BQA Grade 9 common mistakes
BQA Grade 9 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating every price submission as a valid tender and recommending award, without checking that the bidder returned the required documents, accepted the stated terms, or met mandatory pass/fail criteria.
Candidates focus on the numbers because comparing prices feels like the 'real' analysis, and they assume responsiveness is a formality checked by someone else.
What to do instead
Before comparing any prices, build a compliance checklist from the tender documents (mandatory documents, declarations, validity period, required qualifications) and mark each bidder pass/fail. Only price the compliant bids, and state explicitly that non-compliant bids were excluded and why.
Comparing tender sums directly when bidders have priced different scopes, exclusions, or qualifications, and declaring the lowest headline figure the best value.
The tender sum is the most visible number, and candidates under time pressure skip the line-by-line reconciliation needed to make bids comparable.
What to do instead
Normalise bids to a common basis: add omitted items at an assessed rate, deduct or cost qualifications, and present an adjusted comparison with the arithmetic shown. Then apply the stated evaluation criteria (which may include quality or programme) rather than price alone.
Writing a variation instruction or payment assessment without first checking the contract's change mechanism, notice periods, and valuation rules, and then certifying a figure that cannot be substantiated under the contract.
Candidates answer from general construction practice and instinct rather than going back to the specific contract conditions, which they may only have skimmed.
What to do instead
For any contract administration question, first identify the clause that empowers the action (instruction, variation, extension of time, payment) and the procedure it requires. Anchor the answer in that clause, then apply the facts to it step by step.
Assessing an extension of time by awarding the full delay period caused by an event, without separating concurrent delay, the contractor's own culpable delay, and the effect on the critical path.
The event and the delay feel linked, so candidates award the whole period rather than testing which delay actually drove completion.
What to do instead
Identify the delaying event, test its effect on the critical path, and deduct periods of contractor-caused or concurrent delay in line with the contract. Show the timeline logic in the answer rather than asserting a single number.
Calculating a unit rate by dividing total cost by total quantity without separating fixed and variable costs, so the rate is wrong at the actual quantity used.
It is the quickest arithmetic and looks like a rate build-up, so it goes unchallenged.
What to do instead
Build rates from first principles: labour, plant, material and subcontract components plus wastage, overhead and profit. Where fixed costs are involved, state the assumption about quantity and show how the rate changes if quantity varies.
Producing a cost estimate or cash flow that omits preliminaries, contingency, risk allowance, or the effect of retention and payment lag.
Candidates build up the visible work items and forget the indirect and timing costs that sit outside the measured work.
What to do instead
Use a checklist: measured work, preliminaries, overheads and profit, risk/contingency, inflation, then cash flow adjusted for retention, payment terms and advance payments. State each allowance explicitly so the marker can see it was considered.
Drawing or reading a network programme and identifying the critical path by the longest-looking chain of activities rather than by total float calculated from forward and backward passes.
The critical path is visually intuitive on simple diagrams, so candidates stop calculating once an answer 'looks right'.
What to do instead
Always compute earliest and latest start/finish and total float for each activity, then define the critical path as the sequence with zero total float. If asked for float on a specific activity, show the calculation, not just the answer.
Describing a construction method or sequence generically (for example 'excavate, then pour the foundation') without addressing ground conditions, temporary works, tolerances, curing, or sequencing constraints.
Candidates recall the headline method but not the conditions that govern whether it works, so the answer lacks the technical substance markers look for.
What to do instead
For each method question, state the sequence, the plant and materials, the key risks and controls (temporary works, dewatering, weather, curing), and the inspection or hold points. Tie the method to the specific ground, access and programme conditions given.
Answering a health and safety scenario by listing hazards, without applying the hierarchy of control or identifying who holds the duty and what specific control is required at each stage.
Hazard-spotting is easy and feels like the whole answer, so candidates never get to the control measures and responsibilities.
What to do instead
Structure the answer as: hazard, who is at risk, hierarchy of control applied (eliminate, reduce, isolate, control, PPE last), specific control measures, and the responsible person plus monitoring/review. Name the relevant regulation or duty holder where you are confident.
Faced with an ethical dilemma in a scenario, giving the commercially convenient answer or staying silent, instead of identifying the conflict of interest, the relevant duty, and the required disclosure and escalation.
Candidates read the scenario as a commercial or technical problem and miss that the question is testing professional conduct and the obligation to act.
What to do instead
Identify the conflicting duties, state the relevant professional standard or code obligation, then set out the action: declare the interest, disclose to the client or employer in writing, decline or escalate as appropriate, and record the decision. Never choose the option that conceals the issue.