Episode 226 - *Bonus* RIBA Exam Past Paper 2026 Analysis (Q8,9&10)

Hi and welcome to the Part 3 with me podcast. The show designed to help Part 3 students kickstart their careers as qualified architects while offering valuable refresher episodes for practicing professionals. If you like to support the podcast and help us keep creating great content, check out the link in the episode notes to subscribe. We also provide one-to-one mentoring to help you prepare for your submissions, exams and interview. And you can visit our website to learn more, connect with us on LinkedIn by the Part 3 with me page, or you can find us on Instagram @part3 with me, or email @part3 with me at outlook.com. I am your host Maria Skudari. And this week is Part 4 and the final part covering the spring 2026 RAB examination paper. Today's episode will cover the final three questions 8, 9 and 10. As mentioned in the previous episodes, I ran through the scenario projects in episode 223, so I would recommend listening back to that to refresh your memory on those. The key projects covered in this final part are the Community Hub and the Kempwick Hotel Project. Now as a general note, and as previously mentioned, the answers I'm providing are just guidance on some of the information you could provide and respond with in the questions, but you could of course add more information to reinforce them and go into more depth. The aim of these episodes is just to get you to start thinking how you would start tackling the questions. Now before I dive into today's questions, just some quick tips I would suggest would be beneficial in preparing for the exam and what to do on the day. So as I mentioned in episode 223, make sure to read through each question very carefully to ensure you understand what they are looking for. Pay attention to sub-questions within the main body of the question and also look out for the email dates as sometimes those link to follow-up questions and may affect how you answer the question. Also pay attention to the information provided within the project scenarios as examiners will expect you to sometimes make reference to them when you are responding to a question. Keep the staff members' roles in mind as well and if you have a specialist in a certain area, you can refer to them in your answer as a service that the practice can provide on a project and potentially charge an extra fee for. Also remember to always reference your responses and your resources because the examiners will want to see that you know how and which resources are best suited for each answer. And if you feel you didn't do so well on one question, don't worry. That is part of what the interview is therefore to help you make up for some of the questions. Now let's dive into today's episode into question 8. So at this point in the paper, time has passed and the scenario update tells you that the practice has now been formally appointed by the park trust to undertake full architectural services, principal designer duties under both CDM and building regulations for the community hub project through to the end of Reaper Workstage 6. The project has been traditionally procured using the JCT standard building contract with Quantities 2024 with the practice also acting as contract administrator. Now there are contractors design portion elements in the contract for various MEP works including above ground drainage, mechanical ventilation and water and space heating. It was a condition of the tender that any subcontractors providing design information to the contractor for the purpose of the CDP elements carry a minimum of two million professional indemnity insurance and grant collateral warranties to the benefit of the trust and the main funder. Consent has been granted for subcontracting of such work by the trust as employer on that basis. You then receive an email from Sven saying that at a design coordination meeting, Pipe and Cable, the M&E subcontractor presented some drawings and the title block listed LK boiler services as the designer. So Pipe and Cable said LK were producing the design on their behalf. So Sven then did an online check and found that LK was a sole trader operating from a residential property with only three years of trading and average annual turnover of around 15K, a website selling reconditioned boilers and no mention of design services as well as no clear evidence of recent projects. So when Sven raised it with the main contractor, they told him not to worry and to focus on answering their outstanding requests for information. Sven then recalls that the preliminaries and the MEP consultants performance specification forming the employees requirements for the plumbing and heating work made requirements around PI insurance and collateral warranties in favor of the trust from the subcontractor undertaking that work. So on that basis he asks you if there is anything wrong with this arrangement and should the practice do anything. So this is one of those questions where the issue is not just whether the arrangement looks odd. The real question is whether the arrangement complies with the contract requirements as well as whether the parties involved are competent and appropriately insured and what the architect and contract administrator should do when they become aware of a potential issue. The fact that the question says the primary focus is PC5 should immediately make you think about construction, procurement, contractual compliance, risk allocation and site administration. So the first point I would address is whether there is anything wrong with the arrangement. Now on the face of it, yes there may well be the contract and tender requirements appear to have required that any