Which statement about the pre-construction risk review statement is true?

Which statement about the pre-construction risk review statement is true?

• A. The review should include the CM, owner, designers, as well as construction representatives if possible.
• B. The review should include the CM, designers, as well as construction representatives if possible.
• C. The review excludes owner input.
• D. The review should only include external consultants.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is including all key stakeholders when performing a pre-construction risk review so risks are identified from multiple perspectives early. Involving the construction manager, the owner, designers, and construction representatives ensures that risk themes come from those who will pay for, design, plan, and actually build the project. The owner brings project objectives, budget limits, and risk appetite; designers surface design-related risks and constructability concerns; construction representatives provide frontline insights on sequencing, methods, safety, and site constraints; and the CM coordinates and documents these risks, helping to create a practical risk register and mitigation plan. When this broad input is available, you’re much more likely to catch issues early and set realistic expectations. Excluding the owner removes critical objectives and financial constraints from the discussion, making the review less effective. Limiting the review to internal staff or to external consultants only omits essential perspectives from either the client side or the on-site execution team, which can leave significant risks unaddressed. Including all those parties when possible leads to a more robust risk profile and better preparedness for the project.

The main idea here is including all key stakeholders when performing a pre-construction risk review so risks are identified from multiple perspectives early. Involving the construction manager, the owner, designers, and construction representatives ensures that risk themes come from those who will pay for, design, plan, and actually build the project. The owner brings project objectives, budget limits, and risk appetite; designers surface design-related risks and constructability concerns; construction representatives provide frontline insights on sequencing, methods, safety, and site constraints; and the CM coordinates and documents these risks, helping to create a practical risk register and mitigation plan. When this broad input is available, you’re much more likely to catch issues early and set realistic expectations.

Excluding the owner removes critical objectives and financial constraints from the discussion, making the review less effective. Limiting the review to internal staff or to external consultants only omits essential perspectives from either the client side or the on-site execution team, which can leave significant risks unaddressed. Including all those parties when possible leads to a more robust risk profile and better preparedness for the project.