Skip to main content
Chartership

Panel practice for every chartered body.

Simulations built from your own submission document. Competency-level scoring, mandatory ethics, written debrief. RICS APC, ICE Professional Review, and CIOB Professional Review.

RICS APCICE Professional ReviewCIOB Professional Review
RICS APC

The Assessment of Professional Competence final assessment. A one-hour panel with two assessors covering your Critical Analysis presentation, mandatory competencies, and technical competencies specific to your pathway.

What it simulates

Two assessors. Your Critical Analysis. Every pathway covered.

Describe your pathway and Critical Analysis in the intake. The lead assessor, Richard Chambers FRICS, draws technical questions directly from it, probing for Level 3 reasoned advice not Level 1 recall. A second assessor voice, Jennifer Walsh FRICS, joins on questions three, four, and six.

Every session includes a mandatory ethics question. Answers are scored against RICS competency levels, followed up, and compiled into a debrief with a verdict: Likely Pass, Borderline, or Refer.

  • Valuation
  • Quantity Surveying
  • Building Surveying
  • Commercial Property
  • Project Management
  • Planning and Development
  • Residential Property
  • Rural
  • Infrastructure
RC
Richard Chambers FRICS
Simulated Lead Assessor
Mandatory Ethics Question
A long-standing client asks you to value a property you inspected six months ago for a different party. You know the previous client has not exchanged. What do you do?
Your answer
"I would decline the instruction. I hold confidential information from the previous instruction that could advantage or disadvantage either party. Taking it on would breach RICS Rules of Conduct Rule 4 on conflicts of interest..."
Follow-up
"The client is a major fee earner and pushes back. Your senior partner is asking you to reconsider. Walk me through exactly what you say next."
Ethics 8/10Rules of Conduct 6/10
Verdict: Borderline
1.You identified the conflict correctly. The gap is in the escalation path: name your firm's conflicts register and the obligation to document the decline in writing.
2.In the real panel, the partner pressure scenario is a test of professional independence. Prepare a sentence that holds the position without creating a confrontation.
Scoring criteria
Technical competence
Can you demonstrate Level 3 reasoned advice, not just Level 1 knowledge? The assessor expects professional judgement, not a textbook answer.
Structured knowledge
Are your answers grounded in RICS guidance, case law, and current market practice? Vague recall is not sufficient at final assessment.
Ethics and conduct
Can you apply the RICS Rules of Conduct to a real conflict of interest? The mandatory ethics question has no safe, neutral answer.
Critical Analysis delivery
Do you know where in your Critical Analysis each major claim sits? Assessors will ask you to locate your evidence, not summarise it.
ICE Professional Review

Four attributes. One hour. The same structure as the real panel.

The ICE Professional Review assesses candidates for TMICE or MICE membership across four attributes: overarching engineer, technical competence, leadership and communication and management, and professional commitment to society.

The simulation begins with a summary of your principal project, then works through each attribute with questions drawn from your engineering specialism and record of experience.

  • Civil Engineering
  • Structural Engineering
  • Geotechnical Engineering
  • Transportation Engineering
  • Water Engineering
  • Infrastructure Project Management
SP
Dr. Sarah Pemberton FICE
Simulated ICE Reviewer
Attribute 4 · Professional Commitment
Engineering carries a responsibility to society. Give me an example where you had to consider the wider social or environmental impact of your work. How did that consideration influence what you did?
Ethics scenario
You are the responsible engineer on a scheme. The client is pressing you to sign off on a structural design before you have received all the calculations you need. What do you do?
ICE Standard MetBorderlineNot Yet at Standard
Preparation guides
CIOB Professional Review

Six competencies. CARL format. A panel that expects evidence of learning, not just action.

The CIOB Professional Review assesses candidates for MCIOB membership across six core competencies. Unlike RICS, CIOB expects answers structured in the CARL format: Circumstance, Action, Result, Learning. An answer that covers the situation and action but omits the learning will be pressed.

The simulation covers all six competencies with a mandatory ethics scenario involving third-party pressure. A final verdict is given: MCIOB Standard Met, Borderline, or Not Yet at Standard.

  • Construction Project Management
  • Construction Technology and Environment
  • Health, Safety and Welfare
  • Commercial and Contract Management
  • Leadership and People Management
  • Professional Ethics
DH
David Hartley FCIOB
Simulated CIOB Assessor
Competency 3 · Health, Safety and Welfare
Describe a specific health and safety situation you managed on site that required your direct intervention. What were the circumstances, what did you do, and what was the outcome? What did you learn from it?
CARL press
"You have told me what happened and what you did. What would you do differently today, and what did that situation teach you about how you manage safety risk?"
MCIOB Standard MetBorderline