4. In January 2014, Buckeye Engineering had grown to a company with $25-million in sales. The business base consisted of two contracts with the US Department of Energy (DOE), one for $15-million and one for $8-million. The remaining $2-million consisted of a variety of smaller jobs for $15,000 to $50,000 each. The larger contract with DOE was a five-year contract for $15-million per year. The contract was awarded in 2009 and was up for renewal in 2014. DOE had made it clear that although they were very pleased with the technical performance of Buckeye, the follow-up contract must go through competitive bidding by law. Marketing intelligence indicated that DOE intended to spend $10-million per year for five years. On the follow-up contract with a tentative award date of October 2014. On June 21, 2014, the solicitation for proposal was received by Buckeye. Technical requirements of the proposal request were not considered to be a problem for Buckeye. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that on technical merit alone, Buckeye would win the contract. The more serious problem was that DOE required a separate section in the proposal on how Buckeye would manage the S10-million/year project as well as a complete description of how the project management system at Buckeye functioned. When Buckeye won the original bid in 2009, there was no project management requirement. All projects at Buckeye were accomplished through the traditional organizational structure. Line managers acted as project leaders. In July 2014, Buckeye hired a consultant to train the entire organization in project management. The consultant also worked closely with the proposal team in responding to the DOE project management requirements. The proposal was submitted to DOE during the 2"nd week in August. In September 2014, DOE provided Buckeye with a list of questions concerning its proposal. More than 95% of the questions involved project management. Buckeye responded to all questions. In December 2014, Buckeye received notification that they would not be granted the contract. DOE stated that they had no “faith" in the Buckeye project management system. Buckeye Engineering is no longer in business a. What was the reason for the loss of the contract? b. Could it have been averted? c. Does it seem realistic that proposal evaluation committees could consider project management expertise to be as important as technical ability?

Suppose you are a project manager of a power plant project and there is a penalty in your contract with the main client for every day you deliver the project late. You need to decide which sub-contractor is appropriate for your projects critical path activities. But while selecting a sub-contractor, you should take into consideration the costs and delivery dates. • Sub-contractor A bids 200,000 OMR. You estimate that there is a 35% possibility of completing 50 days late. As per your contract with the client, you must pay a delay penalty of 4,500 OMR per calendar day for every day you deliver late.• Sub-contractor B bids 260,000 OMR. You estimate that there is a 13% possibility of completing 15 days late. As per your contract with the client, you must pay a delay penalty of 4,500 OMR per calendar day for every day you deliver late. Determine which sub-contractor is appropriate for your projects critical path activities. Both sub- contractors promise successful delivery and high-quality…

The options presented to CGC are the​ following: (Select all that Apply) A. Engage in a relatively modest renovation of the property.   B. Undertake a major renovation of the casino to transform it from a​ second-tier operation into one of the top gambling operations in the area.   C. Invest in a newer casino in Gulf​ Shores, AL.   D. Do nothing.   E. Shut down the operations of the casino entirely.   F. Shut down the operations of the casino and move to another area of the country that allows casinos but which is less prone to hurricane damage.

if julio ruiz has an income of $25,00, pays $6000 in rent, $1200, in utiliteis, and $5000 in taxes per year, his disposable income is