Communication and Negotiation — RICS APC Competency Revision Guide

RICS defines this competency as covering the ability to communicate effectively — in writing and orally — and to negotiate professionally on behalf of clients or an employer. It is assessed across three levels: knowledge of communication principles at Level 1, demonstrated application in practice at Level 2, and evidence of handling complex or sensitive communication situations with reasoned judgement at Level 3. Because the assessment itself is a communication exercise, every answer you give reflects on this competency.

Candidates are expected to understand positional negotiation (opening positions, concessions, BATNA) and interest-based negotiation (focusing on the underlying needs of each party). In practice, rent reviews, lease renewals, dilapidations settlements, and construction cost disputes all involve negotiation. At Level 2 you should have direct experience of at least one real negotiation. At Level 3 you should be able to advise on strategy, manage impasse, and identify when negotiation should give way to formal dispute resolution.

Use your case study and diary of experience to document specific instances: a report you wrote, a negotiation you participated in, a difficult client conversation you managed. Be specific about what you did, what the outcome was, and — critically — what you learnt. Assessors look for reflection, not just description. If you made an error in a negotiation and corrected it, that is often more compelling evidence than a seamlessly successful outcome.

RICS expects written outputs to be clear, accurate, professionally structured, and tailored to the audience. Expert reports must conform to relevant RICS guidance. Correspondence must be timely and unambiguous. Poorly drafted reports that mislead a client — even unintentionally — carry professional liability risk. At Level 1, know the structural components of a professional report. At Level 3, be prepared to discuss how you would rewrite a report that has been misunderstood by its recipient and why it failed.

You manage these as two separate but connected tasks. With the client, you explain in writing the range of market evidence, the realistic settlement zone, and the risk of settling too early — documenting that advice. With the landlord's surveyor, you submit a counter-schedule with comparable evidence and a reasoned position, without revealing the client's commercial pressure. Settling quickly at an above-market figure would be a failure of your duty to act in the client's best interest, regardless of their instruction to expedite.