CDT Construction Documents Technologist Questions and Answers

CSI and the AIA A201–style general conditions define Substantial Completion as the stage in the progress of the work when the project (or a designated portion) is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract documents so that the Owner can occupy or use it for its intended purpose.

In the typical Owner–Contractor Agreement, a clause or article states either:

A calendar date for substantial completion, or

A number of days from the date of commencement by which substantial completion must be achieved.

This is what establishes the duration of the work and the key date when the Owner can begin using the facility. Therefore, Option C – Date of substantial completion – correctly identifies the provision that defines the duration and occupancy milestone.

Why the others are incorrect:

A. Cutoff date – Not a standard CSI/AIA contract term.

B. Date of commencement of the work – This identifies the start, not the required completion/occupancy point.

D. Scope of work – Describes what is to be built, not when it must be complete or ready for use.

Relevant CSI references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on contract time, substantial completion, and final completion.

CSI CDT Study Materials – definitions of substantial completion, correction period, and related milestones.

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.

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.

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

According to the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and CDT exam content, the General Conditions of the Contract form the foundational “baseline” set of administrative, procedural, and legal requirements for every construction contract. All other contracting documents—including Supplementary Conditions, Division 01, and specification sections—are modified in relation to this baseline.

Why the Correct Answer Is General Conditions (Option D)

CSI practice guides describe the General Conditions as:

The standard baseline document for project relationships, responsibilities, rights, and procedures.

The “default” set of requirements unless modified by Supplementary Conditions or Division 01.

The document against which all deviations must be clearly identified, especially when supplementary or project-specific requirements alter the standard conditions.

General Conditions define or baseline:

Roles and responsibilities of owner, contractor, A/E

Contract time, payments, changes, submittals, inspections

Dispute resolution

Site conditions, insurance, and protection of work

CSI emphasizes that the General Conditions do not change for each project unless Supplementary Conditions modify them, which reinforces that they form the baseline.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

A. General Requirements (Division 01)

Division 01 sections coordinate the administrative and procedural requirements for the project, but they expand upon or modify the General Conditions—not the other way around. They cannot be the baseline because they themselves rely on the baseline established in the General Conditions.

B. Supplementary Conditions

These modify the General Conditions to address project-specific legal or regulatory requirements (e.g., bonding, liquidated damages, insurance). They create deviations, not the baseline from which deviations are identified.

C. Project Manual

The Project Manual is a collection of documents—including bidding requirements, contract forms, General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, and specifications. It is not itself the baseline; it contains the baseline (the General Conditions).

Key CSI References

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Chapters on Procurement and Contracting, discussing General Conditions as the base document for rights, responsibilities, and procedures.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Sections on Contract Documents hierarchy and coordination.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Contractual relationships and use of General Conditions as baseline documents.

In CSI/CDT terminology, “preconstruction submittals” are those required at (or very near) the start of the project, before actual construction work proceeds, to set up project administration, payment, and coordination. These submittals are usually specified in Division 01 – General Requirements of the Project Manual and are part of the contract requirements established by the specifications.

Typical examples of preconstruction submittals in CSI-aligned practice include:

Construction/progress schedule

Submittal schedule

Schedule of values

List of subcontractors and suppliers

Insurance and bonds

Temporary facilities and controls plans

Health & safety or site-specific plans (when required)

The schedule of values is expressly listed in standard Division 01 sections as a required early submittal that must be approved before progress payments can be properly evaluated and certified. It breaks down the contract sum into line items for payment and becomes the basis for reviewing the contractor’s pay applications throughout the project. Because it is required at the start of the construction phase and before regular work progress, it is a classic preconstruction submittal, matching Option C.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Product dataProduct data (cut sheets, catalog information, performance data, etc.) are action submittals for specific products and materials. Although some may be submitted early, they are typically required as needed before related work is installed, not universally at the very start of the job. They are not classified by CSI as “preconstruction submittals” in the same sense as the schedule of values or project schedule.

B. Shop drawingsShop drawings are also action submittals supporting fabrication and installation of specific work (e.g., structural steel, curtain wall systems, ductwork, etc.). They are provided during the construction phase in accordance with a submittal schedule, not as “preconstruction” administrative submittals that must be in place before construction administration and payments can be properly managed.

D. Warranty documentationsCorrected term: “warranty documentation.”Warranty documentation is typically part of closeout submittals—submitted near Substantial Completion or Final Completion, not at the beginning of the project. Division 01 and individual technical sections usually require warranties to be submitted as part of project closeout procedures, after the work is in place and accepted, not as a preconstruction submittal.

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on Division 01, Submittals, and Requirements for Administrative Submittals (including preconstruction submittals).

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Construction Phase and construction submittal processes.

CDT Exam Content Outline – topics on “Submittals,” “Division 01 – General Requirements,” and “Contract Administration documentation.”

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.

In CSI-based project cost planning, contingency is defined as an amount added to an estimate or budget to cover uncertainties and unknowns that cannot yet be clearly defined at the current level of design development.

CSI’s practice guides and CDT materials explain (paraphrased):

In early design phases, such as schematic design, the design is only partially developed. Important elements are still undecided, and system configurations may change. Because of this, the cost estimate is inherently less precise.

