CDT Sample Questions Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

CSI’s project delivery framework places the owner at the center of the facility life cycle. The owner:

Initiates the project by defining needs and project goals.

Selects the project delivery method and engages the design and construction teams.

Participates in planning, design decisions, funding, and approvals.

During construction, the owner is responsible for payments, change decisions, and acceptance of the work.

After construction and closeout, the owner (often through a facility management group) is responsible for operation, maintenance, and long-term performance of the facility.

CSI repeatedly highlights that only the owner is engaged from the earliest concept through long-term operation and eventual renovation or disposal. All other parties (designers, contractors, manufacturers) participate for limited phases.

Therefore, the party “actively involved and interested in all phases of the project” is clearly:

B. Owners

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. ContractorsContractors typically become formally involved at procurement/bidding and remain through construction and closeout. They usually have no role in early planning (except in some delivery methods like CM-at-Risk or IPD where they join during design) and no long-term responsibility for operations beyond warranty obligations.

C. Architects/engineersThe A/E’s primary involvement is during planning and design, and then construction administration during construction and closeout. After the project is turned over, their involvement often ends unless separately engaged for post-occupancy evaluations or future work. They do not normally manage day-to-day operations and maintenance.

D. Manufacturers/suppliersManufacturers and suppliers participate mainly in product selection, submittals, and furnishing materials and equipment during design-assist and construction phases. They may have continuing obligations for warranties or support, but they are not engaged in every phase of the project’s life cycle as the owner is.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – roles and responsibilities of the owner, design professional, contractor, and others.

CSI Facility Management Practice Guide – owner’s role during operations and the extended facility life cycle.

CSI CDT Study Materials – diagrams and explanations of project participants over the facility life cycle.

In the standard organization of the contract documents as taught in CSI’s CDT materials and practice guides, the General Conditions establish the baseline contractual rights, responsibilities, and relationships among the owner, contractor, and architect/engineer (A/E).

CSI explains that whenever there is a need to change or add to the standard provisions of the General Conditions (for example, to address project-specific insurance limits, bonding, liquidated damages, or local legal requirements), those changes are made in the Supplementary Conditions. The Supplementary Conditions are expressly written to modify, delete, or add to the printed General Conditions, and they do so by direct reference to specific articles or paragraphs.

The General Conditions set the standard, overall rules of the contract.

The Supplementary Conditions are the only document whose primary purpose is to modify those General Conditions for the specific project.

Other documents (Agreement, Division 01) must be consistent with the Conditions of the Contract but are not the formal instrument intended to “directly modify” the General Conditions.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Division 01, General Requirements – Division 01 coordinates administrative and procedural requirements for the work and bridges from the Conditions of the Contract to the technical specifications. It may elaborate how procedures are implemented but it is not the document that directly amends the General Conditions.

C. Agreement – The Agreement (e.g., AIA A101) identifies parties, contract sum, contract time, and incorporates the Conditions, drawings, and specifications by reference. It relies on the General and Supplementary Conditions; it does not systematically edit their language.

D. Instructions to Bidders – These govern the procurement phase only (how to submit bids, qualifications, bid security, etc.) and cease to have effect once the Contract is executed. They do not modify the General Conditions of the construction contract.

CSI’s Project Delivery and Construction Specifications Practice Guides describe this hierarchy and emphasize that Supplementary Conditions are the proper instrument for project-specific modifications to the General Conditions, which makes Option B the correct answer.

According to CSI and standard General Conditions (such as AIA A201 and EJCDC C-700, both referenced in CSI’s CDT materials), the contractor has a duty to review the contract documents for coordination and constructability, and if any errors, inconsistencies, or code violations are discovered, the contractor must promptly notify the architect/engineer (A/E) in writing before proceeding.

This requirement exists because:

The A/E is responsible for design compliance with codes.

The contractor must not proceed with work known to be contrary to applicable laws or regulations without clarification.

The contractor’s written notice triggers the A/E’s responsibility to issue clarification, correction, or instruction to maintain compliance.

Therefore, the proper action is Option A — Notify the architect/engineer in writing.

Why others are incorrect:

B. Proceed with the work – would expose both the contractor and owner to risk of code violation; explicitly prohibited by standard conditions.

C. Request a variance – is not the contractor’s responsibility; this rests with the owner or A/E.

D. Stop all work – not authorized unless directed; the contractor must first notify the A/E.

CSI Reference:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide, “Construction Phase — Communications and Responsibilities”; Construction Specifications Practice Guide, “General Conditions Responsibilities — Compliance with Codes.”

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-based)

In CSI-aligned contract administration procedures and the AIA A201 General Conditions, under a single prime contract:

All subcontractors, suppliers, and lower-tier entities submit their shop drawings, product data, and samples to the Contractor.

The Contractor reviews them for coordination, compliance with the contract documents, and completeness.

After the Contractor’s review and approval, the shop drawings are forwarded to the Architect/Engineer (A/E) for review and action.

This maintains the single point of responsibility between the Owner and the Contractor and ensures the Contractor coordinates all submittals before they reach the A/E. Therefore, under a single prime contract, shop drawings should reach the A/E from the Contractor, making Option A correct.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. Material supplier and D. Subcontractor – They prepare many of the shop drawings but are required to submit them through the prime Contractor, not directly to the A/E. Direct submission would bypass the Contractor’s coordination and contractual responsibility.

C. Owner – The Owner is not part of the technical submittal review chain; they rely on the A/E and Contractor to manage shop drawings.

Relevant CSI references:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on submittal procedures and lines of communication.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 provisions for submittals and routing.

AIA A201 General Conditions (referenced in CSI CDT materials) – Articles on submittals and contractor responsibilities.

CSI’s project delivery and ethical guidance (as reflected in CDT materials and standard practice) emphasize:

Known information that may affect cost, risk, or safety must be disclosed consistently and fairly to all bidders.

The design professional must act in a manner that is honest, transparent, and protective of public safety, even when data is incomplete.

The bid documents should not conceal information that could materially affect the work, even if its full extent is uncertain.

Applying those principles:

The design team has evidence (one contaminated boring) that contamination may exist onsite. Even if the extent is unknown, that fact is potentially material to bidders (cost of remediation, handling of contaminated soils, schedule impacts).

The best course is to disclose what is known and ensure all bidders have access to the same geotechnical information. This is exactly what Option B proposes:

Place a clear note or disclaimer in the contract documents stating that contaminants were encountered in at least one boring and may be present elsewhere.

