# Summit APC Mock Interview - Commercial Real Estate

## Script B (second variant, for repeat practice)

> Same 60-minute structure as Script A. Different scenario angles so you do not memorise answers, you build judgement. Read aloud with a counsellor or study partner playing the chairperson and technical assessor. Answer cold, in the time bands, then grade with the panel marking sheet.
>
> Scenarios are generic and illustrative. No real firm, client, or transaction is named. Your live answers must come from your own Summary of Experience and case study.

---

## Candidate brief (generic, Script B)

You are a CRE candidate practising in the region. Your case study this time is a **development appraisal and disposal advice** instruction: a client owns a tired retail-and-office block on a corner site with refurbishment-versus-redevelopment options, and asked you to advise on the highest and best use and the disposal route. Your declared optional competencies include **Development appraisals (L2)** and **Purchase and sale (L2)**. Your day-to-day work covers inspection, measurement, valuation, agency, and appraisal across mixed-use commercial assets.

---

## Interview structure (same as Script A)

| Stage | Time | Who leads |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate presentation on the case study | 10 min | Candidate |
| Questions on the presentation | 10 min | Technical assessor and chair |
| Discussion on overall experience, including CPD, Rules of Conduct, professional practice | 30 min | Technical assessor (core/optional) and chair (mandatory) |
| Chairperson's areas of questioning and close | 10 min | Chair |
| **Total** | **60 min** | |

Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Interview structure".

---

## Stage 1 - Presentation (10 minutes)

**Chair opening:** "Good morning. I am the chairperson, my colleague is the technical assessor. Please show us a full scan of the room. Thank you. You have ten minutes for your case study. Please keep to time."

**[MODEL PRESENTATION SHAPE]**
- The instruction: who, the purpose (advice on highest and best use plus disposal route), the brief, and the date.
- The asset: the site, the existing building, the planning position, the constraints, and the value drivers.
- The key issues: refurbish versus redevelop, the residual land value under each, the planning risk, and the disposal route (private treaty, informal tender, or auction).
- Options considered and rejected, with reasoning.
- Your recommendation, the appraisal sensitivities, and lessons learned.

**Self-marking note - what the panel listens for:** structure, time discipline, your own role isolated, the appraisal logic, and a recommendation that survives sensitivity testing. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Weighting".

**Red flag:** reading a script, no clear recommendation, no sensitivity awareness, team work described as your own.

---

## Stage 2 - Questions on the presentation (10 minutes)

### Q1. You compared refurbishment with redevelopment using a development appraisal. Walk me through your appraisal and how you tested it.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Development appraisals L2]**
- I built a residual appraisal for each option: gross development value, less construction cost, professional fees, finance, contingency, and developer's profit, to a residual land value.
- I sourced costs from a quantity surveyor or a reliable cost base, and values from comparable evidence, and I stated my inputs and assumptions transparently.
- I ran a sensitivity analysis on the key variables: GDV, build cost, finance rate, and the development period, because the residual is highly geared to small input changes.
- I distinguished the appraisal from a residual valuation: the appraisal tests viability for the client's decision, and I was clear which I was producing.

**Self-marking note:** L2 needs a correctly structured appraisal, sourced inputs, sensitivity analysis, and the distinction between an appraisal and a residual valuation. Source: CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Development appraisals L2 descriptor.

**Red flag:** a single-point residual with no sensitivity. Treating the appraisal as a Red Book valuation without saying so. No developer's profit or finance in the model.

**Cites:** RICS Commercial Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Development appraisals L2 descriptor. RICS Valuation of Development Property (current professional standard) for the appraisal-versus-residual-valuation distinction.

### Q2. The site had a planning constraint. How did it affect your advice and your appraisal?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Development appraisals L2 plus Planning awareness]**
- I confirmed the planning position from the local authority and the client's planning adviser rather than assuming it, and I reflected the planning risk in the appraisal through a contingency and, where appropriate, a special assumption.
- I advised the client on the difference in value between the existing-use position and a consented scheme, so the planning upside was explicit and not assumed away.
- I set out the risk that consent might not be granted, or might be granted on onerous terms, and how that changed the residual land value.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for verification of the planning position, planning risk handled explicitly, and the value gap between existing use and consented scheme.

**Red flag:** assuming consent will be granted. Making a planning judgement yourself rather than relying on the planning adviser.

**Cites:** CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Planning development and management descriptor; Development appraisals L2. Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2 (special assumptions, where a consent is assumed).

### Q3. You recommended a disposal route. Why that route over the alternatives?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Purchase and sale L2]**
- I matched the route to the asset and the client's objective: private treaty for a managed, confidential sale; informal tender for competitive tension with a deadline; auction for speed, certainty of exchange, and a transparent market test where the asset suits it.
- I advised on marketing, the realistic price expectation, the costs, and the timescale of each route, and I set out the trade-off between price and certainty.
- I confirmed my agency role and the client-money and conduct obligations attaching to it.

