 1981 as "A Task Analysis of Licensed Engineers". (Respondent's exhibit #4) The primary purpose of the study was to aid NCEE in developing"... fair, meaningful, uniform, and objective standards with which to measure minimum competency for professional licensure." (exhibit #4, page E1) In drafting an exam the NCEE relies on the societies representing various engineering disciplines to submit examination problems for consideration. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, through its professional registration committee, provides that service on behalf of the manufacturing engineers. The October 1985 examination for manufacturing engineers did not include questions relating to electrical engineering, which is Mr. Reggia's sub- area of emphasis in the area of manufacturing engineering. Since manufacturing engineering includes overlap into the basic engineering disciplines, Mr. Reggia contends the exam was one-sided and invalid as he felt it concentrated on tool designing and mechanical engineering. Some industries, particularly the aerospace industries now include a substantial number of electrical engineers on their staff. Engineering is an evolving discipline and manufacturing engineering has undergone changes with new technologies in recent years. One way of addressing the diversity and changes in the field is to provide a two-book exam that would offer the applicant a wider variety of problems from which he or she could select. This has been recommended to the NCEE by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Another approach, and the one utilized by the NCEE, is to conduct periodic surveys to determine the tasks which engineers are actually performing and the level of judgement required to perform the tasks effectively. It would be impossible, and perhaps inappropriate to develop an exam that would test each individual only on his or her particular expertise. In the area of manufacturing engineering the exams developed by NCEE are passed by 65- 75 percent of the candidates, a rate which is comparable to that of the mechanical engineers for their exam. Seven out of ten applicants passed the same exam which Mr. Reggia took in October 1985.
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her response to question nos. 122 and 222 of the civil engineering examination administered on October 31, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the civil professional engineering licensing examination. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. Petitioner challenged the scoring of question nos. 122 and 222. As part of the examination challenge process, Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying where it was re-scored. In the re-score process, the grader deducted points from Petitioner's original score. Petitioner was given the same raw score of 6 on question number 122; however, on question number 222 her raw score of 4 was reduced to a 2. Petitioner needed a raw score of 48 in order to achieve a passing score of 70; she needed at least three additional raw score points to obtain a passing raw score of 48. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on problem number 122. The solution and scoring plan for that problem required the candidate to obtain a culvert size in the range of 21-36 inches. The Petitioner incorrectly answered 3.1 feet or 37.2 inches. She is not entitled to additional credit for problem number 122 because she answered the question with the wrong size culvert. Problem number 122 required the candidate to use a predevelopment peak flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Petitioner used 58.33 cfs. She chose the maximum flow rather than the predevelopment peak flow. In solving problem number 122, Petitioner chose a design headwater depth of 4.8 feet. The correct solution required a design headwater depth of 5.7 feet. Petitioner made another mistake in problem number 122; she failed to check the water depth in the downstream swale. Petitioner concedes she was given sufficient information to solve problem number 122. She understood what the question was asking of her. She admits that she did not compute the critical depth of the water and that she did not complete the solution. Question number 222 had three parts. The candidate was required to determine the footing size, to select the reinforcing steel, and to provide a sketch for a concrete column located along the edge of a building. Petitioner understood the question and was provided enough information to solve the problem. Petitioner correctly checked the footing size as required by the first part; however, she did not select the reinforcing steel or show the required sketch. Therefore, Petitioner did not complete enough of the problem to qualify for a score of 4 points. She is entitled to a score of 2 points. The examination questions at issue here were properly designed to test the candidate's competency in solving typical problems in real life. The grader (re-scorer) utilized the scoring plan correctly. Petitioner has been in the United States for approximately eleven years. She lived in Romania before she came to the United States. In Romania, Petitioner used only the metric system in her professional work. While she has used the English system since moving to the United States, Petitioner is more familiar with the metric system. The Principles and Practice examination is an open-book examination. Petitioner took a book entitled the Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook to the examination. When the proctor examined her books, she told the Petitioner she was not permitted to keep the handbook. The proctor took the handbook from the Petitioner. Petitioner protested the confiscation of her reference book because she had used the same book in two previous tests. About ten minutes later, the proctor's supervisor returned the book to Petitioner. Petitioner's book was returned at least ten minutes before the test began. She was permitted to use the book during the test. There is no persuasive evidence that the proctor's mistake in temporarily removing Petitioner's reference book caused her to be so upset that she failed the test. Candidates were not permitted to study their books prior to the beginning of the examination. Petitioner may have been nervous when the test began. However, Petitioner received a perfect score of ten points on the first problem she worked, problem number 121.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the examination and dismissing the Petitioner's challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 13th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Bartin, President Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact E. J. Lamberth, III, is a certified general contractor having been licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Lamberth's license was not renewed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board when it expired in June, 1975. However, the Board does not question Mr. Lamberth's right to issuance of such a license pending the outcome of this hearing, and the failure of the Board to reissue Mr. Lamberth's license is an apparent administrative oversight. Mr. Lamberth applied and obtained building permits as a Construction Industry Licensing Board Certified General Contractor for construction of modifications or additions to the homes of Mr. and Mrs. Cohen, Mr. and Mrs. Retter, and Mr. and Mrs. DeChant. Copies of the applications for building permits were introduced in the evidence. Exhibit I is the application for the Retter's permit; Exhibit V is the application for the permit for the Cohen's permit; and Exhibit VII is the application for the DeChant's building permit. Lamberth notified the Board by letter received by the Board on or about December 24, 1974 of his resignation as qualifier for Addition Builders, Inc. Lamberth's