From personal experience, the most difficult aspect of writing up the case study was selecting which project and key issues to focus on. After finalising these with my counsellor, the structure of the case study is set out by the RICS which makes the write up comparatively easy, as there are clear headings that need to be followed. A lesser hurdle to overcome is writing to a maximum of 3,000 words however all candidates should note the RICS can reserve the right to cancel your final assessment interview if this is exceeded. I remember my nervousness around this and frantically trying to find out whether the word count included my contents page, sub-headings and appendices. So during this post I’m going to explain everything you need to know about writing up your case study using real life, successful examples.
After reviewing the successful example below, read on for more tips on how to select your key issues and which items are included in the hugely important word count.
RICS APC Case Study Example
Confidentiality Statement
The following case study contains confidential information included for the purpose of the Assessment of Professional Competence. The Client’s details have been removed due to confidentiality agreements and they are referred to throughout this report as “The client”. My Firm have given their consent to disclose details for the case study on the basis that the information is not to be used for any other purpose or by any person other than those authorised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Contents
- Introduction
- My Approach
- My Achievements
- Conclusion
- Appendix A – Competencies Achieved
- Appendix B – Project Photographs/Plans
Total word count: 2,932 words (Not including Contents List or Appendices)
Introduction
The project comprises the redevelopment of a single storey retail unit which involved the fit-out of an existing, empty shell for ‘THE CLIENT’ to provide a standard specification store achieving 75% net sales space from a GIFA of 32,000ft2 (see Appendix 1 for store layout and photographs of the building). The site is located in Dundrum, Republic of Ireland within a busy retail outlet with occupying tenants adjacent to the works. The client is an international retailer experienced in this type of project. This store formed part of their wider expansion plan being one of five new stores in the Republic of Ireland during 2014.
Project Details:
- Contract Sum Approximately £1.7M
- Contract Duration 8 Weeks
- Form of Contract JCT Intermediate 2016 with CDP
- Collateral Warranties & Bonds with Landlord Benefit
- Construction Category A & B Fit-Out with Steel Frame Structure & Composite Cladding
My Involvement and Responsibilities
I was involved in the project during the design development stage and attended design team meetings to suggest value engineering options and review the contractor’s proposals. I liaised with the design team to obtain information on the condition of the existing building shell in order to generate a scope of works and updated the cost plans accordingly. Once the design was complete and cost plans finalised, the client approved the project for tender. I was involved in negotiating tenders on behalf of my client using approved suppliers listed under a JCT 2011 framework agreement. I was also involved in post contract duties including administering the change control procedure, conducting valuations and producing cost reports.
My Approach
Key Issue 1 Background
Following agreement of the feasibility with ‘THE CLIENT’, cost targets were set for each element of works with the aim of being within circa 5% cost accuracy of the contract sum agreed with each supplier. However on receipt of tenders for Fire Sprinkler and Detection equipment, both prices appeared inflated and were circa 42% and 72% above the cost limits respectively. It was initially thought that the inflated tender prices received were caused by a lack of pricing competition within the framework.
| Scope of Works | Capital Expenditure Budget (Cost Estimate) | Value of Initial Tenders Received | Bid Received vs Capex % |
| Fire Sprinklers | £53,960.00 | £76,769.00 | 42.27 |
| Fire Alarm & Detection Equipment | £28,196.00 | £48,734.67 | 72.84 |
As both tenders were significantly above the agreed cost targets, it caused issues for my client and did not appear to represent good value for money. I conducted a tender analysis to determine why they appeared inflated by firstly reviewing quantities against the drawings and checking to see if any rate loading or computation errors were apparent. It was obvious that detection and sprinkler equipment for installation within the ceiling void were abnormally high. I subsequently forwarded the contractor’s design onto the client’s Fire Safety Consultant who confirmed that the high levels of sprinkler and fire detection equipment within the void were necessary as the ceiling void depth was in excess of 800mm due to an irregular layout of structural beams above the sales floor.
Original Elevation Drawing
Original Fire Protection Drawing
Key Issue 1 – What options are available in order to reduce the cost of the Fire Alarm and Sprinkler protection works?
I was involved in advising the client on the various options available to them, as a result of the aforementioned key issue.
Evaluation of Options Availble
Option 1
The works would be re-tendered through a single stage selective tendering in accordance with the RICS tendering strategies guidance note, with six contractors shortlisted by myself and sent to the client for approval.
Option Summary
This option was considered as it would have been beneficial to gain competitive tenders based on current market rates with local suppliers based in Republic of Ireland. The suppliers listed within ‘THE CLIENT’’s framework were based in England and their tenders were subject to a percentage uplift to cover the additional costs of working in Ireland.
