CDT Construction Documents Technologist Question and Answers

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-based drawing organization, the cover sheet (sometimes called the title sheet) is the primary identification sheet of the drawing set. It typically includes:

Project name and project number

Owner’s name

Architect/engineer’s name and logo

Names of key consultants (structural, mechanical, electrical, etc.)

General project data (site address, legal description, gross area, etc.)

A location map or vicinity map

Sometimes a sheet index, code summary, and other global project information

CSI’s guidance for construction documents describes the cover sheet as the place where the project is formally identified and the major parties are listed so that anyone picking up the drawing set immediately knows what project it is, who the participants are, and where the project is located. This is exactly what the question is asking about.

Why the others are not correct in CSI’s sense:

A. Sheet index – A sheet index is usually a list of drawing sheets (by discipline and sheet number) and may be placed on the cover sheet or on a separate index sheet, but it does not normally carry the full set of project identification data, consultant names, and location map by itself.

C. General notes – General notes are used to provide global instructions or clarifications applicable to the drawings (e.g., dimensional conventions, typical construction requirements). They are not the primary location for listing the owner, A/E, consultants, or site location map.

D. Building code summary – A building code summary focuses on code-related data: occupancy classification, construction type, fire-resistance ratings, egress calculations, etc. While it may appear on the cover sheet or nearby sheets, it is not where CSI expects all of the names and general project data to be grouped.

So, per CSI’s standard organization of construction drawings and project manuals, the cover sheet is the correct answer.

Within CSI’s system for organizing the project manual, the specifications are arranged by MasterFormat®. Administrative and procedural requirements that apply project-wide are located in Division 01 – General Requirements. This division is the bridge between the conditions of the contract and the technical specification Sections in Divisions 02–49.

CSI’s practice guides and CDT content explain that Division 01 is the proper location for:

Requirements for alternates (how they are defined, priced, and documented).

Requirements for project meetings (preconstruction, progress meetings, coordination meetings, etc. – when they occur, who attends, and who keeps minutes).

Requirements and procedures for submittals (types, format, number of copies, review process, resubmittals, and related responsibilities).

These are procedural/administrative items that apply to many or all sections of the work. CSI’s guidance is that such requirements must not be embedded repeatedly in individual technical sections, but instead be centralized in Division 01 and cross-referenced as needed, to ensure consistency and avoid conflicts.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Divisions 02-49 – These are the technical specification divisions for materials and systems (sitework, concrete, masonry, finishes, mechanical, electrical, etc.). They may refer to alternates, meetings, or submittals, but they do not establish the overall procedures.

B. The general conditions – General Conditions set out the legal and contractual framework (rights, responsibilities, payment, changes, claims, etc.) between owner and contractor. They are not the primary location for detailed procedures on alternates, meetings, or submittals.

C. The supplementary conditions – Supplementary Conditions modify or add to the General Conditions to address project-specific legal or regulatory issues (local laws, insurance limits, special bonds, etc.), not day-to-day administrative procedures.

Therefore, in CSI-organized construction documents, the correct location for procedural requirements for alternates, project meetings, and submittals is Division 01 – General Requirements, making Option D the correct answer.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

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

Whether the design can be built efficiently and safely

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

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

Constructability reviews are especially valuable when:

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

There are unusual ground, environmental, or logistical conditions

The work involves complex staging, phasing, or access issues

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

Why the other options are less appropriate:

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

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

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

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

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

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

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

In CSI’s project delivery model, the level of development of specifications increases as the project moves through the design phases:

Project Conception – programming, needs assessment, feasibility; little or no formal specifications.

Schematic Design (SD) – conceptual design, basic systems and relationships; CSI now emphasizes Preliminary Project Descriptions (PPDs) as early, performance-oriented spec tools at this stage.

Design Development (DD) – selection and refinement of specific systems and assemblies; this is where outline specifications or expanded PPDs are used as a structured checklist for developing detailed requirements.

Construction Documents (CD) – full, coordinated section-by-section specifications in MasterFormat order, fully detailed to support bidding and construction.

CSI’s Construction Specifications Practice and CDT materials explain that outline specifications (or expanded PPDs) in the Design Development phase play a key role as a checklist and coordination tool. They:

List major assemblies, systems, and products by specification section.

Identify key performance and quality requirements in a concise format.

Help ensure that nothing is overlooked when moving into full specification writing in the Construction Documents phase.

