AACE International PSP Planning & Scheduling Professional (PSP) Exam Exam Practice Test

 SDOT, as the project owner or primary stakeholder, benefits most from a master schedule as it provides an overview of progress, resource allocation, and critical path analysis for the entire project.

 Contractors (e.g., BILCO) may rely on more detailed schedules specific to their scope rather than the overall master schedule.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.4.8 – Management Summary, which explains how master schedules are valuable to owners and stakeholders for overall project oversight.

 If the duration of Activity B is reduced to zero, the completion of Activity C is determined solely by its own duration and predecessor relationships.

 Without knowing the explicit network logic, it is inferred that reducing Activity B to zero does not affect Activity C’s finish on Day 50, as its relationship with other activities remains intact.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.2.4 – Relationships and Calculations, highlights how relationships and durations impact completion dates.

The time an activity can be delayed from its early start without impacting the overall project completion date is called total float.

Option A (negative float) refers to delays beyond permissible limits.

Option B (free float) refers to delays without affecting the early start of any successor.

Option D (interfering float) is a lesser-used term denoting the time available without delaying the project completion but affecting a successor’s float​.

 Logic Organization Requirement:

Activity 6002 is required to begin 10 days after the start of Activity 6001.

A start-to-start (SS) relationship with a 10-day lag effectively captures this requirement.

 Exclusion of Other Options:

Option B: Placing the lag on Activity 6002 introduces unnecessary complexity.

Option C: Start-to-finish relationships are not appropriate for this situation.

Option D: A finish-to-start relationship does not meet the requirement of aligning start times.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes using SS relationships with lags for activities that need staggered starts (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Relationships and Lags).

Column Pour Requirements:

Each column pour requires 60 lifts per day.

Crane Capacity:

Each crane can perform 35 lifts per day.

Determine Minimum Cranes Required:

Minimum Cranes = Column Lifts ÷ Crane Capacity = 60 ÷ 35 ≈ 1.71 cranes.

Since partial cranes cannot be used, round up to 3 cranes.

Cross-Verification:

Option A (2 cranes): Incorrect. Insufficient lifts per day.

Option B (1 crane): Incorrect. Infeasible.

Option C (4 cranes): Incorrect. Exceeds requirement.

Option D (3 cranes): Correct. Satisfies lift requirements efficiently.

When detailed estimates are unavailable, historical production rates can provide reliable data for estimating durations based on past projects with similar work.

Option A (Eichleay formula) is for overhead cost allocation.

Option C (Time impact analysis) evaluates delay impacts, not durations.

Option D (Black-Scholes model) is irrelevant in this context.

Historical data usage is a recognized method in project planning and scheduling practices​​.

To: Desmond Rayburn, Director of Information Services

From: Evan Marshal, Corporate Scheduler

Date: [Insert Current Date]

Subject: Mitigation Plan for Project JP-114 Delays

Current Problem and Potential Impacts

Project JP-114 has experienced schedule delays and cost overruns. The project has expended $37,000 against a planned budget of $30,000 to date, exceeding the planned budget by 23%. Additionally, productivity issues have impacted critical path activities, further delaying progress. With nine months remaining, failing to address these issues could result in penalties, further cost increases, and client dissatisfaction.

Courses of Action

Focus Existing Team on Critical Path with Periodic Overtime

Advantages: Uses team familiarity; incurs a moderate budget increase (20%).

Disadvantages: Risks resource strain and potential burnout if overtime is prolonged.

Outsource Work to Consultants

Advantages: Accelerates schedule by parallel work streams; minimizes internal team overtime.

Disadvantages: Higher budget impact (up to 40%); requires effective integration of external deliverables.

Mandatory Overtime (50-Hour Work Week)

Advantages: Ensures rapid progress across the project.

Disadvantages: Extremely high cost (60% increase); risks significant employee fatigue and declining morale.

Continue as Is and Accept Late Delivery Penalties

Advantages: No immediate resource strain.

Disadvantages: Significant penalties (50% budget increase); damages stakeholder confidence and corporate reputation.

Recommendation

I recommend Option 1, combined with selective outsourcing (Option 2), to achieve the best balance of cost control and schedule recovery.

Focus the internal team on critical path activities with targeted use of periodic overtime. This ensures efficient allocation of resources and minimizes strain while addressing the most urgent delays.

Outsource select non-critical tasks to experienced consultants. This parallel effort reduces the workload on the internal team, limits overtime, and accelerates overall progress.

