PMP · Question #764
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…
The correct answer is B. Provide the failed test results along with the agreed-upon acceptance criteria. To support a claim that system quality is unsatisfactory during acceptance testing, the project manager must provide concrete evidence by comparing failed test results against the contractually agreed-upon acceptance criteria.
Question
Options
- AShare unsuccessful results from previous projects with a similar scope
- BProvide the failed test results along with the agreed-upon acceptance criteria
- CShow that the acceptance criteria were changed by the vendor without approval.
- DDocument in the risk log that the issues in the system were already identified
How the community answered
(42 responses)- A2% (1)
- B71% (30)
- C10% (4)
- D17% (7)
Why each option
To support a claim that system quality is unsatisfactory during acceptance testing, the project manager must provide concrete evidence by comparing failed test results against the contractually agreed-upon acceptance criteria.
Sharing results from previous projects is irrelevant to the current contract and its specific acceptance criteria and will not professionally support the claim against the vendor.
The most defensible and professional way for a project manager to support a claim of unsatisfactory quality is by providing objective evidence, specifically the failed test results, directly compared against the acceptance criteria agreed upon in the contract. This clearly demonstrates where the vendor's deliverables do not meet the predefined standards and expectations.
While the vendor changing acceptance criteria without approval would be a serious issue, the question states the project manager noticed the system quality was not satisfactory, implying the criteria themselves are still valid but the system doesn't meet them.
Documenting issues in a risk log is for internal project management and risk tracking, not for formally supporting a claim to a vendor during acceptance testing; objective evidence of failure against criteria is needed.
Concept tested: Contract management and quality assurance
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok
Topics
Community Discussion
8
Prof. SaraJun 26, 2026B is correct because a claim must be grounded in the contract, and pairing the failed test results with the agreed-upon acceptance criteria gives you objective, documented proof. Remember the mnemonic CAT for claims: Criteria, Acceptance results, Tie to the contract, which maps directly to the Procurement Management domain.
Luis F.Jun 28, 2026Good call on B, the objective documented proof angle is exactly what they are testing, but heads up to anyone memorizing that CAT mnemonic because it is not in the PMBOK guide so use it as a memory aid only and not a substitute for actually understanding the claims administration process.
Luis F.Jun 16, 2026Confirmed B on my exam. Failed test results plus the agreed acceptance criteria = proof.
Prof. SaraJun 17, 2026Good call on B, and the way to lock it in is to tie those failed results directly to Domain 4 acceptance criteria, since the exam loves pairing documented test failures with the baseline you signed off on.
Orla P.Jun 21, 2026B. Test results plus the signed acceptance criteria are all the vendor needs.
Prof. SaraJun 23, 2026Agreed on B, but remember the exam often pairs that acceptance criteria with a formal sign-off document, so think Vendor Transition Closure and cross-reference the Contract Closure requirements under Domain 4.
Hiroshi T.Jul 2, 2026Going with C. If the vendor changed the acceptance criteria without going through approved change control, that is a contractual breach on its own and it directly supports the claim regardless of whatever the test results show.
Luis F.Jul 3, 2026Actually it is B because the vendor using their own test results to validate acceptance is the real issue here, since the contract specifies an independent third party must perform the acceptance testing. C is tempting but changing criteria without change control is a process problem, while B directly violates a core contractual requirement for how acceptance is determined.