Support coordination between disciplines (architectural, structural, MEP, etc.) by providing a common list of systems and materials.

Therefore, the phase where “outline specifications are created in order to be used as a checklist for further development of the project documents” is the Design Development phase (Option C).

Why the others are not the best fit:

A. Project Conception phaseAt this early stage, work is focused on needs, scope, feasibility, and budgeting. Specifications are generally not yet developed to the “outline” level; instead, information is more conceptual and programmatic.

B. Schematic Design phaseCSI increasingly promotes Preliminary Project Descriptions (PPDs) during Schematic Design, which are even higher-level and more performance-based than traditional outline specs. While some offices may start outline specs during SD, CSI’s standardized view places the checklist-style outline specifications more firmly in Design Development, when system choices are better defined.

D. Construction Documents phaseBy this phase, specifications are typically developed into full, detailed sections (Part 1–General, Part 2–Products, Part 3–Execution) rather than simple outline checklists. The outline specs or expanded PPDs created earlier in DD have already served their purpose in guiding the development of these full specifications and coordinated drawings.

CSI reference concepts:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters describing the design phases and the evolution from PPDs/outline specifications to full specifications.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on preliminary specifying, PPDFormat, and the role of outline specifications during the Design Development phase.

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.”

CSI distinguishes clearly between quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC):

Quality assurance focuses on procedures, planning, and processes established before and during the work to prevent defects and deficiencies. It’s proactive and process-oriented—things like qualifications, mock-ups, preinstallation conferences, submittal review, and establishing methods.

Quality control focuses on inspection, tests, and verification of completed or in-progress work to identify defects and verify that requirements are met. It is more reactive and product-oriented.

The question asks for the procedure for guarding against defects and deficiencies before and during execution of the work, which clearly points to quality assurance—the preventive system of checks and requirements set up in advance and applied as the work proceeds.

Therefore, Option A – Quality assurance is correct.

Why the other options are not correct:

B. Quality control – QC is about testing and inspection of the finished or in-progress work to detect defects, not primarily about guarding against them through advance procedures.

C. Quality management – This is an overarching concept that can include both QA and QC but is not the specific procedural term CSI uses in the documents and Division 01 sections.

D. Quality monitoring – Not a standard CSI technical term in the same formal sense as quality assurance and quality control.

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

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on “Quality Requirements” and the distinction between QA and QC.

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Design and Construction Phase quality processes.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Quality Requirements in Division 01 and Technical Sections.”

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 From Exact Extract (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

CSI’s project delivery framework places the owner at the center of the facility life cycle. The owner:

Initiates the project by defining needs and project goals.

Selects the project delivery method and engages the design and construction teams.

Participates in planning, design decisions, funding, and approvals.

During construction, the owner is responsible for payments, change decisions, and acceptance of the work.

After construction and closeout, the owner (often through a facility management group) is responsible for operation, maintenance, and long-term performance of the facility.

CSI repeatedly highlights that only the owner is engaged from the earliest concept through long-term operation and eventual renovation or disposal. All other parties (designers, contractors, manufacturers) participate for limited phases.

Therefore, the party “actively involved and interested in all phases of the project” is clearly:

B. Owners

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. ContractorsContractors typically become formally involved at procurement/bidding and remain through construction and closeout. They usually have no role in early planning (except in some delivery methods like CM-at-Risk or IPD where they join during design) and no long-term responsibility for operations beyond warranty obligations.

C. Architects/engineersThe A/E’s primary involvement is during planning and design, and then construction administration during construction and closeout. After the project is turned over, their involvement often ends unless separately engaged for post-occupancy evaluations or future work. They do not normally manage day-to-day operations and maintenance.

D. Manufacturers/suppliersManufacturers and suppliers participate mainly in product selection, submittals, and furnishing materials and equipment during design-assist and construction phases. They may have continuing obligations for warranties or support, but they are not engaged in every phase of the project’s life cycle as the owner is.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – roles and responsibilities of the owner, design professional, contractor, and others.

CSI Facility Management Practice Guide – owner’s role during operations and the extended facility life cycle.

CSI CDT Study Materials – diagrams and explanations of project participants over the facility life cycle.

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.

In CSI’s project delivery / design-phase framework, the design development (DD) phase is where the emphasis shifts from big-picture concepts to more detailed, technical decisions:

Earlier phases like schematic design focus on overall relationships, general size, massing, and functions of spaces and systems.