subcontractors providing design information for the contractors design portion elements, carry minimum PI cover and provide collateral warranties for the benefits of the trust and the funder. The subcontractor package was clearly intended to allow contractor design but only on a controlled basis. So what Sven has discovered raises concerns that the actual design work may be undertaken by a party who doesn't obviously satisfy those requirements or at least whose competence and insurance positions are unclear. So that immediately creates a risk. If PIP and Cable is a subcontractor named within the contract and is responsible for delivering the CDP design but it is in fact outsourcing or subcontracting the design function to LK boiler services then the project team needs to know whether this is permitted, whether LK is competent, whether LK carries the required PI insurance and whether the collateral warranty arrangement still works in practice. If LK doesn't have the competence, track record or insurance required then the trust and funder may be exposed to unacceptable risk especially if there is a design failure later. Now another important issue is that the MEP consultant who produce the performance specification is no longer retained through stage 5 which Sven also notes. So that means the architect and contract administrator needs to be even more alert to gaps in quality assurance and compliance because especially reviewers no longer there to interrogate the contractor's design submissions in detail. This doesn't make Berg architects the technical designer of those CDP elements but it does mean the practice can't simply ignore a red flag that has become obvious especially given their position as building regulations principal designer. So in answering whether there is anything wrong I would say that there are at least three possible concerns. Firstly there may be a contractual compliance issue if the actual designer of the CDP elements doesn't satisfy the insurance and warranty requirements set out in the tender and contract information. Secondly there may be a competence issue if the person or business undertaking the design doesn't appear to have relevant experience or capacity and thirdly there may be an approval and transparency issue if the contractor hasn't properly disclosed or obtained consent of this design arrangement. So there may be a couple more which you could add to this but these are the few key ones that come up straight away as red flags. Now moving on to the second part of the question should the practice do anything? Absolutely yes. The practice shouldn't simply ignore this. That doesn't mean the practice should overstep their own role or start redesigning the contract to design. because they will take liability for it, but it should raise the concern formally and seek clarification and as principal designer raised the competence concern of the subcontractor. If concerns are not raised and issues appear later in the process, the practice may be subject to a claim for not raising the issue. So I would therefore suggest that the first step is to request proper documentary evidence from the contractor and subcontractor. That would include confirmation of who the actual designer is, what their role is, whether the subcontractor allows that arrangement, what PI insurance is in place, whether the required collateral warranties will still be or have been provided, and how competence has been assessed. Because Berger Architects is acting as contract administrator, it should also refer back to the relevant contract documents and remind the contractor of the requirements relating to PI insurance, warranties, and any consent needed for subcontracting. If the current arrangement doesn't meet those requirements, the contractor should be asked to regularize the situation, whether by providing compliant evidence, replacing the designer, or otherwise resolving the issue to the employer's satisfaction. I would also say that the client should be informed, because this is not simply a minor site query. It goes to risk allocation and the protection that the employer and funder expected to have in place. The trust may need legal or insurance advice, depending on how serious the noncompliance turns out to be. You can also mention that the contractor's dismissive response to Sven is not acceptable, because once a legitimate contractual and risk issue has been raised, it should be addressed properly rather than brushed aside. So to conclude this answer, yes, there does appear to be something wrong with the arrangement, or at the very least there is insufficient evidence that it complies with the contract. The practice should therefore raise the matter formally, seek documentary clarification, refer to the contract requirements, inform the client, and ensure the issue is resolved before defective or insufficiently ensure design responsibility becomes embedded into the works. So for this answer, your key resources would have been the JCT standard building contract with quantities 2024, the contract particulars, and employer's requirements, guidance on CDP MPI insurance, collateral warranties, and contract administration guidance. So that's question eight. Now let's move on to question nine. So you receive an email from Jessica, forwarding an invitation from McSween construction regarding the Kempwick Hotel project. Jessica says that it looks as though the practice has been granted a second chance on the hotel job, albeit with conditions. She explains that as both CDM principal designer and building regulations principal designer services were not included in the original appointment with the formal client, she will need to think carefully about what