A contingency line item is therefore included to cover:

Incomplete design information,

Potential scope refinement,

Normal estimating uncertainties, and

Other unknown factors at that stage.

As the project moves into design development and later into the construction documents phase, the design becomes more complete and the uncertainty decreases, so contingency percentages typically decrease.

By contrast, CSI differentiates contingency from other estimating tools:

Allowances: Specific sums in the contract for known-but-not-fully-defined items (e.g., “flooring allowance of X per m²”). These are identified items with placeholder values, not general unknowns.

Unit prices: Agreed rates for measuring work (e.g., $/m³ of rock excavation) used when quantities are uncertain, but scope categories are known and clearly described in the documents.

Alternates: Defined options requested by the owner (additive or deductive) for comparison and selection—again, specifically described items, not “unknowns.”

Because the question specifically references the schematic design phase and asks what the contingency line item covers, the CSI-aligned answer is “Unknown factors” – Option C.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Allowances – These are separate, explicit line items in the estimate or specifications and are not what contingency is intended to cover.

B. Unit prices – These deal with agreed rates for work whose quantities may vary, not with broad early-phase uncertainty.

D. Alternates – Alternates are specifically described choices requested for comparison; they are priced individually, not absorbed into contingency.

Key CSI-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on cost planning and contingencies by phase.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – definitions and uses of contingency, allowances, unit prices, and alternates in estimating.

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.”

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

CSI emphasizes fairness, clarity, and equal information for all bidders. When controlled substitutions are permitted during bidding, the procedure typically described in Division 01 and the Instructions to Bidders is:

A bidder or manufacturer may propose a substitution for a specified product within a defined time before bid date.

The architect/engineer reviews the proposed substitution and may accept or reject it.

If the substitution is accepted, it must be communicated to all prospective bidders in a formal way so that every bidder is pricing the same requirements.

The correct formal mechanism during the bid period for changing procurement documents is an addendum. Therefore:

A substitution may be approved during bidding only if its approval is issued by an addendum to all bidders.

This maintains a level playing field and prevents one bidder from having a private advantage or a different scope basis than others.

Why the other options are not sufficient or correct alone:

B. The proposer of the substitution is notified in writingNotifying only the proposer does not put all bidders on the same basis. CSI stresses that changes affecting price, scope, or products must be distributed to all bidders via addenda during the procurement phase.

C. The architect/engineer accepts the substitution during the pre-bid meetingEven if verbally accepted in a pre-bid meeting, it must be officially documented by an addendum. Pre-bid meeting minutes alone are not a proper modification of the procurement documents unless they are explicitly issued as part of an addendum.

D. Specifications are revised and reissued to include the substitutionCompletely revising and reissuing specifications is not the usual or efficient method during a normal bid period. Instead, CSI practice is to use addenda to modify the existing specifications. On larger changes, an addendum may include revised pages, but the key formal instrument remains the addendum.

Therefore, in CSI-aligned bidding procedures, a substitution can be approved during bidding only when it is issued to all bidders as an addendum, making Option A the correct answer.

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – procurement process, bidder communications, and substitutions.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections on Substitution Procedures and Instructions to Bidders regarding substitutions.

CSI CDT Study Materials – controlled substitutions during bidding and the role of addenda.

Within the CSI / CDT framework, bid shopping is the practice of a prime bidder (typically a general contractor) using one subcontractor’s price to pressure that subcontractor or competitors into lowering their price after bids have been received. CSI treats this as an unethical and undesirable practice that increases risk and undermines fair competition in the procurement process.

Practices that help minimize bid shopping include:

Bid listing and bid depository provisions (Option A):Some public agencies require that the general contractor list major subcontractors with the bid or use a bid depository system. These mechanisms are intended specifically to discourage bid shopping by locking in the subcontractors named at bid time and making the process more transparent.

Requiring bidders to provide a list of intended subcontractors with their bid (Option B):This is another form of sub-bid listing. By compelling the prime bidder to identify subcontractors at bid submission, it restricts their ability to shop sub-bids afterward, thereby minimizing the risk of bid shopping.

Subcontractors withholding their prices until close to bid time (Option C):While not ideal from a coordination standpoint, this is a common subcontractor strategy in a competitive environment to reduce the time window during which a prime contractor can use their number to shop for a lower price. This can mitigate bid shopping risk from the subcontractor’s perspective.

By contrast:

D. The bidder can ask the subcontractor to reevaluate their prices to find a lower price after the subcontractor has submitted their price.This is essentially a description of bid shopping behavior. Asking a subcontractor to “re-evaluate” to get a lower price after their number has been used to compile the bid (especially when using other subs’ prices as leverage) is exactly what public procurement provisions try to prevent. This does not minimize the risk of bid shopping; it is bid shopping.

Therefore, the only option that clearly does not reduce or prevent bid shopping is D.

Relevant CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Procurement and Bidding chapters (discussion of competitive bidding ethics and bid shopping).

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Procurement and bidding procedures and ethical practices in public work.

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

CSI organizes the facility life cycle into phases such as planning, design, construction, closeout, and operations/occupancy. Within this framework, CSI describes project closeout as the phase where the contractor and design team complete all remaining contractual obligations and formally turn the project over to the owner.

