Earned Value Management System (EVMS)

Merging Earned Value Management System Descriptions

By / / , , ,
, , ,

Are there best practices that apply when a company with an approved/certified Earned Value Management System (EVMS) acquires another company that also has an approved/certified EVMS in place? What happens with the EVM System Descriptions as well as related processes and procedures? What about the various project control tools being used? How do you level set the project control proficiency levels of personnel using the EVMS? Schedule and cost level of detail and data architecture also come into play. For example, project performance data is often used at the corporate level for financial analysis, portfolio analysis, and external reporting and may require data to be organized in a specific manner. Is the EVMS providing reliable status, forecast completion date (FCD), and estimate at completion (EAC) information to management? 

What are your options?

H&A earned value consultants have observed different approaches and often assist companies with determining their strategy. Assuming you are the acquiring company, you could:

  1. Require the acquired company to use your EVMS. 
  2. Let them continue using their EVMS for an agreed upon timeframe or indefinitely.
  3. Take the best of both and establish a new and improved EVMS.  

Each option has its pros and cons. There are also other implications for at least the acquired company. DCMA will need to conduct an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) and/or a compliance review if the acquired company’s EVMS assessment is no longer applicable. If you make significant modifications to your EVM System Description, DCMA will need to review the revised System Description to determine whether it still complies with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guideline requirements.

Things to Consider

  • What do you want to achieve?

    If the goal is to establish a common EVM System Description across the corporation, the strategy will need to reflect that. Define the business objectives that clearly articulate the benefits of using a standardized approach that can help to create and implement the plan to achieve your goal. In this example, that could narrow your path forward to either option 1 or 3 depending on the state of your EVMS.

  • What is the state of your current EVM design and System Description?

    Do you already have a best in class corporate level system in place? If yes, option 1 is a good fit. The strategy would be to create a plan to transition the acquired company to your EVMS. A single EVMS is easier to maintain and to train people on how to use it effectively. Commonality makes it easier to move personnel between projects.

    Perhaps your company is fine with different EVM Systems at a business unit level. For example, perhaps the business units have a different customer base (DoD versus DOE), and the requirements are different. In this case, it may make sense to go with option 2. We recommend being prepared to do an in-depth assessment of the acquired company’s EVMS to become familiar with it, gain an understanding of how project personnel use it, and evaluate the quality of the schedule and cost data. It is imperative that you have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the acquired company’s EVMS. You may find best in class practices that you could incorporate into your EVMS. On the other hand, you may discover issues you need to address with a corrective action plan. Some of them may be as simple as providing desktop instructions for the schedulers or control account managers (CAMs). The more difficult are actions taken to change the culture such as resistance to providing visibility into the data.

    Option 3 may be good path in situations where you know there are components in your EVMS that need to be streamlined or enhanced. It provides an opportunity to fix known issues with your EVM design or System Description. It could also be an opportunity to replace a mix of software tools or home-grown tools with a standard set of commercial off the shelf (COTS) schedule, cost, and analysis as well as risk tools. Integration with a standard Agile tool may also come into play. In this case, your strategy may be to create a working group from both companies to create a best in class corporate EVMS. 

  • Structure of the EVM System Description.

    There may be “layers” to it that makes it easier to accommodate unique business unit environments. For example, perhaps you have established a corporate level System Description that states what the company does to comply with the EIA-748 guidelines when an EVMS is contractually required or what is required to satisfy internal management needs for project/portfolio analysis (no external customer management system or reporting requirements). The corporate level system should define specific rules all business units are expected to follow. The business units define how they comply with the corporate requirements (their specific process). A good approach is to also allow project managers to define project directives to specify project unique requirements as long as they comply with the corporate and business unit requirements.

    In this example, option 1 is a good fit. The strategy would be to help the acquired company to establish revised EVM processes that align with the corporate requirements similar to other business units in the corporation.

Other Considerations

Your strategy and tactical plan must address identified risks and opportunities. A common challenge is resistance to change. A potential risk mitigation approach could be to bring in the acquired company’s personnel as part of a joint corporate management team with the goal to create a single best in class EVMS. It is essential to establish ownership in the new or revised process. An example from one H&A client illustrates the importance of taking ownership in the EVMS as part of a successful transition.

