PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5 Procurement Contract Analysis, Selection, and Statement of Work
Student Name
Capella University
PM-FPX5333 Project Budgeting, Procurement, and Quality
Professor Name
Submission Date
Table of Contents
Deliverable 1: Contract Selection Decision Matrix.. 3
Developing a Matrix to Analyze Procurement Contract Requirements. 3
Competency 2b: Justifying the Procurement Contract Selection. 4
Deliverable 2: Statement of Work.. 5
Version History. 5
- Executive Summary. 6
- Statement of Work. 6
Definition of Fixed-Price Contract. 6
- Project Management Plan. 9
3.1 Scope Statement. 9
3.2 Components In Scope and Not In Scope. 9
3.3 Detailed Requirements and List of Deliverables. 9
3.4 Acceptance Criteria. 9
3.5 Definition of Fixed-Price Contract. 10
3.6 Incorporation of Project Schedule. 10
- Change Management Plan. 10
- Organization Structure and Definition. 10
- Client Team Roles and Responsibilities. 11
- Constraints, Dependencies, and Assumptions. 11
- Communications Plan. 12
- Resource Plan. 13
- Risk Assessment Plan. 13
- Training and Technical Requirements. 14
- Quality Plan. 15
- Project Handover. 16
- Problems After Client Acceptance. 16
- Client Inputs and Other Comments. 17
- Glossary and Terminology List. 17
- Appendices. 19
- Signature and Approvals. 19
- Change Control for the Statement of Work. 19
- Distribution List. 19
References.. 21
Deliverable 1: Contract Selection Decision Matrix
A key congruence item in any procurement is the selection of the right contract type, since this dictates the distribution of cost, risk, and performance responsibility between buyer and vendor throughout the project. The Three Types of Contracts: Fixed Price, Time and Materials, and Cost-Reimbursable (PMI, 2021) highlight that the clarity of the scope definition, as well as the buyer’s risk tolerance and the organization’s capacity to administer the contract, are all factors to consider when determining the type of contract. The objective decision matrix that follows applies eight criteria to make an objective determination of the best possible contract type for this purchase.
Developing a Matrix to Analyze Procurement Contract Requirements
The type of contract chosen is important, as it will determine the allocation of cost, risk, and performance responsibilities between the buyer and the vendor in a project procurement management situation. Three alternative contract types for the NEO Web-based Training System are being evaluated: Fixed-Price (FP), Time and Materials (T&M), and Cost-Reimbursable (CR) (Park & Bruejes, 2022). Factors to consider in contract type selection are the buyer’s risk appetite, the degree of scope definition, and the capacity of the organization’s contract administration (Park & Bruejes, 2022). To determine the most appropriate contract type, the following decision matrix was created to use eight criteria from the project environment and stakeholder prioritization.
Table 1
Contract Type Decision Matrix : NearlyFree.com NEO System
Criteria | Weight (%) | Fixed-Price Score | FP Weighted | Time & Materials Score | T&M Weighted | Cost-Reimbursable Score | CR Weighted |
Budget Control | 20 | 9 | 1.80 | 4 | 0.80 | 3 | 0.60 |
Risk Allocation to Vendor | 20 | 9 | 1.80 | 3 | 0.60 | 4 | 0.80 |
Flexibility for Scope Changes | 15 | 5 | 0.75 | 9 | 1.35 | 8 | 1.20 |
Vendor Incentive for Efficiency | 10 | 8 | 0.80 | 4 | 0.40 | 5 | 0.50 |
Administrative Simplicity | 10 | 8 | 0.80 | 5 | 0.50 | 4 | 0.40 |
Schedule Predictability | 10 | 8 | 0.80 | 5 | 0.50 | 5 | 0.50 |
Scope Definition Clarity | 10 | 8 | 0.80 | 5 | 0.50 | 4 | 0.40 |
Client Procurement Maturity | 5 | 9 | 0.45 | 5 | 0.25 | 4 | 0.20 |
Total Weighted Score | 100 | 7.00 | 4.90 | 4.60 |
Competency 2b: Justifying the Procurement Contract Selection
The contract type of Fixed Price is the most suitable contract type for the NEO system purchase by NearlyFree.com, from the decision matrix perspective. The Fixed Price scored 7.00 points compared to 4.90 for the Time and Materials and 4.60 for the Cost Reimbursable, according to the primary criteria used, budget control and risk assumption, weighted by the project. Nearly Free.com has a budget of $50,000; a defined set of deliverables for LMS/HRIS integration, learning modules, user testing, and delivery of training; and a 90-day implementation period with deliverables. As Hua. These three characteristics of a defined scope, low corporate procurement maturity, and a fixed budget are the requirements that result in the buyer gaining a better value for money when contracting for a Fixed Price type of contract, as outlined by (2022). Under a Fixed Price contract, the vendor takes on the full risk of overspending the Fixed Price, thus incentivizing the vendor to be efficient in their performance and to place no additional burden on the Nearly Free.com Project Team.
