CDT Exam Dumps - Construction Specifications Institute CDT Certification Questions and Answers

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

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

CSI’s practice guides and CDT materials explain that:

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

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

So, requirements such as:

Number, type, and cleaning of temporary toilets,

Responsibility for providing and maintaining them,

Locations and general standards for worker facilities,

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

Why the other options are incorrect in CSI context:

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

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

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

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

Relevant CSI references (no URLs):

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

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

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

CSI 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.

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.”

CSI uses the term value analysis or value engineering to describe a structured, function-oriented process that examines the relationship between:

The functions a building element or system must perform, and

The cost of achieving those functions

The objective is to improve value, which can mean:

Reducing initial cost without reducing required performance or quality

Reducing life-cycle cost (operation, maintenance, replacement)

Improving performance, quality, durability, or maintainability for a similar cost

Therefore, value analysis can be used:

“To enhance project value or reduce initial or long-term cost.” (Option B)

CSI stresses that value analysis is not simply “cheapening” the project; it is a disciplined decision-making process that balances cost and function to achieve the best overall value for the owner.

Why the other options are not correct in CSI terms:

A. To provide the owner with the lowest construction cost.The lowest first cost is not the sole or primary goal under CSI’s view. An excessively low first cost may sacrifice performance or significantly increase operation and maintenance costs. Value analysis focuses on best value, not just cheapest construction.

C. A phase for future work to allow higher quality items up front.Value analysis is a process or technique, not merely a “phase for future work.” It also does not inherently mean you always choose higher quality up front; sometimes it leads to lower initial cost, sometimes to better performance, sometimes a balance.

D. To change the perceived value by owner and stakeholder.While owner and stakeholder perception matters, CSI presents value analysis as a technical, function-and-cost-based method, not just a way to change perceptions. The goal is objective improvement of value, not merely altering how the project is perceived.

Key CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Value Analysis/Value Engineering in design and preconstruction phases.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – topics on cost, value, life-cycle thinking, and decision-making.

CSI-related discussions of life-cycle cost and value in project decision processes.

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.

During the construction documents phase, CSI’s guidance emphasizes that coordination between the architect/engineer (A/E) and the various consulting disciplines (structural, mechanical, electrical, etc.) is essential to produce consistent, coordinated, and complete contract documents (drawings, specifications, and project manual). Part of that coordination is a shared quality assurance (QA) effort among the design team members.

In CSI’s practice guides and CDT body of knowledge, the following principles are stressed (paraphrased to respect copyright):

The prime design professional is responsible for overall coordination of the construction documents, but each consultant is responsible for the technical accuracy and coordination of their own portions.

Coordination includes review of cross-references, matching terminology, alignment of requirements between drawings and specifications, and resolving conflicts before bid/issue.

Quality assurance during this phase is not done in isolation; it is a team activity. Consultants and the lead design firm review each other’s work where it interfaces (e.g., architectural and mechanical coordination of ceilings and diffusers; structural and architectural coordination of openings, etc.).

Therefore, “Quality assurance tasks shared between design and consulting teams” (Option D) correctly describes a standard component of project design team coordination during the construction documents phase.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Duplication of important information by each disciplineCSI stresses “say it once, in the right place” as a fundamental principle. Information should not be unnecessarily duplicated because duplication increases the risk of conflict and inconsistency (for example, a requirement shown in both drawings and multiple spec sections but updated in only one location). Coordination aims to avoid duplication, not to promote it.

B. Ensuring drawing note terminology is differentiated from specification terminologyCSI emphasizes consistent terminology across drawings, specifications, and other documents. The same items (e.g., “gypsum board,” “reinforcing steel,” “membrane roofing”) should be described using the same terms in both drawings and specifications to reduce ambiguity. Coordination meetings often include checking that terminology is aligned, not intentionally differentiated.

C. Requiring the owner to hire a third-party to write the Division 01 specifications independentlyDivision 01 – General Requirements – is typically prepared or controlled by the lead design professional or specifier, in coordination with the owner. CSI materials do not identify it as a standard or required coordination practice for the owner to hire an independent third party to write Division 01 separately from the design team. That may occur on some projects, but it is not a defined component of team coordination in CSI’s CDT framework.

In summary, CSI-based construction documentation practice defines coordination during the construction documents phase as a shared responsibility among the architect/engineer and all consultants, including joint quality assurance reviews, consistency checks, and cross-discipline coordination. This aligns directly with Option D.

Key CSI References (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Design Phase and Construction Documents coordination.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on coordination between drawings and specifications and the role of Division 01.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – topics on roles and responsibilities of the design team and coordination of construction documents.

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.”

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).

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.