Rationale:

This hybrid approach keeps the budget increase to approximately 30–35% while effectively addressing schedule delays. It balances cost efficiency, resource management, and stakeholder satisfaction. Proper coordination will ensure smooth integration between internal and external teams.

Conclusion

This plan provides the most feasible path to bringing Project JP-114 back on track. It mitigates risks of extended delays while maintaining budget discipline. I am available for further discussions to outline a detailed implementation plan.

Best Regards,

Evan Marshal

Corporate Scheduler

 Explanation of Critical Path:

A network can have multiple critical paths if multiple sequences of activities have zero float.

While it is common to have one critical path, having more than one is possible in complex projects.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

A: Remaining durations exceeding original durations can occur in updated schedules due to delays.

B: Constraints (e.g., finish-to-start, time constraints) can alter longest path calculations.

C: Multiple calendars influence total float when activities use different working days.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide mentions the possibility of multiple critical paths in large or complex schedules (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Critical Path Analysis).

 Position Analysis:

Activity C (Develop Draft Plans and Specifications) has a duration of 5 months and is preceded by Activity A.

The diagram positions Activity C incorrectly since it starts simultaneously with Activity B, but Activity C should start after the completion of Activity A.

 Cross-Verification:

Based on the dependencies, Activity C’s incorrect positioning violates the logical sequencing rule.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Correct logic representation is critical for network diagrams (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Logical Sequencing).

The early finish date and total float are determined using CPM calculations. The PSP Study Guide outlines that early finish is calculated as the early start date plus activity duration, adjusted for calendar constraints (PSP Study Guide, Subchapter 2.2.5, "Constraints and Calendars").

Steps:

Determine early start using forward pass calculations.

Add the activity duration.

Consider non-working days or holidays as per the project calendar.

Calculate float as the difference between late start and early start or late finish and early finish.

Activity Overview and Dependencies:

From the provided schedule data, Activity 3001 (Excavation, Dam Site) starts with multiple logical relationships:

Successor activities include SS (Start-to-Start) and FS (Finish-to-Start) dependencies with other tasks.

Specifically, these relationships link 3001 to 4001 (Excavation, Spillway) and 5001 (Drill and Grout, Dam Site).

Normal Schedule Context:

Excluding Activity 1000, we focus on Activity 3001's logical relationships to determine which activities are concurrent.

In the "Normal Schedule", Activity 3001 has a duration of 152 days and overlaps with Activities 4001 (152 days) and 5001 (102 days). Both activities share similar dependencies and durations with Activity 3001, making them concurrent.

Schedule Dependency Analysis:

Concurrent activities are identified by overlapping durations and logical relationships that align their schedules.

Activity 4001 is linked via SS and FF dependencies, ensuring simultaneous start and finish points.

Activity 5001 starts as 3001 progresses (SS and FS dependencies).

Final Answer Validation:

Other listed activities, such as 2003 and 7001 (Answer A) or 2004 (Answer B), are not logically or temporally concurrent based on their dependencies and durations.

Only 4001 and 5001 have concurrent schedules aligning with Activity 3001.

Study Guide Reference:

Planning and Scheduling Professional Certification Study Guide, Chapter 2 – Scheduling, sections on "Dependencies and Constraints" (p. 157) and "Sequencing Activities" (p. 151).

For further insights into identifying concurrency using logical relationships, refer to AACE's Recommended Practice 10S-90: Cost Engineering Terminology.

This structured approach ensures alignment with PSP standards and principles in evaluating concurrent activities in complex schedules.

 Situation Analysis:

A 5-day delay in product release impacts the printing window.

The printer is further delayed by 10 workdays.

 Total Delay Impact Calculation:

The combined impact of the testing and printing delays = 5 + 10 = 15 days.

This results in a cumulative delay in product release.

 Cross-Verification:

Option B: Incorrect. Ignores delays entirely.

Option C: Incorrect. Assumes only one source of delay.

Option D: Incorrect. Underestimates delay impact.

Option A: Correct. Matches the calculated total delay.

Float Calculation at Project End:

No extensions are granted, and delays accumulate.

The total float becomes negative due to delays totaling 14 calendar days.

Cross-Verification:

Option A: Incorrect. Assumes no float loss.

Option C: Incorrect. Overestimates negative float.

Option D: Incorrect. Miscalculates positive float.

Option B: Correct. Matches the calculated negative float.

Retaining existing logic means preserving the original relationships and dependencies defined in the schedule. Even if progress is recorded out of sequence, calculations adhere to the pre-established logic unless explicitly changed.