Although the HRIS integration projects are very technically challenging and are quite detailed and well-defined, they were not eligible for the Time and Materials option because an audit of the project schema was done in phase 1. The Cost Reimbursable option could not be used due to fully exposing the buyer to cost risk and requiring Qualified Cost Accounting Systems, which NearlyFree.com does not have. This is the industry norm, which was confirmed by Atkinson (2022), as that is the type of contract used by organisations with low procurement maturity that need good levels of cost certainty and clear accountability for the deliverables.
Deliverable 2: Statement of Work
Project Name: NearlyFree.com NEO Web-Based Training System
Prepared by: Katlyn Lusk, Project Manager: Project Revive LLC
Date: 03/20/2026
Version History
Version | Date (MM/DD/YYYY) | Comments |
1.0 | 03/15/2026 | Initial draft : contract analysis and SOW |
1.1 | 03/20/2026 | Final version submitted for Assessment 5 |
1. Executive Summary
NearlyFree.com is considering the procurement (the purchasing process from vendors) of a third-party (as opposed to in-house) web-based Learning Management System (or LMS) to support 120-200 new hires per year and a maximum of 500 users for a New Employee Orientation (or NEO) program. The previous project post-mortem showed that for various reasons, the planned new employee orientation (or NEO) program was not implemented, one of which was due to poor planning of the program (which was identified as the quality of the planning); another was that the scope of the program was not managed; and another was that there were no contingency reserves or funds to achieve the program (also identified in the previous project post-mortem).
Almost all procurement of this third-party LMS will be handled by Project Revive (the Principal), and NearlyFree (the Vendor) will build a compliant, integrated, and user-validated web-based LMS. This SOW includes the total scope of work, schedule, deliverables, quality standards, and the conditions of the Vendor to complete this entire project within 90 calendar days after signing; and the maximum total cost of $50,000. This project’s Contract will be Fixed Price as indicated in the justification for Deliverable 1 of this SOW.
2. Statement of Work
Definition of Fixed-Price Contract
A Fixed Price contract is a contract that is awarded to a contractor a fixed dollar amount for the work to be performed, which means that the risk of cost overruns is passed to the contractor. The contractor will be expected to deliver all the services for $50,000 as per the Statement of Work (SOW). The Contractor shall be responsible for any overrun costs they may experience in their misunderstanding of the scope of the project, in the complexity of the technical solution, or in the amount of resources required to complete it. Any alteration to the Project scope as requested by the client, NearlyFree.com, must be processed by the formal Change Request process outlined in Section 4 and can only be processed as an adjustment of the contract amount if an unambiguous mutual contract has been established in writing.
Work Location | The provider of remote configuration, development, integration and training (all delivered) is not allowed to employ a subcontractor to provide any of the above-mentioned deliverables without receiving written permission from the project sponsor of the NearlyFree.com project. Progress on the project will be shared with the project sponsor on a bi-weekly basis through a Zoom video call (i.e., once a week or twice a week). Any vendor personnel accessing NearlyFree.com systems will need to complete a background check and sign a Data Handling Agreement before they are granted access to the NearlyFree.com systems. |
Period of Performance | The start of the contract is 15 July 2025 (or date of signing contract), and the end will be 15 October 2025 (90 days will have elapsed). The completion of User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is planned to be on 25 October 2025, and all vendors should have completed the UAT by 31 October 2025. All vendors can be charged a maximum of 40 hours per week from each vendor resource. Every billable hour should be entered on the Weekly Status Report, due to the NearlyFree.com Project Manager at 9:00 AM each Monday. |
Deliverables Schedule | Deliverables Schedule. Deliverable acceptance is a milestone-driven process, rather than calendar-driven. The milestone payments are made when each milestone deliverable is accepted in writing by the specified NearlyFree.com acceptance owner. |
Quality Standards | The deliverables should be compliant with ISO 9001:2015 (Principles of Quality Management) and ISO 9241-11 (Usability – Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Satisfaction), SCORM 1.2 / xAPI (E-learning Content Compatibility), and WCAG 2.1 Level AA (Accessibility). The platform’s service level agreement (SLA) guarantees that the platform has an uptime of 99.5% per month, with the exception of planned maintenance periods. Under normal load conditions, the maximum acceptable page load time is 5 seconds for any page on the website. The user transaction error rate is not more than 0.1% per month. |
