HKIA / ARB Professional Assessment 2015

Paper 1: Statutory Controls in Building Works

Examiners’ Report

STRUCTURE OF PAPER

Paper 1 is an open-book examination comprising multiple-choice and essay questions.

The MC section had 40 multiple-choice questions. Each MC question carries 2 marks. The
passing mark was set at 65%.

Candidates needed to answer 1 compulsory essay question and 2 out of 3 other essay
questions. The compulsory question carried 30 marks and the other two questions each
carried 15 marks. The passing mark was set at 50%.

Questions on all topics, as detailed in the syllabus of PA Handbook, included:

(a) Buildings Ordinance
(b) Submission of plans to the Building Authority
(c) Other related Ordinances and Codes of Practice

The questions were set to test candidates’ knowledge, skills and maturity to handle their day-
to-day work as an Architect.

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS

FOR WHOLE PAPER

344 candidates took Paper 1. 79 candidates (22.97%) passed.

FOR MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

117 candidates passed (34.01%); the mean is 58.0 marks out of 100, and standard deviation
12.1%, is commented on by HKEAA that “compared to PA2014, Paper 1 shows a slight drop
in both mean mark and standard deviation.”

FOR ESSAY QUESTIONS

22 candidates passed (6.40%). Passing rates of the essay questions are as follows:

Q1 – 13.37% (46 out of 344 candidates)

Q2 – 6.73% (14 out of 208 candidates)
Q3 – 18.10% (21 out of 116 candidates)
Q4 – 23.53% (64 out of 272 candidates)

Question 1 (Compulsory)

The question design to test the candidate understanding on the development intensity control
under Town Plan, Buildings Ordinance and Lease Condition and how to tackle in case of
variation in these three tenure. This has been repeatedly test for last few years. However,
this year format have changed a little bit by providing a lay client’s development schedule

Page 1 / 22
where candidate have to identify what wrong with it and how to pick up differences on the
development control.

In general, it is sad to note that this question has been poorly attempted and only a handful
few can provide a satisfactory answer to such a simple straight forward question. The poorly
attempted answer also reflected the low standard and widespread misunderstanding how the
density control apply in HK and the panel have to re-consider what sort of and level of
‘teaching’ has to provide for the candidate in order to equip them to face with the realistic
demand for local projects.

Apart, poor time management is widespread amongst candidate where almost more than one
quarter of candidate fail to properly finish the answer for the question.

The following comment on each section of the question can briefly summarize the common
mistakes:-

Part (a) This is comparatively better perform part. Those candidate able to comment on
the client schedule systematically on, ‘uses’, ‘height’, plot ratio control under
Town Plan can score full marks.
Sadly, it is note there still substantial number of candidate don’t realize what is
m.p.d. and making mistake on the permit building height. Also many candidate
don’t realize that only ancillary carpark can be disregarded in inclusion of the
lowest 3 storeys of non-domestic use under zone R(A) of Town Plan.

Part (b) This question divided into two sections. Comment on Lease restriction and on
Building (Planning) Regulations regarding client’s proposal.
For the Lease part, most candidate realize the Lease can modify but without
mention to what extent the restriction be relaxed and on what basis.
For the Building Regulations’ Section, the common misconception are:-
Commercial carpark do not enjoy GFA exemption whether locate above or
below ground.
Town Plan P.R. control is calculate on simple summation basis rather than pro-
rata like the control under Building (Planning) Regulations. Many candidate
neglect that the Town Plan restricted the maximum domestic P.R. to 7.5, while
the aggregate P.R. for composite building being 9.

Part (b) Most candidate don’t aware that pro-rata calculation do apply for site coverage
control which is generally adopted in practice. Most candidate assume
domestic and non-domestic coverage can be check independently and fail to
realize both P.R. on site coverage suggest by client exceed the permissible
under B(P) Reg.
Apart, circulation core of podium garden cannot be exempted from GFA
calculation.

Part (c) Many candidate don’t read or understand the question which ask for a
complying scheme under current Town Plan (OZP) and Building Regulations.
Most candidate proposed an office tower together with the residential block

Page 2 / 22
 which simply contravene OZP unless a Planning Permission has been obtained
under Section 16 of T.P.O.
Apart many candidate propose a podium with P.R. 3 – which make no
allowance for the set-back, exempted area, carpark entrance, E&M rooms ……
etc.
As mention in Part ‘b’ many candidate make wrong application in pro-rata
calculation in computation of P.R. under Town Plan.

