CDT Questions and Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

CSI’s project delivery framework places the owner at the center of the facility life cycle. The owner:

Initiates the project by defining needs and project goals.

Selects the project delivery method and engages the design and construction teams.

Participates in planning, design decisions, funding, and approvals.

During construction, the owner is responsible for payments, change decisions, and acceptance of the work.

After construction and closeout, the owner (often through a facility management group) is responsible for operation, maintenance, and long-term performance of the facility.

CSI repeatedly highlights that only the owner is engaged from the earliest concept through long-term operation and eventual renovation or disposal. All other parties (designers, contractors, manufacturers) participate for limited phases.

Therefore, the party “actively involved and interested in all phases of the project” is clearly:

B. Owners

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. ContractorsContractors typically become formally involved at procurement/bidding and remain through construction and closeout. They usually have no role in early planning (except in some delivery methods like CM-at-Risk or IPD where they join during design) and no long-term responsibility for operations beyond warranty obligations.

C. Architects/engineersThe A/E’s primary involvement is during planning and design, and then construction administration during construction and closeout. After the project is turned over, their involvement often ends unless separately engaged for post-occupancy evaluations or future work. They do not normally manage day-to-day operations and maintenance.

D. Manufacturers/suppliersManufacturers and suppliers participate mainly in product selection, submittals, and furnishing materials and equipment during design-assist and construction phases. They may have continuing obligations for warranties or support, but they are not engaged in every phase of the project’s life cycle as the owner is.

Key CSI-Related References (titles only):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – roles and responsibilities of the owner, design professional, contractor, and others.

CSI Facility Management Practice Guide – owner’s role during operations and the extended facility life cycle.

CSI CDT Study Materials – diagrams and explanations of project participants over the facility life cycle.

CSI defines specifications (the spec sections in the project manual, typically organized by MasterFormat and SectionFormat) as the written requirements for:

Materials, products, and equipment

Systems and assemblies

Workmanship and installation

Quality, performance, and administrative/procedural requirements related to the work

In CSI’s traditional “drawings vs. specs” distinction:

Specifications primarily describe the qualitative requirements (what quality, what type, what standard, what performance, what procedures).

Drawings primarily show quantitative and dimensional information (how much, how big, where located, configurations and relationships).

Because of this, the correct choice is:

C. Qualitative requirements for products, materials, and workmanship.

Why the other options are incorrect, per CSI usage:

A. All written construction documentsThe project manual may also contain bidding requirements, contract forms, and conditions of the contract, but in CSI terminology, “Specifications” refers specifically to the spec sections, not every written document.

B. All written and drawn construction documentsSpecifications do not include drawings. Drawings are separate contract documents that complement specs; together they define the work, but the term “specifications” is not used to include drawings.

D. Quantitative requirements for products, materials, and workmanshipQuantitative information (dimensions, counts, locations, quantities) is primarily the role of drawings and related schedules, sometimes supported by quantity-related notes. Specifications may include some numbers, but their core function is qualitative and performance-based requirements, not serving as the main vehicle for quantities.

Key CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – definitions of specifications and their relationship to drawings.

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections discussing contract documents and the role of the project manual.

CSI MasterFormat, SectionFormat + PageFormat documents – organize and describe written spec requirements.

CSI’s description of project roles is very clear about the owner’s role in project delivery:

The owner is the party that:

Identifies the need or opportunity and therefore initiates the project.

Provides the funding for design and construction.

Retains the design and construction teams and selects the project delivery method.

Ultimately assumes the primary financial and project risk, because the owner is the one investing in and depending on the completed facility.

In contrast:

The designer (architect/engineer) is responsible for planning and design, preparing construction documents, and administering the construction contract on the owner’s behalf, but does not typically initiate the project or provide funding.

The contractor is responsible for constructing the project in accordance with the contract documents; the contractor bears construction execution risk, but not the basic project-initiative and funding role.

Suppliers provide materials/equipment and have no overarching control over the project delivery process.

The question lists all of the characteristics that CSI attributes to the owner:

“initiates the project, assumes the risk, controls and manages the design and construction process, and provides the funding.”

Thus, the correct answer is Option D – Owner.

CSI references (by name only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – “Participants in Project Delivery” (owner, designer, constructor, suppliers)

CDT Body of Knowledge – descriptions of owner responsibilities and risk

Under CSI’s project delivery and contract administration framework, once the owner–contractor agreement is executed, the contract documents can only be modified through specific instruments defined in the Conditions of the Contract (General and Supplementary Conditions). These recognized formal modifications include:

Change Orders – Written instruments signed by owner, contractor, and usually the architect/engineer (A/E) that change the contract sum, contract time, or both, and possibly scope.

Construction Change Directives (CCD) (sometimes called Work Change Directives) – Written orders issued typically by the owner or A/E directing a change in the work before agreement has been reached on an adjustment in contract sum or time. They are later converted into a change order once costs/time are agreed.

Minor changes in the work – Often issued by the A/E as field orders or supplemental instructions, used for small changes that do not affect contract time or sum.

Different standard forms use different names (“Architect’s Supplemental Instructions,” “Field Order,” “Work Change Directive”), but CSI’s CDT content treats these as the recognized post-execution modification mechanisms to the contract documents.

Now, look at the choices:

Addendum is used to modify the bidding documents before the owner–contractor agreement is signed, not after.

Requests for Information (RFIs) are used to clarify contract documents, not to modify them; an RFI alone does not change the contract.

Option A is the only one that contains the combination of change order and construction change directive, plus a commonly used term (field order) for a minor change in the work. These three together align with the CSI-recognized instruments for modifying the contract documents after execution.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. Field order, construction change directive, and request for information – Missing a change order, which is the primary and most formal method of modification. An RFI is not a modification instrument.

C. Addendum, change order, and request for information – Addendum is pre-contract; RFI is not a modification instrument; only the change order is correct here.

D. Supplemental instructions, work change directive, and addendum – While “supplemental instructions” and “work change directive” can be instruments of modification, combining them with addendum (pre-contract) means this set does not correctly describe modifications after execution.

Therefore, A. Change order, construction change directive, and field order best matches the CSI-defined post-execution modification tools.

CSI’s Construction Specifications Practice Guide and CDT materials provide clear guidance on appropriate wording in specifications. They stress:

Use clear, specific, and enforceable language.

Avoid vague, subjective, or nontechnical terms that create ambiguity and open interpretation.

Among the answer choices, “Work” is the only word that is appropriate and standard in CSI-compliant specification text:

“Work” is a defined term in the General Conditions (and often Division 01), usually meaning the total construction and services required by the Contract Documents, including all labor, materials, equipment, and services necessary to complete the project.

Because it is defined and used consistently, “Work” is an acceptable and precise term for specification language. Example usage (conceptually): “Perform all Work in accordance with…”.

Why the other terms are inappropriate per CSI guidance:

A. AnyCSI recommends avoiding “any,” “either,” “etc.” and similar words because they are non-specific and create ambiguity. For example, “provide any fasteners as needed” does not clearly define what is required and can lead to disputes and inconsistent interpretation.

B. As perThe phrase “as per” is discouraged in CSI-style writing. It is considered informal and can be replaced by clearer, more direct phrasing such as “in accordance with,” “according to,” or “as indicated in.” CSI advocates for concise, plain, and unambiguous English in specs.

C. As requiredCSI strongly cautions against phrases like “as required” or “as necessary” when they are not tied to a clear condition or reference. They shift the decision to someone’s judgment later, instead of stating the requirement explicitly. If something is required, the specification should state what, when, and under what conditions, rather than simply saying “as required.”

Therefore, in a CSI-compliant specification, the term that is clearly appropriate from the options given is “Work” (Option D).

Relevant CSI references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Chapters on language and writing style for specifications (clear, concise, complete, correct).

CSI Practice Guide for Principles & Formats of Specifications – Guidance on defined terms such as “Work.”

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Sections on specification-writing best practices and prohibited vague phrases.

CSI teaches that while project size, nature, and cost all influence the complexity and staffing of a project, the primary determinant of formal roles and responsibilities among owner, design professional, and constructor is the project delivery method.

For example:

In Design-Bid-Build (DBB), the A/E designs under a separate contract with the owner; the contractor is selected later and has no design responsibility (except limited design delegation).

In Design-Build (DB), the design-builder assumes both design and construction responsibilities under a single contract with the owner; the architect is typically under contract to the design-builder.

In Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), the CM has both preconstruction services and then a construction contract with a Guaranteed Maximum Price.

In IPD, key participants share responsibilities collaboratively, often under multi-party agreements.

Because contracts and relationships change with the delivery method, the Project delivery type (Option D) is what determines how responsibilities are allocated in a formal, contractual sense.

Why the other options are not the best answer:

A. Size of the project – Larger projects may require more staff or additional roles (e.g., full-time construction administrator), but they do not fundamentally change who is contractually responsible for design, construction, and administration.

B. Nature of the project – A hospital vs. a warehouse may influence technical requirements and consultant types, but not the core allocation of responsibilities if the delivery method is the same.

C. Cost of construction – Budget level affects scope and possibly oversight intensity, but not the basic contractual roles of owner, A/E, and contractor.

Key CSI-Oriented References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Project Delivery Methods and team responsibilities.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Project Delivery Methods and Their Impact on Roles and Responsibilities.”

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.

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.”

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 describes the schedule of values as the breakdown of the contract sum allocated to portions of the work (often by specification section, building system, or major components). It is used as the basis for reviewing progress payments.

In CSI-aligned practice:

Before the first application for payment, the contractor submits a schedule of values to the A/E for review.

Each line item represents a portion of the work with an assigned dollar amount.

Every application for payment is itemized against that schedule—showing the percentage complete and corresponding dollar amount for each item.

Thus, the contractor’s application is organized and itemized in accordance with the schedule of values, enabling the A/E and owner to evaluate progress in a consistent, transparent way. That matches Option C.

Why the others are incomplete or incorrect in this context:

A. The construction schedule – The construction schedule shows time and sequencing, not the cost breakdown used to itemize payment requests.

B. The subcontractor’s invoices – These may support the contractor’s internal accounting but do not define how the application for payment must be structured for the owner.

D. The percentage of completion – Percentage of completion is important, but it is applied to each line item in the schedule of values. The question asks what the application must be itemized in accordance with, which is the schedule of values, not just percentages.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on construction phase payment procedures.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – payment applications and use of schedule of values.

Standard conditions of the contract as discussed in CSI materials – provisions on progress payments.

From a CSI / CDT lifecycle perspective, the project does not end when construction is complete. CSI emphasizes the full facility life cycle, which includes:

Planning and design

Construction

Operation and maintenance

Eventual renovation, repurposing, or decommissioning

The phase during which a building is operated, maintained, and supported so that it continues to perform its intended function is typically referred to as facility management (or “facilities management”). CSI’s project delivery guidance characterizes facility management as including:

Allocating resources (staff, budget, utilities, maintenance contracts, equipment, etc.) to keep the facility functioning as intended

Planning and managing maintenance, repairs, replacements, and upgrades

Overseeing operations, safety, and performance of building systems

Coordinating with design and construction teams when future renovation or major maintenance projects are needed

Because the question specifically highlights “allocating resources for the continued performance of a building’s intended function”, this aligns directly with the responsibilities of facility management.

Why the other options do not fit this definition:

A. BudgetingBudgeting is the process of planning and assigning financial resources for a specific period or scope (project budgeting, department budgeting, etc.). It is a financial planning activity, not the overall ongoing process of managing and operating the facility to ensure it continues to function as intended.

B. CommissioningCommissioning is a quality-focused process performed around the end of construction and the start of operation to verify that building systems are planned, installed, tested, and capable of being operated and maintained in conformity with the design intent and owner’s project requirements. It is primarily a start-up and verification process, not the ongoing allocation of resources over the life of the facility.

D. Project closeoutProject closeout is the process of finishing all project work, completing punch lists, submitting record documents, warranties, training, and formally closing the contract. While closeout transitions the facility to the owner’s operations and facility management, it does not itself describe the ongoing management for continued performance.

In CSI’s project delivery model, once the project is closed out, the responsibility for keeping the building performing as intended shifts to facility management, making Option C the correct answer.

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.

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

In CSI’s description of the facility life cycle, the last phase is decommissioning. This phase occurs when a facility is taken out of service because it is no longer needed for its original operations, has reached the end of its useful life, or is being prepared for conversion to a different use. The emphasis is on the facility no longer being required for its intended operations, not strictly on demolition or permanent abandonment.

Decommissioning tasks can include: removing or securing systems, handling hazardous materials, salvaging components, planning for demolition, or preparing the facility for a different use.

Because decommissioning can precede demolition, adaptive reuse, or other end-of-life actions, it is triggered when the facility is no longer needed for operations.

Option B captures this definition accurately.

Options A and C are too narrow: demolition or permanent disuse are possible outcomes of decommissioning but not the only reasons it is required. Option D (change of ownership) does not automatically require decommissioning; a facility can continue operating normally under a new owner.

Relevant CSI references (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Facility Life Cycle chapter (discussion of operations, maintenance, and decommissioning).

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – overview of project phases including decommissioning.

CSI’s treatment of bidding and pricing mechanisms distinguishes between:

Alternates – for defined variations in scope or quality.

Allowances – for items not fully defined at bid time.

Unit prices – for work where quantities are uncertain or may change.

The question mentions:

Equal consideration and transparency during award

Flexibility while awarding

Managing cost during execution for undefined and unforeseen conditions

This language directly aligns with allowances and unit prices:

Allowances are used when the exact nature or selection of certain items (e.g., finishes, special equipment, or yet-to-be-selected products) is not fully defined at bid time. An allowance amount is stated in the documents so all bidders include the same amount, ensuring comparable bids and transparency. Actual cost is reconciled during construction.

Unit prices are used when work items have uncertain quantities (e.g., rock excavation, unsuitable soil replacement). The unit rate is bid up front, and final payment is based on actual measured quantities, which allows the owner to manage cost fairly during execution when unforeseen conditions arise.

Together, allowances and unit prices (Option C) ensure that:

All bidders base their bids on the same assumptions, supporting equal consideration and fairness.

The contract can adapt to undefined or unforeseen conditions without renegotiating basic pricing structures.

Why the others are not correct:

A. Bid security and substitutionBid security protects the owner if the bidder fails to execute the contract; substitution deals with product changes. These do not primarily address managing costs for undefined or unforeseen conditions nor set flexible price structures like allowances or unit prices.

B. Add and deduct alternativesAlternates provide flexibility in award (selecting add or deduct options), but they deal with defined scope options, not ongoing management of undefined or unforeseen conditions during execution.

D. Liquidated damages and combined bidsLiquidated damages relate to time and schedule risk, not unknown scope or quantities; combined bids are procedural. Neither is the primary mechanism CSI associates with managing cost for undefined/unforeseen work.

Relevant CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on bidding, pricing, alternates, allowances, and unit prices.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – discussion of Division 01 provisions for allowances and unit prices.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – topics on bid forms, pricing mechanisms, and managing unknown quantities.

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 defines three major, complementary organizing tools:

MasterFormat® – classifies work results and organizes specification sections into numbered divisions.

SectionFormat® – standardizes the internal arrangement and headings of text within each specification section (e.g., Part 1 – General, Part 2 – Products, Part 3 – Execution), making it easy to read and quickly reference.

UniFormat® – organizes information by systems and assemblies, often used in early design and cost planning rather than final spec sections.

The question specifically asks about a format that standardizes how the text is arranged on specification pages for easy reading and rapid reference. That is exactly the role of SectionFormat®: it defines the structure and order of information inside the section so that users know where to find general requirements, product information, and execution requirements, regardless of the project.

By contrast:

MasterFormat® (Option C) organizes which section information goes into (coding and naming of sections), not the layout of text within the section.

UniFormat® (Option D) structures information by building systems/elements, especially for programming and early design, not for final spec page layout.

PageFormat (Option B) is not one of CSI’s registered, widely recognized branded formats in the way the question is framed.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A – SectionFormat®.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on MasterFormat®, SectionFormat®, and UniFormat®.

CSI SectionFormat® & PageFormat™ standard (CSI publication).

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.

CSI, in alignment with standard general conditions (such as AIA A201 and EJCDC documents, which CDT relies on), defines submittals as including three primary types:

Shop drawings – Drawings, diagrams, schedules, and other data specifically prepared by the contractor, subcontractors, or suppliers to illustrate how a portion of the work will be fabricated, assembled, or installed.

Product data – Manufacturer’s printed information such as catalog cuts, performance charts, instructions, and brochures.

Samples – Physical examples that illustrate materials or workmanship.

Key points from these definitions:

Shop drawings are not contract documents. They do not change the requirements of the drawings and specifications; instead, they show how the contractor proposes to meet those requirements.

Standard conditions explicitly state that the contract documents are not modified by submittals, even when reviewed by the architect/engineer.

The contractor must review shop drawings first; they are then submitted to the architect/engineer for review for conformance with design intent, but this does not make them contract documents.

Now, compare to the options:

A. They are contract documents.This is explicitly incorrect. Shop drawings are submittals and do not have the status of contract documents.

B. They illustrate some portion of the work.This is the standard CSI-aligned definition: shop drawings are created to illustrate portions of the work (fabrication, installation, layout, connections, etc.). This is correct.

C. They are reviewed only by the architect/engineer.Incorrect. The contractor is required to review and approve shop drawings before submitting them; the architect/engineer then reviews them. Sometimes others (e.g., consultants, certifying authorities) may also review them.

D. They include performance charts, instructions, and brochures.This describes product data, not shop drawings. Product data submittals often are manufacturer literature with performance charts, brochures, and instructions.

Therefore, the correct choice, consistent with CSI definitions and standard general conditions, is Option B – They illustrate some portion of the work.

CSI references (by name only, no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – “Submittals: shop drawings, product data, and samples”

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – “Construction Phase – Submittal Procedures and Responsibilities”

In CSI’s description of the project life cycle and construction phase services, project closeout is treated as a structured, coordinated process involving the owner, A/E, and contractor. A closeout meeting (or series of meetings) is recommended to:

Review all required closeout procedures such as punch list completion, testing, training, record documents, warranties, and final cleaning.

Clarify responsibilities and timelines for each party in achieving substantial and final completion.

Coordinate handover activities, including delivery of O&M manuals, as-built/record documents, warranties, spare parts, keys, and access codes.

Confirm the sequence for inspections, certifications, and the process toward final payment and release.

Thus the primary purpose of a closeout meeting is to review and coordinate handover procedures and activities, making D the correct answer.

Why the other choices do not match CSI’s intent for closeout meetings:

A. To set substantial completionSubstantial completion is established by contract definition and certification, usually when the work is sufficiently complete for the owner’s beneficial use and occupancy. The closeout meeting may discuss the path to substantial completion, but it does not exist just to “set” that date.

B. To resolve subcontractor disputesDisputes may be addressed through separate claim and dispute resolution procedures outlined in the Conditions of the Contract. While closeout meetings might note open issues, their primary purpose is coordination of closeout and handover, not serving as a dispute-resolution forum.

C. To commission the project for occupancyCommissioning is a structured process of testing and verifying systems performance, typically running in parallel with late construction and early operation. The closeout meeting coordinates requirements (e.g., commissioning reports) but commissioning itself is carried out through separate technical procedures and field activities, not simply by holding a meeting.

Key CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Construction Phase and Project Closeout.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – content on construction phase services, closeout procedures, and documentation.

Standard A/E service descriptions aligned with CSI concepts for project closeout and handover.

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

CSI’s guidance on project record documents distinguishes between several types:

Record drawings – show what was actually installed (dimensions, locations, configurations).

Record specifications/project manual – the written requirements for the work, as issued and modified.

Record submittals – approved shop drawings, product data, and samples documenting the actual products and systems installed, including manufacturer names, model numbers, finishes, and installation instructions.

For replacement of a specific product, such as a broken insulated glazing unit, CSI instruction is that the most precise source is record submittals (Option D). These typically contain:

The exact manufacturer selected.

Product line, model number, glass type, coatings, spacers, gas fill, etc.

Any special fabrication notes or custom sizes.

Contact information or catalog data to facilitate reordering.

This is exactly the information a facility manager needs to “determine where and how to order” the replacement unit. That is why CSI emphasizes maintaining record submittals as part of the owner’s permanent facility information.

Why the other options are less appropriate:

A. Record drawingsRecord drawings (sometimes called “as-built” drawings) can provide size and location of the glazing unit, and possibly indicate type (e.g., “insulated glazing unit”). However, drawings rarely show the precise product manufacturer and model; at best, they reference detail markers or generic notes. They are helpful for field measurement and coordination, but not ideal for identifying the exact product to order.

B. Manufacturer’s representativeA manufacturer’s rep can help once you know the manufacturer and product, but first you need to identify which manufacturer and model were actually installed. Without the record submittals or similar documentation, the rep would be guessing. CSI places the identification of the installed product squarely in the realm of record submittals.

C. Project manualThe project manual (including the specifications) usually lists acceptable manufacturers and products, or performance requirements, but it does not necessarily tell you which one was actually used. If multiple manufacturers or options were permitted, the project manual alone cannot identify the exact unit to reorder.

Thus, under CSI’s treatment of project record documents and facility information, record submittals (Option D) are the best and most appropriate source for ordering an exact replacement product.

CSI reference concepts:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Project Closeout” and “Record Documents,” explaining the distinct roles of record drawings and record submittals.

CSI CDT Study Materials – topics describing record submittals as the owner’s record of actual installed products, used for maintenance and replacement.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (CSI-aligned, paraphrased)

In CSI’s organization of the Project Manual:

Division 01 – General Requirements coordinates administrative and procedural requirements that apply across the technical sections.

One of the standard Division 01 topics is “Alternates”.

In CSI practice:

The Bid Form provides the spaces for bidders to state the prices for each alternate.

The Agreement may list accepted alternates after award.

The technical sections (Divisions 02–49) describe detailed materials and methods, but do not typically define the overall limits or scope of each alternate in one place.

Instead, CSI recommends that the description of each alternate, including its limits and what parts of the Work are added, deleted, or changed, be clearly defined in Division 01 – General Requirements, usually in a section titled “Alternates”. There, the scope of each alternate is described in a way that can be coordinated with and referenced by the technical sections.

Therefore, the correct answer is:

C. Division 01

Why the other options are not best per CSI practice:

A. Agreement – The Agreement (Contract for Construction) may list which alternates are accepted once the contract is formed, but it does not typically define in detail the limits of each alternate; it relies on the specifications for those definitions.

B. Bid Form – The Bid Form is where prices for alternates are entered. It may briefly name or reference each alternate, but the detailed definition and limits are in Division 01.

D. Sections in Divisions 02–49 – Technical sections contain the work results and may note how an alternate affects them (e.g., “this finish is used only if Alternate 2 is accepted”), but the primary, consolidated description of what each alternate includes/excludes is in the Division 01 Alternates section.

Key CSI-Related Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 General Requirements and Alternates.

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – procurement and alternates sections.

CSI CDT Study Materials – organization of the Project Manual and the role of Division 01.

In CSI-based drawing organization, the cover sheet (sometimes called the title sheet) is the primary identification sheet of the drawing set. It typically includes:

Project name and project number

Owner’s name

Architect/engineer’s name and logo

Names of key consultants (structural, mechanical, electrical, etc.)

General project data (site address, legal description, gross area, etc.)

A location map or vicinity map

Sometimes a sheet index, code summary, and other global project information

CSI’s guidance for construction documents describes the cover sheet as the place where the project is formally identified and the major parties are listed so that anyone picking up the drawing set immediately knows what project it is, who the participants are, and where the project is located. This is exactly what the question is asking about.

Why the others are not correct in CSI’s sense:

A. Sheet index – A sheet index is usually a list of drawing sheets (by discipline and sheet number) and may be placed on the cover sheet or on a separate index sheet, but it does not normally carry the full set of project identification data, consultant names, and location map by itself.

C. General notes – General notes are used to provide global instructions or clarifications applicable to the drawings (e.g., dimensional conventions, typical construction requirements). They are not the primary location for listing the owner, A/E, consultants, or site location map.

D. Building code summary – A building code summary focuses on code-related data: occupancy classification, construction type, fire-resistance ratings, egress calculations, etc. While it may appear on the cover sheet or nearby sheets, it is not where CSI expects all of the names and general project data to be grouped.

So, per CSI’s standard organization of construction drawings and project manuals, the cover sheet is the correct answer.

CSI defines commissioning as a quality-focused process that verifies the facility and its systems meet the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR). In the Project Delivery Practice Guide, commissioning is categorized into three broad types (paraphrased):

Systems and equipment commissioning – verifying that HVAC, electrical, plumbing, life safety, and other building systems perform as intended.

Building envelope commissioning – verifying performance of the exterior enclosure, including air/water infiltration, thermal performance, and durability.

Total project commissioning (also called whole-building or total building commissioning) – extending commissioning to the entire project, including design, construction, and operational aspects, integrating envelope, systems, and other building components.

Given that the question already lists “systems and equipment commissioning” and “building envelope commissioning,” the missing third category described by CSI is “total project commissioning”, which corresponds to Option D.

Why the other options are not correct:

A. Mechanical commissioning – This is a subset of systems and equipment commissioning (focused on HVAC/mechanical systems), not one of CSI’s three overarching categories.

B. Facility commissioning – While the term might be used informally, CSI’s categorized terminology in the CDT body of knowledge is “total project commissioning” rather than “facility commissioning.”

C. Process commissioning – This term is more common in industrial process industries and is not identified by CSI as one of the three principal commissioning categories for building projects.

CSI References (no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on commissioning types and scope (total project, systems and equipment, building envelope).

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 and CDT principles stress that clear, timely, and documented communication is essential to avoid disputes and miscommunication during construction. Among the key tools for this are:

Written records of decisions, instructions, and clarifications

Formal meeting minutes that are distributed and retained as part of the project record

Consistent use of designated channels (e.g., RFIs, submittals, change documents)

In construction phase administration, progress meetings and other coordination meetings are routinely held. Best practice, as described in CSI guides and standard contract documents, is that:

One party (often the architect or construction manager) prepares written meeting minutes.

These minutes record attendance, topics discussed, decisions made, and action items (with responsible parties and due dates).

The minutes are then distributed to all attendees and other concerned parties, providing a shared, written understanding and an opportunity to correct any errors.

This practice directly addresses the question’s goal: avoiding miscommunication problems during construction. Therefore, the best answer is Option C.

Why the other options are weaker:

A. Develop a good working relationship for verbally addressing problems as they ariseA good working relationship is very important, but verbal-only communication is risky. CSI emphasizes that important decisions and directions must be documented in writing.

B. Mark emails and electronic communications as "Urgent!"This may get attention but does not ensure clarity, completeness, or shared understanding, and overuse can even reduce effectiveness.

D. Leave detailed voicemail messagesVoicemail is not a reliable or easily referenced project record. It is difficult to circulate, file, search, or confirm, and can easily be misunderstood or lost. CSI emphasizes written, project-file communication over voicemail.

Relevant CSI / CDT References (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on “Construction Phase” and communication and documentation.

