Construction Specifications Institute CDT Construction Documents Technologist Exam Practice Test

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).

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.”

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.

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

In CSI’s description of the facility life cycle, the last phase is decommissioning. This phase occurs when a facility is taken out of service because it is no longer needed for its original operations, has reached the end of its useful life, or is being prepared for conversion to a different use. The emphasis is on the facility no longer being required for its intended operations, not strictly on demolition or permanent abandonment.

Decommissioning tasks can include: removing or securing systems, handling hazardous materials, salvaging components, planning for demolition, or preparing the facility for a different use.

Because decommissioning can precede demolition, adaptive reuse, or other end-of-life actions, it is triggered when the facility is no longer needed for operations.

Option B captures this definition accurately.

Options A and C are too narrow: demolition or permanent disuse are possible outcomes of decommissioning but not the only reasons it is required. Option D (change of ownership) does not automatically require decommissioning; a facility can continue operating normally under a new owner.

Relevant CSI references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Facility Life Cycle chapter (discussion of operations, maintenance, and decommissioning).

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – overview of project phases including decommissioning.

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 identifies several types of specifications, including:

Descriptive specifications – describe materials and methods in detail.

Performance specifications – describe required results and performance criteria.

Proprietary specifications – designate specific products or manufacturers.

Reference standard specifications – define requirements by citing recognized industry standards rather than repeating all technical details.

A reference standard specification works by referring to standards issued by organizations such as:

Trade associations (e.g., industry associations),

Standards organizations (e.g., ASTM, ANSI, ISO),

Other recognized bodies that publish consensus technical standards.

The specification then simply states that materials, products, or work must comply with the named standard. This reduces repetition and promotes consistency and clarity.

Therefore, a proper basis for a reference standard specification is a trade association standard, which is Option C.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Project manual for similar projectPrevious project manuals may be informal references for the specifier, but they are not recognized standards. A reference standard specification must refer to a published technical standard, not another project’s contract documents.

B. Design intentDesign intent is expressed more directly in performance or descriptive specifications, not in reference standard form. Reference standards rely on external, recognized standards, not internal design intent statements alone.

D. Manufacturer's specification sectionReferring to a specific manufacturer’s literature or section is characteristic of a proprietary specification, not a reference standard specification. Reference standards must be based on independent, consensus-based standards, not one manufacturer’s materials.

Key CSI Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Types of specifications, including reference standard specifications and their proper use.

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Relationship of specifications to industry standards.

CDT Body of Knowledge – “Specification Types and Methods of Specifying.”

Within CSI’s project delivery framework, the Design stage (which includes schematic design and design development) is where the architect/engineer (A/E) works with the owner to evaluate options, select specific systems, and record decisions that will later be fully detailed in the construction documents.

CSI’s project-phase descriptions (as presented in the CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide and CDT study materials) explain the stages roughly as follows (paraphrased, not verbatim):

Project Conception: The owner defines a need or opportunity, explores whether a project is warranted, and considers general feasibility. The focus is on defining the reason for the project, not picking specific products or systems.

Programming: The owner’s requirements and objectives are documented—space needs, performance criteria, budget, schedule, and qualitative expectations. At this point, needs and performance requirements for systems (e.g., “energy-efficient HVAC,” “durable flooring”) are identified, but not necessarily specific named products or system configurations.

Design:

Schematic Design: General design concepts, overall configuration, and preliminary system approaches are developed; the owner begins making more concrete decisions.

Design Development: The A/E and consultants refine and confirm decisions about specific systems, materials, and assemblies, and these decisions are documented so they can be incorporated into specifications and drawings.

Construction Documents: The A/E takes those already-made decisions and fully documents them in coordinated drawings and specifications, but this phase is not usually where the majority of decisions about which specific products and systems to use are first obtained; instead, it formalizes and details what was already decided in Design.

CSI’s CDT content emphasizes that during Design Development, the A/E “confirms and documents owner decisions about materials, products, and systems” so that these can be translated into clear contract documents during the Construction Documents phase. That activity—obtaining and documenting the owner’s decisions about specific products and systems—is core to the Design stage, making Option B correct.

Why the other options are not correct under CSI’s framework:

A. Construction documentationIn the Construction Documents phase, the A/E develops the detailed drawings and specifications based on decisions made earlier. Changes and additional decisions can occur here, but CSI treats the primary “obtaining and documenting owner choices” as a Design-stage responsibility; the CD phase is about formalizing and coordinating them into contract documents.