A key part of that turnover is providing the owner with operations and maintenance (O&M) information, often including:

Operating and maintenance manuals for equipment and systems

Warranties and guarantees

Spare parts lists and recommended maintenance procedures

As-built/record documentation and, sometimes, commissioning records and training materials

CSI indicates that these O&M documents are to be delivered as part of the closeout requirements, usually at or near Substantial Completion or Final Completion, so that the owner can properly operate and maintain the facility during the occupancy phase.

Therefore the correct answer is B. Closeout phase.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. After the authorities having jurisdiction issues a permitPermits are typically issued during design or preconstruction, authorizing the start of work. At this time, the facility is not built and O&M documentation does not yet exist in final form. CSI treats permits as part of regulatory approvals, not the turnover of maintenance information.

C. Preconstruction phasePreconstruction focuses on activities like finalizing construction documents, bidding, procurement planning, and initial mobilization. O&M manuals cannot be finalized because products and systems are not yet fully installed, tested, and accepted.

D. Construction phaseDuring construction, some O&M information may be started or submitted in draft form, but CSI’s guidance is clear that formal delivery of complete O&M documentation is a closeout requirement, not an in-progress construction requirement.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – facility life cycle and project closeout chapters.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections (Closeout Submittals, Operation and Maintenance Data).

CSI CDT Study Materials – topics on project closeout, warranties, and O&M documentation.

CSI’s treatment of sustainability—as reflected in CDT materials and related practice guides—aligns with widely recognized sustainability concepts: construction and building standards should protect human health, the environment, and the welfare of the broader community (public).

Sustainability-related texts (including green building rating systems, green product standards, and sustainability sections in specifications) consistently emphasize:

Protection of human (occupant/public) health and safety,

Protection and enhancement of environmental quality,

Responsible use of resources and reduction of negative impacts over the facility life cycle.

Within that framework, standards for sustainable facilities and products are not primarily written around the preferences of a particular project team (like architect, contractor, or owner team). Instead, they are driven by the broader need to safeguard public and private users’ health and environmental health.

Thus, among the options provided:

C. Public, private, and environmental health is the only choice that reflects that sustainability standards focus on health and welfare of people and the environment, which is consistent with CSI’s project-delivery and specification guidance.

Why the other options are not correct in CSI context:

A. Architect, supplier, and contractorThese are project participants, not the underlying “needs” that sustainability standards are written to protect. Sustainable standards may affect their work, but the ultimate emphasis is on health, safety, and environmental impact, not on the interests of these parties themselves.

B. Owner, stakeholders, and participantsWhile owners and stakeholders are important in defining project requirements and may have sustainability goals, the standards themselves focus on performance outcomes like reduced environmental impacts and improved health and safety, rather than simply serving stakeholders’ preferences.

D. Owner team, contractor team, and design teamAgain, these are roles on the project. Sustainable standards are not framed around serving these teams’ “needs,” but around protecting people and the environment and achieving long-term performance.

In CSI-aligned specification practice, sustainability-related requirements are often placed in:

Division 01 sections (e.g., “Sustainable Design Requirements,” “Environmental Requirements”), and

Appropriate technical sections (Part 1 – general, Part 2 – products, Part 3 – execution),

and are tied to environmental and health outcomes, aligning with Option C.

Relevant CSI references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Sustainability and life-cycle considerations in project delivery.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Guidance on specifying sustainable requirements and environmental performance.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Sustainability and environmental considerations in construction documentation.

In CSI and general construction budgeting practice, project costs are often discussed in terms of:

Hard costs – also called direct construction costs, generally associated with the actual construction of the facility (labor, materials, equipment, and construction-related services).

Soft costs – professional services and non-construction expenses, such as design fees, legal fees, financing costs, some testing and inspections, and administrative costs.

Other development costs, such as land acquisition, that may be tracked separately from construction vs. soft costs.

Within that framework:

Hard costs are those closely tied to getting the building or facility physically constructed and operational. In many project budgets, commissioning work that is specified as part of the construction/contractor’s scope (functional testing of systems, demonstrating performance, etc.) is treated with the construction scope and appears with construction-related costs.

Among the four items given:

Architect/engineer design fees (A) – clearly a soft cost, part of professional services for planning and design, not part of direct construction.

Project financing (C) – interest during construction, loan fees, and similar items are typically categorized as financing/soft costs, entirely separate from construction.

Land acquisition (D) – usually tracked as a separate property or development cost, not within the construction hard-cost category.

Commissioning fees (B) – frequently included in the construction or closeout scope (and often in specifications under Division 01 or relevant technical Divisions) and directly associated with making systems function as intended. When commissioning is contracted as part of the construction contract (which is a common CSI-based approach), its cost is embedded in the hard construction costs.

In CDT-aligned budgeting discussions, when you’re forced to choose among these four, commissioning fees (Option B) are the closest to and most consistently treated as a construction-related (hard) cost, because they are often part of the contractor’s scope and necessary to complete and hand over a functioning facility.

The others—A/E fees, financing, and land—are clearly outside of direct construction and uniformly treated as soft or separate development costs in CSI-oriented project cost breakdowns.