**Self-marking note:** L2 needs the route justified against the client's objective, with the price-versus-certainty trade-off, and an awareness of the agency conduct obligations.

**Red flag:** recommending a route with no reasoning. Ignoring the client-money and agency conduct rules.

**Cites:** CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Purchase and sale descriptor. RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 1.10 and 1.11 (client money). RICS Real Estate Agency and Brokerage, 3rd edition (August 2016).

**Jurisdictional note:** ZW: estate agency and client money sit under the Estate Agents Act [Chapter 27:17] and EACZ registration; auction is common for distressed and bank-instructed sales. SA: Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 and PPRA, with the trust-account regime. KE: Estate Agents Act Cap 533 and EARB. UAE: DLD and RERA control brokerage and listing.

---

## Stage 3 - Discussion on overall experience (30 minutes)

### Core: Inspection (L3)

#### Q4. You inspected a mixed-use block for this appraisal. How did you approach the inspection and what reasoned advice came out of it?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3]**
- Before: desktop review of title, planning, and any prior reports, then a dynamic risk assessment for safety under RICS Surveying Safely, and confirmation of access.
- On site: a systematic record of construction, age, condition, services, specification, energy performance, and statutory compliance, with photographs against a checklist so the record is auditable.
- Defects and limits: I identified potential defects and where a specialist was needed, and I did not overstate what a visual inspection can confirm.
- Reasoned advice: I advised the client on what the building condition meant for the refurbish-versus-redevelop decision, on reinstatement and repair cost implications, and on any statutory responsibilities, for example asbestos in a building of that age.

**Self-marking note:** L3 needs reasoned advice arising from the inspection, the safety dynamic risk assessment, an auditable record, and the limits of your competence. Source: CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3 descriptor.

**Red flag:** no safety assessment. Diagnosing beyond competence. No advice linking condition to the client's decision.

**Cites:** RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition (reissued July 2023, professional standard). RICS Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property, 1st edition (reissued April 2023). CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3.

#### Q5. An older building can carry asbestos and other deleterious materials. How do you handle that on inspection and in your advice?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3 plus Health and safety]**
- I treat a pre-relevant-era building as potentially containing asbestos and I do not disturb suspect materials. I check for an asbestos register and management survey where one should exist.
- I advise the client of the duty to manage asbestos and recommend a specialist survey before any works, refurbishment, or redevelopment.
- I caveat my inspection and any valuation accordingly, and I record the limitation.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for the duty to manage, no disturbance, a specialist referral, and a clear caveat. This is reasoned advice plus a safety thread.

**Red flag:** disturbing or sampling suspect material yourself. Not advising the client of the management duty.

**Cites:** RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition (reissued July 2023). CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3.

**Jurisdictional note:** ZW: asbestos and contaminated-land duties engage the Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27] and EMA. SA: National Environmental Management Act and asbestos regulations. UAE: municipal environmental controls. The professional discipline of "do not disturb, refer to a specialist, caveat" is the same everywhere.

### Core: Measurement (L2)

#### Q6. For a redevelopment appraisal you needed areas. What did you measure, on what basis, and why?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Measurement L2]**
- For the existing building I measured the lettable areas on a stated basis (IPMS where supported, with the local convention stated where my evidence sits there), because the area drives rent and value.
- For the redevelopment option I worked with the architect's gross internal and gross external areas to drive the construction cost and the developable area, and I was explicit about which basis each figure was on.
- I matched accuracy to purpose, checked calculations, and disclosed any areas I relied on from a third party.

**Self-marking note:** L2 needs the right basis for each purpose (lettable area for value, gross areas for cost), explicit bases, and no mixing without saying so.

**Red flag:** using one area for everything. Mixing GIA cost areas with NIA value areas silently.

**Cites:** IPMS: All Buildings (effective 15 January 2023). RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015), for GIA, GEA, NIA. CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Measurement L2.

#### Q7. What are the main sources of error when you measure, and how do you control them?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Measurement L2]**
- Sources: instrument calibration, irregular and stepped floors, columns and risers, and inconsistent application of the basis.
- Controls: calibrated instruments, a consistent and stated basis, checked calculations, and independent checking on higher-value assets.
- I label any relied-upon third-party areas as an assumption.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for a realistic grasp of error and accuracy tied to purpose. Same standard as Script A Q7, different framing.

**Cites:** CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Measurement L2 (sources of error, accuracy for purpose).

### Core: Valuation (L2)

#### Q8. What is the difference between a development appraisal and a residual valuation, and which did your client need?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L2 plus Development appraisals L2]**
- A development appraisal tests the viability and return of a scheme for the client's decision, using the client's or developer's assumptions on profit, finance, and programme.
- A residual valuation derives Market Value of the land or site by deducting development costs and a market-level profit from gross development value, in accordance with the Red Book.
- My client needed an appraisal to decide between options, and I was explicit that it was an appraisal, not a Red Book Market Value of the site, unless they separately needed that.

