Pass the AACE International Professional Level Certifications PSP Questions and answers with CertsForce

 Role of Soils Engineer:

Soils engineers address subsurface conditions, such as soil stability, unexpected geology, and underground obstacles.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

A: Survey errors are typically addressed by surveyors.

C: Archeological findings involve specialists in historical preservation.

D: Toxic soils are typically handled by environmental engineers.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:The PSP Study Guide includes subsurface investigations as a key responsibility for geotechnical professionals (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 1A: Site Conditions).

An effective schedule is one that is realistic, collaborative, and accepted by key stakeholders involved in project execution.

Gaining consent and agreement ensures buy-in, facilitates implementation, and minimizes disputes (Option B)​.

Frequent updates (Option A) are essential for tracking but are insufficient without team agreement.

Contract specifications (Option C) govern compliance but do not guarantee effective field use.

Large contingencies (Option D) may reduce accountability and create inefficiencies in project management.

Collaboration and stakeholder involvement, as emphasized in the PSP Study Guide, are essential for schedule usability​.

 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.

 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).

 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.

Impact of Changing Activity E's Duration:

Activity E's new duration = 4 months.

The critical path passes through Activities A → C → D → E → H → I.

Recalculate Project Duration:

Original duration with E = 3 months: 19 months.

Increasing E to 4 months does not impact the overall path since it remains within the critical path's time allowance.

Overall project duration remains 19 months.

Cross-Verification:

Option B: Incorrect. Assumes additional delays.

Option C: Incorrect. Overestimates delays.

Option D: Incorrect. Miscalculates path changes.

Option A: Correct. Matches revised critical path duration.

References:

PSP Study Guide (2019), Sections on Critical Path and Float Calculations.

AACE Recommended Practices, RP 10S-90.

 Situation Analysis:

Proofing of the product manual requires 15 additional days.

This impacts the Print Product Manual (Activity F), which is a critical path activity.

 Maintaining the Availability Date:

To prevent delays in the product release (Activity H), the additional 15 days for proofing must be offset.

Reducing the printing duration (Activity F) by 5 days ensures the schedule stays on track.

Expediting other activities like manufacturing or packaging would not directly compensate for the proofing delay.

 Cross-Verification:

Option A: Incorrect. Delaying product release impacts availability.

Option B: Incorrect. Packaging is not a direct predecessor of the product release.

Option D: Incorrect. Delaying manufacturing has no impact on proofing.

Option C: Correct. Expedites the critical path by compensating for the delay.

Retaining existing logic means preserving the original relationships and dependencies defined in the schedule. Even if progress is recorded out of sequence, calculations adhere to the pre-established logic unless explicitly changed.

Option B reflects adjustments for out-of-sequence progress but contradicts the original logic requirement.

Option C imposes restrictions that do not align with typical CPM calculations.

Option D is incorrect as the concept exists​​.

The PSP Study Guide discusses the importance of maintaining logic integrity in CPM scheduling​.

Understand the Relationship Between G and H:

The time-scaled diagram shows that Activity H starts immediately after the finish of Activity G.

This is indicative of a Finish-to-Start (FS) relationship.

Cross-Verification:

Option A: Incorrect. The relationship is visible in the diagram.

Option B: Incorrect. There is no evidence of a Start-to-Start (SS) relationship.

Option D: Incorrect. Finish-to-Finish (FF) is not applicable here.

Option C: Correct. FS relationship matches the network logic.

Resource planning focuses on identifying and allocating the required materials, equipment, labor, and financial resources.

Option A, C, and D are integral to resource planning.

Option B (earned value techniques) is a project control mechanism, not a resource planning factor.

This is consistent with the scope of resource planning as described in the PSP Study Gu