Joseph Moscinski, CSC Docket No. 2022-717

BackgroundJoseph Moscinski appeals his score for the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Lieutenant (PM0125A), Harrison. It is noted that the appellant passed the subject examination with a final average of 79.530 and ranks tenth on the resultant eligible list.

This two-part examination consisted of a written multiple-choice portion and an oral portion. Candidates were required to pass the written portion of the examination, and then were ranked on their performance on both portions of the examination. The test was worth 80 percent of the final score and seniority was worth the remaining 20 percent. Of the test weights, 35.9% of the score was the written multiple-choice portion, 22.04% was the technical score for the evolving exercise, 7.45% was the supervision score for the evolving exercise, 5.71% was the oral communication score for the evolving exercise, 23.2% was the technical score for the arriving exercise, and 5.71% was the oral communication score for the arriving exercise.

The oral portion of the Fire Captain examination consisted of two scenarios: a fire scene simulation with questions designed to measure the knowledge of safe rescue tactics and procedures to safeguard citizens, supervision of fire fighters and the ability to assess fire conditions and hazards in an evolving incident on the fireground (evolving); and a fire scene simulation designed to measure the knowledge of safe rescue tactics and procedures to safeguard citizens, supervision of firefighters and the ability to plan strategies and tactics based upon a building’s structure and condition (arriving). Knowledge of supervision was measured by questions in the evolving scenario. For the evolving scenario, candidates were provided with a 15-minute preparation period, and candidates had 10 minutes to respond. For the arriving scenario, a five-minute preparation period was given, and candidates had 10 minutes to respond.

The candidates’ responses were scored on technical knowledge, supervision knowledge and oral communication ability. Prior to the administration of the exam, a panel of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) determined the scoring criteria, using generally approved fire command practices, firefighting practices, and reference materials. Scoring decisions were based on SME-approved possible courses of action (PCAs) including those actions that must be taken to resolve the situation as presented. Only those oral responses that depicted relevant behaviors that were observable and could be quantified were assessed in the scoring process.

Candidates were rated on a five-point scale, with 5 as the optimal response, 4 as a more than acceptable passing response, 3 as a minimally acceptable passing response, 2 as a less than acceptable response, and 1 as a much less than acceptable response. For each of the scenes, and for oral communication, the requirements for each score were defined.

For the evolving scenario, the appellant scored a 2 for the technical component, and he challenges that score. As a result, the appellant’s test material, video, and a listing of PCAs for the scenario were reviewed.

The evolving scenario involved a report of fire at a maintenance and repair automotive garage. The Incident Commander (IC) orders the candidate to establish a water supply and begin an offensive attack. Question 1 asked for detailed orders given to the crew of Engine 3 to complete the orders from the IC. Question 2 indicated that during the fire attack, a portion of the roof collapsed and blocked the means of egress, causing disorientation of the candidate and his crew. This question asked for immediate actions to be taken by the candidate and his crew. The answers to these two questions provided the score for the technical component.

For the technical component, the assessor noted that the candidate failed to activate his PASS device (question 2), and missed the opportunities to watch for hazardous conditions (question 1) and to check the crew for injuries (question 2). On appeal, the appellant argues that he activated his PASS device after the collapse.

A review of the file indicates that, for the technical component, the appellant clearly stated that he would activate his PASS device, which was a mandatory response. Mandatory responses are responses that are requirements for a performance to be acceptable (a score of 3). As the appellant gave the mandatory action and other additional actions, his score for the technical component should be changed from 2 to 4. However, the appellant missed the additional actions noted by the assessor, and the appellant did not provide sufficient responses to warrant a score of 5.

CONCLUSION

A thorough review of the appellant’s submissions and the test materials indicates that the appellant’s score for the technical component of the evolving scenario should be changed from 2 to 4, but the presentation does not warrant a score of 5.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted, and the appellant’s score for the technical component of the evolving scenario be changed from 2 to 4.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.