C. Project conceptionAt conception, there often isn’t an A/E contracted yet, and the owner is still deciding whether to proceed at all. Product and system decisions would be far too early and poorly defined at this point.

D. ProgrammingProgramming focuses on what the facility must do, not on exactly how via specific products or named systems. It defines performance and functional requirements (e.g., acoustical needs, energy performance) but typically stops short of selecting specific manufacturers or detailed system configurations.

Key CSI-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on project phases (Programming, Design, Construction Documents) and owner/A/E responsibilities.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – sections on the Design phase and decision-making responsibilities for products and systems.

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

CSI describes several techniques in the procurement documents to manage cost uncertainty. When the owner is concerned that the project may exceed the budget when bids are received, the most common tool to allow scope flexibility is the use of alternates.

Alternates (often called “bid alternates”):

Are defined variations in the work (additions or deletions) that bidders price separately from the base bid.

Can be additive (additional scope that can be accepted if the budget allows) or deductive (scope that can be removed to reduce cost if needed).

Give the owner the ability, after seeing the base bids, to accept or reject alternates to bring the project within the available budget without redesigning the entire project.

This fits the scenario in the question exactly: the owner anticipates that the budget may be tight and wants a mechanism to adjust the final contract amount if bids come in high.

Why the other options are not the primary CSI method for this budget-flexibility issue:

A. Cash allowanceAn allowance is a set amount included in the contract sum to cover a defined but not fully specified portion of the work (e.g., artwork, specialty items). It helps manage scope uncertainty, but it doesn’t systematically provide a way to reduce overall cost after bids in the same way alternates do.

B. Quantity allowanceThis is a form of allowance tied to a presumed quantity (e.g., rock excavation). It addresses uncertain quantities, not overall budget flexibility in the bidding process.

C. Unit pricingUnit prices provide fixed prices per unit (e.g., per cubic meter, per square meter) for work items whose final quantities are uncertain. They are useful for adjustments after contract award as quantities change, but they are not the primary tool for adjusting total scope to meet the owner’s budget at bid time.

Therefore, the CSI-aligned answer for allowing flexibility when bids may exceed the budget is:

D. Alternates

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – procurement and pricing strategies, including alternates and allowances.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections on Alternates, Unit Prices, and Allowances.

CSI CDT Study Materials – explanations of bid alternates and their role in controlling project cost.

CSI identifies four primary methods of specifying in construction specifications:

Descriptive

Performance

Reference standard

Proprietary

A reference standard specification method uses published standards from recognized organizations to define material, product, or workmanship requirements, rather than repeating long technical descriptions in the spec section.

Applied to steel:

Instead of writing long paragraphs about carbon content, alloying elements, strength, ductility, etc., the spec writer can call for a specific ASTM, AISC, or other recognized standard, such as “ASTM A992 steel shapes” or “ASTM A36 carbon steel.”

This “short” specification points to a standard that already contains the detailed technical requirements, thereby limiting lengthy descriptions in the project specification while still ensuring clear, enforceable quality requirements.

That is exactly what the question describes: using a method of specifying to avoid long, repeated descriptions for complex materials like steel with many grades. Therefore the correct answer is:

D. Reference standard

Why the other choices are incorrect:

A. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)ANSI is a standards organization, not a method of specifying. A reference standard method could incorporate ANSI standards, but the method is “reference standard,” not “ANSI.”

B. DescriptiveDescriptive specifying is the opposite of what the question is asking to avoid. It involves writing out detailed properties, materials, and installation requirements in full text, which leads to lengthy descriptions.

C. PerformancePerformance specifying focuses on required results or performance criteria (e.g., strength, deflection, fire rating), allowing the contractor or manufacturer to choose how to meet those criteria. It is not specifically aimed at avoiding long material descriptions by referencing existing published standards, which is the hallmark of reference standard specifying.

CSI-aligned references (no external links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapter on Methods of Specifying (descriptive, performance, reference standard, proprietary).

CSI CDT Study materials – topics on methods of specifying and use of reference standards (ASTM, AISC, ANSI, etc.) to define material requirements.

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

In Design-Bid-Build (DBB), CSI describes a clear, linear sequence of phases:

Programming and design

Procurement (bidding/negotiation and selection of contractor)

Award of the construction contract

Construction

At the end of the procurement phase, the owner has received and evaluated bids, determined the successful bidder, and is ready to award the contract. CSI’s project delivery guidance explains that the award step typically involves:

Issuing a Notice of Award or letter of intent to the successful bidder; and/or

Forwarding the owner–contractor agreement (and other contract forms) for execution.

