CBA
Examples of Key Competencies in CBA
Published June 26, 2025 · Updated September 27, 2026
The key competencies in a P.Eng. competency-based assessment (CBA) are the specific, numbered competencies your regulator lists, such as 1.1 Regulations, Codes & Standards or 5.1 Code of Ethics. You prove each one with a short example from your own work; there are no scenario-based questions to answer.
This article explains how the key competencies are organized and judged, then gives six illustrative examples for competencies applicants often find hardest. Five of the six are Canadian-environment competencies, which must each reach their own minimum rating.
How the key competencies are organized
Most regulators use 34 competencies in seven categories: PEO in its own portal, and EGBC, APEGS, Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba and the Atlantic regulators on competencyassessment.ca. APEGA uses a different version, 22 competencies in six categories in myAPEGA, which NAPEG (Northwest Territories and Nunavut) and Engineers Yukon applicants also complete. Quebec’s OIQ runs its own supervised-practice program.
Technical competencies (Category 1) cover applying codes and standards, handling design constraints, analysing risk, applying theory, verifying solutions, safety, systems, the project life cycle, quality control and documentation. Project management is assessed separately, in Category 3 (Project and Financial Management, 3.1–3.5), and each example is rated only against the competency it is written for.
There is no separate decision-making test. Assessors look for your decisions inside your real work examples, for example in 1.3 (analysing technical risks), 1.4 (design solutions) or 3.3 (managing expectations against available resources). Leadership is not a separate competency either, but it shows up in indicators such as 4.2 (“Demonstrate leadership in achieving team goals and resolving conflict”) and 3.2 (increasing responsibility). Ethical responsibility is assessed in Category 5, especially 5.1 Code of Ethics.
Oral communication (2.1) is assessed from your written example and your validators’ ratings and comments. Some regulators may also interview you: EGBC does in some cases, and Engineers PEI interviews every applicant.
Minimum ratings for the competencies in this article
Examples are rated on a 0–5 scale, where 3 means ready for professional responsibility; you are not expected to reach 4 or 5. Each category must meet its minimum average, and each Canadian-environment competency must reach its own minimum.
| Competency | Category (minimum average) | Own minimum: EGBC, APEGS, EGM, APEGA and the Atlantic regulators | Own minimum: PEO |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Regulations, Codes & Standards | Technical (3) | 3 | 3 |
| 1.6 Safety Awareness | Technical (3) | 3 | 3 |
| 2.2 Writing | Communication (3) | 3 | 1 |
| 3.4 Financial & Budgets | Project and Financial Management (2) | None of its own (never 0) | 1 |
| 5.1 Code of Ethics | Professional Accountability (3) | 3 | 3 |
| 6.2 Engineering and the Public | Social, Economic, Environmental and Sustainability (2) | 2 | 2 |
APEGA applies the same minimums to 1.1 Regulations, Codes and Standards; 1.6 Safety in Design and Technical Work; 2.2 Written Communication in English; 5.1 Professional Accountability; and 6.2 Benefits of Engineering to the Public. If a Canadian-environment competency falls short, assessors may ask you to revise it, assign Working in Canada Seminar units if you are otherwise ready (APEGS applies its own rules; its guide says candidates may be assigned portions of the seminar) or ask for more experience.
Rules every example must follow
- Real, first-hand work only. A well-known project counts only if you personally worked on it, and only your own actions count. PEO’s August 2026 guide says not to describe hypothetical situations or work done by colleagues or your team.
- One example per competency, in the Situation–Action–Outcome format and the first person (“I”, not “we”). APEGA’s guide asks for your strongest example, with the Action (up to 1,800 characters) explaining what you did.
- Reuse projects, not examples. One project can support several competencies if each Action and Outcome is specific to its competency.
- Stay within the limits: 300 / 1,200 / 300 characters at APEGS, EGM, Engineers Nova Scotia and PEGNL; 400 / 1,800 / 400 at APEGA; 300 / 1,650 / 300 on PEO’s PDF form.
- Name the code. For 1.1, 1.6 and 1.9, cite the specific Canadian code, standard or regulation (for 1.1, Engineers PEI asks for the section too). For work done abroad, name the Canadian code that would apply and explain how; PEO also accepts the international equivalent you actually used.
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.
📝 Preparing for the NPPE? Try NPPEPro
NPPEPro gives you practice questions, mock exams, and explanations aligned to the current NPPE syllabus.
