Free Practice Questions for Construction Specifications Institute CDT Exam

CSI’s project delivery and CDT materials describe design as having a dual nature:

An aesthetic (or qualitative/artistic) side – concerned with form, appearance, spatial experience, and how the built environment is perceived and used.

A technical side – concerned with structural integrity, building systems, code compliance, constructability, performance, and cost.

In the broader project-management literature you’ve uploaded, the design and construction process is described as blending technical requirements with broader qualitative and organizational goals. For example, the project life cycle discussion notes that each stage involves both technical and managerial activities, reflecting the need to satisfy functional, performance, and experiential objectives simultaneously.

CSI’s CDT framework builds on this by emphasizing that:

The architect/engineer must respond to owner values (aesthetics, image, function) and

Technical constraints and criteria (codes, standards, performance, budget, schedule).

This is what is commonly summarized in CDT study materials as the “dual nature of design” – aesthetic and technical.

Why the other options do not match CSI’s phrasing:

A. Site and building – Both are important aspects of design, but CSI’s dual-nature concept is not expressed as site vs. building.

C. Programming and planning – These are phases or processes that precede or support design, not the two “natures” of design itself.

D. Innovation and authenticity – Desirable qualities, but not the canonical CSI pair.

Thus, the correct pair that matches CSI’s description of the dual nature of design is Option B – Aesthetic and technical.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – “The Design Stage” (discussion of design as both artistic/aesthetic and technical/problem-solving).

CSI CDT body of knowledge – conceptual overview of the designer’s responsibilities and

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

CSI distinguishes between competitive bidding and negotiated procurement:

Competitive bidding: multiple contractors submit sealed bids based on a complete set of contract documents. Award is usually based primarily on lowest responsive, responsible bid, especially in public work.

Negotiated procurement (negotiated contract): the owner selects one contractor (sometimes a small shortlist) and negotiates price, scope, and terms directly rather than relying on competitive bidding.

CSI notes that negotiated contracts are most often used in the private sector, where owners:

Have ongoing relationships with certain contractors,

Value qualifications, performance history, and trust,

May have complex or fast-track projects where early contractor involvement is desired.

Thus, negotiations typically take the place of bidding when there is a pre-existing relationship and trust between the owner and contractor and the owner chooses to negotiate rather than seek competitive bids. That aligns directly with Option D.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. When exact quantities of work cannot be determined.When quantities are uncertain, a unit-price contract or allowances may be used, but the contractor may still be selected by competitive bidding. Uncertain quantities do not by themselves require a negotiated contract.

B. When a publicly funded project's lowest bid exceeds the budget.For public work, procurement is usually governed by statute. If bids exceed the budget, the typical actions are rebidding, revising scope, or obtaining additional funding—not simply switching to negotiation with one bidder.

C. When the contractor has defaulted on insurance premiums.Insurance problems are a responsibility/qualification issue, not a reason for negotiation to replace bidding. In fact, such a contractor may be deemed not responsible, and thus ineligible for award.

Key CSI References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on Procurement, Competitive Bidding vs. Negotiated Contracts.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions of procurement methods and contract award.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Bidding and Negotiation” and “Owner’s Selection of Contractor.”

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

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

Whether the design can be built efficiently and safely

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

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

Constructability reviews are especially valuable when:

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

There are unusual ground, environmental, or logistical conditions

The work involves complex staging, phasing, or access issues

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

Why the other options are less appropriate:

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

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

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

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

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

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

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

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

According to the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and CDT exam content, the General Conditions of the Contract form the foundational “baseline” set of administrative, procedural, and legal requirements for every construction contract. All other contracting documents—including Supplementary Conditions, Division 01, and specification sections—are modified in relation to this baseline.

Why the Correct Answer Is General Conditions (Option D)

CSI practice guides describe the General Conditions as:

The standard baseline document for project relationships, responsibilities, rights, and procedures.

The “default” set of requirements unless modified by Supplementary Conditions or Division 01.

The document against which all deviations must be clearly identified, especially when supplementary or project-specific requirements alter the standard conditions.

General Conditions define or baseline:

Roles and responsibilities of owner, contractor, A/E

Contract time, payments, changes, submittals, inspections

Dispute resolution

Site conditions, insurance, and protection of work

CSI emphasizes that the General Conditions do not change for each project unless Supplementary Conditions modify them, which reinforces that they form the baseline.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

A. General Requirements (Division 01)

Division 01 sections coordinate the administrative and procedural requirements for the project, but they expand upon or modify the General Conditions—not the other way around. They cannot be the baseline because they themselves rely on the baseline established in the General Conditions.

B. Supplementary Conditions

These modify the General Conditions to address project-specific legal or regulatory requirements (e.g., bonding, liquidated damages, insurance). They create deviations, not the baseline from which deviations are identified.

C. Project Manual

The Project Manual is a collection of documents—including bidding requirements, contract forms, General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, and specifications. It is not itself the baseline; it contains the baseline (the General Conditions).

Key CSI References

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Chapters on Procurement and Contracting, discussing General Conditions as the base document for rights, responsibilities, and procedures.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Sections on Contract Documents hierarchy and coordination.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Contractual relationships and use of General Conditions as baseline documents.

Within CSI’s framework for contract documents, the term “Agreement” (capitalized) has a specific meaning. It refers to the formal written contract for construction between the Owner and the Contractor.

CSI describes the typical structure of the contract documents as including:

The Agreement between Owner and Contractor (such as AIA A101 or similar),

The Conditions of the Contract (General and Supplementary Conditions),

Drawings, Specifications, and Addenda,

And other documents listed in the Agreement.

The Agreement sets out key commercial terms (contract sum, contract time, identification of the work, list of contract documents, progress payments, etc.) and binds the owner and contractor to the Conditions of the Contract and the remainder of the documents.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Agreement between the owner and the architect/engineer – This is usually a separate professional services agreement (often titled Owner–Architect Agreement or similar) and is not what CSI and AIA mean by “the Agreement” within the construction contract set.

B. The general conditions of the contract for construction – The General Conditions are a separate document; they become part of the contract when they are incorporated by reference in the Agreement, but they are not themselves “the Agreement.”

D. Agreement between the contractor and the subcontractor – This is a separate subcontract document, not part of the owner–contractor contract set defined in the project manual.

CSI’s practice material on contract formation and document relationships consistently identifies “the Agreement” as the contract between the Owner and the Contractor, hence Option C is correct.

CSI’s treatment of sustainability—as reflected in CDT materials and related practice guides—aligns with widely recognized sustainability concepts: construction and building standards should protect human health, the environment, and the welfare of the broader community (public).

Sustainability-related texts (including green building rating systems, green product standards, and sustainability sections in specifications) consistently emphasize:

Protection of human (occupant/public) health and safety,

Protection and enhancement of environmental quality,

Responsible use of resources and reduction of negative impacts over the facility life cycle.

Within that framework, standards for sustainable facilities and products are not primarily written around the preferences of a particular project team (like architect, contractor, or owner team). Instead, they are driven by the broader need to safeguard public and private users’ health and environmental health.

Thus, among the options provided:

C. Public, private, and environmental health is the only choice that reflects that sustainability standards focus on health and welfare of people and the environment, which is consistent with CSI’s project-delivery and specification guidance.

Why the other options are not correct in CSI context:

A. Architect, supplier, and contractorThese are project participants, not the underlying “needs” that sustainability standards are written to protect. Sustainable standards may affect their work, but the ultimate emphasis is on health, safety, and environmental impact, not on the interests of these parties themselves.

B. Owner, stakeholders, and participantsWhile owners and stakeholders are important in defining project requirements and may have sustainability goals, the standards themselves focus on performance outcomes like reduced environmental impacts and improved health and safety, rather than simply serving stakeholders’ preferences.

D. Owner team, contractor team, and design teamAgain, these are roles on the project. Sustainable standards are not framed around serving these teams’ “needs,” but around protecting people and the environment and achieving long-term performance.

In CSI-aligned specification practice, sustainability-related requirements are often placed in:

Division 01 sections (e.g., “Sustainable Design Requirements,” “Environmental Requirements”), and

Appropriate technical sections (Part 1 – general, Part 2 – products, Part 3 – execution),

and are tied to environmental and health outcomes, aligning with Option C.

Relevant CSI references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Sustainability and life-cycle considerations in project delivery.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Guidance on specifying sustainable requirements and environmental performance.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Sustainability and environmental considerations in construction documentation.

CSI organizes the contract documents into a logical hierarchy:

General Conditions – Standard baseline clauses on rights, responsibilities, procedures (e.g., claims, dispute resolution, termination, payments, schedule of values reference).

Supplementary Conditions – Project-specific modifications or additions to the General Conditions, often driven by laws, funding requirements, or owner policies.

Division 01 – General Requirements – Administrative and procedural requirements specific to the project (submittals, schedule of values procedures, temporary facilities, etc.), coordinated with the Conditions of the Contract.

CSI’s guidance (as used for CDT) explains that Supplementary Conditions are the place to add or modify contract conditions to comply with local laws, regulations, and owner requirements that go beyond or differ from the standard General Conditions. Typical items include:

Project-specific insurance requirements and limits,

Local wage requirements,

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action provisions,

Special regulatory or funding-agency conditions.

Therefore, Equal Employment Opportunity requirements belong properly in Supplementary Conditions, making Option C the CSI-consistent answer.

Why the others are incorrect in CSI’s structure:

A. Requirements for a schedule of valuesCSI places the detailed procedures and requirements for the schedule of values in Division 01 – General Requirements, not in the Supplementary Conditions. The General Conditions may mention the schedule of values at a high level, but the “how to” (formats, breakdown, submission procedures) belongs in Division 01, not Supplementary Conditions.