Recommend that the owner make the geotechnical report available to all bidders, so every bidder can evaluate the risk and price accordingly.

Why the other options are inconsistent with CSI-aligned practice:

A. Withhold the information… – Concealing known contamination is unethical and undermines fair bidding. Even with unit prices for remediation, bidders would be pricing blindly without knowing that contamination has already been detected.

C. Insist the owner undertake additional investigation… – While the design team should recommend further investigation, it cannot “insist” beyond professional advice, especially where the owner has clearly stated financial constraints. Regardless, disclosure of existing data is still required.

D. Proceed with design as is… – Ignoring known contamination and calling it “statistically insignificant” is not defensible; even one contaminated boring is important information that must be shared.

So, the most appropriate and CSI-consistent choice is Option B: disclose the potential and share the geotechnical report so all bidders are equally informed.

CSI references (by name only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on procurement, fair competition, and disclosure of information

CDT ethics and professional conduct principles regarding risk disclosure to bidders

CSI’s treatment of procurement and competitive bidding emphasizes that fairness and integrity in competitive bidding depends on one core principle:

All bidders must be provided the same information, at the same time, under the same conditions.

In CDT terminology, this is often expressed as ensuring that all bidders have identical bidding requirements, drawings, specifications, addenda, and time to prepare bids. When this principle is followed:

No bidder has an unfair informational advantage.

Prices are based on the same scope and conditions, allowing an “apples-to-apples” comparison.

The bidding process is considered fair, competitive, and defensible.

That is exactly what Option C states: “All bids are prepared based on identical conditions, information, and time constraints.” This is the fundamental fairness requirement in competitive bidding as taught in CSI’s CDT materials.

Why the other options are not correct in CSI’s framework:

A. Bid securities provide protection to all bidders for unfair practices of others.Bid security (bid bonds, certified checks, etc.) protects primarily the owner, not “all bidders,” against the risk that the selected bidder will refuse to enter into the contract or furnish required bonds. It is about contract assurance, not fairness among bidders.

B. The bid shopping process provides the most beneficial pricing to the owner.“Bid shopping” (where an owner or prime contractor uses one bidder’s price to pressure others into lowering their price after bids are opened) is explicitly recognized by CSI as an unethical and unfair practice. It undermines trust and is contrary to the fairness principle.

D. A minimum of three bids are required to assure sufficient competition.While owners often seek multiple bids, CSI does not define “three bids” as a fundamental fairness requirement. A fair bidding process could, in principle, have fewer bidders; the key is that each bidder is treated equally and given identical information and conditions.

Thus, in CSI’s description of competitive bidding, Option C captures the central fairness principle.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI’s MasterFormat® (2004 and later), the divisions are grouped approximately as:

Division 01 – General Requirements

Divisions 02–19 – Facility Construction Subgroup (sitework and building construction trades: existing conditions, concrete, masonry, metals, wood, finishes, etc.)

Divisions 20–29 – Facility Services Subgroup (mechanical, electrical, communications, fire suppression, etc.)

Divisions 30–39 – Site and Infrastructure (utilities, site improvements, transportation, etc.)

Divisions 40–49 – Process Equipment and related categories (where applicable)

The question asks what is not included in Divisions 02–49.

Concrete – is in Division 03 (in 02–49).

Finishes – are in Division 09 (in 02–49).

Utilities – are addressed in the 30s divisions such as Division 33 – Utilities and similar, clearly within 02–49.

However:

General Requirements – by CSI definition, belong to Division 01, which is outside the 02–49 range. Division 01 covers administrative and procedural requirements that apply across the technical sections.

Therefore, the item not included in Divisions 02–49 is:

A. General requirements

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI MasterFormat® publication – division list and grouping.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – explanation of Division 01 vs. technical divisions (02–49).

CSI CDT Study Materials – MasterFormat division breakdown and use.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI’s organization of the Project Manual:

Division 01 – General Requirements coordinates administrative and procedural requirements that apply across the technical sections.

One of the standard Division 01 topics is “Alternates”.

In CSI practice:

The Bid Form provides the spaces for bidders to state the prices for each alternate.

The Agreement may list accepted alternates after award.

The technical sections (Divisions 02–49) describe detailed materials and methods, but do not typically define the overall limits or scope of each alternate in one place.

Instead, CSI recommends that the description of each alternate, including its limits and what parts of the Work are added, deleted, or changed, be clearly defined in Division 01 – General Requirements, usually in a section titled “Alternates”. There, the scope of each alternate is described in a way that can be coordinated with and referenced by the technical sections.

Therefore, the correct answer is:

C. Division 01

Why the other options are not best per CSI practice:

A. Agreement – The Agreement (Contract for Construction) may list which alternates are accepted once the contract is formed, but it does not typically define in detail the limits of each alternate; it relies on the specifications for those definitions.

B. Bid Form – The Bid Form is where prices for alternates are entered. It may briefly name or reference each alternate, but the detailed definition and limits are in Division 01.

D. Sections in Divisions 02–49 – Technical sections contain the work results and may note how an alternate affects them (e.g., “this finish is used only if Alternate 2 is accepted”), but the primary, consolidated description of what each alternate includes/excludes is in the Division 01 Alternates section.

Key CSI-Related Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 General Requirements and Alternates.

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – procurement and alternates sections.

CSI CDT Study Materials – organization of the Project Manual and the role of Division 01.

CSI materials emphasize that constructability reviews (often performed by experienced contractors or construction managers) are highly valuable when a project involves:

Innovative systems or unusual details

Complex sequencing or temporary works

Tight site constraints or aggressive schedules

A constructability review examines whether the design can be built safely, efficiently, and economically, considering available means and methods, typical trade practices, site access, sequencing, and risk. When a design uses innovative or unusual techniques, there is more risk that something may be difficult or impractical to build. CSI and CDT guidance recommend obtaining feedback from construction professionals at that stage.

Why the correct answer is C. Constructability:

The purpose of the review is to assess the buildability of the proposed design: how it will actually be constructed, staged, sequenced, supported, and coordinated among trades. This is exactly what a constructability review is intended to do.

Why the other options are not the best answer:

A. Sustainability – A sustainability review may be appropriate for environmental performance (energy, materials, certifications) but is not specifically focused on making sure an unusual design technique can be constructed.

B. Budget – A budget review checks cost impacts, which is important but does not by itself determine whether the technique is actually constructible.

D. Design – “Design review” is a very broad term and happens continuously. The question is specifically about innovative or unusual design techniques and what type of review is recommended. CSI guidance specifically names constructability review in this context.