Key CSI and industry references (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Project Costs” and distinctions between construction cost and project cost.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Owner’s Costs, Construction Costs, and Cost Categories.”

Typical CSI-based Owner–Contractor contracts and Division 01 sections where commissioning requirements are placed within the construction scope.

In CSI and CDT terminology, the process of reaching out to potential or prequalified bidders to obtain bids or proposals is called “solicitation.”

The procurement (bidding) phase includes preparing procurement documents and then soliciting bids or proposals from interested or qualified firms.

“Solicitation” covers all methods used to notify and invite participation: advertisements, invitations to bid, requests for proposals (RFPs), and notices to prequalified bidders.

CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide and CDT study materials describe the sequence in the procurement stage roughly as:

Preparation of procurement documents (including Instructions to Bidders/Offerors, bid forms, proposed contract forms, etc.).

Solicitation of bids or proposals – announcement or direct issuance to prospective bidders.

Receipt, opening, and evaluation of bids/proposals.

Recommendation and award of contract.

Within that structure, “solicitation” is clearly identified as the step where the owner/AE issues the invitation to bid or request for proposals. The other answer choices refer to documents or requests that are part of the process, but not the process itself:

B. Instructions for Procurement – The CDT/CSI terminology is usually “Instructions to Bidders” or “Instructions to Offerors,” which are sections within the procurement documents explaining how to submit bids (time, place, format, required forms, etc.). They are not the act of announcing or inviting; they are a part of the documents used once solicitation has begun.

C. Instructions to Bidders – This is a specific document or section that sets the rules for bidding (bid security, withdrawal of bids, opening procedures, etc.). It is not the overall process of broadcasting the opportunity; instead it governs bidder behavior after solicitation has occurred.

D. Request for Scope of Work – This is not a standard CSI/CDT term. Scope of work is normally defined in the drawings, specifications, and sometimes in a statement of work, but “request for scope of work” is not used as the formal label for the invitation stage.

Because the question asks specifically for “the process of notifying prospective or qualified bidders requesting proposals for a specific project or an invitation to bid,” the correct CSI-aligned term is “Solicitation” (Option A).

Relevant CSI references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Procurement phase and terminology for solicitation of bids/proposals.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Sections on procurement and bidding documents.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Topic: Procurement (solicitation and receipt of bids/proposals).

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-aligned General Conditions and Division 01 provisions dealing with Owner-furnished products state that:

The Owner may furnish certain products or equipment to be incorporated into the work (for example, owner-purchased equipment).

The Contractor is responsible for receiving, unloading, handling, storing, protecting, and installing those owner-furnished items once they are delivered to the site.

As part of that responsibility, the Contractor is expected to visually inspect owner-furnished products upon delivery and promptly report any damage, defects, or nonconforming conditions to the Owner and A/E.

In practical and contractual terms, that means the Contractor is the party who accepts the delivery on site and conducts the initial inspection for damage, since the items come under their care, custody, and control once delivered to the project.

Installers and subcontractors may physically handle the products, but the prime Contractor is contractually responsible for coordination and for ensuring that owner-furnished items are inspected and protected as part of the overall work.

Therefore, Option A – Contractor is correct.

Why the other options are not correct:

B. Installer – An installer (often a subcontractor) may handle and install the item, but the prime Contractor is responsible for overall coordination and for ensuring proper acceptance and inspection procedures.

C. Owner – The Owner furnishes the products but typically does not undertake on-site receiving and damage inspection once the items are delivered to the construction site; that is shifted to the Contractor under the construction contract.

D. Subcontractor – Subcontractors act under the Contractor’s agreement; they may assist, but the contractual responsibility is with the Contractor.

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

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on “Owner-Furnished Products” and Division 01 responsibilities.

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Construction Phase, responsibilities for products and materials.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Responsibilities for Products, Equipment, and Owner-Furnished Items.”

In CSI/CDT study materials, a key concept is that each party’s legal obligations come from their own agreement:

The owner–contractor relationship is defined in the Owner–Contractor Agreement and its General Conditions (commonly AIA A201).

The owner–architect relationship is defined in the Owner–Architect Agreement (commonly AIA B101).

The architect’s duty to provide construction administration services, including reviewing submittals, is a service owed to the owner and is therefore set out in the Owner–Architect Agreement, not the General Conditions.

In AIA’s standard structure (which CSI uses extensively in CDT):

AIA B101 (Owner–Architect Agreement) lists the architect’s basic services, including:

Construction Phase Services

Review of submittals (shop drawings, product data, samples, etc.)This is what legally obligates the architect to review submittals as part of their contracted services to the owner.

AIA A201 (General Conditions) describes the architect’s role in the context of the construction contract between owner and contractor (e.g., the architect will review submittals in accordance with the Contract Documents), but the architect’s obligation itself arises from B101, which is the contract between owner and architect.

Therefore, the document that actually obligates the architect/engineer (A/E) to perform submittal review as part of construction administration is AIA Document B101 → Option B.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for ConstructionA201 is part of the Owner–Contractor contract. It establishes procedures and the architect’s function with respect to the contractor, but it does not itself create the architect’s contractual obligation to the owner; that comes from B101. A201 can describe what the architect will do “as provided in the Owner–Architect Agreement,” but the promise from the architect is in B101.

