| Course | GM594 Project Closing, Ethics, and Professional Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Acceptance criteria review |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM594 Unit 2
Fourteen Seconds Against a Limit of Ten: A Unit 2 Acceptance Criteria Review for a 911 Center's Backup Power
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM594: Project Closing, Ethics, and Professional Responsibilities
Unit 2 Acceptance Criteria Review
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The emergency communications district, its contractors and every figure are composite and illustrative; the standards cited are real.
Purpose and Method
The Ridgeline Emergency Communications District answers every 911 call in the county, so its dispatch center must keep running when utility power fails. The project replaced the center's aging generator with a new 500 kilowatt diesel unit, added an automatic transfer switch with a bypass, replaced the uninterruptible power supply serving the consoles and radios, and installed a second precision cooling unit for the equipment room.
Acceptance is the formal decision that a deliverable meets the criteria agreed when it was approved. The Project Management Institute describes it as the point where the customer or sponsor confirms the deliverable is complete and satisfactory (Project Management Institute, 2021). This review tests each of the nine criteria in the approved design basis against the commissioning evidence and records a verdict: accept, fail, or deviation for the board to accept or refuse.
The Criteria Reviewed
C1. Transfer time. As written: the generator shall start and carry the full building load within 10 seconds of utility loss, meeting a Type 10 system under NFPA 110 (National Fire Protection Association, 2022). Test: three pulled-utility tests with a recording meter. Evidence: the first test transferred in 14 seconds, because the transfer switch's start delay was set at 6 seconds instead of 1. After correction, two tests transferred in 8 seconds. Verdict: accept on retest.
C2. Load bank test. As written: run four hours on a resistive load bank, two at 100 percent and two at 75 percent of rated load, without alarms. Evidence: completed with no alarms; coolant and exhaust temperatures stayed within the manufacturer's limits. Verdict: accept.
C3. Battery runtime. As written: the UPS shall carry consoles and radio equipment for at least 15 minutes at full load. Evidence: 19 minutes in a timed discharge test. Verdict: accept.
C4. Cooling redundancy. As written: the equipment room shall stay at or below 75 degrees Fahrenheit with either cooling unit switched off. Evidence: 73 degrees after six hours with each unit off in turn. Verdict: accept.
C5. Fuel runtime. As written: on-site fuel for 72 hours at full load. Evidence: the installed tank holds 1,750 usable gallons, and the generator burns about 26.5 gallons an hour at full load, giving about 66 hours. Verdict: deviation, for the board to accept or refuse.
C6. Alarm notification. As written: a generator or cooling alarm shall send a text to the on-call technician within 5 minutes and escalate to a second contact if not acknowledged within 10. Evidence: the text arrived in 3 minutes, but the escalation step had never been configured in the monitoring system. Verdict: fail.
C7. Maintenance bypass. As written: the transfer switch bypass shall allow maintenance without interrupting the load. Evidence: demonstrated under load. Verdict: accept.
C8. Noise. As written: no more than 75 decibels at the property line under the county ordinance. Evidence: 72 at the nearest point. Verdict: accept.
C9. Fuel containment. As written: secondary containment and leak detection approved by the fire marshal. Evidence: the fire marshal's inspection report. Verdict: accept.
Seven criteria pass, one fails and one falls short by six hours, and only the written criteria made it possible to say which was which.
The Failure and the Deviation
The alarm escalation failure must be corrected before acceptance. The monitoring vendor estimates a day to configure and test it. The district should not accept the system without it, because a single unanswered text is exactly the failure an emergency center cannot afford overnight.
The fuel runtime deviation needs a board decision. The design basis asked for 72 hours because the county's emergency plan assumes fuel deliveries may stop for three days after a major storm. The installed tank was sized at the 60 percent design stage for a smaller generator and was never resized when the generator grew. Options include accepting 66 hours with a standing fuel delivery agreement that guarantees priority refueling, or adding a 200-gallon day tank for about $18,000. The review recommends the delivery agreement plus a written decision by the board, so the shortfall is accepted deliberately rather than discovered later.
What the Commissioning Report Assumed
One finding concerns the evidence itself. The contractor's commissioning report recorded the first transfer test as a pass, because it used 15 seconds as its target. That figure does not appear anywhere in the design basis or the contract; it appears to come from the commissioning agent's standard template. Had the review accepted the report's verdicts rather than its measurements, a 14-second transfer would have been accepted against a 10-second requirement. Every verdict in this review is therefore based on the measurement compared with the criterion as written at approval, not on the commissioning report's conclusions.
Acceptance and Substantial Completion
Acceptance under this review is a different event from substantial completion under the construction contract, and treating them as one would hide the failed criterion. The contract follows the American Institute of Architects' general conditions, under which substantial completion is the stage when the work is complete enough for the owner to use it for its intended purpose, with remaining items listed for completion (American Institute of Architects, 2017). The architect certified substantial completion on November 20, when the generator first carried the building. Acceptance against the design basis cannot follow until the alarm escalation passes, and the dates matter later for warranties and the grant's final report, which asks when the system became fully operational.
Retest Plan
The alarm escalation retest will be run by the monitoring vendor and witnessed by the district's technical services manager. The test will trigger a simulated generator fault after midnight, leave the first text unacknowledged and confirm that the second contact receives a call within ten minutes. The test will be repeated for a cooling fault. Results, with screenshots of the monitoring log, will be attached to this review, and acceptance will be recorded on the date both tests pass.
