AACE Planning & Scheduling Professional Practice Test

Free diagnostic: Try the 119-question AACE PSP full-length practice exam before subscribing. Use it as one schedule-control baseline, then return to PM Mastery for timed mocks, topic drills, explanations, and the full PSP question bank.

AACE Planning & Scheduling Professional (PSP) is the route for practitioners who develop, monitor, update, forecast, and analyze integrated project schedules.

AACE PSP exam snapshot

For current eligibility, fees, delivery rules, and policy details, see the official AACE PSP detail page .

• Vendor: AACE International
• Official credential: Planning & Scheduling Professional (PSP)
• Route family: planning, scheduling, schedule control, and schedule analysis
• Best fit: planners and schedulers who own schedule development, monitoring, forecasting, and communication

PSP-style decisions usually reward the answer that protects schedule logic, reveals the real driver of date movement, and turns updates into defensible control or recovery action.

Official PSP exam format notes

How the PSP format changes preparation

What PSP is really testing

• whether you can build and maintain a logical schedule model rather than only operate a scheduling tool
• whether you can evaluate progress, variance, float, critical path, and recovery choices
• whether you can communicate schedule impacts to stakeholders without hiding assumptions or logic problems

Route decision checkpoint

How PSP differs from nearby routes

Related PM Mastery pages

• PMI-SP for the closest PMI scheduling-specialist comparison
• PMP 2026 for broader delivery, stakeholder, and value-context practice
• PMP for current planning and monitoring scenarios
• PMI-PMOCP for governance and reporting practice

How to use live practice efficiently

1. Confirm whether your employer or market expects AACE PSP, PMI-SP, or broader PMP recognition.
2. Practice schedule logic decisions: relationships, constraints, float, critical path, progress updates, and recovery trade-offs.
3. Write the cause-and-effect story behind every date movement instead of only calculating the new finish date.
4. Use the live PM Mastery route above if PSP is your target.

PSP decision filters

• Logic before dates: verify activities, dependencies, calendars, constraints, float, and critical path before accepting a finish-date answer.
• Update quality: decide whether progress data, status date, actuals, remaining duration, and out-of-sequence work support the conclusion.
• Control action: separate reforecasting, recovery, acceleration, resequencing, resource adjustment, and stakeholder communication.
• Memo discipline: explain the driver of movement, affected path, confidence level, assumptions, and recommended action in plain language.

When PSP practice is enough

If several unseen mixed attempts are above roughly 75% and you can explain the schedule logic, update evidence, recovery trade-off, and communication point behind each answer, you are likely ready. More practice should improve schedule-control judgment, not repeated-network recognition.

Free preview vs premium

• Free preview: 24 public sample questions on this page so you can check the question style and explanations.
• Premium: the full 1,496-question AACE PSP bank, topic drills, mixed sets, timed mock exams, detailed explanations, and progress tracking across web and mobile.

What to open next

• Need the AACE family map? Open AACE .
• Need technician-level scheduling first? Open CST .
• Need PMI scheduling comparison? Open PMI-SP .

Need concept review first?

If you want concept-first reading before heavier simulator work, use the companion AACE PSP Study Guide on PMExams.com. Then return here for timed mocks, topic drills, explanations, and the full PM Mastery practice route.

Focused sample questions

Use these child pages when you want focused PM Mastery practice before returning to mixed sets and timed mocks.

• Free AACE PSP Full-Length Practice Exam
• AACE PSP: Conduct Planning Duties
• AACE PSP: Conduct Scheduling Duties
• AACE PSP: Communication Competency

Sample Exam Questions

Try these 24 public sample questions for AACE PSP. They are original PM Mastery practice items aligned to planning, scheduling, critical path, progress updates, forecasting, and schedule communication decisions. They are not AACE exam questions and are not copied from any exam sponsor.

Question 1

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Data date: June 14, 2026. All activities use the same 5-day calendar. The owner will fund overtime on only one path this month. The approved control schedule is measured against the contractual milestone Ready for Startup.

Exhibit: TF = total float

Which work should the scheduler recommend prioritizing first to best protect the approved contractual startup date?

• A. Software patch, SAT, and operator training
• B. Fireproofing, insulation, and paint touch-up
• C. MCC install, cable pull, and loop checks
• D. Drain change and retest

Best answer: C

Explanation: The best priority is the path with verified zero total float that directly drives the contractual milestone in the approved control schedule. That makes the MCC install-cable pull-loop checks chain the strongest recovery focus when only one overtime package is available.

The key concept is to prioritize the current driving or critical path in the approved schedule control reference, not simply the path that looks busy or urgent. Here, the MCC install, cable pull, and loop checks chain has 0d total float, directly links to Ready for Startup, has verified status, and already has approved overtime available.

• A path with positive float is not the first recovery priority because it can slip without immediately moving the milestone.
• A near-critical path may deserve monitoring, but it is still secondary to a verified zero-float path.
• A pending change modeled only in a what-if fragnet is not the approved basis for first-priority recovery action.

The closest distractor is the software path, but its remaining uncertainty and 1d float still make it less urgent than the verified zero-float path.

This is the verified zero-float path in the approved control schedule, so it is the current driving path to the contractual milestone.

Question 2

Topic: Domain 3: Communication Competency

At the July 31 update for a power-substation project, the sponsor wants a steering-committee summary the same day.

Data date: July 31
Baseline energization: October 15
Current forecast: October 27
Current driving activities: Cable Pulling, Functional Testing
Status gap: Cable Pulling remaining duration not field-validated
Pending change: Add relay panel (+4 workdays to testing), not approved
Recovery constraint: Test crew fully committed through October 20

Which recommendation best supports a defensible management decision?

• A. Treat the slippage as a schedule risk and request a risk response workshop before any further recommendation.
• B. Recommend immediate acceleration because the energization forecast is now later than baseline.
• C. Recommend rebaselining energization to October 27 because that is the current realistic finish.
• D. Report the slip and request validation of driving-path durations, recovery resource availability, and the separate effect of the unapproved change before recommending action.

