Online Instructor s Manual to accompany CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Ninth Edition Edward R. Fisk, P.E., L.S. Wayne D. Reynolds, P.E. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Columbus, Ohio
Copyright 2010 by Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department. Pearson Prentice Hall is a trademark of Pearson Education, Inc. Pearson is a registered trademark of Pearson plc Prentice Hall is a registered trademark of Pearson Education, Inc. Instructors of classes using Fisk and Reynolds, Construction Project Administration, 9e, may reproduce material from the instructor s manual for classroom use. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN-13: 978-0-13-500008-3 ISBN-10: 0-13-500008-4
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PART I ANSWERS TO TEXTBOOK QUESTIONS PART II SAMPLE EXAMINATIONS Mid Term Examination Final Examination 1
INTRODUCTION This study guide has been prepared as a supplement to each instructor's own lesson plan and evaluation questions. The questions shown at the end of each chapter of the text are formatted along more traditional lines; however, when taught as a full-semester fourth year course at California State University, Long Beach, the author chose to use a multiple choice format (for ease in machine grading) and, unlike the questions in the textbook, the questions were primarily philosophical rather than technical or activity related. For the benefit of others wishing to explore this method of evaluation, a copy of a mid-term and a final examination is included in this study guide. Self-evaluation quizzes, similar to the midterm examination, were used by the author in regular short course presentations for the University of California and the University of Washington, and for the American Society of Civil Engineers Continuing Education Department throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Guam since the book was first published in 1978. These self-evaluation quizzes proved to be quite popular, and were adopted by the training departments of several major corporations. Orange, California 2005 2
PART I ANSWERS TO TEXTBOOK QUESTIONS 3
CHAPTER 1 ANSWERS 1. Project time, cost, and quality 2. Professional Construction Manager (under direct contract with the Owner as the Owner s representative) 3. Either the planning or the conceptual phase 4. Any of the listed alternatives 5. True (This usually means between the Resident Project Representative and the Contractor s Superintendent or Project Manager at the site) 6. Working relationships among the parties through a mutually-developed, formal strategy of commitment and communication. 7. (1). Creation of partnering charter; (2). Develop issue-resolution process; (3). Develop joint evaluation process; (4). Discuss individual roles and concerns; and (5). present a facilitated workshop 8. It should be addressed in the specifications 9. True; (CQC is an acronym for Contractor Quality Control) 10. (1) Advertising; (2) Bid Opening; (3) Award of Contract; (4) Sign Agreement; (5) Notice to Proceed. 11. The Owner and the Contractor each designate a single person who is the sole authorized spokesperson to make commitments or issue orders to the Contractor. Ideally, this should be the Resident Project Representative for the Owner and the Project Superintendent or Project Manager for the Contractor. ALL orders to the Contractor MUST be issued through this one person. 12. On public contracts, designer and the contractor selection methods conflict. On public contracts the designer is selected on the basis of a negotiated contract offered to the most qualified party; in contrast, on public contracts the contractor must be selected on the basis of sealed bids, with award made to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder based upon price only. 4
CHAPTER 2 ANSWERS 1. The level of authority implied by the position held by the person issuing a directions or orders; e.g., Project Manager, Chief Engineer, Architect, Resident Project Representative, City Engineer, Director of Public Works, etc. 2. The authority given the Resident Project Representative by the Project Manager, or the authority allowed a construction manager by the Owner 3. Two dangers; (1) exposure to tort liability, and (2) acceptance of responsibility by the Owner for the success or failure of the affected construction. 4. Promptly after delivery to the project site or other location under the Owner s control 5. No. (Recommend use of federal guidelines. Under the Code of Federal Regulations, a Contracting Officer is permitted to delegate almost all contract administration functions to the field with but two exceptions. By law he or she may not delegate authority to act on matters affecting either contract time or cost. (48 CFR 43.102). On non-federal work, the Contracting Officer position can be equated to that of the Project manager. 6. No. All orders and instructions MUST be issued through the General or Prime Contractor's representative. 7. The Owner. While the Engineer may be given the authority to stop the work at the specific direction of the owner on a case-by-case basis, that right should not be given to the Engineer to stop the work on his or her own authority. This is to avoid the dangers of exposure to tort liability by the Engineer. (c.f. EJCDC 1910-8 (1996) General Conditions of the Construction Contract, Article 13.05 entitled OWNER May Stop the Work ) 8. None of the practices listed are acceptable. 9. False. To do so is tantamount to directing the means and methods of performing the work. 10. False: (The inspector should notify the general contractor and instruct him or her to notify the subcontractor that correction must be made.) 11. Contractual; delegated; and legal 12. Reject the method as being incapable of meeting the project specifications and require the contractor to submit a proposed alternative method that will meet the specifications. If the contractor challenges the decision to reject, a demonstration of the rejected method may be considered for evaluation. 5