Page | 1 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Unit Code and Title: SBM1204 Project Delivery Systems Assessment Overview Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULOs CLOs Assessment 1: Article Summary The task for this assignment is to review and summarise a recent journal article related to project delivery or contracting methods. Individual 10% Week 3 700 Words ULO-1 ULO-2 CLO-1 Assessment 2: Case Study In this assessment
View complete question Page | 1 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Unit Code and Title: SBM1204 Project Delivery Systems Assessment Overview Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULOs CLOs Assessment 1: Article Summary The task for this assignment is to review and summarise a recent journal article related to project delivery or contracting methods. Individual 10% Week 3 700 Words ULO-1 ULO-2 CLO-1 Assessment 2: Case Study In this assessment task, students critically analyse various issues related to project delivery methods for a failed project and provide recommendations based on their understanding of the theoretical and practical knowledge of real-world scenarios. Individual 25% Week 7 1500 words ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4 CLO-1 CLO-4 Assessment 3: Critical Review & Evaluation of a Selected Topic This assessment task is based on the delivery system of a selected topic, where students use project delivery related topic as the vehicle for learning and developing their capabilities in this unit of study. Individual 30% Week 9 2000 words ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4 CLO-1 CLO-4 CLO-6 Assessment Brief Page | 2 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Assessment 4: Applied Project and Presentation This assessment task is based on the delivery system of a case project, where students use reallife project as the vehicle for learning and developing their capabilities in this unit of study. Individual 35% Week 12 2000 words And PP presentation slides ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4 CLO-1 CLO-4 CLO-6 CLO-9 Assessment 1: Article Summary Due date: Week 3 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 700 words Weighting: 10% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2 Assessment 1 Details: This Article summary assesses your knowledge of key content areas of project delivery methods and contract management. Guidelines for writing a summary of an article: Identify the key ideas of the article. You need to identify the relevant information that support the key ideas. You are required to summary the article in your own words without copying phrases and sentences from the article unless theyre direct quotations. The length of the summary should not exceed more than one third of the length of the original article. The summary should include: Introduction Body Paragraphs Concluding Paragraph Marking Information: The Article Summary will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 10% of the total unit mark. Page | 3 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Article Summary Rubric Marking Criteria Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64%) of the criterion mark Good (65-74%) of the criterion mark Very Good (75-84%) of the criterion mark Excellent (85-100%) of the criterion mark Article choice (10% Marks) The selected article does not reflect the subjects main concepts. The selected article is in the field of the subject and reflects one/some of the main concepts suggested by the lecturer. The selected article is in the field of the subject, covers the main concepts suggested by the lecturer but may not be current or scholarly. The selected article is in the field of the subject and covers the concepts suggested by the lecturer and is scholarly and relatively current. The article directly discusses the main concepts suggested by the lecturer and is highly relevant, scholarly and recently published. Written communicatio n skills (20% marks) Writing lacks clarity and coherence. Points have not been paraphrased well. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing is generally clear with some lapses in coherence. Some points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing is clear and coherent. Most points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing shows good clarity and cohesion. Points have been paraphrased well. There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing shows excellent clarity and cohesion. Points have been skilfully paraphrased. There are no or very few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Content (40% marks) The articles main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are missing, unclear, inaccurate and/or irrelevant. The articles main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are generally evident, but may be vague, incomplete, or have some inaccuracies. The articles main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised accurately in most parts. Some information may be irrelevant or inaccurate. The articles main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly and accurately, providing a good overview of the article with minimal irrelevant or inaccurate information. The articles main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly, accurately and precisely, providing an excellent overview of the original article. Summary (20% marks) The summary is not well organised, does not flow logically and is difficult to follow. The summary shows some organisation, but some parts may not flow logically and are difficult to follow. The summary shows organisation and is easy to follow, but occasionally still lacks flow. The summary shows coherent and logical organisation and most points are easy to follow. The summary shows coherent and logical organisation and has clear, wellstructured points. Style (10% marks) The article is not referenced. Reporting verbs and connecting words are not used. The article is referenced but contains errors or does not follow Harvard referencing style. Limited reporting verbs and The article is referenced in Harvard referencing style but may contain some minor errors. Some reporting verbs and connecting words are used. The article is referenced in Harvard referencing style with few errors. Reporting verbs and connecting words are used well to create flow. The article is accurately referenced in Harvard referencing style. Reporting verbs and connecting words are used very well to Page | 4 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: connecting words are used. create flow and cohesion. Assessment 2: Case Study Due date: Week 7 Group/individual: Individual assignment Word count: 1500 Weighting: 25% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4 Assessment 2 Details: In this assessment task, you are required to choose ONE of the following four failed projects in Australia (https://yourprojectmanager.com.au/4-massive-australian-project-failures-failed/) and answer all the questions stated below. 