Best answer: D

Explanation: The strongest communication states the schedule variance and the evidence gap before proposing acceleration, rebaseline, or change-related action. Here, the driving-path forecast, recovery-resource feasibility, and effect of the unapproved change are not yet reliable enough for a defensible recommendation.

In PSP practice, management recommendations should be traceable to schedule evidence, approval status, and current control references. A late forecast by itself does not justify acceleration, rebaselining, or approving a change. Before advising action, the scheduler should confirm that the affected work is still on the current driving path, validate remaining durations with field evidence, verify that recovery resources can actually be assigned, and separate the impact of any pending but unapproved change from existing slippage.

Because the delay is already affecting the forecast, it is an active schedule issue, not just an uncertain future risk. The best executive summary therefore reports the baseline-versus-forecast impact as of the data date and clearly states what evidence is still needed before management chooses a control action. That is stronger than recommending a remedy first and looking for support later.

It states the variance and identifies the missing evidence needed to support any credible control recommendation.

Question 3

Topic: Domain 1: Conduct Planning Duties

An EPC contractor is seeking baseline approval for a process-unit expansion. The contract requires Owner Beneficial Occupancy by September 30, 2027, and that milestone will be used for variance reporting and any future delay analysis. The draft milestone list defines it only as “area substantially complete and owner can use it”; it does not state required testing, punch-list tolerance, turnover documents, temporary utility allowances, or who confirms achievement. What should the planner prioritize before recommending baseline approval?

• A. Document measurable acceptance criteria, evidence, sign-off, and interface assumptions before approval.
• B. Approve the baseline and clarify the milestone in the first status report.
• C. Add a mandatory date constraint for September 30, 2027, and keep the wording unchanged.
• D. Replace the milestone with detailed field activities and stop reporting it separately.

Best answer: A

Explanation: The main problem is not the required date; it is the ambiguous milestone definition. Before baseline approval, a contractual control milestone should have objective criteria, acceptance evidence, and a responsible approver so reporting and delay analysis refer to the same event.

A milestone can support baseline control only if stakeholders can determine, from objective evidence, whether it has been achieved. In this scenario, Owner Beneficial Occupancy affects contractual compliance, variance reporting, and potential delay analysis, but the draft wording leaves key conditions open to interpretation. The planner should resolve that ambiguity before approval by documenting the milestone definition in the milestone register or basis of schedule with clear acceptance criteria, required tests and documents, allowable exceptions, responsible acceptance, and the interface assumptions tied to successor work.

• State what must be complete.
• State what evidence proves completion.
• State who accepts it and when.
• Tie the definition to the contractual requirement.

Adding schedule pressure or more detail without defining the event does not create a reliable control reference.

A baseline control milestone needs objective, verifiable completion criteria and ownership so later status, variance, and delay discussions are based on evidence rather than interpretation.

Question 4

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Data date is August 15, 2026. All float values are in workdays, and this project defines near-critical as 0 to 2 days total float.

Exhibit: Schedule update excerpt

The project manager wants overtime on Cable tray install because its successor moved. Which diagnostic or correction best addresses the real schedule-control issue?

• A. Classify cable tray as critical because zero free float moved its successor.
• B. Prioritize HVAC only because near-critical paths outrank negative-float paths.
• C. Classify cable tray as non-driving; recover the commissioning driving path and watch the HVAC near-critical path.
• D. Rebaseline now because negative float means all delayed work is driving.

Best answer: C

Explanation: The cable tray delay consumed free float because its successor moved, but it did not affect project finish and still has 7 days total float. The real control issue is the commissioning driving path with -2 days total float against the required milestone, while the 1-day HVAC path is near-critical and needs monitoring.

Free float shows how much an activity can slip before delaying its immediate successor, while total float shows how much it can slip before delaying project completion or a constrained milestone. Here, Cable tray install has zero free float, so its successor shifts, but it still has 7 days total float and the project finish is unchanged; that makes it a non-driving delay, not the primary recovery target.

The commissioning path is the current driving path because it has -2 days total float against the required Sept 30 milestone, meaning the forecast misses that date. The HVAC startup path at 1 day total float is near-critical: it is not yet driving, but a small slip could make it so. The key control decision is to recover the negative-float driving path first while closely monitoring the near-critical path, rather than reacting to any activity whose successor happened to move.

Cable tray has zero free float but still 7 days total float, so the real schedule threat is the driving commissioning path with -2 days total float.

Question 5

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Data date is May 31, 2026. On an EPC project, an approved change order adds a 10-workday tie-in window on the driving path and $250,000 of budget. The scheduler has inserted the new activities and logic into the integrated schedule, but the activities are not yet assigned to control accounts, resource-loaded, or linked to earned-progress rules. The monthly performance report closes tomorrow. What is the next appropriate step?

• A. Integrate the new activities with control accounts, resource loading, the time-phased budget, and earned-progress rules before reporting.
• B. Publish the schedule forecast now and update cost and reporting links after work starts.
• C. Describe the change in narrative only until the tie-in window begins.
• D. Rebaseline the entire project to the new forecast before the monthly report.

Best answer: A

Explanation: Because the change is approved and already modeled in the schedule, the next step is to align it with the project’s cost, resource, and earned-progress control structure before the report is issued. Otherwise the schedule forecast, budget data, and control-account reporting would be out of sync.

Once an approved change is added to the schedule model, it should not remain isolated there. The next control step is to integrate that change into the same structure used for resource planning, control accounts, and earned-progress reporting so that the monthly update remains traceable and internally consistent. In this scenario, the logic is already updated, but the new work still lacks the cost and performance links needed for formal reporting.

• Assign the added activities to the proper control account or work package.
• Load the required resources and align the approved time-phased budget.
• Confirm how progress will be measured for the added work.
• Then issue the updated schedule and performance report.

Publishing the forecast first would create a mismatch between the schedule update and the project’s cost and earned-progress data.

An approved change must be tied into the control-account, resource, and earned-progress structure before formal performance reporting.

