PSP AACE International Planning & Scheduling Professional (PSP) Exam Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

 Understanding the Timeline:

The total time from testing (Activity A) to the release of the product (Activity H) involves sequential tasks.

Calculate the durations of the critical path:

Activity A: 30 days

Activity B: 0 days

Activity D: 60 days

Activity F: 20 days

Activity G: 10 days

 Summing Durations:

Total duration = 30 + 0 + 60 + 20 + 10 = 100 days.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes critical path analysis for determining the project timeline (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Critical Path Method).

 Impact of Overrun:

Drafting (Activity C) and manufacturing (Activity D) are critical path activities.

A 5-day overrun in drafting consumes all available time for manufacturing.

Therefore, manufacturing cannot be delayed without affecting the release of the product.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide specifies that critical path activities have zero float, so delays propagate directly to the project finish (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Critical Path and Float).

When planning a contractor's baseline critical path schedule for constructing a high-clearance bridge near an airport, a planner/scheduler must consider documents directly relevant to the project's execution and constraints. Here's the detailed reasoning:

Project Plans and Specifications (Option A):These documents contain the detailed design, materials, and methods necessary for construction. They are indispensable for planning the baseline critical path schedule.

Project Geotechnical Report (Option B):The geotechnical report provides critical information about soil conditions, foundational requirements, and potential challenges, which significantly influence construction sequencing and methods.

Regulations Published by the Government Aviation Agency (Option C):As the project is near an airport, these regulations will likely impose height restrictions, flight path considerations, and safety requirements. Compliance with these regulations is crucial to avoid project delays or legal issues.

Government's Report on Future High-Clearance Bridge Projects (Option D):This document provides information on future projects and does not pertain to the current construction project. It does not provide actionable data or constraints affecting the planning or execution of the baseline critical path schedule for the awarded project.

Conclusion: Option D is the least valuable document in this scenario as it does not contribute directly to the planning or scheduling of the current project.

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

Driving Activity Concept:

The driving activity in a backward pass is the one that determines the late start or finish of the dependent activity.

Activity 10001 (Valve House - Complete) is directly dependent on its successor, Activity 11001 (Spillway - Concrete).

Backward Pass Logic:

In backward pass calculations, the late start of Activity 11001 establishes the late finish of Activity 10001 due to their finish-to-start (FS) relationship.

This makes Activity 11001 the driving activity.

Verification:

According to the PSP Study Guide, driving activities are identified based on their logical ties and the critical path's constraints (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Activity Relationships and Critical Path Analysis).

Thus, the driving activity for Activity 10001 is A. Activity 11001.

Analyze Activity 2001 in the "Normal" Schedule:

Activity 2001 ("River Diversion Stage 1") has a duration of 92 days under the "Normal" schedule.

The logic column shows it has a Successor ID of 2002, and a Finish-to-Start (FS) relationship with no lag. This indicates that Activity 2002 will begin immediately after Activity 2001 finishes.

Identify Concurrent Activities Using the Schedule Logic:To determine concurrency, we need to look for activities that overlap in time with Activity 2001 during its duration. Concurrent activities must either:

Start before Activity 2001 finishes, or

Finish after Activity 2001 starts.

Review Activities in the Normal Schedule:

Activity 1001 ("Preliminary Civil Work"):

Has a duration of 85 days, starts before Activity 2001, and overlaps with it.

Logic: Its successor is Activity 2001 (Start-to-Start [SS] relationship), confirming the overlap.

Activity 1000 ("General Conditions"):

Duration is 1072 days. However, this is an overarching activity, and its inclusion is not specific to being concurrent with Activity 2001.

Activity 7001 ("Permanent Roads"):

Starts much later, after Activity 2001 ends, and thus is not concurrent.

Activity 2003 ("River Diversion Dam"):

Starts after Activity 2001 completes (FS relationship), so it is not concurrent.

Conclusion:The only activity that overlaps and runs concurrently with Activity 2001 in the "Normal" schedule is Activity 1001.

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​.

 Construction Life Cycle Phases:

Common phases: planning and design, installation (execution), and turnover/start-up.

Claims and disputes may arise during the project but are not a defined phase of the construction life cycle.

 PSP Study Guide References:

The study guide outlines standard phases without including claims and disputes as a formal phase​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A, as claims and disputes are not an inherent phase of the construction life cycle.

 Role of Soils Engineer:

Soils engineers address subsurface conditions, such as soil stability, unexpected geology, and underground obstacles.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

A: Survey errors are typically addressed by surveyors.

C: Archeological findings involve specialists in historical preservation.

D: Toxic soils are typically handled by environmental engineers.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide includes subsurface investigations as a key responsibility for geotechnical professionals (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 1A: Site Conditions).

Activity Details (9001 - "Spillway - Concrete"):

Duration: 175 days in the Normal schedule.

To calculate Late Start (LS), the Late Finish (LF) is required. LS is calculated by subtracting the activity's duration from the LF.

Formula for Late Start (LS):LS = LF.9001 - Dur.9001.

Date Calculation:

Late Finish (LF.9001) = 11-20-02 (given or derived).

Apply the formula:LS.9001 = LF.9001 - Dur.9001= 11-20-02 - 175 days.

Cross-Verification of Dates:

After subtracting 175 days, LS.9001 = 11-20-02.

Cross-Verification with Answer Options:

Option A: Incorrect. EF (Early Finish) is not needed for this calculation.

Option B: Incorrect. Uses LS and Dur incorrectly without connecting to LF.

Option C: Incorrect. Data provided is sufficient.

Option D: Correct. Matches both the formula and the date calculation.

 To eliminate Activity B from the critical path, its dependencies must change so that its delay no longer impacts the path's completion time.

 Replacing the A → B relationship with a Finish-to-Finish with Offset (FFO) and adding an FSO (Finish-to-Start with Offset) relationship from A → C allows Activity C to proceed independently of Activity B.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.2.4 – Relationships and Calculations, explains how relationship types can influence critical path determination.

 Cost for 2000 Series Activities:

Activity 2001: $150,000.

Activity 2002: $25,000.

Activity 2003: $18,000.

Activity 2004: $96,000.

Total: 150,000+25,000+18,000+96,000=289,000150,000 + 25,000 + 18,000 + 96,000 = 289,000150,000+25,000+18,000+96,000=289,000.

 Total Project Cost:

Total cost: $7,308,000 (sum of all activities in "normal" schedule).

 Percentage Contribution:

289,0007,308,000×100≈3.95%\frac{289,000}{7,308,000} \times 100 \approx 3.95\%7,308,000289,000​×100≈3.95%.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes accuracy in percentage-based cost contributions as a critical analysis tool in project cost management (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 1B: Cost Breakdown Structure).