Relevant CSI / CDT References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Programming and Design Phases,” and the role of constructability reviews.

CDT Body of Knowledge – topics on early involvement of construction expertise and constructability reviews.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-based)

CSI’s estimating and bidding guidance divides project costs into:

Direct (construction) costs – labor, materials, equipment directly incorporated into the work.

Indirect costs / Overhead – project overhead (jobsite-specific) and home-office overhead.

Contingencies and profit.

The items listed in the question are classic examples of project (jobsite) overhead costs:

Permits and inspections – required to enable the work but not physically part of the building.

Mobilization and startup – moving equipment, setting up trailers, temporary utilities.

Jobsite safety and security procedures – safety staff, fencing, lighting, etc.

Administrative costs attributable to the work – site management staff, office supplies, communications.

These are necessary to execute the project but are not directly installed in the construction work, so they are categorized as overhead, making Option C correct.

Why others are incorrect:

A. Construction – refers to direct, installed work (concrete, steel, finishes, etc.), not these support functions.

B. Contingency – covers unknowns and risks; it is separate from known overhead items.

D. Insurance – is a specific cost category (builder’s risk, liability, etc.), distinct from the listed overhead activities, even though it may sometimes be grouped in “General Conditions” in a detailed estimate.

Relevant CSI references:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on cost planning and estimating.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – sections on types of project costs (direct, indirect/overhead, contingency, profit).

CSI describes the facility manager as a key stakeholder during project closeout and turnover. Their role is to receive the information, materials, and training needed to operate the completed facility in accordance with the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR).

Typical responsibilities for the facility manager at closeout, as outlined in CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide, include (paraphrased):

Participating in commissioning and training sessions.

Verifying receipt of operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals, warranties, and record documents.

Confirming that required spare parts, attic stock/excess materials, and special tools have been delivered.

Ensuring staff have sufficient training to operate building systems during the initial occupancy period.

This is captured best by Option A, which aligns closely with CSI’s description of closeout responsibilities for the facility manager.

Why the other options are not correct:

B. Coordinate with the architect a final clean-up and site restoration – Final cleaning and site restoration are responsibilities of the contractor, overseen by the A/E and owner. The facility manager may observe but is not normally the one coordinating this work in the contract documents.

C. Hire a new security company – Selecting or changing service vendors (like security firms) is an owner/facility operations business decision, not specifically identified in CSI’s project closeout procedures. It is not a standard closeout task defined in the construction documents.

D. Draft the final changes on the as-built documents – CSI differentiates between “project record documents” maintained by the contractor during construction and record drawings/specifications produced by the A/E (when required). The facility manager receives these but does not normally draft or edit them.

CSI References (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Construction Phase and Facility Management/Closeout.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on project closeout, O&M data, and attic stock.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI’s project delivery and contract administration guidance, the architect’s/engineer’s fundamental professional obligation is described in terms of the “standard of care.”

In the context of design and construction:

Professional standard of care is the legal and professional benchmark used to judge the A/E’s performance.

It is commonly defined as: what a reasonable and prudent design professional, with similar training and experience, in the same discipline and geographic area, would have done under similar circumstances.

CSI emphasizes that the A/E does not guarantee a perfect result or an error-free project, but must act with the skill and care ordinarily exercised by professionals practicing under comparable conditions.

This language and concept are used throughout CSI’s CDT body of knowledge when explaining A/E responsibilities, liability, and expectations under the Owner–A/E Agreement and within the General Conditions of the Contract.

Therefore, the principle described in the question exactly matches Option A – Professional standard of care.

Why the other options are incorrect in CSI/CDT context:

B. Due diligence“Due diligence” is a general legal/business term meaning a thorough and careful effort to investigate or act before making a decision (e.g., feasibility studies, site investigations, or reviewing existing conditions). While A/Es certainly must exercise due diligence, the formal, recognized term for the duty described in the question (reasonable and prudent professional in same area and conditions) is the “standard of care,” not “due diligence.”

C. Performance based requirementThis relates to performance specifications, where the documents define the required results or performance criteria (e.g., energy use, strength, capacity), and the contractor or supplier selects means and methods or products to meet those criteria. It is not a legal or professional duty of A/Es, but rather a type of specification language.

D. Spearin doctrineThe Spearin doctrine (from a U.S. Supreme Court case) holds that when the owner provides plans and specifications, the owner implicitly warrants their adequacy; if the contractor constructs the work according to those plans/specifications and the result is defective due to errors in them, the contractor may not be responsible for that defect. This doctrine concerns owner–contractor risk allocation, not the A/E’s professional duty described in the question.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Design Professionals’ Roles, Standard of Care, and Liability.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions on A/E responsibilities in preparing specifications and coordinating documents.

CSI CDT Exam Study Materials – sections addressing professional standard of care and legal concepts affecting design professionals.

CSI teaches that while project size, nature, and cost all influence the complexity and staffing of a project, the primary determinant of formal roles and responsibilities among owner, design professional, and constructor is the project delivery method.

For example:

In Design-Bid-Build (DBB), the A/E designs under a separate contract with the owner; the contractor is selected later and has no design responsibility (except limited design delegation).

In Design-Build (DB), the design-builder assumes both design and construction responsibilities under a single contract with the owner; the architect is typically under contract to the design-builder.

In Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), the CM has both preconstruction services and then a construction contract with a Guaranteed Maximum Price.

In IPD, key participants share responsibilities collaboratively, often under multi-party agreements.

Because contracts and relationships change with the delivery method, the Project delivery type (Option D) is what determines how responsibilities are allocated in a formal, contractual sense.

Why the other options are not the best answer:

A. Size of the project – Larger projects may require more staff or additional roles (e.g., full-time construction administrator), but they do not fundamentally change who is contractually responsible for design, construction, and administration.

B. Nature of the project – A hospital vs. a warehouse may influence technical requirements and consultant types, but not the core allocation of responsibilities if the delivery method is the same.

C. Cost of construction – Budget level affects scope and possibly oversight intensity, but not the basic contractual roles of owner, A/E, and contractor.

Key CSI-Oriented References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Project Delivery Methods and team responsibilities.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Project Delivery Methods and Their Impact on Roles and Responsibilities.”

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI-based project delivery and standard general conditions (such as those coordinated with CSI and commonly used in CDT study), a Change Order is a written instrument used to modify the Contract Sum, Contract Time, or both, and sometimes the scope of Work.

Key points from CSI-aligned practice:

The construction contract is between the Owner and the Contractor.