Reason Rejected
Whilst this option would have provided competitive tender prices and a potential discount on the tenders initially received, an impending commencement date did not afford sufficient time to conduct the necessary pre-qualification and tender interviews in order to add additional suppliers onto the ‘THE CLIENT’ Framework and negotiate a contract sum. This option was therefore not practical and was quickly dismissed.
Option 2
Omit the suspended grid ceiling above the sales floor to negate the need for fire sprinkler void protection and reduce the quantity of fire detection equipment.
Option Summary
Omitting the suspended grid ceiling above the sales floor would have eradicated the ceiling void, meaning that all void sprinkler equipment could be omitted and less fire detection equipment would be required. The exposed services above the sales floor would need to be sprayed out for decorative purposes but the cost savings achieved by omitting the suspended grid ceiling and void protection equipment would have achieved a nett saving of circa £24,500.
Reason Rejected
Omission of the suspended grid ceiling would have left mechanical and electrical services exposed above the sales floor in the line of sight of customers. Whilst we proposed that these services were sprayed out to match the structural soffit for decorative purposes, this design was not in keeping with ‘THE CLIENT’’s standard specification and despite the prospect of achieving significant savings was rejected by ‘THE CLIENT’’s design team.
Option 3
Increase the ceiling height to reduce the void depth to less than 800mm in order to omit the sprinkler void protection and reduce fire detection equipment.
Option Summary
By raising the ceiling height over the sales floor to 3822mm from 3200mm, a ceiling void space of less than 790mm would be formed. With the advice of ‘THE CLIENT’’s fire safety consultant this would mean that the sprinkler protection within the ceiling void could be omitted and fire detection equipment reduced
Revised Elevation Drawing
Revised Fire Protection Drawing
Proposed Solution for Key Issue 1
With the consent of ‘THE CLIENT’’s design team and fire safety consultants we proposed that the ceiling height over the sales floor was raised to 3822mm. This meant that sprinkler void protection could be omitted and detection equipment was significantly reduced whilst still providing ‘THE CLIENT’ with the desired store layout with provision of a suspended ceiling for aesthetics purposes. A bulkhead and lowered section of ceiling was formed around the irregular beams which still required fire sprinkler and detection equipment, however this still resulted in a significant saving as fire sprinklers above the remaining sales floor were no longer required.
Conclusion for Key issue 1
It was thought that this option provided the best outcome in terms of delivering improved value for money, the correct ‘CLIENT’ store layout and also mitigated any delays and risks if the work had been re-tendered with local but unfamiliar suppliers. ‘THE CLIENT’ was satisfied with this solution and the savings achieved of £20,710.00 and £23,474.19 on sprinkler and fire detection tender prices respectively.
| Scope of Works | Value of Initial Tenders Received | Value of Negotiated Tenders Following Ceiling Height Adjustment | Saving |
| Fire Sprinklers | £76,769.00 | £56,059.00 | -£20,710.00 |
| Fire Alarm & Detection Equipment | £48,734.67 | £25,260.48 | -£23,474.19 |
Reflective Analysis of Key Issue 1
Why did the problem arise?
The initial site visit was undertaken by a colleague who had previously left the company; when reporting findings from the visit, the irregular nature of the structural beam layout was not mentioned within their report. The structural beam layout caused the need to allow provision for additional fire protection and caused higher than anticipated tender prices. The tendering contractors were based in mainland UK and were entitled to a percentage uplift to cover the additional costs of working within the Republic of Ireland. These costs would not have been incurred had the contractors been based in the Republic of Ireland. The lack of time apportioned to undertaking the tendering process meant I was unable to competitively tender the works which could have delivered further savings.
How could this have been prevented?
As the initial site visit was undertaken by a colleague, I was unaware of the layout and depth of structural beams. If attending site I would have been sure to pay particular attention in measuring the depth of structural beams from soffit height. This would have allowed the cost of void protection to be estimated more accurately at feasibility stage. ‘THE CLIENT’ would then have been able to make a fully informed decision in whether to proceed with the acquisition of the unit by knowing in advance the cost of void protection was likely to be inflated in comparison to other stores.
If additional time had been allocated for the tendering process, the works could have been competitively tendered with suppliers based in the Republic of Ireland, negating the need to pay an uplift to suppliers based in mainland UK.
not being permitted to do so. Changes in members of the project management team created further confusion during this period as the contractor’s surveyor was on annual leave.
How could this have been prevented?
By holding a meeting prior to project commencement, the change control procedure could have been reaffirmed to the project team to ensure they understood the process. This would have improved awareness of the standards required and reduced the likelihood of invalid instructions and prolongation in agreeing variations.