Once the project enters design development, the team refines those schematic decisions into more precise technical solutions, coordinating architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and other systems, and beginning to define materials, systems, and outline specifications.

By the construction documents phase, the design is largely established and the emphasis is on fully detailing and documenting the agreed technical decisions for pricing, permitting, and construction.

CSI’s practice guides describe DD as the phase in which design decisions are “developed and refined” and more technical information is incorporated, bridging from conceptual/schematic level to the level needed to create final construction documents. That wording corresponds directly to “the emphasis shifts from overall relationships and functions to more technical issues,” which is why Design development (C) is correct.

A. Preliminary design – Not a standard CSI primary phase label; in many frameworks this term is used informally or overlaps with early conceptual planning, where the focus is still on overall functional relationships, not detailed technical issues.

B. Schematic design – Focuses on general arrangement, shape, and relationships of spaces and systems, not yet at the more detailed technical decision level.

D. Construction documents – This phase emphasizes complete, coordinated, enforceable documentation (finalizing drawings and specs), not the initial shift from conceptual to technical; that shift has already occurred in design development.

CSI-aligned references (no external links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Schematic Design, Design Development, and Construction Documents phases.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – overview of how design phases relate to the development of specifications.

CSI CDT Exam Study/Practice materials – sections describing the purpose and focus of each design phase.

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.

CSI identifies several cost-control tools used in specifications and bidding documents:

Alternates – provide optional changes in scope or quality that can add or deduct cost.

Unit prices – establish prices for specific items or quantities where exact amounts may vary.

Contingencies – funds reserved by the owner (in the project budget) for unexpected conditions.

Allowances – specified amounts included in the contract sum for items whose exact product, quantity, or selection is not yet known at bid time.

When insufficient information is available to make final product decisions during design, CSI’s guidance is that the A/E can maintain control over construction cost by specifying allowances. An allowance:

Is clearly described in the specifications or Division 01.

Provides a defined monetary amount (or quantity and unit cost) for a future selection (for example, certain finishes, fixtures, or equipment).

Allows the project to proceed to bidding and contract award while preserving cost control, because bidders all carry the same allowance values in their bids.

Thus the best answer is D. Allowances.

Why the other options are less appropriate:

A. AlternatesAlternates help manage scope and options, but they do not directly solve the problem of not yet knowing which specific product will be chosen. They are more about “add or deduct” scenarios than uncertain product selection.

B. Unit pricesUnit prices are used when quantities are uncertain, not when product decisions themselves are unknown. They are tied to measurable units (e.g., cubic meters of rock excavation), not to undecided product choices.

C. ContingenciesContingencies are normally an owner’s budgeting tool, not written into the contract in the same way as allowances. They help the owner plan for unknowns but do not provide a structured way in the specifications to carry costs for undecided products.

Key CSI Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Cost Management and Design Phase cost-control tools.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 provisions for Allowances, Alternates, and Unit Prices.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Methods of Specifying and Cost Control Provisions in the Project Manual.”

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

CSI, in alignment with standard general conditions (such as AIA A201 and EJCDC documents, which CDT relies on), defines submittals as including three primary types:

Shop drawings – Drawings, diagrams, schedules, and other data specifically prepared by the contractor, subcontractors, or suppliers to illustrate how a portion of the work will be fabricated, assembled, or installed.

Product data – Manufacturer’s printed information such as catalog cuts, performance charts, instructions, and brochures.

Samples – Physical examples that illustrate materials or workmanship.

Key points from these definitions:

Shop drawings are not contract documents. They do not change the requirements of the drawings and specifications; instead, they show how the contractor proposes to meet those requirements.

Standard conditions explicitly state that the contract documents are not modified by submittals, even when reviewed by the architect/engineer.

The contractor must review shop drawings first; they are then submitted to the architect/engineer for review for conformance with design intent, but this does not make them contract documents.

Now, compare to the options:

A. They are contract documents.This is explicitly incorrect. Shop drawings are submittals and do not have the status of contract documents.

B. They illustrate some portion of the work.This is the standard CSI-aligned definition: shop drawings are created to illustrate portions of the work (fabrication, installation, layout, connections, etc.). This is correct.

C. They are reviewed only by the architect/engineer.Incorrect. The contractor is required to review and approve shop drawings before submitting them; the architect/engineer then reviews them. Sometimes others (e.g., consultants, certifying authorities) may also review them.