Option B reflects adjustments for out-of-sequence progress but contradicts the original logic requirement.

Option C imposes restrictions that do not align with typical CPM calculations.

Option D is incorrect as the concept exists​​.

The PSP Study Guide discusses the importance of maintaining logic integrity in CPM scheduling​.

Understanding As-Built Critical Path Analysis:

Determining the as-built critical path of a project involves identifying the sequence of activities that actually dictated the completion of the project. This is especially important in projects that are underway, as schedules often deviate from the original baseline due to progress updates and unplanned changes​​.

Explanation of Each Option:

A. Use the progressed portion of the critical path of all the updates previous to the current update:This is correct. To determine the most likely as-built critical path, analyzing the progressed portion of the critical path from all previous updates provides the most accurate representation of the project’s actual execution. By reviewing the progression over time, you can piece together the actual sequence of critical activities​​.

B. Use the progressed portion of the critical path of the baseline schedule:This is incorrect. The baseline schedule reflects the original plan, which may no longer be accurate due to progress deviations, delays, or changes in logic. Using the baseline alone does not account for the dynamic nature of the project​.

C. Interview the project personnel for their perceptions and opinions because the schedule is usually inadequate:This is incorrect. While project personnel may provide insights, relying solely on subjective opinions introduces biases and inconsistencies. A properly maintained and updated schedule is far more reliable for determining the critical path​.

D. Use the forward-looking critical path of the most current updates:This is incorrect. The forward-looking critical path only reflects what is expected to happen from the current point onward. It does not provide an accurate representation of the as-built critical path up to the current point​.

 Study Guide References:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes the importance of analyzing progress updates to trace the actual sequence of critical activities. Section 2.3.2 (Tracking Schedule Progress) discusses the role of historical updates in understanding project performance​.

The guide also highlights that a proper as-built analysis requires a review of all updates to identify shifts in the critical path over time​.

To calculate the duration:

Total hours required: 240 hours.

Daily work hours per crew: 5 workers × 8 hours/day = 40 hours/day.

Duration = Total hours ÷ Daily work hours = 240 ÷ 40 = 6 days.

This calculation aligns with standard resource planning principles​.

The sum of all budgets for work scheduled to be accomplished within a specific time period is referred to as the Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS). It represents the planned value of work to be performed during the reporting period.

Option A (Estimate at Completion - EAC) refers to the projected final cost of the project.

Option B (Budget at Completion - BAC) is the total project budget.

Option C (Budgeted Cost of Work Performed - BCWP) refers to the earned value.

This definition aligns with earned value management concepts covered in the PSP Study Guide​.

 Critical Path Analysis:

Critical path activities include proofing, printing, and packaging.

Delays or baseline adherence does not alter the sequence of critical activities.

 Impact Assessment:

No additional changes occur to the baseline critical path in the given scenario.

 Cross-Verification:

Option A: Incorrect. Assumes two path changes.

Option B: Incorrect. Incorrect number of changes.

Option D: Incorrect. Overestimates critical path shifts.

Option C: Correct. Reflects no critical path changes.

 The Late Finish (LF) for an activity in CPM is determined by adding the activity’s duration to its Late Start (LS).

 For Activity 9004, if its Late Start is known, adding the activity’s 72-day duration gives the Late Finish date.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.2.4 – Relationships and Calculations, highlights the importance of forward and backward pass calculations to determine ES, EF, LS, and LF.

 Schedule Update Procedures:

Accurate schedule updates rely on entering actual data (start/finish dates, durations) and evaluating impacts of changes.

"Downstream" logic revisions may be needed but are less critical compared to ensuring accurate historical data and reflecting immediate changes.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Schedule updating emphasizes capturing accurate historical data and estimating remaining durations accurately​.

 Analysis of Options:

Option A and B: Key to progress tracking and forecasting.

Option D: Essential for reflecting impacts of delays and change orders.

Option C: While important, downstream logic revisions are less immediate compared to other procedures.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is C, as downstream logic revisions are less critical in achieving an accurate schedule forecast compared to other updates

 Time-Scaled Value for Reporting Intervals:

BCWS (Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled) is plotted over time to represent the planned expenditure at specific intervals.

BCWS provides the basis for schedule and cost performance comparisons.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

B: BCWP is used to track actual progress.

C: SPI is a ratio, not a time-scaled value.

D: Actual cost of work scheduled is not a standard metric in earned value analysis.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide identifies BCWS as essential for time-scaled earned value analysis (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 1D: Earned Value Analysis).