Recommendation
Accept C1 to C4 and C7 to C9. Withhold acceptance until C6 is corrected and retested. Present C5 to the board with the delivery agreement option. Record the date of acceptance separately from the date of substantial completion in the project file, because both dates will be needed when the warranty clock and the grant report are settled.
References
American Institute of Architects. (2017). AIA document A201-2017: General conditions of the contract for construction.
National Fire Protection Association. (2022). NFPA 110: Standard for emergency and standby power systems.
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).
GM594 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
GM594 Unit 2 asks you to review a deliverable against its acceptance criteria. Explain what acceptance means and how you tested it. For each criterion, quote it as written at approval, name its source, describe the test method and the evidence, and give a verdict: accept, fail or deviation for the approving body to accept or refuse. Treat failures and deviations separately, with what must happen before acceptance and who has authority to accept a shortfall. Check the evidence itself, since a contractor's report may test against the wrong target. Distinguish acceptance from substantial completion under the construction contract, and say why the dates matter later. Describe any retest plan. Close with a recommendation for each criterion. Expect about six pages built around the criteria with an evidence appendix, citing the standards and contract documents in APA 7.
How the GM 594 Unit 2 example is put together
The purpose section describes the Ridgeline district's new 500 kilowatt generator, transfer switch, power supply and second cooling unit, and defines acceptance with the PMBOK guide. Nine criteria follow, each with its wording, test, evidence and verdict: transfer time against NFPA 110, accepted on retest at 8 seconds; load bank, battery runtime of 19 minutes and cooling redundancy at 73 degrees, accepted; fuel runtime of about 66 hours from 1,750 gallons, a deviation; alarm escalation, failed; bypass, noise and containment, accepted. The highlighted sentence summarizes the result. A section explains the failure and offers the board a fuel delivery agreement or an $18,000 day tank. The commissioning report's 15-second target is exposed. Acceptance is separated from November 20 substantial completion under the AIA general conditions, and a midnight retest plan is set.
Where the points sit in the GM594 Unit 2 rubric
GM594 rubric points for this review go to criteria quoted as approved and verdicts based on measurements. Instructors check that each criterion has a source, a test method, evidence and a clear verdict. Separating failures, which must be fixed, from deviations, which an approving body must accept or refuse, shows understanding of authority. Checking whether a contractor's report used the right targets carries significant weight, because accepting reports rather than measurements can hide failures. Distinguishing acceptance from substantial completion shows awareness of later consequences for warranties and grants. A retest plan and per-criterion recommendations make the review usable. NFPA 110 from the National Fire Protection Association, the AIA A201 general conditions and the PMBOK Guide form the references in APA 7.
Common GM594 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GM594 Unit 2 reviews summarize commissioning reports instead of testing evidence against the approved criteria. Others treat any shortfall as a failure without asking who has authority to accept it. A common gap is the target: a report may quietly use a different number than the design basis, and only comparing measurements to the original criterion will catch it. Some writers confuse substantial completion with acceptance. Quote each criterion as approved, cite its source, describe the test and evidence, give a verdict, separate failures from deviations, check the report's targets, distinguish the contract dates and recommend criterion by criterion.
Get a GM594 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Criteria as first written decide acceptance, so the approved requirements or charter outrank every other input; include them with the Unit 2 deliverable and rubric. Evidence, three-word verdicts and conditions with owners and dates fill the table you receive, first failures left visible. No charge for a first sample; turnaround 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM594 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM594 Unit 1: Project That Never Closed Post
- GM594 Unit 3: Final Project Report
- GM594 Unit 4: Lessons Learned Record
- GM594 Unit 5: Handover and Transition Plan
- GM594 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GM594 Unit 7: Contract Closeout Memo
- GM594 Unit 8: Benefits Realization Review
- GM594 Unit 9: Ethics Case Analysis
- GM594 Unit 10: Professional Responsibility Paper
- GM593 Unit 2: Lab Relocation Status Report
- GM500 Unit 2: Human Relations Assumptions Analysis
- GM592 Unit 2: Dry Kiln Requirements Document
- GM501 Unit 2: 70-20-10 Model Evidence Appraisal
GM594 Unit 2 questions, answered
What if the case never states acceptance criteria clearly?
Then the review should say so and reconstruct them from the charter, scope statement or requirements, citing each source. The sample quotes a design basis the board approved, but many prompts supply vaguer material. Naming the gap is itself a finding: a project reaching acceptance without testable criteria has deferred an argument to its most expensive moment.
Where can I find a free GM594 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM594 Unit 2 acceptance criteria review for a 911 center's backup power system, with nine criteria, verdicts from evidence, a deviation for the board and APA 7 references.
What is the difference between a failure and a deviation?
A failure must be corrected before acceptance, as with the missing alarm escalation. A deviation is a shortfall the approving body may choose to accept, as with fuel runtime of about 66 hours against 72, which goes to the board.
Why not rely on the commissioning report's verdicts?
The report used 15 seconds as its transfer target, a figure from the agent's template, not the 10 seconds in the design basis. Relying on its verdicts would have accepted a 14-second transfer that failed the approved criterion.
Why separate acceptance from substantial completion?
Substantial completion under the contract came on November 20, when the system was usable. Acceptance against all criteria came on December 9. The difference matters for warranty start dates and for the grant's question about when the system was fully operational.