C. AIA Document D200, Project ChecklistD200 is a non-contractual guide/checklist used for planning and scoping services. It is an aid, not a contract, and does not bind the architect to perform submittal review.

D. AIA Document G612, Owners Instructions to the ArchitectG612 is also a form tool, used for gathering owner’s instructions and information; it is not itself the agreement that defines the architect’s scope of services and obligations.

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussions of standard AIA documents and how responsibilities are allocated between owner, architect, and contractor.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on relationships between A201 and B101.

CDT Exam references to AIA A201 – General Conditions and AIA B101 – Owner–Architect Agreement in the “Agreements & Conditions of the Contract” domain.

CSI describes that during the construction phase, the contractor is responsible for maintaining a continuously updated set of record documents (often called record drawings or as-built drawings). These are a marked-up set of the contract drawings (and sometimes specifications) showing actual field conditions, including:

Changes in dimensions or locations of foundations and structural elements (e.g., pier depths).

Exact locations of underground and concealed utilities.

Adjustments made during construction that are not fully captured in formal design revisions.

Any other deviations between the original design intent and the actual constructed work that will affect future maintenance, alterations, or operations.

CSI’s guidance is that these markups are maintained continuously on site by the contractor and then turned over at closeout as part of the project record.

This is exactly what Option B – Record set refers to: a set of documents updated to reflect the actual constructed conditions.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Conformed setA conformed set is the contract documents updated by the design professional to incorporate all addenda and certain pre-award changes, forming a clean set for construction. It is not the running field record of what was actually built; it’s a “clean” version of what was contracted, not what was constructed.

C. Change order logThe change order log tracks formal contract modifications (change orders) – values, dates, brief descriptions. It does not typically contain detailed field information such as exact pier depths and utility locations. Those details belong on the record drawings/record set.

D. Request for information documentsRFIs (requests for information) are used for clarifications and questions during construction. While they may trigger changes or clarifications, RFIs are not the place where the contractor maintains the running graphic record of actual field conditions. The results of RFIs that change the work must still be reflected on the record set.

Key CSI Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Construction Phase, “Record Documents / As-Built Drawings.”

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections on “Project Record Documents” and “Closeout Submittals.”

CDT Body of Knowledge – Construction Phase responsibilities of the contractor and record documentation.

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

CSI’s guidance on project record documents distinguishes between several types:

Record drawings – show what was actually installed (dimensions, locations, configurations).

Record specifications/project manual – the written requirements for the work, as issued and modified.

Record submittals – approved shop drawings, product data, and samples documenting the actual products and systems installed, including manufacturer names, model numbers, finishes, and installation instructions.

For replacement of a specific product, such as a broken insulated glazing unit, CSI instruction is that the most precise source is record submittals (Option D). These typically contain:

The exact manufacturer selected.

Product line, model number, glass type, coatings, spacers, gas fill, etc.

Any special fabrication notes or custom sizes.

Contact information or catalog data to facilitate reordering.

This is exactly the information a facility manager needs to “determine where and how to order” the replacement unit. That is why CSI emphasizes maintaining record submittals as part of the owner’s permanent facility information.

Why the other options are less appropriate:

A. Record drawingsRecord drawings (sometimes called “as-built” drawings) can provide size and location of the glazing unit, and possibly indicate type (e.g., “insulated glazing unit”). However, drawings rarely show the precise product manufacturer and model; at best, they reference detail markers or generic notes. They are helpful for field measurement and coordination, but not ideal for identifying the exact product to order.

B. Manufacturer’s representativeA manufacturer’s rep can help once you know the manufacturer and product, but first you need to identify which manufacturer and model were actually installed. Without the record submittals or similar documentation, the rep would be guessing. CSI places the identification of the installed product squarely in the realm of record submittals.

C. Project manualThe project manual (including the specifications) usually lists acceptable manufacturers and products, or performance requirements, but it does not necessarily tell you which one was actually used. If multiple manufacturers or options were permitted, the project manual alone cannot identify the exact unit to reorder.

Thus, under CSI’s treatment of project record documents and facility information, record submittals (Option D) are the best and most appropriate source for ordering an exact replacement product.

CSI reference concepts:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Project Closeout” and “Record Documents,” explaining the distinct roles of record drawings and record submittals.

CSI CDT Study Materials – topics describing record submittals as the owner’s record of actual installed products, used for maintenance and replacement.

CSI/CDT identifies several formal construction phase meetings, each with a specific purpose. Among them:

Preconstruction conference – Held at the start of the project.

Preinstallation meetings – Held before specific portions of work begin (e.g., roofing, curtain wall, concrete).

Progress meetings (job meetings) – Held regularly (often weekly or monthly) during the construction phase to review overall project status, schedule, coordination issues, and actions needed.

A progress meeting is defined in A201/Division 01 and CSI guidance as a recurring meeting of the owner, contractor, architect/engineer, and key parties to:

Review work progress and status of the schedule

Address issues affecting timely and successful completion of the work

Coordinate upcoming activities and resolve questions or conflicts

Review submittals, RFIs, changes, and other administrative matters

That is exactly what the question describes: monthly meetings with the contractor and owner focused on timely and successful completion. This matches Option C – Progress meeting.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Workflow meeting“Workflow meeting” is not a standard CSI or AIA term for a formal contract-phase meeting. While teams may hold internal coordination meetings, the recognized contract-related recurring meeting in CSI/AIA practice is the progress meeting, not “workflow meeting.”

