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

A logic loop occurs when a circular dependency is introduced, creating a scenario where activities cannot progress in a linear or logical manner.

Adding a relationship between F and I would create such a loop if existing dependencies between these or related activities already establish mutual dependencies.

References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.3.4 – Schedule Change Management, warns against introducing logic loops as they disrupt scheduling consistency.

=========================

 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.

 Input Data for Construction Planning:

Construction planning relies on data from the owner, contractor, and contract terms to establish project parameters.

Bonding capacity is not typically part of the planning inputs but rather a procurement and contractual concern.

 PSP Study Guide References:

Key inputs include project requirements, constraints, and stakeholder inputs as outlined in the PSP guide​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is C, as bonding capacity is not a direct input to the construction planning process.

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​.

 Resource Leveling:

Resource leveling adjusts start and finish dates of activities to resolve resource conflicts or constraints, balancing availability and demand.

In construction projects, breaks in continuity of work for subcontractors can result in increased costs due to remobilization and demobilization.

 PSP Study Guide References:

The PSP guide explains that resource leveling must be carefully analyzed to avoid disruptions in work continuity​.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A, as the scheduler must account for potential cost implications of resource leveling on subcontractors.

 Interpret the Narrow Band at "Y":

The narrow band at "Y" is located on a part of the schedule where activities have been delayed or slowed down.

Such delays typically indicate resource limitations (e.g., insufficient manpower or equipment).

 Reasoning:

No evidence of rework or activity inactivity is explicitly shown in the diagram.

Resource limitations are common in network diagrams to explain such periods.

 Cross-Verification:

Option B: Incorrect. No evidence of rework exists.

Option C: Incorrect. Activity inactivity does not fit the context.

Option D: Incorrect. Sufficient information is provided.

Option A: Correct. Resource limitation fits the observed diagram behavior.

 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.

 Activity Duration Estimation Techniques:

Accurate estimation methods include detailed breakdowns, using experienced personnel, and analyzing specific factors for individual activities.

Relying on gross estimates or averages (as in A) introduces significant inaccuracies.

 PSP Study Guide References:

The PSP Study Guide emphasizes the importance of detailed and specific input to improve estimation accuracy​.

 Analysis for Selection:

Option A: Incorrect method, as averages do not provide accurate results for individual activities.

Option B: Misguided suggestion; focusing independently on activities without logic paths introduces potential errors.

Option C: Correct. Dividing activities enhances detail and estimation precision.

Option D: Correct. Involving the executors ensures realistic and experienced-based durations.

 Conclusion: The correct answer is A, as using gross estimates is not an effective method for improving accuracy.

Concurrency Analysis:

Activity 3001 (Excavation, Dam Site) has concurrent activities during its execution period.

Based on the schedule, 4001 (Excavation, Spillway), 5001 (Drill and Grout Dam Site), and 6001 (Rock Fill to Elevation 25) overlap with Activity 3001.

Excluded Options:

B, C, and D: Do not fully represent concurrent activities based on schedule analysis.

Verification with PSP Guidelines:Logical sequencing confirms the concurrency of these activities (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Activity Sequencing).

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.

References:

PSP Study Guide (2019), Chapter on Schedule Development, Section 2.2.4 – Relationships: Discusses how Start-to-Start (SS) and other dependencies impact concurrency.

AACE Recommended Practice 10S-90: "Cost Engineering Terminology" for definitions of concurrent activities.

Understand Activity B's Status:

Activity B has an original duration of 5 days.

As of the data date/status date, the diagram shows progress beyond 5 days.

Review Actual Duration:

The progress bar indicates that 7 days have already been worked on Activity B.

Actual duration as of the status date = 7 days.

Cross-Verification:

Option B: Incorrect. Progress exceeds 3 days.

Option C: Incorrect. Progress is not 0 days.

Option D: Incorrect. Progress is more than 4 days.

Option A: Correct. Matches the observed progress on the diagram.

References:

PSP Study Guide (2019), Section on Network Diagrams and Status Updates.

AACE Recommended Practices, RP 10S-90.

 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).

 Activity-specific costs in CPM schedules typically include direct expenses like materials (C), field-related overhead (D), and specific schedule management tasks (B).

 Home office expenses are classified as indirect costs and are not associated with any specific activity within the project schedule. They are accounted for in broader financial statements rather than in the activity-based budget.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 1.3.10 – Cost Estimate Development, explains how costs are categorized and assigned in schedules.

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.

 Purpose of Multiple Calendars:

Multiple calendars account for varied work/non-work periods among resources, regions, or activities, accurately representing project execution.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

B, C, D: These may be secondary benefits but are not the primary reason.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:The PSP Study Guide emphasizes the importance of calendars for realistic scheduling (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Calendars and Constraints).

 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.

 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).

 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.

 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.