CDT Construction Documents Technologist Questions and Answers

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

CSI’s treatment of warranties in construction distinguishes among several types, including:

Warranty of title – assures that the seller/contractor has good title to goods and that they are free of liens or claims.

Implied warranties – such as merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, arising under applicable law for goods.

Express warranties – explicitly stated in the contract documents or manufacturer literature, which may include extended warranties.

In the construction context, CSI’s project delivery and specification guidance emphasizes that extended warranties (often called special warranties in specifications):

Survive completion and acceptance of the project.

Provide remedies to the owner for defects in materials and/or workmanship that appear after substantial completion, often beyond the standard one-year correction period.

Are commonly used for critical building components (e.g., roofing systems, waterproofing, major equipment) and may run for 5, 10, or more years.

This directly matches the question’s language: a warranty “used to provide a remedy to the owner for material defects or failures after completion and acceptance of construction.” That is precisely the purpose of an extended warranty in CSI-style contract documents and specifications, making Option D correct.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Warranty of titleThis deals with ownership and freedom from liens, not performance of materials or systems after completion. It does not address post-completion material defects.

B. Implied warranty of merchantabilityThis is a legal concept for goods: that they are fit for ordinary purposes. While it may apply in background law, it is not the specific contractual tool that owners rely on in construction documents to secure long-term remedies for material defects.

C. Purchase warranty“Purchase warranty” is not a standard CSI-defined category of construction warranty. Product or manufacturer warranties may be obtained at purchase, but the CSI terminology used in specifications and project delivery guidance is typically standard warranty, special warranty, or extended warranty, not “purchase warranty.”

Key CSI References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Warranties, Guarantees, and the Correction Period.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – guidance on specifying warranties (including extended warranties) in Division 01 and technical sections.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Contract Provisions: Warranties and Guarantees.”

CSI describes that during the construction phase, the contractor is responsible for maintaining a continuously updated set of record documents (often called record drawings or as-built drawings). These are a marked-up set of the contract drawings (and sometimes specifications) showing actual field conditions, including:

Changes in dimensions or locations of foundations and structural elements (e.g., pier depths).

Exact locations of underground and concealed utilities.

Adjustments made during construction that are not fully captured in formal design revisions.

Any other deviations between the original design intent and the actual constructed work that will affect future maintenance, alterations, or operations.

CSI’s guidance is that these markups are maintained continuously on site by the contractor and then turned over at closeout as part of the project record.

This is exactly what Option B – Record set refers to: a set of documents updated to reflect the actual constructed conditions.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Conformed setA conformed set is the contract documents updated by the design professional to incorporate all addenda and certain pre-award changes, forming a clean set for construction. It is not the running field record of what was actually built; it’s a “clean” version of what was contracted, not what was constructed.

C. Change order logThe change order log tracks formal contract modifications (change orders) – values, dates, brief descriptions. It does not typically contain detailed field information such as exact pier depths and utility locations. Those details belong on the record drawings/record set.

D. Request for information documentsRFIs (requests for information) are used for clarifications and questions during construction. While they may trigger changes or clarifications, RFIs are not the place where the contractor maintains the running graphic record of actual field conditions. The results of RFIs that change the work must still be reflected on the record set.

Key CSI Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Construction Phase, “Record Documents / As-Built Drawings.”

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections on “Project Record Documents” and “Closeout Submittals.”

CDT Body of Knowledge – Construction Phase responsibilities of the contractor and record documentation.

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.

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.

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.

In the design-build project delivery method, the design-builder (a single entity or team under one contract) is responsible for both design and construction. Industry guidance consistent with CSI’s CDT framework explains that, unlike Design–Bid–Build (where the architect prepares construction documents and a separate contractor builds), design-build uses a single contract covering both the design and construction phases, with a “design builder” responsible for meeting contract requirements.

During the design phase of a design-build project:

The design-builder leads planning and design and, together with its architectural/engineering team, creates the detailed design needed to build the project.

Once design details are in place, this design is used to set prices and proceed into construction.

In CSI/CDT terms, the output of this design effort is the Construction Documents (drawings and specifications) that define the scope, quality, and requirements for the work and become part of the contract documents for the project.

Why the other options do not match the CDT/CSI role at this stage:

A. Submittals – Submittals (shop drawings, product data, samples) are primarily a construction-phase contractor responsibility, responding to the already-issued construction documents. They are not the primary deliverable of the design phase.