1. Myers online shopping disaster 2. Queensland Health and its Payroll System 3. The Australian Cargo Service 4. Victorian MyKi Smart Card Answer the following questions: 1. What is the main issue associated with the Case Project? 2. What were the failures with the early implementation of this project? 3. What were the cost overrun and schedule delays, and what contributed to these? 4. What was the early delivery method for this project? 5. What changed in the recent delivery method? 6. What recommendations would you make if you were assigned as Project Manager of this project in its earlier stage? Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark Marking Criteria Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64%) of the criterion mark Good (65-74%) of the criterion mark Very Good (75-84%) of the criterion mark Excellent (85-100%) of the criterion mark Identify and analyse project delivery methods issues, problems and failures as they apply to the Poor identification and analysis of project delivery methods issues, problems and failures as they Satisfactory identification and analysis of project delivery methods issues, problems and failures as Good identification and analysis of project delivery methods issues, problems and failures as they Very good identification and analysis of project delivery methods issues, problems and failures as Excellent identification and analysis of project delivery methods issues, problems and failures as Page | 5 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: case study and recommend appropriate course of action with emphasis on project delivery methods (40% Marks) apply to the case study, poor recommendations provided. they apply to the case study, and satisfactory recommendations provided. apply to the case study, and recommendations provided are acceptable. they apply to the case study, and appropriate recommendations provided. they apply to the case study, excellent and appropriate recommendations provided. Content of case study and lesson learned (40% marks) The case studys main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are missing, unclear, inaccurate and/or irrelevant. The case studys main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are generally evident, but may be vague, incomplete, or have some inaccuracies. The case studys main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised accurately in most parts. Some information may be irrelevant or inaccurate. The case studys main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly and accurately, providing a good overview of the article with minimal irrelevant or inaccurate information. The case studys main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly, accurately and precisely, providing an excellent overview of the original article. Written communication skills (20% marks) Writing lacks clarity and coherence. Points have not been paraphrased well. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing is generally clear with some lapses in coherence. Some points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing is clear and coherent. Most points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing shows good clarity and cohesion. Points have been paraphrased well. There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing shows excellent clarity and cohesion. Points have been skilfully paraphrased. There are no or very few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Page | 6 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Assessment 3: Critical review and evaluation of a selected topic Due date: Week 9 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 2000 words Weighting: 30% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, and ULO-4 Assessment Details: Design of Project Delivery System influences the success or failure of the implementation phase of projects and programs. It is not just about selecting a contact model; it provides a framework for procurement of goods and services needed to implement the project. This assessment task is based on the review and evaluation of selected project delivery (contract) method. Students will be required to select one of the following five main contract types identified by Kerzner and complete a critical review and evaluation of that contract type in an industry of their choice. The five main types listed on pg 975-1014 of the textbook1 are: 1. Fixed-price 2. Cost-plus-fixed fee or Cost-plus-percentage fee 3. Guaranteed-Maximum-shared-savings 4. Fixed-price-incentive-fee 5. Cost-plus-incentive-fee This assessment task includes three components: 1. A detailed literature review on the selected contract type, including the typical delivery models and contexts in the field or industry of interest. 2. A detailed evaluation of the suitability of the methodology for successful project delivery in the chosen field or industry of interest. 3. A consideration of the relevance of the contract type together with conclusions and recommendations for future use of the method. 1 Kerzner, H 2017, Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling, 12th edn, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Page | 7 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark Marking Criteria Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64%) of the criterion mark Good (65-74%) of the criterion mark Very Good (75-84%) of the criterion mark Excellent (85-100%) of the criterion mark Literature Review of Project Contract method. (30% marks) Lack of evidence of academic writing. No clear understanding and exploration of literature review topics related to project delivery systems and no demonstration of evidence from current/past academic studies. Has demonstrated basic comprehension of the subject. Limited additional evidence and insights that add significant value to the topic. Mostly, one singular viewpoint that does not integrate the viewpoints of the group into a coherent structure to address the given topic. Some resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly address the given topic. Often demonstrates a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/topic with many additional evidence and insights often cited. Good link between practice vs. theory to the topic. Often integrates multiple viewpoints and weave both class and group views into a coherent structure. Generally, resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. Generally, demonstrates a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/topic with many additional evidence and insights. Very good link between practice vs. theory to the topic. Generally, integrates multiple viewpoints and weave both class and group views into a coherent structure. Most resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. Has demonstrated a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/ topic with additional evidence and insights. Has