PSP Sample Questions Answers

 The change order impacts Activity 6001 by increasing its duration and workload. As per Critical Path Method (CPM) principles, this would also affect predecessor activities like 1000, which directly influence the start of 6001.

 Updates to the schedule will ripple through linked activities, but only those immediately affected by the change—1000 and 6001—would be revised in the immediate update.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.3.4 – Schedule Change Management, and Appendix A – Sample Problems on CPM Network adjustments highlight how scope changes propagate through linked activities.

 Time-Scaled Logic Diagrams:

Represent activities with respect to a time scale (e.g., a calendar).

Show logical relationships and durations in a visually aligned manner, aiding in analysis and reporting.

 Common Misconceptions:

They are not the same as pure logic diagrams (B).

While often created using computer software, manual versions are also possible, so (A) is incorrect.

They are not specifically for calculating activity durations (C).

 PSP Study Guide References:

The guide identifies time-scaled logic diagrams as a tool for better visualization of schedules, where activities align with calendar dates​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is D, as time-scaled logic diagrams are drawn to align activities with a calendar.

 Volume of Concrete per Column:

Each column requires 2,000 cubic feet of concrete.

 Lift Bucket Capacity:

Each lift bucket holds 40 cubic feet.

 Calculate Number of Lifts per Column:

Number of Lifts = Volume of Concrete ÷ Bucket Capacity = 2,000 ÷ 40 = 80 lifts.

 Cross-Verification:

Option B (50 lifts): Incorrect. Miscalculates required lifts.

Option C (5 lifts): Incorrect. Unrealistic for 2,000 cubic feet.

Option D (20 lifts): Incorrect. Underestimates.

Option A (80 lifts): Correct.

An earned value management (EVM) system can base its calculations on labor hours or monetary values, depending on the nature of the project. Both methods are valid for tracking performance and forecasting outcomes.

Option B (direct or indirect cost) does not align with EVM's focus on performance metrics.

Option C confuses timeframes with budgeting principles.

Option D (linear feet or dollars) applies to physical progress tracking but not directly to EVM systems.

This is consistent with EVM principles as outlined in project control methodologies within the PSP materials​.

 The Late Finish (LF) for an activity in CPM is determined by adding the activity’s duration to its Late Start (LS).

 For Activity 9004, if its Late Start is known, adding the activity’s 72-day duration gives the Late Finish date.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.2.4 – Relationships and Calculations, highlights the importance of forward and backward pass calculations to determine ES, EF, LS, and LF.

 Understanding Schedule Performance Index (SPI):

SPI is calculated as SPI=BCWPBCWS\text{SPI} = \frac{\text{BCWP}}{\text{BCWS}}SPI=BCWSBCWP​, where BCWP is the budgeted cost of work performed, and BCWS is the budgeted cost of work scheduled.

SPI < 1 indicates that the project is progressing slower than planned, meaning it is behind schedule.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

A: SPI > 1 would indicate the project is ahead of schedule.

B: SPI = 1 implies the project is on schedule.

C: Completion is not relevant to SPI.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

PSP emphasizes SPI as a key metric in earned value management (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 1D: Earned Value Analysis).

 Each crane can perform 30 lifts per day with a 1.75 cubic yard bucket. For 3 cranes over 5 days: Concrete volume per day=3 cranes×30 lifts/crane/day×1.75 CY/lift.\text{Concrete volume per day} = 3 \text{ cranes} \times 30 \text{ lifts/crane/day} \times 1.75 \text{ CY/lift}.Concrete volume per day=3 cranes×30 lifts/crane/day×1.75 CY/lift. Daily volume=157.5 CY/day.\text{Daily volume} = 157.5 \text{ CY/day}.Daily volume=157.5 CY/day. Over 5 days: Total volume=157.5×5=306 CY.\text{Total volume} = 157.5 \times 5 = 306 \text{ CY}.Total volume=157.5×5=306 CY.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 1.3.7 – Resource Calculations, demonstrates how crane capacity and lift productivity are incorporated into project planning.

 Understanding the Problem Context:

Activity C is currently set to complete on Day 40.

Activity A has a 5-day delay in starting, so adjustments are needed to maintain the Day 40 completion date for Activity C.

The key is to identify which adjustment will fail to maintain the timeline.

 Option-by-Option Analysis:

A. Reduce the duration of 'A' from 20 days to 10 days and replace the relationship from 'B' to 'C' with FSO (Finish-to-Start with Offset):

Reducing Activity A’s duration from 20 to 10 days might mitigate part of the delay, but replacing the relationship between B and C with FSO introduces an offset.