B. Record documents – Record documents (as-built drawings, O&M manuals, etc.) are post-construction deliverables, produced near the end of the project to show what was actually installed.

C. Geotechnical reports – In many project delivery methods, geotechnical investigations are owner-provided information or obtained early by the owner; the design-builder may coordinate or rely on them, but they are not the core design-phase deliverable the question is seeking.

Therefore, in a design-build delivery method, during design, the design-builder is responsible for producing and delivering Construction documents (Option D) to the owner.

Core CSI-aligned references for this question (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Design-Build roles and responsibilities (single point of responsibility for design and construction).

Industry explanations of design-build (single contract; design builder leads design and then construction).

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’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 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 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.

CSI defines three major, complementary organizing tools:

MasterFormat® – classifies work results and organizes specification sections into numbered divisions.

SectionFormat® – standardizes the internal arrangement and headings of text within each specification section (e.g., Part 1 – General, Part 2 – Products, Part 3 – Execution), making it easy to read and quickly reference.

UniFormat® – organizes information by systems and assemblies, often used in early design and cost planning rather than final spec sections.

The question specifically asks about a format that standardizes how the text is arranged on specification pages for easy reading and rapid reference. That is exactly the role of SectionFormat®: it defines the structure and order of information inside the section so that users know where to find general requirements, product information, and execution requirements, regardless of the project.

By contrast:

MasterFormat® (Option C) organizes which section information goes into (coding and naming of sections), not the layout of text within the section.

UniFormat® (Option D) structures information by building systems/elements, especially for programming and early design, not for final spec page layout.

PageFormat (Option B) is not one of CSI’s registered, widely recognized branded formats in the way the question is framed.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A – SectionFormat®.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on MasterFormat®, SectionFormat®, and UniFormat®.

CSI SectionFormat® & PageFormat™ standard (CSI publication).

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.”

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

In CSI’s project delivery and contract administration guidance, the architect’s/engineer’s fundamental professional obligation is described in terms of the “standard of care.”

In the context of design and construction:

Professional standard of care is the legal and professional benchmark used to judge the A/E’s performance.

It is commonly defined as: what a reasonable and prudent design professional, with similar training and experience, in the same discipline and geographic area, would have done under similar circumstances.

CSI emphasizes that the A/E does not guarantee a perfect result or an error-free project, but must act with the skill and care ordinarily exercised by professionals practicing under comparable conditions.

This language and concept are used throughout CSI’s CDT body of knowledge when explaining A/E responsibilities, liability, and expectations under the Owner–A/E Agreement and within the General Conditions of the Contract.

Therefore, the principle described in the question exactly matches Option A – Professional standard of care.

Why the other options are incorrect in CSI/CDT context:

B. Due diligence“Due diligence” is a general legal/business term meaning a thorough and careful effort to investigate or act before making a decision (e.g., feasibility studies, site investigations, or reviewing existing conditions). While A/Es certainly must exercise due diligence, the formal, recognized term for the duty described in the question (reasonable and prudent professional in same area and conditions) is the “standard of care,” not “due diligence.”

C. Performance based requirementThis relates to performance specifications, where the documents define the required results or performance criteria (e.g., energy use, strength, capacity), and the contractor or supplier selects means and methods or products to meet those criteria. It is not a legal or professional duty of A/Es, but rather a type of specification language.

D. Spearin doctrineThe Spearin doctrine (from a U.S. Supreme Court case) holds that when the owner provides plans and specifications, the owner implicitly warrants their adequacy; if the contractor constructs the work according to those plans/specifications and the result is defective due to errors in them, the contractor may not be responsible for that defect. This doctrine concerns owner–contractor risk allocation, not the A/E’s professional duty described in the question.

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Design Professionals’ Roles, Standard of Care, and Liability.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions on A/E responsibilities in preparing specifications and coordinating documents.

CSI CDT Exam Study Materials – sections addressing professional standard of care and legal concepts affecting design professionals.

CSI teaches that while project size, nature, and cost all influence the complexity and staffing of a project, the primary determinant of formal roles and responsibilities among owner, design professional, and constructor is the project delivery method.

For example:

In Design-Bid-Build (DBB), the A/E designs under a separate contract with the owner; the contractor is selected later and has no design responsibility (except limited design delegation).