“We didn’t force what we had on them, nor did we give in. We have a corporate EVM System Description. When we acquired the company, we brought them in to do a revision of the System Description, as the decision was made that we will operate as one company. They are now using that System Description and are using the same EVM cost tool. We are working other initiatives to harmonize other systems. It was surprisingly not contentious. We incorporated their leads into the organization with minimal disruption. We also have corporate training, which they supported and some of their legacy folks are leading that. The company as a whole changed, rather than forcing our way on them. Not many major differences between us, but inclusion of the folks from the acquired company as well as business groups was key. Frankly, one of our legacy divisions was harder to work with than anyone from the company we acquired.” – EVMS Director, A&D Contractor

While this is an example of where things went well, your risk mitigation approach should be prepared for situations where the teams do not agree upon the documented process, tools, or training that could result in an impasse. Knowledge of the current internal environment and personnel mix can help to determine the best mitigation strategy. A strong leadership team must be in place to ensure teams are working to achieve common objectives and to amicably resolve differences with a target completion date.

The tactical plan must also include a robust training plan that covers the revised EVMS process, procedures, and any new tools. This is critical to ensure project personnel gain a good understanding of what changed, who is responsible for what, workflow, requirements such as data coding or level of data detail, and how to use the tools effectively. Role based training is often useful to ensure project control personnel, schedulers, CAMs, and others are following the documented procedures specific to their day-to-day tasks. Desktop instructions are also useful to ensure project personnel are using the software tools effectively in alignment with the documented process and procedures.

What to do if you find yourself in this situation?

It often helps to start with a gap analysis of your or the acquired company’s EVM design and System Description as well as assess how project personnel implement the system and the quality of the data. H&A earned value consultants often conduct an EVMS gap analysis to provide a fact-based and independent analysis of the EVMS, project personnel proficiency levels, and quality of the schedule and cost data. Once you are able to identify and quantify the strengths and weaknesses of the system, you are in a better position to determine your best strategy that aligns with your corporate business objectives and goals.

Over the years, H&A earned value consultants have observed first-hand what strategies and tactics for designing and implementing a best in class EVMS ensures success in a variety of business environments. We can also help you avoid common pitfalls that can derail the best laid plans – it is often the case a client didn’t realize there were hidden risks, or they had made incorrect assumptions.

We can help you determine the right strategy for your situation. Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

Merging Earned Value Management System Descriptions Read Post »

EVM and Unified Risk Management

By / / , , , ,
, , , ,

Working with numerous clients, H&A earned value consultants have observed many instances where project management teams consider the risk and opportunity (R&O) management process to be something technical in nature, run by engineers and focused on the technical aspects of the project’s product. Meanwhile, there is often a separate risk process going on much less formally to consider risks in terms of the project’s schedule and cost goals. This bifurcated approach is a source of risk itself.

Procuring agencies such as the DoD, NASA, DOE, and others have published their own risk management guides. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has various reports on this topic including examples of their findings. DCMA mentions risk in their Business Practice 4  Guideline Evaluation Template (GET) Process/Implementation Verification Points often used by contractors to check whether their earned value management system (EVMS) meets the intent of the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guidelines. The exact questions asked by DCMA are important but the overall idea that risk and EVMS are co-dependent is the critical aspect. This is also true for the DOE. They identify risk management as one of the 10 subprocesses necessary for an EVMS.

Setting the Stage

Risk is defined as a factor, element, constraint, or course of action that introduces an uncertainty of outcome that should it occur, could negatively impact the ability to meet the project’s planned technical, schedule, or cost objectives. Negative impacts are sometimes called a threat where the objective is to mitigate the risk. A realized risk becomes an issue that must be resolved to minimize the impact. An opportunity is defined as a positive risk where the objective is to capture the beneficial impacts. Opportunities are not as common as threats.

R&O management is defined as the process of identifying, assessing, and responding to risks and opportunities throughout the project’s life cycle. The goal of R&O management is to identify potential risks and opportunities, determine the likelihood or probability the risk or opportunity will occur, and determine the impact should a risk be realized, or an opportunity is captured. Risks and opportunities are prioritized so that those with greater impact and a higher probability of occurring receive a greater share of resources and attention.

