Score Higher on Verified CDT | Construction Documents Technologist Exam Questions with Answers

In CSI/CDT study materials, a key concept is that each party’s legal obligations come from their own agreement:

The owner–contractor relationship is defined in the Owner–Contractor Agreement and its General Conditions (commonly AIA A201).

The owner–architect relationship is defined in the Owner–Architect Agreement (commonly AIA B101).

The architect’s duty to provide construction administration services, including reviewing submittals, is a service owed to the owner and is therefore set out in the Owner–Architect Agreement, not the General Conditions.

In AIA’s standard structure (which CSI uses extensively in CDT):

AIA B101 (Owner–Architect Agreement) lists the architect’s basic services, including:

Construction Phase Services

Review of submittals (shop drawings, product data, samples, etc.)This is what legally obligates the architect to review submittals as part of their contracted services to the owner.

AIA A201 (General Conditions) describes the architect’s role in the context of the construction contract between owner and contractor (e.g., the architect will review submittals in accordance with the Contract Documents), but the architect’s obligation itself arises from B101, which is the contract between owner and architect.

Therefore, the document that actually obligates the architect/engineer (A/E) to perform submittal review as part of construction administration is AIA Document B101 ? Option B.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for ConstructionA201 is part of the Owner–Contractor contract. It establishes procedures and the architect’s function with respect to the contractor, but it does not itself create the architect’s contractual obligation to the owner; that comes from B101. A201 can describe what the architect will do “as provided in the Owner–Architect Agreement,” but the promise from the architect is in B101.

C. AIA Document D200, Project ChecklistD200 is a non-contractual guide/checklist used for planning and scoping services. It is an aid, not a contract, and does not bind the architect to perform submittal review.

D. AIA Document G612, Owners Instructions to the ArchitectG612 is also a form tool, used for gathering owner’s instructions and information; it is not itself the agreement that defines the architect’s scope of services and obligations.

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – discussions of standard AIA documents and how responsibilities are allocated between owner, architect, and contractor.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on relationships between A201 and B101.

CDT Exam references to AIA A201 – General Conditions and AIA B101 – Owner–Architect Agreement in the “Agreements & Conditions of the Contract” domain.

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.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

CSI’s description of the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) method highlights several characteristics:

The design professional completes the contract documents before bidding.

Contractors bid competitively based on a defined scope.

The owner’s construction cost is not known with certainty until bids are opened.

Among the commonly cited disadvantages of DBB in CSI-related materials are:

Cost risk at bid time – If the market is volatile, or if the design and scope outpace the budget, there is a real possibility that all bids may exceed the owner’s budget, forcing redesign, rebid, or scope reductions.

Longer overall project duration due to the sequential nature (design is completed before bidding, and bidding before construction).

Limited contractor input during design compared with more integrated methods (e.g., CM at Risk, Design-Build, IPD).

Given the answer choices, the one that matches a recognized, fundamental DBB disadvantage is:

B. All of the bids may exceed the owner’s budget

Why the other options are not accurate disadvantages in the CSI sense:

A. It attracts too many biddersHaving multiple bidders is generally considered a benefit of competitive bidding, promoting better pricing and selection, not a defined drawback.

C. It requires a higher level of bid document qualityAll methods benefit from high-quality documents. While DBB does rely heavily on complete and coordinated documents before bidding, CSI does not characterize this as a “primary disadvantage” but rather a professional obligation regardless of delivery method.

D. It reduces the owner’s control over the project during the construction phaseIn fact, in traditional DBB, the owner typically has significant control: separate contracts with A/E and contractor, direct role in changes, submittal review, etc. Compared with Design-Build, DBB often gives more direct owner oversight, not less.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – comparison tables of DBB, CM at Risk, Design-Build, and IPD, including advantages and disadvantages.

CSI CDT Study Materials – sections on project delivery methods and associated risk/allocation.