Only after this step do the parties fully execute the contract and the owner issues a Notice to Proceed, marking the official start of the construction phase. This matches Option D:

The owner issues a letter of intent or forwards the owner-contractor agreement to the successful bidder.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. The contractor begins negotiating agreements with subcontractors.Subcontractor negotiations and subcontracts typically occur after the contractor has been formally awarded and has a binding contract with the owner. This is not the immediate step that awards the contract for construction.

B. The owner forwards construction contract agreements to subcontractors.The owner’s contract is with the prime contractor, not with subcontractors. Subcontracts are between the prime contractor and subcontractors. The owner does not award contracts directly to subs in standard DBB.

C. The contractor and owner issue an amendment indicating the project is in the construction phase.There is normally no “amendment” to enter the construction phase. The project enters the construction phase upon execution of the owner–contractor agreement and issuance of the Notice to Proceed, not by amendment.

Key CSI References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Design-Bid-Build and the Procurement and Contract Award processes.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions on contract formation and Notice of Award/Notice to Proceed.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Project Delivery Methods” and “Procurement and Award of Contract.”

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.

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 CDT materials distinguish clearly between public and private procurement:

Public work (funded and contracted by government entities) is typically governed by statutes and regulations that require:

Formal advertisement,

Clearly defined bidding procedures,

Sealed bids opened publicly at a specified time and place, and

Award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, except where law allows other defined selection methods.

Private work, by contrast, is not generally bound by these public procurement statutes. CSI explains that private owners have significantly more flexibility, including:

Not being required to publicly open bids,

Being able to negotiate with one or more bidders,

Rejecting any or all bids, and

Awarding the contract to any responsive and responsible bidder they choose, based on value, qualifications, schedule, or other criteria—not solely lowest price.

Because of this flexibility, CSI emphasizes that a private owner may select a bidder other than the lowest as long as the bidder is responsive (submits a bid per the requirements) and responsible (qualified, capable, and reliable). This matches Option D exactly.

Why the other options are incorrect or misleading:

A. A private owner may waive any informality in the bidding, except for the performance bond.While private owners often can waive bid informalities, CSI does not state any universal rule that the performance bond is a special exception in private bidding. Performance bonds are typically part of the contract requirements after award, not a fixed “unwaivable informality” in bid receipt; treatment of bonding is governed by the owner’s requirements and any applicable law, not a CSI rule unique to private work.

B. Private bids may be opened in private, but the results must be published in a reasonable time.Publication of bid results is a hallmark of public work (transparency and accountability). CSI does not require private owners to publish bid results; private owners may keep them confidential if they wish, unless other obligations apply (e.g., corporate policies).

C. The laws and regulations for private bidding are the same as for public bidding.CSI specifically distinguishes between public and private owners: public owners are constrained by statutes and regulations, whereas private owners have much more discretion. The laws governing public bidding and private bidding are not the same, and this is a key CDT concept.

Thus, the CSI-consistent distinction is that private owners are free to award the contract to a responsive and responsible bidder who is not the lowest, making Option D the correct choice.

Key CSI-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – procurement and bidding chapters comparing public and private practice.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – sections on bidding requirements, “responsive and responsible bidder,” and differences between public and private construction procurement.

CSI defines the contract documents as the documents that form the legally binding contract between the owner and the contractor. These typically include:

Agreement (contract form)

Conditions of the Contract (General and Supplementary)

Drawings

Specifications

Addenda (issued before contract execution, modifying bidding documents)

Modifications (issued after execution — change orders, CCDs, etc.)

Thus, addenda, once issued prior to contract signing, become a binding part of the contract documents.

Why others are incorrect:

A. Procurement requirements – These include instructions to bidders, bid forms, and similar pre-contract information; once the contract is executed, they are not part of the contract documents.

B. Resource drawings – Background reference materials only; not contractually binding.

C. Shop drawings – Prepared by the contractor/subcontractors for review and coordination; not part of the contract documents, even after A/E review.

CSI Reference:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide, “Procurement and Contracting”; Construction Specifications Practice Guide, “Definition of Contract Documents.”

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.”

CSI’s terminology for specifications includes the concept of a “reference standard”, which is:

A requirement established by a recognized authority, by custom, or by general consensus.

An accepted criterion used to define properties, performance, or methods for materials, products, or workmanship (e.g., ASTM, ANSI, ACI, AISC, UL).

