AACE International PSP Planning & Scheduling Professional (PSP) Exam Exam Practice Test

 Hammock Activities (2001–2004):

Activity 2001 ("River Diversion Stage 1"): Duration = 92 days.

Activity 2002: Starts immediately after 2001, duration = 38 days.

Activity 2003: Starts immediately after 2002, duration = 15 days.

Activity 2004: Starts immediately after 2003, duration = 38 days.

 Calculate the Duration:

Total duration = 92 + 38 + 15 + 38 = 183 days.

 Cross-Verification with Answer Options:

Option A: Incorrect. Underestimates.

Option C: Incorrect. Overestimates.

Option D: Incorrect. Overestimates.

Option B: Correct. Matches the calculated duration.

 Early Finish Date Calculation:

Duration of Activity 10002: 7 days.

Assuming the start date aligns with project calendars, calculate the early finish by adding the duration to the early start, considering working days.

Early finish date: 12-17-03.

 Float Calculation:

Total float is the difference between the late finish and early finish dates or derived by backward pass calculations.

Total float: 4 days.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Float and early finish calculations are foundational in the PSP framework and involve analyzing forward and backward pass data (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Calculations and Float Analysis).

 Activity 11001 Characteristics:

Activity 11001 (Spillway - Concrete) is logically defined as the final activity in the project.

Final activities in a project typically do not have successor activities since they signify project completion.

 Exclusion of Other Options:

Option A: Circular logic does not apply since the scheduling logic is linear and follows standard precedence diagramming methods.

Option B: Activity 11001 is not penultimate but the final activity.

Option C: The scheduler's error is highly unlikely in a controlled environment following PSP principles.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide explains that final activities represent the culmination of a project's logical sequence and typically lack successors (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Logical Sequencing).

 Activity Details (2001 - "River Diversion Stage 1"):

Successor: 2002 ("River Diversion Stage 2").

Relationship: Finish-to-Start (FS) with no lag.

Normal schedule duration for Activity 2001 = 92 days.

 Backward Pass Calculation for Late Finish (LF):

The Late Finish (LF) of Activity 2001 is derived from the Late Start (LS) of its successor, Activity 2002.

Formula: LF.2001 = LS.2002 - 1 day.

 Date Calculation:

Given: LS.2002 = 08-30-01 (as per data in the schedule).

LF.2001 = LS.2002 - 1 day = 08-30-01 - 1 day = 08-29-01.

 Cross-Verification with Answer Options:

Option A: Incorrect. Misrepresents the Late Finish formula.

Option C: Incorrect. Adds 1 day instead of subtracting.

Option D: Incorrect. Incorrect date application.

Option B: Correct. Matches both formula and calculation.

 Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM):

PDM allows for Start-to-Start (SS), Finish-to-Start (FS), Start-to-Finish (SF), and Finish-to-Finish (FF) relationships between activities.

This flexibility makes PDM distinct from Arrow Diagramming Method (ADM), which uses arrows to depict dependencies.

 Evaluation of Options:

Option A: Incorrect. This describes ADM, not PDM.

Option B: Incorrect. Both PDM and ADM can represent multiple critical paths.

Option C: Incorrect. Late start and finish calculations apply to both methods.

Option D: Correct. PDM uniquely allows multiple relationship types.

 Proceeding without completing environmental studies introduces compliance risks, such as legal challenges or project shutdowns. This is not a feasible method for reducing the overall completion time as it contradicts environmental regulations and ethical standards.

 Methods like subcontracting (A) or reallocating resources (B) are feasible, as they leverage resource management.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 1.2.3 – Stakeholder Considerations, and Section 1.3.13 – Risk and Recovery Planning, which emphasize compliance with regulations and avoiding unmanageable risks.

 Project Initial Planning:

Initial planning focuses on defining project scope, tasks, durations, and logical relationships to establish a baseline schedule.

Resource Identification and Leveling is typically part of detailed scheduling and execution planning phases, not the initial planning.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Resource identification is covered under detailed schedule development, whereas initial planning emphasizes tasks, durations, and dependencies​.

 Analysis for Selection:

Option A: Not required in initial planning.

Option B: Defining durations is fundamental to planning.

Option C: Identifying tasks is essential to building the schedule.

Option D: Logical relationships ensure task dependencies are understood.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A, as resource identification and leveling are subsequent processes in scheduling rather than initial planning.

Estimate to Complete (ETC) is the forecast of additional costs required to complete the remaining project work.

Option B refers to actual costs incurred (AC).

Option C refers to Estimate at Completion (EAC), which includes both actual costs and ETC.

Option D refers to Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP).

ETC is a critical concept for forecasting and project control as described in the PSP Study Guide​​.

 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.

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

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

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

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

A cost-benefit analysis for a subcontractor like SUBCO should focus on tangible and direct impacts to the project, including their labor and equipment rates, the potential for liquidated damages in the SDOT contract, and logistical concerns such as distance from the project site (PSP Study Guide, Section 1.2.4, "Project Variables"). Pending negotiations with a different entity, such as GOUGE, are unrelated to SUBCO’s contract evaluation and are therefore not a consideration.

