Examples of Successful Engineering Competency Assessments

For a P.Eng. licence, a successful competency-based assessment (CBA) is one where every example gives the regulator’s assessors enough evidence to rate that competency at the required level. This article shows how examples are judged, gives four illustrative examples from different competency categories with a note on why each one works, and lists the most common reasons examples fall short.

If you want to see a complete submission, our free CBA sample is a PEO application in transportation engineering. Use it to see the structure only: your examples must describe your own work in your own words. If the sample predates PEO’s August 2026 guide, check it for “we” or team wording, because that guide says not to describe work done by colleagues or your team.

What a successful licensure CBA looks like

For P.Eng. licensure, the CBA asks every applicant to prove the same set of competencies: 34 in seven categories at PEO, EGBC, APEGS, Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba and the Atlantic regulators, or 22 in six categories at APEGA, whose CBA is also used by NAPEG and Engineers Yukon applicants. You write one first-person Situation–Action–Outcome example from real work for each competency, validators rate each example from 0 to 5, and the regulator’s assessors decide. The competencies are not tailored to your job; what differs between applicants is the work they describe.

The format is the same everywhere, but the length limits and validator rules differ by regulator:

Regulator	Competencies	Character limits (Situation / Action / Outcome)	Minimum validators
PEO (Ontario)	34 in 7 categories, in PEO’s own portal	300 / 1,650 / 300 on PEO’s PDF form (portal limit not published)	1 (one validator per competency; no maximum)
APEGA (Alberta), also used by NAPEG and Engineers Yukon applicants	22 in 6 categories, in myAPEGA	400 / 1,800 / 400	3 (each validates 1–20 competencies)
APEGS (Saskatchewan)	34 in 7	300 / 1,200 / 300	4
EGBC (British Columbia)	34 in 7	Enforced by the system (historically 300 / 1,200 / 300)	4
Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba	34 in 7	300 / 1,200 / 300	4
Engineers Nova Scotia	34 in 7	300 / 1,200 / 300	4
PEGNL (Newfoundland and Labrador)	34 in 7	300 / 1,200 / 300	4
APEGNB (New Brunswick) and Engineers PEI	34 in 7	Not published (same shared system as Nova Scotia and PEGNL)	4
OIQ (Quebec)	Its own program: 6 competencies, 28 elements	Not published	None: a supervising engineer rates each element

For who can act as a validator in each province, see how many validators you need.

Four illustrative examples

The examples below are illustrative. The projects are invented to show structure and level of detail; they are not real or approved submissions, and you should not copy or adapt them. Each one fits the tightest limits in use (300 / 1,200 / 300 characters), so it would also fit PEO’s and APEGA’s forms. A real Action section can use the full limit.

1.9 Peer review and quality control (Technical)

Illustrative example. Minimum rating: 3 on its own at every CBA regulator.

Situation	In 2024 I was responsible for concrete quality control on a parking garage deck repair in Ontario, working under my supervisor, a P.Eng. The specification called for a new 35 MPa concrete topping in six placements.
Action	I prepared the quality control plan: slump, air content and temperature tests on every truck and strength cylinders at the frequency in the specification, following CSA A23.1 and A23.2. On site I checked each delivery ticket against the approved mix design and rejected one truck with low air content. When the 28-day results for the third placement came back below the specified strength, I compared them with the CSA A23.1 acceptance criteria and reviewed that day’s field records, which showed the cylinders had been left uncovered overnight in freezing weather. I recommended testing cores rather than removing the slab, marked the core locations and reviewed the results with my supervisor. I then revised the plan to require heated curing boxes and recorded every check in the project quality file.
Outcome	The cores met the acceptance criteria, so the placement stayed and the client avoided the cost of removal. The other five placements met the specified strength, and my supervisor signed off the quality file at close-out.

Why this works: the 1.9 indicators include field checks, quality control plans with test frequency and parameters, and evaluating test results to recommend action. This example shows all three on one project, names the Canadian standards used and leaves no doubt about who did what. The Outcome gives the result, not what the writer learned.

2.3 Reading and comprehension (Communication)

Illustrative example. Minimum rating: 3 on its own at every CBA regulator.

