# Summit APC Panel Marking Sheet - Commercial Real Estate Mock Interview

> Printable self or peer marking sheet. Use it after Script A or Script B. One sheet per mock run. Mark honestly: a soft mock helps nobody.
>
> The real decision is holistic and on balance, taken across the presentation, the answers, and the submissions together. This sheet helps you structure that judgement; it does not replace it. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Post-interview assessment" and "Holistic Criteria".

---

## Candidate and run details

| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Candidate (or "self") | |
| Pathway | Commercial Real Estate |
| Script used | A / B |
| Date of mock | |
| Marker (counsellor / peer / self) | |
| Interview kept to 60 minutes? | Yes / No |

---

## How to score each competency

Mark each competency on the band that best fits the answer **at the declared level**. Do not mark above the declared level. Always open the question by naming the competency and level, exactly as a real panel does. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Questioning at the competency levels".

| Band | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Strong | 3 | Clear, structured, reasoned at the required level. Cited the right standard. Used a real example. Would satisfy a panel. |
| Satisfactory | 2 | Met the level but thin in places: a missing cite, a shallow example, or a slow start. Passable, not comfortable. |
| Borderline | 1 | Touched the level but did not hold it: vague, generic, or one clear gap. Needs work before the real thing. |
| Deficient | 0 | Did not demonstrate the level. Wrong standard, no example, a bluff, or an evasion. A referral risk if it stands. |

A "Strong" answer at L3 must include all four: the **Rule or standard cited**, the **action recommended**, the **documentation created**, and the **escalation path**. Miss one and it is at best "Satisfactory".

---

## Section 1 - Presentation (10 minutes, weighted heavily)

| Listened-for point | Band (0-3) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Clear structure: instruction, asset, key issues, options, conclusion | | |
| Kept to 10 minutes | | |
| Own role isolated from the team | | |
| Key issues identified early | | |
| Options considered and rejected, with reasons | | |
| Conclusion shows judgement and reflection (lessons learned) | | |
| Professional, confident communication (not read verbatim) | | |

**Section weighting note:** the presentation sets the tone and is given considerable importance. A strong presentation can lift weaker submissions; a poor one is hard to recover from. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Weighting".

---

## Section 2 - Core technical competencies

| Competency | Level | Listened-for points | Band (0-3) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Inspection** | L3 | Pre-inspection desktop and dynamic risk assessment; auditable record; defects and limits of competence; reasoned advice linking inspection to value and to client statutory duties | | |
| **Measurement** | L2 | Correct, named basis (IPMS and/or local convention); basis aligned to comparable evidence; sources of error; accuracy matched to purpose | | |
| **Valuation** | L2 (or L3*) | Market Value defined cleanly; assumption vs special assumption; method applied to the asset with reasoning; evidence hierarchy; uncertainty disclosed | | |

\* If the candidate declared Valuation at L3, expect reasoned advice across a range of property types, purposes, and methods, with thorough knowledge of the standards. Mark to the declared level.

**Referral trigger:** a Deficient (0) on any **Core** competency at its required level is a serious concern. Core is the primary technical skill of the pathway; a candidate who cannot demonstrate Inspection L3, Measurement L2, or Valuation L2 is a referral risk on that ground alone.

---

## Section 3 - Optional technical competencies (as declared)

List the candidate's declared optional competencies and mark each at the declared level.

| Competency | Declared level | Listened-for points | Band (0-3) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

Common CRE optionals and what to listen for:
- **Landlord and tenant (L2):** lease clause read first; evidence analysed to a common basis; supported opinion and negotiation strategy; correct understanding of adviser vs independent expert.
- **Development appraisals (L2):** correctly structured residual; sourced inputs; sensitivity analysis; appraisal vs residual valuation distinction.
- **Purchase and sale (L2):** agency obligations and client money; real marketing process; offers reported and advised on by merit, not price alone.
- **Property management (L2):** service charge handling, lease compliance, and the management vs agency distinction.

