PROJECT-MANAGEMENT Practice Questions

The defining characteristic of the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR or CM at Risk) project delivery method is that the CM commits to delivering the project within a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). In this model, the CM acts as a consultant to the owner during the design phase and as the equivalent of a general contractor during the construction phase. The CM holds the contracts with the subcontractors and is financially "at risk" for any construction costs that exceed the GMP, distinguishing this role from a CM as Advisor (CMa).

B. This describes a primary function of both a CM at Risk and a CM as Advisor; it is not the key differentiator.

C. This accurately describes the CM as Advisor (CMa) or CM-Agency model, where the CM is not financially at risk for the construction cost.

D. Early consultation is a hallmark of all CM delivery methods (both CMa and CMAR) and is not the single best description of the "at risk" component.

1. American Institute of Architects (AIA). AIA Document A133–2019, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Constructor where the basis of payment is the Cost of the Work Plus a Fee with a Guaranteed Maximum Price. In this document, Article 2.2.3 explicitly states the CM's proposal for the Guaranteed Maximum Price, which is the "sole and absolute responsibility of the Construction Manager." This establishes the "at risk" nature.

2. Construction Management Association of America (CMAA). 2021 An Owner's Guide to Project Delivery Methods. In the section "CM at-Risk (CMAR)," the guide states, "The CMAR provides a guaranteed maximum price (GMP)... The CMAR holds all of the subcontracts and is responsible for the performance of the trade contractors." (Page 11).

3. Pocock, J. B., & Kuennen, S. T. (2005). Comparison of Construction Manager-at-Risk and Design-Build-Operate-Maintain Contracts. Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(1), 11–17. The article defines CMAR: "The CM-at-risk project delivery system entails a commitment by the construction manager (CM) to deliver the project within a guaranteed maximum price (GMP)." (Page 11, Paragraph 2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2005)21:1(11)0742-597X(2005)21:1(11))

According to standard contractual agreements, such as the AIA B101, the owner is responsible for furnishing essential project information, including surveys. The architect is entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of the information provided by the owner. When this information proves to be inaccurate, as with the incorrect property line, the resulting redesign work constitutes an additional service. Therefore, the owner is contractually responsible for compensating the architect for the additional costs and delays incurred. The owner may have a separate claim against the surveyor for their error, but the owner's obligation to the architect remains.

B. Architect: The architect is not responsible for verifying the accuracy of owner-provided surveys; they are entitled to rely on them as a basis for design.

C. Surveyor: The architect typically has no direct contractual relationship with the surveyor, so they cannot claim costs directly from the surveyor. The surveyor's liability is to their client, the owner.

D. Civil Engineer: As with the surveyor, the architect has no direct contract with the civil engineer for the survey, making a direct claim for costs inappropriate.

1. AIA Document B101™–2017, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect.

Article 5, Owner’s Responsibilities, § 5.4: "The Owner shall furnish surveys to describe physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The surveys and legal information shall include, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures..."

Article 5, Owner’s Responsibilities, § 5.8: "The Architect shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of services and information furnished by the Owner."

Article 4, Additional Services, § 4.1: This article outlines conditions under which an architect is compensated for services not included in the basic scope, which would include redesign necessitated by inaccurate owner-provided information.

2. Demkin, J. A. (Ed.). (2013). The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice (15th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Chapter 9.2, "Owner's Responsibilities" (p. 650): This section details the owner's contractual obligation to provide site information, including surveys. It reinforces that the architect relies on this information, and if it is faulty, the owner is responsible to the architect for the consequences, which may include additional service fees and schedule adjustments.

3. Harvard University Graduate School of Design. (Courseware). Professional Practice.

Course materials on professional practice and contracts consistently emphasize the division of responsibilities outlined in AIA documents. Lectures explain that the owner bears the risk for the accuracy of information they provide, such as geotechnical reports and land surveys, and the architect's reliance on this information is a foundational principle of the service agreement.

According to the AIA B101™–2017 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, services related to evaluating substitutions proposed by the contractor are not part of the architect's basic services. Section 4.2.2.3 explicitly lists "providing services in connection with evaluating substitutions proposed by the Owner’s contractor and making subsequent revisions to Instruments of Service resulting therefrom" as an Additional Service. The owner is responsible for compensating the architect for any authorized Additional Services. Therefore, the owner bears the cost of the architect's time and effort to evaluate the proposed substitution and revise the necessary documentation.

B. Architect: The architect performs the evaluation, but this work is outside the scope of basic services and requires additional compensation from the owner, so the architect does not bear the cost.

