[Q72-Q94] Download NCMA CPCM Sample Questions [Aug-2026]

NO.72 Which of the following is NOT the opportunity analysis factor from the buyer’s perspective?

NO.73 Lucent’s program management organization rapidly went through which four distinct phases:

NO.74 Which contracts allow overrun or under-run sharing of cost through a predetermined formula for fee adjustments that apply to incentives for cost category contracts?

NO.75 A fixed fee that the seller will earn no matter how its performance is evaluated in known as:

NO.76 Scenario 5.0: 1
Offeror C contested the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the buyer for “aircraft logistics, integration, configuration management, and engineering” (ALICE) services. The seller would provide personnel to work at a buyer’s location, and the buyer would direct all work and “establish work hours consistent with meeting the mission at each contract location.” The RFP provided an estimated level of effort, and offerors completed a pricing model spreadsheet.
Proposals were to be evaluated on mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price. The mission suitability and past performance factors were approximately equal in importance, and each was more important than cost/price. The purpose of the mission suitability factor was to determine the offeror’s ability to provide the required personnel at the required work hours to fulfill the contract need. It included several subfactors: management approach, overall management approach, staffing approach, and contract phase-in approach.
Offeror C argued that the buyer unfairly assessed a management approach weakness for failing to show a plan for complying with required work schedules and break times, failing to consider that the buyer establishes work hours consistent with mission needs, and failing to consider the buyer’s intention to have night shift work on Sundays. Offeror C’s proposal had discussed its approach to managing scheduling and breaks and stated that it would comply with collective bargaining agreement requirements. The buyer nevertheless judged the approach inadequate because it did not explain how Offeror C would enforce worker compliance, comparing the plan to a highway speed-limit sign that does not ensure motorists will not speed. GAO found that the RFP required offerors to explain their approaches to ensuring flexible scheduling and required breaks, but did not reasonably disclose that offerors also had to propose an enforcement mechanism.
Question:
In this scenario, how could the buyer have made its evaluation process more defensible to avoid a protest?

NO.77 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:
Based on the contract language that specified how the contract would handle changes, was ABC entitled to an equitable adjustment?

NO.78 A(n) __________ contract is created when the parties state their intentions either verbally or in writing.

NO.79 In interpretation of acceptance principle according to Civil law, missing terms are filled in by the court.

NO.80 Contract management competency is a direct measurement of the manager’s ability to continuously learn and apply leadership, management, and technical competencies as __________.

NO.81 __________ is the type of project management methodology utilizing short-term sprints to react to changing scope requirements.

NO.82 The uniform commercial code is a clear, precise document that uniformly and specifically governs all commercial transactions throughout the United States, it is a:

NO.83 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 situation, which of the following activities could have helped the buyer improve its solicitation and avoid controversy?

NO.84 The art and science of managing a contractual agreement throughout the contracting process is called:

NO.85 Which of the following is Correct?

NO.86 Scenario 5.0: 1
Offeror C contested the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the buyer for “aircraft logistics, integration, configuration management, and engineering” (ALICE) services. The seller would provide personnel to work at a buyer’s location, and the buyer would direct all work and “establish work hours consistent with meeting the mission at each contract location.” The RFP provided an estimated level of effort, and offerors completed a pricing model spreadsheet.
Proposals were to be evaluated on mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price. The mission suitability and past performance factors were approximately equal in importance, and each was more important than cost/price. The purpose of the mission suitability factor was to determine the offeror’s ability to provide the required personnel at the required work hours to fulfill the contract need. It included several subfactors: management approach, overall management approach, staffing approach, and contract phase-in approach.
Offeror C argued that the buyer unfairly assessed a management approach weakness for failing to show a plan for complying with required work schedules and break times, failing to consider that the buyer establishes work hours consistent with mission needs, and failing to consider the buyer’s intention to have night shift work on Sundays. Offeror C’s proposal had discussed its approach to managing scheduling and breaks and stated that it would comply with collective bargaining agreement requirements. The buyer nevertheless judged the approach inadequate because it did not explain how Offeror C would enforce worker compliance, comparing the plan to a highway speed-limit sign that does not ensure motorists will not speed. GAO found that the RFP required offerors to explain their approaches to ensuring flexible scheduling and required breaks, but did not reasonably disclose that offerors also had to propose an enforcement mechanism.
Question:
What is the main purpose of a pre-award debriefing following an offeror’s elimination from the competitive range?

