CBA

Common Mistakes in CBA Writing

Published April 17, 2025 · Updated September 27, 2026

Introduction

For engineers pursuing their P.Eng. licensure in Canada, writing the Competency-Based Assessment (CBA) is a pivotal milestone. It’s your opportunity to showcase not just your work history, but your ability to think critically, apply engineering principles, and uphold professional standards in real-world settings. Unfortunately, many applicants stumble, not because they lack the experience, but because they misrepresent it in their submissions.

CBA writing is more than filling out a form or recounting project duties. Each example must clearly demonstrate how you meet a specific competency, using structured narratives that highlight your individual contributions and engineering judgment. Even strong candidates can falter by using vague language, failing to address the right indicators, or underestimating the importance of their validators.

In this blog, we’ll break down the most common mistakes in CBA submissions—from misusing work examples to misaligning content with competency expectations. You’ll also learn how CertNova’s CBA Pro tool helps you avoid these pitfalls by guiding you through tailored prompts, real-time feedback, and competency alignment checks. Whether you’re drafting your first submission or revising for resubmission, this guide will give you the clarity you need to succeed.

📝 Preparing for the NPPE? Try NPPEPro

NPPEPro gives you practice questions, mock exams, and explanations aligned to the current NPPE syllabus.

Start Free NPPE Practice

Mistake #1 – Writing Tasks Instead of Demonstrating Competence

One of the most common mistakes in CBA writing is confusing job responsibilities with competency demonstrations. Many applicants fall into the habit of listing tasks, what they were assigned or what the team accomplished, rather than showcasing how they applied engineering judgment and solved problems. While it’s important to set the context, assessors are evaluating your individual competence, not your job description.

For example, writing “I was responsible for reviewing designs” tells us what your duty was, but it doesn’t demonstrate your thought process, actions, or outcomes. A stronger approach would be: “I independently reviewed HVAC system drawings to identify code compliance issues and proposed design modifications to reduce pressure losses by 18%.” This clearly demonstrates initiative, technical knowledge, and a measurable impact—exactly what assessors are looking for.

To avoid this mistake, structure your example using the Situation–Action–Outcome (SAO) format the CBA forms use:

Situation – the context, the problem and your role.
Action – the steps you took and the judgments you made.
Outcome – the result of your actions, quantified where possible.

Using SAO helps you move from “what I did” to “how I did it and why it mattered.” Even for collaborative work, focus on your unique contributions and the decisions you made. CBA Pro builds this structure into its interview: it asks about your own actions and decisions, then turns your answers into a Situation, Action, Outcome draft for you to review.

PEO CBA Applicant Guide (August 2026): https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf

Mistake #2 – Using Vague or Generic Language

Another frequent mistake in CBA submissions is relying on vague, generic language that fails to convey real engineering insight. Phrases like “I was involved in…”, “I participated in…”, or “I supported…” are red flags for assessors. They raise questions: What exactly did you do? Were you leading, assisting, observing? Generic phrases obscure your role and fail to demonstrate the depth of your technical and professional competencies.

Let’s look at a weak example:

“I participated in the preparation of technical drawings.”

Now compare it to a stronger version:

“I prepared detailed civil site drawings using AutoCAD, incorporating municipal standards and coordinating with the electrical and mechanical teams to resolve spatial conflicts.”

The second version clearly shows ownership, tools used, standards applied, and cross-disciplinary collaboration—key elements that bring the example to life and meet the CBA expectations.

Here’s how to strengthen your language:

Use active voice: “I led,” “I analyzed,” “I validated.”
Be specific: Mention tools, standards, quantities, outcomes.
Quantify results: If possible, include metrics (e.g., cost savings, time reductions, error rates).
Avoid filler: Skip fluffy words like “various,” “several,” or “a number of”—get straight to the point.

Here is PEO’s CBA Applicant Guide (August 2026) for your reference: https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf

CBA Pro asks for the specifics in its interview, and where a fact is still missing the draft leaves a [bracket] for you to fill. Comments pinned to the vague passages show you what to add from your own work.

AI can help you organize your notes and check your own draft for gaps, but your examples must be your own work and you remain responsible for them. EGBC, EGM, Engineers Nova Scotia and Engineers PEI prohibit using AI (or third parties) to create or embellish examples; APEGS and PEO hold you fully responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of anything AI helped with.

Mistake #3 – Reusing One Work Example Without Customizing for Each Competency

It’s perfectly acceptable—and even encouraged—to use the same work experience across multiple competencies, as long as it reflects different aspects of your engineering practice. The mistake many applicants make is copy-pasting the same example into multiple competency fields without adjusting the focus. This results in vague, redundant submissions that fail to meet the specific intent of each competency.

