Pass the Construction Specifications Institute CDT Certification CDT Questions and answers with CertsForce

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

Within CSI’s CDT framework, the primary national reference for organizing and presenting design and construction drawings is the U.S. National CAD Standard (NCS). The NCS is a coordinated standard developed by several organizations including the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), CSI, and the AIA. It provides:

Guidelines for drawing sheet organization (titles, numbering, and content).

Layering standards (including what many people know as the AIA CAD Layer Guidelines).

Symbols, plotting conventions, and other tools that make drawings consistent and coordinated across disciplines and projects.

CSI’s project delivery and documentation guidance points design professionals and specifiers to the U.S. National CAD Standard as the key reference for how drawings should be structured and presented to support clear coordination with specifications and other contract documents.

Why the other options are not the best answer:

A. AIA CAD Layer GuidelinesThese guidelines are actually a component of the U.S. National CAD Standard, primarily addressing layer naming and organization. On their own they do not provide the full system for sheet organization, plotting, and cross-discipline coordination that the question describes. CSI and NIBS treat them as part of the broader NCS.

B. National Institute of Building SciencesNIBS is an organization, not the actual “reference document.” NIBS sponsors and publishes several standards (including the NCS and the National BIM Standard–US), but the question asks specifically for the document that includes the guidelines and tools for drawing organization and presentation. That document is the U.S. National CAD Standard, not NIBS itself.

C. National BIM Standard – United StatesThe National BIM Standard–US focuses on BIM information exchange, modeling protocols, data structures, and interoperability, not on the traditional CAD sheet organization and 2D drawing presentation. It is important, but it is not the primary reference CSI cites for the organization and presentation of drawings in the traditional contract documents sense.

Therefore, consistent with CSI CDT content, the correct answer is Option D: U.S. National CAD Standard.

CSI reference concepts:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on construction documents and the role of standards such as the U.S. National CAD Standard in organizing drawings.

CSI CDT body of knowledge – topics on drawing organization, coordination between drawings and specifications, and national CAD standards.

CSI and standard General Conditions define the architect/engineer’s submittal review purpose as confirming that submittals conform to the design intent shown and specified in the contract documents — not to approve means, methods, or to revise design.

The A/E’s review checks:

General compliance of the submittal with design intent.

Coordination among trades.

Any deviations that require clarification or change approval.

It is not for:

Designing or redesigning (Option A),

Supervising construction procedures (Option C), or

Evaluating formal substitution requests (Option D) — substitutions are separately submitted for approval under Division 01 procedures.

Therefore, the A/E reviews submittals to monitor design conformance, making Option B correct.

CSI Reference:

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide, “Submittal Procedures and Responsibilities”; Project Delivery Practice Guide, “Construction Phase — Submittal Review.”

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI’s project delivery guidance, constructability reviews are described as a structured way to have construction-experienced professionals—often contractors, CMs, or experienced field personnel—review the design during planning or design phases to determine:

Whether the design can be built efficiently and safely

How site conditions, constraints, and logistics will affect means and methods

Potential cost, schedule, and sequencing issues arising from unique or complex aspects of the project

Constructability reviews are especially valuable when:

The site is constrained (tight urban sites, limited access, nearby sensitive structures)

There are unusual ground, environmental, or logistical conditions

The work involves complex staging, phasing, or access issues

Option C. The site presents unusual challenges and constraints is therefore the clearest trigger for a constructability review, because it directly ties to the need to evaluate how the physical and logistical realities of the site affect construction feasibility, cost, and sequence.

Why the other options are less appropriate:

A. The client is unfamiliar with this type of project.This calls for more owner education, clearer communication, and perhaps additional planning or programming support—not specifically a constructability review. The core need is understanding, not constructability.

B. The project team consists of multiple new members.That suggests a need for team alignment, clarification of roles, and communication protocols. While new team members may benefit from constructability input, the main justification for a formal constructability review is project/site complexity, not simply team turnover.

D. The contractor is unable to commit to original schedule.This is a procurement or scheduling problem, often addressed through rescheduling, negotiation, or possibly re-bid. Constructability reviews are proactive during design; schedule commitment issues often arise later and are handled with different tools (e.g., schedule analysis, changes, resequencing).

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on constructability reviews and preconstruction services.

CSI CDT Study Materials – discussions of preconstruction evaluation, constructability, and risk identification.

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

This requirement exists because:

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

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

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

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

Why others are incorrect:

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

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

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

CSI Reference:

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

Good documentation of project decisions (typically in meeting minutes) is essential for traceability, accountability, and later dispute avoidance. CSI-oriented project management procedures and your uploaded construction management documents emphasize that minutes should record, at a minimum:

When the meeting occurred – date, time, location.

