Definition

In an APC context, contractor selection interviews are structured meetings at which shortlisted contractors present their proposals to the client team, and the client's advisers assess their competence, methodology and approach against pre-defined criteria. The adviser's role is to provide an objective, evidenced recommendation to the client. The RICS Rules of Conduct (effective 2 February 2022) require members to act with integrity and to avoid conflicts of interest throughout the selection process.

Why this matters for Communication and Negotiation

  • At Level 2, assessors expect you to describe a contractor selection process you participated in, explaining the criteria, the questions asked and how the recommendation was reached.
  • The interview requires the surveyor to communicate the client's requirements clearly and extract relevant information through structured questioning.
  • Rule 1 (Honesty and Integrity) and Rule 2 (Conflicts of Interest) of the RICS Rules of Conduct govern the adviser's conduct throughout.
  • Where the project is publicly funded, the selection process must comply with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, imposing additional transparency and equal-treatment obligations.

Key principles

Define the selection criteria before the interviews begin

The selection criteria must be agreed with the client and communicated to all shortlisted contractors before the interviews take place. Typical criteria include: technical competence; proposed methodology and programme; commercial approach; health and safety record; and sustainability commitments. Each criterion should be weighted by importance. Changing the criteria after interviews have begun, or weighting them differently for different contractors, is unfair and potentially unlawful on a regulated procurement.

Prepare structured questions

Questions should be prepared in advance and be the same for all contractors, with follow-up questions adapted to individual answers. Open questions reveal more about approach than closed questions. Scenario-based questions that test how a contractor would handle a specific project challenge expose practical thinking rather than rehearsed answers.

Evaluate objectively and document the reasoning

Score each contractor's responses during or immediately after the interview. Record the reasoning for each score, not just the number. Verify specific claims against the references and track record submitted with the tender. The evaluation report must set out the scores, reasoning and recommendation clearly enough for the client to defend the outcome to unsuccessful contractors.

Manage conflicts of interest

Before the process begins, the adviser must identify any personal or commercial relationships with shortlisted contractors and disclose them to the client. Where a conflict exists, the adviser must recuse themselves from evaluating that contractor or put measures in place (such as blind scoring) to manage it. Disclosure alone is not always sufficient.

Relevant RICS guidance and legislation

  • RICS Rules of Conduct (effective 2 February 2022) — Rule 1 (Honesty and Integrity) and Rule 2 (Conflicts of Interest) govern the evaluation and any relationships with shortlisted contractors.
  • RICS Conflicts of Interest global professional statement (1st edition, 2017) — framework for identifying and managing conflicts in procurement.
  • Public Contracts Regulations 2015 — equal treatment, transparency and proportionality requirements on publicly funded projects above the threshold.

Ethics and Rules of Conduct angle

Rule 1 (Honesty and Integrity) requires objective evaluation and honest reporting, even where the recommended contractor is not the client's preference. Rule 2 (Conflicts of Interest) is directly engaged: recommending a contractor with an undisclosed relationship is a serious breach. Rule 3 (Service) requires the adviser to share any reservations about the recommended contractor's approach to specific project risks.

APC-style Q&As

Q (Level 1)What is the purpose of a contractor selection interview and what role does the RICS surveyor play?

A contractor selection interview enables the client team to assess shortlisted contractors against pre-agreed criteria before appointment. The RICS surveyor prepares structured questions, evaluates responses objectively, documents scoring and reasoning, and provides an evidence-based recommendation, disclosing any conflict of interest before the process begins.

Q (Level 1)Why is it important to agree and communicate the selection criteria to contractors before the interview?

Pre-agreed criteria ensure all contractors are evaluated against the same standard. Changing criteria after interviews begin introduces bias and may be unlawful on regulated procurements; on private projects it exposes the client to challenge from unsuccessful contractors.

Q (Level 2)Describe a contractor selection interview you participated in. What questions did you ask and how did you use the responses to inform the recommendation?

(example) On procuring a specialist fit-out contractor for a listed building refurbishment, I interviewed three shortlisted contractors against criteria covering technical experience, programme, heritage methodology and price. I asked each to describe their most comparable project and how they managed heritage consent conditions, and posed a scenario about handling unforeseen historic fabric. Scoring clearly distinguished the contractor with genuine experience from those giving generic responses, and the recommendation was accepted by the client.

Q (Level 2)One of the shortlisted contractors in a selection interview is a firm you have worked with closely on two previous projects. How do you manage this?

I would disclose the relationship to the client before the process begins, explaining its nature and whether any financial interest exists, and ask whether they are comfortable with my continued participation or prefer me to recuse myself from scoring that contractor. If comfortable, I would apply the criteria objectively and document my reasoning so the client can verify it independently. Where I had any doubt about my objectivity, I would recommend recusal.

Q (Level 3)Following a contractor selection interview process you have advised on, the client informs you that they intend to appoint a contractor who scored third on your evaluation matrix because the managing director personally knows that contractor's director. What is your response?

My duty under Rule 3 is to serve the client's genuine interests. I would explain in writing that appointing the third-ranked contractor exposes the client to several risks: underperformance relative to the higher-scoring alternatives; challenge from unsuccessful contractors (particularly on a publicly funded project under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015); and a governance requirement to justify departure from the evaluation outcome. If the client maintains their decision having received this advice, I would record the instruction and continue to act, but I would not misrepresent the evaluation or imply the preferred contractor scored higher than they did, as this would breach Rule 1.