The Architect/Engineer (A/E) is typically the Owner’s representative for interpreting the documents and recommending changes, but is not a contracting party.

Because the construction contract is a legal agreement between Owner and Contractor, any change that affects the contract price, time, or scope must ultimately be approved by the Owner.

Standard forms show a Change Order signed by Owner, Contractor, and Architect, but the Owner’s approval is the ultimate authority, since the Owner is the one committing funds and accepting changes in time and scope.

Therefore, while the architect/engineer and contractor both sign and participate, the party with ultimate authority to approve a change order is the:

Owner (Option C).

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Architect/engineer – The A/E typically prepares and recommends the Change Order, confirms technical appropriateness, and certifies related payment changes, but does not hold ultimate contractual authority over the owner’s money or schedule commitments.

B. Contractor – The contractor may request changes and must agree to the change in price/time, but cannot unilaterally approve a change to the Owner’s contract obligations.

D. Construction manager – A CM (as advisor or at risk) may recommend, negotiate, and administer changes, but contractual authority to modify the Owner–Contractor agreement still rests with the Owner.

Key CSI-Related Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Contract Modifications (Change Orders, Construction Change Directives).

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions of Division 01 change procedures and roles.

CSI CDT Study Materials – “Contract Changes” and “Roles and Responsibilities” topics.

CSI organizes the contract documents into a logical hierarchy:

General Conditions – Standard baseline clauses on rights, responsibilities, procedures (e.g., claims, dispute resolution, termination, payments, schedule of values reference).

Supplementary Conditions – Project-specific modifications or additions to the General Conditions, often driven by laws, funding requirements, or owner policies.

Division 01 – General Requirements – Administrative and procedural requirements specific to the project (submittals, schedule of values procedures, temporary facilities, etc.), coordinated with the Conditions of the Contract.

CSI’s guidance (as used for CDT) explains that Supplementary Conditions are the place to add or modify contract conditions to comply with local laws, regulations, and owner requirements that go beyond or differ from the standard General Conditions. Typical items include:

Project-specific insurance requirements and limits,

Local wage requirements,

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action provisions,

Special regulatory or funding-agency conditions.

Therefore, Equal Employment Opportunity requirements belong properly in Supplementary Conditions, making Option C the CSI-consistent answer.

Why the others are incorrect in CSI’s structure:

A. Requirements for a schedule of valuesCSI places the detailed procedures and requirements for the schedule of values in Division 01 – General Requirements, not in the Supplementary Conditions. The General Conditions may mention the schedule of values at a high level, but the “how to” (formats, breakdown, submission procedures) belongs in Division 01, not Supplementary Conditions.

B. Claims and dispute resolution requirementsStandard claims and dispute resolution clauses are part of the General Conditions (for example, notice requirements, initial decision-maker roles, mediation/arbitration steps). Supplementary Conditions may modify certain aspects if needed, but the base provisions themselves are not created there; they originate in the General Conditions.

D. Termination of the work by owner or contractorTermination rights (for cause or for convenience) and their procedures are fundamental contract provisions that belong in the General Conditions. Like claims, they can be adjusted in Supplementary Conditions, but the primary termination clauses are part of the standard General Conditions text, not something you “include” first in Supplementary Conditions.

Key CSI-aligned references (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on the Conditions of the Contract and the roles of General and Supplementary Conditions.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – organization of the Project Manual and correct placement of Division 01, General Conditions, and Supplementary Conditions content.

Per CSI’s Construction Specifications Practice Guide and Division 01 (General Requirements), the contractor is required to maintain record documents (as-built drawings, annotated specifications, and related data) at the jobsite.

CSI defines “record documents” as:

“A set of drawings, specifications, and other documents kept current during construction that show all changes and deviations from the original contract documents.”

Reasons:

They must be readily accessible to field supervisors, inspectors, and the A/E.

They serve as the source for preparation of final “as-built” documents submitted at project closeout.

Why others are incorrect:

A / B. Contractor’s office – does not satisfy accessibility requirements for site coordination.

C. Owner’s office – owner receives the final record documents at closeout, not during construction.

CSI Reference:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide, “Construction Phase Documentation”; Division 01 – 01 78 39 Project Record Documents.

Within CSI’s project delivery and construction documents framework, quality control (QC) refers to activities that check and verify the accuracy and completeness of the work product itself—in this case, the drawings, specifications, and other parts of the project manual before they are issued for bidding or construction.

Peer reviews and internal reviews of completed documents are performed after the documents have been prepared, specifically to find and correct errors, omissions, conflicts, or lack of coordination.

These reviews examine the end product of the documentation process (the drawings and specifications), checking conformance with office standards, project requirements, code requirements, and coordination between disciplines.

CSI distinguishes this from quality assurance (QA), which focuses on the systems and procedures used to produce the documents (such as standard checklists, training, and office procedures). QC, by contrast, is concerned with reviewing the actual deliverables.

Therefore, activities like peer review of completed drawings and specifications, internal checking of finished sections, and coordination review of the project manual are classic examples of quality control tasks, not commissioning, QA-in-the-abstract, or construction administration.

Commissioning (B) focuses on verifying that systems and equipment are installed, tested, and performing according to the contract documents near project completion—not on checking design documents in the office.

Quality assurance (C) is the broader system of policies, procedures, and standards that aim to prevent errors, such as standard templates, firm-wide procedures, and training; the act of reviewing specific completed documents falls under QC.

Construction administration (D) includes responding to RFIs, reviewing submittals, processing change orders, and site visits during construction; it is not the term CSI uses for internal checking of design documents.

Key CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Quality Management, Design Phase, and Construction Documents.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – content on quality assurance vs. quality control in construction documentation.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – sections on document coordination, reviews, and quality processes.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), as described in CSI’s project delivery materials, is a collaborative project delivery method that:

Involves key project participants early in the project,

Uses shared risk and reward, and

Promotes integration of people, systems, business structures, and practices into a process that optimizes project results.

CSI’s discussion of IPD identifies the core IPD team as typically including:

The Owner

The Architect/Engineer (Design Professional)

The Contractor (often a general contractor or construction manager at risk)

In IPD, the contractor is deliberately brought into the project early, often during conceptual or schematic design, to:

Provide constructability input

Contribute cost estimating and scheduling

Help optimize means and methods and coordinate with major trades

Among the choices given, the participant that is clearly recognized as a primary IPD participant in CSI-oriented explanation of IPD is the:

C. Contractor

Why the other options are not the best answer:

A. Authority having jurisdiction (AHJ)The AHJ (e.g., building department, fire marshal) is always involved in permitting and inspections, regardless of delivery method. However, they are not part of the project’s contractual IPD team, nor do they share in IPD contractual risk/reward structures.