C. Contractor: While the contractor initiates the substitution request, the owner-architect agreement stipulates that the owner pays the architect for the review. The owner may seek reimbursement from the contractor, but the primary responsibility for payment to the architect lies with the owner.

D. Originator: This term is not a contractually defined party responsible for payment in AIA agreements. The contractual obligation for payment of architectural services rests with the owner.

1. AIA Document B101™–2017, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. Article 4, Additional Services, Section 4.2.2.3. This section identifies evaluating contractor-proposed substitutions and making subsequent revisions as an Additional Service for which the architect is to be compensated by the owner.

2. The American Institute of Architects. (2014). The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice (15th ed.). Wiley. Chapter 9.4, "Owner-Architect Agreements," discusses the structure of AIA B101, clarifying the distinction between Basic Services (covered by the base fee) and Additional Services (which require extra compensation from the owner).

3. Demkin, J. A. (Ed.). (2008). The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, Student Edition. Wiley. Chapter 12, "Project Execution," page 328. This text explains that when the contractor proposes a substitution, the architect's review and subsequent document revisions are typically considered additional services, making the owner responsible for the associated fees.

During the bidding or negotiation phase, the architect is responsible for preparing and issuing addenda. Addenda are formal modifications, clarifications, or corrections to the bidding documents (drawings, specifications, etc.) that arise after the documents have been issued to bidders but before the bids are due. The architect distributes these addenda to all registered bidders to ensure that every participant has the same information, promoting a fair and equitable bidding process. This ensures all bids are based on a consistent set of requirements, preventing discrepancies and potential disputes.

B: The owner, not the architect, has the ultimate authority to select the winning bidder and award the contract.

C: The owner and their legal counsel are primarily responsible for negotiating contract terms with the selected contractor.

D: The review and approval of subcontractors proposed by the general contractor occur after the contract is awarded, during the construction administration phase.

1. The American Institute of Architects (AIA), The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, 15th Edition. Chapter 11.3, "Bidding Procedures," states, "If questions arise that require clarification or interpretation of the bidding documents, or if modifications to the documents become necessary, the architect prepares and issues addenda... Addenda are sent to all bidders." (p. 758).

2. AIA Document A701-2018, Instructions to Bidders. Article 3, Section 3.2.2 states: "The Architect will issue addenda acknowledging questions and answers." Section 3.4.1 further clarifies: "Addenda will be transmitted to all who are known by the issuing office to have received a complete set of Bidding Documents."

3. Demkin, J. A. (Ed.). (2008). The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, 14th Edition. John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 15, "Bidding and Negotiation," explains that the architect's role includes preparing addenda to modify or interpret the bidding documents and distributing them to all prospective bidders. (p. 587).

The architect's role concerning shop drawings is defined by standard industry contracts. The architect reviews submittals, such as shop drawings, for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with the information given in the contract documents and for compliance with the design concept. This review is not an approval of the means, methods, techniques, or safety precautions, which remain the contractor's responsibility. The architect's action (e.g., "No Exceptions Taken," "Revise and Resubmit") confirms that the submitted item, as detailed, aligns with the project's established design intent.

A. The contractor, subcontractors, or suppliers prepare and submit shop drawings to the architect for review.

C. The general contractor is responsible for coordinating and distributing reviewed shop drawings to the appropriate subcontractors.

D. The architect cannot unilaterally approve changes that affect cost, schedule, or design intent; such changes require a formal change order approved by the owner.

1. American Institute of Architects. (2017). AIA Document A201™–2017, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. Section 3.12.6 states the Architect will review submittals "for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents."

2. American Institute of Architects. (2014). The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice (15th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 10.4, "Submittals," pp. 718-720, details the architect's review process, emphasizing that the review is for "conformance with the design concept."

3. Piotrowski, C. M. (2011). Professional Practice for Interior Designers (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 18, "Construction Drawings, Schedules, and Specifications," p. 451. This text, used in university architecture and design programs, clarifies that the architect or designer reviews shop drawings to ensure they conform to the design intent of the contract documents.

The selection of a project delivery method is a critical early decision driven by the owner's primary goals and constraints. The project's scope and complexity (A) dictate the level of integration and expertise required. The owner's capabilities (C) and desired level of involvement determine how much management responsibility they can or want to assume. The owner's risk tolerance (E) is a fundamental driver, as different methods allocate risks for cost, schedule, and performance differently among the parties. Finally, the construction cost (F), including the budget, the need for cost certainty, and funding requirements, heavily influences whether a method with early cost guarantees (e.g., CMaR with a GMP) or one focused on low-bid price (e.g., DBB) is most appropriate.

