Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing
7111EEC Module Title
|Individual: (ML delete as appropriate)
|Coursework Title (e.g. CWK1)
Cost management of Construction projects (CW3)
|Hand out date:
14th September 2020
|Due date and time:
Date: 4th December 2020
|Estimated Time (hrs): 15
Word Limit*: 2500
|50% of Module Mark
|Submission arrangement online via Aula:
File types and method of recording: Submission is to be via 1 PDF file covering all tasks
Mark and Feedback date (DD/MM/YY):
Mark and Feedback method (e.g. in lecture, electronic via Aula): Written feedback Via Aula
|Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:
2. Use concepts and principles in the preparation of budget costings and evaluate analytical estimating methods for building and civil engineering projects.
4. Evaluate and apply a range of estimating methods for cost advice – including approximate estimating, operational estimating, unit rate estimating and preliminaries using various examples (excavation and earthwork; concrete work; brickwork and blockwork) and bidding strategies
|Task and Mark distribution:
You have been engaged as a cost consultant working for HS2 on the new midlands interchange hub. The hub is a multi-million-pound government funded project that will allow for connections to the high speed rail link from north to south of the UK.
Write a report to your client explaining some of the key financial practices that will happen at various intervals throughout the project. As a minimum your report should cover
1) Estimating options
2) Budget development
3) Cost Planning
4) Cost management
5) Valuations and variations
For each of the above you must provide critical evaluation and make recommendations for which should be used on the project. Providing examples will enhance the clarity of your answers.
In addition with the report compare and contrast the accuracy of/ and use of Elemental cost estimates and Order of cost estimates as identified in NRM1. Identify at least five drawbacks and five benefits for each cost estimating method, linking back to the scenario where possible
Do not forget to submit your work fully validated with citations and detailed academic research.
1. You are expected to use the Coventry University APA style for referencing. For support and advice on this students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).
2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.
3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined here.
4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to save it on the University system.
5. If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period. This will be communicated via your Module Leader.
6. *(ML’s delete if not applying to this assessment) Assignments that are more than 10% over the word limit will result in a deduction of 10% of the mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction of 6% to 54%. The word limit includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography, reference list and tables.
7. You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on Aula.
8. Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to both courseworks and exam answers.
9. A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own work.
10. If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts.
11. You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, with the exception of resits, where for the coursework, you maybe asked to rework and improve a previous attempt. This requirement will be specifically detailed in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, i.e. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently may also be considered to be self-plagiarism.
Mark allocation guidelines to students (to be edited by staff per assessment)
|Work mainly incomplete and /or weaknesses in most areas
|Most elements completed; weaknesses outweigh strengths
|Most elements are strong, minor weaknesses
|Strengths in all elements
|Most work exceeds the standard expected
|All work substantially exceeds the standard expected
Marking Rubric (To be edited by staff per each assessment)
|ARGUMENT & COHERENCE
|Innovative response, answers the question fully, addressing the learning objectives of the assessment task. Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
|A clear, consistent in-depth critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from a range of sources. Engagement with theoretical and conceptual analysis.
|Wide range of appropriately supporting evidence provided, going beyond the recommended texts. Correctly referenced.
|An outstanding, well-structured and appropriately referenced answer, demonstrating a high degree of understanding and critical analytic skills.
|A very good attempt to address the objectives of the assessment task with an emphasis on those elements requiring critical review.
|A generally clear line of critical and evaluative argument is presented. Relationships between statements and sections are easy to follow, and there is a sound, coherent structure.
|A very good range of relevant sources is used in a largely consistent way as supporting evidence. There is use of some sources beyond recommended texts. Correctly referenced in the main.
|The answer demonstrates a very good understanding of theories, concepts and issues, with evidence of reading beyond the recommended minimum. Well organised and clearly written.
|Competently addresses objectives, but may contain errors or omissions and critical discussion of issues may be superficial or limited in places.
|Some critical discussion, but the argument is not always convincing, and the work is descriptive in places, with over-reliance on the work of others.
|A range of relevant sources is used, but the critical evaluation aspect is not fully presented. There is limited use of sources beyond the standard recommended materials. Referencing is not always correctly presented.
|The answer demonstrates a good understanding of some relevant theories, concepts and issues, but there are some errors and irrelevant material included. The structure lacks clarity.
|Addresses most objectives of the assessment task, with some notable omissions. The structure is unclear in parts, and there is limited analysis.
|The work is descriptive with minimal critical discussion and limited theoretical engagement.
|A limited range of relevant sources used without appropriate presentation as supporting or conflicting evidence coupled with very limited critical analysis. Referencing has some errors.
|Some understanding is demonstrated but is incomplete, and there is evidence of limited research on the topic. Poor structure and presentation, with few and/or poorly presented references.
|Some deviation from the objectives of the assessment task. May not consistently address the assignment brief. At the lower end fails to answer the question set or address the learning outcomes. There is minimal evidence of analysis or evaluation.
|Descriptive with no evidence of theoretical engagement, critical discussion or theoretical engagement. At the lower end displays a minimal level of understanding.
|Very limited use and application of relevant sources as supporting evidence. At the lower end demonstrates a lack of real understanding. Poor presentation of references.
|Whilst some relevant material is present, the level of understanding is poor with limited evidence of wider reading. Poor structure and poor presentation, including referencing. At the lower end there is evidence of a lack of comprehension, resulting in an assignment that is well below the required standard.