B. Preinstallation meetingPreinstallation meetings (sometimes called “pre-installation conferences”) are task- or trade-specific, held before a particular system or portion of work begins (e.g., roofing, masonry, fire protection). They focus on that specific work’s requirements, sequencing, and coordination—not on overall project progress each month. Therefore, they do not match the general monthly, whole-project focus described in the question.

D. Schedule monitoring meetingWhile progress meetings certainly involve schedule review and monitoring, “schedule monitoring meeting” is not the standard CSI/AIA term for the regular contract administration meeting among owner, contractor, and A/E. In standard contract documents and CSI references, the recognized name is “progress meeting.”

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussions of construction phase meetings, including preconstruction, preinstallation, and progress meetings.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections for “Project Management and Coordination” / “Construction Progress Meetings.”

CDT content referencing AIA A201 and Division 01 provisions for regular progress meetings and their agendas.

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.

Under the typical CSI-aligned project delivery framework, additional time and money are generally justified when:

The owner (or A/E as owner’s agent) changes the work or otherwise causes delay (e.g., active interference, late decisions, design changes).

There are unforeseen conditions beyond the control of both owner and contractor, where the contract documents anticipated “normal” conditions instead.

Other compensable events defined in the Conditions of the Contract occur (e.g., certain force majeure events, if provided for).

However, the contractor is responsible for correcting defective or nonconforming work at no increase in contract sum or time (except where the defect is caused by others). CSI-based guidance on construction phase services and contract administration explains that:

Defective work (work not in accordance with the contract documents) must be removed, replaced, or corrected by the contractor at the contractor’s expense.

Any extra time and cost arising from correcting such defective work is not a valid basis for a change order or a claim for increased compensation or time extension.

If the contractor’s own documentation shows that the extra cost and time are due to defective work needing repair, the A/E has a clear basis—consistent with the Conditions of the Contract—to reject the claim. That aligns directly with Option D.

Why the other options do not support rejecting the claim:

A. Active interference by the owner – Owner-caused interference is typically a valid ground for a time and possibly cost adjustment, not grounds for rejection.

B. Conditions beyond the control of the contractor or owner – Unforeseen conditions are exactly the type of situation that may justify a claim, depending on the contract language.

C. The A/E modified the contract documents – A/E-issued changes (such as change orders or certain clarifications) often result in compensable changes if they add work or cause delay.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Construction Phase and Claims/Changes discussions.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – responsibilities for defective work and changes.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – construction phase administration and evaluation of claims.

CSI’s SectionFormat® establishes a standard three-part structure for specification sections:

Part 1 – GeneralAdministrative and procedural requirements specific to that section (scope, related work, references, submittals, quality assurance, delivery/storage, warranties, etc.).

Part 2 – ProductsDescriptions of products, materials, and equipment required: manufacturers, materials, components, fabrication, finishes, performance requirements, and similar.

Part 3 – ExecutionField/application/installation requirements: examination, preparation, installation/application procedures, tolerances, field quality control, adjustment, cleaning, protection, etc.

Within this structure, CSI specifically places “Manufacturers” as an article in Part 2 – Products. This is because Part 2 is where the specifier identifies:

Acceptable manufacturers or manufacturer list

Standard products and models

Performance or quality requirements associated with those manufacturers

Product substitutions (if addressed by article structure)

Placing “Manufacturers” in Part 2 maintains consistency across specs and makes it clear that manufacturer-related information is part of the product requirements, not administrative conditions or execution procedures.

Why the other options do not align with SectionFormat®:

A. Either Part 1 or Part 2Although some poorly structured sections in practice may misplace content, CSI’s recommended SectionFormat® is explicit: manufacturers belong in Part 2 – Products. Allowing Part 1 or Part 2 would blur the distinction between administrative requirements and product requirements.

B. Part 1 onlyPart 1 is not intended for listing manufacturers. It covers general/administrative topics, not the specific products or manufacturers.

D. Part 3 onlyPart 3 deals with execution/installation in the field, not who manufactures the products. Manufacturer listing in Part 3 would conflict with CSI’s structure and make the section harder to interpret and coordinate.

Therefore, under SectionFormat®, the correct location for the “Manufacturers” article is Part 2 only (Option C).

Key CSI References (titles only, no links):

CSI SectionFormat® and PageFormat™ (official CSI format document).

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters explaining the three-part section structure and where to place specific articles such as “Manufacturers.”

CSI MasterFormat®/SectionFormat® training materials used for CDT preparation.

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

According to CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide and CDT body of knowledge, the Contractor is typically required—by the conditions of the Contract—to maintain record drawings during construction. These are sometimes called “as-built” or “marked-up” drawings.

CSI explains that:

The Contractor must keep on site a current set of drawings and, as the work progresses, mark changes, deviations, and concealed conditions that differ from the original contract drawings.