In Design-Build (DB), the design-builder assumes both design and construction responsibilities under a single contract with the owner; the architect is typically under contract to the design-builder.

In Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), the CM has both preconstruction services and then a construction contract with a Guaranteed Maximum Price.

In IPD, key participants share responsibilities collaboratively, often under multi-party agreements.

Because contracts and relationships change with the delivery method, the Project delivery type (Option D) is what determines how responsibilities are allocated in a formal, contractual sense.

Why the other options are not the best answer:

A. Size of the project – Larger projects may require more staff or additional roles (e.g., full-time construction administrator), but they do not fundamentally change who is contractually responsible for design, construction, and administration.

B. Nature of the project – A hospital vs. a warehouse may influence technical requirements and consultant types, but not the core allocation of responsibilities if the delivery method is the same.

C. Cost of construction – Budget level affects scope and possibly oversight intensity, but not the basic contractual roles of owner, A/E, and contractor.

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Project Delivery Methods and team responsibilities.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Project Delivery Methods and Their Impact on Roles and Responsibilities.”

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.

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.

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 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.

Within CSI’s project delivery discussion, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is defined as a highly collaborative project delivery approach where key project participants—typically owner, architect/engineer, and contractor (and often major trades and key consultants)—work together as an integrated team from very early in the project.

Core characteristics of IPD in CSI-oriented material include:

Early involvement of key participants in planning, design, and sometimes even programming.

A single, collaborative team structure (rather than traditional silos of responsibility) focusing on shared project goals (cost, schedule, quality, performance).

Shared information and decision-making, often supported by digital tools (such as BIM) so that design, cost, constructability, and operations considerations are integrated.

A focus on joint problem-solving and collective risk and reward, rather than adversarial relationships.

That description aligns directly with Option A: “A collaborative, integrated, and productive team composed of key project participants.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. Traditional delivery methods and team relationships…IPD is specifically a departure from traditional team relationships (like those in conventional Design-Bid-Build), which are more linear and segmented. IPD emphasizes integrated rather than traditional or separated relationships.

C. Responsibility silos for greater efficiencies…“Responsibility silos” describe the opposite of IPD. IPD seeks to break down silos, fostering shared responsibility and integrated decision-making.

D. Segregat[ing] knowledge… with paper-based communications…IPD promotes continuous, transparent information sharing, often using digital platforms and models. Segregated, paper-based communications are characteristic of older, more fragmented approaches, not IPD.

Key CSI Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Integrated Project Delivery and collaborative team structures.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Project Delivery Methods” and comparison of IPD with traditional methods.

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.

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

According to CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide and CDT body of knowledge, the Contractor is typically required—by the conditions of the Contract—to maintain record drawings during construction. These are sometimes called “as-built” or “marked-up” drawings.

CSI explains that:

The Contractor must keep on site a current set of drawings and, as the work progresses, mark changes, deviations, and concealed conditions that differ from the original contract drawings.

This responsibility is usually stated in the General Conditions and/or Division 01, and is part of the contractor’s obligation to provide Project Record Documents at closeout.

At the end of the project, these contractor-maintained record drawings and related record information are typically delivered to the Architect/Engineer and then to the Owner as part of closeout, but the party maintaining them during the project itself is the Contractor.

The Architect uses the contractor’s record information to prepare formal record documents only if required by the contract, but the day-to-day updating and maintenance during construction is assigned to the Contractor in standard CSI-aligned practice.

Relevant CSI concepts (paraphrased):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Construction Phase” and “Project Record Documents” explaining that the contractor keeps a set of marked-up record drawings during the work.

CSI CDT Study Materials – topic on roles and responsibilities for record documents and closeout.

CSI defines commissioning as a quality-focused process that verifies the facility and its systems meet the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR). In the Project Delivery Practice Guide, commissioning is categorized into three broad types (paraphrased):

Systems and equipment commissioning – verifying that HVAC, electrical, plumbing, life safety, and other building systems perform as intended.

Building envelope commissioning – verifying performance of the exterior enclosure, including air/water infiltration, thermal performance, and durability.

Total project commissioning (also called whole-building or total building commissioning) – extending commissioning to the entire project, including design, construction, and operational aspects, integrating envelope, systems, and other building components.

Given that the question already lists “systems and equipment commissioning” and “building envelope commissioning,” the missing third category described by CSI is “total project commissioning”, which corresponds to Option D.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Mechanical commissioning – This is a subset of systems and equipment commissioning (focused on HVAC/mechanical systems), not one of CSI’s three overarching categories.

