If you have logged construction administration hours, you already know most of this material; Section 4 just asks you to name it in contract language. Under CCDC 2 (2020), the architect reviews shop drawings for design concept and general arrangement only, answers RFIs in writing, issues Supplemental Instructions when price and time do not move, and prepares Change Directives and Change Orders when they do. The architect reviews the work; the contractor controls it. In our experience, candidates who hold that line pick up easy marks in objectives 10 and 11. This guide from Examitect, an independent ExAC prep platform unaffiliated with the CACB, covers each document and where the liability sits.
| Objectives | 10 Office Functions and 11 Field Functions |
|---|---|
| Exam | Section 4, about 130 multiple-choice questions in three hours |
| Contract | CCDC 2 (2020), Parts 2, 3 and 6 |
| Main reading | CHOP Chapter 6.6, with CCDC 24 for the model forms |
| Most tested trap | Treating review as inspection, approval or supervision |
The 2026 ExAC Preparation Guide splits the construction phase into two themes, both examined in Section 4. Objective 10 is the office: roles, the contractor's documents before work starts, change documents, payment, shop drawing review and take-over terms. Objective 11 is the site: roles, inspection and testing firms, field review, monitoring progress, take-over and hazardous materials. Objective 10.3 also asks you to complete a certificate for payment, a change request and a field review report. The ExAC Framework Document puts the section at about 130 multiple-choice questions in three hours, with no short answers.
Both objectives open with roles, because most construction questions turn on who is allowed to do what. CCDC 2 (2020) is signed by the Owner and the Contractor; the architect is the Consultant, named in the Agreement but not a party. GC 1.1.6 confirms there is no contract between the Consultant and the Contractor. Our CCDC 2 vs RAIC Document 6 guide covers that triangle in full. The short version:
RAIC Document Six GC 5 describes the same role from the architect's side: not the client's authorized agent for the construction contract, impartial in interpretations, able to reject work, require special testing and order minor adjustments that involve no change in cost or time. If you are still logging internship hours, our post on IAP construction administration hours shows how this work counts.
CCDC 2 (2020) defines Shop Drawings as drawings, schedules, brochures, Product data and other data the Contractor provides to illustrate details of the Work. The rules sit in GC 3.8, with the Consultant's duty to "review and take appropriate action" in GC 2.2.13. It is seven paragraphs, and Section 4 questions follow its logic closely.
| Paragraph | What it says |
|---|---|
| GC 3.8.2 | The Contractor submits on an agreed schedule, or early enough to cause no delay |
| GC 3.8.3 | The Contractor reviews every Shop Drawing first, verifying field measurements and co-ordinating it with the Contract Documents |
| GC 3.8.4 | The Consultant's review is for conformity to the design concept and for general arrangement only |
| GC 3.8.5 | The Contractor flags deviations in writing, and the Consultant accepts or rejects each one expressly in writing |
| GC 3.8.6 | The review does not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for errors or omissions in the Shop Drawings |
CHOP Chapter 6.6 adds that shop drawings supplement the contract documents but never supersede them, that the architect reviews only the architectural portions while consultants review their own, and that submittals should run in order: system performance, product data, shop drawings, samples, then mock-ups. CHOP Chapter 6.8 warns that the cover letter and stamp wording carry "significant implications regarding professional liability and legal responsibility," and its sample log uses review language: "reviewed," "reviewed as noted" or "resubmit."
Three patterns come up. An error the architect did not catch: under GC 3.8.6 the Contractor is still responsible. A deviation never flagged: GC 3.8.5 required it in writing, so the review did not accept it. A shop drawing used to slip in a change: GC 6.1.2 bars any change without a Change Order or Change Directive. Our post on where Section 4 candidates lose the most marks lists more submittal traps.
"Request for Information" does not appear in CCDC 2 (2020). The RFI is an industry procedure, described in CHOP Chapter 6.6, built on two contract duties. Under GC 1.1.4, the Contractor is not responsible for errors in the Contract Documents, but must report any it finds and not proceed with the affected work until it gets corrected information. Under GC 2.2.7 to 2.2.9, questions go to the Consultant in writing, and the answers must be impartial, consistent with the intent of the documents, and given in writing within a reasonable time.
CHOP says the architect "is obliged to respond to every RFI, however frivolous." The answer is a Supplemental Instruction if price and time do not change, or a proposed change followed by a Change Directive or Change Order if they do. For contractors who abuse RFIs, CHOP suggests a supplementary condition that charges the cost of answering unnecessary ones, after a set number (its example is five), back through the Certificate for Payment as a Change Order.
Offices say "site instruction"; CCDC 2 (2020) says Supplemental Instruction, and CHOP confirms they are the same document. It is defined as an instruction "not involving adjustment in the Contract Price or Contract Time," issued by the Consultant under GC 2.2.12. The moment price or time moves, Part 6 applies, and its first rule is GC 6.1.2: "The Contractor shall not perform a change in the Work without a Change Order or a Change Directive."
| Document | Changes price or time? | Who prepares and signs |
|---|---|---|
| Supplemental Instruction (site instruction) | Never | Issued by the Consultant |
| Proposed change (GC 6.2.1) | Not yet; it asks the Contractor for a price and time | Description from the Consultant, quotation from the Contractor |
| Change Directive (GC 6.3) | Yes, agreed later; never time alone | Prepared by the Consultant, signed by the Owner |
| Change Order (GC 6.2) | Yes, as agreed | Prepared by the Consultant, signed by the Owner and the Contractor |
CHOP notes that CCDC recommends the term "proposed change" over names like contemplated change notice. A Change Directive lets work proceed while the price is negotiated: the Contractor proceeds promptly and is paid actual cost plus its fee on a net increase. It must stay within the general scope of the Contract Documents (GC 6.3.2) and cannot change the Contract Time only (GC 6.3.3); a time-only change needs a Change Order (GC 6.1.1). Once the parties agree, the result is recorded in a Change Order. How each change is valued is covered in our Section 4 project management guide.
GC 2.2.2 has the Consultant visit the site "at intervals appropriate to the progress of construction" to determine whether the Work is in general conformity with the Contract Documents. CHOP Chapter 6.6 treats general review, field review, site review and site observations as one service, and says supervision belongs to the contractor while inspection, a close examination of the work, is beyond the architect's normal responsibilities. It even advises writing "review," not "inspect" or "supervise," in all documentation.
Frequency is the architect's judgment, but CHOP's guidelines make good exam material: at start-up and excavation, at the start of the enclosure trades and the finishing trades, before and during concrete placement, before work such as insulation, firestopping and vapour barriers is covered up, and after severe or unexpected weather.
CHOP says to write a report after every visit. Typical contents include who reviewed, the date and weather, who was present, percentage complete by trade, progress against the schedule, questions raised, determinations made, outstanding issues and the distribution list. Objective 10.3.3 names this report directly.
For objective 11.1.4, CHOP's summary of inspection and testing firms: they do not supersede the architect's authority, they report but do not interpret results or instruct the contractor, and the owner generally pays, often through a cash allowance. When work is opened up, GC 2.3.5 puts the cost on whoever was wrong: the Contractor if it does not conform, the Owner if it does.
Most construction-phase questions are liability questions in disguise. CCDC 2 (2020) keeps the architect's review from becoming a guarantee.
| Situation | Who carries it | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Means, methods and site safety | Contractor | GC 2.2.5, GC 3.1.2, GC 9.4.1 |
| Errors in reviewed Shop Drawings | Contractor | GC 3.8.6 |
| A decision to reject, or not reject, work | Creates no duty from the Consultant to the Contractor or trades | GC 2.2.11 |
| A certificate for payment | Best of the Consultant's knowledge, information and belief; no guarantee | GC 2.2.16 |
| Payment or occupancy of non-conforming work | Not acceptance of that work | GC 5.7.1 |
Two cautions. These protections hold only while the architect acts as a reviewer; directing a trade's sequence steps into means and methods. And CHOP Chapter 6.6 says an architect who sees an unsafe or life-threatening situation must report it immediately to the contractor and owner. There is no contractual duty, but there is a responsibility in tort, and staying silent risks liability for contributory negligence. CHOP also notes the architect's regulatory responsibility to determine general conformity "cannot be removed and avoided by contract."
