One of the most common questions APC candidates ask is simply: what does a strong case study actually look like? This page answers that — the structure assessors expect and an illustrative, anonymised extract so you can picture the standard before you write a word.
A RICS APC case study is a ~3,000-word professional report on one project and one key issue, used to evidence the technical competencies of your pathway. The best way to understand the standard is to see the structure assessors expect and how a strong entry reads. This page walks through both, using an illustrative, anonymised example.
What a RICS APC case study must do
- One project, one key issue — chosen from the last 24 months.
- ~3,000 words, written as a professional report (clear headings, objective tone).
- Show what you personally did — decisions, analysis, actions and outputs — not just what happened.
- Include a confidentiality statement and an Appendix A mapping competencies to where they are evidenced.
The structure assessors expect
| Section | What it covers |
|---|---|
| 1.0 Introduction | Brief, project description and particulars, and your role |
| 2.0 My approach | The key issue, constraints, the options you considered and how you selected one |
| 3.0 My achievements | How you implemented the decision and the measurable outcomes |
| 4.0 Conclusion | Lessons learned, linked honestly to competencies |
| Appendix A | Competency mapping table: competency → section reference → evidence |
An illustrative case study extract
Notice the “I did” voice, the options-led reasoning and the quantified basis — this is what assessors respond to:
“Following a safety-driven instruction to stop and revise the scope, I separated the time entitlement from the commercial settlement strategy. I requested priced breakdowns and tested them against benchmark unit rates, then prepared an option appraisal note for senior approval setting out three routes with their cost, time and dispute-risk impacts. I chaired the negotiation with the contractor’s commercial manager and agreed a settlement within our governance threshold, recording the basis of every figure so the position was defensible on audit.”
Worked option comparison (illustrative)
A clear options table in Section 2.5 makes your decision easy to follow and mark:
| Criterion | Option 1 — Reprice variation | Option 2 — Reallocate allowance | Option 3 — Omit & re-tender |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost impact | Increase against budget | Net nil (uses existing allowance) | Saving, but at a cost |
| Time impact | Minimal | Minimal | Adds delay |
| Dispute risk | Moderate | Low | Higher |
| Decision | Rejected | Selected | Rejected |
Appendix A: competency mapping (illustrative)
| Competency | Level | Where evidenced | Evidence summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial management | L3 | 2.5, 3.1 | Prepared option appraisal; negotiated settlement within governance thresholds |
| Quantification & costing | L2/L3 | 3.1 | Validated pricing against benchmark rates; documented rate build-up |
| Contract practice | L3 | 2.3, 3.1 | Controlled instructions via formal change control; kept a defensible audit trail |
| Procurement & tendering | L2 | 2.4 | Reviewed tender returns for scope gaps; documented recommendation rationale |
Want this standard for your own case study?
Send us your pathway and project basics and we’ll review your situation and give you a clear, no-obligation plan and quote.
Next, see how the same standard applies to your written competencies in our RICS APC SOE examples, read the full method in how to write a RICS APC case study, or explore the complete RICS APC case study & mentoring service.