B. Facility commissioning – While the term might be used informally, CSI’s categorized terminology in the CDT body of knowledge is “total project commissioning” rather than “facility commissioning.”

C. Process commissioning – This term is more common in industrial process industries and is not identified by CSI as one of the three principal commissioning categories for building projects.

CSI References (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on commissioning types and scope (total project, systems and equipment, building envelope).

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is not just a vague label or a single formula. It is a comprehensive green building certification system with defined categories and measurable credits.

Official and technical descriptions of LEED explain that:

LEED is a green building certification program developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).

It “includes a set of rating systems” for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of buildings, homes, and neighborhoods, with the aim of helping building owners be environmentally responsible and use resources efficiently.

The LEED Rating System is organized into specific categories (e.g., Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation in Design, Regional Priority), and projects obtain credits in these areas to achieve certification at levels such as Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum.

These features match Option A:

A set of sustainable standards with measurable recognized categories for a project

LEED provides:

Standardized criteria and prerequisites

Credit categories and point scoring

Recognized certification levels

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. A formula for determining a sustainable classification – LEED is not a single “formula”; it is a multi-category rating system with many credits and requirements.

C. A system of prioritizing sustainable projects – LEED does not decide which projects to build; instead, it evaluates how sustainably a given project is designed and built, and then certifies it based on points.

D. Standardized structure for organizing sustainable information – That description more closely resembles what MasterFormat/UniFormat do for organizing specification information. LEED is a certification/rating system, not a document-organization standard.

In CSI practice, LEED-related requirements (such as credit strategies, submittals, and performance criteria) are typically addressed in:

Division 01 – General Requirements (e.g., “Sustainable Design Requirements”), and

Appropriate technical sections (material content, VOC limits, energy performance, etc.),

but LEED itself is correctly defined as a structured green building rating system with measurable categories and credits—Option A.

Core CSI-aligned references for this question (no URLs):

USGBC/LEED descriptions: LEED as a green building certification program and set of rating systems.

LEED Rating System explanations: category list and credit/point structure.

CSI Project Delivery and Construction Specifications Practice Guides – sections on specifying sustainable design and referencing LEE

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

CSI emphasizes fairness, clarity, and equal information for all bidders. When controlled substitutions are permitted during bidding, the procedure typically described in Division 01 and the Instructions to Bidders is:

A bidder or manufacturer may propose a substitution for a specified product within a defined time before bid date.

The architect/engineer reviews the proposed substitution and may accept or reject it.

If the substitution is accepted, it must be communicated to all prospective bidders in a formal way so that every bidder is pricing the same requirements.

The correct formal mechanism during the bid period for changing procurement documents is an addendum. Therefore:

A substitution may be approved during bidding only if its approval is issued by an addendum to all bidders.

This maintains a level playing field and prevents one bidder from having a private advantage or a different scope basis than others.

Why the other options are not sufficient or correct alone:

B. The proposer of the substitution is notified in writingNotifying only the proposer does not put all bidders on the same basis. CSI stresses that changes affecting price, scope, or products must be distributed to all bidders via addenda during the procurement phase.

C. The architect/engineer accepts the substitution during the pre-bid meetingEven if verbally accepted in a pre-bid meeting, it must be officially documented by an addendum. Pre-bid meeting minutes alone are not a proper modification of the procurement documents unless they are explicitly issued as part of an addendum.

D. Specifications are revised and reissued to include the substitutionCompletely revising and reissuing specifications is not the usual or efficient method during a normal bid period. Instead, CSI practice is to use addenda to modify the existing specifications. On larger changes, an addendum may include revised pages, but the key formal instrument remains the addendum.

Therefore, in CSI-aligned bidding procedures, a substitution can be approved during bidding only when it is issued to all bidders as an addendum, making Option A the correct answer.

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – procurement process, bidder communications, and substitutions.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections on Substitution Procedures and Instructions to Bidders regarding substitutions.

CSI CDT Study Materials – controlled substitutions during bidding and the role of addenda.

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.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI’s MasterFormat® (2004 and later), the divisions are grouped approximately as:

Division 01 – General Requirements

Divisions 02–19 – Facility Construction Subgroup (sitework and building construction trades: existing conditions, concrete, masonry, metals, wood, finishes, etc.)