B. Commissioning agentA commissioning agent (or authority) may participate in IPD projects, but is not a mandatory or defining core party. Commissioning can be part of many delivery methods (Design-Bid-Build, CM at Risk, Design-Build, IPD). CSI’s general description of IPD focuses on owner–designer–contractor integration.

D. InspectorInspectors (code inspectors, special inspectors) are similar to the AHJ functions—important to the project but external to the project’s contractual structure and not specific to IPD. They serve regulatory and quality verification roles across all delivery methods.

Thus, in the context of CSI’s explanation of Integrated Project Delivery, the clearly correct answer is Option C – Contractor.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Project Delivery Methods and Integrated Project Delivery.

CSI CDT Study Materials – comparisons of Design-Bid-Build, CM at Risk, Design-Build, and IPD, including team composition.

CSI presentations and educational modules on collaborative and integrated delivery methods.

CSI, together with other organizations, developed the Uniform Drawing System (UDS) as part of the National CAD Standard. The UDS provides:

Standard sheet identification and discipline designations

A recommended order for drawing disciplines within a set of contract documents

Consistent organization to help all project participants find information efficiently

The UDS discipline order groups drawings by discipline in a typical sequence, for example:

General (G) – often includes Cover Sheet, Sheet Index, Life Safety

Civil (C)

Landscape (L)

Architectural (A)

Interiors (I)

Structural (S)

Mechanical (M)

Electrical (E)

Plumbing (P)

Fire Protection (FP)(and additional disciplines as needed)

The order given in the question:

Cover Sheet, Sheet Index, Life Safety, Demolition, Civil, Landscaping, Architectural, Interiors, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire Protection

matches the intent of the Uniform Drawing System discipline grouping and ordering:

The initial items (Cover Sheet, Sheet Index, Life Safety, Demolition) fit within the General / Architectural front sections.

Then the disciplines follow in a sequence consistent with UDS recommendations: Civil → Landscape → Architectural → Interiors → Structural → Mechanical → Electrical → Plumbing → Fire Protection.

Therefore, this is an example of UDS-based drawing set organization, which corresponds to Option B – Uniform Drawing System.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Traditional drawing set organization“Traditional” is vague and not a CSI-standardized system. The sequence in the question clearly follows a recognized CSI / NCS discipline order, not just an informal tradition.

C. AIA CAD Layer GuidelinesThe AIA CAD Layer Guidelines address layer naming conventions in CAD files, not the order of sheets in a printed / published drawing set.

D. BIM ImplementationBIM is about digital building information models and processes. It does not by itself define a sheet order; the sheet organization is still typically based on CSI / UDS discipline sequence, even on BIM projects.

Relevant CSI / CDT References (titles only, no links):

CSI / National CAD Standard – Uniform Drawing System (UDS) documentation on discipline designators and sheet ordering.

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussions of drawing organization and coordination with specifications.

mentation

Answer: A

Under CSI’s project delivery and contract administration framework, once the owner–contractor agreement is executed, the contract documents can only be modified through specific instruments defined in the Conditions of the Contract (General and Supplementary Conditions). These recognized formal modifications include:

Change Orders – Written instruments signed by owner, contractor, and usually the architect/engineer (A/E) that change the contract sum, contract time, or both, and possibly scope.

Construction Change Directives (CCD) (sometimes called Work Change Directives) – Written orders issued typically by the owner or A/E directing a change in the work before agreement has been reached on an adjustment in contract sum or time. They are later converted into a change order once costs/time are agreed.

Minor changes in the work – Often issued by the A/E as field orders or supplemental instructions, used for small changes that do not affect contract time or sum.

Different standard forms use different names (“Architect’s Supplemental Instructions,” “Field Order,” “Work Change Directive”), but CSI’s CDT content treats these as the recognized post-execution modification mechanisms to the contract documents.

Now, look at the choices:

Addendum is used to modify the bidding documents before the owner–contractor agreement is signed, not after.

Requests for Information (RFIs) are used to clarify contract documents, not to modify them; an RFI alone does not change the contract.

Option A is the only one that contains the combination of change order and construction change directive, plus a commonly used term (field order) for a minor change in the work. These three together align with the CSI-recognized instruments for modifying the contract documents after execution.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. Field order, construction change directive, and request for information – Missing a change order, which is the primary and most formal method of modification. An RFI is not a modification instrument.

C. Addendum, change order, and request for information – Addendum is pre-contract; RFI is not a modification instrument; only the change order is correct here.

D. Supplemental instructions, work change directive, and addendum – While “supplemental instructions” and “work change directive” can be instruments of modification, combining them with addendum (pre-contract) means this set does not correctly describe modifications after execution.

Therefore, A. Change order, construction change directive, and field order best matches the CSI-defined post-execution modification tools.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI/CDT terminology, there is an important distinction between participants and stakeholders in a project:

Project participants are those who are formally part of the project delivery process, typically through a contractual or professional role. Examples: the owner, architect/engineer, contractor, and sometimes construction manager, commissioning authority, or key consultants. They:

Have direct responsibilities for planning, designing, constructing, administering, or managing the facility.

Are directly affected by project decisions and outcomes under the contracts and agreements.

Stakeholders are a broader group of parties who have an interest in the project, but many of them are not directly involved in performing the work or administering the contract. Examples include:

Users/occupants

Neighbors and surrounding community

Authorities having jurisdiction (from a public-interest standpoint)

Facility management staff, investors, or the general public

Their interest is often indirect—they are affected by the project’s performance, appearance, safety, cost, or impact, but they are not all active participants in day-to-day project execution or contract administration.

Because of this CSI distinction:

Participants → direct interests (active roles)

Stakeholders → often indirect interests (affected by, but not always performing, the work)

That matches Option A: Participants have direct interest in the project while stakeholders have indirect interest.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussions of project participants vs. stakeholders and their roles throughout the facility life cycle.

CSI CDT Exam Study Materials – sections defining owner, design professional, contractor as participants, and users/community as stakeholders.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

CSI’s description of the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) method highlights several characteristics:

The design professional completes the contract documents before bidding.

Contractors bid competitively based on a defined scope.

The owner’s construction cost is not known with certainty until bids are opened.