 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.

Scheduling Professional Study Guide and Documents References:

The Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS) is the planned value of all tasks scheduled during a specific period. It is a measure used in earned value management to assess schedule adherence.

Option A defines Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP).

Option B defines the total project budget (BAC).

Option C defines the expected total cost, which is Estimate at Completion (EAC).

This answer is consistent with earned value methodologies and their application in project controls​​.

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.

To determine how many activities in the "normal" schedule would be affected by the constraint of no activity exceeding a two-month duration (approximately 60 days):

Review the "Normal Schedule Days" Column:Look for activities with a duration greater than 60 days in the "Normal Schedule Days" column of the table provided in the image.

Count the Affected Activities:Count all activities where the "Normal Schedule Days" value exceeds 60.

Activities with durations greater than 60 days:

Activity ID 1000: 1072 days

Activity ID 1001: 85 days

Activity ID 2001: 92 days

Activity ID 3001: 152 days

Activity ID 4001: 152 days

Activity ID 5001: 102 days

Activity ID 6001: 140 days

Activity ID 6002: 115 days

Activity ID 6003: 152 days

Activity ID 9001: 175 days

Activity ID 9002: 180 days

Activity ID 9005: 72 days

Total Count:

There are 12 activities in the "normal" schedule exceeding the 60-day duration constraint.

Verified Answer:

A. 12.

Detailed Explanation with References: The constraint specifies that no activity should exceed a two-month (60-day) duration. By examining the "Normal Schedule Days" column, any activity with a duration greater than 60 days is non-compliant and therefore affected. The PSP study guide emphasizes reviewing contract requirements to ensure schedules adhere to such administrative constraints​.

 Purpose of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS):

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

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

 PSP Study Guide References:

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

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

 Shape of Cumulative BCWS:

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

 Explanation of the S-Curve:

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

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

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

 Late Finish (LF) Transition Rule:

Late finish (LF) is calculated by adding one day to the early finish (EF) of the final activity.

EF of Activity 11001 is given, and the late finish is simply EF+1EF + 1EF+1.

 Cross-Verification with PSP Guidelines:

PSP methodologies state that late finish is derived from the forward pass using early finish logic, with specific adjustments based on activity relationships (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Forward and Backward Pass Calculations).

 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).

 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.

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

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

Option C is incorrect as CPM considers activity dependencies.

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

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

Concurrency Analysis:

Activity 3001 (Excavation, Dam Site) has concurrent activities during its execution period.

Based on the schedule, 4001 (Excavation, Spillway), 5001 (Drill and Grout Dam Site), and 6001 (Rock Fill to Elevation 25) overlap with Activity 3001.

Excluded Options:

B, C, and D: Do not fully represent concurrent activities based on schedule analysis.

Verification with PSP Guidelines:Logical sequencing confirms the concurrency of these activities (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Activity Sequencing).

A

 Critical Path Characteristics:

The critical path is the sequence of activities that determines the overall project duration.

It represents the longest duration path through the network and typically has zero float unless delays or constraints introduce negative float.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Critical path analysis is a foundational concept in schedule management, as covered extensively in the PSP guide​.

 Analysis of Options:

Option A: Correct. The critical path always has the longest duration.

Option B: Zero float is common but not universal due to constraints or delays.

Option C and D: Negative float describes specific scenarios but does not define the critical path universally.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A, as the critical path is the longest-duration path through the network.

 Preventing Structural Steel Delays:

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

 Evaluation of Other Options:

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

C: Concurrent review may create confusion and errors.

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

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

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

 Update Process Essentials:

Schedule updates track the current status of the project using actuals (start/finish dates), progress (percent complete), and future plans (remaining duration).

The original duration does not change and is part of baseline data, not required for routine updates.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Scheduling update procedures are discussed, emphasizing active progress tracking elements like actual start, percent complete, and remaining duration​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is D, as original duration is not a variable considered in regular updates.

 Schedule Update Procedures:

Accurate schedule updates rely on entering actual data (start/finish dates, durations) and evaluating impacts of changes.

"Downstream" logic revisions may be needed but are less critical compared to ensuring accurate historical data and reflecting immediate changes.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Schedule updating emphasizes capturing accurate historical data and estimating remaining durations accurately​.

 Analysis of Options:

Option A and B: Key to progress tracking and forecasting.

Option D: Essential for reflecting impacts of delays and change orders.

Option C: While important, downstream logic revisions are less immediate compared to other procedures.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is C, as downstream logic revisions are less critical in achieving an accurate schedule forecast compared to other updates

 Definition of a Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule:

CPM schedules are based on network diagrams that logically link activities, showing the sequence and dependencies between them.

These schedules identify the critical path, which is the longest path through the network, determining the project's shortest possible duration.