D. They include performance charts, instructions, and brochures.This describes product data, not shop drawings. Product data submittals often are manufacturer literature with performance charts, brochures, and instructions.

Therefore, the correct choice, consistent with CSI definitions and standard general conditions, is Option B – They illustrate some portion of the work.

CSI references (by name only, no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – “Submittals: shop drawings, product data, and samples”

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – “Construction Phase – Submittal Procedures and Responsibilities”

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

CSI’s guidance on project record documents distinguishes between several types:

Record drawings – show what was actually installed (dimensions, locations, configurations).

Record specifications/project manual – the written requirements for the work, as issued and modified.

Record submittals – approved shop drawings, product data, and samples documenting the actual products and systems installed, including manufacturer names, model numbers, finishes, and installation instructions.

For replacement of a specific product, such as a broken insulated glazing unit, CSI instruction is that the most precise source is record submittals (Option D). These typically contain:

The exact manufacturer selected.

Product line, model number, glass type, coatings, spacers, gas fill, etc.

Any special fabrication notes or custom sizes.

Contact information or catalog data to facilitate reordering.

This is exactly the information a facility manager needs to “determine where and how to order” the replacement unit. That is why CSI emphasizes maintaining record submittals as part of the owner’s permanent facility information.

Why the other options are less appropriate:

A. Record drawingsRecord drawings (sometimes called “as-built” drawings) can provide size and location of the glazing unit, and possibly indicate type (e.g., “insulated glazing unit”). However, drawings rarely show the precise product manufacturer and model; at best, they reference detail markers or generic notes. They are helpful for field measurement and coordination, but not ideal for identifying the exact product to order.

B. Manufacturer’s representativeA manufacturer’s rep can help once you know the manufacturer and product, but first you need to identify which manufacturer and model were actually installed. Without the record submittals or similar documentation, the rep would be guessing. CSI places the identification of the installed product squarely in the realm of record submittals.

C. Project manualThe project manual (including the specifications) usually lists acceptable manufacturers and products, or performance requirements, but it does not necessarily tell you which one was actually used. If multiple manufacturers or options were permitted, the project manual alone cannot identify the exact unit to reorder.

Thus, under CSI’s treatment of project record documents and facility information, record submittals (Option D) are the best and most appropriate source for ordering an exact replacement product.

CSI reference concepts:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Project Closeout” and “Record Documents,” explaining the distinct roles of record drawings and record submittals.

CSI CDT Study Materials – topics describing record submittals as the owner’s record of actual installed products, used for maintenance and replacement.

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 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.”

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

This requirement exists because:

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

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

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

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

Why others are incorrect:

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

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

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

CSI Reference:

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

CSI’s Construction Specifications Practice Guide and CDT materials provide clear guidance on appropriate wording in specifications. They stress:

Use clear, specific, and enforceable language.

Avoid vague, subjective, or nontechnical terms that create ambiguity and open interpretation.

Among the answer choices, “Work” is the only word that is appropriate and standard in CSI-compliant specification text:

“Work” is a defined term in the General Conditions (and often Division 01), usually meaning the total construction and services required by the Contract Documents, including all labor, materials, equipment, and services necessary to complete the project.

Because it is defined and used consistently, “Work” is an acceptable and precise term for specification language. Example usage (conceptually): “Perform all Work in accordance with…”.

Why the other terms are inappropriate per CSI guidance:

A. AnyCSI recommends avoiding “any,” “either,” “etc.” and similar words because they are non-specific and create ambiguity. For example, “provide any fasteners as needed” does not clearly define what is required and can lead to disputes and inconsistent interpretation.

B. As perThe phrase “as per” is discouraged in CSI-style writing. It is considered informal and can be replaced by clearer, more direct phrasing such as “in accordance with,” “according to,” or “as indicated in.” CSI advocates for concise, plain, and unambiguous English in specs.

C. As requiredCSI strongly cautions against phrases like “as required” or “as necessary” when they are not tied to a clear condition or reference. They shift the decision to someone’s judgment later, instead of stating the requirement explicitly. If something is required, the specification should state what, when, and under what conditions, rather than simply saying “as required.”

Therefore, in a CSI-compliant specification, the term that is clearly appropriate from the options given is “Work” (Option D).

Relevant CSI references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Chapters on language and writing style for specifications (clear, concise, complete, correct).

CSI Practice Guide for Principles & Formats of Specifications – Guidance on defined terms such as “Work.”