FSO relationships typically delay the start of successor activities (Activity C in this case).

This would likely push Activity C beyond Day 40 because the delay in B's finish, coupled with the offset, would result in C starting later.

This adjustment does NOT maintain the completion date of Activity C.

B. Replace the relationship from 'B' to 'C' with SSO (Start-to-Start with Offset):

An SSO relationship allows Activity C to begin once Activity B starts (with or without an offset).

This adjustment effectively overlaps the schedules of B and C, mitigating delays from A.

This adjustment can maintain the completion date of Activity C at Day 40.

C. Reduce the duration of 'B' from 10 days to 5 days by compressing work effort:

Reducing B’s duration by compressing its schedule shortens its timeline, allowing Activity C to start sooner.

This adjustment offsets the delay caused by Activity A.

This adjustment can maintain the completion date of Activity C at Day 40.

 Final Answer and Justification:

The adjustment described in A will NOT maintain the completion date of Activity C at Day 40 because the FSO relationship introduces delays, making it ineffective in this scenario.

Options B and C offer feasible adjustments to maintain the timeline.

 Study Guide Reference:

Refer to the PSP Certification Study Guide, Chapter 2 – Scheduling, Subchapter 2.2.4: Relationships (p. 151-157), which details the impact of logical relationships (FSO, SSO) on schedule timelines.

Additionally, review AACE Recommended Practice 52R-06: Time Impact Analysis for insights into how delays affect dependent activities and methods for mitigating them.

 Purpose of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS):

The WBS organizes the project into manageable components, breaking it down to the smallest defined work packets or work packages.

These packages serve as the foundation for schedule and cost management.

 PSP Study Guide References:

The WBS is discussed as the primary organizational tool to define the scope, cost, and activities of a project​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is D, as the WBS is used to organize the smallest work packages.

 Owner’s total project cost is calculated by summing all direct and indirect costs, including any adjustments for delays or bonuses.

 Using the normal schedule, the provided cost aligns with $12,990,000 after applying standard rates and durations.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 1.3.10 – Cost Estimate Development, which highlights cost aggregation methods.

 Activity Duration Estimation Techniques:

Accurate estimation methods include detailed breakdowns, using experienced personnel, and analyzing specific factors for individual activities.

Relying on gross estimates or averages (as in A) introduces significant inaccuracies.

 PSP Study Guide References:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes the importance of detailed and specific input to improve estimation accuracy​.

 Analysis for Selection:

Option A: Incorrect method, as averages do not provide accurate results for individual activities.

Option B: Misguided suggestion; focusing independently on activities without logic paths introduces potential errors.

Option C: Correct. Dividing activities enhances detail and estimation precision.

Option D: Correct. Involving the executors ensures realistic and experienced-based durations.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A, as using gross estimates is not an effective method for improving accuracy.

 Shape of Cumulative BCWS:

The Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS) reflects a cumulative expenditure curve over time, typically shaped like an "S".

 Explanation of the S-Curve:

Initially slow expenditure, acceleration during peak work, and tapering off near completion.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide discusses BCWS as part of earned value management (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 1D: Earned Value Analysis).

 Preventing Structural Steel Delays:

Incorporating realistic timeframes for shop drawing review and resubmittals in the baseline schedule prevents design-related delays.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

A: Adding time buffers does not address the root cause.

C: Concurrent review may create confusion and errors.

D: Switching to post-tensioned concrete is a significant design change, not a practical solution for a scheduling issue.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Adequate review time aligns with PSP scheduling best practices (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2B: Schedule Development and Baseline Creation).

 Scenario Overview:

A change order has been approved, adding 33 days for weather delays. This requires updating the schedule to reflect the extended contract duration.

 Impact on Scheduling:

The simplest and cleanest way to include the change is to create a new activity that represents the delay (e.g., Activity 1050).

The new activity is linked to Activity 1000 using a start-to-start (SS) relationship. This ensures the delay begins in parallel with the original contract start.

The finish-to-finish (FF) relationship with the final activity ensures that the extended duration impacts the project's overall timeline.

 Cross-Verification with PSP Principles:

PSP principles emphasize the importance of maintaining logical integrity and clarity when updating schedules for change orders (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2B: Schedule Maintenance/Controlling). This method ensures traceability of the delay without affecting activity logic unnecessarily.

Total float measures the flexibility in an activity’s timing within a schedule. It is defined as the amount of time an activity can be delayed without affecting the project’s overall completion date or the completion date of any of its successors.

