Construction Specifications Institute CDT Actual Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

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

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

CSI identifies four primary methods of specifying in construction specifications:

Descriptive

Performance

Reference standard

Proprietary

A reference standard specification method uses published standards from recognized organizations to define material, product, or workmanship requirements, rather than repeating long technical descriptions in the spec section.

Applied to steel:

Instead of writing long paragraphs about carbon content, alloying elements, strength, ductility, etc., the spec writer can call for a specific ASTM, AISC, or other recognized standard, such as “ASTM A992 steel shapes” or “ASTM A36 carbon steel.”

This “short” specification points to a standard that already contains the detailed technical requirements, thereby limiting lengthy descriptions in the project specification while still ensuring clear, enforceable quality requirements.

That is exactly what the question describes: using a method of specifying to avoid long, repeated descriptions for complex materials like steel with many grades. Therefore the correct answer is:

D. Reference standard

Why the other choices are incorrect:

A. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)ANSI is a standards organization, not a method of specifying. A reference standard method could incorporate ANSI standards, but the method is “reference standard,” not “ANSI.”

B. DescriptiveDescriptive specifying is the opposite of what the question is asking to avoid. It involves writing out detailed properties, materials, and installation requirements in full text, which leads to lengthy descriptions.

C. PerformancePerformance specifying focuses on required results or performance criteria (e.g., strength, deflection, fire rating), allowing the contractor or manufacturer to choose how to meet those criteria. It is not specifically aimed at avoiding long material descriptions by referencing existing published standards, which is the hallmark of reference standard specifying.

CSI-aligned references (no external links):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapter on Methods of Specifying (descriptive, performance, reference standard, proprietary).

CSI CDT Study materials – topics on methods of specifying and use of reference standards (ASTM, AISC, ANSI, etc.) to define material requirements.

In CSI practice, Division 01 – General Requirements is written to coordinate with, expand, and supplement the Conditions of the Contract (i.e., the General and Supplementary Conditions). It does not stand on its own; it is governed by and must remain consistent with the General Conditions, which are higher in the contract document hierarchy.

The usual contract-document structure is:

Agreement

General Conditions (baseline rights, responsibilities, and procedures)

Supplementary Conditions (modify/extend general conditions)

Division 01 – General Requirements (administrative and procedural details)

Divisions 02–49 (technical specifications)

Division 01 then sets detailed project procedures “in accordance with” the Conditions of the Contract. For example, a construction management plan in your files refers to requirements being governed by a Division 01 specification (“Section 01 32 00, Project Schedule Specification Outline”), which provides project-specific procedural detail building on the contract conditions.

So:

The General Conditions establish the baseline contract obligations.

Division 01 must follow and not contradict those conditions.

Technical divisions (02–49) further detail materials and execution, again within the framework set by the Conditions of the Contract and Division 01.

Therefore, the Division 01 General Requirements are governed by the general conditions of the construction contract, making Option C correct.

CSI-aligned references (no URLs):

CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on “Conditions of the Contract” and “Division 01 – General Requirements.”

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on the hierarchy of contract documents and coordination between Conditions and specifications.

In CSI and general construction budgeting practice, project costs are often discussed in terms of:

Hard costs – also called direct construction costs, generally associated with the actual construction of the facility (labor, materials, equipment, and construction-related services).

Soft costs – professional services and non-construction expenses, such as design fees, legal fees, financing costs, some testing and inspections, and administrative costs.

Other development costs, such as land acquisition, that may be tracked separately from construction vs. soft costs.

Within that framework:

Hard costs are those closely tied to getting the building or facility physically constructed and operational. In many project budgets, commissioning work that is specified as part of the construction/contractor’s scope (functional testing of systems, demonstrating performance, etc.) is treated with the construction scope and appears with construction-related costs.

Among the four items given:

Architect/engineer design fees (A) – clearly a soft cost, part of professional services for planning and design, not part of direct construction.

Project financing (C) – interest during construction, loan fees, and similar items are typically categorized as financing/soft costs, entirely separate from construction.

Land acquisition (D) – usually tracked as a separate property or development cost, not within the construction hard-cost category.

Commissioning fees (B) – frequently included in the construction or closeout scope (and often in specifications under Division 01 or relevant technical Divisions) and directly associated with making systems function as intended. When commissioning is contracted as part of the construction contract (which is a common CSI-based approach), its cost is embedded in the hard construction costs.

In CDT-aligned budgeting discussions, when you’re forced to choose among these four, commissioning fees (Option B) are the closest to and most consistently treated as a construction-related (hard) cost, because they are often part of the contractor’s scope and necessary to complete and hand over a functioning facility.

The others—A/E fees, financing, and land—are clearly outside of direct construction and uniformly treated as soft or separate development costs in CSI-oriented project cost breakdowns.

Key CSI and industry references (titles only, no links):

CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – sections on “Project Costs” and distinctions between construction cost and project cost.

CSI CDT Body of Knowledge – “Owner’s Costs, Construction Costs, and Cost Categories.”

Typical CSI-based Owner–Contractor contracts and Division 01 sections where commissioning requirements are placed within the construction scope.