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Sections on specification-writing best practices and prohibited vague phrases.

CSI describes the facility manager as a key stakeholder during project closeout and turnover. Their role is to receive the information, materials, and training needed to operate the completed facility in accordance with the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR).

Typical responsibilities for the facility manager at closeout, as outlined in CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide, include (paraphrased):

Participating in commissioning and training sessions.

Verifying receipt of operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals, warranties, and record documents.

Confirming that required spare parts, attic stock/excess materials, and special tools have been delivered.

Ensuring staff have sufficient training to operate building systems during the initial occupancy period.

This is captured best by Option A, which aligns closely with CSI’s description of closeout responsibilities for the facility manager.

Why the other options are not correct:

B. Coordinate with the architect a final clean-up and site restoration – Final cleaning and site restoration are responsibilities of the contractor, overseen by the A/E and owner. The facility manager may observe but is not normally the one coordinating this work in the contract documents.

C. Hire a new security company – Selecting or changing service vendors (like security firms) is an owner/facility operations business decision, not specifically identified in CSI’s project closeout procedures. It is not a standard closeout task defined in the construction documents.

D. Draft the final changes on the as-built documents – CSI differentiates between “project record documents” maintained by the contractor during construction and record drawings/specifications produced by the A/E (when required). The facility manager receives these but does not normally draft or edit them.

CSI References (no links):

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

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on project closeout, O&M data, and attic stock.

CSI distinguishes between “project record documents” (kept during construction) and record drawings or as-built drawings (often prepared later by the A/E using the contractor’s markups).

In CSI’s terminology (paraphrased from the Construction Specifications Practice Guide and CDT study materials):

Project record documents consist of the marked-up drawings, specifications, addenda, change orders, and shop drawings kept current during construction, indicating actual conditions and changes in the work.

These record documents are a responsibility of the contractor, who must maintain them on the job site and update them as work progresses.

At project closeout, the contractor turns the updated record documents over to the owner (often via the A/E). The A/E may then prepare record drawings based on those markups, if required by the contract.

Therefore, the entity that maintains project record documents during construction is the Contractor, making Option B correct.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Architect/engineer (A/E) – The A/E reviews the work and may use the contractor’s record documents to prepare record drawings, but does not maintain the working set of record documents during construction.

C. Owner – The owner ultimately receives and keeps the record documents at the end of the project but does not maintain them as the work progresses.

D. Owner or A/E – This option is inconsistent with CSI’s defined responsibility: maintenance of project record documents is specifically assigned to the contractor in standard specifications and conditions of the contract.

CSI References (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on project record documents, as-built/record drawings, and contractor responsibilities.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – topic on document control and record documents during the construction phase.

In CSI-based project cost planning, contingency is defined as an amount added to an estimate or budget to cover uncertainties and unknowns that cannot yet be clearly defined at the current level of design development.

CSI’s practice guides and CDT materials explain (paraphrased):

In early design phases, such as schematic design, the design is only partially developed. Important elements are still undecided, and system configurations may change. Because of this, the cost estimate is inherently less precise.

A contingency line item is therefore included to cover:

Incomplete design information,

Potential scope refinement,

Normal estimating uncertainties, and

Other unknown factors at that stage.

As the project moves into design development and later into the construction documents phase, the design becomes more complete and the uncertainty decreases, so contingency percentages typically decrease.

By contrast, CSI differentiates contingency from other estimating tools:

Allowances: Specific sums in the contract for known-but-not-fully-defined items (e.g., “flooring allowance of X per m²”). These are identified items with placeholder values, not general unknowns.

Unit prices: Agreed rates for measuring work (e.g., $/m³ of rock excavation) used when quantities are uncertain, but scope categories are known and clearly described in the documents.

Alternates: Defined options requested by the owner (additive or deductive) for comparison and selection—again, specifically described items, not “unknowns.”

Because the question specifically references the schematic design phase and asks what the contingency line item covers, the CSI-aligned answer is “Unknown factors” – Option C.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Allowances – These are separate, explicit line items in the estimate or specifications and are not what contingency is intended to cover.

B. Unit prices – These deal with agreed rates for work whose quantities may vary, not with broad early-phase uncertainty.

D. Alternates – Alternates are specifically described choices requested for comparison; they are priced individually, not absorbed into contingency.

Key CSI-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on cost planning and contingencies by phase.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – definitions and uses of contingency, allowances, unit prices, and alternates in estimating.

