PMP · Question #803
After signing an agreement with a vendor, the project manager notices that the vendor is continuously asking for changes on the procurement statement of work (SOW). These changes would improve the pro
The correct answer is C. Assess the situation as an opportunity for improvement and perform a risk analysis.. When a vendor proposes SOW changes that promise project improvement, the project manager should assess these as potential opportunities. This involves conducting a risk analysis to understand the impact and deciding whether to proceed with the changes through the formal change co
Question
After signing an agreement with a vendor, the project manager notices that the vendor is continuously asking for changes on the procurement statement of work (SOW). These changes would improve the project outcome. What should the project manager do next?
Options
- AConsult the list of selected vendors for the bid and evaluate a possible change of vendor.
- BRevise the procurement control process to avoid undesired changes that might affect the
- CAssess the situation as an opportunity for improvement and perform a risk analysis.
- DConduct an audit on the procurement process and inform the vendor about the audit's
How the community answered
(38 responses)- A11% (4)
- B3% (1)
- C74% (28)
- D13% (5)
Why each option
When a vendor proposes SOW changes that promise project improvement, the project manager should assess these as potential opportunities. This involves conducting a risk analysis to understand the impact and deciding whether to proceed with the changes through the formal change control process.
Switching vendors after an agreement is signed is a drastic measure and premature when the proposed changes are framed as improvements.
Revising the procurement control process to avoid changes is counterproductive if the changes actually improve the project outcome.
If the proposed changes from the vendor would improve the project outcome, the project manager should view this as an opportunity for positive change rather than an immediate problem. A thorough risk analysis will evaluate the potential benefits against any new risks, costs, or schedule impacts, informing a decision to either approve, reject, or modify the changes via the change control process.
Conducting an audit and informing the vendor about it implies a lack of trust or a perceived problem, which is not indicated if the changes are beneficial; it's an adversarial approach when a collaborative one might be more appropriate.
Concept tested: Integrated Change Control, Procurement Management
Source: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/integrated-change-control-process-6819
Topics
Community Discussion
7
Viktor S.May 7, 2026C is correct. The vendor is floating ideas that could improve the outcome, so the PM should treat it as a potential opportunity and run it through risk analysis to see if the upside is worth a formal change request. That is literally the "opportunities" branch of risk management, not a procurement problem.
Grace U.Apr 23, 2026Had this on my exam last week, picked C because changes mean opportunity and risk.
Dervla O.Apr 15, 2026C is the move here because the stem says these changes would improve the outcome, so you are looking at a potential upside, not a threat. Risk analysis covers both positive and negative risks, which is the trap that trips people up. Quick question for anyone who has sat the exam recently: are you seeing procurement SOW scenarios tied more to the Conduct Procurements process or Control Procurements on the actual test, or is it split pretty evenly?
Wesley A.Apr 6, 2026Going with D here. Failed my first attempt partly because I second-guessed the procurement audit route, but a vendor pushing repeated SOW changes after signing is exactly when you audit the procurement process and let them know it is happening. That transparency matters, and it keeps the vendor from quietly steering scope while you document everything.
Viktor S.Apr 6, 2026C is correct here because repeated SOW changes after contract signing point to administer procurement activities, specifically contract change control, not a procurement audit. An audit reviews how the procurement process performed overall, while the day-to-day handling of vendor-requested changes happens during contract administration.
Ola B.Apr 27, 2026D is the right move here. The vendor keeps coming back with SOW changes after the agreement is signed, so something broke down in the procurement process and you need to find out what. A procurement audit lets you review how the SOW was originally developed and whether the requirements gathering missed the mark. Think of it like spinning up a quick lab to trace where the config went wrong, you audit the process first before deciding on next steps with the vendor.
Viktor S.Apr 30, 2026Actually it is C. If the vendor keeps submitting SOW changes after signing, the fix is a contract change control system, not a procurement audit. An audit looks backward at how you got here, but what you need right now is the mechanism that governs how changes get requested, evaluated, and approved or rejected going forward.