In this blog, we are using the term risk with a focus on the negative impacts or threats to a project.

Example of Common Project Risks and Risk Assessment Approach

H&A’s senior management routinely reviews literature, considers our work with clients, and discusses with our earned value consultants the main contributors to project failure. These findings are updated regularly and presented in H&A training materials as an Ishikawa Fishbone Cause and Effect diagram. Figure 1 is an example of this type of diagram. 

Figure 1: Example of an Ishikawa Fishbone Case and Effect Diagram

Figure 1: Example of an Ishikawa Fishbone Case and Effect Diagram

When this approach is used for risk assessments, each contributing risk is assessed, and the response documented. An example of a risk/response table is shown below for the first three identified risks.

Risk ItemGood Example of a Real Project Response to an Identified Risk
Poor communicationsGoals are known and documented. Communications plan is in place. Have an established cadence for weekly internal and customer meetings to quickly resolve issues. An internal project performance management dashboard is updated daily with current data. Updated IMS and risk register are broadcast weekly to the team. A strong business rhythm has been established.
Scope creepWork scope (requirements and SOW) are well defined and a change control process is in place. Performers are trained in spotting scope creep and how to handle potential changes in scope.
Inaccurate cost estimateImplemented a process enabling cost estimators to search historical actual cost data, identify analogous tasks, substantiate, and document the basis of estimate. For high risk areas, techniques such as the Delphi method, SMEs, and non-advocate reviews are used. Performance is constantly monitored to spot work elements where the actual costs do not align with the budgeted costs or the estimate at completion (EAC) is triggering internal variance at completion (VAC) thresholds. 

This same type of approach can be used by the project control team to create risk Ishikawa diagrams to identify technical risks that could impact the ability to achieve schedule and cost goals. Likewise, risk Ishikawa diagrams can be used to identify risks in the integrated master schedule (IMS) and time phased budget or estimate to complete (ETC) and EAC.

A Unified Approach to Risk

A unified approach includes technical, schedule, cost, and other risk identification and assessment that is an integral part of a contractor’s EVMS. R&O management should be integrated into the EVMS subsystems including work organization, planning and scheduling, work authorization and budgeting, management analysis and reporting, and change management. 

Identified risks are analyzed and quantified to develop a risk handling strategy. Where applicable, risk mitigation tasks have been entered into the IMS. Ideally a schedule risk assessment (SRA) has been completed to gain an understanding of duration risks that can help to improve the accuracy of the schedule. Assuming the IMS is resource loaded and leveled, the result is a more accurate time phased budget plan as it incorporates the risk handling strategies when the performance measurement baseline (PMB) is established. The R&O process also provides the necessary rationale for determining the budget amount set aside for management reserve (MR).

The R&O assessments should be a normal part of generating the Variance Analysis Reports (VARs) and updating the ETC and EAC. These assessments can also drive the need for processing baseline change requests (BCRs) as well as determining the best approach for corrective actions. 

Using Directed Searches of Identified Risks

To facilitate a unified approach, we recommend establishing a cadence of standing risk review sessions that are conducted in a methodical way to ensure the project manager, integrated product team (IPT) leads, control account managers (CAMs), schedulers, and financial analysts routinely walk through the identified risks that have the potential to impact the project’s IMS or time phased cost.

The intent is to establish a framework such as Ishikawa diagram to guide the risk review session, a directed search of the identified risks should anything further need to be addressed. It is important that a “does anyone have a risk to suggest” approach is not used. Every topic should be covered in every session by walking the Ishikawa risk items. Most of the time it will be a quick “no change” response. Separate Ishikawa diagrams could be used to guide the discussions for the contributing technical, schedule, and cost risks. The meeting room should have the ability to view the live IMS, cost data, and performance analysis data. Team members should be prepared to take notes during the meeting to compile action items.

Figure 2 is an example of a basic Ishikawa diagram of IMS risks the project control team could focus on for the risk review session. This would reflect the project control team’s identified risks to the IMS they routinely monitor.