Cited in specifications so that, instead of repeating technical details, the spec simply references the named standard.

This is exactly the definition implied by the phrase “requirement set by authority, custom, or general consensus that is also an established accepted criterion.” That is the CSI definition of a standard, and in specification-writing context, specifically a reference standard. Hence the correct choice is C.

Why not the others:

A. Building code – A building code is a legal document adopted by public authority and enforced by the authority having jurisdiction; it is one type of regulatory document but not the generic term used in CSI for “established accepted criterion” used as a reference in specs.

B. Quality control standard – Quality control is a process; standards may be used within QC, but “quality control standard” is not the CSI term that matches this specific definition.

D. Specification master – CSI refers to master guide specifications or master specifications, but this is a spec-writing resource, not the formal term for a requirement established by authority or consensus.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – explanations of standards and reference standard method of specifying.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – definitions of “standard” and “reference standard” in the context of specifications.

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 various classification and formatting standards serve different purposes, and CDT content draws clear distinctions between them:

The United States National CAD Standard (NCS) and the AIA CAD Layer Guidelines (now part of NCS) define graphic conventions, sheet organization, layering, and symbols for CAD drawings.

The CSI Uniform Drawing System (UDS) (now integrated into the NCS) provides consistent formats and conventions for construction drawings, including sheet organization, drawing set organization, schedules, notation, and symbols.

All three—NCS, AIA CAD Layer Guidelines, and CSI UDS—are associated with graphical and organizational standards for construction drawings.

By contrast:

MasterFormat® is CSI’s specification and work-results classification system, which organizes information primarily into Divisions and Sections for specifications and other written documents, not drawings. CDT materials repeatedly emphasize that MasterFormat is used to organize project manual content and other written construction information, not the graphical content of the drawings.

Therefore, the one item not used as a graphical format for organizing drawings is:

D. MasterFormat®

Why the other options are correct as “graphical” or drawing-related formats:

A. United States National CAD Standard – Provides a nationally coordinated standard for CAD drawing presentation, including layering, symbols, and sheet organization.

B. AIA CAD Layer Guidelines – Define standard layer naming and structure for CAD drawings; these are explicitly about how graphical information is organized in electronic drawings.

C. CSI Uniform Drawing System – Developed to standardize the organization and graphical conventions of drawings, later integrated into NCS.

Thus, from a CSI standpoint, MasterFormat® is the outlier here: it organizes written construction information, not graphical drawing formats, making Option D the correct choice.

In CSI’s MasterFormat® system, the project manual’s specifications are organized into Divisions 00–49:

Division 00 – Procurement and Contracting Requirements (instructions to bidders, bid forms, owner–contractor agreement, etc.)

Division 01 – General Requirements (administrative and procedural requirements applicable to the whole project, including items like temporary facilities and controls, submittals, project meetings, etc.)

Divisions 02–49 – Technical Specifications

CSI defines Divisions 02–49 as the technical divisions, each of which is organized around a specific work results area (sitework, concrete, masonry, metals, finishes, mechanical, electrical, etc.). Within those divisions, each specification section describes the materials, products, and execution requirements for that particular work result.

Therefore:

A. Procurement instructions – belong in Division 00, not Divisions 02–49.

C. Temporary facilities and controls – are addressed under Division 01 – General Requirements, not Divisions 02–49.

D. Life cycle activities – are not how CSI defines the scope of Divisions 02–49.

The only accurate description of Divisions 02–49 is that they address distinct work results areas, which is Option B.

CSI references (by name only, no links):

CSI MasterFormat® – Numbers and Titles (Introduction and Use)

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide, chapters explaining organization of the project manual into Divisions 00–49

CSI describes the schedule of values as the breakdown of the contract sum allocated to portions of the work (often by specification section, building system, or major components). It is used as the basis for reviewing progress payments.

In CSI-aligned practice:

Before the first application for payment, the contractor submits a schedule of values to the A/E for review.

Each line item represents a portion of the work with an assigned dollar amount.

Every application for payment is itemized against that schedule—showing the percentage complete and corresponding dollar amount for each item.

Thus, the contractor’s application is organized and itemized in accordance with the schedule of values, enabling the A/E and owner to evaluate progress in a consistent, transparent way. That matches Option C.

Why the others are incomplete or incorrect in this context:

A. The construction schedule – The construction schedule shows time and sequencing, not the cost breakdown used to itemize payment requests.