In CSI/CDT terminology, “preconstruction submittals” are those required at (or very near) the start of the project, before actual construction work proceeds, to set up project administration, payment, and coordination. These submittals are usually specified in Division 01 – General Requirements of the Project Manual and are part of the contract requirements established by the specifications.

Typical examples of preconstruction submittals in CSI-aligned practice include:

Construction/progress schedule

Submittal schedule

Schedule of values

List of subcontractors and suppliers

Insurance and bonds

Temporary facilities and controls plans

Health & safety or site-specific plans (when required)

The schedule of values is expressly listed in standard Division 01 sections as a required early submittal that must be approved before progress payments can be properly evaluated and certified. It breaks down the contract sum into line items for payment and becomes the basis for reviewing the contractor’s pay applications throughout the project. Because it is required at the start of the construction phase and before regular work progress, it is a classic preconstruction submittal, matching Option C.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Product dataProduct data (cut sheets, catalog information, performance data, etc.) are action submittals for specific products and materials. Although some may be submitted early, they are typically required as needed before related work is installed, not universally at the very start of the job. They are not classified by CSI as “preconstruction submittals” in the same sense as the schedule of values or project schedule.

B. Shop drawingsShop drawings are also action submittals supporting fabrication and installation of specific work (e.g., structural steel, curtain wall systems, ductwork, etc.). They are provided during the construction phase in accordance with a submittal schedule, not as “preconstruction” administrative submittals that must be in place before construction administration and payments can be properly managed.

D. Warranty documentationsCorrected term: “warranty documentation.”Warranty documentation is typically part of closeout submittals—submitted near Substantial Completion or Final Completion, not at the beginning of the project. Division 01 and individual technical sections usually require warranties to be submitted as part of project closeout procedures, after the work is in place and accepted, not as a preconstruction submittal.

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on Division 01, Submittals, and Requirements for Administrative Submittals (including preconstruction submittals).

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Construction Phase and construction submittal processes.

CDT Exam Content Outline – topics on “Submittals,” “Division 01 – General Requirements,” and “Contract Administration documentation.”

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.”

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.

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 CSI’s project delivery and documentation discussions, BIM is consistently defined as “Building Information Modeling.”

CSI describes BIM as:

A digital representation of the physical and functional characteristics of a facility.

A shared knowledge resource for information about a facility, forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life cycle.

A tool that supports coordination, clash detection, documentation, quantity takeoff, and communication between design and construction team members.

BIM models are used alongside, and coordinated with, drawings, specifications, and other contract documents, and they support communication and decision-making throughout design, construction, and sometimes operation.

The other options are not recognized industry meanings of BIM:

B. Business Information Manual – not a standard construction-industry term.

C. Building Interior Maintenance – does not match CSI or industry definitions of BIM.

D. Building Inspection Manual – again, not the accepted meaning of BIM in the AEC context.

Therefore, in the construction context, BIM stands for “Building Information Modeling” (Option A).

Key CSI References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters addressing BIM and information management.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions of model-based delivery and coordination with specifications.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – terminology and emerging practices including BIM.

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

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), as described in CSI’s project delivery materials, is a collaborative project delivery method that:

Involves key project participants early in the project,

Uses shared risk and reward, and

Promotes integration of people, systems, business structures, and practices into a process that optimizes project results.

CSI’s discussion of IPD identifies the core IPD team as typically including:

The Owner

The Architect/Engineer (Design Professional)

The Contractor (often a general contractor or construction manager at risk)

In IPD, the contractor is deliberately brought into the project early, often during conceptual or schematic design, to:

Provide constructability input

Contribute cost estimating and scheduling

Help optimize means and methods and coordinate with major trades

Among the choices given, the participant that is clearly recognized as a primary IPD participant in CSI-oriented explanation of IPD is the:

C. Contractor

Why the other options are not the best answer:

A. Authority having jurisdiction (AHJ)The AHJ (e.g., building department, fire marshal) is always involved in permitting and inspections, regardless of delivery method. However, they are not part of the project’s contractual IPD team, nor do they share in IPD contractual risk/reward structures.

B. Commissioning agentA commissioning agent (or authority) may participate in IPD projects, but is not a mandatory or defining core party. Commissioning can be part of many delivery methods (Design-Bid-Build, CM at Risk, Design-Build, IPD). CSI’s general description of IPD focuses on owner–designer–contractor integration.