Let’s say you use an infrastructure project where you served as a lead engineer. You might use this project to demonstrate:

Technical competence by highlighting design calculations and regulatory compliance,
Project management by describing how you handled timelines and budgets,
Communication by explaining how you coordinated with contractors and municipal stakeholders.

However, if you use the same paragraph for all three without tailoring it, assessors won’t be able to evaluate the distinct skills required for each competency. Each entry must be laser-focused on the competency being assessed, aligning with the indicators outlined in the official CBA guide.

Here’s how to do it right:

Retell the same situation with a new lens for each competency.
Align the language and outcomes to what the competency measures.
Use the SAO format every time, even if the situation is the same.

In CBA Pro you add your work history once, from your CV if you have one, and each competency draws on it. The interview then asks what that competency needs, so one project can support several competencies with different details.

Mistake #4 – Not Aligning with the Indicators in the PEO Guide

Each of the 34 competencies (22 at APEGA) includes specific indicators—examples of actions, knowledge areas, and behaviors that demonstrate proficiency. One of the most overlooked steps in CBA writing is failing to align your work examples with these indicators. Applicants often write solid examples, but if they don’t speak directly to what assessors are looking for, their efforts may fall flat.

Each competency isn’t just a label—it comes with context. For example, Competency 1.1 (Knowledge of regulations, codes, and standards) includes indicators like identifying legal requirements, designing for code compliance, and recognizing Indigenous regulations. If you write about preparing a report without referencing any of these elements, assessors may conclude that you haven’t demonstrated the competency—even if your work was otherwise relevant.

To avoid this:

Review the indicators in the CBA guide before writing each example.
Underline or highlight key actions you need to address.
Explicitly mention how your experience aligns with one or more indicators.
Use the same language where appropriate—this makes it easier for assessors to map your work to the competency.

CBA Pro ranks your projects against each competency’s indicators and asks about them in its interview, so your answers address what that competency asks for.

Mistake #5 – Weak or Incomplete Validator Support

Even a perfectly written CBA can fall short if your validator feedback doesn’t support your claims. Validators play a crucial role in the Competency-Based Assessment process. Their job is to independently confirm your experience, rate your performance using the same scale as the assessors, and provide brief comments to back their ratings. When validators aren’t familiar with your work, aren’t aligned with your examples, or submit vague feedback—or worse, don’t respond at all—your submission is at risk.

Common validator-related issues include:

Choosing the wrong validator: Someone too far removed from the work example, or not technically qualified.
Disagreements in ratings: When your self-rating says “4” but your validator gives a “2” with no explanation.
Minimal or no comments: Leaving assessors without the evidence they need to verify your claim.

To avoid this mistake:

Choose validators who had direct supervisory or technical oversight of the work.
Brief them ahead of time—share your draft examples and explain how their input affects the outcome. Then let them rate on their own: validator ratings and comments are confidential, and you must never fill in, draft or translate a validator’s response.
Make sure they understand the rating system and expectations of their role, as outlined by your association.
Follow up to ensure their submission is completed before the deadline.

Conclusion: Clarity, Consistency, and Competence Matter

Writing a compelling CBA submission isn’t about impressing assessors with fancy language or massive projects—it’s about demonstrating that you can apply engineering principles responsibly, consistently, and effectively. By avoiding these five common mistakes—writing task-based narratives, using vague language, failing to tailor examples, ignoring key indicators, and neglecting validator coordination—you greatly increase your chances of success.

Remember, the CBA is your professional story. It should reflect not just what you’ve done, but how you’ve grown, how you’ve solved problems, and how you’re ready to take on the responsibilities of a licensed professional engineer in Canada. Assessors aren’t looking for perfection—they’re looking for clarity, consistency, and competence.

🔧 CBA Pro is built to help with this. It interviews you about your own work, asking what your association looks for, and turns your CV and your answers into a formatted draft for you to review and improve, and it shows you where information is still missing.

Ready to strengthen your CBA submission and get closer to your P.Eng. licence?

Let CBA Pro guide your experience documentation with precision and confidence.

Click here, and start your journey with a personalized intake today!

Helpful Sources:

From PEO’s CBA Applicant Guide (August 2026) and provincial regulator websites:

🎯 Free NPPE Practice Test

Take our free NPPE practice test: 20 questions covering professional practice, ethics, and law.

Take Free NPPE Test