The Preparation Guide's own samples show the style. The objective 10.1.1 sample asks who prepares a Change Directive in a CCDC 2 contract; the answer is the architect, matching the definition (prepared by the Consultant, signed by the Owner). The objective 11.1.1 sample asks which task is not the prime consultant's responsibility; site safety is the odd one out. Every ExAC cycle, the misses we hear about in candidate debriefs come from answers that sound responsible but give the architect a job CCDC 2 gives someone else. We use this method for any construction scenario.
Work out who is acting: Owner, Contractor, Consultant, Subcontractor or testing firm. The Consultant has no contract with the Contractor or the trades (GC 1.1.6).
If neither changes, the answer is an interpretation or a Supplemental Instruction. If either changes, you need a Change Order or a Change Directive.
Agreed price and time means a Change Order. Work that must proceed first means a Change Directive, unless only the Contract Time changes.
The Consultant acts for the Owner only as the Contract Documents allow (GC 2.1.1). An option where the architect signs a Change Order or approves extra cost alone is usually wrong.
Questions go to the Consultant in writing, Shop Drawing deviations are accepted in writing, and every site visit gets a report. Verbal acceptance is almost never right.
Eliminate options that make the architect responsible for means, methods, safety or the Contractor's errors. "Inspect," "supervise," "approve" and "guarantee" usually mark a distractor.
CHOP Chapter 6.6 and CCDC 2 Parts 2, 3 and 6 give you the content; practice questions turn it into recall. Our post on practice questions versus mock exams explains how to mix both, and official exam information is on exac.ca. If you have spent time on a site, you are closer to these marks than you think.
Under GC 3.8.4 of CCDC 2 (2020), the Consultant's shop drawing review is for conformity to the design concept and for general arrangement only. It is not a check of every dimension, quantity or engineering detail. The Contractor must review and co-ordinate each Shop Drawing before submitting it, under GC 3.8.3.
The Contractor remains responsible for errors in shop drawings the architect reviewed. GC 3.8.6 of CCDC 2 (2020) says the Consultant's review does not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for errors or omissions in the Shop Drawings or for meeting all requirements of the Contract Documents.
No, "Request for Information" is not a defined term in CCDC 2 (2020). The RFI is an industry procedure described in CHOP Chapter 6.6. It rests on GC 1.1.4, which has the Contractor report perceived errors and wait for corrected information, and GC 2.2.7 to 2.2.9, which route questions to the Consultant in writing for impartial written answers.
A site instruction and a supplemental instruction are the same document. CCDC 2 (2020) uses the defined term Supplemental Instruction, and CHOP Chapter 6.6 notes it is also called a site instruction. It clarifies or supplements the Contract Documents and never adjusts the Contract Price or the Contract Time.
A Change Order records agreement between the Owner and the Contractor on a change and its price and time adjustments, and both sign it. A Change Directive is signed by the Owner alone and directs the Contractor to proceed before price and time are agreed, and it cannot change the Contract Time only. Both are prepared by the Consultant under GC 6.2 and GC 6.3 of CCDC 2 (2020).
The architect reviews the work during construction but does not inspect or supervise it. GC 2.2.2 of CCDC 2 (2020) requires site visits at intervals appropriate to the progress of construction to determine general conformity. CHOP Chapter 6.6 calls this general review and says inspection and supervision are levels of service not normally provided by an architect.
The architect is not responsible for construction safety programs; the Contractor is, under GC 2.2.5 and GC 9.4.1 of CCDC 2 (2020). CHOP Chapter 6.6 adds that an architect who sees an unsafe or life-threatening situation must report it immediately to the contractor and owner, because of a responsibility in tort.
A certificate for payment does not mean the architect accepts the work. GC 2.2.16 of CCDC 2 (2020) says certificates are issued to the best of the Consultant's knowledge, information and belief and do not guarantee the Work is correct or complete, and GC 5.7.1 says payment and occupancy are not acceptance of non-conforming work.