Acceptance Criteria | The LMS has been fully configured with role-based content, branding and HRIS integration, and was tested to ensure that the data mapping is 100% accurate using automated test scripts. All the content modules have been SCORM compliant, peer reviewed, and subject matter expert approved. 90% or more of the users complete the task, and of 10 representative new users, the average user satisfaction score is 4.0/5.0 or above. At go-live, there are no critical WCAG 2.1 (Level AA) defects for accessibility. A knowledge base with the top 20 most common questions is available for use before go-live by the help desk. |
Special Requirements | The vendor will be required to have a valid SOC 2 Type II certification (proof of certification to accompany bid). The vendor will designate, in advance of starting work under this agreement, the project manager and the technical leader who will be assigned to this project. No substitute employees shall be appointed in any of these positions without the prior written consent of NearlyFree.com. All vendor staff should go through an onboarding procedure to handle data with NearlyFree.com before they can get access to any data in the system. The vendor will provide a sandbox demo system to allow for technical demonstrations, if needed, during the UAT. The system must be mobile-enabled in a way that the vendor provides mobile access to the system that allows for full mobile functionality without the need to install a native mobile application. |
Table 2
NEO System Deliverables Schedule
# | Deliverable | Description | Due Date | Payment Milestone | Acceptance Owner |
1 | Project Kickoff & Integration Spec | Signed SOW, HRIS schema audit report, integration technical specification, project schedule baseline | Week 1 | 10% ($5,000) | Theo / PM |
2 | Configured LMS Environment | LMS platform fully configured with role-based pathways, branding, SCORM compliance, accessibility settings | Week 6 | 20% ($10,000) | Theo / Savannah |
3 | Content Modules : Final | All NEO e-learning modules loaded, SCORM-tested, SME-approved, peer-reviewed, version-controlled | Week 9 | 20% ($10,000) | Haley / Quinn |
4 | HRIS/LMS Integration : Tested | Completed integration with 100% data mapping accuracy, integration test report, go/no-go recommendation | Week 11 | 20% ($10,000) | Theo |
5 | UAT Completion Report | UAT results with task completion and satisfaction scores, defect log, accessibility audit, go/no-go decision | Week 12 | 15% ($7,500) | Haley / Theo |
6 | Training Materials & Help Desk | Facilitator guide, help desk SOP, knowledge base (top 20 queries), train-the-trainer session delivered | Week 15 | 10% ($5,000) | Haley |
7 | Go-Live & Hypercare Plan | Production deployment confirmation, 60-day hypercare plan, escalation contacts, lessons-learned report | Week 18 | 5% ($2,500) | Savannah / PM |
Total | 100% ($50,000) |
3. Project Management Plan
3.1 Scope Statement
The Vendor shall create, configure, test, integrate, and deploy a web-based NEO System on NearlyFree.com. The System will support 200 Concurrent Users at launch and be able to support up to 500 Concurrent Users with no additional effort from the Vendor. All technical work to build this site, including Platform Configuration, HRIS Integration, Data loading into the Site, Testing, Data Import and Training, is the responsibility of the Vendor. NearlyFree.com is responsible for providing Branding assets needed, Subject Matter Experts available at the time of implementation/launch, HRIS access credentials used in the integration, and timely acceptance of completion decision from NearlyFree.com.
3.2 Components In Scope and Not In Scope
In Scope | LMS platform configuration and branding; HRIS/LMS integration via API; e-learning content module loading and SCORM testing; role-based content pathway setup; user acceptance testing support; facilitator guide and help desk SOP; 60-day post-launch hypercare support; accessibility audit (WCAG 2.1 Level AA); mobile compatibility (iOS and Android). |
Not In Scope | Custom mobile native application development; e-learning content authoring (content provided by NearlyFree.com SMEs in vendor-compatible format); HRIS system modifications; hardware procurement; analytics dashboard (deferred to Phase 2 per stakeholder agreement); ongoing LMS licensing after contract period. |
3.3 Detailed Requirements and List of Deliverables
The content will be automatically assigned based on the job code data provided in the HRIS, the content will be SCORM 1.2 or xAPI compliant, HR will automatically complete all content compliance tracking and report will be sent automatically to HR, there will be SSO (SAML 2.0 compliant) integration, new hire enrollment will be automated upon successful completion of onboarding through HRIS system, and progress dashboard will be provided for all HR Managers. Non-Functional Requirements will involve a monthly uptime SLA of 99.5%, page load time of no more than 5 seconds, maximum error rate of 0.1%, and all content will be compliant with WCAG 2.1 Level AA guidelines, and the system will be SOC 2 Type II certified. For a full list of deliverables, see Table 2.
3.4 Acceptance Criteria
Each deliverable will be validated against the Acceptance Criteria provided in Section 2 (Quality Standards & Acceptance Criteria) before the payment of milestones. NearlyFree.com will accept a deliverable within 5 business days of delivery or prepare a defect list, in writing, and deliver it to the vendor. The vendor is given seven business days to repair/resolve defects and resubmit the repaired deliverable to the customer for acceptance. If NearlyFree.com attempts to deliver and rejects any deliverable for the second time, the vendor shall be able to begin the dispute resolution procedure provided for in Appendix A (Signature & Authority) of this Contract.