Question 6

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Data date is August 8, 2026. Milestone M-420 is on the current driving path to a contractual turnover date. The project calendar is Monday-Friday, 5 workdays per week, with no holidays.

• Baseline total float to the required date: 5 workdays
• Owner access restriction on the same driving path: 3 workdays delay
• Subcontractor rework on the same driving path: 4 workdays delay
• Contract: silent on float ownership
• Use current float = baseline float - driving-path delay

Which interpretation is best?

• A. The milestone still has 2 workdays of positive float because only contractor-caused delay consumes project float.
• B. The milestone has no negative float because required dates do not affect float until a change order is approved.
• C. The milestone has 2 workdays of negative float, but it creates no stakeholder issue until actual completion misses the contract date.
• D. The milestone has 2 workdays of negative float; with no stated ownership, the float should be treated as shared and recovery discussion is required.

Best answer: D

Explanation: The best choice recognizes both the math and the schedule-control meaning. Five workdays of baseline float minus seven workdays of driving-path delay leaves 2 workdays of negative float, and a contract that is silent on float ownership does not reserve that float for one party.

Negative float exists when delays on the driving path consume more float than was available to the required date. In this update, the path had 5 workdays of total float at baseline, but the combined driving-path delays equal 7 workdays, so the milestone is now forecast 2 workdays late to the contractual requirement. When the contract does not assign float ownership, the scheduler should generally treat float as a shared project resource rather than assume one party exclusively owns it.

• Baseline float: 5 workdays
• Driving-path delay: 3 + 4 = 7 workdays
• Current float: 5 - 7 = -2 workdays
• Meaning: required date miss of 2 workdays

That makes the condition a current stakeholder, contractual, and recovery-planning issue now, not only after actual completion occurs.

Five baseline float days minus seven driving-path delay days leaves -2, and an unstated float-ownership clause means the miss should be managed as a shared recovery issue.

Question 7

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Data date: July 31, 2026. All activities use a Monday-Friday calendar. In the current update, the contractual milestone “Mechanical Completion” has a required finish of August 14, 2026, but the forecast finish is August 21, 2026, so the driving path shows total float of -5 workdays. No change order or baseline-change approval has been issued. The project manager asks the scheduler to “update the baseline to the forecast so the report stops showing negative float.” What is the best action?

• A. Rebaseline the milestone to August 21 because negative float confirms the original baseline is no longer achievable.
• B. Keep the baseline unchanged, validate the driving path and required-finish logic, and report the late forecast with recovery or formal change-control options.
• C. Classify the negative float as a future risk and wait until the next update cycle before escalating it.
• D. Remove the required-finish date so the schedule reflects current execution reality and eliminates the negative float.

Best answer: B

Explanation: Negative float means the current forecast is missing an imposed required date or similar constraint. Here, the scheduler should verify the cause, keep the approved baseline intact, and communicate the variance plus recovery or change-control needs instead of rebaselining automatically.

Negative float is a schedule-control signal, not approval to rewrite the baseline. In this update, the forecast finish is later than the contractual required finish, so the schedule is showing a real date problem that must be analyzed and communicated. The professional response is to confirm that the required-finish constraint and driving logic are valid, identify the activities causing the slippage, and present recovery options or a formal change request if the commitment truly cannot be met. Because no baseline-change approval exists, replacing the baseline with the forecast would hide variance rather than control it. Removing the required date would also distort the model. The key takeaway is that negative float points to a forecast or constraint issue that needs analysis and decision-making, not automatic rebaselining.

Negative float shows the forecast is later than the required date, so it should trigger analysis, communication, and approved control action rather than an automatic rebaseline.

Question 8

Topic: Domain 3: Communication Competency

The sponsor wants a one-paragraph update for tomorrow’s steering-committee meeting. Based on the schedule facts below, which message is the best?

Data date: June 14, 2026
Approved baseline turnover: August 4, 2026
Current forecast turnover: August 8, 2026
Driving cause: protection panel delivery moved from July 2 to July 10
Recovery option 1: resequence pre-commissioning, recover 1 day, no approval needed
Recovery option 2: weekend wiring/testing, recover 3 additional days, cost \$22,000, sponsor approval needed by June 18
Approved baseline change: none

• A. Panel receipt is July 10, wiring is July 13-16, testing is July 17-25, energization is July 27, and turnover documents finish August 8; operations should note these dates.
• B. As of June 14, turnover is forecast for August 8 versus the approved August 4 baseline because the protection panel now delivers July 10 and is driving the path. The team can recover 1 day by resequencing at no cost; protecting August 4 requires approval by June 18 for $22,000 of weekend wiring/testing.
• C. The contractor’s late panel delivery put the job behind, but the team is working hard and should recover most of it soon, so no sponsor action is needed now.
• D. Turnover is forecast late, so the schedule baseline should be moved to August 8 now and recovery options can be reviewed after the next update.

Best answer: B

Explanation: The strongest message anchors the update to the June 14 data date, compares the approved baseline with the current forecast, identifies the driving cause, and states the sponsor decision needed. It also separates the no-approval resequence from the weekend work that still needs approval, so the update stays factual and traceable to schedule data.

Good PSP schedule communication for executives is concise but decision-ready. The message should state the control reference, current forecast, evidence for the variance, and the action or approval needed. In this scenario, the approved baseline turnover remains August 4, while the June 14 forecast is August 8 because the panel delivery slip is driving the path. A strong update also distinguishes what the team can do immediately from what is still only a proposed recovery measure. That prevents the report from implying that unapproved weekend work is already committed or that the baseline has changed.

• Cite the data date and approved baseline.
• State the forecast impact and its schedule driver.
• Request the sponsor decision by the stated approval deadline.

A message that is vague, overly detailed, or premature about rebaselining does not support the steering committee’s decision.

It ties the update to the data date, baseline, forecast, schedule driver, and approval-required recovery decision without implying an unapproved baseline change.

Question 9

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the July 31, 2026 data date, a validated schedule-risk analysis has just been completed for a plant startup milestone. The sponsor requires any external commitment to be supported at P80 or better. The project also holds 5 calendar days of unallocated schedule contingency that are not embedded in the baseline.