Start Free NPPE PracticeSix illustrative examples
The projects below are invented to show structure and level of detail. They are not real or approved submissions: use them to calibrate your own writing, not to copy. Each fits within 300 / 1,200 / 300 characters.
1.1 Regulations, codes and standards (Technical)
Illustrative example. Minimum rating: 3 on its own at every CBA regulator.
| Situation | In 2024 I designed a steel storage mezzanine for a distribution warehouse in Ontario, under the supervision of a P.Eng. The owner planned to store palletized stock on it, and the building permit application needed sealed structural drawings. |
|---|---|
| Action | I classified the mezzanine as a storage area and used the specified live load for storage areas from Table 4.1.5.3 of the Ontario Building Code (O. Reg. 332/12, Division B), not the lighter office load the owner had assumed. I designed the beams, columns and connections to CSA S16 and the guards to the loads in Part 4. I listed the code articles and standards used in the general notes on the drawings so the plans examiner could follow the design basis, and my supervisor reviewed my calculations before sealing the drawings. |
| Outcome | The municipality issued the building permit with no structural comments, and the mezzanine was built as designed. When the owner later asked about adding racking, the design basis on the drawings let my supervisor confirm the capacity quickly. |
Why this works: it names the code, table and design standard, shows a code-based decision made against the client’s assumption, and carries the code into the drawings, as the 1.1 indicators describe. Engineers PEI asks for exactly this: a specific Canadian code and section.
1.6 Safety awareness (Technical)
Illustrative example. Minimum rating: 3 on its own at every CBA regulator.
| Situation | In 2025 I designed the controls for a new robotic palletizing cell at a food plant in Ontario, under my supervisor, a P.Eng. The cell used light curtains instead of fixed guards at the pallet exit, so the plant required a pre-start health and safety review before start-up. |
|---|---|
| Action | With the plant’s health and safety coordinator, I carried out the risk assessment for the cell following CSA Z432 and identified the hazards at the robot envelope, the pallet exit and the stretch wrapper. I calculated the minimum safety distance for the light curtain from the measured stopping time of the conveyor and moved the curtain when my first layout fell short. I specified interlocked access gates on a safety-rated controller and wrote the cell’s lockout procedure to CSA Z460. I compiled the drawings, stopping-time records and risk assessment for the engineer carrying out the review under section 7 of Ontario Regulation 851, and closed the two items the review raised. |
| Outcome | The review was completed with no outstanding items and the cell started up on schedule. The plant adopted my lockout procedure format for its other packaging lines. |
Why this works: it cites the Canadian regulation and standards that governed the work, as the 1.6 indicators ask, and the writer’s own safety decisions are visible: a calculation that changed the layout, a lockout procedure and closing out the review’s findings.
2.2 Writing (Communication)
Illustrative example. Minimum rating: 3 on its own at every CBA regulator except PEO, where the Communication category must still average 3.
| Situation | In 2024 I wrote the condition assessment report on a 45-year-old community arena roof in New Brunswick for the town’s recreation committee, whose members were not engineers. The committee needed it to decide whether to repair or replace the roof. |
|---|---|
| Action | I wrote the report in two layers. A two-page summary at the front explained in plain language what I found, what it meant for safety and use of the arena, and three options with costs and expected remaining life, with a photo for each key finding. The body held the technical detail for the town’s engineer: field observations, moisture survey results, the snow load check and the basis for each recommendation. I used marked-up roof plans to show where the deteriorated areas were. I asked a colleague without a roofing background to read the summary and rewrote the two passages they found unclear. |
| Outcome | The committee chose the partial replacement option at its next meeting without asking for clarification, and the town’s engineer used the technical sections to prepare the tender. The committee chair asked for the same summary format in future reports. |
Why this works: the 2.2 indicators include tailoring writing to the audience, clear reports for technical and non-technical readers, and drawings that show key points; the example shows each one. APEGA and EGBC also judge your English from your communication examples, so choose a validator who worked with you in English.
