ICM AR50123 Construction Law Negotiation Task - Marking Criteria

Grade and mark

range

Distinction Level
(70-100%)

Merit Level
(60-69%)

Pass Level
(50-59%)

Pass Level
(40-49%)

Marginal Fail
(30-39%)

Fail
(0-29%)

Phase 1 (individual) Posting your position statement

Presentation

The statement is
presented in a fully
professional
format.

The statement is
well-presented,
with a good
balance between
the sections; it is
accessible to the
reader.

The statement is
adequately
presented but the
readers
accessibility to the
report should have
been considered
more carefully.

Your format for the

statement is hard
to follow, which
compromises the
clarity of the
contents.

Your format for the

statement is
inappropriate and
the clarity of the
contents suffers
significantly as a
result.

Your format does

not address the
requirements of this
section and
alienates the reader
from any hope of
meaningful
communication.

An excellent
summary of your
position; you
identify the key
issues to be
decided and
demonstrate a
sound awareness
of the contractual
framework and/or
basics of claim
preparation and
presentation;
impressive
commercial
awareness is
demonstrated.

A very good
summary of your
position; good
contractual/claims
awareness backed
up with correct
contractual
references; evenhanded tone taken,
demonstrating a
willingness to do
business.

A good summary
of your position;
you support your
point of view
forcefully and with
good
arguments/back
up; while covering
the contractual
basis you might
have been more
conciliatory
towards building
bridges inside this
statement.

A reasonable
summary of where
you are coming
from and what you
want; more detail
on the contractual
basis for the
assertions/claims
would have been
beneficial.

The summary
gives others an
inadequate view of
your position and
what you want out
of the negotiation.

This summary does

not give any idea
about what you
want out of the
negotiation and
gives the others
little or no insight
into how to address
your position
statement.

The schedule of
issues is
satisfactory but
does not convince
the reader that it is
has been
professionally
negotiated and is
not presented in a
professional
format.

The schedule of
issues provides too
much detail and so
is not clear and
succinct or
presented in a
professional
format.

The schedule of
issues is functional
but will not be
useful in the
negotiation.

The schedule of
issues gives other
members little idea
of what you want
and how you will
behave in the
negotiation.

(weighting 10%)
Content

(weighting 15%)

Phase 2 (collaborative) Schedule of Issues

Schedule of issues

(weighting 15%)

The schedule of
issues is clear and
succinct. It
establishes the
points to be
covered and the
running order in a
professional
format.

The schedule of
issues is clear,
covers the ground
required and
provides some
detail in a business
like format.

Phase 3 (collaborative) The negotiation

Negotiation Skills
Establishing Rules
of Engagement,
early exchanges and
getting your point
across

(weighting 15%)

Negotiation Skills
Agility, flexibility
and willingness to
deal

Excellent example
of establishing
yourself in a strong
position in the
negotiation without
seeking to
dominate
proceedings and
antagonise others;
good facilitation
role for the
negotiation making
the others
stakeholders in the
process.

Positive opening to
the session
sending the right
messages and with
good contributions
being made right
from the start; good
awareness shown
of the others
positions and
contributions; more
could be done to
bring the others on
board and build
towards the
possibility of
settlement.

Ability shown to
get your point
across and that
you know what you
are talking about
with solid
contributions made
to the negotiation;
you tended to
respond to and/or
dominate the
situation rather
than proactively
driving forward
with the matters
being discussed.

You tended to stick

to a position
without first having
explained the
ground you occupy
or proposing too
much by way of
positive settlement
discussions; you
clearly came with a
plan for the
negotiations and
were not easily
going to be swayed
from that.

Your involvement
with the hearing
was minimal
despite
opportunities to do
so; the others
would have been
unsure about
where you stood
and about the
justification for your
position.

You did not engage

with the hearing
involvement; others
would have been
completely ignorant
of any position you
might have wished
to adopt.

First rate
negotiation skills
on display; your
approach has
much to commend
it in terms of being
agile,
approachable and
sensible as well as
having the
necessary tenacity
not to let go of your
core position.

Very good
negotiating ability
displayed; you
worked hard to
overcome the
obstacles and did
not become too
bogged down in
the others refusal
to deal.

Good skills
displayed; you
demonstrated that
you were prepared
to talk and work
through problems.
You might have
tried alternative
approaches at
some of the
junctures.

Your approach was

pragmatic and
realistic but left the
others without
many alternatives
to move around the
problems
encountered; more
agility needed to
drive the thing
forward.

Your contribution to
the negotiation was
limited and
therefore difficult to
assess in a
meaningful way;
you needed to
speak up for
yourself more.

Your contribution to
the negotiation was
non-existent and
your voice was
completely absent
from the
negotiation.

First-rate closing
tactics; you were
alive to the time
pressures imposed
on the group and
used them to your
advantage.

Very good closing

ability displayed;
you worked hard to
drive this to a
conclusion and
used time pressure
against your conegotiators.

Good skills
displayed in
attempting to close
the deal; you
became less calm
as the deadline
approached
resulting in some
missed
opportunities.

Your approach
remained
pragmatic
throughout but
needed more focus
on what settlement
might mean for the
parties.

Your contribution to
the negotiation was
limited and
therefore difficult to
assess in a
meaningful way;
you needed to
speak up for
yourself more.

Your contribution to
the negotiation was
non-existent and
your voice was
completely absent
from the
negotiation.

(weighting 15%)
Negotiation Skills
Summing up and
closing in on the
deal

(weighting 15%)

Phase 4 (individual) The Follow-up Report (Reflective Exercise)

Reflection Exercise
Ability to be selfanalytical and to
select and provide
supporting evidence

(weighting 15%)

Your analysis
demonstrates that
you have
developed deep
insights into the
requirements of
this exercise; you
have provided
comprehensive
evidence to
support your claim
to have these
insights.

Your analysis
demonstrates that
you have
developed good
insights into the
requirements of
this exercise; you
have provided
appropriate
evidence to
support your claim
to have these
insights.

Your analysis
demonstrates that
you have
developed some
insights into the
requirements of
this exercise; there
is some divergence
between the
evidence you have
provided and the
insights you claim
to have

Your analysis is
barely adequate;
you make
connections
between its various
elements but they
are not
substantiallyformed.

Your analysis is not

well-formed and
does not show that
you have
developed any
significant insights
into the
requirements of
this exercise; you
have provided little
appropriate
evidence to
support your claim
to have these
insights.

Your report fails to

indicate that you
have developed
insights into the
requirements of
this exercise.