Divisions 20–29 – Facility Services Subgroup (mechanical, electrical, communications, fire suppression, etc.)

Divisions 30–39 – Site and Infrastructure (utilities, site improvements, transportation, etc.)

Divisions 40–49 – Process Equipment and related categories (where applicable)

The question asks what is not included in Divisions 02–49.

Concrete – is in Division 03 (in 02–49).

Finishes – are in Division 09 (in 02–49).

Utilities – are addressed in the 30s divisions such as Division 33 – Utilities and similar, clearly within 02–49.

However:

General Requirements – by CSI definition, belong to Division 01, which is outside the 02–49 range. Division 01 covers administrative and procedural requirements that apply across the technical sections.

Therefore, the item not included in Divisions 02–49 is:

A. General requirements

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI MasterFormat® publication – division list and grouping.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – explanation of Division 01 vs. technical divisions (02–49).

CSI CDT Study Materials – MasterFormat division breakdown and use.

In CSI practice, Division 01 – General Requirements is written to coordinate with, expand, and supplement the Conditions of the Contract (i.e., the General and Supplementary Conditions). It does not stand on its own; it is governed by and must remain consistent with the General Conditions, which are higher in the contract document hierarchy.

The usual contract-document structure is:

Agreement

General Conditions (baseline rights, responsibilities, and procedures)

Supplementary Conditions (modify/extend general conditions)

Division 01 – General Requirements (administrative and procedural details)

Divisions 02–49 (technical specifications)

Division 01 then sets detailed project procedures “in accordance with” the Conditions of the Contract. For example, a construction management plan in your files refers to requirements being governed by a Division 01 specification (“Section 01 32 00, Project Schedule Specification Outline”), which provides project-specific procedural detail building on the contract conditions.

So:

The General Conditions establish the baseline contract obligations.

Division 01 must follow and not contradict those conditions.

Technical divisions (02–49) further detail materials and execution, again within the framework set by the Conditions of the Contract and Division 01.

Therefore, the Division 01 General Requirements are governed by the general conditions of the construction contract, making Option C correct.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on “Conditions of the Contract” and “Division 01 – General Requirements.”

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on the hierarchy of contract documents and coordination between Conditions and specifications.

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.”

Under the typical CSI-aligned project delivery framework, additional time and money are generally justified when:

The owner (or A/E as owner’s agent) changes the work or otherwise causes delay (e.g., active interference, late decisions, design changes).

There are unforeseen conditions beyond the control of both owner and contractor, where the contract documents anticipated “normal” conditions instead.

Other compensable events defined in the Conditions of the Contract occur (e.g., certain force majeure events, if provided for).

However, the contractor is responsible for correcting defective or nonconforming work at no increase in contract sum or time (except where the defect is caused by others). CSI-based guidance on construction phase services and contract administration explains that:

Defective work (work not in accordance with the contract documents) must be removed, replaced, or corrected by the contractor at the contractor’s expense.

Any extra time and cost arising from correcting such defective work is not a valid basis for a change order or a claim for increased compensation or time extension.

If the contractor’s own documentation shows that the extra cost and time are due to defective work needing repair, the A/E has a clear basis—consistent with the Conditions of the Contract—to reject the claim. That aligns directly with Option D.

Why the other options do not support rejecting the claim:

A. Active interference by the owner – Owner-caused interference is typically a valid ground for a time and possibly cost adjustment, not grounds for rejection.

B. Conditions beyond the control of the contractor or owner – Unforeseen conditions are exactly the type of situation that may justify a claim, depending on the contract language.

C. The A/E modified the contract documents – A/E-issued changes (such as change orders or certain clarifications) often result in compensable changes if they add work or cause delay.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Construction Phase and Claims/Changes discussions.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – responsibilities for defective work and changes.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – construction phase administration and evaluation of claims.

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

When the meeting occurred – date, time, location.

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

What was decided and what remains unresolved.

Action items, assigned responsibilities, and due dates.

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

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

Thus:

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

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

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

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

So the correct answer is Option C.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

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

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

In CSI-based drawing conventions, a scaled view is one drawn at a stated scale so that actual dimensions can be measured directly from the drawing (e.g., 1:100, 1/4" = 1'-0"). CSI’s Uniform Drawing System (UDS) treats floor plans, roof plans, and foundation plans as primary orthographic views prepared at a defined scale for dimensioning and coordination between disciplines. These are the standard “working drawings” for construction.