What is the next appropriate step?

• A. Use contingency and maintain November 30.
• B. Rebaseline the milestone to December 8.
• C. Keep reporting November 24 as the commitment.
• D. Escalate the unsupported date and analyze mitigation.

Best answer: D

Explanation: The key is to compare the required confidence level with the risk-analysis output before confirming a date. Because the project must support commitments at P80 and the P80 result is December 8, the November 30 commitment is not currently defensible and needs escalation plus mitigation analysis.

Schedule-risk output should be interpreted against the decision rule in force, not against the most optimistic date. Here, the rule is that external commitments must be supportable at P80 or better. The deterministic forecast and even the P50 date are less conservative than that threshold, while the P80 result falls after the required November 30 startup. That means the current commitment is unsupported.

The appropriate control sequence is:

• acknowledge the gap between the required date and the P80 result
• communicate that the current commitment lacks the required confidence
• analyze mitigation or recovery on the driving risks and paths
• only then recommend a revised commitment or, if approved, a baseline change

The closest trap is treating contingency or the deterministic forecast as if they automatically satisfy the required confidence level.

The required commitment basis is P80, and the current P80 date misses November 30, so the next step is to escalate the exposure and evaluate targeted recovery or risk-response actions.

Question 10

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the April 30, 2026 data date, a scheduler is reviewing the monthly update for an electrical installation package. The approved baseline is unchanged, no change request or rebaseline has been approved, and the team uses one approved enterprise scheduling tool. The project manager wants a cleaner executive dashboard next week, but the scheduler finds the following quality issues in the forecast model:

What is the best action?

• A. Correct the logic and status issues, recalculate, and report the forecast.
• B. Leave the model unchanged and improve the dashboard presentation only.
• C. Manually overwrite affected activity finish dates for this update cycle.
• D. Rebuild the update in a different scheduling tool before reporting.

Best answer: A

Explanation: This is a schedule-quality problem, not a presentation problem. The best action is to repair the broken logic and validate the out-of-sequence progress, then recalculate and communicate the forecast based on the corrected model.

Schedule-quality improvement means improving the schedule model so its forecast is driven by valid logic and status data. In this scenario, one activity has out-of-sequence progress because work started before its predecessor finished, and another activity has dangling or open-ended logic because its successor link was removed. Those defects can distort float, driving paths, and finish dates. The scheduler should first validate the actual start and remaining work, restore the missing relationship, recalculate the network as of the data date, and then report the resulting forecast and variance. Changing software or improving graphics does not fix model defects, and manually forcing dates creates cosmetic outputs that are not traceable to schedule logic. A cleaner report only has value after the underlying forecast is credible.

This improves schedule-model quality by fixing dangling logic and validating out-of-sequence progress before issuing a forecast.

Question 11

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the July 15, 2026 data date, the approved EPC baseline shows Mechanical Completion on August 29, 2026. The owner has requested an added 6-workday tie-in activity in control account CA-430; a scheduler’s what-if check shows it would move Mechanical Completion to September 4 and delay the operations handoff commitment. No change order or direction to proceed has been approved. Project procedure requires formal change control before any revision to the approved baseline, contractual milestones, or control account plan. What is the next appropriate step?

• A. Keep the request outside the schedule until pricing is fully agreed.
• B. Add the tie-in to the live baseline so reports show the likely finish.
• C. Document the pending-change impact and submit formal approval before revising the baseline.
• D. Rebaseline the affected control account now and address the milestone later.

Best answer: C

Explanation: A requested change that would move a contractual milestone and alter a control account plan should not be inserted directly into the approved baseline. The next step is to preserve the baseline, document the schedule impact, and route the request through formal change control for review and approval.

In PSP practice, a requested change that affects controlled dates or plans is handled first as an analyzed pending change, not as an immediate baseline revision. Here, the added tie-in would move Mechanical Completion, delay a stakeholder handoff commitment, and alter work in a named control account. Because no change order or direction to proceed has been approved, the scheduler should formalize the impact analysis, log the request, and submit it through the project’s change-control process while keeping the approved baseline intact.

• Use the what-if result as documented schedule-impact evidence.
• Keep baseline dates as the performance reference until approval.
• If approved, then update the live forecast and baseline per procedure.

The closest trap is updating the baseline early to match the likely outcome, but that destroys traceability and bypasses control.

Because the request would alter controlled dates and plans, it must go through documented change control before the approved baseline is changed.

Question 12

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

On a substation expansion project, the data date is August 14, 2026. A regulator imposed an unplanned 5-workday outage window for the tie-in. In the approved baseline, contractual energization is a controlled milestone. The scheduler inserted an outage fragnet into a copy of the statused current schedule model and found that 4 workdays are absorbed by float, leaving a 1-workday forecast slip to energization. A change request has been submitted, but no recovery resources or baseline revision are approved. For a same-day leadership update, which evidence package best supports the schedule-impact communication?

• A. Cite only the revised forecast milestone date until the change request is decided.
• B. Cite the SPI trend and the field team’s expectation of later recovery.
• C. Cite the regulator notice and report a 5-workday project delay.
• D. Cite the approved baseline milestone, the August 14 data date, the statused fragnet analysis showing a 1-workday impact, and that recovery and change approval are still pending.

Best answer: D

Explanation: Strong schedule-impact communication ties the event to the approved control reference and the analyzed effect in the current schedule model. The best evidence here is the baseline milestone, current data date, fragnet-based 1-workday impact, and the fact that recovery and change approval remain unresolved.

The key concept is evidence-based schedule-impact communication. Stakeholders should see not just that an event occurred, but how the event affects a controlled milestone in the statused schedule model as of the current data date. In this scenario, the outage lasts 5 workdays, but 4 workdays are absorbed by float, so the modeled milestone impact is only 1 workday.