3.5 Definition of Fixed-Price Contract
No Vendor Cost Overruns will be allowed on the Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Amount of $50,000. Any changes to the price of this Contract (barring Vendor Cost Overruns) will only be determined through the formal change request process described in Section 4 of this Contract. Acceptance of deliverables is a condition of payment for Milestones. If nearlyfree.com does not decide on the written acceptance of a deliverable within 5 Business Days after receipt of the deliverable, there will be no interest on the outstanding payment until a decision has been made.
3.6 Incorporation of Project Schedule
Seven milestone deliverables, as outlined in Table 2 below, were used to define the baseline project schedule. The project will take 18 weeks from signing of the contract. Deliverables 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are on the critical path. Deliverables 3 and 6 include some float in order to accommodate the scheduling requirements for the availability of SMEs and their training. The vendor shall notify the NearlyFree.com project sponsor within 24 hours of discovering a deviation from the critical path milestone of more than 5 business days of any such deviation. The vendor must also provide a status report on the weekly schedule on Mondays and a billing report on the weekly schedule also on Mondays.
4. Change Management Plan
Any changes in either the technical specifications, schedule, cost, or scope will require submission of a Change Request Form (CRF). The CRF will need to include 1) an explanation of what the CRF is requesting, 2) the reason for the request, 3) the impact of the request on the quality, schedule, and price of the project, and 4) the vendor’s recommendation for disposition. NearlyFree.com has set up a Change Control Board (CCB) which will review and approve or disapprove all CRFs it receives from vendors within 5 (5) business days of receipt. All approved changes shall be incorporated into a contract amendment that will be signed by both parties before it is implemented. Any vendor who sees a need for additional scope of work, beyond the initial work performed, will negotiate a price for that unit. No direct expense shall be charged against the vendor for any change they make that fixes their err, or and no approval from CCB is required.
5. Organization Structure and Definition
NearlyFree.com has a project management office (PMO) called Project Revive LLC, which oversees the project from a general perspective, including scheduling, vendor performance monitoring, and communication with all project stakeholders. NearlyFree.com is offering strategic sponsorship for the project, subject matter expertise, access to the systems required to complete the project, and the final acceptance of the project deliverables. The selected vendor will act as an independent contractor and deliver all technical services to the extent outlined in this SOW. This SOW will be used in conjunction with the Fixed-Price contract to form a three-party organization structure between the PMO, the Client, and the Vendor. All vendor communication will go through the Project Revive LLC project manager to provide one point of contact and preserve the integrity of all documentation.
6. Client Team Roles and Responsibilities
Savannah the Strategist (Project Sponsor) | Provides executive authorization for contract award and contract amendments. Final go/no-go authority for production deployment. Escalation point for unresolved vendor performance issues. Reviews and approves milestone completion for Deliverables 2 and 7. |
Felix the Frugal (Finance Officer) | Approves all payment milestone releases upon confirmation of written deliverable acceptance. Reviews vendor invoices for compliance with contract terms. Authorizes any contract price adjustments through the CCB process. Tracks actual spend against the $50,000 contract ceiling. |
Theo the Technologist (Technical Lead) | Leads HRIS schema audit and provides integration technical specifications (Deliverable 1). Reviews and accepts LMS configuration (Deliverable 2) and integration testing (Deliverable 4). Leads technical due diligence on vendor demonstrations. Evaluates technical components of UAT results. |
Haley the Human-Centric (HR Manager) | Provides content SME availability for module review and approval (Deliverable 3). Leads user acceptance testing coordination and signs off on UAT results (Deliverable 5). Reviews and accepts training materials and help desk SOP (Deliverable 6). Represents end-user interests in all design and content decisions. |
Katlyn Lusk (Project Manager, PMO) | Manages day-to-day vendor relationship and contract administration. Chairs bi-weekly Zoom progress check-ins. Reviews and approves weekly vendor status reports. Manages the change request process. Escalates performance issues to Savannah. Maintains contract documentation and acceptance records. |
Quinn the Quality Expert (QA Lead) | Conducts quality gate reviews at each milestone. Reviews SCORM compliance, accessibility audit results, and content peer review documentation. Confirms all quality standards are met before acceptance recommendations are issued. Reports quality status to the CCB. |
7. Constraints, Dependencies, and Assumptions
Constraints | The maximum total contract value will be $50,000. The maximum length of time that a contract can last is 90 calendar days. Implementation must take place within the first quarter of the year (meaning not in the fourth quarter), due to operational requirements. The vendor must utilize the existing HRIS within NearlyFree.com and there should be no changes made to the system as part of this engagement. All information must remain inside the boundaries established by the data-handling agreement. |
Dependencies | Before beginning the development of integration (Deliverable 4), HRIS schema audit must be finalized and signed off (Deliverable 1). Before content can be uploaded into the LMS (Deliverable 3), subject matter expert (SME) review and approval of the content must be completed. Also, the cohort of 10 representative new hires for User Acceptance Testing (UAT) must be determined by Haley prior to the end of Week 10. Branding assets for NearlyFree.com must be provided to the vendor within five (5) business days following the signing of the contract. |
Assumptions | Integration through the Almost Free HRIS can be accomplished via standard REST or SOAP protocol and is an API-based integration method. There will be sufficient availability of all approved subject matter experts for a minimum of four hours each week during content review. The selected vendor currently holds SOC 2 Type II certification. The planned schedule allows vendors 90 days to deliver an incremental number of all seven milestones from the contract deliverables as outlined in their proposal. |
8. Communications Plan
Weekly Status Report | Vendor submits written status report every Monday by 9:00 AM covering: tasks completed, tasks in progress, upcoming milestones, issues and risks, and budget burn rate. Distributed to: Project Manager, Theo, Felix. |
Bi-Weekly Progress Check-in | 60-minute Zoom meeting every second Wednesday. Attendees: Project Manager, Savannah, Theo, Haley, vendor PM and technical lead. Agenda: milestone status, issue escalation, upcoming deliverable preview. |
Milestone Acceptance Review | Formal acceptance meeting held within three business days of deliverable submission. Attendees vary by deliverable as defined in Table 2. Meeting minutes and acceptance decision documented in writing. |
Change Request Communication | CRF submitted in writing to Project Manager. CCB decision communicated within five business days. All change communications copied to Felix and Savannah. |
Issue Escalation | Critical issues (those impacting critical path by more than five business days or threatening the $50,000 budget ceiling) escalated to Savannah within 24 hours of identification by Project Manager. |
Final Go-Live Communication | Project Manager issues formal go-live authorization memo to all stakeholders and vendor upon satisfaction of all UAT acceptance criteria. |
9. Resource Plan
Vendor Resources (Minimum) | Named project manager (0.5 FTE); LMS technical lead / integration developer (1.0 FTE); instructional designer/content developer (0.5 FTE); QA tester (0.25 FTE). No substitution of named resources without written NearlyFree.com approval. |
NearlyFree.com Resources | Project Manager : Project Revive LLC (1.0 FTE, provided by PMO); Technical Lead Theo (0.25 FTE, HRIS integration and technical review); HR Manager Haley (0.25 FTE, content SME and UAT lead); QA Lead Quinn (0.25 FTE, quality gate reviews); Finance Officer Felix (0.1 FTE, payment approvals). |
Infrastructure and Tools | Vendor provides: LMS platform (SaaS), development and sandboxed testing environments, content authoring tools. NearlyFree.com provides: HRIS API credentials and sandboxed test environment, branding assets, UAT participant cohort, and Zoom conferencing license. |
Training Cost Allocation | Vendor-delivered training (three facilitated onboarding sessions and train-the-trainer): included in contract price. NearlyFree.com internal staff time for training attendance: estimated 20 hours total, absorbed within normal HR operations budget. |
Software / Hardware Costs | All software licensing, LMS SaaS subscription for the 90-day period, and development tooling are vendor responsibility and included within the $50,000 contract ceiling. Post-contract LMS licensing (Year 1+) estimated at $18,000/year, budgeted separately by Felix outside this SOW. |
10. Risk Assessment Plan
Table 3
NEO SOW Risk Register
Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation Strategy | Owner |
Vendor underestimates HRIS integration complexity | Medium | High | Mandatory schema audit before integration work begins (Deliverable 1). Fixed-price contract absorbs vendor-side cost overruns. Technical demos required pre-award. | Theo / PM |
HRIS API unavailable or incompatible | Low | High | Vendor to confirm API compatibility with sandboxed HRIS environment before contract award. Integration spec (Deliverable 1) must identify any compatibility gaps within Week 1. | Theo |
SME unavailability delays content approval | Medium | Medium | SME calendar commitments obtained from Haley before contract award. Escalation path to Savannah if SME availability falls below four hours/week. | Haley / PM |
Vendor personnel turnover on key roles | Low | High | Named resource clause in contract. Replacement requires written approval. Vendor must provide transition plan within 48 hours of any named resource departure. | PM / Larry |
Scope creep from NearlyFree.com side | Medium | High | Formal change request process (Section 4) with CCB approval required before any scope addition. Felix reviews cost impact of all approved changes. | PM / Felix |
UAT failure (satisfaction below 90%) | Medium | High | Formative usability testing during development (Week 6–8). Defect triage and remediation cycle built into UAT phase. Uma co-leads UAT to ensure user perspective is represented. | Haley / Quinn |
11. Training and Technical Requirements
11.1 Training Costs
Vendor-Delivered Training | Three fifty-five (55) minute live (i.e., real-time) remote onboarding sessions via Zoom for new employees. One 90-minute train-the-trainer session for the NearlyFree.com human resources team. All of these services are included in the original $50,000 fixed-price contract amount. Meeting dates will be agreed upon with Haley at least 10 business days prior. |
Self-Service Training Assets | Vendor to deliver: facilitator guide (PDF and editable Word format); help desk SOP; knowledge base covering top 20 anticipated new hire queries; quick-start user guide for new hire self-onboarding. All assets delivered as Deliverable 6 by Week 15. |
NearlyFree.com Internal Costs | Estimated 20 hours of HR staff time for training participation and train-the-trainer session. No additional cost to contract : absorbed within existing HR operations. |
11.2 Software, Hardware, and Other Costs
LMS Platform (Contract Period) | Included in $50,000 fixed-price contract. Vendor to provide SaaS-hosted LMS with no NearlyFree.com hardware requirements. |
LMS Annual License (Post-Contract) | Estimated $18,000/year. To be negotiated in a separate maintenance and support agreement before contract closeout. |
HRIS API Access | Provided by NearlyFree.com at no cost to vendor. SOC 2-compliant API gateway will be configured by Theo before integration development begins. |
Authoring Tools | Vendor responsibility. Must produce SCORM 1.2 or xAPI-compliant output compatible with the selected LMS. |
Zoom Conferencing | NearlyFree.com provides host license for all project meetings. Vendor provides own client access. |
12. Quality Plan
Quality management for the NEO system procurement is governed by the Quality Assurance Plan developed in Assessment 3 of this project series. The following quality provisions are contractually binding within this SOW.
