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

The time an activity can be delayed from its early start without impacting the overall project completion date is called total float.

Option A (negative float) refers to delays beyond permissible limits.

Option B (free float) refers to delays without affecting the early start of any successor.

Option D (interfering float) is a lesser-used term denoting the time available without delaying the project completion but affecting a successor’s float​.

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.

 Definitions of Delays

Excusable Delay: These are delays not caused by the contractor and may be beyond their control. They can be compensable (entitling the contractor to both time and monetary compensation) or non-compensable (entitling only time extension). Examples include acts of God or owner-caused delays.

Non-Excusable Delay: These delays are caused by the contractor, such as poor planning or lack of resources. Non-excusable delays do not qualify for any compensation or time extensions.

Compensable Delay: A type of excusable delay caused by the owner or their representatives that entitles the contractor to both time extension and additional compensation.

Non-Compensable Delay: An excusable delay that entitles only time extension but no monetary compensation (e.g., natural disasters).

 PSP Study Guide Reference: The PSP Study Guide emphasizes understanding the types of delays to analyze their impacts on schedules and costs. Non-excusable delays, which result from the contractor's actions, are clearly categorized as not providing grounds for time extensions or additional payments​.

 Analysis for Selection:

Option A: Non-excusable delays do not provide contractors with any extensions or compensation as they result from the contractor’s responsibility.

Option B: Compensable delays provide both time and compensation and do not match the question's condition.

Option C: Non-compensable delays, though they provide no monetary compensation, can allow time extensions under certain circumstances.

Option D: Excusable delays generally entitle contractors to time extensions, with or without compensation depending on the type.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A. Non-excusable delay, as these delays provide neither time extensions nor compensation to the contractor.

 Interpret the Narrow Band at "Y":

The narrow band at "Y" is located on a part of the schedule where activities have been delayed or slowed down.

Such delays typically indicate resource limitations (e.g., insufficient manpower or equipment).

 Reasoning:

No evidence of rework or activity inactivity is explicitly shown in the diagram.

Resource limitations are common in network diagrams to explain such periods.

 Cross-Verification:

Option B: Incorrect. No evidence of rework exists.

Option C: Incorrect. Activity inactivity does not fit the context.

Option D: Incorrect. Sufficient information is provided.

Option A: Correct. Resource limitation fits the observed diagram behavior.

 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.

 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.

 Understanding Float:

Network Float: The shared amount of time that non-critical activities can be delayed without affecting the project completion date.

Float ownership is not exclusive unless explicitly stated in the contract.

 Evaluation of Options:

Option B: Incorrect. Total float does not belong solely to the contractor unless stated.

Option C: Incorrect. Total float is not exclusively owned by the owner unless stated in the contract.

Option D: Incorrect. Free float is tied to specific activities and not shared.

Option A: Correct. In the absence of specific contract terms, network float is generally shared.

 Situation Analysis:

A 5-day delay in product release impacts the printing window.

The printer is further delayed by 10 workdays.

 Total Delay Impact Calculation:

The combined impact of the testing and printing delays = 5 + 10 = 15 days.

This results in a cumulative delay in product release.

 Cross-Verification:

Option B: Incorrect. Ignores delays entirely.

Option C: Incorrect. Assumes only one source of delay.

Option D: Incorrect. Underestimates delay impact.

Option A: Correct. Matches the calculated total delay.

Driving Activity Concept:

The driving activity in a backward pass is the one that determines the late start or finish of the dependent activity.

Activity 10001 (Valve House - Complete) is directly dependent on its successor, Activity 11001 (Spillway - Concrete).

Backward Pass Logic:

In backward pass calculations, the late start of Activity 11001 establishes the late finish of Activity 10001 due to their finish-to-start (FS) relationship.

This makes Activity 11001 the driving activity.

Verification:

According to the PSP Study Guide, driving activities are identified based on their logical ties and the critical path's constraints (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Activity Relationships and Critical Path Analysis).

Thus, the driving activity for Activity 10001 is A. Activity 11001.

 As-Planned vs. As-Built (APAB) Analysis:

A simple APAB compares the planned schedule to the actual schedule to identify deviations.

It does not involve inserting delaying events or re-forecasting the schedule, which makes it unsuitable for detailed analysis.

 Limitations of APAB:

Unsuitable for complex projects (A).

Inserting delays is not part of APAB (B).

Accuracy diminishes for long projects (C) or those requiring granular mid-project analyses (D).

 Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as inserting delays into the as-planned schedule is not a feature of simple APAB analysis.