DCC50513 Rubrics | Final Year Project 2

DIPLOMA IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

DCC50513 Rubric Reference

Final Year Project 2

DCC50513 · FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2

Project Task 1

Diploma in Civil Engineering

10%

Assessment Criteria

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Project Planning and Preparation i. Required tools were identified. ii. Materials and equipment were prepared. iii. The project task was planned according to the methodology. iv. Resources were organised systematically.	DP1 – Knowledge Profile (Shows understanding of project methodology, tools, equipment and resources required.) DK6: Codified practical engineering knowledge in recognised practice area	5All preparation activities were completed comprehensively and systematically, demonstrating excellent planning and organisation for effective project implementation in full accordance with the approved methodology.	4Preparation activities were completed systematically, with only minor shortcomings. Planning and organisation were well demonstrated, with no significant impact on project implementation.	3Preparation activities were adequately completed, providing a satisfactory foundation for project implementation. Further improvement in planning and organisation is required.	2Preparation activities were partially completed, resulting in limited preparedness for project implementation and inconsistent adherence to the approved methodology.	1Preparation activities are inadequately completed and do not provide sufficient preparation for effective implementation.	6	—
2	Application of Tools, Techniques and Procedures i. Appropriate tools were selected. ii. Appropriate techniques were applied. iii. The procedures were followed correctly. iv. Project tasks were performed systematically	DP4 – Familiarity of issues (Are frequently encountered and thus familiar to most practitioners in the practice area) DK 3: A	5Appropriate tools, techniques, and procedures are consistently applied with excellent technical competency, demonstrating systematic implementation in full accordance with the approved methodology.	4Appropriate tools, techniques, and procedures are generally applied with good technical competency. Minor inconsistencies are evident but do not significantly affect the quality	3Appropriate tools, techniques, and procedures were satisfactorily applied with acceptable technical competency. Some inconsistencies were evident, and further	2Appropriate tools, techniques, and procedures were applied with limited technical competency. Implementation was inconsistent and only partially complied with the approved methodology.	1Appropriate tools, techniques, and procedures are inadequately applied and do not demonstrate acceptable technical competency or compliance with the approved methodology.	8	—
3	Work Execution and Safety Practice i. Project task executed according to the procedure. ii. Safety requirements were observed. iii. The work sequence was followed correctly. iv. Evidence of task implementation is shown. * Students should clearly identify the safety precautions implemented and provide supporting evidence during project execution.	DP5 – Extent of applicable codes (Addresses problems that are encompassed by standard and/or documented codes of practice) DK 4: Engineering specialist knowledge that provides the body of knowledge for an accepted sub-discipline	5Project tasks are executed systematically with complete implementation evidence, while fully complying with established work procedures, safety requirements, and recognised engineering practices.	4Project tasks were executed systematically with sufficient implementation evidence. Minor shortcomings were evident; however, work procedures and safety requirements were generally complied with.	3Project tasks were executed satisfactorily with adequate implementation evidence. Compliance with work procedures and safety requirements was acceptable but requires further improvement.	2Project tasks were partially executed with limited implementation evidence. Compliance with work procedures and safety requirements was inconsistent.	1Project tasks were inadequately executed with insufficient implementation evidence and did not comply with the required work procedures and safety requirements.	6	—

Rubric scale: Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Fair = 3, Poor = 2, Very Poor = 1.