B. The subcontractor’s invoices – These may support the contractor’s internal accounting but do not define how the application for payment must be structured for the owner.

D. The percentage of completion – Percentage of completion is important, but it is applied to each line item in the schedule of values. The question asks what the application must be itemized in accordance with, which is the schedule of values, not just percentages.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on construction phase payment procedures.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – payment applications and use of schedule of values.

Standard conditions of the contract as discussed in CSI materials – provisions on progress payments.

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

CSI distinguishes among several written formats, each with a specific purpose:

UniFormat – organizes information by systems and assemblies (elements) and is commonly used for:

Cost classification and early cost estimating,

Data organization in the programming, schematic design, and design development stages.

MasterFormat – organizes information by work results (trades/products) and is used for:

Project specifications,

Detailed cost information tied to specification sections,

Organizing procurement and construction information.

CSI’s practice guides clearly connect cost classification and data organization in early design with UniFormat, and detailed specifications and later-stage cost information with MasterFormat. Therefore, the correct pair is:

UniFormat and MasterFormat (Option B)

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. OmniClass and UniFormat – OmniClass is a broader classification system for the built environment, not the primary written format CSI assigns to “specifications.” UniFormat is used for cost and systems, but OmniClass is not the standard format for specs.

C. OmniClass and MasterFormat – Again, OmniClass is overarching; it does not replace UniFormat as the main element-based cost classification tool.

D. SectionFormat and MasterFormat – SectionFormat is the internal three-part structure of a specification section (Parts 1, 2, and 3) and is not the format used for cost classification and data organization; that role is assigned to UniFormat.

Relevant CSI references (paraphrased):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – descriptions of UniFormat use for system-based project descriptions and cost planning, and MasterFormat use for work result organization.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on MasterFormat, UniFormat, and their roles in specifications and estimating.

CSI’s core principle is that contract documents describe the work results required, not the internal means, methods, or subcontracting arrangements of the contractor. The contractor (or construction manager) is responsible for:

Determining how the work will be divided among trades and subcontractors.

Coordinating different trades to achieve the required results shown on the drawings and described in the specifications.

Design professionals (architects and engineers):

Organize the documents by disciplines and work results (e.g., civil, architectural, electrical), not by subcontractor or trade contract structure.

Are not responsible for dictating which subcontractor performs which portion of the work; that is the contractor’s role.

Given that:

Site electrical work appears on civil drawings, but the electrical engineer has also prepared electrical documents for the building systems.

The intent of the contract documents is still to describe what must be installed and how it must perform, not which subcontractor does it.

The only option that aligns with CSI’s stated roles and responsibilities is:

D. The electrical engineer does not need to control how the work is to be assigned to subcontractors.

Why the other options are not the “intent” of the documents:

A. The civil contractor is to place the concrete bases and the electrical contractor is to install the site lighting.This presumes a specific trade split based on drawing origin. CSI emphasizes that the contractor determines trade assignments, not the drawings themselves.

B. The civil contractor is to place the concrete bases and the site lighting, with the electrical contractor making the final connections.Again, this dictates trade assignments. The documents may show coordination between civil and electrical work, but do not prescribe how contractors must divide their subcontracts.

C. The general contractor needs to coordinate the work and verify that the electrical subcontractor bids the site electrical.While coordination of work is indeed a contractor responsibility, the phrasing here implies that the documents intend to direct which subcontractor must price which work package. CSI’s standpoint is that the contractor is free to structure subcontract bids as they see fit, as long as the required work is provided in accordance with the contract.

Thus, the intent of the contract documents is to define the required end results, not to assign work scopes among subcontractors. Option D correctly reflects that intent and the design professional’s role.

Relevant CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – roles and responsibilities of owner, design professional, and contractor; explanation that contractor controls means, methods, and subcontracting.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – distinction between describing work results and assigning work trades.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – contract document intent vs. contractor’s responsibility for dividing the work.

In the standard organization of the contract documents as taught in CSI’s CDT materials and practice guides, the General Conditions establish the baseline contractual rights, responsibilities, and relationships among the owner, contractor, and architect/engineer (A/E).

CSI explains that whenever there is a need to change or add to the standard provisions of the General Conditions (for example, to address project-specific insurance limits, bonding, liquidated damages, or local legal requirements), those changes are made in the Supplementary Conditions. The Supplementary Conditions are expressly written to modify, delete, or add to the printed General Conditions, and they do so by direct reference to specific articles or paragraphs.