3.4 Financial and budgets (Project and Financial Management)
Illustrative example. Category minimum average: 2.
| Situation | In 2025 I led the design of a culvert replacement on a rural road in Saskatchewan. The rural municipality had a fixed capital budget for the year and asked whether the work could be done within it. |
|---|---|
| Action | I estimated two options, a new corrugated steel pipe and a precast concrete box, using the municipality’s recent tender prices and quotes from two suppliers. I compared capital cost, expected service life, maintenance and road closure time in a short technical and financial report. The box cost 18% more to build but would last longer and needed a shorter closure, so I recommended it and showed how it fit the budget if a lower-priority ditching item moved to the next year. During construction, when unexpected bedrock was found, I checked the contractor’s extra-work price against the contract unit rates, negotiated a lower rate and reported the revised forecast to the municipality. |
| Outcome | The culvert was completed within the year’s budget, including the rock removal, and the final cost was within 3% of my estimate. The municipality used the same option comparison to plan its next two culvert replacements. |
Why this works: it shows the financial side of the writer’s own work (costed options, a budget respected and a claim checked against the contract), matching the 3.4 indicators on budgets, reports that compare options and contracts. APEGA’s equivalent is 3.2 Finances and Budget.
5.1 Code of ethics (Professional Accountability)
Illustrative example. Minimum rating: 3 on its own at every CBA regulator.
| Situation | In 2024 I carried out field reviews on a four-storey residential building in Ontario for my supervisor, the engineer of record. Close to occupancy, the developer asked me for a field review letter for the balcony guards, although the guards on the top two floors had not been reviewed. |
|---|---|
| Action | I told the developer I could not state that work complied when neither my supervisor nor I had reviewed it. PEO’s Code of Ethics (section 77 of Regulation 941) makes the duty to public welfare paramount. I explained the risk to occupants, offered the fastest compliant option, a review of the remaining floors the next morning, and informed my supervisor that day. During the review I found that the guard anchors on six balconies had fewer fasteners than the shop drawings required, so I issued a deficiency notice with photos and reviewed the corrections two days later. Only then did I prepare the letter for my supervisor to review and seal. |
| Outcome | The deficiencies were corrected and the letter was issued three days after the developer’s request, without affecting the occupancy date. The developer’s project manager began booking field reviews a week before each milestone. |
Why this works: 5.1 asks you to apply your regulator’s Code of Ethics in practice. This example names the obligation and shows the decision made because of it, in a professional tone and without blame. APEGA’s equivalent is 5.1 Professional Accountability.
6.2 Engineering and the public (Social, Economic, Environmental and Sustainability)
Illustrative example. Minimum rating: 2 on its own at every CBA regulator (aim for 3).
| Situation | In 2023 I worked on the design of a watermain and road reconstruction on a residential street in Newfoundland and Labrador. The town held a public information session before construction, and I was asked to explain the project to residents. |
|---|---|
| Action | I prepared the display boards and a two-page handout explaining why the work was needed (frequent watermain breaks and low fire flow), what residents would gain (reliable water service and better fire protection) and how construction would affect them: water interruptions, driveway access and the schedule. At the session I answered residents’ questions in plain language and recorded each concern. Two residents used mobility devices and needed daily driveway access, so I worked with the contract administrator to add maintained access to those properties to the staging requirements in the tender. Afterwards I summarized the comments and the responses in a short report to the town. |
| Outcome | The town approved the staging changes before tender, construction went ahead with no formal complaints from residents, and council used my summary report in its update to the neighbourhood. |
Why this works: the 6.2 indicators are recognizing the value of the work to the public and reporting on a project’s impact. This example does both, with an action that changed the project for the residents most affected. APEGA’s equivalent is 6.2 Benefits of Engineering to the Public.
Where to go next
For illustrative examples of 1.9, 2.3, 4.2 and 5.2, see Examples of Successful Engineering Competency Assessments. Each category has its own guide: technical, communication, project and financial management, team effectiveness, professional accountability, sustainability and professional development. The 8 Canadian Environment Competencies covers the competencies with their own minimum, including how to write them from international experience. To start your own, CBA Pro interviews you about your own work and turns your answers into a draft for you to review, showing you where information is still missing.
Official sources
- PEO — CBA Applicant Guide (August 2026)
- APEGA — Competencies and indicators for engineering applicants
- Competency Assessment system — Canadian Environment Competencies Guide (revised April 2024)
- Competency Assessment system — Engineering competencies and generic indicators
- Engineers PEI — CBA Interpretation Statements (May 2026)
🎯 Free NPPE Practice Test
Take our free NPPE practice test — 20 questions covering professional practice, ethics, and law.
Take Free NPPE Test