that means for the fee proposal. Her instinct is that taking these roles on in stage four is not ideal, but from a purely financial perspective, it would be good to bid for the work with a view to making some money back from stage zero, which was done at risk. And stages one to three, which were carried out at a loss. So she asks you to prepare an internal and confidential briefing note for discussion with the rest of the practice on the risks and processes involved. She also asks for a breakdown of tasks and activities required to deliver the services requested along with a proposal for the most sensible methods of determining and presenting the fee. She says that ultimately the practice will need to decide whether to bid to be involved again or not and she's keen to know your thoughts. The attached invitation from McSween construction to Jessica's email explains that they have been awarded the contract to deliver the Camp Week Hotel project through its remaining design and construction phases. They want to finalize the project team and understand that Bergh architects were employed as architect and lead designer by the former owner and secured planning approval for the current proposals. They say there is a clear advantage in working with architects who already know the site, the proposals and the local authority, even if the input provided is different from what was originally expected. They invite Bergh architects to submit a fee proposal for principal designer services. Taking into account that the practice is now asked to undertake both CDM principal designer and building regulations principal designer roles, despite not having performed them on the project thus far and that the project is now being procured through design and build. So some design changes will be required and that further stage three correspondence may be needed to secure non-material amendments through planning. Also closely as on with the clients in house design team and interiors and FF&E suppliers will be necessary as well as collateral warranties and the appointment will be through McSween's bespoke form with the expectation that the practice will discuss the matter with its PI insurers. So this is quite an extensive question because it combines professional competence, building regulations, principal designer duties, CDM principal designer duties, design and build procurement, bespoke appointments, fee strategy and the commercial temptation to recover earlier losses. The danger here is that because the project is familiar and the practice wants to claw back money, it could be tempted to underplay the risks so I would definitely keep this answer structured and balanced. The first thing I would say in the internal note is that taking on both CDM and building regulations PD roles at stage four of a design and build project is possible in principle but it is not straightforward and it carries significant risks. So Berg architects didn't provide those roles earlier in the project so the practice would be stepping into them after planning. After earlier design decisions have already been made and in a procurement context where design responsibility and contractor influence are now shifting on the design and build. So although they were the original architects of the scheme during stages one to three and are aware of the scheme and the design, the practice will still need to satisfy themselves that they have enough information, influence competence and authority to perform those roles properly. So for CDM principal designer duties the practice would need to ensure that the pre-construction phase is properly coordinated in relation to health and safety, that significant risks are identified and managed, that design team coordination is effective and that relevant information is communicated appropriately. For the building regulations principle designer role the practice would need to plan, manage and monitor the design work so that the project complies with the building regulations and it would need to coordinate the design team and certify matters with the relevant framework. So taking this on part way through means the practice must review what has already been done and identify any gaps or legacy issues before it can safely assume those responsibilities. So one of the first process points in your note should be that if Bergarchitects is to bid it should make the bid conditional on being given access to all relevant information produced to date, including planning information, the non-material amendment information, risk registers if any design team information, specialist input, building regulations strategy to date and any previous principal designer related work undertaken by others. It may also need time and fee to carry out a retrospective review or due diligence exercise before formally accepting the role. That point is really important because you can't simply step into a principal designer role mid-project and assume that everything prior has been done properly. Now the next major step is the procurement routes. So under design and build the contractor will have a strong role in developing and managing the design as it moves forward. That means the principal designer roles sit in a more complex interface between employer contractor consultants and specialist subcontractors. So Bergarchitects would need to be clear what its authority is, who it is appointed by, how communications will work, and and whether it will have enough leverage to fulfill the statutory duties attached to the roles. The fact that the appointment is via a bespoke contractor form should also ring alarm bells because bespoke terms may include "ownerous liabilities, broad warranties, indemnities or