This responsibility is usually stated in the General Conditions and/or Division 01, and is part of the contractor’s obligation to provide Project Record Documents at closeout.

At the end of the project, these contractor-maintained record drawings and related record information are typically delivered to the Architect/Engineer and then to the Owner as part of closeout, but the party maintaining them during the project itself is the Contractor.

The Architect uses the contractor’s record information to prepare formal record documents only if required by the contract, but the day-to-day updating and maintenance during construction is assigned to the Contractor in standard CSI-aligned practice.

Relevant CSI concepts (paraphrased):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Construction Phase” and “Project Record Documents” explaining that the contractor keeps a set of marked-up record drawings during the work.

CSI CDT Study Materials – topic on roles and responsibilities for record documents and closeout.

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

CSI’s treatment of warranties in construction distinguishes among several types, including:

Warranty of title – assures that the seller/contractor has good title to goods and that they are free of liens or claims.

Implied warranties – such as merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, arising under applicable law for goods.

Express warranties – explicitly stated in the contract documents or manufacturer literature, which may include extended warranties.

In the construction context, CSI’s project delivery and specification guidance emphasizes that extended warranties (often called special warranties in specifications):

Survive completion and acceptance of the project.

Provide remedies to the owner for defects in materials and/or workmanship that appear after substantial completion, often beyond the standard one-year correction period.

Are commonly used for critical building components (e.g., roofing systems, waterproofing, major equipment) and may run for 5, 10, or more years.

This directly matches the question’s language: a warranty “used to provide a remedy to the owner for material defects or failures after completion and acceptance of construction.” That is precisely the purpose of an extended warranty in CSI-style contract documents and specifications, making Option D correct.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Warranty of titleThis deals with ownership and freedom from liens, not performance of materials or systems after completion. It does not address post-completion material defects.

B. Implied warranty of merchantabilityThis is a legal concept for goods: that they are fit for ordinary purposes. While it may apply in background law, it is not the specific contractual tool that owners rely on in construction documents to secure long-term remedies for material defects.

C. Purchase warranty“Purchase warranty” is not a standard CSI-defined category of construction warranty. Product or manufacturer warranties may be obtained at purchase, but the CSI terminology used in specifications and project delivery guidance is typically standard warranty, special warranty, or extended warranty, not “purchase warranty.”

Key CSI References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Warranties, Guarantees, and the Correction Period.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – guidance on specifying warranties (including extended warranties) in Division 01 and technical sections.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Contract Provisions: Warranties and Guarantees.”

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.

In CSI / CDT usage, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) are distinct concepts:

Quality Assurance (QA) focuses on planning, processes, and preventive actions put in place before and during the work to help ensure the required quality will be achieved. It is about systems and procedures.

Quality Control (QC) focuses on inspection, testing, and verification to determine whether the constructed work conforms to the requirements of the Contract Documents.

Typical examples:

QA examples (process-oriented):

Developing and following a project-specific quality plan.

Coordinating scheduling and sequencing of the work so trades do not interfere with one another and work is done under appropriate conditions.

Prequalification of contractors, subcontractors, and testing agencies.

Establishing and enforcing submittal procedures and preinstallation meetings.

QC examples (inspection/testing):

Field testing (e.g., concrete cylinder tests, soil compaction tests).

Visual inspection of installed work.

Checking that installed products match submittals and specifications.

Looking at the options:

A. Performing compaction testing – This is a field test used to verify densities and is clearly quality control, not QA.

B. Field observations – These are performed by the A/E or others to observe and verify that work appears to be in general conformance; this is quality control.

C. Validating quantities for payment – This is a contract administration / cost control activity, not primarily a quality activity.

D. Scheduling and sequencing of the work – This is planning and coordination done in advance so the project can proceed efficiently, correctly, and without damaging completed work. Because it is a procedure-based, preventive activity, CSI places this type of planning under quality assurance.

Therefore, the example of quality assurance is “Scheduling and sequencing of the work” (Option D).

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Quality in Project Delivery” and distinctions between QA and QC.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions of quality requirements, testing, and inspection.

CDT Body of Knowledge – domain on “Construction Phase: Quality Assurance and Quality Control.”

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’s description of project roles is very clear about the owner’s role in project delivery:

The owner is the party that:

Identifies the need or opportunity and therefore initiates the project.

Provides the funding for design and construction.

Retains the design and construction teams and selects the project delivery method.

Ultimately assumes the primary financial and project risk, because the owner is the one investing in and depending on the completed facility.

In contrast:

The designer (architect/engineer) is responsible for planning and design, preparing construction documents, and administering the construction contract on the owner’s behalf, but does not typically initiate the project or provide funding.

The contractor is responsible for constructing the project in accordance with the contract documents; the contractor bears construction execution risk, but not the basic project-initiative and funding role.

Suppliers provide materials/equipment and have no overarching control over the project delivery process.

The question lists all of the characteristics that CSI attributes to the owner:

“initiates the project, assumes the risk, controls and manages the design and construction process, and provides the funding.”

Thus, the correct answer is Option D – Owner.

CSI references (by name only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – “Participants in Project Delivery” (owner, designer, constructor, suppliers)

CDT Body of Knowledge – descriptions of owner responsibilities and risk

In CSI/CDT programming and early project decision-making, the classic four primary project considerations are:

Function – What the facility must do; the operational and performance requirements.

