Construction Specifications Institute Updated CDT Exam Questions and Answers by erica

Within CSI’s project delivery and construction documents framework, quality control (QC) refers to activities that check and verify the accuracy and completeness of the work product itself—in this case, the drawings, specifications, and other parts of the project manual before they are issued for bidding or construction.

Peer reviews and internal reviews of completed documents are performed after the documents have been prepared, specifically to find and correct errors, omissions, conflicts, or lack of coordination.

These reviews examine the end product of the documentation process (the drawings and specifications), checking conformance with office standards, project requirements, code requirements, and coordination between disciplines.

CSI distinguishes this from quality assurance (QA), which focuses on the systems and procedures used to produce the documents (such as standard checklists, training, and office procedures). QC, by contrast, is concerned with reviewing the actual deliverables.

Therefore, activities like peer review of completed drawings and specifications, internal checking of finished sections, and coordination review of the project manual are classic examples of quality control tasks, not commissioning, QA-in-the-abstract, or construction administration.

Commissioning (B) focuses on verifying that systems and equipment are installed, tested, and performing according to the contract documents near project completion—not on checking design documents in the office.

Quality assurance (C) is the broader system of policies, procedures, and standards that aim to prevent errors, such as standard templates, firm-wide procedures, and training; the act of reviewing specific completed documents falls under QC.

Construction administration (D) includes responding to RFIs, reviewing submittals, processing change orders, and site visits during construction; it is not the term CSI uses for internal checking of design documents.

Key CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Quality Management, Design Phase, and Construction Documents.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – content on quality assurance vs. quality control in construction documentation.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – sections on document coordination, reviews, and quality processes.

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

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

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

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

Applying those principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSI references (by name only, no links):

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

CDT ethics and professional conduct principles regarding risk disclosure to bidders

In CSI and general construction budgeting practice, project costs are often discussed in terms of:

Hard costs – also called direct construction costs, generally associated with the actual construction of the facility (labor, materials, equipment, and construction-related services).

Soft costs – professional services and non-construction expenses, such as design fees, legal fees, financing costs, some testing and inspections, and administrative costs.

Other development costs, such as land acquisition, that may be tracked separately from construction vs. soft costs.

Within that framework:

Hard costs are those closely tied to getting the building or facility physically constructed and operational. In many project budgets, commissioning work that is specified as part of the construction/contractor’s scope (functional testing of systems, demonstrating performance, etc.) is treated with the construction scope and appears with construction-related costs.

Among the four items given:

Architect/engineer design fees (A) – clearly a soft cost, part of professional services for planning and design, not part of direct construction.

Project financing (C) – interest during construction, loan fees, and similar items are typically categorized as financing/soft costs, entirely separate from construction.

Land acquisition (D) – usually tracked as a separate property or development cost, not within the construction hard-cost category.

Commissioning fees (B) – frequently included in the construction or closeout scope (and often in specifications under Division 01 or relevant technical Divisions) and directly associated with making systems function as intended. When commissioning is contracted as part of the construction contract (which is a common CSI-based approach), its cost is embedded in the hard construction costs.

In CDT-aligned budgeting discussions, when you’re forced to choose among these four, commissioning fees (Option B) are the closest to and most consistently treated as a construction-related (hard) cost, because they are often part of the contractor’s scope and necessary to complete and hand over a functioning facility.

The others—A/E fees, financing, and land—are clearly outside of direct construction and uniformly treated as soft or separate development costs in CSI-oriented project cost breakdowns.

Key CSI and industry references (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Project Costs” and distinctions between construction cost and project cost.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Owner’s Costs, Construction Costs, and Cost Categories.”

Typical CSI-based Owner–Contractor contracts and Division 01 sections where commissioning requirements are placed within the construction scope.

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.