**Self-marking note:** the panel tests whether you understand that the same arithmetic serves two different purposes, and that you must say which you are providing. This is a classic discriminator.

**Red flag:** using the words interchangeably. Presenting an appraisal as a Red Book valuation.

**Cites:** RICS Valuation of Development Property (current professional standard). Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 5 (methods). CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Development appraisals and Valuation descriptors.

#### Q9. How did you value the existing investment income while the redevelopment option was still open?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L2]**
- I valued the existing income stream on an investment basis (rents capitalised at a market yield reflecting covenant, term, and condition), and I considered the existing-use value as a floor.
- I then compared that with the redevelopment residual to identify the highest and best use, which is the value-maximising and physically, legally, and financially feasible use.
- I disclosed the assumptions and any uncertainty, and I made clear the figures were decision-support, with a Red Book valuation to follow if required.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for existing-use value as a floor, highest-and-best-use logic, and clear disclosure. Strong candidates name the four highest-and-best-use tests.

**Red flag:** jumping to redevelopment value without checking existing-use value. No highest-and-best-use reasoning.

**Cites:** Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2 and VPS 5; highest and best use under the IVS framework incorporated in the Red Book.

### Optional: Purchase and sale (L2)

#### Q10. Tell me about a sale you were involved in: your role, the marketing, and how you handled an offer.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Purchase and sale L2]**
- I confirmed my agency appointment, the terms, the fee basis, and the client-money position, then I prepared the marketing: the particulars, the asking terms, and the target buyer pool.
- I managed enquiries, qualified buyers, reported offers to the client promptly and in writing, and advised on the merits of each offer, not just the headline price (covenant, conditionality, speed, certainty).
- I progressed the preferred offer to heads of terms and supported the sale to completion, keeping records throughout.

**Self-marking note:** L2 needs the agency obligations, a real marketing process, offers reported and advised on by merit, and record-keeping. Source: CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Purchase and sale descriptor.

**Red flag:** not reporting offers in writing. Advising on price alone with no covenant or conditionality analysis. Ignoring client-money rules.

**Cites:** CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Purchase and sale. RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.10, 1.11 (client money), 3.6 (communicate material information). RICS Real Estate Agency and Brokerage, 3rd edition (August 2016).

### Mandatory: Communication and negotiation (L2)

#### Q11. Tell me about a negotiation that did not go to plan, and how you handled it.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Communication and negotiation L2]**
- I would give a real example: a price or rent negotiation where the other side moved late or the deal nearly collapsed.
- I prepared with evidence, set my client's objective and walk-away position, listened to the other side's drivers, and adjusted my approach without giving up the evidenced position.
- I kept the client informed in writing at each stage and I communicated clearly and in a way the parties could understand.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for preparation, an evidenced position, listening, and clear written communication. Communication is mandatory, so the way you tell the story is itself being marked.

**Red flag:** a negotiation story with no evidence base, or no client communication, or no reflection.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3.7 (communicate clearly and in a way clients can understand). CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, mandatory Communication and negotiation L2.

### Mandatory: Ethics and Rules of Conduct (L3, woven through)

#### Q12. (L3 scenario) Your appraisal shows the redevelopment is marginal, but the client is emotionally committed and is also a major fee source. They ask you to "use slightly more optimistic build costs". Advise.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.1 (do not mislead), Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly by self-interest in the fee), Rule 1.5 (honest, objective advice on reliable evidence), Rule 3.6 (communicate the material information the advice rests on).
- **Action recommended:** I do not flex the costs to manufacture viability. I present the appraisal on supportable inputs, I show the sensitivity, and I advise the scheme is marginal, in writing. I offer to test specific cost-saving options on the merits if the client wants the scheme stress-tested honestly.
- **Documentation to create:** a file note of the request, my written advice on the supportable inputs and the marginal viability, and the sensitivity output.
- **Escalation path:** if the client insists on optimistic inputs being presented as my advice, I decline; if a colleague or partner pressures me, that may become a suspected significant breach reportable under Rule 5.9. I accept the client may go elsewhere.

**Self-marking note:** L3 needs the Rule, the action, the documentation, and the escalation. The fee-dependence angle tests Rule 1.2. Optimism bias in appraisals is a common, real pressure.

**Red flag:** "I would nudge the costs a little to help them." Treating the fee relationship as a reason to bend. Missing Rule 5.9.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 3.6, 5.9.