NO.87 ____________________ is the time it takes from when a requirement is determined, a solicitation is issued, bids/proposals are received and evaluated, a contract is awarded and quality products, services and/or solutions are provided to the buyer

NO.88 Who is responsible for ensuring the contractor’s performance is in accordance with the contract?

NO.89 Scenario 6.0: 1 – “When is a Commitment Not a Commitment?”
The buyer entered into a contract to lease 20,240 square feet of office space from Office Leasing Company (OLC). This space consisted of 8,545 square feet in Suite 1100 and 11,695 square feet in Suite 1106. The lease was for five years and provided the buyer with a renewal option as follows:
The buyer shall have the right to one renewal option for a five-year term. The renewal option shall become effective provided notice is given in writing to the lessor of the buyer’s intent to exercise such option at least
270 days before the end of the original lease term; all other terms and conditions of this lease shall remain the same during any renewal term. Said notice shall be computed commencing with the day after the date of mailing.
The buyer also entered into Supplemental Lease Agreement Number 1 (SLA 1) , which stated it was being issued to reflect an expansion of 6,431 square feet in Suite 300. SLA 1 amended the original lease to encompass the additional space, changing the space from 20,240 square feet to approximately 26,671 square feet, and increased the annual rent to $1,098,790.70. SLA 1 also amended the renewal option text to reflect the new annual rent of $1,156,935.80.
The lease, as amended by SLA 1, also contained a buyer clause regarding authority to make changes to the lease. As stated in the clause, the buyer’s authorized agent may, by written order, make changes within the general scope of this lease to the amount of space, provided the lessor consents to the change.
The first lease was set to end on December 31, 2021. On February 28, 2020, the buyer’s contract specialist sent an email to OLC stating the buyer “hereby exercises its renewal option … for a period of five years.” The buyer’s contract specialist noted that the email was “official notification that the buyer exercises its renewal option right as provided under this lease,” and indicated that “this action will be followed up with a supplemental lease agreement in the near future.” The email also stated that “per SLA 1, [the buyer] would not like to renew the expansion space portion of the lease.” At that time, the buyer was planning to vacate a good portion of its leased inventory and requested that OLC allow the buyer to terminate the Suite 300 portion of the lease effective March 1, 2021.
On March 1, 2020, OLC agreed to accept the long renewal of Suites 1100 and 1106 per the renewal option if the buyer agreed to renew the third-floor space for two weeks, from January 1, 2021, to January 15, 2021. If OLC found a new tenant for a term extending beyond January 15, 2021, it would waive any further liability for the third-floor space as of the date of the replacement lease. After discussion, the buyer agreed over the phone to a two-week extension of Suite 300 at no rent.
On August 2, 2020, OLC emailed the buyer’s contract specialist to ask when the SLA would be prepared. The buyer’s contract specialist did not respond. Several weeks later, on August 24, the buyer determined that it no longer needed to rent any of the suites under the lease and requested to be released at lease termination. On September 10, OLC once again emailed the buyer’s contract specialist to follow up on the preparation of the SLA. This time, the buyer’s contract specialist responded, apologized for the delay, and stated that he would try to get the SLA to OLC in the next couple of weeks.
However, on October 26, the buyer’s contract specialist informed OLC that the buyer no longer intended to pursue the renewal option, reflecting the buyer’s August 24 determination that it no longer required any of the suites under the lease. The following day, on October 27, OLC responded that the buyer had already exercised the renewal option and that it intended to hold the buyer to that agreement.
On June 21, 2021, the buyer notified OLC that its renewal option would not be exercised and that the buyer would not be responsible for any rent payments after the lease expiration date of December 31, 2021.
Following a final decision from the buyer’s authorized agent, which rejected the claims that the buyer had exercised the renewal option, OLC filed a claim.
In order to properly exercise an option:
o The option must be accepted;
o Such acceptance may not change, add to, or qualify the terms of the offer; and o The buyer’s acceptance has to be unconditional and in exact accord with the terms of the contract being renewed.
Question:
How could OLC have removed ambiguity from the renewal process?

NO.90 Organizations use __________ to measure how long it takes to award a contract.

NO.91 Traditional disputes between a prime contractor and any of its subcontractors are settled __________.

NO.92 Interest-based negotiation, mediation, mini-trial, nonbinding arbitration, and binding arbitration are all examples of what procedure to resolve issues in controversy?

NO.93 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?

NO.94 The process of ensuring compliance with contractual terms and conditions during contract performance and up to contract closeout or termination is known as: