Free Practice Questions for Construction Specifications Institute CDT Exam

CSI’s treatment of procurement and competitive bidding emphasizes that fairness and integrity in competitive bidding depends on one core principle:

All bidders must be provided the same information, at the same time, under the same conditions.

In CDT terminology, this is often expressed as ensuring that all bidders have identical bidding requirements, drawings, specifications, addenda, and time to prepare bids. When this principle is followed:

No bidder has an unfair informational advantage.

Prices are based on the same scope and conditions, allowing an “apples-to-apples” comparison.

The bidding process is considered fair, competitive, and defensible.

That is exactly what Option C states: “All bids are prepared based on identical conditions, information, and time constraints.” This is the fundamental fairness requirement in competitive bidding as taught in CSI’s CDT materials.

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

A. Bid securities provide protection to all bidders for unfair practices of others.Bid security (bid bonds, certified checks, etc.) protects primarily the owner, not “all bidders,” against the risk that the selected bidder will refuse to enter into the contract or furnish required bonds. It is about contract assurance, not fairness among bidders.

B. The bid shopping process provides the most beneficial pricing to the owner.“Bid shopping” (where an owner or prime contractor uses one bidder’s price to pressure others into lowering their price after bids are opened) is explicitly recognized by CSI as an unethical and unfair practice. It undermines trust and is contrary to the fairness principle.

D. A minimum of three bids are required to assure sufficient competition.While owners often seek multiple bids, CSI does not define “three bids” as a fundamental fairness requirement. A fair bidding process could, in principle, have fewer bidders; the key is that each bidder is treated equally and given identical information and conditions.

Thus, in CSI’s description of competitive bidding, Option C captures the central fairness principle.

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.”

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.

CSI’s project-delivery and facility-management perspective emphasizes that O&M budgeting should be grounded in real, documented performance and cost history wherever possible. The facility manager is the team member who typically maintains:

Utility bills

Maintenance contracts and work orders

Repair and replacement histories

Staff, labor, and consumables costs

These form a historical record of actual O&M costs, which provides the most reliable basis for forecasting future O&M budgets.

Technical guidance on O&M cost analysis similarly stresses that:

Agencies “should maintain O&M cost records” that document baseline costs.

When defining an O&M cost baseline, it is recommended to use as much historical data as possible, and that historic O&M costs and actual site data should be used wherever possible.

Research on O&M budgeting practice has found that historical-based budgeting predominates among budgeting bases used in real facilities.

That is exactly what Option D describes: the facility manager’s historical record of actual costs is the correct and most defensible basis for making O&M budget decisions.

Why the others are less appropriate from a CSI/CDT standpoint:

A. Architect/engineer’s projected operating costs – A/E projections can be useful at early planning stages, but they are estimates, not verified costs. Once a facility has operating history, the A/E’s projections are secondary to actual cost data.

B. Construction manager’s life cycle analysis – Life-cycle cost analyses are valuable for choosing systems and strategies, but they are models and assumptions, not the primary budget baseline once real cost data exist.

C. Estimator’s preliminary project description – A Preliminary Project Description (PPD) is a design-stage estimating and scoping tool, not an operating-cost record. It has no direct tie to actual O&M performance.

Therefore, under CSI-aligned practice, the facility manager’s historical record of actual costs (Option D) is the correct basis.

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

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on facility management and life-cycle considerations.

DOE/FEMP guidance on O&M baselines and cost savings, stressing use of historic O&M cost data and actual site data.

Research on O&M budgeting showing predominance of historical-based budgeting.

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

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

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

A contingency line item is therefore included to cover:

Incomplete design information,

Potential scope refinement,

Normal estimating uncertainties, and

Other unknown factors at that stage.

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

By contrast, CSI differentiates contingency from other estimating tools:

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

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

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

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

Why the other options are incorrect:

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

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

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

Key CSI-aligned references (no links):

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

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

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

This requirement exists because:

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

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

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

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

Why others are incorrect:

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

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

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

CSI Reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify key performance and quality requirements in a concise format.

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

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

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

Why the others are not the best fit:

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

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

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

CSI reference concepts:

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

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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

CSI and commonly used general conditions define Substantial Completion as the stage in the progress of the Work when:

The Work, or a designated portion, is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Contract Documents so that the Owner can occupy or utilize it for its intended use.

Important implications in CSI/CDT context:

Substantial Completion is a functional milestone, not simply an administrative or paperwork milestone.

At Substantial Completion:

The Owner can begin using the facility for its intended purpose (e.g., occupy offices, treat patients, teach classes).

The warranty periods typically begin, unless otherwise specified.

The responsibility for utilities, security, and insurance often shifts in whole or in part to the Owner.

Final inspections, final payment, and complete closeout documentation generally occur after Substantial Completion.

So the correct definition is:

A. When the project is sufficiently complete to allow its intended use.

Why the other options are not correct:

B. When the project receives final inspections from the authorities having jurisdiction – AHJ inspections (for occupancy permits, etc.) are important and often coincide with or enable Substantial Completion, but they are regulatory milestones, not the contractual definition itself. Substantial Completion is determined under the contract, usually via certification by the A/E.

C. When the contractor’s final application for payment is approved – That is associated with Final Completion, which occurs after all work (including punch list) is done and all closeout requirements are met. Substantial Completion occurs before final payment.

D. When all of the close-out documents have been reviewed and approved – Closeout submittals (O&M manuals, warranties, as-builts) are typically prerequisites for final payment and Final Completion, not for Substantial Completion.

Key CSI-Related Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Construction Phase, Substantial Completion, and Final Completion.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 “Closeout Procedures” and “Substantial Completion” articles.

CSI CDT Study Materials – definitions of Substantial and Final Completion.

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

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

Per CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide:

Procurement (bidding) documents usually include:

Solicitation / invitation to bid or request for proposals,

Instructions to bidders,

Bid forms,

Procurement requirements, and

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

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

D. Bidding documents

Why the other options are not correct by themselves:

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

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

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

Relevant CSI references (paraphrased):

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

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

CSI’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.