DCC50513 · FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2

Project Task 2

Diploma in Civil Engineering

10%

Assessment Criteria

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Data Collection and Organisation i. Data source identified. ii. The data collection activities are explained. iii. Data were organised and recorded systematically. iv. Evidence of data collection is presented individually.	DP1 – Knowledge Profile (Shows understanding of data collection methods and project requirements.) DK4 – Engineering specialist knowledge (Shows understanding of engineering specialist knowledge in sub-discipline.)	5Data collection activities were completed comprehensively and systematically. All records were well organised and fully supported the approved project methodology.	4Data collection activities were completed systematically, with only minor shortcomings. The records were well organised and generally supported the approved methodology.	3Data collection activities were adequately completed and organised. Minor improvements are required to strengthen the quality and consistency of the collected data.	2Data collection activities were partially completed. The organisation of records was inconsistent and only partially supported the approved methodology.	1Data collection activities were inadequately completed. Records are incomplete, poorly organised, and do not adequately support the approved methodology.	6	—
2	Application of Analysis Tools and Techniques i. Appropriate analytical tool selected. ii. Appropriate analytical technique was applied. iii. The analysis procedure was followed correctly.	DP3 – Depth of analysis required (can be solved in standardised ways) DK5 – Knowledge that supports engineering design and operations based on the techniques and	5Appropriate analytical tools and techniques are consistently and accurately applied with excellent technical competency, demonstrating systematic analysis in full accordance with	4Appropriate analytical tools and techniques are generally applied with good technical competency. Minor inconsistencies are evident but do not significantly affect the quality of the analysis.	3Appropriate analytical tools and techniques were satisfactorily applied with acceptable technical competency. Further improvement is required to achieve greater consistency in the analysis process.	2Appropriate analytical tools and techniques were applied with limited technical competency. Analysis was inconsistent and only partially complied with the approved methodology.	1Appropriate analytical tools and techniques were inadequately applied and did not demonstrate acceptable technical competency or compliance with the approved methodology.	8	—
3	Interpretation of Results, Constraints and Recommendations i. Results are presented clearly. ii. Findings were evaluated against the project objectives. iii. The constraints were identified and explained. iv. Recommendations based on the findings are proposed.	DP7 – Interdependence (address discrete components of engineering systems.) DK2 – procedural mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics applicable in sub-discipline	5The results are interpreted comprehensively and logically, with complete supporting justification. The constraints are critically evaluated, and recommendations are well supported by the project findings and objectives.	4The results were interpreted systematically, with only minor shortcomings. The constraints were appropriately evaluated, and the recommendations were generally supported by the project findings.	3The results are interpreted satisfactorily with adequate justification. Constraints and recommendations are presented but require further evaluation and supporting evidence.	2The results are partially interpreted with limited justification. The evaluation of constraints and recommendations is incomplete and only partially supported by the project findings.	1The results were inadequately interpreted. The constraints and recommendations were unclear or unsupported by the project findings.	6	—

Rubric scale: Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Fair = 3, Poor = 2, Very Poor = 1.

DCC50513 · FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2

Presentation 1

Diploma in Civil Engineering

10%

A. Progress Presentation Assessment Criteria

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Project Schedule and Progress Status i. Project objectives were presented. ii. The scope of the project is presented. iii. A Gantt chart/project schedule is presented. iv. Actual progress compared with planned schedule	DP4 – Familiarity of Issues (Shows familiarity with project planning, scheduling and progress monitoring practices.) DP5 – Extensive Applicable Codes (Shows ability to present project progress according to approved project planning procedures.)	5Demonstrates a comprehensive and systematic presentation of the project objectives, scope, schedule, and current progress. Systematically compares actual progress against the approved schedule, explains deviations using relevant evidence, and demonstrates effective project planning, progress monitoring, and professional communication.	4Demonstrates a clear presentation of the project objectives, scope, schedule, and current progress with only minor omissions. Appropriately compares actual progress against the approved schedule and explains most deviations using relevant evidence.	3Demonstrates an adequate presentation of the project objectives, scope, schedule, and current progress. Compares actual progress with the approved schedule but provides limited analysis, justification, or supporting evidence.	2Demonstrates a limited presentation of the project objectives, scope, schedule, and progress. Progress comparison is incomplete, unclear, or weakly supported, making it difficult to evaluate the overall project progress.	1Fails to demonstrate the project objectives, scope, schedule, and progress in a logical or meaningful manner. Little or no evidence is provided to demonstrate actual project progress.	4	—
2	Project Implementation Status i. Methodology implementation is clearly explained. ii. Completed activities are clearly presented. Tools and	DK4 – Specialist Knowledge (Shows understanding of project implementation procedures, tools and techniques.) DP4 – Familiarity of	5Demonstrates a comprehensive and systematic understanding of project implementation by clearly explaining the methodology, completed activities,	4Demonstrates a clear understanding of project implementation, with only minor omissions. Methodology, completed activities, selected tools,	3Demonstrates an adequate understanding of project implementation. The methodology and completed activities are presented, but technical justification or	2Demonstrates limited understanding of project implementation. Methodology, completed activities, or implementation evidence are incomplete,	1Fails to demonstrate project implementation appropriately. Methodology, implementation activities, and supporting evidence are largely absent.	6	—
3	Project Documentation and Evidence i. Project progress records and evidence are presented. ii. Progress evidence supports the completion of activities. iii. Documentation was arranged systematically. iv. Progress achievements clearly demonstrated.	DK3 – Engineering Fundamentals (Shows application of engineering knowledge through documentation of project activities.) DP5 – Extensive Applicable Codes (Shows ability to maintain and present project documentation according to established requirements.)	5Demonstrates comprehensive, accurate, and systematically organised project documentation. All evidence is authentic, relevant, and clearly demonstrates completed activities, project progress, and achievement of planned milestones.	4Demonstrates well-organised project documentation with relevant supporting evidence. Minor omissions do not affect the overall project progress.	3Demonstrates adequate project documentation with acceptable supporting evidence. The organisation or completeness is inconsistent, limiting the effective demonstration of project progress.	2Demonstrates limited project documentation with insufficient supporting evidence. Project organisation or completeness is inconsistent, limiting the effective demonstration of project progress.	1Fails to present appropriate project documentation or evidence to demonstrate project progress.	4	—

B. Embedded Sustainability Competencies (SC) and Values-Based Ethics (VBE)

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Communication, Delivery i. Information was communicated clearly. ii. The presentation	NA3 (Innovation =Involve the use of existing materials, techniques, or processes in	5Delivers the presentation confidently, professionally, and coherently with excellent mastery of the project.	4The presentation was delivered clearly and professionally, with good project mastery. Technical information is	3Delivers the presentation satisfactorily with adequate project understanding. Communication is generally clear	2Delivered the presentation with limited clarity and confidence. Technical explanations were weak,	1Fails to communicate the project effectively. The presentation lacks organisation, confidence, and	3	—
2	Question & Answer i. Information was communicated clearly. ii. Appropriate technical terms were used. iii. Questions are answered accurately using appropriate technical reasoning.	NA4 (Consequences to society and the environment) VBE2-Justice	5Responds accurately, objectively, and respectfully to all questions. Justifies responses using relevant engineering evidence and sound technical reasoning while fairly considering alternative viewpoints and demonstrating professional judgement.	4Responds appropriately to most questions with accurate technical explanations and generally fair evidence- based justifications.	3Responded to most questions with an acceptable technical understanding. The justification is adequate but limited in depth and consideration of alternative perspectives.	2Responds to only some questions, with weak technical justification. Responses showed limited consideration of relevant evidence or differing viewpoints with minimal supporting evidence.	1Unable to respond appropriately to questions. Responses are inaccurate, unsupported, or demonstrate little understanding of the project.	3	—

Rubric scale: Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Fair = 3, Poor = 2, Very Poor = 1.

DCC50513 · FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2

Presentation 2

Diploma in Civil Engineering

20%

A. Final Presentation Assessment Criteria

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Project Implementation and Completion Status i. Project objectives achieved are presented. ii. Project implementati on was systematically summarised. iii. Project completion status was demonstrated . iv. Project deliverables presented	—	5Presents a comprehensive and systematically organised overview of project implementation, clearly communicating the achievement of project objectives, project completion status, and project deliverables in accordance with the approved methodology.	4Presents a well- organised overview of project implementation with only minor omissions. Project objectives, completion status, and deliverables are clearly communicated and generally support the approved methodology.	3Presents an adequate overview of project implementation . Project objectives, completion status, and deliverables are generally communicated but require further improvement in clarity and organisation.	2Presents a limited overview of project implementation. Information regarding project objectives, completion status, and deliverables is incomplete or inconsistently presented.	1Fails to present an appropriate overview of project implementation. Project objectives, completion status, and deliverables are unclear or largely absent.	4	—
2	Results, Analysis and Findings i. Results are presented clearly. ii. Results were analysed	NA3 (Innovation =Involve the use of existing materials, techniques, or processes in modified	5Explains the project results comprehensively with accurate analysis and well- supported technical interpretation. Findings are logically related to	4Explains project results with accurate analysis and appropriate technical interpretation. Findings generally support the project objectives,	3Explains project results with a satisfactory analysis and acceptable technical interpretation. Further improvements	2Explains limited project results with weak analyses and insufficient technical interpretations. The findings are only partially related	1Fails to explain appropriate project results. Analysis and technical interpretation are inadequate or absent, and the findings do not support the	6	—
3	Project Solution and Sustainability Consideration i. The proposed solution is presented. ii. The solution is supported by the project findings. iii. Sustainability considerations explained. Recommendations for improvement proposed	NA4 (Conseque nces to society and the environment)	5Justifies project solutions supported by project findings and demonstrates comprehensive consideration of sustainability principles. Recommendation s for future improvement are relevant, practical, and clearly supported.	4Justifies appropriate project solutions supported by project findings with only minor shortcomings. Sustainability considerations and recommendations are generally relevant.	3Justifies satisfactory project solutions with acceptable justifications. Sustainability considerations and recommendations are provided but require further development in the future.	2Justifies limited project solutions with weak justifications. Sustainability considerations and recommendations are incomplete or insufficiently supported by the literature.	1Fails to present appropriate project solutions. Sustainability considerations and recommendations are absent or unsupported in this study.	4	—

B. Embedded Sustainability Competencies (SC) and Values-Based Ethics (VBE)

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Communication and Delivery: Information is communicated clearly; the presentation is delivered professionally; the student demonstrates mastery of the project.	NA3 (Innovation	5Delivers the presentation	4The presentation was delivered	3Delivers the presentation	2Delivered the presentation	1Fails to deliver the presentation	3	—
2	Question & Answer i. Information was communicated clearly. ii. Appropriate technical terms were used. iii. Questions answered accurately	NA4 (Conseque nces to society and the environment) VBE2- Justice	5Responds accurately and confidently to questions with clear technical explanations and well-justified answers that demonstrate comprehensive technical understanding of the project.	4Responded appropriately to questions with accurate explanations and relevant technical justifications. Minor shortcomings did not significantly affect response quality.	3Satisfactory answers are provided with acceptable explanations. Further clarification and technical justification are required.	2Responses to questions with limited understanding and weak technical justification. Responses were incomplete or only partially addressed the questions.	1Fails to respond appropriately to the questions. The responses demonstrate an inadequate understanding and lack of technical justification.	3	—

Rubric scale: Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Fair = 3, Poor = 2, Very Poor = 1.

DCC50513 · FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2

Logbook

Diploma in Civil Engineering

20%

A. Logbook Assessment Criteria

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	"Project Schedule and Methodology Alignment (Refer: Gantt Chart and Flow Chart) i. The timeline includes all project activities. ii. Activities were arranged logically. iii. Schedule aligns with methodology. iv. Milestones are clearly identified. v. Deliverables identified for each milestone	—	5Presents a comprehensive and systematically organised project schedule that is realistic, logically sequenced, and fully aligned with the approved methodology. Project milestones and deliverables are clearly identified and effectively support project implementation.	4Presents a well- organised project schedule that is realistic and logically sequenced, with only minor omissions. Project milestones and deliverables generally support an approved methodology.	3Presents an adequate project schedule that generally supports the approved methodology. Minor inconsistencies are evident in the sequencing, milestones, or deliverables.	2Presents a limited project schedule with incomplete sequencing and weak alignment with the approved methodology. Milestones or deliverables are poorly defined.	1Fails to present an appropriate project schedule. The schedule is incomplete, unrealistic, or does not support the approved methodology.	3	—
2	Project Activity Recording i. Activities executed according to schedule ii. Progress recorded systematically iii. Evidence attached iv. Deviations/ Shortcomings	—	5Provides comprehensive and systematically organised records of project activities, supported by complete implementation evidence, appropriate explanations of project deviations, and documented supervisor feedback.	4Provides well- organised records of project activities with relevant implementation evidence. Minor omissions do not significantly affect the completeness of project records.	3Provides adequate records of project activities with acceptable implementation evidence of the project. Documentation is generally complete but requires further improvements in consistency and detail.	2Provides limited project records with incomplete documentation and insufficient evidence of implementation. Project activities were inconsistently recorded.	1Fails to provide appropriate project records; documentation and implementation evidence are largely incomplete or absent.	5	—
3	Project Progress Monitoring i. Progress compared against timeline. ii. Milestone achievements were evaluated. iii. Corrective actions were identified. iv. Reflection on project performance was provided.	—	5Provides comprehensive monitoring of project progress by critically comparing actual progress against the approved schedule, evaluating milestone achievement, identifying appropriate corrective actions, and reflecting on project performance.	4It provides effective monitoring of project progress with only minor omissions. Milestone achievements and corrective actions are appropriately recorded and generally support project implementation.	3It provides satisfactory monitoring of project progress. Milestones were adequately evaluated, although further analysis and reflection are required.	2Limited monitoring of project progress. The evaluation of milestones and corrective actions was incomplete or weakly justified.	1Fails to provide effective monitoring of project progress. Project evaluation, corrective actions, and reflection are largely absent.	3	—
4	Logbook Documentation Quality i. The entries are complete and up to date. ii. The technical information is accurate. iii. Supporting evidence is attached. iv. The presentation was neat and organised.	—	5Maintains comprehensive, accurate, and systematically organised logbook documentation. Records are complete, professionally presented, and supported by authentic, relevant, and well-organised implementation evidence.	4Maintains well- organized logbook documentation with relevant implementation evidence. Minor omissions do not significantly affect the overall quality of the project records.	3Maintains adequate logbook documentation with acceptable implementation of evidence. The organisation and completeness require further improvement.	2Maintains limited logbook documentation with insufficient evidence of implementation. The organisation and completeness are inconsistent, limiting the effectiveness of the project records.	1Fails to maintain appropriate logbook documentation. Records are incomplete, poorly organised, and lack sufficient implementation evidence.	3	—