The General Conditions set the standard, overall rules of the contract.

The Supplementary Conditions are the only document whose primary purpose is to modify those General Conditions for the specific project.

Other documents (Agreement, Division 01) must be consistent with the Conditions of the Contract but are not the formal instrument intended to “directly modify” the General Conditions.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Division 01, General Requirements – Division 01 coordinates administrative and procedural requirements for the work and bridges from the Conditions of the Contract to the technical specifications. It may elaborate how procedures are implemented but it is not the document that directly amends the General Conditions.

C. Agreement – The Agreement (e.g., AIA A101) identifies parties, contract sum, contract time, and incorporates the Conditions, drawings, and specifications by reference. It relies on the General and Supplementary Conditions; it does not systematically edit their language.

D. Instructions to Bidders – These govern the procurement phase only (how to submit bids, qualifications, bid security, etc.) and cease to have effect once the Contract is executed. They do not modify the General Conditions of the construction contract.

CSI’s Project Delivery and Construction Specifications Practice Guides describe this hierarchy and emphasize that Supplementary Conditions are the proper instrument for project-specific modifications to the General Conditions, which makes Option B the correct answer.

CSI describes commissioning as a quality-focused, systematic process for verifying and documenting that the facility and its systems meet the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR). Within commissioning types, Total Project Commissioning (also called whole-building or total building commissioning) is defined as:

Encompassing the entire facility, including building envelope, systems, and interfaces.

Ensuring that all systems and assemblies operate together as an integrated whole to achieve performance targets (energy, comfort, safety, functionality, etc.).

Involving activities from design through occupancy: reviews, tests, training, and performance verification.

Because the question specifically asks for the process that ensures all systems work together effectively to meet overall project performance goals, that description matches Total Project Commissioning (Option A).

Why the others are incorrect:

B. Inspection by architect – A/E inspections or observations confirm general conformance with the contract documents but are not a comprehensive performance verification process for all systems.

C. Safety testing – Focuses only on safety-related aspects, not on full integration and performance of all systems.

D. Field testing – Typically refers to testing of specific components or systems in the field; it is one tool within commissioning, not the overall coordinating process.

Relevant CSI references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – commissioning chapter (systems & equipment, building envelope, and total project commissioning).

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – sections on commissioning scope, objectives, and responsibilities across project phases.

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

In CSI-aligned contract administration procedures and the AIA A201 General Conditions, under a single prime contract:

All subcontractors, suppliers, and lower-tier entities submit their shop drawings, product data, and samples to the Contractor.

The Contractor reviews them for coordination, compliance with the contract documents, and completeness.

After the Contractor’s review and approval, the shop drawings are forwarded to the Architect/Engineer (A/E) for review and action.

This maintains the single point of responsibility between the Owner and the Contractor and ensures the Contractor coordinates all submittals before they reach the A/E. Therefore, under a single prime contract, shop drawings should reach the A/E from the Contractor, making Option A correct.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. Material supplier and D. Subcontractor – They prepare many of the shop drawings but are required to submit them through the prime Contractor, not directly to the A/E. Direct submission would bypass the Contractor’s coordination and contractual responsibility.

C. Owner – The Owner is not part of the technical submittal review chain; they rely on the A/E and Contractor to manage shop drawings.

Relevant CSI references:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on submittal procedures and lines of communication.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 provisions for submittals and routing.

AIA A201 General Conditions (referenced in CSI CDT materials) – Articles on submittals and contractor responsibilities.

In CSI’s MasterFormat / SectionFormat framework, temporary facilities and controls (including temporary toilet facilities) are normally specified in Division 01 – General Requirements, specifically in the section often titled “Temporary Facilities and Controls” (e.g., 01 50 00).

CSI’s practice guides and CDT materials explain that:

Division 01 – General Requirements governs project-wide administrative and procedural requirements and many temporary facilities, including temporary utilities, temporary protection, and temporary sanitation (toilet facilities) for the contractor’s workforce.

These requirements apply across the entire project and are not limited to a single trade. That’s why Division 01 is the appropriate location instead of the trade divisions.

So, requirements such as:

Number, type, and cleaning of temporary toilets,

Responsibility for providing and maintaining them,

Locations and general standards for worker facilities,

are typically found in Division 01 – General Requirements, not in the plumbing design sections.

