assignment due 25 hours

Module Title

Cost Management

Individual: (ML delete as appropriate)

Cohort (Sept/Jan/May)

Module Code

7111exq

Coursework Title (e.g. CWK1)

Cost management of Construction projects (CW2)

Hand out date:

14th September 2020

Lecturer

Due date and time:

Date: 23rd October

Online: 18:00:00

Estimated Time (hrs): 15

Word Limit*: 2500

Coursework type:

CW 2

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:

1. Critically evaluate and appraise procurement strategies applicable to construction projects and the tendering methods as currently used in the construction industry (Theory and Practice.)

3. Evaluate the relevance of procurement strategies and cost information required to procure construction projects. This includes pricing of tender and the impact of Health and Safety and risk on project cost.

Task and Mark distribution:

Assignment Scenario

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.

Produce a report for your Operations Director on possible procurement strategies for this project, your report should consider the following.

1. Write a report explaining the available options for procuring the main contractor element of the hub interchange.

2. Explain the contractual relationships relating to each potential option.

3. Provide a justified procurement strategy recommendation that will guarantee the best outcome for the project, explain the potential implications on the supply chain

4. Critically appraise how you would go about selecting the correct contractor for the project, including the process of effectively analysing tender figures.

5. Critically Evaluate the impact of Health and safety and risk on the overall financial outcome of the HS2 project. Make practical suggestions for measures that can be taken to mitigate these risks.

This task will represent 50% of your overall module mark.

Notes:

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.

0-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

80+

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

GRADE

ANSWER RELEVANCE

ARGUMENT & COHERENCE

EVIDENCE

SUMMARY

First

≥70

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.

Upper Second

60-69

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.

Lower Second

50-59

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.

Third

40-49

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.

Fail

<40

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.

Late submission

0

0

0

0