Scope for a sidewalk ADA retrofit includes landscaping a distant park that has no accessibility connection to the sidewalk work. What is the appropriate critique?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
ADA sidewalks and a faraway park makeover are different jobs. Unrelated landscaping is out-of-scope baggage—cut it so the retrofit stays focused on accessibility.
Full Explanation
Scope should include only work required to deliver the authorized objective; landscaping a distant park with no accessibility connection to a sidewalk ADA retrofit is out of scope and should be removed. Keeping the landscaping because any city park work belongs in every sidewalk project fails by concept: shared municipal ownership does not make unrelated park beautification part of an ADA sidewalk scope boundary. Expanding sidewalk scope to all parks citywide to justify the landscaping fails because widening scope to rationalize extras is classic creep, not disciplined scope definition. Converting the retrofit into operations so unrelated work no longer matters fails because reclassifying the effort does not legitimize unrelated deliverables or remove the need for a clear boundary. Exam caveat: CAPM scope items reward exclusions and boundary discipline—civic “while we’re at it” add-ons are common distractors that inflate cost without advancing the stated objective. Operational check: strike the distant-park landscaping from the scope baseline, record it as a separate initiative if parks wants it funded, and confirm ADA sidewalk acceptance criteria remain focused on accessible path of travel.