B. Claims and dispute resolution requirementsStandard claims and dispute resolution clauses are part of the General Conditions (for example, notice requirements, initial decision-maker roles, mediation/arbitration steps). Supplementary Conditions may modify certain aspects if needed, but the base provisions themselves are not created there; they originate in the General Conditions.

D. Termination of the work by owner or contractorTermination rights (for cause or for convenience) and their procedures are fundamental contract provisions that belong in the General Conditions. Like claims, they can be adjusted in Supplementary Conditions, but the primary termination clauses are part of the standard General Conditions text, not something you “include” first in Supplementary Conditions.

Key CSI-aligned references (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on the Conditions of the Contract and the roles of General and Supplementary Conditions.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – organization of the Project Manual and correct placement of Division 01, General Conditions, and Supplementary Conditions content.

In CSI/CDT programming and early project decision-making, the classic four primary project considerations are:

Function – What the facility must do; the operational and performance requirements.

Form – The physical configuration and appearance: size, shape, spatial relationships, and aesthetic character.

Economy – The financial aspects: project budget, life-cycle cost, operating costs, and economic constraints.

Time – Project and site timing: required completion date, phasing, and schedule constraints.

These four are used in programming and early planning (including site selection and site programming) to structure owner–designer discussions and decisions. During site selection programming, the owner and design team evaluate how different sites support the project’s required function, allow appropriate form, meet economic constraints, and fit within time (schedule and phasing) limitations.

This four-part framework—Function, Form, Economy, Time—matches Option B exactly.

Why the other options are incorrect:

All three incorrect options are variations that re-label or partially capture the same ideas but do not use the standard terminology as defined in CSI/CDT references:

A. Use, space, funds, date

“Use” ≈ function

“Space” ≈ form

“Funds” ≈ economy

“Date” ≈ timeWhile conceptually similar, CSI’s established terminology for programming and site selection is Function, Form, Economy, Time, not this wording.

C. Purpose, shape, cost, scheduleAgain, these loosely correspond to function, form, economy, and time, but CSI uses the more formal terms that appear in its programming discussions and CDT content: Function, Form, Economy, Time.

D. Goal, condition, budget, calendarThese terms are more generic and do not match the recognized four-part framework used in CDI/CDT materials for programming and site selection.

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Programming and Planning, including the function–form–economy–time framework used in early decision-making and site selection.

CDT Body of Knowledge – owner’s project requirements and programming considerations.

In CSI’s project delivery framework, the preconstruction meeting (often called the preconstruction conference) is a formal meeting held after award of the construction contract and before substantial field work begins. Its typical purposes match the stem of this question almost word-for-word:

Introduce the key members of the owner’s team, the design team, and the contractor’s team.

Review and establish communication protocols – who communicates with whom, in what format (letters, emails, RFIs, submittals), and through which channels (e.g., via the A/E as the owner’s representative).

Explain administrative procedures for submittals, RFIs, change orders, applications for payment, project meetings, record documents, and closeout requirements.

Clarify roles and responsibilities, lines of authority, and decision-making processes during construction.

Review the project schedule, major milestones, site logistics, and constraints so everyone begins the project with a common understanding.

These points are fully consistent with how CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide and typical Division 01 “Project Management and Coordination” sections describe the preconstruction conference: as the kickoff meeting for the construction phase, focused on communication, procedures, and administration—not bidding or detailed technical coordination.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Mobilization meeting“Mobilization” refers to the contractor’s process of moving onto the site (bringing in equipment, setting up field offices, etc.). While a project might have discussions about mobilization, “mobilization meeting” is not the standard CSI project-delivery term for this formal kickoff. The structured, procedure-focused meeting described in the question is the preconstruction meeting.

C. Prebid meetingA prebid meeting (pre-bid conference) occurs during procurement, before bids are submitted. Its primary purposes are to familiarize prospective bidders with the project, review procurement requirements, visit the site, and answer questions that might affect bids. It does not introduce the already-selected construction team, nor does it establish the project’s communication and administrative procedures for contract execution. That occurs after award in the preconstruction meeting.

D. Coordination meetingCoordination meetings are typically recurring, working meetings during construction to resolve ongoing technical, scheduling, or coordination issues between trades (e.g., MEP coordination). They do not serve as the initial, formal kickoff to introduce teams and set overall administrative and communication “ground rules.”

Therefore, the meeting that introduces the design and construction teams, sets communication ground rules, and explains administrative processes is the Preconstruction meeting (Option B), as aligned with CSI project delivery and Division 01 practices.

Key CSI References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Construction Phase and Project Meetings (Preconstruction Conference).

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussions of Division 01 “Project Management and Coordination” and required project meetings.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – topic area: “Construction Phase Services and Communication.”