B. Size of architectural firm: The architect is typically selected to fit the chosen delivery method and project needs, not the other way around. The firm's size is a qualification, not a primary driver for the delivery method decision.

D. Building code: Building codes are legal requirements that apply to the project's design and construction regardless of the delivery method. They are a project constraint, not a factor in selecting the contractual structure.

1. The American Institute of Architects, The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, 15th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2014).

Page 598, Section 9.2, "Selecting a Project Delivery Method": This section explicitly lists the primary drivers for selecting a delivery method. It states, "The primary drivers in the selection of a project delivery method are the owner’s priorities... These priorities typically include cost, schedule, quality, and risk." This directly supports options A (scope/quality), C (owner priorities/capabilities), E (risk), and F (cost).

2. Construction Management Association of America (CMAA), An Owner's Guide to Project Delivery Methods (2012).

Page 5, "Key Project Variables": The guide identifies key variables influencing the choice of delivery method, including "the Owner's level of experience and available staff," "the project budget," "the complexity of the project," and "the Owner's attitude toward risk." This directly validates options A, C, E, and F as core factors.

3. Demkin, J. A., & American Institute of Architects. The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, Student ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008).

Page 221, "Factors in Method Selection": This text outlines factors for selection, stating, "The owner's choice of a particular delivery method may be based on the extent to which the owner wants to be involved in the project, the owner's attitude toward risk, and the owner's desire for quality, cost, and schedule control." This supports C and E. It further discusses how project complexity and budget (A and F) are integral to this decision.

The architect, in their role as the administrator of the construction contract, is typically responsible for reviewing the contractor's schedule of values. This schedule serves as the basis for all subsequent applications for payment. The architect must verify that the schedule is balanced, meaning the values allocated to various portions of the work are reasonable and proportional to the contract sum. This review is a critical step to prevent "front-loading," where a contractor overvalues early construction activities, and to ensure that payments certified by the architect accurately reflect the value of work completed.

A. Owner: The owner ultimately pays the contractor but relies on the architect's professional expertise to review and certify the technical accuracy and fairness of payment requests.

C. Contractor’s project manager: The contractor's project manager is responsible for preparing and submitting the schedule of values, not for independently verifying it on behalf of the owner.

D. Construction manager: While a Construction Manager as Advisor (CMa) may assist in the review, the architect typically retains the primary responsibility for certification in standard contract forms.

1. AIA Document A201-2017, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. Section 9.2, "Schedule of Values," requires the contractor to submit the schedule to the architect. Section 9.4.1 states the architect will review the contractor's Application for Payment, which is based on the schedule of values, before issuing a Certificate for Payment.

2. The American Institute of Architects, The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, 15th Edition. Chapter 10, "Construction Contract Administration," Section 10.2, details the architect's role in reviewing and processing contractor payment applications, which begins with the review of the schedule of values to ensure it is properly balanced.

3. Demkin, J. A. (Ed.). (2008). The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, 14th Edition. John Wiley & Sons. In the section on Construction Administration (Chapter 1.10, page 728), it states, "The architect reviews this schedule [of values] to see that the values are reasonable for the work they represent."

4. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Architecture. (Courseware for ARCH 576: Architectural Practice). Lecture materials on Construction Administration specify that the architect's review of the first pay application includes a thorough analysis of the schedule of values to ensure it is not unbalanced or "front-loaded."

This problem requires calculating the necessary staff to complete a scope of work within a specific timeframe and budget.

1. Calculate the Total Fee: The fee is 5% of the $2,000,000 construction cost, which equals $100,000.

2. Calculate Total Billable Hours: The total fee budget ($100,000) is divided by the average hourly rate ($100/hour), resulting in 1,000 total billable hours for the project.

3. Calculate Weekly Hours: These 1,000 hours must be completed within the 7-week schedule, requiring approximately 143 hours of work per week (1,000 hours / 7 weeks).

4. Determine Staffing: Assuming a standard 40-hour workweek per person, the required staff is calculated by dividing the weekly hours by 40 (143 hours/week / 40 hours/person). This equals approximately 3.57 people. Since staff cannot be fractional, the firm must assign a minimum of 4 people to meet the schedule.

A. 2: Two people would only provide 80 hours per week (2 x 40), which is insufficient to meet the required 143 hours per week.

B. 3: Three people would provide 120 hours per week (3 x 40), falling short of the 143 hours per week needed to meet the deadline.