The strongest support includes:

• the approved baseline milestone as the control reference
• the August 14, 2026 data date as the status point
• the fragnet analysis in the statused schedule model as the analytical basis
• the disclosed uncertainty that recovery resources and change approval are still pending

That combination is traceable, decision-oriented, and honest about what is forecast versus what is approved. Raw event duration, SPI, or forecast-only reporting is weaker because it either overstates impact or omits the control context.

It uses the approved control reference, current analysis basis, actual modeled impact, and unresolved approval status.

Question 13

Topic: Domain 1: Conduct Planning Duties

Three months into execution, subcontractors are submitting schedule files with inconsistent revision names, one lead has overwritten baseline dates with current forecast dates, and the monthly controls report now includes instructions such as “updates due by the third workday” and “only the project controls manager may authorize baseline changes.” The project already has an approved schedule baseline, a basis of schedule, and a change log. Which action best corrects the underlying control problem?

• A. Issue a controlled schedule management procedure defining update timing, version control, baseline-change authority, and reporting responsibilities.
• B. Revise the basis of schedule to include update timing, version control, and approval workflow.
• C. Expand the change log so it becomes the master record for update rules and approval limits.
• D. Keep the governance instructions in each monthly controls report and treat the latest report as the active standard.

Best answer: A

Explanation: The missing artifact is the schedule management procedure. Update cycles, version control, and authority for baseline changes are governance rules, not schedule assumptions, status outputs, or change-history records.

The real issue is missing schedule governance, not missing schedule content. A schedule management procedure (or schedule management plan) defines how updates are submitted, what version-control rules apply, who can approve baseline changes, and how reporting is managed. By contrast, the schedule baseline is the approved reference for measuring performance, the basis of schedule explains assumptions and methods used to build the schedule, the controls report communicates current status and forecast, and the change log records individual change requests and decisions. When those artifacts are used as substitutes for procedures, teams get inconsistent file control and unauthorized baseline edits. The closest distractor is the basis of schedule, but that documents why the schedule was built a certain way, not how schedule control is governed.

These are governance and version-control rules, so they belong in schedule management procedures rather than in the baseline, basis of schedule, report, or change log.

Question 14

Topic: Domain 1: Conduct Planning Duties

During basis-of-schedule development for a three-substation upgrade, the planner is separating resource limits from logic, contract dates, lead times, and productivity assumptions. Which planning input should be documented as the resource availability constraint?

- Contract: substantial completion required by November 30, 2026
- Relay panels: vendor confirmed standard fabrication lead time = 14 weeks after approved drawings
- Feeder energization: cannot occur until functional testing is complete
- Owner switching crew: only one certified crew is available, and it can support one cutover at a time
- Cable pulling: estimate uses 600 ft/day per crew

• A. The 14-week relay-panel fabrication period
• B. The single certified switching crew for cutovers
• C. The 600 ft/day cable-pulling rate
• D. The test-before-energization requirement

Best answer: B

Explanation: A resource availability constraint is caused by limited access to labor, equipment, or specialized support needed to perform the work. Here, the single certified switching crew restricts how many cutovers can happen at once, while the other inputs are a lead time, a logic dependency, and a productivity assumption.

The core distinction is why the schedule is limited. A resource availability constraint exists when required work cannot proceed or cannot proceed in parallel because a needed resource is scarce. In this scenario, the owner has only one certified switching crew, so even if drawings are approved, materials are delivered, and testing logic is satisfied, only one cutover can be supported at a time.

The other facts belong in different planning categories:

• The November 30 date is a contractual milestone requirement.
• The 14-week panel period is a procurement lead time.
• Test before energization is a dependency logic rule.
• The 600 ft/day rate is a productivity assumption.

The key takeaway is that resource constraints limit who or what is available, not what must happen first or what date must be met.

It is the only input that limits the schedule because a scarce crew can support only one cutover at a time.

Question 15

Topic: Domain 1: Conduct Planning Duties

Before baseline approval on a refinery turnaround, stakeholders request a weekly dashboard showing physical percent complete by work package and installed-quantity curves by area. The draft basis of schedule defines these update inputs:

• Engineering document counts weekly
• Vendor shipment milestones biweekly
• Construction supervisors’ narrative plus one monthly area-level percent complete
• No installed-quantity collection or activity-level progress rules

The lead planner recommends changing the reporting expectations or redesigning the data-collection process before approving the baseline. Which review result best validates that recommendation?

• A. Report-to-source traceability review shows missing sources, owners, and measurement rules.
• B. Resource histogram shows field supervision overloaded in shutdown week 3.
• C. Logic check shows several procurement activities still have open ends.
• D. Risk workshop notes weather uncertainty during scaffold removal.

Best answer: A

Explanation: The best validation is evidence that the requested dashboard fields cannot be traced to defined collection methods, owners, and measurement rules. That directly supports the planning response to either reduce reporting expectations or strengthen the update-input process before baseline approval.

This is a status-readiness planning problem. If stakeholders want weekly, granular progress reporting, the planning team must define objective update inputs that can support that report frequency and detail. A report-to-source traceability review is the strongest validation because it checks whether each requested field has a defined source, owner, collection frequency, and measurement rule. In the scenario, construction data are only monthly and area-level, with no installed-quantity collection or activity-level rules, so the requested weekly work-package and quantity-based reports are not supportable.

Planning should confirm reporting capability before baseline approval, not rely on later manual estimates or informal field judgment. Logic quality, resource loading, and risk identification matter, but they do not prove whether the planned status process can generate the requested progress reports.

It directly demonstrates that the requested reports cannot be produced objectively from the defined update inputs.

Question 16

Topic: Domain 1: Conduct Planning Duties

A capital project is preparing its first integrated schedule baseline. The schedule management plan states:

• technical reviewers may recommend changes but may not directly revise the controlled schedule file
• only the baseline approval board may approve a schedule baseline for performance measurement
• forecast dates may be communicated before baseline approval if they are clearly labeled as forecast only
• each submitted model version must have a unique ID and an archived comment-disposition record

During review, the engineering manager emails marked-up dates and asks the scheduler to overwrite IMS_v0.9 on the shared drive. The client also requests the current expected completion date. Baseline approval has not yet occurred.

