1- (DOE) failed to award the contract to Kombs Engineering for the simple reason they lacked faith in Komb’s project management systems because the failure to provide such a project management system by Kombs . 2- Kombs during the time it was contracted with the DOE for a period of five years and it never took time to develop a proper system of managing projects and they never released that the dynamics and tools involved in project management had changed since it was contracted first by DOE in 1988. 3- Kombs hired a contractor for a period of one month only before signing the contract who trained everyone in the company on the subject of project management and this was not a professional performance and failed to establish a line of command on a specific project management system. Who should managing the project’s deliverables rather than providing technical direction to the project team 4- Kombs failed to implement measures that could have ensured a proper system that combined the technical expertise with a proper management system to manage future projects.
Q2: Could it have been averted?
1- The situation could have been averted before October 1993 .Kombs should have used the five years when they were responsible for the other project to develop a fully mature project management system including the technical expertise. 2- The company should have a proper project management systems to manage projects effectively and efficiently. 3- The company should have outsourced a project management consultancy to spearhead the project management instead of hiring a consultant to train the company’s employees 4- while using the company’s expertise .
Q3: Dose it seems realistic that proposal evaluation committees could consider project management expertise to be as important as technical ability? Yes it is realistic that proposal evaluation committees could consider project...