When figuring out how to approach the APC Case Study, I found that reviewing past example submissions was incredibly helpful, as this gave a clear understanding of how to structure and write up the 3,000 word report. So in this post, I’m sharing a copy of my own Case Study, which helped me pass the APC in 2015. I hope this example will provide some useful insights into key issues you can address, and that it serves as a helpful reference as you work on your own APC case study.
RICS APC Case Study Example: Quantity Surveying
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 |
Key Issue 2 Background
The second key issue I encountered was managing the post contract cost control of the project. Due to the high frequency of variations and lack of understanding of the change control procedure, it was extremely difficult to monitor and raise change requests in a timely manner. This impacted on the accuracy of cost reports and did not provide RETAILER with the levels of cost certainty required.
When variations were submitted by the contractor, they were not priced in accordance with the agreed framework rates or supported with substantiation. Variations were often submitted by e-mail without a breakdown which meant that rates from the framework had to be identified in addition to requesting further information and drawings. This prolonged negotiations in respect of agreeing variations and caused the cost reporting of the project to be less accurate. In some cases instructions had been made directly to the contractor from an appointed building control consultant. Despite these instructions having no contractual validity, the contractor had acted on them and requested that a change request was raised.
Key Issue 2 – How Can The Change Control And Cost Reporting Of The Project Be Improved?
Evaluation Of Options Availble
Option 1 – Communicate the current change control procedure to the contractor requesting that variations were submitted in a timely manner and supported with the correct substantiation.
Option Summary
By holding a meeting with the contractor’s surveyor, I could explain the correct change control procedure and stress the importance of submitting variations within a timely manner. I would explain that when submitting variations by e-mail they needed to be clearly priced in accordance with the framework rates and supported with a breakdown. I could make them aware that they were only permitted to act upon the instructions of the contract administrator and instructions received by other consultants would hold no contractual validity.
Reason Rejected
This option was rejected as it would leave the presentation of variations open to the interpretation of the individual compiling the documentation. Due to the contractor’s surveyor being on annual leave at various stages of the project, changes in project staff would potentially create a future lack of understanding around the change control process and would not form an effective solution for the duration of the project and future schemes. This option would also do little to improve the speed at which variations could be assessed, as the framework rates would still need to be searched for and cross-checked. Due to the revised Irish Building Control Amendment Regulations (2014), the contractor was under pressure to act on instructions from the appointed certifier despite them not being permitted to do so. This option would not have supported the contractor through this issue as the appointed certifier may have continued to issue instructions.
Option 2 – Introduce a standardised change control document to assist in the validation of variations. This would include a presentation to the project team briefing them on the change control procedure.
Option Summary
Introducing a standardised change control document to be completed by the contractor would act as a prompt to provide the correct substantiation and confirm that the change had been signed off by the contract administrator. Holding a meeting with the project team would ensure the correct change control procedure was adhered to and would reduce the likelihood of the building control authority issuing instructions directly to the contractor.
Proposed Solution for Key Issue 2
Introducing a standardised change request form (appendix 2) meant that as each variation was raised, the necessary substantiation, framework rates and authorisation were included rather than having to be identified and queried. This would allow variations to be assessed and agreed more quickly and increase accuracy of the cost reports for RETAILER. The autonomy of this process would mean that if new project team members became involved in future, they could be briefed on the change request form to reduce the prolongation of submitting and agreeing variations.
Presenting the change control process document (Appendix 2) to the project team would make everyone aware that variations were to be raised and agreed in a timely manner. I reminded the team that any instructions other than those issued by the contract administrator would hold no contractual validity and that in future they needed to be authorised by the contract administrator within 48 hours of becoming apparent.
Conclusion for Key Issue 2
Introduction of the standardised change request form assisted with negotiating and agreeing variations in a timely manner as relevant information was enclosed with the change request instead of having to be searched for. The meeting reaffirmed the importance of reporting and agreeing variations in a timely manner on behalf of my client. Future change requests were authorised by the contract administrator to ensure the correct administration processes were followed.
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.
Reflective Analysis of Key Issue 2
Why did the problem arise?
A lack of understanding of the change control procedure meant that during the first two weeks of the project, variations were not being executed in accordance with the administration procedures defined within the contract. This was caused as new team members were unaware of the procedures they were required to adhere to. I had assumed in this period that the team were well briefed on the change control procedure and the importance of controlling project expenditure to my client.
Due to the Building Control Amendment Regulations (2014), various elements of the project needed to be signed off by the assigned certifier. This had put the contractor’s project management team under pressure to act on instructions from the authorising person despite 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 learned
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.
RICS APC Case Study: Quantity Surveying Example
To receive a full copy of this Case Study in word format, please click here.
What Is The RICS 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.
For further guidance on the essential components your Case Study must include and how to select your key issues, please click here.
RICS APC Q&A STUDY GUIDES