Why the other options are incorrect in CSI context:

A. Supplementary ConditionsSupplementary Conditions modify or add to the General Conditions of the Contract, usually to address project-specific legal, insurance, or procedural issues (local laws, bonding, liquidated damages, etc.). While they could mention sanitation in special cases, they are not the standard, typical place for detailed technical or procedural requirements for temporary toilets. Those belong in Division 01.

B. Division 22 – PlumbingDivision 22 contains requirements for permanent plumbing systems and components (domestic water, sanitary waste, fixtures, piping, etc.) as part of the completed facility. Temporary toilets for construction workers are not part of the permanent plumbing design; they are a temporary facility and therefore addressed in Division 01, not Division 22.

C. The Owner–Contractor AgreementThe Agreement defines contract sum, contract time, identification of the contract documents, and sometimes very high-level obligations, but it does not normally contain detailed requirements for items like temporary toilets. Those details are part of the specifications within the Project Manual, mainly Division 01.

Therefore, in line with CSI’s structure and recommended practice, Division 01 – General Requirements (Option D) is the correct answer.

Relevant CSI references (no URLs):

CSI MasterFormat – Division 01, including section 01 50 00 “Temporary Facilities and Controls.”

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Discussion of where to specify temporary facilities and contractor responsibilities.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Use and organization of the Project Manual and Division 01.

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)

CSI uses the term “Procurement Documents” to describe the documents used to solicit and obtain offers (bids or proposals) from prospective contractors. In CSI and CDT terminology, these are more commonly referred to in everyday practice as “Bidding Documents.”

Per CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide:

Procurement (bidding) documents usually include:

Solicitation / invitation to bid or request for proposals,

Instructions to bidders,

Bid forms,

Procurement requirements, and

Often copies of the proposed Contract Documents (conditions, drawings, specifications) for information and pricing.

When CSI exam and study materials ask what is “commonly included as procurement documents,” they treat “bidding documents” as the proper term among choices like these. So the best answer is:

D. Bidding documents

Why the other options are not correct by themselves:

A. Project record documents – These are post-construction documents (record drawings, record specifications, record submittals) used for operations and maintenance, not for procurement.

B. Contract documents – While proposed contract documents are often included within the procurement package for pricing and review, the broader category name for the documents used in procurement is still “bidding (procurement) documents.”

C. Consensus documents – This refers to standard-form agreements produced by organizations (e.g., consensus-documents families), not the general CSI term for the set of documents used in the procurement phase.

Relevant CSI references (paraphrased):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Procurement Phase and “Procurement Documents (Bidding Documents).”

CSI CDT Study Materials – topics on document families used in procurement and contracting.

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.

Under CSI-based contract administration principles (which align with typical General Conditions such as AIA A201), site safety is primarily the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor:

Is solely responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures.

Must plan, maintain, and supervise all construction safety programs and precautions in connection with the work.

Must ensure that workers and the public are protected from hazards arising from construction operations.

The architect/engineer (A/E) is not responsible for construction safety; their role is limited to observing the work for general conformance with the contract documents, not directing means, methods, or safety programs. Likewise, OSHA sets safety regulations but does not manage project-specific safety programs; compliance and implementation rest with the Contractor.

Therefore, Option D – Contractor is correct.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Architect/engineer – The A/E does not control means and methods or safety programs; CSI and standard General Conditions explicitly state that the A/E’s services do not include responsibility for jobsite safety.

B. OSHA – OSHA establishes regulations and enforcement, but it does not plan or supervise each project’s safety measures; that duty is contractually on the Contractor.

C. Owner’s inspector – An owner’s representative/inspector may observe and report, but does not take over the Contractor’s legal responsibility for implementing and supervising safety.

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Roles and Responsibilities during Construction.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussion of General Conditions and contractor responsibilities.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Construction Phase: Responsibilities of Owner, Contractor, and A/E.”

Under standard conditions of the contract used in CDT (e.g., AIA A201 as referenced by CSI), when hazardous materials or unsafe conditions are encountered:

The Contractor is required to stop work in the affected area and notify the Owner and Architect/Engineer.

The Contractor must not proceed until the hazardous condition has been evaluated and remedied by the Owner with qualified professionals.

CSI’s project delivery materials emphasize that the contractor is responsible for means, methods, and safety of construction operations. That includes the authority—indeed the obligation—to stop work where hazardous substances or conditions present an imminent danger to workers.

Why the others are incorrect:

A. Architect/engineer – The A/E can recommend suspension of work for nonconforming work or other reasons, but the specific duty and right to stop work because of hazardous conditions in the field lies with the Contractor under typical general conditions.