---

## Section 4 - Mandatory competencies

| Competency | Level | Listened-for points | Band (0-3) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism** | L3 | Five Rules known; sub-rules cited (never "Rule 1" alone); L3 scenarios answered with Rule + action + documentation + escalation; conflicts handled (disclosure is not a cure); Rule 5.9 reporting recognised | | |
| **Client care** | L2 | Complaints procedure, ADR route, complaints log; link back to clear terms of engagement | | |
| **Communication and negotiation** | L2 | Preparation; evidenced position; listening; clear written client communication | | |
| **Health and safety** | L2 | Dynamic risk assessment with a real example; lone-working protocol; hierarchy of control | | |
| **CPD** | n/a | 20 hours per year, at least 10 formal; real example with an outcome; linked to Rule 2 | | |
| Other L1 mandatories tested (Sustainability, Data management, etc.) | L1 | Knowledge and understanding demonstrated | | |

**Referral trigger (Ethics):** failure to demonstrate the required competence on **Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism** is a referral in its own right, regardless of technical strength. This is the single competency a panel can refer on alone. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024 (a candidate must be referred if they fail to demonstrate the required competence on Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism).

---

## Section 5 - Communication (assessed across the whole interview)

Communication is a mandatory competency and is marked across every answer, not just the negotiation question.

| Listened-for point | Band (0-3) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Clear, concise, structured answers | | |
| Answered the question asked (no evasion or padding) | | |
| Professional manner and confidence | | |
| Recovered well from a hard or unexpected question | | |

---

## Section 6 - Overall decision

Add the bands for a feel, but decide on balance, not by the total. RICS does not pass or refer by counting ticks.

| Decision | When to record it |
|---|---|
| **PASS standard** | Required competencies demonstrated at the correct levels. Ethics solid at L3. Core technical (Inspection L3, Measurement L2, Valuation L2) demonstrated. Communication satisfactory throughout. Any weakness is minor and in a single optional. |
| **BORDERLINE - more practice** | Met most levels, but one or more competencies sat at Borderline, or the presentation was weak, or a Core answer was thin. Not a referral, but not ready. Re-run with the other script. |
| **REFER standard** | Any of the referral triggers below is present. |

### Referral triggers (any one is enough to refer)
- Failure to demonstrate the required competence on **Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism** (L3).
- A **Deficient (0)** on a **Core** competency at its required level (Inspection L3, Measurement L2, Valuation L2).
- Deficiency across **more than one** optional competency, or a deficiency in a competency required to L2 or L3 (a deficiency in a single competency required only to L1 would not normally refer).
- Communication that is consistently unprofessional or unclear across the interview.
- A submission or presentation that contained significant technical or professional errors that the interview did not overcome.

Source for the referral logic: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Approach", "Weighting", and the mandatory referral note on Ethics.

---

## Section 7 - Feedback to the candidate (constructive, specific, actionable)

Write the feedback the way a referral report should read: factual, accurate, linked to the competency, in short sentences, no jargon, addressed to the candidate ("you"). Focus on the deficiency and how to rectify it. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Referral reports".

**Three things that went well:**
1.
2.
3.

**Three things to fix before the real assessment (most important first):**
1.
2.
3.

**Specific standards to re-read:**
- (e.g. Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2; Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 5.9; CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3)

**Next mock:** Script ___ , target date ___ .

---

## Marker discipline reminders

- Open every question by naming the competency and the level.
- Do not question above the declared level.
- Ask open questions ("how did you", "why did you", "what if"). Use closed questions only to confirm a fact.
- Do not signal how the mock is going, even in a mock. Hold the result to the debrief.
- Make notes as you go; you cannot mark fairly from memory alone.
- Mark communication everywhere, not just on the communication question.

---

*This marking sheet is a study aid only and is not the official RICS marksheet. It is built to mirror the principles in the RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, and the RICS Commercial Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025. Always verify the cited guidance against the source before relying on it in a formal setting.*

*Summit APC Academy - Mentorship without borders.*