D. InspectorInspectors (code inspectors, special inspectors) are similar to the AHJ functions—important to the project but external to the project’s contractual structure and not specific to IPD. They serve regulatory and quality verification roles across all delivery methods.

Thus, in the context of CSI’s explanation of Integrated Project Delivery, the clearly correct answer is Option C – Contractor.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Project Delivery Methods and Integrated Project Delivery.

CSI CDT Study Materials – comparisons of Design-Bid-Build, CM at Risk, Design-Build, and IPD, including team composition.

CSI presentations and educational modules on collaborative and integrated delivery methods.

CSI formally recognizes the main methods of specifying as:

Descriptive

Performance

Reference standard

Proprietary

From this list:

Proprietary (B) – A method where specific products, manufacturers, or model numbers are named.

Performance (C) – A method that states the required results or performance rather than prescribing exact materials or methods.

Reference standard (D) – A method that cites published standards (e.g., ASTM, ANSI, UL) to define the requirements.

These three — proprietary, performance, and reference standard — are all recognized CSI methods of specifying.

Option A. “Perspective” is not one of CSI’s methods of specifying. It appears to be a typographical error for “prescriptive,” but CSI generally uses the terms descriptive, performance, reference standard, and proprietary as the main categories. Taken literally as written, “Perspective” is a term related to viewpoint or drawing type, not a spec-writing method, so:

The choice that is NOT a method of specifying is A. Perspective.

(If the intended word were “Prescriptive,” CSI practice would treat “prescriptive/descriptive” specifying as a recognized method, still making the written option “Perspective” the one that is not a valid method.)

CSI-aligned references (no external links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – section on Methods of Specifying.

CSI CDT Study materials – descriptions of proprietary, performance, reference standard, and descriptive/prescriptive specifying.

In CSI/CDT study materials, a key concept is that each party’s legal obligations come from their own agreement:

The owner–contractor relationship is defined in the Owner–Contractor Agreement and its General Conditions (commonly AIA A201).

The owner–architect relationship is defined in the Owner–Architect Agreement (commonly AIA B101).

The architect’s duty to provide construction administration services, including reviewing submittals, is a service owed to the owner and is therefore set out in the Owner–Architect Agreement, not the General Conditions.

In AIA’s standard structure (which CSI uses extensively in CDT):

AIA B101 (Owner–Architect Agreement) lists the architect’s basic services, including:

Construction Phase Services

Review of submittals (shop drawings, product data, samples, etc.)This is what legally obligates the architect to review submittals as part of their contracted services to the owner.

AIA A201 (General Conditions) describes the architect’s role in the context of the construction contract between owner and contractor (e.g., the architect will review submittals in accordance with the Contract Documents), but the architect’s obligation itself arises from B101, which is the contract between owner and architect.

Therefore, the document that actually obligates the architect/engineer (A/E) to perform submittal review as part of construction administration is AIA Document B101 → Option B.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for ConstructionA201 is part of the Owner–Contractor contract. It establishes procedures and the architect’s function with respect to the contractor, but it does not itself create the architect’s contractual obligation to the owner; that comes from B101. A201 can describe what the architect will do “as provided in the Owner–Architect Agreement,” but the promise from the architect is in B101.

C. AIA Document D200, Project ChecklistD200 is a non-contractual guide/checklist used for planning and scoping services. It is an aid, not a contract, and does not bind the architect to perform submittal review.

D. AIA Document G612, Owners Instructions to the ArchitectG612 is also a form tool, used for gathering owner’s instructions and information; it is not itself the agreement that defines the architect’s scope of services and obligations.

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussions of standard AIA documents and how responsibilities are allocated between owner, architect, and contractor.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on relationships between A201 and B101.

CDT Exam references to AIA A201 – General Conditions and AIA B101 – Owner–Architect Agreement in the “Agreements & Conditions of the Contract” domain.

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

In CSI/CDT terminology, there is an important distinction between participants and stakeholders in a project:

Project participants are those who are formally part of the project delivery process, typically through a contractual or professional role. Examples: the owner, architect/engineer, contractor, and sometimes construction manager, commissioning authority, or key consultants. They:

Have direct responsibilities for planning, designing, constructing, administering, or managing the facility.

Are directly affected by project decisions and outcomes under the contracts and agreements.