B. Embedded Sustainability Competencies (SC) and Values-Based Ethics (VBE)

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Risk and Constraint Management: Project risks and constraints are identified and documented; mitigation actions are proposed, monitored and updated; sustainability issues and mitigation measures are identified.	—	5Maintains comprehensive and systematic records of project risks, constraints, and mitigation actions	4Maintains well- organised records of project risks and constraints with appropriate mitigation actions.	3Maintains adequate records of project risks, constraints, and mitigation	2It maintains limited records of project risks and constraints. Mitigation actions are incomplete or	1Fails to maintain appropriate records of project risks, constraints, and mitigation actions.	6	—

Rubric scale: Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Fair = 3, Poor = 2, Very Poor = 1.

DCC50513 · FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2

Report (Supervisor)

Diploma in Civil Engineering

20%

A. Report Assessment Criteria

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Chapter 1, 2, 3 Results Organisation and Presentation i. The problem statement, objectives, and scope of the study are clearly aligned. ii. The relevant literature supports the project background. iii. The methodology is systematically organised and appropriate for the project objectives. iv. Chapters 1–3 demonstrate logical organisation, coherence, and consistency. v. This report establishes a clear foundation for this project.	DP1: Knowledge Profile – Ability to demonstrate understanding of project methodology, project activities, deliverables, and scheduling requirements.	5Organises Chapters 1–3 systematically, ensuring clear alignment between the problem statement, project objectives, scope of study, literature review, and research methodology. The report demonstrates logical organisation, coherence, consistency, and establishes a strong foundation for the project.	4Organises Chapters 1–3 systematically, with only minor shortcomings. Alignment between the problem statement, project objectives, scope of study, literature review, and methodology is generally clear and consistent.	3Organises Chapters 1–3 satisfactorily. The introductory chapters are generally aligned but require further improvement in organisation, coherence, and consistency.	2Organises Chapters 1–3 with limited consistency. Alignment between the problem statement, objectives, literature review, and methodology is incomplete or unclear.	1Fails to organise Chapters 1–3 appropriately. The introductory chapters lack logical structure, coherence, consistency, and alignment with the project objectives.	3	—
2	Chapter 4 Results Organisation and Presentation: The results are presented clearly and logically; appropriate tables, figures and visual representations are used effectively; results are systematically organised, aligned with project objectives, and validated using appropriate standards, comparisons or references.	DP3: Depth of Analysis – Ability to	5Presents project results clearly, systematically, and	4Presents project results clearly and systematically, with	3Presents project results satisfactorily.	2Presents project results with limited	1Fails to present project results systematically.	5	—
3	Chapter 4 Analysis and Interpretation of Results i. The results were analysed critically and systematically. ii. Trends, patterns, and findings were accurately interpreted. iii. The analysis is linked to the	DP3: Depth of Analysis – Ability to analyse and interpret engineering data to justify findings using appropriate engineering principles. DP6: Stakeholder Involvement and Conflicting	5Interprets project findings critically through systematic analysis of trends, patterns, and engineering implications. Engineering judgement is clearly demonstrated, and limitations, assumptions, and practical implications are comprehensively discussed and justified.	4Interprets project findings accurately with only minor shortcomings. Engineering judgement is generally demonstrated, and limitations, assumptions, and practical implications are appropriately discussed.	3Interprets project findings satisfactorily. Analysis is generally appropriate but requires further development to strengthen engineering judgment and interpretation.	2Interprets project findings with limited analysis and weak engineering judgement. Limitations, assumptions, and practical implications are only partially addressed.	1Fails to interpret project findings appropriately. Engineering judgement, analytical discussion, and interpretation are inadequate or absent.	3	—
4	Chapter 1-5 Technical Writing, Referencing and Report Quality i. Technical writing is clear, concise, and professional. ii. References are relevant, sufficient and correctly cited. iii. The report formatting complies with	DK8: Technological Literature – Ability to utilise relevant engineering literature and technical references to produce a professional engineering report.	5Produces a professionally written technical report that demonstrates clear organisation, accurate technical writing, comprehensive engineering discussion, relevant literature, correct referencing, and consistent formatting throughout.	4Produces a well- written technical report supported by relevant references and appropriate technical discussions with only minor shortcomings in citation or formatting.	3Produces a satisfactory technical report. Technical writing, referencing, and report presentation are generally acceptable but require improvement.	2Produces a technical report with limited technical discussion, inconsistent referencing, and weaknesses in report organisation or formatting.	1Fails to produce an acceptable technical report. Technical writing, referencing, report organisation, and supporting engineering evidence are inadequate.	3	—