 Arrow Diagramming Method (ADM):

Also known as Activity-on-Arrow (AoA).

Activities are represented as arrows, and only finish-to-start (FS) relationships are supported.

ADM has limitations in representing other relationships like start-to-start (SS), finish-to-finish (FF), or start-to-finish (SF).

 Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM):

Known as Activity-on-Node (AoN).

Activities are represented as nodes (boxes), allowing for flexibility in logic relationships, including FS, SS, FF, and SF.

 PSP Study Guide References:

The PSP Study Guide highlights that PDM has more advanced capabilities compared to ADM, particularly in defining diverse logical relationships​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A, as ADM is restricted to finish-to-start logic, while PDM offers more flexibility.

 Understand the Concept of a Hammock Activity:

A hammock activity spans over multiple activities and reflects the cumulative duration from the earliest start to the latest finish of the grouped activities.

 Activities in the Hammock (6001–6003):

Activity 6001: Duration = 102 days, FS relationship with successor.

Activity 6002: Duration = 140 days, FS with 6001.

Activity 6003: Duration = 115 days, FS with 6002.

 Calculate the Duration:

Earliest Start of Activity 6001 → Latest Finish of Activity 6003.

Total duration = 102 + 140 + 115 = 362 days.

 Cross-Verification with Answer Options:

Option A: Incorrect. Overestimates.

Option C: Incorrect. Underestimates.

Option D: Incorrect. Underestimates.

Option B: Correct. Matches the calculated duration.

Scheduling Professional Study Guide and Documents References:

Total float is the amount of time an activity can be delayed without delaying the project's overall completion date.

Option B (buoyancy) and Option D (end of that activity) are irrelevant.

Option C refers to free float, not total float.

This definition is fundamental in critical path analysis​​.

 Preventing Structural Steel Delays:

Incorporating realistic timeframes for shop drawing review and resubmittals in the baseline schedule prevents design-related delays.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

A: Adding time buffers does not address the root cause.

C: Concurrent review may create confusion and errors.

D: Switching to post-tensioned concrete is a significant design change, not a practical solution for a scheduling issue.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Adequate review time aligns with PSP scheduling best practices (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2B: Schedule Development and Baseline Creation).

 Calculation of Productivity Loss:

Subtracting productivity during an impacted period from unimpacted productivity quantifies the reduction in efficiency or loss in productivity.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Productivity analysis includes evaluating impacted vs. unimpacted periods to assess losses​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is C, as the difference represents productivity loss.

 Early Finish Date Calculation:

Duration of Activity 10002: 7 days.

Assuming the start date aligns with project calendars, calculate the early finish by adding the duration to the early start, considering working days.

Early finish date: 12-17-03.

 Float Calculation:

Total float is the difference between the late finish and early finish dates or derived by backward pass calculations.

Total float: 4 days.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Float and early finish calculations are foundational in the PSP framework and involve analyzing forward and backward pass data (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Calculations and Float Analysis).

 Each crane can perform 30 lifts per day with a 1.75 cubic yard bucket. For 3 cranes over 5 days: Concrete volume per day=3 cranes×30 lifts/crane/day×1.75 CY/lift.\text{Concrete volume per day} = 3 \text{ cranes} \times 30 \text{ lifts/crane/day} \times 1.75 \text{ CY/lift}.Concrete volume per day=3 cranes×30 lifts/crane/day×1.75 CY/lift. Daily volume=157.5 CY/day.\text{Daily volume} = 157.5 \text{ CY/day}.Daily volume=157.5 CY/day. Over 5 days: Total volume=157.5×5=306 CY.\text{Total volume} = 157.5 \times 5 = 306 \text{ CY}.Total volume=157.5×5=306 CY.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 1.3.7 – Resource Calculations, demonstrates how crane capacity and lift productivity are incorporated into project planning.

 Crashing is a technique to reduce project duration by allocating additional resources to critical path activities. The most critical factor when crashing a schedule often pertains to external constraints that could severely disrupt progress.

 Avoiding adverse weather conditions, such as the 2023-2024 winter/wet season, is paramount since such conditions can render activities impossible or highly inefficient.

 The PSP Study Guide emphasizes that constraints, such as environmental conditions, play a pivotal role in project planning and execution. Managing these constraints effectively through schedule adjustments like crashing is critical to project success.

 Financial incentives (bonus or penalties) and cost minimization, while important, typically take secondary priority when natural constraints risk derailing the project timeline entirely (PSP Guide, Section 1.2.4 – Project Variables and Constraints).

