The Vendor, the Variance, and the Withheld Payment
Owen manages a fixed-price contract worth USD 480,000 over 24 weeks for a vendor-built data-migration module. At week 16: PV = 320,000, EV = 272,000, AC = 310,000. The vendor has submitted a USD 60,000 change order citing "unforeseen source-data quality." Acceptance testing shows 18% of migrated records fail validation; the contract requires 99.5% accuracy at cutover, and the vendor argues the clause does not apply to interim loads. Owen's sponsor wants to withhold all payment until the vendor "fixes everything."
1. Interpret the earned value data. What is the project's condition, and why should Owen treat the numbers cautiously?
Read the worked answer
Computations:
- CV = EV − AC = 272,000 − 310,000 = −38,000 (over budget)
- SV = EV − PV = 272,000 − 320,000 = −48,000 (behind schedule)
- CPI = 272,000 / 310,000 ≈ 0.88
- SPI = 272,000 / 320,000 = 0.85
- EAC ≈ BAC / CPI = 480,000 / 0.88 ≈ USD 546,000
Reading: Both cost and schedule are performing badly. SPI 0.85 at week 16 means the project has earned about 13.6 of 24 weeks' worth of planned work.
The caution: EV counts work as earned when it is completed, and completion here is being measured against a quality bar the deliverable is failing - 18% of records failing validation against a 99.5% requirement. Some of that earned value is likely overstated, because "migrated" is not "accepted." If rework is required, the true EV is lower and the true EAC higher. Owen should flag that the forecast is a best case.
He should also note the trend rather than a single snapshot: two data points establish direction; Owen needs the prior periods to know whether this is deterioration or a stable bad state.
2. How should Owen handle the vendor's USD 60,000 change order for "unforeseen source-data quality"?
Read the worked answer
Analyze before negotiating.
- What does the contract say about source-data quality? Under a fixed-price contract, the vendor bears cost risk for work within the defined scope. That risk allocation only shifts if the contract made data quality a customer responsibility, or if the condition was genuinely unforeseeable and outside the assumptions.
- Was it foreseeable? "Source-data quality" is one of the most predictable risks in any migration. Check the requirements and assumptions documents, and whether the vendor profiled the source data during bid or discovery. If the vendor had the opportunity to inspect and did not, the claim is weak.
- Is the change within scope or outside it? If data remediation is beyond the 40 contracted deliverables, some relief may be legitimate - but the amount must be justified, not asserted.
- Separate the two issues. The change order is a commercial dispute; the 18% failure rate is a quality nonconformance. Do not trade one against the other informally.
Process: Handle it through formal contract change control / claims administration - documented request, documented position, evidence, negotiation. If unresolved, follow the contract's dispute-resolution clause (escalation, mediation, arbitration) rather than ad hoc withholding. Serve notice in the form and timeframe the contract requires, or the right to dispute may be lost.
Do not: accept the change order to keep the peace, or reject it without reading the contract.
3. The sponsor wants to withhold all payment. What should Owen advise, and how should the quality failure be handled?
Read the worked answer
On withholding payment: Owen should advise against unilateral withholding of the full amount until he has checked the contract's payment terms and remedies clause.
- Payment terms typically tie invoices to defined milestones or acceptance events. Withholding amounts that are not in dispute can be a breach by the buyer and can expose the organization to a counterclaim or work stoppage - an expensive outcome in week 16 of 24.
- The defensible position is to pay undisputed amounts and withhold only what is contractually withholdable (e.g., failed acceptance milestones, retention, or liquidated damages provisions).
- Put the position in writing, cite the contract clause, and state what would release the withheld funds.
On the quality failure:
- Document the nonconformance formally: sample size, 18% failure rate, validation criteria, contract requirement of 99.5%.
- Require a vendor corrective action plan with root cause, rework approach, and a re-test gate - and get the accuracy definition resolved in writing (does the 99.5% apply to interim loads or only cutover?). Ambiguity in an acceptance criterion is a contract problem, not a vendor concession.
- Update the risk register: rework may consume the remaining 8 weeks, which affects the EAC and any dependent cutover activities.
- Report to the sponsor with options: enforce rework at vendor cost, accept with remediation at a defined cost, or terminate - each with schedule and legal consequences.
Reasoning: Payment is a contractual lever, not an emotional one. Using it precisely is stronger than using it broadly.