Part (d) Again many candidate don’t read question carefully which is straight forward
and ask for the approach for a more intensive development, to include an office
tower that envisaged by client. Many of candidate misinterpreted by how to get
concession and GFA exemption and fail to mention the requirement that
Planning Permission as a pre-requisite for Lease modification. It is also note
that quite a number of candidate get mix up the Lease modification by applying
to Town Planning Board while apply Planning Permission from Lands
Department.

Part (e) General well attempted part, but common misconception on Building
Separation and Permeability requirement. Most of candidate stated that the
maximum project façade length should be limited to 60m. Indeed, this is only
one of the criteria for exemption from going for the application of Design
Requirement 1 & 2 checking (i.e. separation and permeability.)

Question 2

This question mainly tests candidates’ understanding of the Building (Planning) Regulations
and its application in building design. Part (a) of the question requires candidates to list four
items from the plans provided which fail to comply with the Buildings Ordinance or its
subsidiary regulations but may likely be modified/ exempted by the Building Authority. Most
candidates could manage to quote one or two common modification items, which include
non-provision of natural lighting and ventilation in the ground floor offices, lavatory and the
typical floor bathrooms, non-provision of gas apertures in the typical floor bathrooms, and
internal floor at the ground floor entrance lobby being at a level less than 150mm above the
external floor.

In part (b), candidates are asked to list eight out of the many non-compliances of Buildings
Ordinance or its subsidiary regulations from the plans. Common correct answers include
absence of temporary refuge area within the protected exit, insufficient clear intervening
space between the building and the toe of its adjacent cutting, insufficient width in the access
to the refuse storage and material recovery chamber. Common misconceptions of candidates
include: -
1. The width of an existing private service lane adjoining the site can be utilized to meet part
of the 3m-wide service lane requirement under Building (Planning) Regulation 28;
2. Open space in the slope within the site cannot be counted as open space under Building
(Planning) Regulation 25;
3. The fire rated door to a kitchen in a residential flat should have an FRR of not less than -

Page 3 / 22
 /60/60;
4. The second door to a protected lobby is required to have an FRR, despite that the FRR of
the door facing the occupied side is not less than the FRR of the fire barriers of the storey;
5. A protected lobby is required for a water meter room opening to an exit route;
6. A water meter room cannot be located within an escape staircase enclosure;
7. A communal garden floor is necessarily a refuge floor;
8. A fireman’s lift cannot share a common lift lobby and lift well with non-fireman’s lifts in any
case;
9. Vehicular access must be provided to a refuse storage and material recovery chamber;
and
10. Design requirements of a transformer room and a switch room are controlled by the
Buildings Ordinance.

Part (c) of the question asks candidates to calculate the discharge value of a pair of scissor
staircases in a 20-storey non-sprinkler protected building. Common mistakes include: -
1. The discharge value is worked out by adding up the actual number of persons in all
storeys of the building;
2. The discharge value of ground storey is included in the calculation; and
3. The reduction factor of 0.7 is not included in the calculation.

Question 3

1. 116 candidates attempted this short question. 21 candidates attained 7.5 marks or above,
representing a passing rate of 18.1%. Taking 50% of the marks allocated to each sub-
question as the passing mark, the passing rate of each sub-question is:
3(a) relevant legislations governing the subject fire safety upgrading measures – 27.6%
3(b) authorities implementing these measures and the issues to be controlled by the
authorities – 56.9%
3(c) types of buildings or premises under the jurisdiction of these legislations – 19.0%
3(d) how these upgrading measures are to be implemented – 6.9%

2. This sub-question is intended to test the candidates’ awareness and understanding of 2

special ordinances for the purpose of upgrading the fire safety provisions of prescribed
existing buildings which were Codes compliant when they were constructed and the
general understanding of how these legislations are implemented.

3. General observations are highlighted below:

a. From the small number of candidates attempting this short question as well as the low
passing rate, it may be deducted that most candidates are not aware of the subject
ordinances, despite that this subject is frequently announced in local medias by the
HKSAR Government as an Announcement in the Public Interests (API).
b. Each sub-question is inter-related. If the candidate has no knowledge of the subject
and is not able to answer sub-question 3(a), though he or she may retrieve details of
the answer under the current open book examination arrangement, it is difficult to get
a pass in this short question.
c. Quite a number of incorrect answers relate to the minor works control system (MWCS).
For those candidates who put forward MWCS as the answer, obviously they are

Page 4 / 22
 confused of the concept of statutory safety improvement to existing buildings with the
concept of simplified version of statutory control applicable to existing buildings.

The setting up of the Fire Safety (Commercial Premises) Ordinance was triggered by the fatal
fire on arson occurred in 1994 at the HSBC Shek Kip Mei branch resulting 12 deaths. As
building professionals, candidates are advised to pay particular attention to building industry
related events and social issues.