B. Embedded Sustainability Competencies (SC) and Values-Based Ethics (VBE)

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendation of Engineering Solution (Embedded SC & VBE) i. The discussion is supported by the project findings. ii. The recommendations address the project objectives and identify engineering problems. iii. Recommendations are justified using engineering standards, guidelines, and technical references. iv. The recommendations demonstrate	DP3: Depth of Analysis – Ability to critically evaluate findings and formulate engineering recommendations. DP5: Extensive Applicable Codes – Ability to justify recommendations using relevant engineering standards, codes, guidelines, and best practices. DK5: Engineering Design – Ability to develop	5Develops comprehensive engineering recommendations through critical evaluation of project findings, supported by relevant engineering standards, codes, guidelines, and technical references. Sustainability, professional responsibility, and engineering integrity are effectively integrated into the proposed engineering solution.	4Appropriate engineering recommendations are developed, supported by project findings and relevant engineering references, with only minor shortcomings. Sustainability principles and professional responsibilities are generally demonstrated.	3Develops satisfactory engineering recommendation s. Supporting evidence, engineering justification, and sustainability considerations are generally appropriate but require further improvement.	2Limited engineering recommendations are developed with weak justification. Sustainability principles, professional responsibility, and engineering evidence are only partially addressed.	1Fails to develop appropriate engineering recommendations. Recommendation s lack technical justification, sustainability considerations, professional responsibility, and engineering integrity.	6	—

Rubric scale: Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Fair = 3, Poor = 2, Very Poor = 1.

DCC50513 · FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2

Report (Panel)