#### Q13. (L3 scenario) Mid-instruction you realise your firm is also retained by the prospective buyer of the same site. What do you do?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 / Conflicts of Interest]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.3 (identify conflicts throughout), Rule 1.4 (firm processes and records), Rule 3.6 (communicate material information), potentially Rule 5.9.
- **Action recommended:** stop and assess the conflict type (a party conflict acting for both sides of a transaction). Acting for both buyer and seller on the same deal is generally not appropriate even with consent, because the duties conflict. Disclose to both clients, and most likely decline or withdraw from one side; do not proceed on disclosure alone.
- **Documentation to create:** a conflicts memo, the written disclosures, and the decision record.
- **Escalation path:** firm conflicts controller, then responsible principal; report to RICS under Rule 5.9 if a significant breach has occurred and is not remediated.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for recognition that a same-transaction both-sides conflict usually cannot be consented away, and that disclosure is not a cure. This is more acute than the Script A historic-work conflict.

**Red flag:** "I would put up a Chinese wall and act for both." Assuming consent fixes a same-deal both-sides conflict.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.6, 5.9. RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017 (conflict types, informed consent and its limits).

#### Q14. What CPD have you done in the last year, and how did it change your practice?
**[MODEL ANSWER - CPD]**
- At least 20 hours a year, at least 10 formal, recorded and planned against my development needs.
- A real, recent example with an outcome, for example development appraisal software training or a Red Book update session, and how it changed a piece of work.
- Linked to Rule 2.5 (maintain competence, comply with CPD) and Rule 2.6 (stay up to date).

**Self-marking note:** correct obligation, real example, outcome, linked to Rule 2.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 2.5, Rule 2.6, Appendix A member obligation 1.

---

## Stage 4 - Chairperson's close (10 minutes)

### Q15. (Chair) Sustainability is increasingly material to commercial value. How does it show up in your work?
**[MODEL ANSWER - professional awareness plus Sustainability L1]**
- I would name the genuine mechanisms in my market: energy performance and running cost affecting occupier demand and rent, retrofit cost and obsolescence risk affecting value, and growing lender and investor disclosure expectations.
- I reflect it in inspection (energy performance, plant, fabric), in appraisal (retrofit cost, green premium or brown discount where evidenced), and in advice.
- I tie it to Rule 3.10, encouraging solutions that minimise harm and deliver balanced economic, social, and environmental benefits.

**Self-marking note:** the chair listens for genuine, mechanism-level engagement, not a slogan. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, questioning on issues of current concern.

**Red flag:** "sustainability is important" with no mechanism and no evidence of how you apply it.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3.10. RICS Sustainability and ESG, 3rd edition standard (May 2023). CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Sustainability L1 mandatory.

### Q16. (Chair, final ethics close) You are offered a generous gift by a client just after delivering a favourable piece of advice. What do you do?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 close]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly by gifts or hospitality), Rule 1.1 (integrity), and firm gift-and-hospitality policy.
- **Action recommended:** I check my firm's gifts and hospitality policy and threshold. A modest, transparent token may be acceptable; a generous gift tied to favourable advice is not, because it risks the appearance of improper influence. I would decline or refer it to the policy threshold, and I would record it on the gifts register.
- **Documentation to create:** an entry on the gifts and hospitality register and a note of my decision.
- **Escalation path:** the firm's compliance lead where the value or the timing crosses the policy threshold; consider whether it indicates a wider integrity risk.

**Self-marking note:** the chair listens for the appearance test (could a reasonable person think it influenced you), the firm policy and register, and a proportionate response. Outright "I would never accept anything" and "a gift is just good manners" are both too blunt.

**Red flag:** accepting without reference to any policy. No register, no threshold, no appearance test.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.2.

### Chair close (verbatim shape)
**Chair:** "Thank you. That concludes the interview. You will hear the result through RICS. We will not indicate the outcome today. Thank you for your time."

**Self-marking note:** no result is ever signalled. A warm close is not a pass. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024.

---

## Standards cited in Script B

- RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024 (interview structure, questioning, marking).
- RICS Commercial Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Version 1.2 (core and optional descriptors and levels).
- RICS Rules of Conduct, Global, October 2021, effective 2 February 2022 (the five Rules and Appendix A).
- RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025 (PS 2, VPS 1, VPS 2, VPS 3, VPS 5).
- RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017.
- RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard.
- IPMS: All Buildings (effective 15 January 2023); RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015).
- RICS Valuation of Development Property (current professional standard).
- RICS Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property, 1st edition (reissued April 2023).
- RICS Real Estate Agency and Brokerage, 3rd edition (August 2016).
- RICS Sustainability and ESG, 3rd edition standard (May 2023).

---

*This material is a study aid only and is not a substitute for the source RICS standards. Always verify the cited paragraph against the source standard before relying on this answer in a formal setting. Scenarios are generic and illustrative; no real firm, client, or transaction is named. Final responsibility for compliance rests with the candidate and their firm.*

*Summit APC Academy - Mentorship without borders.*