Foundation plan (Option B)A foundation plan is an orthographic plan view drawn to a specific scale showing footings, slabs, and foundations with dimensions and notes. It is intended for measurement and layout, and CSI references it as one of the basic scaled plan views of the project drawings.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Perspective – Perspectives are pictorial views used for visualization and presentation. CSI notes that such views are typically not used for taking dimensions and may not be drawn to a true working scale.

C. Riser diagram – Riser diagrams (for plumbing, fire protection, electrical, etc.) are diagrammatic, showing relationships and routing, not physical locations at scale. They are expressly identified as “not to scale” in most construction document standards.

D. Isometric – Isometric drawings are a type of pictorial/axonometric view used to show three-dimensional relationships. While they can sometimes be constructed proportionally, CSI’s guidance treats them as diagrammatic/pictorial views rather than the primary scaled working views used for dimensioning work in the field.

CSI References (no links):

CSI Uniform Drawing System (UDS) modules on drawing types and views (plan, elevation, section, diagrammatic views).

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussion of scaled plan views as part of the construction documents set.

CSI and CDT principles stress that clear, timely, and documented communication is essential to avoid disputes and miscommunication during construction. Among the key tools for this are:

Written records of decisions, instructions, and clarifications

Formal meeting minutes that are distributed and retained as part of the project record

Consistent use of designated channels (e.g., RFIs, submittals, change documents)

In construction phase administration, progress meetings and other coordination meetings are routinely held. Best practice, as described in CSI guides and standard contract documents, is that:

One party (often the architect or construction manager) prepares written meeting minutes.

These minutes record attendance, topics discussed, decisions made, and action items (with responsible parties and due dates).

The minutes are then distributed to all attendees and other concerned parties, providing a shared, written understanding and an opportunity to correct any errors.

This practice directly addresses the question’s goal: avoiding miscommunication problems during construction. Therefore, the best answer is Option C.

Why the other options are weaker:

A. Develop a good working relationship for verbally addressing problems as they ariseA good working relationship is very important, but verbal-only communication is risky. CSI emphasizes that important decisions and directions must be documented in writing.

B. Mark emails and electronic communications as "Urgent!"This may get attention but does not ensure clarity, completeness, or shared understanding, and overuse can even reduce effectiveness.

D. Leave detailed voicemail messagesVoicemail is not a reliable or easily referenced project record. It is difficult to circulate, file, search, or confirm, and can easily be misunderstood or lost. CSI emphasizes written, project-file communication over voicemail.

Relevant CSI / CDT References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on “Construction Phase” and communication and documentation.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections on “Project Management and Coordination” and “Project Meetings,” including requirements for meeting minutes.

CDT Body of Knowledge – communication and documentation practices in construction administration.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI-based project delivery and standard general conditions (such as those coordinated with CSI and commonly used in CDT study), a Change Order is a written instrument used to modify the Contract Sum, Contract Time, or both, and sometimes the scope of Work.

Key points from CSI-aligned practice:

The construction contract is between the Owner and the Contractor.

The Architect/Engineer (A/E) is typically the Owner’s representative for interpreting the documents and recommending changes, but is not a contracting party.

Because the construction contract is a legal agreement between Owner and Contractor, any change that affects the contract price, time, or scope must ultimately be approved by the Owner.

Standard forms show a Change Order signed by Owner, Contractor, and Architect, but the Owner’s approval is the ultimate authority, since the Owner is the one committing funds and accepting changes in time and scope.

Therefore, while the architect/engineer and contractor both sign and participate, the party with ultimate authority to approve a change order is the:

Owner (Option C).

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Architect/engineer – The A/E typically prepares and recommends the Change Order, confirms technical appropriateness, and certifies related payment changes, but does not hold ultimate contractual authority over the owner’s money or schedule commitments.

B. Contractor – The contractor may request changes and must agree to the change in price/time, but cannot unilaterally approve a change to the Owner’s contract obligations.

D. Construction manager – A CM (as advisor or at risk) may recommend, negotiate, and administer changes, but contractual authority to modify the Owner–Contractor agreement still rests with the Owner.

Key CSI-Related Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Contract Modifications (Change Orders, Construction Change Directives).

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions of Division 01 change procedures and roles.

CSI CDT Study Materials – “Contract Changes” and “Roles and Responsibilities” topics.