I'm in the process of going through Black Spectacles practice exams and found some questions very ambiguous. For example:
For the new construction condo for which the client would like to know cost early on, the correct delivery method is CM agent here. Wouldn't design-build be a much better choice? My understanding is that the design-builder will typically offer a preliminary design with construction cost using the criteria provided by owner in the very beginning of design work, or establish construction cost by the preliminary design produced by the criteria architect, usually at the end of DD, if bridging is used.
CM agent, on the other hand, only offers non-binding cost estimates through the project phases. Reference chart from AHPP pg 516:
Also, for the personal residence that involves intensive customization, the correct delivery method given is design-build. This doesn't make any sense to me. Once the owner signs a contract with the design-builder, the design-builder technically has the right to determine how to execute the design as long as the target construction cost is achieved and owner given criteria is met. There could be disputes regarding what should be included and how certain things should have been detailed. The owner must know EXACTLY what he wants for this to work out well. It sounds like a horrible approach towards a projects with custom features in all aspect of design. Reference paragraph from AHPP pg516:
AND Ballast pg 3-8
Another annoying question I had problem with here:
Since the question asks "Why is there no way for the architect to appeal this resolution? ", my take was that it is given that the dispute resolution result following the contract's specified procedure did not allow for an appeal. This could be true if the contract required arbitration or litigation which has legal binding efficacy. For this reason I chose A.
The "correct" answer here, B, doesn't really make any sense from a logical standpoint to me. How could you say that the resolution result is again non binding when the main body of the question already clearly stated that there is no space for an appeal?
Here's yet another question that I found ridiculous:
The correct consequences of working without an agreement here included "late payment", but not "lowered fee". The reasoning is that without an agreement, you wouldn't get any payment at all, therefore you cannot even start talking about "lowered fee" in the first place. By that logic, wouldn't the same reasoning undermine the "late payment" option too?
I am wondering if it is just me being dumb, or are questions like these rather poorly constructed. Is this the type of questions one would typically encounter in an actual ARE exam? This is getting me very anxious. I would appreciate if someone with insights could shed some light on them.
Please sign in to leave a comment.