Applicable Standards | ISO 9001:2015 (quality management); ISO 9241-11 (usability); SCORM 1.2 / xAPI (content interoperability); WCAG 2.1 Level AA (accessibility); SOC 2 Type II (platform security). |
QA Activities | Sprint-level definition-of-done reviews by vendor QA; peer review of all content modules by NearlyFree.com SMEs; formative usability testing (Week 6–8) with 5 representative users; summative UAT (Week 10–12) with 10 representative new hires; accessibility audit before go-live; documentation quality audit before Deliverable 6 acceptance. |
Quality Metrics | UAT task completion rate: minimum 90%. User satisfaction score: minimum 4.0/5.0. Integration data mapping accuracy: 100%. WCAG 2.1 Level AA critical defects at go-live: zero. Platform uptime: 99.5% monthly average. Page load time: maximum 5 seconds. Error rate: maximum 0.1%. |
Quality Roles | Quinn (QA Lead): conducts gate reviews at each milestone; issues quality sign-off before acceptance recommendation. Vendor QA: maintains defect log; conducts regression testing after each fix cycle; submits test reports with each deliverable. Haley: co-leads UAT and usability reviews. |
Non-Conformance | Any deliverable failing to meet defined acceptance criteria will be returned with a documented defect list. Vendor has seven business days to remediate and resubmit. Second rejection may trigger the contract dispute resolution process or contract termination for cause. |
13. Project Handover
13.1 Final Delivery and Production
Project handover will be done upon written acceptance of Deliverable 7 (Go-Live and Hypercare Plan). At the time of handover, the vendor shall provide: Access to the production system and administration documentation that explains how the system(s) should be managed and operated; a full source code and/or configuration export (if applicable); user documentation, a Help Desk Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that explains how the Help Desk operates; facilitation guides; all test reports, user acceptance test (UAT) results and defect logs for all defect IDs reported since the start of testing, up to project completion; and a technical integration specification for all integrations, detailed mapping documents showing how each integration works between the solution(s), including a data dictionary. A formal handover meeting should take place with the vendor, Project Manager, Th a, nd Haley to go over all documents and make sure they are complete. (See Appendix A.1)
The 60-day hyper care period starts at the time of the production go-live. The vendor will offer priority help desk support during this time period with a maximum response time of 4 hours to respond to critical defects and 24 hours to respond to non-critical defects. After the hyper care period, all the support services will be handed over under the maintenance and support agreement between parties.
14. Problems After Client Acceptance
Vendors will correct defects within thirty (30) days after final client acceptance at no extra cost to the client if a defect is discovered because the vendor has failed to deliver on the vendor’s promises. The vendor is solely responsible for remedying any defect if they have caused the defect to not perform as required in Section 2 of this SOW. NearlyFree.com is only covered under warranty if it notifies the vendor in writing of the defect within 30 days of its becoming live. This warranty does not cover any defect caused by configuration changes made to the material by NearlyFree.com, changes made to the HRIS, or by user error. The post-contract maintenance agreement will address any defects after the 30-day warranty period.
