CAPM Practice: Determine how to document project controls of predictive, plan-based projects

A 2-week delay in an activity with 3 weeks of float does not affect the project end date — it consumes 2 of the 3 available weeks of float, leaving 1 week remaining. The project manager should update the current schedule to reflect the revised dates and increase monitoring of this activity (now near-critical with only 1 week of float). No change request is needed for the project baseline.

**Why not A:** Immediately crashing the activity by adding resources is unnecessary because the 2-week delay is within the 3 weeks of available float. The project end date is not affected, so spending additional resources on crashing would waste money without any benefit to the project timeline.

**Why not B:** Escalating to the sponsor is not warranted because the delay does not affect the project end date. The activity still has 1 week of remaining float after absorbing the 2-week delay. Escalation should be reserved for situations that actually threaten project objectives.

**Why not C:** Submitting a change request to extend the deadline is unnecessary because the project end date has not changed. The delay consumed only 2 of the 3 available weeks of float, so the schedule baseline remains valid and no formal change is needed.