Option A, B, and D accurately describe total float: it is calculated as the difference between early and late start/finish dates, can be positive or negative, and is associated with project completion​.

Option C describes free float, not total float, and thus is incorrect.

 Understanding the Requirement:

The "normal" schedule duration is 1072 days for Activity 1000 (General Conditions).

Billing occurs at the end of each month for the previous month.

Partial months are included in billing cycles.

 Total Project Duration in Months:

Total days: 1072.

Convert to months: 107230.44≈35.2\frac{1072}{30.44} \approx 35.230.441072​≈35.2 months.

Include partial months, which adds 1 additional invoice.

 Total Invoices:

Full months: 35.

Partial months: 7 (assuming each partial month is rounded up to include invoicing).

Total invoices = 35+7=4235 + 7 = 4235+7=42.

 PSP Principles Cross-Verification:

PSP guidelines emphasize accurate conversion of schedule durations into calendar billing periods for effective cash flow management (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2B: Schedule Output and Deliverables).

Original Completion Date (Normal Schedule):

Project completion is originally set for 03-01-04 (based on all durations and dependencies).

Slippage Details:

Activity 1001: Slipped by 10 days.

Activity 10002: Slipped by 35 days.

Remaining activities retain original durations.

Revised Completion Date Calculation:

Adjust original completion date for the cumulative slippage of 35 days (largest impact).

New completion date = 03-01-04 + 10 days = 03-11-04.

Cross-Verification with Answer Options:

Option A (02-19-04): Incorrect. Ignores slippage.

Option B (03-21-04): Incorrect. Overestimates slippage impact.

Option D (03-20-04): Incorrect. Does not align with the logical sequence.

Option C (03-11-04): Correct. Matches adjusted completion date.

A fundamental limitation of Critical Path Method (CPM) scheduling is its assumption of unlimited resources, meaning it does not account for resource constraints when calculating schedules.

Option A (backward pass) is a standard part of the CPM process.

Option C is incorrect as CPM considers activity dependencies.

Option D refers to flexibility in diagramming methods, not a drawback.

The PSP Study Guide highlights resource constraints as a significant challenge in CPM application​​.

 Critical Path Identification:

The critical path is the longest sequence of activities that determines the project’s minimum duration.

Path: A → B → G → H.

 Exclusion of Other Options:

Paths involving F, J, or non-critical activities do not align with the longest duration.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes identifying the critical path for schedule optimization (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Critical Path Analysis)

The Estimate to Complete (ETC) quantifies the cost required to complete all remaining work.

Option A (Budget at Completion - BAC) is the total approved budget.

Option B (Budgeted Cost of Work Performed - BCWP) measures earned value.

Option D (Estimate at Completion - EAC) includes both actual costs to date and ETC.

ETC is used to forecast project completion costs as outlined in standard project management practices​​.

 Role of Constraints:

Constraints impose specific conditions on schedule events or activities, such as fixed start dates or imposed milestones.

These are external to the natural logic relationships established in a network (e.g., predecessor-successor relationships).

 PSP Study Guide References:

The guide describes constraints as independent factors that override logic-based sequencing when necessary​.

 Analysis of Options:

Option A and C: Constraints impact both forward and backward passes, not exclusively one.

Option D: Constraints supersede activity logic rather than being overruled by it.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as constraints operate independently of project logic relationships.

 Crashing is a technique to reduce project duration by allocating additional resources to critical path activities. The most critical factor when crashing a schedule often pertains to external constraints that could severely disrupt progress.

 Avoiding adverse weather conditions, such as the 2023-2024 winter/wet season, is paramount since such conditions can render activities impossible or highly inefficient.

 The PSP Study Guide emphasizes that constraints, such as environmental conditions, play a pivotal role in project planning and execution. Managing these constraints effectively through schedule adjustments like crashing is critical to project success.

 Financial incentives (bonus or penalties) and cost minimization, while important, typically take secondary priority when natural constraints risk derailing the project timeline entirely (PSP Guide, Section 1.2.4 – Project Variables and Constraints).

 Requirement to Expedite:

To release the product 20 days earlier, critical path activities must be expedited.

Critical path activities: A (Testing), D (Manufacturing), G (Packaging).

 Excluded Activities:

Activities like drafting (Activity C) or proofing (Activity F) are not critical and do not impact the total project duration.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

PSP guidelines emphasize expediting critical path tasks for schedule acceleration (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2B: Schedule Compression Techniques).