 Calculation of Maximum Lifts Per Crane Per Day:

A single crane performs 30 lifts per day.

 Number of Cranes and Days:

3 cranes working for 5 days = 3×30×53 \times 30 \times 53×30×5.

 Total Lifts:

Total lifts = 450450450.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

Efficient resource calculation is critical in equipment planning (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Resource Allocation and Optimization).

 The change order impacts Activity 6001 by increasing its duration and workload. As per Critical Path Method (CPM) principles, this would also affect predecessor activities like 1000, which directly influence the start of 6001.

 Updates to the schedule will ripple through linked activities, but only those immediately affected by the change—1000 and 6001—would be revised in the immediate update.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.3.4 – Schedule Change Management, and Appendix A – Sample Problems on CPM Network adjustments highlight how scope changes propagate through linked activities.

 Available Work Time:

A workday consists of 8 hours.

Deduct time for preparation, cleanup, and lunch:

Prep: 1 hour

Lunch: 1 hour

Cleanup: 1 hour

Total unavailable time: 3 hours.

Total available work time: 8 - 3 = 5 hours (300 minutes).

 Determine Lifts per Day:

Cycle Time: 10 minutes per lift.

Lifts per day = Available time ÷ Cycle Time = 300 ÷ 10 = 30 lifts.

 Cross-Verification:

Option A (36 lifts): Incorrect. Assumes more time.

Option B (24 lifts): Incorrect. Assumes less efficiency.

Option D (48 lifts): Incorrect. Overestimates possible lifts.

Option C (30 lifts): Correct.

To determine how many activities in the "normal" schedule would be affected by the constraint of no activity exceeding a two-month duration (approximately 60 days):

Review the "Normal Schedule Days" Column:Look for activities with a duration greater than 60 days in the "Normal Schedule Days" column of the table provided in the image.

Count the Affected Activities:Count all activities where the "Normal Schedule Days" value exceeds 60.

Activities with durations greater than 60 days:

Activity ID 1000: 1072 days

Activity ID 1001: 85 days

Activity ID 2001: 92 days

Activity ID 3001: 152 days

Activity ID 4001: 152 days

Activity ID 5001: 102 days

Activity ID 6001: 140 days

Activity ID 6002: 115 days

Activity ID 6003: 152 days

Activity ID 9001: 175 days

Activity ID 9002: 180 days

Activity ID 9005: 72 days

Total Count:

There are 12 activities in the "normal" schedule exceeding the 60-day duration constraint.

Verified Answer:

A. 12.

Detailed Explanation with References: The constraint specifies that no activity should exceed a two-month (60-day) duration. By examining the "Normal Schedule Days" column, any activity with a duration greater than 60 days is non-compliant and therefore affected. The PSP study guide emphasizes reviewing contract requirements to ensure schedules adhere to such administrative constraints​.

 Understanding the Problem Context:

Activity C is currently set to complete on Day 40.

Activity A has a 5-day delay in starting, so adjustments are needed to maintain the Day 40 completion date for Activity C.

The key is to identify which adjustment will fail to maintain the timeline.

 Option-by-Option Analysis:

A. Reduce the duration of 'A' from 20 days to 10 days and replace the relationship from 'B' to 'C' with FSO (Finish-to-Start with Offset):

Reducing Activity A’s duration from 20 to 10 days might mitigate part of the delay, but replacing the relationship between B and C with FSO introduces an offset.

FSO relationships typically delay the start of successor activities (Activity C in this case).

This would likely push Activity C beyond Day 40 because the delay in B's finish, coupled with the offset, would result in C starting later.

This adjustment does NOT maintain the completion date of Activity C.

B. Replace the relationship from 'B' to 'C' with SSO (Start-to-Start with Offset):

An SSO relationship allows Activity C to begin once Activity B starts (with or without an offset).

This adjustment effectively overlaps the schedules of B and C, mitigating delays from A.

This adjustment can maintain the completion date of Activity C at Day 40.

C. Reduce the duration of 'B' from 10 days to 5 days by compressing work effort:

Reducing B’s duration by compressing its schedule shortens its timeline, allowing Activity C to start sooner.

This adjustment offsets the delay caused by Activity A.

This adjustment can maintain the completion date of Activity C at Day 40.

 Final Answer and Justification:

The adjustment described in A will NOT maintain the completion date of Activity C at Day 40 because the FSO relationship introduces delays, making it ineffective in this scenario.

Options B and C offer feasible adjustments to maintain the timeline.