fitness for purpose-style wording that would not be acceptable under a normal professional appointment." So, I would definitely say that the practice must review the bespoke form carefully and discuss it with their PI insurer before bidding just as the contractor has already anticipated in the invitation. So the insurer may have concerns not only about the bespoke form itself, but also about the fact that this is a hotel project potentially of significant scale under design and build, with principal designer roles being taken on at a relatively late stage. So these may be elements that PI may not be able to cover, so checking with them in the first instance is key before progressing with anything else. Now in terms of the tasks and activities required to deliver the services, I would break them down clearly. So for example, there would be an initial information review and due diligence exercise, familiarisation with the current design and any amendments needed, coordination meetings with the contractor, the preferred architect, the in-house design team and specialists. There would also be an inclusion of reviewing the planning constraints and any non-material amendment requirements, reviewing risk reviews in relation to CDM, as well as building regulations compliance review and coordination. They would also prepare and manage the principal designer-related information, attend design coordination meetings, liais with building control and the wider design team as required, and deal with collateral warranties and appointment matters. So the extent of involvement with interiors, FF&E and specialist packages should also be reflected in the task breakdown because they may create additional coordination time and risk. So then we come to the fee proposal. The question asks for the most sensible method or methods of determining and presenting the fee. So I would say here that for this type of appointment, a simple percentage fee is probably not the best approach because the scope is unusual, risk-sensitive and not a standard architectural service tied neatly to a construction cost percentage. So a resource-based fee buildup is likely to be more appropriate, showing the anticipated tasks, staff levels, hours and assumptions. So that allows the practice to reflect on the real scope and risk and depending on the client expectations, the final proposal might still be presented as Alamson per role, or perhaps split into stages or service elements, but it should be underpinned by a robust resource calculation. You could also mention that if there are substantial unknowns at the point of appointment, Berger architects might consider a staged fee structure. So for example, they could ask for an initial fee for information review and due diligence followed by a further fee for ongoing principle designer services once the scope is confirmed. That can help protect the practice from taking on too much uncertainty at the outset. And the proposal should also clearly state assumptions, exclusions, deliverables, limits of responsibility and any additional services that would attract further fee. And finally, should the practice bid or not? So I would say that there is a genuine commercial opportunity here. So the practice knows the project, the site and the planning background, which is valuable. There is also a strategic benefit in not losing all connection with the project it has already worked hard on. However, that opportunity has to be balanced against significant risks like late stage appointment into principle designer roles. The design and build procurement, the bespoke terms, warranty obligations, insurer concerns and the possibility that the practice is drawn into a complex coordination role beyond what it first appears. So a recommendation you could make would be that Berger architects could consider bidding but only on a carefully controlled basis. The bid should be subject to review of the bespoke terms, insurer consultation, access to all relevant prior information, sufficient time and fee for due diligence and a very clear scope of service. If those conditions can't be achieved, then the financial temptation to recover previous losses should not override professional and commercial caution. For this answer, your key resources would have been the CDM regulations, building regulations principle designer guidance, design and build procurement guidance, the RAB and ARB codes of conduct, PI insurance considerations and appointment review guidance. So that covers question 9. Now finally, let's move on to the final question, question 10. So you receive an email from Sven regarding the Community Hub project, headed site chaos. Sven says he called on to site yesterday morning and was shocked. The entrance to the site was a mess of mud and he had to climb through a gap in the Harris Fencing and then over piles of drainage pipes to get to the office. The site office was unattended so he approached a group of workers in the building and asked who was in charge. But they didn't appear to know. There was not much work being done and there was loud music coming from the upper floor, which must have annoyed the neighbors. So Sven spent 20 minutes walking around and noted no meaningful work being done. A lack of protective clothing and waste materials scattered around. And it was obvious there was no site manager present on site. He says this was a completely different site from what they saw at the visit and meeting the previous week. So here he welcomes your thoughts on whether the contractor is doing anything wrong and whether the practice needs to do anything, noting that there is no recorded delay. So this question relates to site management and health and safety, contract