Figure 2: Example of an IMS Ishikawa Fishbone Case and Effect Diagram

Figure 2: Example of an IMS Ishikawa Fishbone Case and Effect Diagram

For example, updating the current schedule every reporting period has the potential to compromise the integrity of the IMS to provide accurate forecast information about the project’s remaining work. Perhaps the project control team has identified a list of contributing schedule status risks, risk response, and example directed questions for each review meeting. These questions could be focused at the CAM level. The following table is a simple example. 

Risk ItemRisk ResponseExample Directed Questions
IMS critical or driving pathsVerify logic. Verify traceability exists and has not been damaged by updates. Review constraints, deadlines, and milestones. Perform data quality check, correct errors.Did milestones move? Did the end date move? What were the baseline dates for starts or finishes that fall into the period?What were the forecasted dates for starts and finishes that fall into the period?What did not happen? Why?
RealismCalculate and assess the Baseline Execution Index (BEI) and Current Execution Index (CEI). Compare the ratio of actual performance to the ratio of future performance.Is the BEI/CEI result within goals? Are there performance discrepancies? Does the forecast need to be updated to align with reality? Is the forecast showing the performance the team can achieve based on what has been achieved?
Quality of ETC/EACVerify updates are occurring. Compare current ETC/EAC to previous ETC/EAC.Has the ETC been updated? What changed and why? For example, for activities with material requirements, price or usage variances may impact the ETC/EAC. For activities with labor requirements, availability or personnel changes may impact future work effort ETC/EAC.

The same approach would be used for guided budget and cost risk discussions. Tailored cause and effect diagrams should be created for a company business environment and each project’s unique characteristics.

Interested in learning more?

H&A’s training courses purposely include content on R&O management and integrating it into the EVMS. H&A’s Project Scheduling as well as Advanced Earned Value Management Techniques (AEVMT) workshops in particular include more discussion on R&O topics.

A company’s EVMS should be designed to aid the identification and management of risks and opportunities. For example, during the process of developing the schedule and budget baseline, activity durations, resource requirements, and budget distribution can be refined to reflect identified and assessed risks. Proactively identifying and managing risks improves project performance. The expectation of specific risks occurring leads to contingency plans that lower the likelihood and impact of risks as well as the establishment of schedule margin and MR to address identified and assessed risks.

Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

EVM and Unified Risk Management Read Post »

Introduction to the Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Reporting Requirements

By / / , , ,
, , ,

A common client request is to assist them with sorting through the various DoD contractual reporting requirements and contract value reporting thresholds that apply. We frequently run into situations where a contractor needs clarification on why they have a Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) requirement and whether they should seek to waive the requirement. Subcontractors to a prime often question the requirement to provide actual cost data directly to the DoD, especially for Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts.

Background

CSDRs are the primary means the DoD uses to collect data on the development, production, and sustainment costs incurred by contractors performing DoD acquisition contracts. It is a DoD system for collecting actual costs, software data, and related business data. The resulting data repository serves as the primary source for contract cost and software data for most DoD resource analysis efforts including cost database development, applied cost estimating, cost research, program reviews, analysis of alternatives (AoAs), and life cycle cost estimates.

CSDR reporting requirements are determined by the contract value regardless of the acquisition phase and contract type. In general, CSDR reporting is required for Acquisition Category I-II programs and Information System (IS) programs valued at more than $50M. They can also be required for Middle Tier Acquisition programs (greater than $20M) and other programs (greater than $100M). Risk can also be a determining factor regardless of the contract value.

DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.73, Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures (March 2020), provides additional details about the cost data reporting. Table 1 in the 5000.73 lists the cost reporting requirements contract value thresholds. The DoD Manual 5000.04 Cost and Software Data Reporting (May 2021) is the primary requirements document for the development, implementation, and operation of the DoD CSDR system to ensure data reported is accurate and consistent.

About CADE

The Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE) established the Cost Assessment Data Enterprise (CADE), a secure web-based information system that hosts the controlled unclassified CSDR repository, the Defense Acquisition Cost Information Management System, and the forward pricing rate library. CADE also contains a selected acquisition report database, a contracts database, data analytics capabilities, and a library containing cost estimating content such as cost analysis requirement descriptions and cost estimates. CADE is access-controlled, and available through the public-facing CADE Portal website.