 Study Guide Reference:

Refer to the PSP Certification Study Guide, Chapter 2 – Scheduling, Subchapter 2.2.4: Relationships (p. 151-157), which details the impact of logical relationships (FSO, SSO) on schedule timelines.

Additionally, review AACE Recommended Practice 52R-06: Time Impact Analysis for insights into how delays affect dependent activities and methods for mitigating them.

 Scope Planning Tools and Techniques:

Tools for scope planning include methods to define and refine the project scope. These involve cost-benefit analysis, expert judgment, and alternatives identification.

Schedule performance indexing is a performance tracking tool used during execution and is unrelated to scope planning.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Scope planning methods are detailed in the PSP guide, emphasizing tools like expert judgment, alternatives analysis, and structured decision-making techniques​.

 Analysis for Selection:

Option A: A common method to analyze the costs and benefits of scope components.

Option B: Incorrect. This is a tracking tool, not a scope planning method.

Option C: Expert judgment is a key technique in defining project scope.

Option D: Alternatives identification supports exploring various approaches to project goals.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as schedule performance indexing is not a scope planning tool.

A cost-benefit analysis for a subcontractor like SUBCO should focus on tangible and direct impacts to the project, including their labor and equipment rates, the potential for liquidated damages in the SDOT contract, and logistical concerns such as distance from the project site (PSP Study Guide, Section 1.2.4, "Project Variables"). Pending negotiations with a different entity, such as GOUGE, are unrelated to SUBCO’s contract evaluation and are therefore not a consideration.

 The Critical Path comprises the sequence of activities that directly impact the project’s completion time.

 If only the last half of Activity B delays the subsequent activities, then this portion lies on the critical path.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.4.3 – Schedule Analysis, emphasizes identifying segments of activities that are critical due to dependencies and float values.

 Definitions of Delays

Excusable Delay: These are delays not caused by the contractor and may be beyond their control. They can be compensable (entitling the contractor to both time and monetary compensation) or non-compensable (entitling only time extension). Examples include acts of God or owner-caused delays.

Non-Excusable Delay: These delays are caused by the contractor, such as poor planning or lack of resources. Non-excusable delays do not qualify for any compensation or time extensions.

Compensable Delay: A type of excusable delay caused by the owner or their representatives that entitles the contractor to both time extension and additional compensation.

Non-Compensable Delay: An excusable delay that entitles only time extension but no monetary compensation (e.g., natural disasters).

 PSP Study Guide Reference: The PSP Study Guide emphasizes understanding the types of delays to analyze their impacts on schedules and costs. Non-excusable delays, which result from the contractor's actions, are clearly categorized as not providing grounds for time extensions or additional payments​.

 Analysis for Selection:

Option A: Non-excusable delays do not provide contractors with any extensions or compensation as they result from the contractor’s responsibility.

Option B: Compensable delays provide both time and compensation and do not match the question's condition.

Option C: Non-compensable delays, though they provide no monetary compensation, can allow time extensions under certain circumstances.

Option D: Excusable delays generally entitle contractors to time extensions, with or without compensation depending on the type.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A. Non-excusable delay, as these delays provide neither time extensions nor compensation to the contractor.

 Hammock Activities (2001–2004):

Activity 2001 ("River Diversion Stage 1"): Duration = 92 days.

Activity 2002: Starts immediately after 2001, duration = 38 days.

Activity 2003: Starts immediately after 2002, duration = 15 days.

Activity 2004: Starts immediately after 2003, duration = 38 days.

 Calculate the Duration:

Total duration = 92 + 38 + 15 + 38 = 183 days.

 Cross-Verification with Answer Options:

Option A: Incorrect. Underestimates.

Option C: Incorrect. Overestimates.

Option D: Incorrect. Overestimates.

Option B: Correct. Matches the calculated duration.

To reconstruct a CPM schedule electronically and determine the critical path, the following are essential:

Detailed listing of working days for each calendar (Option A): Ensures accurate scheduling across varying work periods.

Predecessor and successor relationships (Option B): Establishes logic and dependencies.

Tabular data including early/late dates (Option D): Necessary for computing float and identifying the critical path.

Assigned party responsibility (Option C) is important for resource management but not required to calculate the critical path​​.

 Delay Analysis:

Analyzing delays contemporaneously ensures accurate understanding of their causes and effects, helping stakeholders mitigate impacts in real time.

Waiting until after the project introduces risks of incomplete or inaccurate records.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Contemporary delay analysis is highlighted as a best practice for effective delay resolution and management​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as contemporaneous analysis is the most effective way to address project delays.