Stakeholders are a broader group of parties who have an interest in the project, but many of them are not directly involved in performing the work or administering the contract. Examples include:

Users/occupants

Neighbors and surrounding community

Authorities having jurisdiction (from a public-interest standpoint)

Facility management staff, investors, or the general public

Their interest is often indirect—they are affected by the project’s performance, appearance, safety, cost, or impact, but they are not all active participants in day-to-day project execution or contract administration.

Because of this CSI distinction:

Participants → direct interests (active roles)

Stakeholders → often indirect interests (affected by, but not always performing, the work)

That matches Option A: Participants have direct interest in the project while stakeholders have indirect interest.

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussions of project participants vs. stakeholders and their roles throughout the facility life cycle.

CSI CDT Exam Study Materials – sections defining owner, design professional, contractor as participants, and users/community as stakeholders.

Under CSI’s project delivery and contracting principles, the contract documents are only one part of the legal framework that governs construction. Regulatory approvals and permits are a separate, critical requirement that must be satisfied before construction begins, regardless of contract award or the owner’s desire to proceed.

Key CSI-aligned concepts:

Building codes and other regulations are enforced by authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs)—in this case, both city and state agencies.

The owner, often via the design professional, must obtain the required permits from all AHJs before construction activities are started.

Contract award to a general contractor does not authorize construction to proceed without permits; doing so exposes the owner and contractor to violations, stop-work orders, penalties, and liability.

Therefore, the correct advice in a CSI-consistent framework is:

Construction may begin only after both city and state permits have been issued. (Option D)

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Construction may begin immediately … if a safety manager is present and excavation is avoided.Safety management and the type of work do not override permit requirements. Work without required permits is typically prohibited regardless of safety measures.

B. Since the state approval is more critical … proceed after the state permits are issued.CSI acknowledges that all applicable jurisdictions must be satisfied. One jurisdiction is not “more critical” such that the other can be ignored. If both city and state approvals are required, the project must have both before construction starts.

C. Since the city approval is more critical … proceed after city permits are issued.Same issue as B. If both city and state have regulatory authority, both sets of permits are required; neither is optional or subordinate in this sense.

CSI-aligned references (no external links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on regulatory requirements and authorities having jurisdiction.

CSI CDT Study materials – discussions of permits, code compliance, and the relationship between AHJ approvals and the start of construction.

Typical General Conditions of the Contract as discussed in CSI materials – provisions requiring compliance with laws, codes, and permits.

In CSI and CDT terminology, the process of reaching out to potential or prequalified bidders to obtain bids or proposals is called “solicitation.”

The procurement (bidding) phase includes preparing procurement documents and then soliciting bids or proposals from interested or qualified firms.

“Solicitation” covers all methods used to notify and invite participation: advertisements, invitations to bid, requests for proposals (RFPs), and notices to prequalified bidders.

CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide and CDT study materials describe the sequence in the procurement stage roughly as:

Preparation of procurement documents (including Instructions to Bidders/Offerors, bid forms, proposed contract forms, etc.).

Solicitation of bids or proposals – announcement or direct issuance to prospective bidders.

Receipt, opening, and evaluation of bids/proposals.

Recommendation and award of contract.

Within that structure, “solicitation” is clearly identified as the step where the owner/AE issues the invitation to bid or request for proposals. The other answer choices refer to documents or requests that are part of the process, but not the process itself:

B. Instructions for Procurement – The CDT/CSI terminology is usually “Instructions to Bidders” or “Instructions to Offerors,” which are sections within the procurement documents explaining how to submit bids (time, place, format, required forms, etc.). They are not the act of announcing or inviting; they are a part of the documents used once solicitation has begun.

C. Instructions to Bidders – This is a specific document or section that sets the rules for bidding (bid security, withdrawal of bids, opening procedures, etc.). It is not the overall process of broadcasting the opportunity; instead it governs bidder behavior after solicitation has occurred.

D. Request for Scope of Work – This is not a standard CSI/CDT term. Scope of work is normally defined in the drawings, specifications, and sometimes in a statement of work, but “request for scope of work” is not used as the formal label for the invitation stage.

Because the question asks specifically for “the process of notifying prospective or qualified bidders requesting proposals for a specific project or an invitation to bid,” the correct CSI-aligned term is “Solicitation” (Option A).

Relevant CSI references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Procurement phase and terminology for solicitation of bids/proposals.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Sections on procurement and bidding documents.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Topic: Procurement (solicitation and receipt of bids/proposals).