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

EVM metrics (CPI/SPI) reflect work already performed — they don't capture future risks that haven't impacted performance yet. The project manager must proactively assess the vendor bankruptcy's impact on the 3 future activities (even though current EVM looks fine). This means: identifying alternative vendors; assessing schedule and cost impacts; updating the risk register (vendor bankruptcy was a risk that materialized); and potentially submitting a change request if impacts are significant.

**Why not B:** Waiting for the next status cycle is passive and inappropriate given the severity of the issue. A vendor bankruptcy affecting critical activities requires immediate proactive action, not a wait-and-see approach that could waste valuable time for finding alternatives.

**Why not C:** Closing a control account because of one vendor issue is an extreme overreaction. The control account contains other activities and budget that are still valid. The correct approach is to address the affected activities within the control account, not shut down the entire cost management structure.

**Why not D:** Trusting the CPI/SPI alone ignores a known future risk. EVM metrics are lagging indicators based on past performance; they cannot predict disruptions to work that has not yet started. Ignoring a vendor bankruptcy that affects future activities would be negligent project management.