Yes. As it stands, without context, the sentence is ambiguous. Which meaning it has depends on what time references are involved.
The ambiguity arises because of the dual use of the modal verbs can, may, will, shall.
All verbs may be used in past form with non-past reference, to express uncertainty. Ordinary verbs are only used this way in the if clause of conditional constructions:
If I had a computer I could send him an email.
Modal verbs, however, may also be used this way in ordinary declarative clauses. The consequence clause of the sentence above can stand on its own:
I could send him an email, but I won’t. ...
This is more or less equivalent to I can send him an email—it is merely a little more uncertain: It is possible, right now, for me to send him an email.
BUT!—what if you want to express a past possibility? Ordinarily, we ‘backshift’ a present-form verb into the past form to accomplish this:
I can send him an email today, and I will → I could send him an email yesterday, and I did.
But if your present expression employs a past form, you don’t have this option: you’ve already ‘used up’ your past form. The workaround is to use have + past participle as a ‘past marker’:
I could send him an email, but I won’t → I could have sent him an email yesterday, but I didn’t.
Consequently, there are two possible interpretations of could have failed. It may be a modal present perfect, representing a more uncertain version of can have failed∗
I could have failed, if I missed that last question. = It is possible, right now, that I have failed.
Or it may be a backshifted version of could fail:
I could fail, if you don’t help me. → I could have failed, if you hadn't helped me. = It was possible, then, that I would fail.
∗ Note that can in this context has to be more or less equivalent to be possible rather than be able