Question 4

Simple as it may appear, this question does require a reasonably good understanding of how
the Buildings Ordinance and the Regulations are constructed and how the various sections
relate and respond to the objectives of the Ordinance as set out at the very beginning of this
legislation. And, the better the understanding the candidate has, the better he can comment
on the effectiveness of the means in meeting the ends in Part (b) of the question.

A total of 272 candidates attempted this question. The passing rate (i.e. attaining 7.5 out of
15 marks) is much less than satisfactory, with only 23.5%. The percentage of those scoring 0
to 3 marks is surprisingly high, at 26.1%. From what can be inferred in the written answer
scripts, candidates might have considered this question straight forward compared to the
other options, and left this to the very end and found they had completely run out of time.

Those scoring below the passing mark but more than 3 are apparently those who never had
the objectives of the Ordinance in mind until they encountered this question, and had only
applied the Ordinance and Regulations to their work from piecemeal reading and
interpretation of the various sections. The percentage of this batch is at an alarming 50%,
which could mean that the majority seem to have missed the fundamentals, or worse still, if
they lack interest in finding out the “whys” and “hows” while studying.

A consoling 6% of the candidates scoring 10 to 12 marks did nevertheless demonstrate how

this question should be approached and the answer presented, including some original
opinions of their own in Part (b).

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CANDIDATES

(a) Attend the lecture series, seminars, conferences and workshops arranged by HKIA and
other tertiary institutes or professional institutes. Be familiar with the materials and topics
covered.
(b) Get on-job experience in particular areas of interest.
(c) If the candidates do not have on-job exposures as mentioned in (b) above, reading or
discussion on what other colleagues have done would help.
(d) Keep abreast of the times ---- through reading, and use of audio, video or internet
resources.

Paper 1 Subject Panel Chair

Page 5 / 22
HKIA / ARB Professional Assessment 2015
Paper 2: Building Contracts, Professional Practice, Professional Conduct,
Conditions of Agreements and Scale of Charges
Examiners’ Report

STRUCTURE OF PAPER

Paper 2 is an open-book examination comprising multiple-choice and essay questions.

The MC section had 80 multiple-choice questions. Each MC question carries 1 mark. The
passing mark was set at 65%.

Candidates needed to answer 1 compulsory essay question for Part A Professional Practice,
Code of Professional Conducts and Conditions of Agreement and 2 out of 3 essay questions
for Part B Building Contract. Question for Part A carried 15 marks while questions for Part B
Building Contract each carried 15 marks. The passing mark was set at 50%.

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS

FOR WHOLE PAPER

246 candidates took Paper 2. 174 candidates (70.73%) passed and 5 candidates were
disqualified due to bringing unauthorized materials to the assessment.

FOR MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

191 candidates passed (77.64%); the mean is 71.3 marks out of 100, and standard deviation
11.5%, is commented on by HKEAA that “compared to PA2014, Paper 2 shows a small rise
in both mean mark and standard deviation.”

FOR ESSAY QUESTIONS

128 candidates passed (52.03%). Passing rates of the essay questions are as follows:

SQ Part A - Q1 – 54.07% (133 out of 246 candidates)

SQ Part B - Q2 – 49.29% (69 out of 140 candidates)
SQ Part B - Q3 – 65.47% (146 out of 223 candidates)
SQ Part B - Q4 – 57.38% (70 out of 122 candidates)

Part A Question 1
Candidates’ answers generally do not supplement with analytical thinking to demonstrate
how to arrive the conclusion/ answer.
Candidates generally scored relatively low in this question.

Question 1a
Candidates generally are confused on how and when to apply percentage fee, lump sum fee,
and time charge.
Candidates generally not very familiar with the detail works for each workstage, and the
procedure on how to proceed from one stage to another.

Page 6 / 22
Question 1b
Some of the candidates confused about the use of Codes of Professional Conduct of the
HKIA and ARB, and Conduct of Architectural Competitions.
Majority of candidates can understand the code of professional conduct.

Question 1c
Majority of candidates can answer the key words for the factors contribute to the Prevention
of Bribery Ordinance.

Part B Question 2
1. Some answered that the BQ drawings are prepared by QS.
2. Most candidates do not have a concept of lump sum fix price contract irrespective
whether BQ or Spec. and drawing arrangement is used. This lead to a lot of
misinterpretations on the meaning of “the quantities in the pricing document form or do not
form part of the contract”.

Part B Question 3
Most of the candidates are familiar with "what" but lack of an understanding on "why". On
"how", some failed to give a concrete and definite assessment as an Architect and not to use
wordings such as "if", "would" etc.