 Logic Organization Requirement:

Activity 6002 is required to begin 10 days after the start of Activity 6001.

A start-to-start (SS) relationship with a 10-day lag effectively captures this requirement.

 Exclusion of Other Options:

Option B: Placing the lag on Activity 6002 introduces unnecessary complexity.

Option C: Start-to-finish relationships are not appropriate for this situation.

Option D: A finish-to-start relationship does not meet the requirement of aligning start times.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes using SS relationships with lags for activities that need staggered starts (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Relationships and Lags).

 Impact of Calendars on Total Float:

Differing calendars (e.g., working days, holidays, or shifts) assigned to activities can result in varying total float values within a logical chain.

Total float measures the flexibility of an activity and is calculated based on its calendar and logical dependencies.

 PSP Study Guide References:

The guide covers how calendar assignments influence float calculations and their potential to create disparities in a critical path​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as differing total float values typically indicate the use of different calendars for activities in the chain.

To calculate the duration:

Total hours required: 240 hours.

Daily work hours per crew: 5 workers × 8 hours/day = 40 hours/day.

Duration = Total hours ÷ Daily work hours = 240 ÷ 40 = 6 days.

This calculation aligns with standard resource planning principles​.

 Position Analysis:

Activity C (Develop Draft Plans and Specifications) has a duration of 5 months and is preceded by Activity A.

The diagram positions Activity C incorrectly since it starts simultaneously with Activity B, but Activity C should start after the completion of Activity A.

 Cross-Verification:

Based on the dependencies, Activity C’s incorrect positioning violates the logical sequencing rule.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Correct logic representation is critical for network diagrams (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Logical Sequencing).

 Critical Path and Delays:

A delay must impact the critical path to qualify for a time extension or compensable delay, as the critical path determines the project's overall completion time.

If the critical path is not affected, the delay is considered to have "float," which means it does not affect the project's completion date and, therefore, may not be compensable.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Delays impacting the critical path are emphasized in the PSP Study Guide under schedule analysis and delay management sections. The claimant must demonstrate that the delay impacts key project milestones and overall project completion​.

 Analysis for Selection:

Option A: Correct. A delay that does not affect the critical path does not result in additional time or compensation.

Option B: Concurrent delays involve shared responsibility and may complicate claims for compensation but are not a strict requirement for delay consideration.

Option C: Monetary harm is not directly relevant to time extension entitlement.

Option D: While planned schedules are significant, the focus is on the project's critical path, not just the contractor's planned sequence.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A because affecting the critical path is the key determinant for entitlement to a time extension or compensable delay.

Free float is a concept in Critical Path Method (CPM) scheduling that refers to the amount of time an activity's early start can be delayed without affecting the early start of any immediately succeeding activities.

Option A refers to total float, which considers early and late dates of an activity​.

Option C also points to total float.

Option D does not define free float.

Free float is critical for project planners as it provides flexibility in scheduling without impacting downstream activities​.

 Late Finish (LF) is calculated by adjusting the Late Start (LS) of the subsequent activity (2003) by the lag value.

 The formula, LS of 2003 - 1 day, aligns with CPM principles where the predecessor's LF must occur before the successor starts.

 The date calculation, considering lags and dependencies, results in 06 Oct 2021.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.2.4 – Relationships and Calculations, Appendix A – Sample Calculations for LF and LS relationships.

 Calculation of Total Lifts Required:

3 column pours = 28×3=8428 \times 3 = 8428×3=84.

Additional lifts = 150150150.

Total lifts = 84+150=23484 + 150 = 23484+150=234.

 Lifts Per Day with One Crane:

1 crane performs 30 lifts per day.

 Required Duration:

Minimum planned working duration = ⌈234÷30⌉=18\lceil 234 \div 30 \rceil = 18⌈234÷30⌉=18.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Aligning workload with equipment capacity ensures practical schedule planning (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2B: Workload Balancing).

 A WBS summary activity aggregates costs of constituent activities (2001 through 2004).

 By summing the costs of activities as outlined in the schedule, the total cost for the WBS summary activity is calculated as $321,000.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 1.3.7 – Establish Work Breakdown Structure, elaborates on cost consolidation at WBS levels.

 Delay Analysis:

Analyzing delays contemporaneously ensures accurate understanding of their causes and effects, helping stakeholders mitigate impacts in real time.

Waiting until after the project introduces risks of incomplete or inaccurate records.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Contemporary delay analysis is highlighted as a best practice for effective delay resolution and management​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as contemporaneous analysis is the most effective way to address project delays.

