PMP · Question #178
A project manager entered into a contract with a vendor to build a new system. During the acceptance test stage, the project manager noticed that the system quality was not satisfactory. How should th
The correct answer is A. Provide the failed test results along with the agreed-upon acceptance criteria.. To support a claim of unsatisfactory system quality to a vendor, the project manager must provide concrete evidence by presenting failed test results aligned with the contractually agreed-upon acceptance criteria.
Question
Options
- AProvide the failed test results along with the agreed-upon acceptance criteria.
- BShare unsuccessful results from previous projects with a similar scope.
- CDocument in the risk log that the issues in the system were already identified.
- DShow that the acceptance criteria were changed by the vendor without approval.
How the community answered
(19 responses)- A74% (14)
- B5% (1)
- C5% (1)
- D16% (3)
Why each option
To support a claim of unsatisfactory system quality to a vendor, the project manager must provide concrete evidence by presenting failed test results aligned with the contractually agreed-upon acceptance criteria.
A vendor contract relies on clear terms and conditions, including defined acceptance criteria for deliverables. When quality is unsatisfactory, presenting objective failed test results directly against these agreed-upon criteria provides undeniable evidence to support the claim, proving non-conformance to the contract.
Sharing past project failures is irrelevant to the current vendor's performance and does not constitute valid evidence for the current contract dispute.
Documenting issues in a risk log indicates internal awareness but does not provide the objective, contractual evidence needed to hold the vendor accountable for non-conforming deliverables.
While unauthorized changes to acceptance criteria would be a serious breach, the question states the PM 'noticed that the system quality was not satisfactory,' implying a failure to meet existing criteria, not that the criteria themselves were altered.
Concept tested: Contractual quality assurance and acceptance
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/test/create-test-plans
Topics
Community Discussion
4
Mei-Ling H.May 29, 2026A is correct because the claim must be backed by objective evidence, not opinion or history. The key word in the stem is "acceptance test stage", which means you compare the actual failed test results directly against the agreed-upon acceptance criteria from the contract. B is irrelevant since previous projects have no contractual weight here, and C just logs a risk instead of proving the defect. D sounds tempting but the stem never states the vendor changed anything, so you cannot assume that.
Luis F.May 9, 2026A. Saw this on my exam last month, failed test results plus criteria is the move.
Hiroshi T.May 24, 2026A is correct. Per the PMBOK Guide, claims must be backed by documented test results and the contractually agreed acceptance criteria.
Ola B.May 19, 2026I first leaned toward D because unapproved changes sound like a strong claim, but the stem never says the vendor changed anything. A is the clean answer because failed test results measured against the agreed acceptance criteria is exactly the evidence you need, and its easy to verify if you spin up a quick mock acceptance test in a sandbox to see how the documentation chain works.