The standardised change control document could have been issued to any new members of the project team to improve their awareness and offer an opportunity to address any queries rather than assuming they were aware of the process
Lessons learnt
A key lesson learned is the importance of undertaking an in depth site survey to determine the risks associated with proceeding with a project. This would have highlighted the irregular structural beam layout prior to preparing the feasibility study and allowed ‘THE CLIENT’ to make a fully informed decision on whether to proceed with the acquisition of the unit.
My experience has highlighted the importance of communication to ensure that each member of the project team is aware of their obligations, rather than assuming they know what is required of them. Communicating the required standards at project commencement can improve each team member’s awareness of the procedures in place. Time should also be taken to brief new team members. Utilising standardised process documents can assist in ensuring members of the project team are fully aware of the information they need to present in support of raising change requests to improve the levels of post contract cost control.
To receive a copy of this case study example in word format along with other successful case study examples please click here.
What Is The Case Study?
You may also have heard the case study being referred to as a critical analysis. This terminology was used by the RICS a few years ago but has now been overhauled. Essentially the case study is a professional standard report that will form part of your overall submission documents to the RICS. The report should be a maximum of 3,000 words. This word count is extremely important as the RICS can reserve the right to cancel your interview if this is exceeded. There is no 10% margin for error which is often the case with University assignments and you should note the word count does not include the Contents List or the Appendices however everything else is included. The appendices can be used to include supporting graphics, photos and documents that compliment your case study. Remember that the case study is there to provide an example of how you can understand and respond to a client’s brief. If you exceed the word count you are not working to the brief and that is why the RICS are so strict on this particular aspect of the case study.
Essential Components Of Your Case Study
Identify Key Issues, Options & Outcomes
The case study must provide an in-depth analysis of a project you have worked on where you have encountered some key issues. You need to explain the key issues and why these were important for you to resolve. You must then go on to explain the different options you considered, the chosen solution and how you went about resolving the issues.
Explain your Learning Outcomes
We must also note that the case study is not merely a technical description of the project and issues you encountered. You must also explain your learning outcomes by reflecting on what went well, what you may have changed if approaching the project again and list your own achievements. This reflective analysis should be addressed within the conclusion section and should demonstrate your learnings from the experience you have gained.
Demonstrate your Core Competencies
A common mistake made by candidates is focusing on key issues that are not relevant to their chosen pathway. Over the years I have seen many candidates reference issues that are outside of their discipline. Remember that the assessors are looking for the case study to serve as evidence that you have achieved your core and optional competencies.
When selecting your case study key issues, refer back to your pathway guide and try to tick off as many competencies as you can. For example a Quantity Surveying Candidate focusing on a Key Issue where a Tender return has exceeded the project budget should be able to tick off Project Financial Control, Procurement & Tendering, Quantification & Costing, Contract Practice and Risk Management (if you have chosen Risk Management as an optional competency). You want to demonstrate as many of your core competencies up to Level 3 as possible within your Case Study. By selecting Key Issues that are relevant to your pathway, candidates should be able to achieve this for most of their core competencies.
How To Structure Your Case Study
The case study should be a professional standard report with written and graphic communication. The RICS specify the required format and headings of the case study within the candidate guide. The following link contains a template in word format to provide a skeleton of the headings that need to be followed along with some successful example Case Studies, please click here for access.
Case Study Headings
- Confidentiality Statement
- Contents
- Introduction
- My Approach
- My Achievements
- Conclusion
- Appendix A – Competencies Achieved
- Appendix B – Project Phots / Plans
- Total Word Count: (must not exceed 3,000 words, this excludes the contents list and appendices however everything else is included).
The case study format is there so that the assessors have a level of familiarity when reviewing your case study as they have a number of them to read through. If you stray away from the structure, you are making life more difficult for the assessors, so please be sure to stick to the RICS APC Candidate Guidelines which are summarised as follows:
Confidentiality statement
The RICS require a confidentiality statement where you will need to obtain consent from your client and your employer to share project details for the purpose of your final assessment. If the client or your employer has not given consent you will need to sanitise or remove any sensitive project information from your case study and instead refer to the ‘client’ or the ‘project’.
Page of Contents
As is the case with all professional reports, your case study should have a page of contents. Within the word template, this page is automatically linked to the contents of your case study but you must remember to right-click on your mouse to update the fields to your own specific headings.
Introduction
In this section you are expected to give a brief description of the project, your roles and responsibilities. You do not need to give detailed background to your key issue (s) in this section, instead simply explain the background of the project. You may also wish to include a bullet point list of key project details such as Value, Programme Duration, Form of Contract, Location, Key Risks & Objectives etc. When describing your role keep this brief and only reference your role title, key responsibilities & duties and which stages of the project you were involved in.