Part B Question 4
Below are some findings and observations:

1. Out of the 122 answers, 70 candidates achieve 7.5 marks or more, representing 57%. 52
candidates achieve less than 7.5 marks.

2. Out of these 52 who failed in the answers, 36 answers (70%) were incomplete. Some
candidates did not answer all sub-questions or the answers were only two or three
sentences, which is considered inadequate.

3. Sub-question 4a requested the candidates to highlight the relationship and differences

between AI and VO.
Most candidates understand the basics and were able to explain.
But there are some who got the wrong concept like AI could only be oral.

4. Sub-question 4b requested the candidate to offer practical suggestion.

Most candidates could answer with confidence.
But there are some who just repeating the question, flow in the standard procedures as
memorized, and just could not relate to their daily practice like answering RFI, giving
sketches through email or letter, etc.

5. Sub-question 4c is the core question which require the candidate to analyze the situation
as given, relate to the theory and principles, and then write in a confident and polite
manner to a client who is complaining.

Page 7 / 22
 Most candidates could not fully explore the plausible reasons and situations and just
jumped to, or made up a circumstance like it is the client’s late design change or it is just
the contractor’s responsibility.
Most candidates could not focus to answer as why the client is complaining.
Most candidates quoted that the architect is not responsible for the detailed design of the
sub-consultants while some mixed up with those of the contractor in terms of duties and
responsibilities.
This illustrates they have some basic understanding but not a coherent concept.
Some candidates were able to use keywords like common, best endeavor, normal
practice, unexpected, unavoidable, unpredictable, careful, duty of care, diligently,
unforeseen, responsibility, reasonable, etc in their argument.
Those who are not familiar with these contractual or legal keywords had difficulty in writing
their argument.

6. Some of the answers, like only three sentences, are far too short to adequately address
the issues.

7. Some candidates could not write in clear and simple English while there are some with
very poor handwriting making it very difficult to read.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CANDIDATES

(a) Candidates are advised to fully understand the rationale behind the contract terms for fully
utilize the knowledge acquired at works as Architect in future.

(b) Lack of relevant experience on contract / condition on engagement of the majority of

candidates was noticed as from their answers.

Paper 2 Subject Panel Chair

Page 8 / 22
HKIA/ARB Professional Assessment 2015
Paper 3 - Building Structures
Examiner’s Report

STRUCTURE OF PAPER

Paper 3 was an open-book examination comprising multiple-choice questions only. The

paper consists of 60 multiple-choice questions. The passing mark is set at 65%.

This was the fourth year in which three assessments were carried out for Paper 3 in March,
June and September respectively. The paper for each of the 3 assessments was set in a
similar format and structure covering a variety of topics.

Questions covered various aspects of building structures, including general structural

principles, different structural forms and systems, foundation systems, excavation and lateral
support systems, load paths and force diagrams, practice and construction, and a case study.
Diagrams were included as appropriate for better understanding of the questions.

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS

The passing rates for the three assessments were 63.40%, 38.61% and 60.87%, which were
similar to the overall passing rates in PA2014, apart from the 2nd quarter assessment in which
there was an exceptionally low passing rate.

The “mean mark” for the three assessments this year was 66.8%, 61.3% and 65.2%
respectively, which is close to passing mark of 65%, with a “standard deviation” ranging from
10.75% to 12.70%. This indicates that the average candidates’ performance was generally up
to the required standard, except for the 2nd quarter assessment which the candidates had a
slightly lower general performance and a lower passing rate. A reasonable “standard
deviation” indicates that the assessment had generated a broad range of marks, and was fair,
and effective in differentiating the abilities and depths of knowledge of the candidates.

It was also observed from the results that the candidates had shown weaknesses in certain
areas, including the less common and less conventional structural systems (such as
suspension structures, trusses, etc), and construction and practice (such as material
properties, real-life application of different structural systems, etc). It was also observed that
the results and general performance on the questions on the basic structural principles and
concepts (such as load path, simple bending moment diagrams, etc) were also not very
satisfactory.

Page 9 / 22
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CANDIDATES

On top of the studying the recommended reading list, the candidates are also encouraged to
gain more knowledge and exposure by the following means:-

(a) Candidates are recommended to attend the Professional Assessment Seminar / Lecture
Series organized by HKIA, not only for the Professional Assessment but also to broaden
their knowledge.
(b) Candidates are encouraged to get more on-job experience, guidance from office
supervisors and seniors, and learn through better communication / coordination with
structural engineers at work.
(c) Sharing of knowledge and experience with fellow colleagues and graduates is also
encouraged, and should be helpful if job exposure is limited.

Paper 3 Subject Panel Chair

Page 10 / 22
HKIA / ARB Professional Assessment 2015
Paper 4 – Building Services and Environmental Controls
Examiners’ Report

STRUCTURE OF PAPER
Paper 4 followed the same format as used previously: an ‘open-book’ assessment test with
60 multiple-choice questions. Passing mark was set at 65%.
Questions were worded in clear and straightforward language and answers involving
combination choices were used with discretion and restraint. Test topics were as detailed in
the syllabus, viz. basic principles, sustainable design and environmental issues, HVAC, fire
services, plumbing and drainage, electrical services, acoustics and miscellaneous aspects,
with emphases as described below:

1. Aspects of different disciplines in building services, both fundamental and pertaining to

real-life applications, that a practising architect is expected to know;
2. Issues concerning hygiene, human comfort and acoustics;
3. Matters related to sustainable design and environmental issues that have gained attention
in recent years.

Candidates were also tested on knowledge spanning across the building services disciplines,
energy conservation and sustainable building design. Essentially, questions were designed to
test candidates’ knowledge, skills and maturity in handling day-to-day situations as an
architect.

As in previous years, a significant portion of the paper was based on questions asked before.
The intention of reusing past questions was to encourage candidates to study those familiar
topics in greater depth, so as to enrich their knowledge in the respective fields.

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS

This was the fourth year in which Paper 4 was offered three times, in March, June and
September of the same year. ‘Mean marks’ were 59.6%, 55.5% and 55.9%, respectively, with
corresponding ‘standard deviations’ at 8.78%, 9.70% and 9.23%. The passing rates of the
assessment in March, June and September were 40.76%, 27.46% and 33.67% respectively.
Overall performance had dropped as compared to the results in PA2014. The lecture series
was organised with particular focus on environmental issues, as in previous years, and the
recommended reading list was expanded to include literature on these topics.

Candidates were comparatively week in answering questions on environmental issues,

HVAC, lifts and escalators. They tended to perform better in book-based questions, such as
those on theories, fundamentals and basic knowledge, which they had learned at university
or through reading relevant literature, but were generally less competent in answering job-
based questions, such as relating to architectural practice and real-life applications.

Page 11 / 22
ADVICE TO CANDIDATES

Broadening of exposure is the key to success. In addition to following relevant literatures and
the recommended reading list, candidates would be well advised to enhance their knowledge
by:
(a) Attending the ‘Paper 4’ lecture series and related seminars, conferences and workshops
organised by the HKIA, other tertiary institutions and professional bodies;
(b) Getting on-the-job experience, having closer coordination with building services and
environmental consultants;
(c) Keeping abreast of the times and getting hands-on experience in OTTV, IAQ, BEAM
Plus or other environmental assessment systems;
(d) If on-the-job exposure is not available, as mentioned in (b) and (c) above, reading of
documentation on work done by other members of the project team; and
(e) Taking the initiative to go through specifications, material and equipment submissions,
shop drawings, method statements, etc., even though they may be technically within the
scope of work of the building services engineer.

Paper 4 Subject Panel Chair

Page 12 / 22
HKIA / ARB Professional Assessment 2015
Paper 5 Building Materials and Technology
Examiners’ Report

STRUCTURE OF PAPER

Paper 5 was an open-book examination comprising multiple-choice questions only. The

paper consists of 60 multiple choice questions. The passing mark is set as 65%. The
questions are set at a very similar format and variety in each examination. This is the fourth
year that the paper was set for three assessments in March, June and September.

The contents of the paper include the different trades of construction regarding materials and
technology, actual practices including working procedures and detailing as well as law related
construction questions such as the Building Ordinance and Regulations, PNAP, Codes of
Practices, etc. Questions with diagrams were set so that more than one question can be
asked out of it. Generally, the questions are quite straight forward and all based on Hong
Kong local practices and experience. A major proportion are new questions set this year.

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS
The respectively passing rates for the three assessments are: 33.77%, 55.97% and 61.29%.
The passing rates had been consistent with paper 3 but had dropped compared to the results
in PA2014. Though new questions have been added to the papers, yet the standard of
questions were consistent with the immediate three years.

OUTLOOK FOR COMING YEAR 2016

Despite the increase in the passing rates, the panel will still maintain its standard of setting
questions and insist on preparing new questions for the year 2016. However, more focus is
given to the lectures for explaining clearly the scope of examination.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CANDIDATES
1. Study the materials and technology in terms of the various building trades.
2. Look at building control on construction and updates with the PNAP.
3. Study detail construction drawings of various components at the candidates’ office or
through local references.
4. Learn the procedure of construction for various trades.
5. Read about the specification of materials.
6. Attend all lectures given by the panel.

Paper 5 Subject Panel Chair

Page 13 / 22
HKIA / ARB Professional Assessment 2015
Paper 6 Site Design
Examiners’ Report

1. THE QUESTION
The test case is a rehabilitation facility in a triangular site composing of 2 land platforms
with 3m level difference. There is a bus stop on the road to the south of the site.
The task to is produce a preliminary master layout plan of the rehabilitation facility
composing of 3-4 rehabilitation dormitory blocks (total 12,500m2), 1 staff quarter block
(4,500m2), and a clinic cum multi-purpose hall block 3,000m2) with a 25m long outdoor
swimming pool. A prototype of rehabilitation dormitory and another of staff quarter are
given for the candidates to develop the site layout.
There is a height restriction of 40m above the lower platform of the site. There are a
number of special design feature requirements, which include the provision of a 3m-
wide jogging trail of minimum 350m long that shall form a loop and not be crossed by
vehicular traffic, an artificial lake of minimum 500m2 that shall be harmoniously
integrated with the jogging trail, a minimum 500m2 open space with good relation with
the jogging trail, and a pedestrian entrance and a path leading from the bus stop to the
clinic cum multi-purpose hall block.
It is specified that the design shall comply with the building separation, street setbacks
and green coverage requirements in accordance with the Sustainable Building Design
(SBD) Guidelines (PNAP APP-152).
The candidates are expected to demonstrate their competence in coming up with a
sensible site arrangement that generally meets the statutory requirements and the
design brief.

2. ANSWER SCRIPTS
2.1 General
Given the ample site area, a considerable number of layout variations are possible. The
panel appreciates a wide range of design approach in response to the design brief and
the site.
The panel is generally satisfied with the performance standard this year. The majority of
the candidates managed to satisfy the relevant statutory requirements and the brief
requirements. Most candidates were able to demonstrate a fair understanding of the
SBD requirements.
2.2 Fundamental Non-compliances
Despite the reminders in the lectures in previous years, there were still a few cases of
grossly under-development and exceeding the height limit, which were unacceptable.

Page 14 / 22
3. KEY INDICATORS
The preliminary master layout plan of each answer script was carefully scrutinised by
the assessment panel, which did not look for perfect design solutions and absolute
compliance with the regulations, but a sensible approach and reasonable execution of
site planning with a general understanding of the statutory requirements.
The following key indicators are specific to the Paper this year, revealing the
competence of the candidates in their sensibility, level of technical knowledge,
understanding of statutory control, and skill of implementation:
(a) General compliance with development parameters – maximising development
potential, compliance with building height limit and SBD requirements.
(b) General compliance with the special design feature requirements – provision of
jogging trail, artificial lake, open space, and pedestrian access to the clinic cum
multi-purpose hall.
(c) General compliance with major statutory requirements – prescribed windows, EVA,
ingress / egress points, etc.
(d) General compliance with traffic and circulation requirements, including the
provision of car parking spaces and loading / unloading bays as required.
(e) Sensibility in disposition of blocking to exploit views to the artificial lake and open
space, and to avoid major overlooking.
(f) Sensibility in the arranging vehicular and pedestrian circulation, demonstrated by
the arrangement of internal roads and pedestrian paths, jogging trail, car park,
drop off, and loading / unloading provisions, and access to each block.
(g) Sensibility in the provision of open space, which could be conveniently enjoyed by
the residents, harmoniously integrated with the artificial lake and jogging trail, but
appropriately segregated from the internal roads and car park.
(h) Sensibility in functional relationship among different components in the brief, e.g.
grouping of the rehabilitation dormitory blocks, and proximity of the clinic cum
multi-purpose hall block from the bus stop.

4. WEAKNESSES
In addition to the fundamental non-compliance described in paragraph 2.2, the following
major weaknesses are observed:
4.1 Non-compliance with SBD requirements
(a) Linking individual blocks together or separating individual buildings by less than
15m so that the Projected Façade Length (LP) exceeds 60m.
(b) Ignoring the low-rise clinic cum multi-purpose hall block when considering the LP.
(c) Provision of above ground carpark building.
4.2 Non-compliance with prescribed window requirements
(a) Failure in fulfilling the prescribed window requirements for the rehabilitation
dormitory and staff quarter blocks, particularly in cases of overlooking blocks.
(b) Blocks abutting right on the common boundary on the west and northwest of the
site.