Which response best complies with schedule governance?

• A. Accept the reviewer edits directly because the engineering manager owns the technical scope
• B. Create a new version, log reviewer comments, report the date as forecast only, and wait for formal baseline approval
• C. Issue the latest date only after baseline approval to avoid confusing forecast and baseline
• D. Overwrite IMS_v0.9, adopt the reviewer dates, and use it as the baseline candidate

Best answer: B

Explanation: The best response is to preserve control of the schedule model while still communicating needed forecast information. Governance requires reviewer input to be dispositioned through version control, with forecast dates clearly distinguished from an approved baseline.

This scenario tests baseline discipline and version control. Reviewer authority is limited to recommending changes, so the engineering manager should not directly overwrite the controlled file. Because baseline approval has not occurred, the team may communicate the current expected completion date only as a forecast, not as a baseline or performance-measurement reference.

The compliant sequence is:

• capture the reviewer comments
• update the model in a new uniquely identified version
• archive the comment-disposition trail
• communicate the completion date as forecast only
• wait for formal approval before designating any baseline

The closest distractors fail because they either let a reviewer bypass control, treat an unapproved schedule as a baseline, or unnecessarily suppress valid forecast communication.

This preserves reviewer limits, keeps model-version traceability, and separates forecast communication from formal baseline approval.

Question 17

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the July 31, 2026 data date, an electrical installation work package shows CPI = 1.12 and SPI = 0.84; values above 1.0 are favorable. Earned value is based on verified installed quantities. The turnover milestone is forecast 10 workdays late to the approved baseline, and the current driving path runs through the remaining cable pull and terminations. Actual cost is low partly because a second crew has not yet been mobilized. No approved scope change or rebaseline exists. Which interpretation best supports schedule control and stakeholder decision-making?

• A. The package is under budget but behind schedule, so keep the baseline, explain the resource underrun, and assess targeted recovery on the driving path.
• B. The favorable cost performance offsets the unfavorable schedule performance, so overall execution is acceptable if the final cost stays below budget.
• C. The cost underrun should be spent on overtime for all remaining activities immediately, because any late forecast requires broad acceleration.
• D. The forecast late finish should replace the baseline before reporting, because the original baseline is no longer realistic.

Best answer: A

Explanation: This package is spending less than planned while progressing slower than planned. Because the late turnover forecast is tied to driving-path work and no approved change exists, the correct interpretation is to keep the approved baseline as the control reference and evaluate focused recovery rather than treating the cost underrun as a cure.

When CPI and SPI point in different directions, they must be interpreted separately and then tied back to schedule control facts. Here, the verified earned quantities support the indicators, the turnover milestone is forecast late to the approved baseline, and the remaining work on the driving path is understaffed because a second crew has not mobilized. That means the favorable cost result is not evidence of better overall performance; it is partly a sign that planned resource effort has not been applied.

• CPI > 1.0 indicates spending efficiency versus earned value.
• SPI < 1.0 indicates slower progress versus the planned value curve.
• A late forecast against the approved baseline still requires schedule analysis and possible recovery.
• Recovery should focus on driving activities and feasible resource actions, not blanket acceleration.

The key takeaway is that an under-budget result does not cancel a schedule delay, and it does not justify rebaselining without approved change control.

Favorable cost performance does not remove a baseline schedule slip, especially when the cost underrun is partly caused by delayed mobilization on driving work.

Question 18

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the June 12, 2026 data date on a 5-day workweek calendar, the energization milestone is forecast 3 workdays late versus the approved baseline.

Driving path: Install cable tray (8d) -> Pull cable (6d) -> Terminate circuits (5d); total float = 0d
Near-critical path: Set panels (4d) -> Loop checks (10d); total float = 2d
Current model logic: Tray install -> Pull cable = Finish-to-Start
Field evidence: A documented zone-release plan allows cable pulling to start 3 workdays after tray work begins in Zone 1, using a separate crew already assigned
Control status: Same approved scope; no rebaseline or change order approved

For tomorrow’s owner report, which action should the scheduler prioritize?

• A. Reset the milestone baseline to the current forecast for the owner report.
• B. Accelerate loop checks on the 2-day-float path before changing dependencies.
• C. Use SS with zero lag to maximize recovery on the current critical path.
• D. Update the forecast logic to SS+3d from the release plan and keep baseline comparison.

Best answer: D

Explanation: The best choice is the evidence-backed dependency change on the driving path. A shift from FS to SS+3d reflects the documented execution plan, can improve the milestone forecast credibly, and still leaves the approved baseline in place for variance reporting.

Dependency choice directly affects the forecast, critical path, and how float is consumed. Here, the current FS relationship is more restrictive than the documented field sequence. Because cable pulling can begin 3 workdays after tray installation starts and a separate crew is available, changing the forecast model to SS+3d is a credible logic refinement within the same approved scope.

• The electrical path has 0 days float, so improving logic there can affect the milestone first.
• The panel and loop-check path still has 2 days float, so accelerating it first may not move energization.
• A zero-lag overlap is not supported by the release evidence.
• Rebaselining would change the control reference, not the executable sequence.

The key takeaway is to model feasible overlap on the driving path while preserving baseline variance visibility for stakeholders.

It applies supported overlap on the driving path, improves forecast credibility, and preserves the approved baseline as the control reference.

Question 19

Topic: Domain 1: Conduct Planning Duties

At a baseline readiness review for a utility expansion project, the integrated schedule has passed logic and constraint checks, the basis of schedule is complete, calendars and contract milestones are agreed, and discipline leads have signed off durations and interfaces. The data date is June 1, 2026, execution starts June 3, 2026, no activities have actual dates yet, and no change request is pending. What is the next appropriate step?

• A. Approve a change request to formalize the schedule dates.
• B. Accept the current forecast dates as the project’s official reference.
• C. Validate the first schedule update using actual progress data.
• D. Approve the integrated schedule as the baseline control reference.

