Brian Luizza, CSC Docket No. 2023-2294

BackgroundBrian Luizza appeals his score on the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Lieutenant (PM2383C), Union. It is noted that the appellant passed the subject examination with a score of 82.920 and ranks 13th on the subject 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, 35.90% 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, 23.20% was the technical score for the arriving exercise, 5.71% was the oral communication score for the arriving exercise.

The oral portion of the Fire Lieutenant 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 Scenario); 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 Scenario). Knowledge of supervision was measured by a question in the Evolving Scenario and was scored for that 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 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. It is noted that candidates were told the following prior to beginning their presentations for each scenario: “In responding to the questions, be as specific as possible. Do not assume or take for granted that general actions will contribute to your score.”

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.

On the Evolving Scenario, the appellant scored a 4 on the technical component, a 5 on the supervision component, and a 5 on the oral communication component. On the Arriving Scenario, the appellant scored a 2 on the technical component and a 5 on the oral communication component.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant challenges his score for the technical component of the Arriving Scenario. As a result, the appellant’s test material, video, and a listing of PCAs for the scenario were reviewed.

The Arriving Scenario involves a response to a single motor vehicle accident on an interstate highway where the candidate is the first-level supervisor of the first arriving unit, will be the incident commander and will establish command. The prompt further indicates that the vehicle has smashed into the beginning of a metal guard rail head-on and that a fire has started under the hood. The prompt then asks the candidate what actions they will take to fully address the incident.

The SME awarded the appellant a score of 2 on the technical component of the Arriving Scenario, based upon a finding that he missed a significant number of PCAs, including, in part, the mandatory response of ordering an attack hoseline of a minimum 1 ½” to attack the fire (between the fire and the victims) and a number of opportunities. On appeal, the appellant argues that a hoseline less than 1 ½” would not be suitable or practical for foam application. As such, the appellant avers that his “directive to deploy a foam line would imply the use of an adequately[-]sized hose line.” In support he cites a statement from International Association of Fire Chiefs and National Fire Protection, Fundamentals of Fire Fighter Skills and Hazardous Materials Response 873 (4th ed. 2019), which indicates that the use of 1 ½” and 1 ¾” lines with portable in-line educators is common in foam operations.

In reply, as noted above, candidates were told the following prior to beginning their presentations for each scenario: “In responding to the questions, be as specific as possible. Do not assume or take for granted that general actions will contribute to your score.” The appellant’s argument that he implied the use of a 1 ½” or larger hoseline is an argument that is clearly contrary to this unambiguous requirement that candidates provide specific actions, rather than general ones, and must necessarily fail as a result. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to sustain his burden of proof and his Arriving Scenario technical component score of 2 is affirmed.

CONCLUSION

A thorough review of the appellant’s submissions and the test materials indicates that the decision below is amply supported by the record and, except as noted above, the appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

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