NCMA Certified Professional Contracts Manager - CPCM Exam Questions

QUESTION NO: 1
Decisions about which items to stock in each location and how much stock to keep on hand at various levels of operation are part of __________.

QUESTION NO: 2
There are four essential laws of supply and demand, assuming that all other factors remain equal, which of the following statements is true?

QUESTION NO: 3
In a fixed-price contract, delivery of anything less than the agreed-upon item __________.

QUESTION NO: 4
Scenario 6.0: 2
ABC Corporation (ABC) entered into a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a Federal buyer for the purchase of various "Soviet-style" parts. The contract language allowed for changes to:
o Drawings, designs, or specifications when the supplies to be furnished are to be specially manufactured for the buyer; o The method of shipment or packing; and o Place of delivery.
The contract also specified that:
If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether or not changed by the order, the buyer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, and shall modify the contract.
ABC was unable to obtain a particular part required to fulfill a delivery order under the contract, and missed the deadline for delivery. Two years after the deadline passed, with no delivery, the failure provided cause for termination for default under the conditions outlined in the contract. To avoid default, ABC entered into Bilateral Modification 4 with the buyer. The modification required ABC to provide additional parts as consideration for late delivery. The modification also stated that a new delivery date for the original delivery would be determined in another modification.
ABC remained unable to purchase the parts to fulfill the original order. A new modification, Bilateral Modification 7 , provided that ABC would deliver "new production" models of the parts in question, rather than the "new surplus" parts specified in the original delivery order. The idea to deliver new production models of the parts had originated with ABC and was accepted by the buyer. ABC did not attempt to negotiate any changes in price, no discussions of price were held, and no price adjustment was included in this modification.
ABC completed delivery of these parts on time. However, the new production models cost significantly more than the new surplus parts originally ordered.
Approximately four months later, ABC submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA) to the buyer. In the REA, ABC requested $1,369,377.47 , which represented the difference in price between the parts called for by the original delivery order and the parts ABC ultimately delivered. The buyer rejected the request.
Question:
Which factor contributed most to the risk assumed by the contractor for this contract?

QUESTION NO: 5
Over a period of time, if total assets increase by $44,000 and total liabilities decrease by $12,000, then the owner's equity will increase by __________.

QUESTION NO: 6
If an employee has a relationship or activity that could adversely affect his or her judgment or objectivity in making a business decision, that employee may have a __________.

QUESTION NO: 7
Scenario 4.0:
The buyer intended to change the pricing structure for a contract for garbage collection services at one of its facilities. Previously, the contract included contract line items priced on a "per-ton" basis, along with overhead line items covering the contractor's variable costs. The buyer intended to issue a solicitation that eliminated the overhead line items, thus requiring all costs to be included in a "price-per-ton" pricing method.
Prior to issuing a solicitation, the buyer conducted market research to determine whether it was customary industry practice to price garbage collection services based on the weight of the garbage collected. This market research included three parts:
* Reviewing refuse contracts at three other locations;
* Posting a notice to potential sellers asking for feedback on the proposed structure, to which the buyer received seven responses-four of which suggested a monthly line-item structure, which would include variable costs and not be on a "per-ton" basis, since these four respondents indicated that a "per-ton" pricing structure was not a "customary commercial practice," and three had no comment about the line-item structure; and
* Obtaining "historical market research" that had been performed during the previous year by personnel at another buyer location, consisting of talking to a sales representative from a waste removal company who indicated that his company used a "per-ton" pricing structure that was a "practical method of pricing for trash removal services." Following this market research, the buyer determined that it was "in the buyer's best interest" to utilize the
"per-ton" approach and that it was a "customary commercial practice."
A solicitation was issued requiring offerors to submit fixed prices on a per-ton basis for several line items, for which the solicitation provided estimated quantities. The buyer removed the line items for overhead costs that had been present in the prior contract for waste removal. Instead, the new solicitation required offerors to submit prices that reflected "all fixed and variable costs" on a per-ton basis and only permitted the seller "to invoice on tonnage collected." The resulting statement of work indicated that the seller was required to provide all items necessary to perform the required services, including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, materials, and supervision.
Question:
In this scenario, what type of contract was issued originally by the buyer?

QUESTION NO: 8
Scenario 5.0: 2
The buyer issued a request for proposals (RFP) for various support services. As part of these services, the seller would need to review the work of other contractors on existing and future programs. The RFP noted the potential for impaired objectivity or unfair competitive advantage organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), and specified that the seller would be ineligible for involvement at any level on specifically identified contracts. The RFP also specified a second set of contracts-one of which was identified as "LKS"-that presented potential OCIs, and directed any seller performing work under these latter contracts to provide notice and an OCI mitigation plan that would be analyzed by the buyer.
The buyer intended to award a single cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort contract for a two-year base period with three option years to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value. This determination was to be based on an evaluation of proposals under the following three factors, in descending order of importance:
o Cost
o Mission suitability
o Past performance
For this contract, mission suitability and past performance, when combined, were to be approximately equal in importance to cost.
The RFP provided that the evaluation of cost proposals would assess both reasonableness and realism. To determine cost, the RFP provided estimates for both estimated level-of-effort hours and optional flex hours for nine labor categories, specifying the experience, skills, and description for each category. Under the mission suitability factor, the RFP included various management approach subfactors. These included a phase-in approach subfactor, which required offerors to specify an incumbent capture rate as a percentage of the total workforce and to justify the rate and methods used to achieve it. Both offerors in the competitive range indicated high incumbent capture rates. The proposed staffing approach was to be assessed under the technical approach subfactor.
The source selection plan provided a table that described how point scores would be assigned and which corresponding adjectival ratings would result from the scores. During the first evaluation, the buyer assigned a weakness to one of the two offerors in the competitive range, Offeror A, based on the fact that Offeror A offered at or below the average compensation for the low end of the required experience level, as well as the risk associated with Offeror A's ability to capture a qualified workforce. In response, Offeror A showed the buyer that it had used commercial compensation rates to determine its compensation rates. As such, the compensation rates Offeror A had submitted in its proposal were less than the company's engineers were currently being compensated.
After establishing the competitive range, the buyer held discussions with Offeror A and Offeror B. The buyer then requested final proposal revisions (FPRs).
In its FPR, Offeror A noted that its major subcontractor, Sub A, was the prime contractor on the "LKS project" mentioned in the RFP, and submitted an OCI mitigation plan that included a labor distribution and mapping template showing that the program supported by Sub A's LKS project would not be overseen by Sub A's staff performing work on the new contract. Contemporaneous records indicated a brief discussion by the evaluators of this approach, but did not discuss OCI mitigation directly and provided no indication that the potential OCI was analyzed.
After reevaluation, Offeror A had slightly higher scores in the technical approach and mission suitability subfactors, a lower past performance rating, and a lower probable cost. After receiving and evaluating the FPRs, the buyer awarded the contract to Offeror A.
Question:
Is there enough information to determine whether Offeror A's OCI mitigation plan is sufficient?

QUESTION NO: 9
When a contractor submits a claim to the buyer, the buyer reviews the facts and prepares a written decision.
What must the contractor do while the buyer is considering the claim?

QUESTION NO: 10
What are the immediate products of internal activity (i.e., the amount of work done within the organization or by its contractors-such as miles of road repaired or number of calls answered) called?