Diploma in Civil Engineering

10%

A. Report Assessment Criteria

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
1	Chapter 4 Results Organisation and Presentation i. The results are presented clearly and logically. ii. Appropriate tables, figures, and visual representations are used effectively. iii. The results are systematically organised. iv. The results align with the project objectives. v. Results are validated using appropriate standards, comparisons, or references.	DK1: A descriptive formula-based understanding of the natural sciences applicable to civil engineering and awareness of directly relevant social economy. DP3: Depth of Analysis – Ability to organise and present engineering results systematically according to project objectives. DP4: Familiarity with Issues – Familiarity with accepted engineering reporting practices and presentation of results. DK3: Engineering Fundamentals – Application of engineering fundamentals in organising, presenting, and validating engineering results.	5Presents project results clearly, systematically, and logically using appropriate tables, figures, and visual representations. The results are fully aligned with the project objectives and comprehensively validated using relevant engineering standards, comparisons, or references.	4Presents project results clearly and systematically, with only minor shortcomings. The results are generally aligned with the project objectives and supported by appropriate validation.	3Presents project results satisfactorily. Organisation, alignment, and validation are generally appropriate but require further improvement.	2The project results are presented with limited organisation and insufficient validation. Alignment with the project objectives was incomplete.	1Fails to present project results systematically. The results lack logical organisation, alignment with the project objectives, and appropriate validation.	3	—
2	Chapter 4 Analysis and Interpretation of Results: Results are analysed critically and systematically; trends, patterns and findings are accurately interpreted; analysis is linked to project objectives; engineering judgement is demonstrated; limitations, assumptions and practical implications are critically discussed.	DP3: Depth of Analysis – Ability to analyse and interpret engineering data to justify findings using	5Interprets project findings critically through systematic analysis of trends, patterns, and	4Interprets project findings accurately, with only minor shortcomings. Engineering	3Interprets the project findings satisfactorily. The analysis is generally	2Interprets project findings with limited analysis and weak engineering	1Fails to interpret project findings appropriately. Engineering judgement,	5	—
3	Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendati on of Engineering Solution i. The discussion is supported by the project findings. ii. The recommendat ions address the project objectives and identify engineering problems.	DP3: Depth of Analysis – Ability to critically evaluate findings and formulate engineering recommendations. DP5: Extensive Applicable Codes – Ability to justify recommendations using relevant engineering standards, codes, guidelines, and best practices. DK5: Engineering Design – Ability to develop technically feasible and	5Develops comprehensive engineering recommendations through critical discussion of project findings, supported by relevant engineering standards, codes, and technical references. Recommendations demonstrate sound engineering judgement and appropriately address project objectives, identified engineering problems, limitations, and	4Develops appropriate engineering recommendations supported by project findings and relevant engineering references with minor shortcomings. Engineering judgement is generally demonstrated.	3Develops satisfactory engineering recommendation s. Discussion and justification are generally appropriate but require further improvement to strengthen engineering judgement.	2Limited engineering recommendations with weak justification were developed. Engineering evidence and discussion were only partially addressed.	1Fails to develop appropriate engineering recommendations. Discussion lacks sufficient justification, engineering judgement, and practical recommendations.	3	—
3	Chapter 1–5 Technical Writing, Referencing and Report Quality i. Technical writing is clear, concise, and professional. ii. References are relevant, sufficient and correctly cited. iii. The report formatting complied with the institutional requirements. iv. This technical discussion is	DK7: Knowledge of Engineering Issues and Approaches (Ability to apply appropriate engineering approaches through professional technical writing, relevant literature, accurate referencing and engineering report documentation.) NA1: Communication (Demonstrates effective written communication through clear technical writing, logical organisation, appropriate technical language and professional	5Produces a professionally written technical report that demonstrates clear organisation, accurate technical writing, comprehensive engineering discussion, relevant literature, correct referencing, and consistent formatting throughout.	4Produces a well- written technical report supported by relevant references and appropriate technical discussions, with only minor shortcomings in citation or formatting.	3Produces a satisfactory technical report. Technical writing, referencing, and report presentation are generally acceptable but require improvement.	2Produces a technical report with limited technical discussion, inconsistent referencing, and weaknesses in report organisation or formatting.	1Fails to produce an acceptable technical report. Technical writing, referencing, report organisation, and supporting engineering evidence are inadequate.	3	—

B. Embedded Sustainability Competencies (SC) and Values-Based Ethics (VBE)

Item	Attributes & Indicators	Mapping DP / DK / NA	Excellent 5	Good 4	Fair 3	Poor 2	Very Poor 1	Weightage (b)	Marks (a × b)
4	Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendatio n of Engineering Solution ( Embedded SC & VBE) i. Sustainability principles were integrated into the proposed engineering solution. ii. Environmental, social, and economic impacts are considered in engineering decision- making. iii. Professional responsibility and ethical judgement were demonstrated. iv. The proposed recommendatio	SC1: Sustainable Engineering Design: Integration of sustainability principles into engineering decision- making and proposed solutions. SC6: Sustainable Engineering Practice: Consideration of environmental, social, and economic impacts when recommending engineering solutions. VBE2: Professional Responsibility – Demonstrates responsible engineering judgement and ethical decision-making in professional engineering practice. VBE3: Engineering Integrity – Demonstrates honesty, integrity, and accountability in engineering recommendations and professional practice.	5Develops engineering recommendations that effectively integrate sustainability principles, environmental, social, and economic considerations, professional responsibility, and engineering integrity into the proposed solution.	4Develops engineering recommendations that generally integrate sustainability principles and ethical considerations, with only minor shortcomings.	3Satisfactory engineering recommendation s are developed. Sustainability principles and ethical considerations are generally addressed but require further improvements.	2Limited engineering recommendations are developed with insufficient integration of sustainability principles and professional responsibility.	1Fails to develop engineering recommendations that demonstrate sustainability principles, professional responsibility, or engineering integrity.	6	—

Rubric scale: Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Fair = 3, Poor = 2, Very Poor = 1.