Pass the AACE International Professional Level Certifications PSP Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

 Scenario Overview:A change order has been approved, adding 33 days for weather delays. This requires updating the schedule to reflect the extended contract duration.

 Impact on Scheduling:

The simplest and cleanest way to include the change is to create a new activity that represents the delay (e.g., Activity 1050).

The new activity is linked to Activity 1000 using a start-to-start (SS) relationship. This ensures the delay begins in parallel with the original contract start.

The finish-to-finish (FF) relationship with the final activity ensures that the extended duration impacts the project's overall timeline.

 Cross-Verification with PSP Principles:PSP principles emphasize the importance of maintaining logical integrity and clarity when updating schedules for change orders (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2B: Schedule Maintenance/Controlling). This method ensures traceability of the delay without affecting activity logic unnecessarily.

 As-Planned vs. As-Built (APAB) Analysis:

A simple APAB compares the planned schedule to the actual schedule to identify deviations.

It does not involve inserting delaying events or re-forecasting the schedule, which makes it unsuitable for detailed analysis.

 Limitations of APAB:

Unsuitable for complex projects (A).

Inserting delays is not part of APAB (B).

Accuracy diminishes for long projects (C) or those requiring granular mid-project analyses (D).

 Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as inserting delays into the as-planned schedule is not a feature of simple APAB analysis.

 The Late Finish (LF) of Activity 7001, when compared with dependencies in the precedence diagram, does not align with logical flow, indicating an error in its calculation.

 Validating LF involves backward pass calculations, which must respect lags and durations.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.3.4 – Schedule Change Management, and 2.4.3 – Schedule Analysis, focus on identifying and correcting logic or calculation errors in schedules.

 Scenario Review:

Delay in the parking structure foundation is an off-critical path activity.

No impact on the overall project completion date.

 Delay Analysis:

While the foundation activity is delayed, the float ensures that no downstream activities are impacted.

 Cross-Verification:

Option B: Incorrect. Assumes a 4-day impact.

Option C: Incorrect. Overestimates delays.

Option D: Incorrect. Miscalculates delays.

 Shape of Cumulative BCWS:

The Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS) reflects a cumulative expenditure curve over time, typically shaped like an "S".

 Explanation of the S-Curve:

Initially slow expenditure, acceleration during peak work, and tapering off near completion.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:The PSP Study Guide discusses BCWS as part of earned value management (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 1D: Earned Value Analysis).

Total float is influenced by factors like multiple calendars, start/finish constraints, and preferential logic because these directly affect the calculation of early and late dates.

Option D (front end loading), which involves distributing work to earlier project phases, does not inherently affect float calculations as it primarily pertains to resource or phase management strategies​​.

To: Desmond Rayburn, Director of Information ServicesFrom: Evan Marshal, Corporate SchedulerDate: [Insert Current Date]Subject: Mitigation Plan for Project JP-114 Delays

Current Problem and Potential ImpactsProject 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.

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.

Courses of Action

RecommendationI 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.

ConclusionThis 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 MarshalCorporate Scheduler

 Understanding Float:

Network Float: The shared amount of time that non-critical activities can be delayed without affecting the project completion date.

Float ownership is not exclusive unless explicitly stated in the contract.

 Evaluation of Options:

Option B: Incorrect. Total float does not belong solely to the contractor unless stated.

Option C: Incorrect. Total float is not exclusively owned by the owner unless stated in the contract.

Option D: Incorrect. Free float is tied to specific activities and not shared.

Option A: Correct. In the absence of specific contract terms, network float is generally shared.

 Relationship Analysis:

Activity 4001 starts 15 days after Activity 3001 begins, based on their logical dependency (SS +15).

This indicates partial concurrency, as both activities overlap in execution.

 Evaluation of Other Options:

A: Incorrect, as the statement refers to Activity 5001, not 3001.

C: Incorrect, as Activity 4001 does not start before Activity 3001.

 Verification with PSP Guidelines:PSP guidelines stress precise interpretation of activity relationships (Ref: PSP Study Guide, Chapter 2A: Logical Relationships and Lags).