15. Client Inputs and Other Comments
Branding Assets | NearlyFree.com will provide all branding assets (logos, color palette, typography guide, image library) within five business days of contract signing. Delay in asset delivery may extend the vendor’s Deliverable 2 timeline on a day-for-day basis. |
HRIS Test Environment | NearlyFree.com will provide a sandboxed HRIS test environment with representative data by Week 2. Theo is responsible for coordinating test environment setup. |
SME Availability | Haley confirms a minimum of four SME hours per week are reserved for content review throughout Phases 3 and 6 (Weeks 4–15). SME names and calendar availability will be provided to the vendor at the Week 1 kickoff meeting. |
UAT Participant Cohort | Haley will recruit 10 representative new hire participants for UAT by Week 9. Participants must represent a cross-section of job roles, technical proficiency levels, and onboarding cohorts. |
Stakeholder Feedback Cycles | All stakeholder feedback on deliverables must be consolidated by the Project Manager before submission to the vendor. The vendor will not be required to respond to unconsolidated or contradictory feedback from multiple NearlyFree.com contacts. |
16. Glossary and Terminology List
API | Application Programming Interface : a protocol for software systems to communicate with each other. |
BAC | Budget at Completion : the total approved project budget. |
CCB | Change Control Board : the governance body responsible for reviewing and approving change requests. |
CRF | Change Request Form : the formal document used to initiate a scope, schedule, or cost change. |
FFP | Firm Fixed-Price : a contract type in which the price is fixed and not subject to adjustment for vendor cost changes. |
HRIS | Human Resources Information System : the existing NearlyFree.com HR data management platform. |
LMS | Learning Management System : the web-based platform used to host and deliver the NEO e-learning program. |
NEO | New Employee Orientation : the onboarding program for new hires at NearlyFree.com. |
PMO | Project Management Office : Project Revive LLC, acting as project manager on behalf of NearlyFree.com. |
SAML 2.0 | Security Assertion Markup Language : a standard for Single Sign-On (SSO) authentication. |
SCORM | Sharable Content Object Reference Model : a standard for e-learning content interoperability. |
SLA | Service Level Agreement : contractually defined performance standards for vendor service delivery. |
SOC 2 Type II | Service Organization Control 2 : an independent security and availability audit standard for SaaS vendors. |
SOW | Statement of Work : this document, defining the scope, schedule, deliverables, and standards for the vendor engagement. |
UAT | User Acceptance Testing : structured testing conducted with representative end users to validate system usability and functionality. |
WCAG 2.1 | Web Content Accessibility Guidelines : the international standard for digital content accessibility. |
xAPI | Experience API (Tin Can API) : a modern e-learning standard that enables tracking of learning experiences. |
17. Appendices
A. Signature and Approvals
This Statement of Work and Fixed-Price Contract is agreed and accepted by the authorized representatives of NearlyFree.com and the selected vendor. Signatures below constitute legal acceptance of all terms and conditions defined in this document.
NearlyFree.com Project Sponsor | Savannah the Strategist Signature: ___________________________ Date: ______________________________ |
Project Manager : Project Revive LLC | Katlyn Lusk Signature: ___________________________ Date: ______________________________ |
Vendor Authorized Representative | Name: ______________________________ Title: ______________________________ Signature: ___________________________ Date: ______________________________ |
B. Change Control for the Statement of Work
Any changes or modifications to this Statement of Work must be documented in a Change Request Form (CRF), reviewed by the Change Control Board, and incorporated into a signed amendment to the SOW prior to implementation. There will be no binding changes made through informal or verbal means; and the cover page of this document will contain a version history table to be revised as each amendment is approved.
C. Distribution List
Savannah the Strategist | Project Sponsor : NearlyFree.com : All versions |
Katlyn Lusk | Project Manager : Project Revive LLC : All versions |
Felix the Frugal | Finance Officer : NearlyFree.com : All versions |
Theo the Technologist | Technical Lead : NearlyFree.com : All versions |
Haley the Human-Centric | HR Manager : NearlyFree.com : All versions |
Quinn the Quality Expert | QA Lead : NearlyFree.com : All versions |
Vendor Project Manager | Named vendor PM : Controlled copy; redistribution requires written approval |
Larry the Legal Eagle | Legal Counsel : NearlyFree.com : Final version and all amendments |
For the 4th assessment of this class visit: PM FPX 5333 Assessment 4
Step-by-Step Instructions to write
PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5
Contact us to receive step-by-step instructions.
Instructions File For
PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5
Contact us to get the instruction file.
Scoring Guide For
PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5
Contact us to get the scoring guide.
References (APA Format) For
PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5
Below are references for PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5 Procurement Contract Analysis, Selection, and Statement of Work:
Atkinson, C. L. (2022). Fixed price contracts. Springer EBooks, 4951–4954. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_1585
Hua, S. Y. (2022). Procurement maturity and IT failures in the public sector. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-07-2022-0097
Park, G., & Brunjes, B. M. (2022). Engaging citizens in government contracting: A theoretical approach for the role of social service nonprofits. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac020
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute. https://www.pmi.org/standards/pmbok
Appendix For
PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5
Appendix A
Exchange 1: Felix on Variable-Cost Contract Risks
Facilitator prompt: Felix, what is your biggest concern about variable-cost contract types like Time and Materials?
