Free AACE International PSP Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

To constrain a project's end date, a Finish-No-Later constraint is applied to the last activity. This ensures any slippage results in negative float, signaling delays relative to the fixed deadline.

Option A and B apply to earlier constraints, which are not relevant for controlling the project's end date.

Option D applies a constraint to the first activity, not the project finish.

This concept aligns with controlling project deadlines as described in the PSP Study Guide​.

Negative total float occurs when an activity’s scheduled completion date extends beyond the project deadline due to constraints. This condition indicates that the activity is still pending and needs immediate attention to avoid further delays.

Option A (milestone) is unrelated.

Option B (critical path) is not necessarily true, as activities with negative float can exist off the critical path under certain constraints.

Option C (completed in the past) is incorrect as negative float applies only to future or ongoing activities​​.

Compensability and Excusability:

Excusable delays are those beyond the contractor’s control, while compensable delays are excusable delays for which the owner bears responsibility.

If a delay is compensable, it inherently qualifies as excusable.

PSP Study Guide References:

The relationship between excusability and compensability is clarified in delay analysis discussions​.

Conclusion: The correct answer is D, as compensability implies excusability.

 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).

 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.

 Late Finish (LF) is calculated by adjusting the Late Start (LS) of the subsequent activity (2003) by the lag value.

 The formula, LS of 2003 - 1 day, aligns with CPM principles where the predecessor's LF must occur before the successor starts.

 The date calculation, considering lags and dependencies, results in 06 Oct 2021.

 References: PSP Study Guide, Section 2.2.4 – Relationships and Calculations, Appendix A – Sample Calculations for LF and LS relationships.