CEng Additional Evidence Required

Hi everyone, 

I wanted to have your with the ongoing review process of my application with the IET.

I submitted my application in May 2023, verified by three supporters. In August, I received a request for Further Evidence, specifically related to competencies A and B in the self-assessment section. In response, I submitted five new case studies, each tailored to address competencies A1, A2, B1, B2, and B3.

Recently, I received another communication from the IET, which posed several detailed questions seeking additional insights into my skills and knowledge. I have prepared my responses, but I find these queries somewhat repetitive, considering the comprehensive details about my professional roles are outlined in my CV, which has been shared with them.

The questions are as follows:

  1. Have you cited as a principal contractor role, and if so, can you explain about this specific role and who signed off your work?  
  2. As you have acted as a main contractor, have you done any detailed design for a contractor to the build against it, or is the design work you do conceptual? (i.e. the contractor works up the detailed design, and if so who signs off your work?)  
  3. Have you done conceptual design on behalf of a client, and if so, who signed off your work?  
  4. Can you provide a detailed short circuit and load flow analysis and generator sizing calculations? Did you do any protection settings as well as an earthing study?

Note: I have not worked as a principal contractor. However, I functioned as the main designer representing the principal contractor. And this was clearly indicated in my CV and my originally submitted application.

I have prepared a detailed response that I can share with anyone willing to review to ensure it adequately addresses the IET's queries.

Moreover, if you have any general recommendations that could be beneficial at this stage, I would appreciate to discuss them further.



  • I have prepared a detailed response that I can share with anyone willing to review to ensure it adequately addresses the IET's queries.

    Hi Ahmed,

    Did you consult a PRA? If not that would be the best thing to do - they are the best person to review your responses, and your original application, to spot what is missing, as they are trained in the review process.



  • Hi Andy,

    Thanks for your response.

    I have consulted a PRA but unfortunately his response was not very supportive. He gave me 2 unclear comments so I am trying to get some better guidance.



  • Hi Ahmed,

    Definitely in that case I'd suggest you ask for another PRA (if you are not comfortable discussing the comments with your existing one). The problem is that every case is very different, so evidence that worked for another applicant may not work for you. As PRAs we know what is being looked for and can advise on your particular case. (I would offer myself but I have too many cases on at the moment.)

    The reason the IET is asking for more evidence is because they are trying to help you get through the process, but if they have asked twice it suggests there are significant gaps between what is written in your original application and what is being looked for. (That isn't to say your application is "wrong", or that you don't have the competences, but it can be quite difficult to make them clear if you are not used to the process.) So this is good that you haven't been rejected, they are giving you more chances, but really I strongly suggest you get expert advice to make sure your responses this time precisely match what the assessors are looking for.



  • Thanks Andy

  • Referring your questions above, seemed registration review process would like you to provide someone or profession who is experienced and capable to check and supervising your design work. If you did not mention D&B contract you used, main contractor is only responsible for the "Build" as traditional contract is separating "Design" and "Build". 

    it came to my concern that "I functioned as the main designer representing the principal contractor", but who verified your design within standard and quality and fit for purpose? i think you may need more clarification on this point. 

    i also got this question when i was applying registration few years ago.

    For your question 4, i am not really sure if generator was essential power supply, any protective device or alarm had to installation, or auto change-over with normal power supply. you know, the load estimation relating to the fuel storage, tank size and alarm setting for low level, required you to conclude all the facilities and equipment power consumption with period it needs to last for.

    Good Luck Bro

  • Thanks a lot Tsang!

  • Ahmed,

    Looking at those questions, they really ask about 'technical leadership' and ''Judgement'. The reason you are being asked for FE in A&B is because your application does not make clear what is the level of your technical involvement, how key, or what influence you had on significant technical decision and how you drove the execution.

    As Andy said, a PRA should be able to help walk you through the UK Spec A1, A2, B1, B2 & B3 so you understand what is needed and can then make it clear

  • And there's perhaps a useful general point for all applicants to add to Graham's excellent answer, which applies to interviews as much as to requests for further information, and which I've often seen candidates get wrong.