D. 5: While five people could complete the work, the question asks for the minimum project staff required. Four people are sufficient.

1. The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, 15th Edition.

Chapter 9, "Project Management," discusses the fundamentals of creating a work plan, which involves defining the scope, schedule, and required resources (staffing). Section 9.2, "Project Planning," outlines that "The project manager must determine the number of staff and the skill sets required to perform the work." The calculation performed is a direct application of these principles, balancing fee (budget), scope (work through CDs), and schedule to determine staffing.

2. AIA Document B101™–2017, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect.

Article 11, "Compensation," provides the framework for how fees are established. The question's premise of a fee based on a percentage of the Cost of the Work is defined in § 11.6. This document establishes the contractual basis for the fee used in the calculation.

3. Clemson University, School of Architecture, Course A S 4310/6310 - Professional Practice.

Lecture materials on "Project Management & The Project Manager" cover the "Project Management Triangle" (or "Iron Triangle") of Scope, Schedule, and Cost. The problem presented is a classic example of adjusting one variable (staffing/cost) to accommodate a change in another (schedule compression) while keeping the scope fixed. The calculation directly reflects this core project management principle taught in professional practice curricula.

The total cost is determined by first calculating the area of the parking lot in the correct units, applying the subcontractor's unit price, and then adding the contractor's mark-up.

1. Area Calculation: 60 feet × 270 feet = 16,200 square feet.

2. Unit Conversion: Since the price is per square yard, convert the area: 16,200 sq ft / 9 sq ft per sq yd = 1,800 square yards.

3. Subcontractor Cost: 1,800 sq yd × $13.25/sq yd = $23,850.

4. Contractor's Total Price (with mark-up): $23,850 × 1.15 = $27,427.50.

5. Cost per Space: $27,427.50 / 60 spaces = $457.13.

This value rounds to $457.

A. $398: This is the cost per space before the contractor's 15% mark-up is applied ($23,850 / 60 spaces = $397.50).

C. $3,578: This figure represents the contractor's total 15% mark-up amount ($23,850 × 0.15 = $3,577.50), not the cost per individual space.

D. $4,115: This is the result of a significant calculation error and does not correspond to any logical step in the estimating process.

1. The American Institute of Architects. (2013). The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice (15th ed.). Wiley. Chapter 9.4, "Cost Management from Design through Construction," discusses how a contractor's total price is composed of direct costs (e.g., subcontractor quotes), general conditions, overhead, and profit. The 15% mark-up represents these additional costs and profit.

2. Peurifoy, R. L., & Oberlender, G. D. (2013). Estimating Construction Costs (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Chapter 1, "Introduction to Estimating," details the standard estimating process which includes quantity takeoff (calculating the 1,800 sq yd), applying unit pricing, and adding markups to determine the final project cost.

3. MIT OpenCourseWare. (2009). 1.452J / ESD.052J Introduction to the Business of Engineering and Construction. Lecture notes on "Cost Estimating" outline the methodology of building a bid price by calculating direct costs based on quantities and unit prices, then applying percentages for indirect costs (overhead) and profit (mark-up).

According to the AIA B101™–2017, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, the architect's primary responsibility during on-site observations is to act as the owner's representative. A core duty within this role is to keep the owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the work. The agreement explicitly states that the architect shall report to the owner any known deviations from the contract documents. While the architect will also communicate with the contractor to address the non-conforming work and consult with the structural engineer, the contractual reporting obligation is to the owner.

A. Structural engineer: The architect consults with the engineer on technical matters, but the primary contractual reporting duty for deviations is to the owner.

B. Contractor: The architect informs the contractor to reject non-conforming work, but the B101 agreement establishes the architect's reporting duty to the owner.

C. Building inspector: The architect has no direct contractual obligation to report construction deviations to the building inspector, who represents the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).

1. AIA Document B101™–2017, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. Section 3.6.2.1 states, "The Architect shall be responsible for reporting to the Owner known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor."

2. Demkin, J. A. (Ed.). (2013). The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice (15th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 10, "Construction Contract Administration," Section 10.4, "Site Visits and Observation," page 729, reinforces this duty: "The architect is required to report to the owner known deviations from the contract documents and defects and deficiencies observed in the work."

3. Harvard University Graduate School of Design. (2020). Proseminar in Practice I (SES-05301) Course Syllabus. The course materials covering Construction Administration emphasize the architect's role as defined by AIA contracts, including the duty to observe the work and report to the owner on its conformance with the contract documents. This aligns with the principles in AIA B101 § 3.6.2.1.