employment with Addition Builders, Inc. began when he answered a newspaper advertisement for a certified general contractor placed by Richard Butler. Butler was looking for a certified general contractor to supervise construction and to obtain building permits for a construction business which he was at that time incorporating. Lamberth checked with the local Better Business Bureau and having determined that there were no complaints against Butler, entered into an employment agreement with Butler. Subsequently, Butler did incorporate and E. J. Lamberth be came Vice-president for Addition Builders, Inc., a Florida corporation. Lamberth's duties were to inspect plans for any modification or additions which Addition Builders, Inc. contracted to construct, to supervise construction, and to be the qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. In August 1974, Richard Butler entered into a contract in behalf of Addition Builders, Inc. with Michael and Carol Retter for the construction of two-bedroom/one-bath addition to their house located at 460 N. W. Opa Locka Boulevard, North Miami, Florida. Construction of this addition was to take approximately three to six months. Construction began in September of 1974. The construction at the Retter's residence was supervised by the building superintendent or chief carpenter, Mr. Braddock. Construction on the addition was intermittent during September and slowed to a halt in October 1974. The Retters called Addition Builders, Inc. in November and were advised by Mr. Braddock that Mr. Butler had withdrawn from the business but that Braddock would continue with the construction and complete the addition. Construction on the Retter's addition was approximately 50 percent complete, the floor, roof and walls having been built but the windows, doors and plumbing fixtures not having been set. Braddock came and did some work and advised the Retters that he had taken over the business from Butler. Mrs. Retter testified that she was working full-time during this period but that on days when she and her husband were home the construction personnel came at 9:00 a.m. and left in mid-afternoon. The personnel who came, with the exception of Braddock, were subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc. During this period, she did not see Mr. Lamberth who she saw for the first time the day of the formal hearing. The Retters first learned of Lamberth's association with Addition Builders, Inc. from the officials of the city of North Miami, who gave the Retters Lamberth's name as the party who had drawn the construction permit. In January the Retters contacted Mr. Lamberth who advised them that he had withdrawn from the company and could not help them. The contract price for the contract between the Retters and Addition Builders, Inc. was for $8,900 of which the Retters had paid $8,000 at the time construction of the addition ceased. It cost the Retters approximately $2,000 to finish the construction of the addition after Addition Builders, Inc. ceased to perform any work on the job. E. J. Lamberth, III, has been a full-time employee of the Dade County Recreation Department since January 9, 1963. He was employed by Richard Butler as a qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. and was made Vice-president of that corporation. Addition Builders, Inc. began operation in late July or August of 1974. Lamberth performed the duties for which he was employed. He drew the construction permits required, inspected plans for modifications and additions to be built by Addition Builders, Inc., and visited the various construction sites of the corporation at noon and in the late afternoon to determine the progress being made by the subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc. Through his contact with Mr. Braddock and the subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc., Lamberth arranged for the scheduling of the subcontractors on the various jobs. At this time, Addition Builders, Inc. had between six and eight projects under construction. Lamberth was able to determine the progress being made on the various sites through his periodic inspections two to three times per week. These inspections and his conversations with the subcontractors revealed in early October that Butler was countermanding Lamberth's directions and canceling Lamberth's instructions given to subcontractors. Because of these activities, Lamberth advised Butler that he, Lamberth, would have to be in charge of the projects underway and schedule work on the projects or he would have to withdraw as qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. Because of Butler's continued interference, Lamberth eventually resigned from his position with Addition Builders, Inc. in December 1974. Lamberth was not a stockholder in Addition Builders, Inc. When the work began on the various additions, Lamberth received 3 percent of the contract price as his compensation for his services to Addition Builders, Inc. Subsequent to being advised of the problems with Addition Builders, Inc., Lamberth attempted to locate Richard Butler. Richard Butler could not be located and has apparently left the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against the certificate of L. E. Lamberth, III. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida James W. Bowling, Esquire Vernis and Bowling Sailboat Bay - PH II 2951 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1241 E. J. LAMBERTH, III, CG C006734, P. O. Box 570444, Miami, Florida 33157. Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her solution to Problem 120 on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 14, 2000, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On April 14, 2000, as part of her effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 46 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 46 converts to a score of 68. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested that her solution to Problem 120 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was referred to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 120 resulted in her receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about December 5, 2000. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated December 14, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problem 120 was worth ten raw points. Petitioner received six raw points for her solution to Problem 120. In her solution to Problem 120, Petitioner failed to properly take into consideration the height of the water table, did not compute the factor of safety for load-bearing capacity in the manner required, and made an arithmetic mistake. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES's scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that she could have received for her solution to this problem was a six, which is the score she received. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee made three errors. The solution approved by the Civil Engineering Exam committee called for a correction in requirement (a) for the mid height water table. The examinee ignored this correction. A two point grade reduction is called for. The examinee made a numerical error in evaluating the bearing capacity equation. This error called for a one point grade reduction. In evaluating the factor of safety the examinee added an erroneous load factor. A two point grade reduction is called for. With a total of five grade points lost a final grade of six is called for. SCORER'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommended score = six There has been no showing that the rescorer's analysis was in any way flawed.
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 she received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2001, 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 16th day of April, 2001.