Key Issue One
Provide the background to your first key issue in this sub-section. You do not need to explain all the details of the project or circumstances, just focus on key points only. The type of questions you need to address here may include:
- What events or constraints led to the key issue?
- What made it a challenge for you?
- What was the stance of your client and stakeholders?
- What were the risks to the project?
Option Summary
In this section, explain the options you considered to address the key issue. Start by explaining what your objectives were when you started tackling this key issue. What were you aiming to achieve? This will enable you to set out a number of criteria against which you will measure the success of your solution in the reflective analysis section of your Case Study. You also need to list each of the options that were considered.
Option 1
Simply explain what led you to consider this option and why it was reject. When writing up your options you may find it useful to address the following questions:
- Why was it considered as a realistic approach?
- What methodology did you use to analyse its suitability?
- What were the results of your analysis?
- Why did these results lead you to reject this option?
- How did you advise your client?
Option 2
Repeat the same structure as above for option 2.
Option 3
The last option is usually your solution. This should adopt the same structure as options 1 and 2 but you need to emphasise:
- How you established that this option was the best solution and why?
- You need to demonstrate a logical and reasoned approach for selecting this as the solution and also demonstrate that you have taken into account your client’s requirements.
- Most importantly you need to demonstrate that you have addressed the key issue you were trying to resolve. Inserting a table listing the advantages and disadvantages of each option is not satisfactory.
- Once again remember that you need to demonstrate that you provided reasoned advice to achieve as many of your Level 3 Core and Optional competencies as possible.
The outcome
In this section you need to explain the end result of your proposed solution. To support with writing this section you may want to address the following:
- What was the result?
- What were the project’s and client’s objectives and key drivers?
- Did you achieve them?
- Did they evolve over time?
- What happened next?
- How did you implement your solution?
- What arguments did you put forward to convince your client & stakeholders?
- How did your client react when you advised them of your solution?
- Did you have any difficulties convincing your client and / or stakeholders?
- Was there a risk that your solution would fail? How did you mitigate this risk?
- What did you personally do that contributed to the successful outcome?
- How did you achieve this?
- In hindsight, do you think that there was a better alternative?
Repeat for Key Issue 2
Conclusion & Reflective analysis
In accordance with the RICS Candidate’s Guide, in this section you need to critically reflect on and analyse your performance and make reference to the lessons you learnt and what you would do differently next time. This is the most challenging section for many candidates and yet, probably the most important one. You should aim to identify three or four lessons learnt per key issue. You should also try to relate them to your pathway competencies and explain which competencies you developed and how?
You may also want to address:
- Improvement of any soft and professional skills
- Improved knowledge of the RICS Rules of Conduct and Ethics.
- Did you learn any better ways of doing your job?
- Did you gain a better appreciation of any industry best practices and what were they?
- What were the causes of your key issues and for future projects how could these be avoided or mitigated?
- Could you have tackled your key issues in a more efficient manner? (Obviously, you want to convince the panel that you dealt with it very well but you also need to be critical of your performance)
Appendices
Any supporting documentation, drawings, cost plans, specifications, inspection reports and photos can be included within the appendices. Remember these are not included within the word count but be sure to keep these documents relevant, they should be an added bonus for the assessors and really supplement the main case study.
Essential Tips For Writing Your Case Study
1) Follow the RICS Guidelines
The RICS APC candidate guide sets out the key requirements for the APC including the structure, headings and word counts. These are in place to provide a level of familiarity for the assessors as they have a number of case studies to read. Stick to these guidelines and you are demonstrating that you can follow the client’s brief and keep the assessors on side.
2) Stay relevant to your pathway competencies
In selecting your key issues, you must make sure you are able to demonstrate as many of your core and optional competencies at Level 3 as possible. The assessors are using your case study as further evidence that you have achieved your competencies as well as your summary of experience. When selecting your key issues ensure you refer back to the RICS pathway guide for your chosen discipline and aim to tick off as many competencies as possible.
3) Ask for Counsellor, Supervisor & Peer Reviews
When you have written the first draft be sure to ask your colleagues, counsellor and supervisor to review it thoroughly with a view to them checking grammar, spelling, format and drafting up some potential interview questions. It is also advisable to ask a lay person to read through the case study to ensure they can follow its contents and draw up potential questions.