administration and the architects response when obvious site problems are observed. So even though the question notes that there is no recorded delay, that doesn't mean there is no issue. The absence of delay is only one metric. The conditions described by Sven raise immediate concerns about site control, health and safety management, housekeeping and potential compliance with the contractor's obligations under the contract and CDM. So the first part of the answer is whether the contractor is doing anything wrong. So based on the information provided, there are certainly a number of indicators that suggest the contractor may be in breach of their obligations or at least failing to manage the site properly. Poor housekeeping, unsafe access, gaps in the site fencing, no obvious site manager, workers apparently lacking PPE, unclear supervision and a general disorderly site all point to poor site management. The fact that Sven had to climb through a gap in the fencing and over materials to reach the office is a significant concern in itself. The lack of an identifiable person in charge is also very problematic. Even if work is not significantly delayed, the site still needs to be managed safely securely and professionally. So the next question is whether Bergarchitex needs to do anything. So yes, definitely. But the response needs to stay within the practice's role. So Bergarchitex is not the principal contractor and is not responsible for day-to-day site management. However, they are the architect, contract administrator and principal designer under both CDM and building regulations. So that means the practice can't ignore obvious failings that may affect health and safety compliance and the orderly execution of the works. So I would say the first step is to record the observations clearly and detailed. That means noting what was seen when, by who and ideally issuing a written record promptly. The next step would be to raise the concerns formally with the contractor and ask for an explanation and immediate corrective action. The issues to be raised would include side access and security, housekeeping, supervision, PPE, neighbouring nuisance if relevant and whether there was a site manager or responsible person present as a woman. required. Now because the client also has an interest in knowing whether the site is being properly managed, I would say the trust should be informed, particularly if the issues are repeated or serious. As contract administrator, the practice may need to consider whether the matters amount to a breach of the contract or justify a formal warning or instruction depending on the nature of the contract provisions. As principal designer, the practice should also consider whether the observed conditions indicate a failure in how health and safety is being planned, managed and monitored during construction. Now if the issues are serious and persistent, further escalation may be necessary. So that could include requiring the contractor to demonstrate what management and corrective measures are now in place, calling an urgent site meeting or in more serious cases, consider whether advice should be sought regarding reporting to the HSC. You don't need to jump immediately to that final point in your answer, but it's worth signaling that serious health and safety concerns can't simply be left unaddressed. It's also worth noting that the poor state of the site may be a symptom of wider problems. If no meaningful work is being done and there is no clear management presence, then the issue may not only be health and safety, but also under resourcing, poor supervision or emerging program problems. So the practice should keep a watching brief on whether these visible failings start to translate into progress and quality concerns as well. So to conclude this answer, yes, the contractor appears to be doing a number of things wrong or at least failing to maintain the standard of site management expected under the contract and health and safety legislation. So Birg architects should ignore those issues and the practice should make a proper written record, raise the matters formally with the contractor, inform the client as appropriate and monitor whether corrective action is taken. If problems continue or are severe, further formal action may be required, but in the first instance Birg should give the contractor time to rectify the matter and revisit site to check if matters have been corrected and handled. So for this answer, your key resources would have been the JCT standard building contract, CDM 2015 regulations, the HSC website, principal contractor obligations and the contract administrator guidance. So that concludes this four part series on the spring 2026 paper. Across these episodes, we have gone through the scenario, all 10 questions and the sorts of structure and thought process you could use in the exam. The key thing to remember is that the exam is not expecting a perfect essay every time. It is testing whether you can identify the main issues, respond in the correct format, make sensible assumptions, use the scenario properly and support your answer with the right professional resources. So that's all for now. Thanks for tuning in and we'll catch you in the next episode. If you would like to get in contact with me, please feel free to email me on the address provided in the show notes. Thank you for listening. This is an educational show aimed at supporting the future generation of architects. The information opinions and recommendations presented in this podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this podcast is done at your own risk. Please join me next week for some more part three with me time. (upbeat music)