Among the commonly cited disadvantages of DBB in CSI-related materials are:

Cost risk at bid time – If the market is volatile, or if the design and scope outpace the budget, there is a real possibility that all bids may exceed the owner’s budget, forcing redesign, rebid, or scope reductions.

Longer overall project duration due to the sequential nature (design is completed before bidding, and bidding before construction).

Limited contractor input during design compared with more integrated methods (e.g., CM at Risk, Design-Build, IPD).

Given the answer choices, the one that matches a recognized, fundamental DBB disadvantage is:

B. All of the bids may exceed the owner’s budget

Why the other options are not accurate disadvantages in the CSI sense:

A. It attracts too many biddersHaving multiple bidders is generally considered a benefit of competitive bidding, promoting better pricing and selection, not a defined drawback.

C. It requires a higher level of bid document qualityAll methods benefit from high-quality documents. While DBB does rely heavily on complete and coordinated documents before bidding, CSI does not characterize this as a “primary disadvantage” but rather a professional obligation regardless of delivery method.

D. It reduces the owner’s control over the project during the construction phaseIn fact, in traditional DBB, the owner typically has significant control: separate contracts with A/E and contractor, direct role in changes, submittal review, etc. Compared with Design-Build, DBB often gives more direct owner oversight, not less.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – comparison tables of DBB, CM at Risk, Design-Build, and IPD, including advantages and disadvantages.

CSI CDT Study Materials – sections on project delivery methods and associated risk/allocation.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-based)

In CSI’s project delivery and documentation discussions, BIM is consistently defined as “Building Information Modeling.”

CSI describes BIM as:

A digital representation of the physical and functional characteristics of a facility.

A shared knowledge resource for information about a facility, forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life cycle.

A tool that supports coordination, clash detection, documentation, quantity takeoff, and communication between design and construction team members.

BIM models are used alongside, and coordinated with, drawings, specifications, and other contract documents, and they support communication and decision-making throughout design, construction, and sometimes operation.

The other options are not recognized industry meanings of BIM:

B. Business Information Manual – not a standard construction-industry term.

C. Building Interior Maintenance – does not match CSI or industry definitions of BIM.

D. Building Inspection Manual – again, not the accepted meaning of BIM in the AEC context.

Therefore, in the construction context, BIM stands for “Building Information Modeling” (Option A).

Key CSI References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters addressing BIM and information management.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions of model-based delivery and coordination with specifications.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – terminology and emerging practices including BIM.

CSI defines three major, complementary organizing tools:

MasterFormat® – classifies work results and organizes specification sections into numbered divisions.

SectionFormat® – standardizes the internal arrangement and headings of text within each specification section (e.g., Part 1 – General, Part 2 – Products, Part 3 – Execution), making it easy to read and quickly reference.

UniFormat® – organizes information by systems and assemblies, often used in early design and cost planning rather than final spec sections.

The question specifically asks about a format that standardizes how the text is arranged on specification pages for easy reading and rapid reference. That is exactly the role of SectionFormat®: it defines the structure and order of information inside the section so that users know where to find general requirements, product information, and execution requirements, regardless of the project.

By contrast:

MasterFormat® (Option C) organizes which section information goes into (coding and naming of sections), not the layout of text within the section.

UniFormat® (Option D) structures information by building systems/elements, especially for programming and early design, not for final spec page layout.

PageFormat (Option B) is not one of CSI’s registered, widely recognized branded formats in the way the question is framed.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A – SectionFormat®.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on MasterFormat®, SectionFormat®, and UniFormat®.

CSI SectionFormat® & PageFormat™ standard (CSI publication).

Within CSI’s project delivery framework, the Design stage (which includes schematic design and design development) is where the architect/engineer (A/E) works with the owner to evaluate options, select specific systems, and record decisions that will later be fully detailed in the construction documents.

CSI’s project-phase descriptions (as presented in the CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide and CDT study materials) explain the stages roughly as follows (paraphrased, not verbatim):

Project Conception: The owner defines a need or opportunity, explores whether a project is warranted, and considers general feasibility. The focus is on defining the reason for the project, not picking specific products or systems.

Programming: The owner’s requirements and objectives are documented—space needs, performance criteria, budget, schedule, and qualitative expectations. At this point, needs and performance requirements for systems (e.g., “energy-efficient HVAC,” “durable flooring”) are identified, but not necessarily specific named products or system configurations.

Design:

Schematic Design: General design concepts, overall configuration, and preliminary system approaches are developed; the owner begins making more concrete decisions.

Design Development: The A/E and consultants refine and confirm decisions about specific systems, materials, and assemblies, and these decisions are documented so they can be incorporated into specifications and drawings.

Construction Documents: The A/E takes those already-made decisions and fully documents them in coordinated drawings and specifications, but this phase is not usually where the majority of decisions about which specific products and systems to use are first obtained; instead, it formalizes and details what was already decided in Design.

CSI’s CDT content emphasizes that during Design Development, the A/E “confirms and documents owner decisions about materials, products, and systems” so that these can be translated into clear contract documents during the Construction Documents phase. That activity—obtaining and documenting the owner’s decisions about specific products and systems—is core to the Design stage, making Option B correct.

Why the other options are not correct under CSI’s framework:

A. Construction documentationIn the Construction Documents phase, the A/E develops the detailed drawings and specifications based on decisions made earlier. Changes and additional decisions can occur here, but CSI treats the primary “obtaining and documenting owner choices” as a Design-stage responsibility; the CD phase is about formalizing and coordinating them into contract documents.

C. Project conceptionAt conception, there often isn’t an A/E contracted yet, and the owner is still deciding whether to proceed at all. Product and system decisions would be far too early and poorly defined at this point.

D. ProgrammingProgramming focuses on what the facility must do, not on exactly how via specific products or named systems. It defines performance and functional requirements (e.g., acoustical needs, energy performance) but typically stops short of selecting specific manufacturers or detailed system configurations.

Key CSI-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on project phases (Programming, Design, Construction Documents) and owner/A/E responsibilities.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – sections on the Design phase and decision-making responsibilities for products and systems.

CSI’s treatment of bidding and pricing mechanisms distinguishes between:

Alternates – for defined variations in scope or quality.

Allowances – for items not fully defined at bid time.

Unit prices – for work where quantities are uncertain or may change.

The question mentions:

Equal consideration and transparency during award

Flexibility while awarding

Managing cost during execution for undefined and unforeseen conditions

This language directly aligns with allowances and unit prices:

Allowances are used when the exact nature or selection of certain items (e.g., finishes, special equipment, or yet-to-be-selected products) is not fully defined at bid time. An allowance amount is stated in the documents so all bidders include the same amount, ensuring comparable bids and transparency. Actual cost is reconciled during construction.