4) Allow plenty of time
From generating project ideas to writing the final version, the Case Study took around 4 months to complete. This included some review time with my counsellor and supervisor to incorporate any amendments they had proposed. I would recommend starting and completing the Case Study well in advance of your final assessment interview as this will allow sufficient time to practice your presentation and revise. As a rule of thumb I would aim to have the Case Study final version completed around 5-6 months before your final assessment interview.
5) Choose the right project
If you are struggling to decide on a project I would highly recommend creating a shortlist of 3 potential projects each with 2 or 3 key issue ideas. Refer back to your pathway guide and sense check each project against the competencies you are needing to achieve. The project that allows you to demonstrate most competencies at Level 3 is the one that should be selected. Also be sure to run your ideas and project selection by your supervisor and counsellor.
6) Your case study must be a recent project
The RICS APC candidate guide advises that the candidates involvement in the Case Study project must have been within 24 months of sitting the final assessment. It can be beneficial to ensure your experience has been within the last 12 months as in the event of a referral, it should save having to write up a new case study (unless the referral report advises that a different case study project is required).
7) Keep it simple
There are no strict guidelines on scheme value or complexity. The key issues you encountered may have been on a complex, large-scale project or a relatively low value, straight forward one. Remember that the assessors are not expecting you to be the finished article and running your own high value and complex schemes. My advice to candidates is to keep the key issues simple so that a lay person can follow them. Do no try to overstate your experience or you may get caught out by the assessors. Remember the experience you are referring to must be your own and based on your involvement, not the experience of the team or your manager. You must outline your own involvement in the project or your role in the team. Be sure to discuss your rational behind why key decisions were taken, the problems that were solved, your reflective thoughts and learnings from the experience you have gained.
8) Control your acronyms
You should aim to keep your case study as easy to follow and assume it needs to be understood by a lay person. The report should flow naturally, be easy to read and understand. Avoid the constant use of acronyms where possible to help with readability and make life easy for the assessors.
9) Watch the Word Counts
I have already mentioned the word counts several times throughout this post but I cannot overstate their importance. Under no circumstances should you exceed the 3,000 word count limit and remember this includes your Headings and Sub-headings but excludes the contents list and appendices.
10) Keep the options realistic
Try to keep your options as realistic as possible. I have heard on several occasions that candidates have been critiqued for not discussing viable options in order to ‘pad out’ their case study. Try to avoid this at all costs and be ready to explain your reasoning and approach as to why you thought that all options put forward were viable.
11) Don’t overlook the reflective analysis
Remember the Case Study is not simply a technical description of the project where you have addressed the key issues. A critical part of the report is to demonstrate your own learnings and self development. Remember that as a chartered surveyor you need to be committed to self improvement and life long learning as part of your CPD requirement. The Conclusion and Reflective analysis is a critical component of the report that should not be overlooked.
12) Include a Degree of modesty and self-critique
As we have just mentioned the reflective analysis section of the case study is of key importance. My advice when writing up this section is to include a degree of modesty by critiquing your own performance. The assessors will find this appealing as you are acknowledging that you are aware of your limitations and have identified areas for improvement which are essential attributes for chartered surveyors. Under no circumstances should you be admitting incompetence here but try to show you are modest and committed to lifelong learning.
13) Keep the quality high
Remember the case study should be of a high professional standard. Imagine that the report has been compiled on behalf of a client who has had to pay a hefty fee for your services. All spelling and grammar should be perfect with excellent formatting. If done correctly, the report is going to support you in achieving the communication competency at level 2 and it is an opportunity for you to demonstrate your written and graphical presentation skills.
14) Evidence your involvement
Throughout the case study you should be sure to reference your own personal involvement and experience of where you personally have provided your reasoned and best practice advice to your client. It should not reference the experience of your manager, a colleague or experience of the team as the APC is personal to you. When reading back the report, ensure the terminology and phrases used convey to the assessors that it is your own experience and advice.
15) Know the project inside and out
If written well, the case study report will set you up perfectly for your presentation within the final assessment interview. Remember the presentation is the only time during the interview where you will have control of the room. You need to use this as your opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of the project and build confidence. By living and breathing the project you will be able to put your best feet forward to the assessors and get off to a great start.
16) Keep the appendices relevant and succinct
Ensure that the documents within your appendices are supplementary and relevant to the key issues and outcomes of the project. They should be the final icing on the cake for the assessors by providing interesting photos, graphics and supporting documents. Keep the appendices as succinct as possible, you don’t want to annoy your assessors by including too much here as they have several case studies to read through so try to keep this section fairly brief.
What Is The APC Case Study Word Count?
The Case Study Word Count is strictly limited to a maximum of 3,000 words which excludes the contents list and appendices however all other items such as headings and sub headings are included.
RICS APC Q&A STUDY GUIDES NOW AVAILBLE