C. Stakeholders – This is a generic term, not a contract party with defined authority in CSI’s framework.

D. Facility manager – The facility manager may be involved if the existing facility is affected, but is not the contract party empowered in the construction contract to stop the contractor’s work.

Relevant CSI references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Construction Phase responsibilities and safety.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – discussion of contractor responsibilities and hazardous materials clauses in standard general conditions.

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.

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

In CSI practice (as reflected in the CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide and CDT study materials), warranties are treated as supplemental protection for the owner, not as a primary quality-control method. CSI emphasizes that the specifier should carefully research products, manufacturers, and performance history, and that the specifications should clearly define the required quality, performance criteria, and execution. A warranty cannot compensate for poor product selection or incomplete specification of performance and quality.

Because of this, relying on a warranty as a substitute for thorough investigation of a product and its manufacturer (Option D) is specifically contrary to CSI guidance. CSI’s approach is:

First: proper investigation and evaluation of the product and manufacturer (technical suitability, history, service, financial stability).

Second: clear, enforceable specifications stating performance and quality requirements.

Third: warranties as an additional contractual obligation, not a replacement for the first two.

That is exactly what Option D fails to do, so it is the practice that should be avoided.

Why the other options are acceptable in CSI terms:

Option A – Requiring or permitting a warranty that strengthens the owner’s rightsCSI allows and often encourages warranties that provide greater protection than the default legal warranties, so long as they are realistic, coordinated with the contractor and manufacturer, and enforceable. Strengthening the owner’s rights through clear warranty language is consistent with CSI’s recommended practice, not something to avoid.

Option B – Requiring minimum warranty coverage available for a particular productIt is normal in CSI-style specifications to state a minimum warranty duration or coverage (for example, “not less than 5 years” for roofing). This sets a clear baseline of expectations and is fully compatible with CSI guidance, provided it matches industry practice and project needs.

Option C – Including language to require warranties extending beyond the contractor’s one-year correction periodCSI explicitly distinguishes between the contractor’s correction period (often one year, as described in the General Conditions) and longer manufacturer warranties (e.g., 5, 10, or 20 years). It is routine and appropriate for specifications to require manufacturer warranties that extend beyond the one-year correction period, especially for major building envelope or equipment systems. CSI materials show these longer warranties as normal practice, not something to avoid.

So, under CSI’s Construction Specifications Practice and CDT body of knowledge, the clearly incorrect—and therefore “to be avoided”—practice is Option D: counting on a warranty instead of doing the proper technical due diligence and specifying performance and quality requirements.

CSI reference concepts:

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on warranties and product selection (discussing warranties as supplemental protection, not a substitute for proper specifying).

CSI CDT Study Materials – sections on Division 01, product selection, and quality assurance/quality control versus warranties.

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.”

In CSI’s description of the project life cycle and construction phase services, project closeout is treated as a structured, coordinated process involving the owner, A/E, and contractor. A closeout meeting (or series of meetings) is recommended to:

Review all required closeout procedures such as punch list completion, testing, training, record documents, warranties, and final cleaning.

Clarify responsibilities and timelines for each party in achieving substantial and final completion.

Coordinate handover activities, including delivery of O&M manuals, as-built/record documents, warranties, spare parts, keys, and access codes.

Confirm the sequence for inspections, certifications, and the process toward final payment and release.

Thus the primary purpose of a closeout meeting is to review and coordinate handover procedures and activities, making D the correct answer.

Why the other choices do not match CSI’s intent for closeout meetings:

A. To set substantial completionSubstantial completion is established by contract definition and certification, usually when the work is sufficiently complete for the owner’s beneficial use and occupancy. The closeout meeting may discuss the path to substantial completion, but it does not exist just to “set” that date.

B. To resolve subcontractor disputesDisputes may be addressed through separate claim and dispute resolution procedures outlined in the Conditions of the Contract. While closeout meetings might note open issues, their primary purpose is coordination of closeout and handover, not serving as a dispute-resolution forum.

C. To commission the project for occupancyCommissioning is a structured process of testing and verifying systems performance, typically running in parallel with late construction and early operation. The closeout meeting coordinates requirements (e.g., commissioning reports) but commissioning itself is carried out through separate technical procedures and field activities, not simply by holding a meeting.

Key CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Construction Phase and Project Closeout.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – content on construction phase services, closeout procedures, and documentation.

Standard A/E service descriptions aligned with CSI concepts for project closeout and handover.

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.