Best answer: D

Explanation: The schedule is ready for formal baseline approval because planning-quality checks are complete and execution has not started. A baseline is the approved reference for future performance measurement, which is different from a forecast, an update, or a change request action.

The key distinction is between establishing the control reference and processing later-control artifacts. Here, the project has completed baseline-readiness evidence: logic and constraint checks are done, the basis of schedule is complete, milestones and calendars are agreed, and responsible leads have signed off. Because no work has started, there are no actual dates or remaining-duration updates to validate, so a schedule update review is not yet applicable. Because no change request is pending, change approval is also not the next action. The correct next step is to approve the integrated schedule as the baseline schedule, which becomes the approved reference against which future status, variance, and forecast are measured. The forecast may initially match the planned dates, but it is not a substitute for baseline authorization.

Baseline approval is the proper next step once readiness evidence is complete and there is no update or change action to process.

Question 20

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

A contractor submits an integrated baseline schedule for owner approval on a refinery turnaround. The forecast finish is 8 workdays ahead of the required completion date, but the baseline has not yet been approved. Validation review finds:

- 14 non-terminal activities have no successors.
- 11 hard date constraints are holding vendor delivery dates.
- Major lift activities have no crane resource assigned.
- The 24/7 outage calendar is not documented in the basis of schedule.

What is the next best step?

• A. Approve the baseline with comments and address the defects in the first monthly update.
• B. Return the schedule for correction and documentation, then rerun and revalidate it before baseline approval.
• C. Approve the baseline because the required completion date is still met.
• D. Add more mandatory constraints to preserve the current delivery dates, then approve the baseline.

Best answer: B

Explanation: Baseline approval should follow model validation, not replace it. Open ends, excessive constraints, missing resources, and undocumented calendar assumptions make the forecast finish unreliable even if it currently beats the required date.

The key concept is baseline schedule credibility. Before approval, the schedule model must be logically complete, resource-informed where required, and supported by documented assumptions. Here, non-terminal open ends break network logic, hard constraints can mask the true driving path, missing crane resources weaken the feasibility of major lift activities, and an undocumented 24/7 calendar means a major date assumption is unsupported.

The next step is to send the schedule back for correction and basis-of-schedule support, then rerun the analysis and complete validation before approving the baseline. A baseline is the control reference for future performance measurement, so locking in a defective model creates unreliable variance and forecast reporting from the start. Meeting the required completion date does not offset model-quality failures.

These findings undermine schedule-model credibility, so the schedule must be corrected and validated before it can become the approved baseline.

Question 21

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the August 15 data date, a utility project’s current forecast finish is 10 workdays later than the approved baseline because the owner is considering an added commissioning witness test. The contract baseline may be changed only after formal change approval; until then, forecast dates may move but baseline dates remain the control reference. Before the scheduler replaces baseline finish dates and the original commissioning assumption in the schedule records, which change-log evidence is most appropriate?

• A. An approved change entry with the change ID, approving authority and date, affected baseline dates/assumptions, and documented schedule-impact analysis
• B. A status update showing the forecast slip, negative float, and a scheduler note that the baseline is no longer realistic
• C. A risk register note describing the possible added test and recommending that baseline dates be aligned early for reporting consistency
• D. An email from the owner’s field representative stating the witness test will probably be required and should be reflected now

Best answer: A

Explanation: A forecast change is not enough to replace baseline dates or assumptions. The change log should show that the change was formally approved, what baseline elements it affects, and the schedule-impact evidence supporting the revision.

The key concept is baseline control discipline. A late forecast or a likely scope/requirement change may justify updating the current schedule forecast, but it does not justify replacing the approved baseline. Before baseline dates or schedule assumptions are revised, the change log should contain traceable evidence that the change was reviewed and approved through change control and that its schedule impact was analyzed.

The strongest record includes:

• a unique change ID
• the approving authority and approval date
• the specific baseline dates or assumptions being replaced
• documented schedule-impact analysis tying the approved change to the revision

That preserves the baseline as the performance reference until an authorized change formally resets part of it. The closest distractors show useful status or risk information, but they do not authorize a baseline revision.

Replacing baseline dates or assumptions requires traceable approval plus documented impact to the control reference, not just a changed forecast or expectation.

Question 22

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Data date is August 15, 2026. The baseline substantial-completion milestone is September 30, 2026, and the current forecast is October 8, 2026.

Exhibit: August 15 update

Which recommendation should the scheduler prioritize in this update?

• A. Report the critical-path slip against baseline and seek approval for the second crew.
• B. Rebaseline substantial completion to October 8 before reporting variance.
• C. Move mechanical closeout labor to commissioning and show the on-time what-if forecast now.
• D. Keep overall status favorable because cost underrun offsets the schedule slip.

Best answer: A

Explanation: Commissioning is driving the completion milestone and is behind plan by progress, SPI, and productivity, so the update should center on that schedule variance. The scheduler should measure against the approved baseline, keep the current forecast until approval, and elevate the only supported recovery option instead of letting favorable cost on non-driving work mask the delay.

The key scheduling judgment is to prioritize the work that drives the milestone, not the work with the best cost result. Commissioning Loop Checks has 0 days total float and is trending late based on three consistent signals: physical progress is below plan, SPI is below 1.0, and actual productivity is below the basis-of-schedule rate. Mechanical closeout is favorable financially, but it has float and its crew cannot accelerate the driving work, so its cost underrun does not change the completion forecast.

A sound update should:

• show the slip against the approved September 30 baseline
• keep the current October 8 forecast until a recovery action is approved
• present the second commissioning crew as the supported recovery option because the what-if analysis shows it can restore the milestone

The closest trap is treating favorable cost as an offset to critical-path delay; schedule control still depends on the driving path.

It addresses the verified critical-path delay with a quantified recovery option while preserving the approved baseline as the control reference until approval is granted.

Question 23

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

An EPC project is drafting the executive summary for milestone Steel Erected. Which statement best separates fact, assumption, issue, risk, forecast, variance, and recommendation?