Unit prices are used when work items have uncertain quantities (e.g., rock excavation, unsuitable soil replacement). The unit rate is bid up front, and final payment is based on actual measured quantities, which allows the owner to manage cost fairly during execution when unforeseen conditions arise.

Together, allowances and unit prices (Option C) ensure that:

All bidders base their bids on the same assumptions, supporting equal consideration and fairness.

The contract can adapt to undefined or unforeseen conditions without renegotiating basic pricing structures.

Why the others are not correct:

A. Bid security and substitutionBid security protects the owner if the bidder fails to execute the contract; substitution deals with product changes. These do not primarily address managing costs for undefined or unforeseen conditions nor set flexible price structures like allowances or unit prices.

B. Add and deduct alternativesAlternates provide flexibility in award (selecting add or deduct options), but they deal with defined scope options, not ongoing management of undefined or unforeseen conditions during execution.

D. Liquidated damages and combined bidsLiquidated damages relate to time and schedule risk, not unknown scope or quantities; combined bids are procedural. Neither is the primary mechanism CSI associates with managing cost for undefined/unforeseen work.

Relevant CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on bidding, pricing, alternates, allowances, and unit prices.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussion of Division 01 provisions for allowances and unit prices.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – topics on bid forms, pricing mechanisms, and managing unknown quantities.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

CSI describes several techniques in the procurement documents to manage cost uncertainty. When the owner is concerned that the project may exceed the budget when bids are received, the most common tool to allow scope flexibility is the use of alternates.

Alternates (often called “bid alternates”):

Are defined variations in the work (additions or deletions) that bidders price separately from the base bid.

Can be additive (additional scope that can be accepted if the budget allows) or deductive (scope that can be removed to reduce cost if needed).

Give the owner the ability, after seeing the base bids, to accept or reject alternates to bring the project within the available budget without redesigning the entire project.

This fits the scenario in the question exactly: the owner anticipates that the budget may be tight and wants a mechanism to adjust the final contract amount if bids come in high.

Why the other options are not the primary CSI method for this budget-flexibility issue:

A. Cash allowanceAn allowance is a set amount included in the contract sum to cover a defined but not fully specified portion of the work (e.g., artwork, specialty items). It helps manage scope uncertainty, but it doesn’t systematically provide a way to reduce overall cost after bids in the same way alternates do.

B. Quantity allowanceThis is a form of allowance tied to a presumed quantity (e.g., rock excavation). It addresses uncertain quantities, not overall budget flexibility in the bidding process.

C. Unit pricingUnit prices provide fixed prices per unit (e.g., per cubic meter, per square meter) for work items whose final quantities are uncertain. They are useful for adjustments after contract award as quantities change, but they are not the primary tool for adjusting total scope to meet the owner’s budget at bid time.

Therefore, the CSI-aligned answer for allowing flexibility when bids may exceed the budget is:

D. Alternates

Key CSI-Related References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – procurement and pricing strategies, including alternates and allowances.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections on Alternates, Unit Prices, and Allowances.

CSI CDT Study Materials – explanations of bid alternates and their role in controlling project cost.

During the construction documents phase, CSI’s guidance emphasizes that coordination between the architect/engineer (A/E) and the various consulting disciplines (structural, mechanical, electrical, etc.) is essential to produce consistent, coordinated, and complete contract documents (drawings, specifications, and project manual). Part of that coordination is a shared quality assurance (QA) effort among the design team members.

In CSI’s practice guides and CDT body of knowledge, the following principles are stressed (paraphrased to respect copyright):

The prime design professional is responsible for overall coordination of the construction documents, but each consultant is responsible for the technical accuracy and coordination of their own portions.

Coordination includes review of cross-references, matching terminology, alignment of requirements between drawings and specifications, and resolving conflicts before bid/issue.

Quality assurance during this phase is not done in isolation; it is a team activity. Consultants and the lead design firm review each other’s work where it interfaces (e.g., architectural and mechanical coordination of ceilings and diffusers; structural and architectural coordination of openings, etc.).

Therefore, “Quality assurance tasks shared between design and consulting teams” (Option D) correctly describes a standard component of project design team coordination during the construction documents phase.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Duplication of important information by each disciplineCSI stresses “say it once, in the right place” as a fundamental principle. Information should not be unnecessarily duplicated because duplication increases the risk of conflict and inconsistency (for example, a requirement shown in both drawings and multiple spec sections but updated in only one location). Coordination aims to avoid duplication, not to promote it.

B. Ensuring drawing note terminology is differentiated from specification terminologyCSI emphasizes consistent terminology across drawings, specifications, and other documents. The same items (e.g., “gypsum board,” “reinforcing steel,” “membrane roofing”) should be described using the same terms in both drawings and specifications to reduce ambiguity. Coordination meetings often include checking that terminology is aligned, not intentionally differentiated.

C. Requiring the owner to hire a third-party to write the Division 01 specifications independentlyDivision 01 – General Requirements – is typically prepared or controlled by the lead design professional or specifier, in coordination with the owner. CSI materials do not identify it as a standard or required coordination practice for the owner to hire an independent third party to write Division 01 separately from the design team. That may occur on some projects, but it is not a defined component of team coordination in CSI’s CDT framework.

In summary, CSI-based construction documentation practice defines coordination during the construction documents phase as a shared responsibility among the architect/engineer and all consultants, including joint quality assurance reviews, consistency checks, and cross-discipline coordination. This aligns directly with Option D.

Key CSI References (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Design Phase and Construction Documents coordination.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on coordination between drawings and specifications and the role of Division 01.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – topics on roles and responsibilities of the design team and coordination of construction documents.

In CSI-based drawing conventions, a scaled view is one drawn at a stated scale so that actual dimensions can be measured directly from the drawing (e.g., 1:100, 1/4" = 1'-0"). CSI’s Uniform Drawing System (UDS) treats floor plans, roof plans, and foundation plans as primary orthographic views prepared at a defined scale for dimensioning and coordination between disciplines. These are the standard “working drawings” for construction.

Foundation plan (Option B)A foundation plan is an orthographic plan view drawn to a specific scale showing footings, slabs, and foundations with dimensions and notes. It is intended for measurement and layout, and CSI references it as one of the basic scaled plan views of the project drawings.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Perspective – Perspectives are pictorial views used for visualization and presentation. CSI notes that such views are typically not used for taking dimensions and may not be drawn to a true working scale.

