Construction Specifications Institute CDT Dumps Questions Answers

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.

In CSI-based project delivery and typical general conditions (such as those coordinated with CSI practices), contract documents are described as “complementary”. This means the drawings, specifications, and other contract documents are intended to be read together as a unified whole, and requirements shown or stated in one document are binding as if they appeared in all.

CSI’s CDT body of knowledge and practice guides explain that:

The project manual (including the specifications and conditions of the contract) and the drawings together form the contract documents used to describe the work.

These documents are interrelated and mutually supportive; no single document is intended to stand alone.

The concept of “complementary” means that if a requirement is found in any contract document, it applies, unless it has been consciously modified by a change in the contract (e.g., via addenda, change order, or supplementary conditions).

Therefore, statement A. Contract documents are complementary reflects the core CSI teaching on how contract documents function together.

Why the other options are incorrect (from a CSI/CDT perspective):

B. Requirement of one of the contract documents may be superseded by othersCSI teaches that the contract documents should be coordinated, not competing. While modifications can be made through proper instruments (addenda, change orders, supplementary conditions), the baseline rule is not that any document “supersedes” another by default. Instead, the emphasis is on coordination and consistency across the entire set of documents. Precedence is only established where explicitly written into the conditions or supplementary conditions, and even then it is a last resort, not a standard operating principle.

C. Specifications take precedence over drawingsCSI specifically cautions against blanket “order of precedence” clauses (such as “specifications govern over drawings”), because they encourage sloppy coordination and can lead to disputes rather than preventing them. CSI promotes the idea that both drawings and specifications must be coordinated so they do not conflict. While some owners or agencies may include precedence clauses in their own conditions, this is not a CSI best practice and is not the general rule taught in CDT-preparation materials.

D. The architect/engineer may require the contractor to perform at a higher level than the contract documents requireUnder standard contract principles presented in CSI’s practice guides, the architect/engineer (A/E) cannot unilaterally change the contractor’s obligations beyond what the contract documents require, except through properly authorized changes (e.g., change orders) that include appropriate adjustments to cost and/or time if applicable. The A/E administers the contract and interprets the documents but cannot simply demand higher performance than what the contract documents specify without formal change mechanisms.

In summary, the CSI-aligned view is that contract documents are complementary and intended to be interpreted together, which is best represented by Option A.

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.