Crash, Fast-Track, or Both

The gap is 180 − 160 = 20 days.

Option 1 - Crash A and B fully:

• A: 10 days × USD 6,000 = USD 60,000
• B: 8 days × USD 9,000 = USD 72,000
• Total: 18 days for USD 132,000 (≈ USD 7,300 per day recovered)
• Still 2 days short of the gap.

Compare to the penalty: USD 25,000 per day of delay far exceeds the ~USD 7,300/day crash cost, so crashing A and B is economically justified - it is buying days more cheaply than the penalty accrues.

Option 2 - Fast-track C and D:

• 20 days of overlap is available, but the expected delay is 0.4 × 15 = 6 days, plus rework cost and an unknown effect on regulatory evidence quality. On an expected-value basis this recovers only ~14 net days, and the downside case blows the deadline.

Recommendation: Crash A and B (18 days, low technical risk because the work is unchanged, only compressed), then close the remaining 2 days through a limited, well-sequenced overlap of C and D - or find 2 more crashable days on the critical path. Do not fast-track the full 20 days; the 40% rework risk on a statutory deliverable is the wrong risk to take when a cheaper deterministic option exists.

Float note: E (12 days) and F (3 days) are irrelevant to compression - shortening non-critical activities buys no schedule and only adds cost.

It means the plan cannot be evaluated on cost and duration alone. Two symptoms point to the same cause:

• Doubled defect escape rate is a leading indicator that quality is degrading under fatigue. Defects found late cost more and, if they land on the critical path, consume exactly the days Marcus is paying to buy.
• 12 consecutive weekends indicates the schedule is being sustained by an unsustainable input. The team may already be producing negative net recovery.

Implications:

1. Crashing adds pressure to the same exhausted team unless the crashed activities can be staffed or de-scoped. Verify the crash estimate of "10 days saved" is achievable by this team in its current state - often such estimates assume healthy throughput.
2. Add schedule reserve for rework, and treat the fast-track rework risk as higher than the nominal 40%.
3. Raise the trend to the sponsor as a risk, not a status footnote: the quality trend may itself threaten the statutory date more than the 20-day gap does.
4. Consider whether a phased or partial regulatory submission reduces scope enough to remove the need for extreme compression.

Compression is an approved change, not a working adjustment. The order matters:

1. Integrated change control - document the approved change request, its rationale, and the sponsor's decision. Without this, the new dates and costs are unofficial.
2. Schedule baseline - update activity durations, dependencies (especially the new C/D overlap), the critical path, and the revised finish date. Note that compressing A and B may change which path is critical; re-run the network after compression.
3. Cost baseline - add the crash costs (USD 132,000 plus any residual) and any rework contingency; update the funding requirement so the money is actually available.
4. Risk register - add the fast-track rework risk and the quality/fatigue risk with owners, triggers, and responses; update the expected-value analysis.
5. Resource and quality plans - reflect revised staffing, overtime limits, and any added review gates to catch defects earlier.
6. Communications - inform the regulator-facing stakeholders and the team of the revised plan and what it assumes.

Reasoning: The exam tests whether you treat approved changes as updates to the plan, not just as new dates in a status email. Rebaselining before approval, or compressing without touching cost and risk, are both failing behaviors.