Page 15 / 22
4.3 Insensible disposition
(a) Rehabilitation dormitory and staff quarter blocks seriously overlooking each other.
(b) Non-user-friendly / unusable / non-accessible leftover space between blocks.
(c) Low-rise clinic cum multi-purpose hall block seriously blocking the view of the low
storeys of the rehabilitation dormitory and staff quarter blocks.
(d) Insensible site utilisation (e.g. squeezing all blocks and other elements required in
the brief in only half of the site, but totally ignoring the other half).
(e) Poor relationship between the rehabilitation dormitory and staff quarter blocks and
the landscape (e.g. blocks facing away from the artificial lake and open space).
(f) Clinic cum multi-purpose hall block being too remote from the pedestrian entrance
near the bus stop.
4.4 Non-compliance with special design feature requirements
(a) Substandard provision of jogging trail, artificial lake, and open space.
(b) Poor integration among the jogging trail, artificial lake, and open space.
(c) Jogging trail crossed by internal roads, or with deadends.
(d) Missing or grossly insufficient car parking spaces.
4.5 Insensible internal road planning
(a) Grossly over-provided internal roads leading to fragmented open space, excessive
pedestrian crossings, and separation of the rehabilitation dormitory and staff
quarter blocks from the open space.
(b) Under-provision of internal roads leading to inadequate drop off and loading /
unloading provisions for each block.
(c) Car parking spaces and loading / unloading bays directly accessible from
roundabouts, or even external roads.
(d) Vehicular access not complying with XYZ points (e.g. provision of additional
ingress/egress points beyond the permitted location).
4.6 Non-compliance with EVA requirements
(a) Substandard gradient of EVA linking the two platforms.
(b) Substandard hammerheads and turning circles for fire fighting vehicles.
(c) Inadequate coverage of building facades.
(d) Substandard EVA width.
(e) Excessive internal roads as EVA at the expense of open space where the buildings
can be easily reached from the public roads.

Paper 6 Subject Panel Chair

Page 16 / 22
HKIA / ARB Professional Assessment 2015
Paper 7: Building Design
Examiners’ Report

The Paper

This year’s Paper aims to examine the candidates’ competence in the design of a Sports
Healthcare and Rehabilitation Centre. Apart from the ability to integrate different functional
requirements in a building, the question also aims to test our candidates’ sensitivity to provide
a reasonable solution to segregate private and public functions in a building complex.

The design brief calls for a schematic design for a Sports Healthcare and Rehabilitation
Centre, which comprises the following principal elements:-

1. Sports Healthcare Centre providing consultation, clinical facilities and daytime

physiotherapy treatment services; and
2. Rehabilitation Centre providing short term in-patient wards and physiotherapy treatment
services including a rehabilitation pool.

Vehicular drop-off and carparking spaces within the site are required.

Submission requirements are limited to layout plans and sections. 3-dimensional illustrations
and calculations are not required.

The Answer Scripts

The Subject Panel agreed that the design brief involved a variety of accommodation and
therefore posed great challenge to the candidates in integrating different functional
requirements in a building. As a result it was hard to find an answer script that could be
considered free from major flaws.

Key Indicators

The detailed layout of each paper was scrutinized carefully jointly by the assessment panel.
The Panel was not looking for brilliant architectural design, but a sensible design solution that
could meet the design brief, and in general compliance with the building regulations.

The Panel made the assessment based on the following key indicators that can reveal the
competence of the candidates in their design sensibility, level of technical knowledge and skill
of implementation:

a) General compliance with development parameters – mainly building height and site
coverage requirements;

b) General compliance with major statutory requirements – including prescribed windows,

fire escape and EVA;

Page 17 / 22
c) General compliance with specific site constraints – including provision of separate
pedestrian entrances, and reasonably segregated vehicular and pedestrian accesses;

d) Sensibility in arrangement for wards (habitation), consultation (workplace) and disposition

of health facilities;

e) Integration of a long-span structure – swimming pool and its facilities;

f) Sensibility in arrangement of reasonably segregated vertical circulation to the two centres;

g) Sensibility in the design of floor-to-floor height, structural system and disposition of

building services spaces.