C. Riser diagram – Riser diagrams (for plumbing, fire protection, electrical, etc.) are diagrammatic, showing relationships and routing, not physical locations at scale. They are expressly identified as “not to scale” in most construction document standards.

D. Isometric – Isometric drawings are a type of pictorial/axonometric view used to show three-dimensional relationships. While they can sometimes be constructed proportionally, CSI’s guidance treats them as diagrammatic/pictorial views rather than the primary scaled working views used for dimensioning work in the field.

CSI References (no links):

CSI Uniform Drawing System (UDS) modules on drawing types and views (plan, elevation, section, diagrammatic views).

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussion of scaled plan views as part of the construction documents set.

Under CSI’s project delivery and contracting principles, the contract documents are only one part of the legal framework that governs construction. Regulatory approvals and permits are a separate, critical requirement that must be satisfied before construction begins, regardless of contract award or the owner’s desire to proceed.

Key CSI-aligned concepts:

Building codes and other regulations are enforced by authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs)—in this case, both city and state agencies.

The owner, often via the design professional, must obtain the required permits from all AHJs before construction activities are started.

Contract award to a general contractor does not authorize construction to proceed without permits; doing so exposes the owner and contractor to violations, stop-work orders, penalties, and liability.

Therefore, the correct advice in a CSI-consistent framework is:

Construction may begin only after both city and state permits have been issued. (Option D)

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Construction may begin immediately … if a safety manager is present and excavation is avoided.Safety management and the type of work do not override permit requirements. Work without required permits is typically prohibited regardless of safety measures.

B. Since the state approval is more critical … proceed after the state permits are issued.CSI acknowledges that all applicable jurisdictions must be satisfied. One jurisdiction is not “more critical” such that the other can be ignored. If both city and state approvals are required, the project must have both before construction starts.

C. Since the city approval is more critical … proceed after city permits are issued.Same issue as B. If both city and state have regulatory authority, both sets of permits are required; neither is optional or subordinate in this sense.

CSI-aligned references (no external links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on regulatory requirements and authorities having jurisdiction.

CSI CDT Study materials – discussions of permits, code compliance, and the relationship between AHJ approvals and the start of construction.

Typical General Conditions of the Contract as discussed in CSI materials – provisions requiring compliance with laws, codes, and permits.

CSI defines commissioning as a quality-focused process that verifies the facility and its systems meet the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR). In the Project Delivery Practice Guide, commissioning is categorized into three broad types (paraphrased):

Systems and equipment commissioning – verifying that HVAC, electrical, plumbing, life safety, and other building systems perform as intended.

Building envelope commissioning – verifying performance of the exterior enclosure, including air/water infiltration, thermal performance, and durability.

Total project commissioning (also called whole-building or total building commissioning) – extending commissioning to the entire project, including design, construction, and operational aspects, integrating envelope, systems, and other building components.

Given that the question already lists “systems and equipment commissioning” and “building envelope commissioning,” the missing third category described by CSI is “total project commissioning”, which corresponds to Option D.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Mechanical commissioning – This is a subset of systems and equipment commissioning (focused on HVAC/mechanical systems), not one of CSI’s three overarching categories.

B. Facility commissioning – While the term might be used informally, CSI’s categorized terminology in the CDT body of knowledge is “total project commissioning” rather than “facility commissioning.”

C. Process commissioning – This term is more common in industrial process industries and is not identified by CSI as one of the three principal commissioning categories for building projects.

CSI References (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on commissioning types and scope (total project, systems and equipment, building envelope).

CSI describes the schedule of values as the breakdown of the contract sum allocated to portions of the work (often by specification section, building system, or major components). It is used as the basis for reviewing progress payments.

In CSI-aligned practice:

Before the first application for payment, the contractor submits a schedule of values to the A/E for review.

Each line item represents a portion of the work with an assigned dollar amount.

Every application for payment is itemized against that schedule—showing the percentage complete and corresponding dollar amount for each item.

Thus, the contractor’s application is organized and itemized in accordance with the schedule of values, enabling the A/E and owner to evaluate progress in a consistent, transparent way. That matches Option C.

Why the others are incomplete or incorrect in this context:

A. The construction schedule – The construction schedule shows time and sequencing, not the cost breakdown used to itemize payment requests.

B. The subcontractor’s invoices – These may support the contractor’s internal accounting but do not define how the application for payment must be structured for the owner.

D. The percentage of completion – Percentage of completion is important, but it is applied to each line item in the schedule of values. The question asks what the application must be itemized in accordance with, which is the schedule of values, not just percentages.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on construction phase payment procedures.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – payment applications and use of schedule of values.

Standard conditions of the contract as discussed in CSI materials – provisions on progress payments.

In CSI’s description of the project conception and pre-design phases, the owner has a responsibility to determine whether a proposed project is feasible and appropriate before moving into full design. One of the key tools for this is a due diligence investigation.

CSI characterizes due diligence as including, for example:

Reviewing legal, zoning, and regulatory constraints.

Evaluating financial feasibility and the owner’s available resources or funding mechanisms.

Considering market conditions, potential users, and long-term operational costs.

Assessing social, environmental, and community impacts (traffic, neighborhood character, environmental effects, required approvals).

Through this activity, the owner can decide whether to:

Proceed with the project as envisioned,

Modify scope, location, or timing, or

Abandon the project if it is not viable.

This aligns directly with Option C – Due diligence investigation, which is about assessing viability, finances, and broader impacts.

Why the other options are less appropriate:

A. Schematic programmingCSI separates programming (defining needs and requirements) and schematic design (early design). The term “schematic programming” is not a standard CSI term. Programming helps define needs but is only one part; due diligence focuses more broadly on viability, finance, and external impacts.

B. Site selectionSite selection is important, but it is one component within a broader due diligence process. It does not, by itself, fully address financial feasibility or community impact; those are evaluated in the larger due diligence/feasibility effort.

D. Master planningMaster planning typically addresses long-range development of a site, campus, or area (phasing, land use, circulation, infrastructure). While it may touch community impacts, it is broader and more strategic. The question specifically targets an activity to assess viability, financial resources, and community impact for a specific project decision—that is due diligence.

Key CSI Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Project Conception and Predesign, Owner’s due diligence and feasibility studies.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Owner’s responsibilities prior to design and procurement.

CDT Body of Knowledge – “Owner’s Project Initiation, Feasibility, and Due Diligence.”