Form – The physical configuration and appearance: size, shape, spatial relationships, and aesthetic character.

Economy – The financial aspects: project budget, life-cycle cost, operating costs, and economic constraints.

Time – Project and site timing: required completion date, phasing, and schedule constraints.

These four are used in programming and early planning (including site selection and site programming) to structure owner–designer discussions and decisions. During site selection programming, the owner and design team evaluate how different sites support the project’s required function, allow appropriate form, meet economic constraints, and fit within time (schedule and phasing) limitations.

This four-part framework—Function, Form, Economy, Time—matches Option B exactly.

Why the other options are incorrect:

All three incorrect options are variations that re-label or partially capture the same ideas but do not use the standard terminology as defined in CSI/CDT references:

A. Use, space, funds, date

“Use” ≈ function

“Space” ≈ form

“Funds” ≈ economy

“Date” ≈ timeWhile conceptually similar, CSI’s established terminology for programming and site selection is Function, Form, Economy, Time, not this wording.

C. Purpose, shape, cost, scheduleAgain, these loosely correspond to function, form, economy, and time, but CSI uses the more formal terms that appear in its programming discussions and CDT content: Function, Form, Economy, Time.

D. Goal, condition, budget, calendarThese terms are more generic and do not match the recognized four-part framework used in CDI/CDT materials for programming and site selection.

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Programming and Planning, including the function–form–economy–time framework used in early decision-making and site selection.

CDT Body of Knowledge – owner’s project requirements and programming considerations.

Under CSI’s project delivery framework and the typical General Conditions of the Contract, the contractor has primary responsibility for:

The means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction.

Job site safety and security, including protection of workers, the public, and the work itself.

Controlling access to the site, securing materials and equipment, and complying with safety laws and regulations.

CSI’s CDT materials summarize the allocation of responsibilities this way (paraphrased):

The owner is responsible for providing information, funding, and overall project requirements; the owner does not direct day-to-day site operations or security.

The architect/engineer is responsible for design and contract administration functions such as reviewing submittals, certifying payments, and evaluating change requests—not for job site security or safety control.

The contractor (or construction manager acting as contractor, where applicable) is the party who controls the site and is therefore responsible for job site safety and security.

Even when a construction manager is involved (Option D), CSI and standard general conditions distinguish between a CM as advisor (who advises the owner) and a CM as constructor (who is essentially the contractor). For the exam-style question as written, “contractor” is the single correct generic answer for who is responsible for job site security.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Owner – The owner does not direct means and methods or daily site activities; shifting site security responsibility to the owner would contradict the usual conditions of the contract.

B. Architect/engineer – The A/E does not control the job site and is not responsible for job site safety/security; this is a repeated CDT exam emphasis to avoid misallocating liability.

D. Construction manager – Only in specific project delivery methods where the CM is also the constructor (CM-at-Risk) does this role overlap with the contractor. The question’s general form points to the contractor as the standard answer in CSI’s framework.

Therefore, in accordance with CSI’s explanation of roles and responsibilities under standard conditions of the contract, the contractor is responsible for job site security, making Option C correct.

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.

CSI’s treatment of methods of payment / contract pricing (as used in standard owner–contractor agreements and CDT content) includes several common bases of payment:

Stipulated Sum (Lump Sum)

The contractor agrees to provide the work for a single fixed price.

The price does not change except through formal changes to the work (change orders).

This is the classic “fixed-price” contract form.

Unit Price

The contractor is paid based on measured quantities of work completed multiplied by agreed unit rates.

Final cost depends on actual quantities installed, not a single fixed total.

Cost-Plus-Fee

The owner reimburses actual cost of the work (labor, materials, equipment, etc.) plus a fee (fixed or percentage) as contractor’s compensation.

The final cost is not fixed; it varies with actual costs incurred.

Cost-Plus-Fee with Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

A variation of cost-plus where the total reimbursable cost plus fee is capped at a guaranteed maximum.

Still not the same as a straightforward fixed lump sum; the basis is cost reimbursement up to a cap.

The question specifically asks: “for a fixed price.” In CSI and standard contract terminology, “fixed price” = “stipulated sum” (or lump sum). That is:

The owner and contractor negotiate a single dollar amount for the entire scope of work;

The contractor’s compensation is that stipulated sum, adjusted only by approved changes.

Why the other options are not correct:

B. Unit price – The total cost is not fixed at the time of contracting; it depends on actual installed quantities.

C. Cost-plus-fee – Costs are reimbursed; final price is open-ended and therefore not fixed.

D. Cost-plus-fee with guaranteed maximum price – This sets a cap, but the actual final cost is not a single fixed price; it is “actual cost plus fee” up to the GMP.

Therefore, the correct basis of payment for a fixed-price contract is Stipulated sum (Option A), consistent with CSI’s classification of contract types and standard owner–contractor agreements.

Key CSI References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Basis of Payment” and contract pricing methods (stipulated sum, unit price, cost-plus, GMP).

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Contract Types and Methods of Payment.

Standard owner–contractor agreements discussed in CSI materials (e.g., stipulated sum as the fixed-price form).