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS

The Weaknesses

The major weaknesses observed this year include:-

a) Design and planning

- Unsatisfactory disposition of the required accommodation to provide a sensible
integration of facilities.
- Poor consideration of ground floor entrances.
- Poor treatment of segregated entrances and vertical circulation for Sports Healthcare
Centre and Rehabilitation Centre.
- Inappropriate circulation and communal spaces arrangement.
- Poor integration and accessibility between the facilities for the two Centres.
- Inappropriate planning of the swimming pool and its related facilities

b) Building structure
- Poor consideration of structural implications of the swimming pool in relation to the
building.
- Poor integration of structural provisions for those repetitive modules. e.g. consultation
rooms and in-patient wards.

c) Scale and proportion

- Inappropriate scale – lifts, stairs, corridors were sometimes grossly oversized or
undersized.

d) Statutory compliance
- Prescribed window requirements of consultation rooms (office spaces) were
sometimes ignored.
- Excessive means of escape.

e) Vehicular access
- Inappropriate sizing of parking spaces.
- Poor vehicular maneuvering paths / drop-off and integration with pedestrian entrances.

Page 18 / 22
f) Others
- Poor documentation.
- Poor clarity and cleanliness of drawings.

Paper 7 Subject Panel Chair

Page 19 / 22
HKIA / ARB Professional Assessment 2015
Papers 8 Case Study
Examiners’ Report

STRUCTURE OF PAPER

Candidate has to provide a one-page synopsis and go on to complete a 20+20-page report.

The Professional Assessment Handbook details the topics requirement and report format.
The passing mark is set at 50%.

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS

156 out of 196 candidates passed the Paper this year. The passing rate is 80%. Two
candidates received zero mark due to plagiarism and will not be allowed to take PA2016 –
Paper 8.

This is the second year that the same project may be studied without lapse, however, the
special topic has to be different from the one used in previous assessments.

It is generally agreed that the case study remains a useful tool through which candidates can
learn about the essential elements of project administration, even though the projects they
are handling in the office may not give them sufficient exposure to the entire range of
practical issues. Passing rates are usually high and it is not seen as a major source of anxiety
for candidates.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CANDIDATES

Carefully study and analyze available information on the project and talk to the project team
for a thorough understanding, then write the report in your own words to cover what has been
learned. High emphasis is put on candidate’s own appraisal of the various issues and
problems relating to the project. Special topic study gives candidates opportunity to research
in depth a topic of interest. Candidate may continue to use previous reports as format and
contents template but have to refrain from copying multiple sentences and paragraphs, which
will be readily detected by the plagiarism software.

Paper 8 Subject Panel Chair

Page 20 / 22
HKIA/ARB Professional Assessment 2015
Paper 9 – Professional Interview
Examiners’ Report

STRUCTURE OF PAPER

This paper is a 30-minute interview conducted primarily in English and each candidate is
interviewed by a panel consists of three interviewers. This is the fourth year that the new
policy on using Cantonese for technical terms and for supplementary purpose with the
permission of the Chairperson of the Panel of Interviewers is implemented.

This is also the fourth year to test candidates on their Case Study reports in the Professional
Interview. Interviewers reminded the candidates that their case study report is also used as a
referencing material in the interview. Candidates may choose projects not handled by
themselves and Interviewers are reminded to cross reference with the candidates’ logbooks.

Interviewers are advised to make sure the candidates have digested the followings in doing
their Case Study reports:
a) Statutory Control
b) Cost Control
c) Time Control
d) Safety
e) Quality Control
f) Design Quality Control
a) Building Contracts

Candidates’ professional maturity and adequacy of the practical experience as recorded in

the Logbook are assessed by the interviewers. Questions may cover topics related to
Buildings Ordinance, Building Regulations, other related ordinances and Codes of Practice,
construction knowledge, Building Contract and Contract Administration and Professional
Ethics. Candidates’ confidence in answering questions is also looked for by interviewers.

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS

81 out of a total of 124 candidates (65.32%) passed the paper in the April 2016 attempt (for
PA2015), which is significantly lower than the attempt in March 2015 (72.35%).

From the report of Interviewers on failed candidates, most candidates were lack in knowledge
on Building Contract and Building Ordinance and failed to demonstrate to the interviewers
their competency to work as an Architect. The candidates were also lack of confidence and
general knowledge; and were not well prepared for the Interview. The weaknesses may be
attributed to their lack of practical experience on local projects.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CANDIDATES

1. To reinforce his/her understanding of a project selected for case study, a candidate is

recommended to instead of just reporting to his/her advisor what have been done
during the period of review, discuss regularly with the advisor of what he/she has

Page 21 / 22
 observed in the case study and to consult the advisor the rationale behind certain
solutions to various problems.

2. As reflected in the summary, main reasons of failure of some candidates in the

examination attribute to the lack of practical construction and contract administration
experience, which may be a result of the reducing number of local projects.
Candidates are advised to look at their job exposure in particular the chance of getting
in touch of local projects before they commit or engage to the practice during their
internship period.

Paper 9 Subject Panel Chair

Page 22 / 22