    Where the assessors or interviewers are struggling to see clear evidence of one of the competences (particularly if they think the applicant has the competence but hasn't expressed it yet), they will often try to help the applicant by asking for specific evidence which they think the candidate must have, rather than asking generally about that competence. So (to make up a random but realistic example) rather than asking "do you have evidence for competence C3?" or "do you have evidence that you have led a team?" they may ask specifically "in your role as lead designer on this project did you (or how did you) make sure that the installation and test team followed your designs correctly?" This is trying to be helpful, they are actually giving you clues as to where in your work you might show leadership even if you don't have direct reports. However, too often candidates answer the question literally, just saying "I didn't, it wasn't my responsibility". Correct and true but unhelpful to anyone.

    When asked questions like this it's important to think, as Graham mentions, "which of the competences are they trying to get me to show?" Then the candidate can say, for example, "I wasn't in a position to take that responsibility on this project, however on this other project I took technical leadership by..."

    (Incidentally, in that case the candidate would need to give a good reason as to why they weren't taking that responsibility on the project in question. The point of the competences is that they are a full set of behaviours and attitudes which the EC expects professional engineers to show - so if we're not taking responsibility for one or more of them ourselves on any particular project we need to be showing that we're truly confident that someone else is. Just saying "it's not my responsibility" or "it's not my job" is not good enough.)

    I know some (unsuccessful) candidates have complained that the assessors / interviewers have "asked the wrong question". It's vital to understand that all they are interested in is whether you show the competences or not. So if they've asked a question from an angle that's not relevant to your work, think - and if necessary ask - which competence they are looking for, then you can answer the underlying question. 

    Now it could be asked "why don't they just ask directly for evidence of (say) C3?" And in the first round of clarification, if needed, that is exactly what is asked for. After that the assessors and interviewers will take it that that approach clearly isn't working, so they will give the applicant a second chance by using a different approach by asking these types of specific question.

    As long as they are asking questions they are trying to help you succeed. 



  • Hi,

    My PRI was held two months ago.My application also accepted without any questions before PRI.However at the date of interview there was some technical issues in the data line.but it just happened for 2,3 minutes.Interview went about 1.5 hours.Everything was going pretty much good.I answered for every questions. Few days ago (1 month after PRI) , I was received a mail from IET that i have to face for 2d interview due to technical issue at the first PRI date.I accepted the date. Do you have any idea about it.because at the first date I faced for 1.5 hours. Was there any lack of competence in me and IET willing to give a second chance?

  • I cannot comment on your specifics as not privy, but do interview and assess a lot, so I can surmise what probably has happened.

    Firstly, 1.5 hrs a long time, even allowing for a few minutes of line issues, that is a long time. This usually occurs because the interviewers are trying to extract what they need from you and oft times, if that is difficult, not forthcoming or the deemed level not quite enough, then we do try and pull as much to allow an 'on balance' view ... remember... the interviewers are on your side - there are no gotcha's

    It is possible they made a recommendation and the post panel (who look independently at your submissions and the interview report) felt that they either did not agree, or felt the material circumstance (long interview, technical difficulties) may have adversely affected the outcome. (Don't read anything into this - just the process we have agreed with the Engineering Council)

    The net result is that they felt another run of the interview was the most appropriate and fair thing to do.

    The whole process is a peer review. The pre-panel review your submission and make an interview recommendation where they may have highlight areas they felt needed a bit more challenge, The interviewers went on as long as they could to get out of you what was needed, and the post panel coldly reviewed and felt that possibly the report was a bit harsh, they did not agree or felt the time taken etc could have affected the outcome..... this is as per process and is to give you the very best possible chance of success.

    I would suggest a couple of things in preparation:

    1. Reflect on why they took 1.5 hours (50 -60 mins in normal). Were you clear enough ? Did you have good examples ? Did you really know your career and personal achievements ? Was you presentation appropriate ?

    2. Get in touch with a PRA (IET staff can help sort) and ask them to run through the competence areas so you are clear what is actually being looked for and can prepare a clearer responses.

    3. Make a few notes (not too many), but a crib-sheet for the interview can be very handy to ensure you highlight what you consider your best evidence

    You have done it once and so must realise it is not an interview, but a conversation ... relax, reflect on what happened, get some advice so you are clear on the criteria and prepare a bit better

    Good luck