Situation	In 2025 I was a structural designer on a single-storey warehouse in Manitoba. Before foundation design began, my supervisor asked me to review the 60-page geotechnical investigation report and brief the design team on what it meant for the design.
Action	I read the whole report, including the borehole logs and laboratory results, not only the summary. I extracted the parameters the foundation design needed: the factored geotechnical resistance at ULS, the geotechnical reaction at SLS, the minimum frost protection depth and the recommendation to remove existing fill below the slab. The logs showed groundwater close to the planned underside of the slab, which the summary did not mention, so I called the geotechnical engineer, who confirmed that an underslab drainage layer was needed. I wrote a one-page summary listing each parameter with its report section, the drainage requirement and two open questions, and walked the architect and the structural lead through it at the next design meeting.
Outcome	The foundations and slab were designed with the correct parameters from the start, and the drainage layer was on the drawings before tender instead of becoming a change order during construction. The structural lead used my summary as the foundation design basis.

Why this works: the 2.3 indicator is the ability to review technical documents, understand their implications and summarize the key points. This example shows all three with one real document, including an implication the report’s own summary missed, and the Outcome shows what the review changed. Some regulators also use your communication examples to judge your English, so assign this one to a validator who worked with you in English.

4.2 Resolving differences (Team Effectiveness)

Illustrative example. Category minimum average: 3.

Situation	In 2024 I was the mechanical designer on a school renovation in Nova Scotia. During construction, the mechanical and electrical subcontractors disagreed over ceiling space in a corridor, and both had stopped work there, putting the September opening at risk.
Action	I met each foreman separately to understand the constraint behind their position: the duct needed its full size to deliver the design airflow, and the cable tray could not drop because of a fire-rated wall penetration. I then held a one-hour site meeting with both foremen and the general contractor’s superintendent, brought a marked-up section of the corridor, kept the discussion on the shared deadline rather than on which trade was there first, and asked each trade what it could move. I proposed moving the cable tray to the other side of the corridor for 12 m and using a flat-oval duct at the tightest point. I checked its airflow and pressure drop, had my supervisor approve the change and issued a revised sketch that day so both trades had the layout in writing.
Outcome	Both trades were back at work in the corridor the next day, the ceiling was closed on schedule and the school opened on time. The general contractor asked me to run the same kind of coordination meeting for two other congested areas.

Why this works: the 4.2 indicators ask you to show leadership in resolving conflict and to facilitate a resolution that benefits the project. The example shows each step the writer took: understanding both sides, keeping the focus on the shared goal, proposing a technical compromise and confirming it in writing. Team Effectiveness has only two competencies and must average 3, so a weak 4.2 is hard to offset. (APEGA combines 4.1 and 4.2 into one competency, 4.1 Promote Team Effectiveness and Resolve or Mitigate Interpersonal Conflict.)

5.2 Awareness of limitations (Professional Accountability)

Illustrative example. Category minimum average: 3.

Situation	In 2025 I was the mechanical designer for the replacement of two rooftop units on an office building in British Columbia. The new units were 40% heavier than the old ones, and the client asked me to confirm on site that the existing roof could carry them.
Action	I recognized that checking the roof framing and designing seismic restraints was structural work outside my training and my firm’s mechanical scope, so I did not give the client an answer on the spot. I explained that a structural engineer needed to review it and raised it with my supervisor that day. With her agreement, I gathered what the structural engineer would need: unit weights and dimensions, curb locations, and drawings and photos of the existing roof framing. I added the review to the schedule, arranged a joint site visit and asked which curb and anchorage details would simplify the structural design. I then incorporated the structural requirements into my drawings and specifications and kept my supervisor informed until the drawings were issued.
Outcome	The structural engineer found that two joists needed reinforcement, which was added to the tender package, and the units were installed without structural problems. My supervisor then asked me to prepare a checklist for deciding when rooftop replacements need a structural review.

Why this works: 5.2 is about knowing where your competence ends. Its indicators are asking for help and incorporating input, working with your supervisor and asking questions when needed. This example shows all three in one real decision, which is far stronger than a general statement such as “I always ask when I am unsure.” Professional Accountability has six competencies and must average 3.