added significant value of practice vs. theory to the topic. Integrates multiple viewpoints and weave both class and group views into a coherent structure. All resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. Evaluation and Critical Analysis of the selected project delivery method in the identified industry. (40% marks) Is missing or provides poor quality critical reasoning. Is missing or provides poor quality or inappropriate supporting evidence. Is missing or provides inaccurate evidence and logic of argument. Is missing or provides Inaccurate discussion of weight of existing evidence. Uses limited critical reasoning and argument and supporting evidence. Presents limited evidence and logic of argument. Provides a limited discussion of weight of existing evidence Uses good critical reasoning and argument, supported by good quality, relevant evidence. Presents good evidence and logic of argument Provides a discussion of weight of existing evidence. Uses high- quality critical reasoning and mostly clear and logical arguments, well supported by high quality, relevant evidence. Presents evidence and excellent logic of argument. Provides good discussion of weight of existing evidence, demonstrating a critical approach to the evidence. Uses sophisticated critical reasoning and clear and logical arguments, well supported by high quality, well-chosen evidence. Clearly presents evidence and sophisticated logic of argument. Discusses the weight of existing evidence in depth, demonstrating a sophisticated critical approach to the evidence. Relevance, Conclusions and recommendations (20% marks) Is missing or provides inaccurate conclusion and/or recommendations, Provides a limited conclusion and some recommendations, with limited Provides accurate conclusions and reasonable recommendations Provides accurate conclusions and feasible recommendations Provides sophisticated conclusions and Page | 8 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: without sufficient consideration of limitations of the evidence. Is missing or does not articulate options for risk management. Is missing or provides inaccurate critique of the options and recommendations consideration of limitations of the evidence. Articulates options for risk management, including limited critique of the options and recommendations. drawn logically from the evidence, considering the major limitations of the evidence. Articulates options for risk management, including some critique of the options and recommendations drawn logically from the evidence, considering the limitations of the evidence. Articulates options for risk management, including some critique of the options and recommendations recommendations drawn logically from the evidence, considering the limitations of the evidence. Clearly articulates options for risk including sophisticated critique of the options and recommendations. Referencing (5% marks) Includes identifying information with many errors in format. Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read does not flow logically from one part to another. Include few references without following Harvard style reference guidelines or no reference. Includes identifying information with some errors in format. Paper shows some organization. At times, difficult to read and does not flow logically from one part to another. Few references with errors. All references cited correctly using citation style with some minor errors. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness All references cited correctly using citation style. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. Writing is mostly clear. Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report. Paper is coherently organized, and the logic is easy to follow. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive. Structure, grammar and presentation (5% marks) Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read does not flow logically from one part to another. There are several spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and conciseness. Paper shows some organization. At times, difficult to read and does not flow logically from one part to another. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are only a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, or terms are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clear. Paper is coherently organized and the logic is easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors and terminology is clearly defined. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive. Page | 9 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Assessment 4: Applied Project and Presentation Due date: Week 12 Group/individual: Individual assignment Word count: 2000 words and PP presentation Slides Weighting: 35% (25% report and 10% presentation) Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4 Assessment 4 Details: Design of Project Delivery System influences the success or failure of the implementation phase of projects and programs. It is not just about selecting a contact model; it provides a framework for procurement of goods and services needed to implement the project. This assessment task is based on the delivery system of the Case project, where students use real-life project as the vehicle for learning and developing their competencies in this unit of study. The case project should be selected by students in their field of interest. This assessment task includes four components: 1. Literature review on the case project, including the typical delivery models and contexts. 2. Development of the methodology for case project delivery system. 3. Implementation of the methodology from 2. To design case project delivery systems. Students will also discuss results and expected outcomes and suggest implementation plan for the case project. 4. Students are also required to upload the their case project presentation slides in week 12. Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark Marking Criteria Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64%) of the criterion mark Good (65-74%) of the criterion mark Very Good (75-84%) of the criterion mark Excellent (85-100%) of the criterion mark Literature Review of Project/ Program Delivery Systems (PDS) Quality of literature review/ Evidence of independent and extensive research (particularly literature reviews and hard to get knowledge) Lack of evidence of academic writing. No clear understanding and exploration of literature review topics related to project delivery systems and no demonstration of evidence from current/past academic studies. Has demonstrated basic comprehension of the subject. Limited additional evidence and insights that add significant value to the topic. Mostly, one singular viewpoint that does not integrate the viewpoints of the group into a coherent structure to address the given topic. Often demonstrates a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/topic with many additional evidence and insights often cited. Good link between practice vs. theory to the topic. Often integrates multiple Generally, demonstrates a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/topic with many additional evidence and insights. Very good link between practice vs. theory to the topic. Generally, integrates multiple viewpoints and Has demonstrated a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/ topic with additional evidence and insights. Has added significant value of practice vs. theory to the topic. Integrates multiple viewpoints and weave both class and group views into a coherent Page | 10 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Demonstrate Critical Thinking through development of a Conceptual Theory Model. (25% marks) Some resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly address the given topic. viewpoints and weave both class and group views into a coherent structure. Generally, resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. weave both class and group views into a coherent structure. Most resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. structure. All resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. Evaluation and Critical Reasoning of the Case Organisation Review of case project objectives, business case, special needs and requirements. SWOT analysis for nominated delivery systems. Strategies for selecting optimal and successful project delivery and administration of case project. (30% marks) Lack of evidence of comprehensive knowledge in the topic. Majority of information irrelevant to the selected project case. Incorrectly presented the SWOT analysis. No strategy presented for selecting the optimal and successful project delivery method. Evidence of basic knowledge in the topic. Basic information about the project background and lack of evidence of comprehensive knowledge in the project objectives, business case and SWOT analysis. Minimally presented the strategies for selecting the optimal project delivery method. Has given a factual and/or conceptual knowledge to the case project, identifying project business case and requirements. Good evidence of comprehensive knowledge in the SWOT analysis and strategies for the optimal selection of project delivery and administration of the case project. Reasonable knowledge of background, objectives and business case of the selected project and very good level of understanding of SWOT analysis. Has understanding the strategies for selecting the optimal project delivery methods and administration of the case project. Extensive comprehension knowledge of topic. Members showed complete understanding of the selected project background, objectives, business case and SWOT analysis. Members also showed complete understanding about the strategies for selecting the optimal and successful project delivery and administration of the case project. Referencing Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report. (7% marks) Includes identifying information with many errors in format. Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read does not flow logically from one part to another. Include few references without following Harvard style reference guidelines or no reference. Includes identifying information with some errors in format. Paper shows some organization. At times, difficult to read and does not flow logically from one part to another. Few references with errors. All references cited correctly using citation style with some minor errors. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness All references cited correctly using citation style. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. Writing is mostly clear. Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report. Paper is coherently organized, and the logic is easy to follow. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive. Structure, grammar and presentation (10% marks) Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read does not flow logically from one part to another. There are several spelling and/or grammatical errors; Paper shows some organization. At times, difficult to read and does not flow logically from one part to another. There are some spelling and/or Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are some spelling and/or grammatical Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are only a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, Paper is coherently organized and the logic is easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors and terminology is clearly defined. Page | 11 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and conciseness. grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness. or terms are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clear. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive. Presentation slides Visual Appeal (5 marks) There are too many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. The slides were difficult to read, and slides contained information copied onto them from another source. No visual appeal. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information was contained on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on more than three or more slides. Presentation has good visual appeal. There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on two or more slides. Presentation has significant visual appeal. There are no errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Presentation is visually appealing/engaging Presentation topic knowledge/content (10 marks) Presenters didnt understand topic. The presentation was a brief look at the topic, but many questions were left unanswered. Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out. The presentation was informative, but several elements went unanswered. Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of some of major points. The presentation was a good summary of the topic. Major information covered; presentation contain some irrelevant information. The presentation was a very good summary of the topic. Almost all-important information covered; presentation contain little irrelevant information. Presentation was excellent and shows extensive knowledge of topic with comprehensive and complete coverage of information. Presentation skills (8 marks) Unsatisfactory presentation with no clarity, appropriate pause, intonation and is not capable to engage listeners. Satisfactory presentation with some clarity and pause. Good presentation with clarity and pause in majority of speech. Very good presentation with clarity and pause and able to engage listeners for most of the time. Excellent presentation with clarity, pause, intonation and is capable to engage listeners all the time. Presentation preparedness (5 marks) Evident lack of preparation/rehearsal Dependence on slides. Simple presentation. Dependence on slides

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more