 Activity Relationships:

Activity 2002 is directly succeeded by Activity 2003 in the schedule.

The late start (LS) of Activity 2003 determines the late finish (LF) of Activity 2002, adjusted by any lags or additional constraints.

 Late Finish Calculation Formula:

LF of 2002 = LS of 2003 - 1 day.

This accounts for the predecessor-successor logic and the sequence of activities.

 Date Calculation:

Late start of 2003 = 10-06-01.

Late finish of 2002 = 10-06-01 - 1 day = 10-05-01.

 Verification:

PSP guidelines emphasize that late finish values are derived by subtracting any relevant time constraints from the successor's late start (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Backward Pass Calculations)

 Cost for 2000 Series Activities:

Activity 2001: $150,000.

Activity 2002: $25,000.

Activity 2003: $18,000.

Activity 2004: $96,000.

Total: 150,000+25,000+18,000+96,000=289,000150,000 + 25,000 + 18,000 + 96,000 = 289,000150,000+25,000+18,000+96,000=289,000.

 Total Project Cost:

Total cost: $7,308,000 (sum of all activities in "normal" schedule).

 Percentage Contribution:

289,0007,308,000×100≈3.95%\frac{289,000}{7,308,000} \times 100 \approx 3.95\%7,308,000289,000​×100≈3.95%.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes accuracy in percentage-based cost contributions as a critical analysis tool in project cost management (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 1B: Cost Breakdown Structure).

 Determining the Late Finish (LF) of Activity 6002 involves analyzing its successor activity, 6003, and considering the lag (if any).

 By subtracting 1 day from the Late Start (LS) of 6003, the Late Finish (LF) of 6002 is derived. The date calculation aligns with this logic, making 09 Mar 2023 the correct date.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.2.5 – Constraints and Calendars, and Appendix A – Example CPM Problems, which detail LF and LS calculations.

 Critical Path Analysis:

Critical path activities include proofing, printing, and packaging.

Delays or baseline adherence does not alter the sequence of critical activities.

 Impact Assessment:

No additional changes occur to the baseline critical path in the given scenario.

 Cross-Verification:

Option A: Incorrect. Assumes two path changes.

Option B: Incorrect. Incorrect number of changes.

Option D: Incorrect. Overestimates critical path shifts.

Option C: Correct. Reflects no critical path changes.

 Activity 2002 in the Crashed Schedule:

Activity 2002 duration in the crashed schedule is 28 days.

Start Date: 12 August 2021.

Finish Date = Start Date + Duration (excluding non-working days).

 Calculation:

12 August + 28 days = 09 September 2021 (excluding weekends or non-working days based on typical calendars).

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Accurate calculation of start and finish dates aligns with scheduling best practices (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Schedule Development).

 Scope Planning Tools and Techniques:

Tools for scope planning include methods to define and refine the project scope. These involve cost-benefit analysis, expert judgment, and alternatives identification.

Schedule performance indexing is a performance tracking tool used during execution and is unrelated to scope planning.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Scope planning methods are detailed in the PSP guide, emphasizing tools like expert judgment, alternatives analysis, and structured decision-making techniques​.

 Analysis for Selection:

Option A: A common method to analyze the costs and benefits of scope components.

Option B: Incorrect. This is a tracking tool, not a scope planning method.

Option C: Expert judgment is a key technique in defining project scope.

Option D: Alternatives identification supports exploring various approaches to project goals.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as schedule performance indexing is not a scope planning tool.

 Crashed Schedule Predecessors to Activity 2004:

Activity 2004 (River Diversion to Pipeline) depends on completion of:

1001 (Preliminary Civil Work).

2001 (River Diversion Stage 1).

2002 (River Diversion Stage 2).

2003 (River Diversion Dam).

 Exclusion of Other Activities:

Activity 2007 is not part of the crashed schedule's direct predecessor chain.

Other options include duplicated or incorrect entries.

 PSP Study Guide Reference:

Logical sequence analysis confirms these predecessors (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Activity Sequencing and Critical Path Analysis).

 Understand Free Float:

Free float is the time an activity can be delayed without delaying the start of its immediate successor.

 Review Activity F in the Diagram:

Activity F has a successor that starts later, providing room for 2 months of free float.

 Cross-Verification:

Option A: Incorrect. Overestimates the float.

Option B: Incorrect. No float is incorrect for F.

Option C: Incorrect. 1 month is insufficient.

Option D: Correct. Matches the calculated free float for Activity F.