Who attended and whom they represent (owner, A/E, contractor, etc.).

What was decided and what remains unresolved.

Action items, assigned responsibilities, and due dates.

These elements are repeatedly included in the sample agendas and minutes procedures in your Construction Management Plan and Project Management Manual, which require minutes and action/open-items lists to be prepared and circulated after key meetings.

None of these procedures mention, or require, tracking how long each attendee spoke. That level of granularity does not contribute meaningfully to documenting decisions, responsibilities, or follow-up work. It adds administrative burden without improving clarity or accountability.

Thus:

A (date/time/location) – important context for the record.

B (attendees and representation) – critical to know who agreed to what.

D (action items, responsibilities, dates) – central to the decision-making trail.

C (length of time each attendee spoke) – least important and not standard practice in CSI-based documentation.

So the correct answer is Option C.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on project meetings and documentation.

CSI CDT body of knowledge – “Documenting decisions and maintaining project records.”

CSI’s MasterFormat® (2004 and later editions) organizes work results into five major groups, several of which are broken into subgroups. In CDT and CSI materials, the key subgroups are described as follows:

Facility Construction Subgroup (Divisions 02–19) – Covers sitework and building construction elements, such as existing conditions, concrete, masonry, metals, wood, finishes, openings, specialties, equipment, furnishings, conveying systems, fire suppression, plumbing, HVAC (in early editions), and electrical (in divisions 26–28 pre–2010 structure; in more recent updates MEP is consolidated differently but still under “facility services”).

Facility Services Subgroup (Divisions 20–29) – Specifically established to organize mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire suppression, communications, and related systems—collectively termed facility services.

Site and Infrastructure Subgroup (Divisions 30–39) – Covers civil, site, utility, and infrastructure work, such as earthwork, site utilities, transportation, and similar site/infrastructure elements.

In the modern MasterFormat framework, CSI defines “Facility Services” as the subgroup including divisions for:

Mechanical systems

Electrical systems

Plumbing

Fire suppression / fire protection

Communications and telecom, security, and related low-voltage systems

Therefore, the subgroup that contains MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing), fire protection, and telecom systems is:

B. Facility Services Subgroup (Divisions 20–29)

Why the other options are incorrect or incomplete:

A. Site and Infrastructure Subgroup (Divisions 30–39)This subgroup addresses site and infrastructure work, not building internal MEP or telecom systems. Items like site utilities and transportation infrastructure belong here, not typical building MEP systems.

C. Facility Construction Subgroup (Divisions 02–19)This subgroup deals primarily with building fabric and architectural/structural elements (sitework, concrete, masonry, metals, finishes, openings, specialties, etc.). While historically some mechanical/electrical content appeared in lower-number divisions before the 2004 reorganization, in the current CSI structure, MEP and related systems are grouped under Facility Services (20–29), not under Facility Construction.

D. Part 2 – Products“Part 2 – Products” is a component of SectionFormat™, not MasterFormat’s division/group structure. SectionFormat defines the three-part structure of individual specification sections (Part 1 – General, Part 2 – Products, Part 3 – Execution). It doesn’t define which subgroup MEP/telecom systems belong to.

Thus, consistent with CSI’s MasterFormat organization, Option B is the correct answer.

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.

CSI’s project delivery and scheduling discussions describe network scheduling techniques such as the Critical Path Method (CPM) as tools for planning, sequencing, and controlling project time. CPM scheduling can be done either:

Forward, starting from a known start date and computing early and late completion dates, or

Backward, starting from a required completion/occupancy date and working backward to determine the latest allowable dates for preceding activities and milestones so that the final completion date is achieved.

This “working backward from a target completion or occupancy date to set milestone dates” is a classic application of the backward pass within the Critical Path Method. CSI’s project management materials emphasize that CPM is used to:

Establish logic relationships and durations,

Calculate early and late start/finish dates,

Identify the critical path, and

Adjust the schedule to meet a required completion or occupancy date by compressing or resequencing activities where possible.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Methods technique – This is not a standard CSI or mainstream term for a recognized scheduling method.

C. Front end loading – In project management and cost engineering usage, this refers to investing significant effort early in project definition and planning; it is not specifically defined as the technique of back-scheduling from an occupancy date.

D. Schedule of values – This is a cost-allocation and payment document that breaks the contract sum into portions for progress payments. It is not a scheduling technique.

Because CPM scheduling explicitly supports setting a required completion date and then working backward to develop realistic milestone dates and activity sequencing, Option B – Critical path method is the best and CSI-consistent answer.

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

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

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

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

Applying those principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSI references (by name only, no links):

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

CDT ethics and professional conduct principles regarding risk disclosure to bidders

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.