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Division 01 sections on “Project Management and Coordination” and “Project Meetings,” including requirements for meeting minutes.

CDT Body of Knowledge – communication and documentation practices in construction administration.

Within the CSI / CDT framework, bid shopping is the practice of a prime bidder (typically a general contractor) using one subcontractor’s price to pressure that subcontractor or competitors into lowering their price after bids have been received. CSI treats this as an unethical and undesirable practice that increases risk and undermines fair competition in the procurement process.

Practices that help minimize bid shopping include:

Bid listing and bid depository provisions (Option A):Some public agencies require that the general contractor list major subcontractors with the bid or use a bid depository system. These mechanisms are intended specifically to discourage bid shopping by locking in the subcontractors named at bid time and making the process more transparent.

Requiring bidders to provide a list of intended subcontractors with their bid (Option B):This is another form of sub-bid listing. By compelling the prime bidder to identify subcontractors at bid submission, it restricts their ability to shop sub-bids afterward, thereby minimizing the risk of bid shopping.

Subcontractors withholding their prices until close to bid time (Option C):While not ideal from a coordination standpoint, this is a common subcontractor strategy in a competitive environment to reduce the time window during which a prime contractor can use their number to shop for a lower price. This can mitigate bid shopping risk from the subcontractor’s perspective.

By contrast:

D. The bidder can ask the subcontractor to reevaluate their prices to find a lower price after the subcontractor has submitted their price.This is essentially a description of bid shopping behavior. Asking a subcontractor to “re-evaluate” to get a lower price after their number has been used to compile the bid (especially when using other subs’ prices as leverage) is exactly what public procurement provisions try to prevent. This does not minimize the risk of bid shopping; it is bid shopping.

Therefore, the only option that clearly does not reduce or prevent bid shopping is D.

Relevant CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Procurement and Bidding chapters (discussion of competitive bidding ethics and bid shopping).

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – Procurement and bidding procedures and ethical practices in public work.

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

Within CSI’s CDT framework, the primary national reference for organizing and presenting design and construction drawings is the U.S. National CAD Standard (NCS). The NCS is a coordinated standard developed by several organizations including the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), CSI, and the AIA. It provides:

Guidelines for drawing sheet organization (titles, numbering, and content).

Layering standards (including what many people know as the AIA CAD Layer Guidelines).

Symbols, plotting conventions, and other tools that make drawings consistent and coordinated across disciplines and projects.

CSI’s project delivery and documentation guidance points design professionals and specifiers to the U.S. National CAD Standard as the key reference for how drawings should be structured and presented to support clear coordination with specifications and other contract documents.

Why the other options are not the best answer:

A. AIA CAD Layer GuidelinesThese guidelines are actually a component of the U.S. National CAD Standard, primarily addressing layer naming and organization. On their own they do not provide the full system for sheet organization, plotting, and cross-discipline coordination that the question describes. CSI and NIBS treat them as part of the broader NCS.

B. National Institute of Building SciencesNIBS is an organization, not the actual “reference document.” NIBS sponsors and publishes several standards (including the NCS and the National BIM Standard–US), but the question asks specifically for the document that includes the guidelines and tools for drawing organization and presentation. That document is the U.S. National CAD Standard, not NIBS itself.

C. National BIM Standard – United StatesThe National BIM Standard–US focuses on BIM information exchange, modeling protocols, data structures, and interoperability, not on the traditional CAD sheet organization and 2D drawing presentation. It is important, but it is not the primary reference CSI cites for the organization and presentation of drawings in the traditional contract documents sense.

Therefore, consistent with CSI CDT content, the correct answer is Option D: U.S. National CAD Standard.

CSI reference concepts:

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on construction documents and the role of standards such as the U.S. National CAD Standard in organizing drawings.

CSI CDT body of knowledge – topics on drawing organization, coordination between drawings and specifications, and national CAD standards.

In CSI’s MasterFormat® system, the project manual’s specifications are organized into Divisions 00–49:

Division 00 – Procurement and Contracting Requirements (instructions to bidders, bid forms, owner–contractor agreement, etc.)

Division 01 – General Requirements (administrative and procedural requirements applicable to the whole project, including items like temporary facilities and controls, submittals, project meetings, etc.)

Divisions 02–49 – Technical Specifications

CSI defines Divisions 02–49 as the technical divisions, each of which is organized around a specific work results area (sitework, concrete, masonry, metals, finishes, mechanical, electrical, etc.). Within those divisions, each specification section describes the materials, products, and execution requirements for that particular work result.

Therefore:

A. Procurement instructions – belong in Division 00, not Divisions 02–49.

C. Temporary facilities and controls – are addressed under Division 01 – General Requirements, not Divisions 02–49.

D. Life cycle activities – are not how CSI defines the scope of Divisions 02–49.

The only accurate description of Divisions 02–49 is that they address distinct work results areas, which is Option B.

CSI references (by name only, no links):

CSI MasterFormat® – Numbers and Titles (Introduction and Use)

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide, chapters explaining organization of the project manual into Divisions 00–49

CSI identifies several types of specifications, including:

Descriptive specifications – describe materials and methods in detail.

Performance specifications – describe required results and performance criteria.

Proprietary specifications – designate specific products or manufacturers.

Reference standard specifications – define requirements by citing recognized industry standards rather than repeating all technical details.

A reference standard specification works by referring to standards issued by organizations such as:

Trade associations (e.g., industry associations),

Standards organizations (e.g., ASTM, ANSI, ISO),

Other recognized bodies that publish consensus technical standards.

The specification then simply states that materials, products, or work must comply with the named standard. This reduces repetition and promotes consistency and clarity.

Therefore, a proper basis for a reference standard specification is a trade association standard, which is Option C.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Project manual for similar projectPrevious project manuals may be informal references for the specifier, but they are not recognized standards. A reference standard specification must refer to a published technical standard, not another project’s contract documents.

B. Design intentDesign intent is expressed more directly in performance or descriptive specifications, not in reference standard form. Reference standards rely on external, recognized standards, not internal design intent statements alone.

D. Manufacturer's specification sectionReferring to a specific manufacturer’s literature or section is characteristic of a proprietary specification, not a reference standard specification. Reference standards must be based on independent, consensus-based standards, not one manufacturer’s materials.

Key CSI Reference Titles (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – Types of specifications, including reference standard specifications and their proper use.

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – Relationship of specifications to industry standards.

CDT Body of Knowledge – “Specification Types and Methods of Specifying.”

CSI and standard General Conditions define the architect/engineer’s submittal review purpose as confirming that submittals conform to the design intent shown and specified in the contract documents — not to approve means, methods, or to revise design.

The A/E’s review checks:

General compliance of the submittal with design intent.

Coordination among trades.

Any deviations that require clarification or change approval.

It is not for:

Designing or redesigning (Option A),

Supervising construction procedures (Option C), or

Evaluating formal substitution requests (Option D) — substitutions are separately submitted for approval under Division 01 procedures.

Therefore, the A/E reviews submittals to monitor design conformance, making Option B correct.

CSI Reference:

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide, “Submittal Procedures and Responsibilities”; Project Delivery Practice Guide, “Construction Phase — Submittal Review.”

In CSI/CDT terminology, “preconstruction submittals” are those required at (or very near) the start of the project, before actual construction work proceeds, to set up project administration, payment, and coordination. These submittals are usually specified in Division 01 – General Requirements of the Project Manual and are part of the contract requirements established by the specifications.

Typical examples of preconstruction submittals in CSI-aligned practice include:

Construction/progress schedule

Submittal schedule

Schedule of values

List of subcontractors and suppliers

Insurance and bonds

Temporary facilities and controls plans

Health & safety or site-specific plans (when required)

The schedule of values is expressly listed in standard Division 01 sections as a required early submittal that must be approved before progress payments can be properly evaluated and certified. It breaks down the contract sum into line items for payment and becomes the basis for reviewing the contractor’s pay applications throughout the project. Because it is required at the start of the construction phase and before regular work progress, it is a classic preconstruction submittal, matching Option C.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Product dataProduct data (cut sheets, catalog information, performance data, etc.) are action submittals for specific products and materials. Although some may be submitted early, they are typically required as needed before related work is installed, not universally at the very start of the job. They are not classified by CSI as “preconstruction submittals” in the same sense as the schedule of values or project schedule.

B. Shop drawingsShop drawings are also action submittals supporting fabrication and installation of specific work (e.g., structural steel, curtain wall systems, ductwork, etc.). They are provided during the construction phase in accordance with a submittal schedule, not as “preconstruction” administrative submittals that must be in place before construction administration and payments can be properly managed.

D. Warranty documentationsCorrected term: “warranty documentation.”Warranty documentation is typically part of closeout submittals—submitted near Substantial Completion or Final Completion, not at the beginning of the project. Division 01 and individual technical sections usually require warranties to be submitted as part of project closeout procedures, after the work is in place and accepted, not as a preconstruction submittal.

CSI / CDT-aligned references (no links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – sections on Division 01, Submittals, and Requirements for Administrative Submittals (including preconstruction submittals).

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – chapters on Construction Phase and construction submittal processes.

CDT Exam Content Outline – topics on “Submittals,” “Division 01 – General Requirements,” and “Contract Administration documentation.”