Felix: My concern is simple : I cannot approve an open-ended financial commitment on a project with a known history of cost overruns. A Time and Materials contract gives the vendor no incentive to work efficiently. Every extra hour they bill, every scope discovery they claim, every change they say was unanticipated becomes our cost. On the original NEO project, we had no cost controls and we lost $70,800 before a single user ever logged in. I will not sign off on a T&M contract for this engagement. The scope is defined. The deliverables are clear. The vendor has 90 days and $50,000. Fixed-price is the only structure that gives me the financial predictability I need to defend this investment to the board.
Outcome: Felix’s position confirmed the Fixed-Price contract as the required structure. His requirement for milestone-based payment tied to written acceptance was incorporated into Table 2 of the SOW.
Exchange 2: Savannah on Fixed-Price Safeguards
Facilitator prompt: Savannah, if we go with a fixed-price model, what safeguards do you want to ensure accountability and delivery?
Savannah: Three things. First, milestone-based payments : the vendor does not get paid until we have accepted the deliverable in writing. No acceptance, no payment. Second, a named resource clause : I want to know who is doing the work, and if the vendor tries to swap out their integration developer mid-project, I want the right to approve the replacement or terminate. Third, a performance bond or at minimum a termination-for-cause clause with a refund provision for unaccepted deliverables. We are not paying for promises. We are paying for working software that meets the acceptance criteria. If the vendor cannot deliver that, there have to be consequences.
Outcome: All three safeguards were incorporated into the SOW : milestone payments in Table 2, the named resource clause in Section 9, and termination provisions and acceptance criteria dispute process in Sections 12 and 14.
Exchange 3: Theo on Technical Change Risks
Facilitator prompt: Theo, do you anticipate any risks that would require a flexible change process mid-development?
Theo: Yes, specifically around the HRIS integration. The original project failed in part because we did not audit the HRIS schema before signing contracts, and then the vendor hit undocumented legacy field mappings that blew up the integration timeline and budget. For the turnaround, I am requiring that Deliverable 1 include a full schema audit and a signed integration specification before any integration development begins. That way, the vendor cannot claim scope surprise on the technical integration. For the rest of the deliverables, the scope is stable enough for fixed-price. But I do want a formal change request process : not to create flexibility for the vendor, but to protect us if we need to adjust the technical requirements from our side without losing cost control.
Outcome: The mandatory schema audit was incorporated into Deliverable 1, and the formal change request process in Section 4 was designed to accommodate NearlyFree.com-initiated technical adjustments without creating open-ended vendor cost exposure.
Exchange 4: Larry on Legally Defensible Acceptance Criteria
Facilitator prompt: Larry, how would you structure acceptance criteria in a legally defensible SOW?
Larry: Three principles. First, acceptance criteria must be objective and measurable : no subjective language like ‘satisfactory performance’ or ‘meets expectations.’ Every criterion must have a number attached to it. Ninety percent UAT task completion. 4.0 out of 5.0 satisfaction score. Zero critical accessibility defects. These are testable and defensible in a dispute. Second, the acceptance process must have defined timescales : the client reviews within five business days, the vendor remediates within seven. Without timescales, delivery disputes become endless. Third, the SOW must define what happens when acceptance is withheld : a dispute resolution process, an escalation path, and ultimately the termination-for-cause provision. Ambiguity in acceptance criteria is where contract disputes are born.
Outcome: Larry’s three principles were applied directly to the Acceptance Criteria in Section 2 and the Non-Conformance provisions in Section 12, with specific measurable thresholds, defined response timescales, and a dispute escalation path.
Exchange 5: Haley on SOW Training and User Support Elements
Facilitator prompt: Haley, what elements must be included in the SOW to ensure quality training delivery and end-user satisfaction?
Haley: I need four things specifically in the SOW. One : three facilitated onboarding sessions are contractually required, not optional or best-efforts. They need to be in the deliverables schedule with a payment milestone attached. Two : a train-the-trainer session so HR can run sessions independently after the contract ends. Three : the help desk must be live before go-live, not three weeks after. I need the SOP, the knowledge base covering the top twenty questions new hires will ask, and a real escalation path to someone who knows the product. Four : the user satisfaction score of 4.0 out of 5.0 must be a hard acceptance criterion for UAT, not a target. If the vendor delivers a system that new hires find confusing, we should not be obligated to accept it regardless of whether the technical checkboxes are ticked.
Outcome: All four of Haley’s requirements were incorporated as contractually binding provisions in Deliverable 6 (training materials and help desk), the UAT acceptance criteria in Section 2, and the Quality Metrics in Section 12.
Best Capella professors to choose from for
PM-FPX5333
- Chris Fichera, DBA.
- Lisa Mohanty, PhD.
(FAQs) related to
PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5
Question 1: What is PM FPX 5333 Assessment 5 about?
Answer 1: Closing NEO project, evaluating outcomes, lessons learned, overall success assessment.
Do you need a tutor to help with this paper for you within 24 hours
- 0% Plagiarised
- 0% AI
- Distinguish grades guarantee
- 24 hour delivery