Exhibit

Data date: July 15, 2026
Calendar: Mon-Fri, 5 workdays/week, no holidays
Baseline finish: August 21, 2026
Required finish: August 26, 2026
Current forecast finish: August 28, 2026
Schedule variance = forecast finish - baseline finish (workdays)

Status facts:
- Steel release arrived 3 workdays late (already occurred)
- Forecast assumes crane is available July 22 as planned
- Possible heavy rain next week could add 2 workdays; not yet in forecast
- One Saturday shift could recover 2 workdays if approved by July 20

• A. As of July 15, the milestone forecasts August 28, 2 workdays later than the August 21 baseline and 5 workdays later than the August 26 required date. The late release is an assumption, and possible rain is already in the forecast.
• B. As of July 15, the milestone forecasts August 28, 5 workdays later than the August 21 baseline and 2 workdays later than the August 26 required date. The 3-day late release is an issue, crane availability is an assumption, possible rain is a risk not yet in the forecast, and approving one Saturday shift to recover 2 workdays is the recommendation.
• C. As of July 15, the milestone forecasts August 28, 5 workdays later than the August 21 baseline. The late release and possible rain are both issues, crane availability is a fact, and the baseline should be reset to August 28.
• D. As of July 15, the milestone forecasts August 26 because the Saturday shift will recover 2 workdays. The late release is a risk, possible rain is the current issue, and crane availability is the recommendation.

Best answer: B

Explanation: The best statement keeps the numeric schedule facts separate from interpretation and action. August 28 is 5 workdays later than the August 21 baseline and 2 workdays later than the August 26 required date, while the late release is an issue, crane availability is an assumption, rain is a risk, and Saturday work is only a recommendation.

Good schedule reporting separates what is known, what is assumed, what may happen, and what management is being asked to do. Here, the current forecast finish is August 28. Using the stated formula and 5-day calendar, that is 5 workdays later than the August 21 baseline finish and 2 workdays later than the August 26 required date.

The 3-workday late steel release already happened, so it is an issue and a fact for this update. Crane availability on July 22 supports the forecast but is still an assumption. Possible heavy rain next week is uncertain and explicitly not yet included, so it is a risk, not an issue or current forecast. The Saturday shift is a proposed recovery action; until approved, it is a recommendation, not part of the forecast.

The key reporting principle is to avoid blending actual events, assumptions, risks, forecasts, and management actions into one unsupported statement.

It correctly calculates the 5-workday variance and 2-workday required-date miss while keeping the occurred delay, forecast assumption, future uncertainty, and recovery recommendation distinct.

Question 24

Topic: Domain 2: Conduct Scheduling Duties

During a pre-baseline review of a substation expansion schedule, you find this logic fragment:

A120 Install steel - Bay 1  ->  A130 Install steel - Bay 2 (FS)

The scheduler says the link was added “to keep reporting simple.” Constraints: the owner permits simultaneous work in both bays, each bay has its own erection crew, and there is no access or safety restriction between bays. The baseline is not yet approved. What is the best action?

• A. Approve the baseline and manage the sequencing in short-term planning.
• B. Replace the link with a date constraint to preserve current dates.
• C. Keep the link because it simplifies status and does not delay turnover.
• D. Delete the unsupported FS link and confirm any real sequencing basis.

Best answer: D

Explanation: The FS link is unsupported because the stem explicitly allows parallel work, separate crews, and unrestricted access. Preferential logic added only for reporting convenience weakens schedule-model credibility and should be corrected before baseline approval.

In schedule validation, each relationship should reflect a defensible physical, contractual, safety, or resource-driven dependency. Here, none of those supports the Bay 1 to Bay 2 FS tie: both bays can proceed at the same time, separate crews are available, and there is no access restriction. That makes the link unsupported preferential logic.

Artificial logic can distort total float, alter the driving path, and make the forecast look more constrained than the actual execution plan. The proper professional action is to remove the unsupported relationship, confirm whether any true sequencing requirement exists with the responsible leads, and then recalculate the schedule. If a real sequencing rule is later identified, it should be documented in the basis of schedule rather than hidden behind convenience-based logic or manual dates.

A cleaner report is not a valid reason to weaken model credibility.

With parallel access and separate crews, the FS tie is unsupported preferential logic and should be removed unless a real dependency is validated.

PSP schedule-control map

Use this flow when a question asks whether a project schedule can support a reliable control decision. PSP scenarios usually reward strong logic, update discipline, critical-path interpretation, and realistic recovery analysis.

    flowchart LR
	  A["Scope and execution plan"] --> B["Activities, logic, and calendars"]
	  B --> C["Duration and resource assumptions"]
	  C --> D["Baseline and quality review"]
	  D --> E["Progress update and actuals"]
	  E --> F["Critical path and float analysis"]
	  F --> G["Forecast, risk, and recovery narrative"]

Quick Cheat Sheet

Mini Glossary

• Constraint: Date rule or limit that may affect schedule calculation.
• Calendar: Working and nonworking time applied to activities or resources.
• Schedule risk analysis: Review of uncertainty in durations, logic, and paths.
• Acceleration: Action intended to shorten schedule duration, often with cost or risk tradeoffs.
• Narrative report: Written explanation of schedule status, drivers, impacts, and actions.

Open AACE PSP in PM Mastery

Use this live AACE PSP page for web and app access, public sample questions, timed mocks, topic drills, plans, and related PM Mastery exam links.

PSP Quick Reference

In this section

• AACE PSP: Conduct Planning Duties
  Try 10 focused AACE PSP questions on Conduct Planning Duties, with answers and explanations, then continue with PM Mastery.
• AACE PSP: Conduct Scheduling Duties
  Try 10 focused AACE PSP questions on Conduct Scheduling Duties, with answers and explanations, then continue with PM Mastery.
• AACE PSP: Communication Competency
  Try 10 focused AACE PSP questions on Communication Competency, with answers and explanations, then continue with PM Mastery.
• Free AACE PSP Full-Length Practice Exam: 119 Questions
  Try 119 free AACE PSP questions across the exam domains, with answers and explanations, then continue in PM Mastery.