 Evaluation of Options:

Option A: Incorrect. While CPM schedules do include tasks and timelines, the defining feature is the logical interconnection of activities.

Option B: Incorrect. CPM schedules are not limited to "risky" work; they show all activities.

Option C: Incorrect. CPM schedules use network diagrams, not just graphical representations.

Option D: Correct. The network diagram is the key characteristic of CPM schedules.

Periodic reporting intervals are governed by contractual requirements to ensure consistency, transparency, and compliance.

While monthly reporting (Option A) is common, the exact frequency depends on contractual agreements​.

Requests by the project manager (Option B) or owner (Option C) are secondary to stipulated contractual obligations.

The PSP Study Guide highlights the importance of adhering to contractually specified intervals for periodic reporting to align all stakeholders​.

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.

 Activity-specific costs in CPM schedules typically include direct expenses like materials (C), field-related overhead (D), and specific schedule management tasks (B).

 Home office expenses are classified as indirect costs and are not associated with any specific activity within the project schedule. They are accounted for in broader financial statements rather than in the activity-based budget.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 1.3.10 – Cost Estimate Development, explains how costs are categorized and assigned in schedules.

 Definition of a Summary Activity (Hammock):

A summary activity, also referred to as a hammock activity, spans multiple detailed tasks and is governed by the earliest start (ES) of the first task and the latest finish (LF) of the last task.

 Activities 6001 through 6003 Overview:

6001: Starts after 5001 (Drill and Grout Dam Site).

6003: Ends before 8001 (Rock Fill to elevation 50).

 Identifying Predecessor and Successor:

Predecessor: Activity 5001 (Drill and Grout Dam Site).

Successor: Activity 8001 (Rock Fill to elevation 50).

 Cross-Verification:

Logical and temporal dependencies confirm that Activity 5001 must precede the hammock, and Activity 8001 must succeed it (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Logical Sequencing and Activity Relationships

 Impact of Overrun:

Drafting (Activity C) and manufacturing (Activity D) are critical path activities.

A 5-day overrun in drafting consumes all available time for manufacturing.

Therefore, manufacturing cannot be delayed without affecting the release of the product.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide specifies that critical path activities have zero float, so delays propagate directly to the project finish (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Critical Path and Float).

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

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

 Understanding Schedule Performance Index (SPI):

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

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

 Evaluation of Other Options:

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

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

C: Completion is not relevant to SPI.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

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

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

 Scenario Review:

Delay in the parking structure foundation is an off-critical path activity.

No impact on the overall project completion date.

 Delay Analysis:

While the foundation activity is delayed, the float ensures that no downstream activities are impacted.

 Cross-Verification:

Option B: Incorrect. Assumes a 4-day impact.

Option C: Incorrect. Overestimates delays.

Option D: Incorrect. Miscalculates delays.

 Impact of Calendars on Total Float:

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

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

 PSP Study Guide References:

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

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

 Understanding the Requirement:

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

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

Partial months are included in billing cycles.

 Total Project Duration in Months:

Total days: 1072.

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

Include partial months, which adds 1 additional invoice.

 Total Invoices:

Full months: 35.

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

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

 PSP Principles Cross-Verification:

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

 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.

Compensability and Excusability:

Excusable delays are those beyond the contractor’s control, while compensable delays are excusable delays for which the owner bears responsibility.

If a delay is compensable, it inherently qualifies as excusable.

PSP Study Guide References:

The relationship between excusability and compensability is clarified in delay analysis discussions​.

Conclusion: The correct answer is D, as compensability implies excusability.

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

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

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

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

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

 Critical Path Identification:

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

Path: A → B → G → H.

 Exclusion of Other Options:

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

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

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

 Position Analysis:

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

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

 Cross-Verification:

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

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

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

 Estimating Activity Durations:

The critical factors are crew size, labor hours, and the standard workday.

Cost estimation is not directly required to calculate durations.

 Evaluation of Options:

Option A: Incorrect. Crew size is needed for productivity estimation.

Option B: Incorrect. Labor hours are directly tied to durations.

Option C: Incorrect. Workday hours define the available time.

Option D: Correct. Cost is not directly linked to duration

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

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

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

 Input Data for Construction Planning:

Construction planning relies on data from the owner, contractor, and contract terms to establish project parameters.

Bonding capacity is not typically part of the planning inputs but rather a procurement and contractual concern.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Key inputs include project requirements, constraints, and stakeholder inputs as outlined in the PSP guide​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is C, as bonding capacity is not a direct input to the construction planning process.

To constrain a project's end date, a Finish-No-Later constraint is applied to the last activity. This ensures any slippage results in negative float, signaling delays relative to the fixed deadline.

Option A and B apply to earlier constraints, which are not relevant for controlling the project's end date.

Option D applies a constraint to the first activity, not the project finish.

This concept aligns with controlling project deadlines as described in the PSP Study Guide​.