Similar to the cost estimating and proposal pricing functions within contractor’s organizations that rely on historical actual costs to assess the validity of a proposed cost estimate, independent and sound cost estimates are vital for effective DoD acquisition decision making and oversight. CADE plays a critical role in capturing the expenditure, technical, and programmatic data after contract execution in a consistent manner to enable independent cost estimating and analysis. This cost estimate data is essential to support efficient and effective resource allocation decisions throughout the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process for the DoD.

CSDR Reporting Requirements

There are a series of Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) for this reporting requirement.  Some forms are submitted electronically using DoD defined XML schemas, Excel, or JSON encoded data in accordance with a File Format Specification (FFS) and Data Exchange Instruction (DEI). The list of DIDs are as follows. These DIDs can be downloaded from the CADE website.

  • Contract Work Breakdown Structure, DI-MGMT-81334D (May 2011).
  • Cost Data Summary Report, DI-FNCL-81565C (May 2011), DD Form 1921, XML Schema.
  • Functional Cost-Hour Report, DI-FNCL-81566C (September 2015), DD Form 1921-1, XML Schema.
  • Progress Curve Report, DI-FNCL-81567C (May 2011), DD Form 1921-2, XML Schema. 
  • Sustainment Functional Cost-Hour Report, DI-FNCL-81992 (May 2011), DD Form 1921-5, XML Schema.
  • Contractor Business Data Report, DI-FNCL-81765C (March 2021), DD Form 1921-3, Excel. 
  • Software Development Report, DI–MGMT-82035A (October 2022), DD Form 3026-1, XML Schema. 
  • Software Maintenance Report, DI–MGMT-82035A (October 2022), DD Form 3026-2, XML Schema.
  • Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software Development Report, DI-MGMT-82035A (October 2022), DD Form 3026-3, XML Schema.
  • Cost and Hour Report (FlexFile), DI-FNCL-82162 (November 2017), JSON encoded data file following FFS and DEI.
  • Quantity Data Report, DI-MGMT-82164 (November 2017), JSON encoded data file following FFS and DEI.
  • Maintenance and Repair Parts Data Report, DI-MGMT-82163 (November 2017), Excel.
  • Technical Data Report, DI-MGMT-82165 (November 2017), Excel.

The Cost and Hour Report (FlexFile) and Quantity Data Report play a critical role in collecting cost data from contractors for the DoD data repository because they use JSON data encoding to organize the content. They are intended to replace the legacy 1921 series of paper-based formats including the DD 1921, 1921-1, 1921-2, and 1921-5. It also requires contractors to provide significantly more historical cost data than the 1921 formats. As a result, the DoD cost estimating community has additional insight into historical costs. The goal is to establish a common framework and standard nomenclature to collect data from different contractors, all of them with unique cost accounting structures, that are mapped to the DID, FFS, and DEI requirements for use in the data repository.

Establishing a Consistent, Repeatable Process to Produce the CSDR Data Deliverables

For contractors new to the CSDR reporting requirements and in particular, the FlexFile JSON data encoding, can appear to be daunting. That’s where software tools such as those from Midnite Dynamics can help. Midnite Dynamics specializes in assisting contractors with producing the CSDR data deliverables. 

Their software tool, C*CERT+, streamlines, automates, validates, and produces the legacy 1921 family of Excel and XML reports as well as the FlexFile and Quantity Data Report JSON submittals. C*CERT+ eliminates what otherwise is a manually intensive, resource draining, tedious and costly effort subject to recurring rejections. It is one thing to create the required legacy reports or FlexFile JSON files for submittal, it is another to pass the submittal validation process. C*CERT+ provides numerous data validations and analysis reports to ensure the data is 100% compliant before it is submitted. For example, the software includes over 90 FlexFile validations to ensure data compliance as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Example of FlexFile data validation results.
Figure 1: Example of FlexFile data validation results.

The software includes a Validation and Remarks utility to analyze the source data details that could result in a Validation Trip. Remarks can be entered directly into the validation module for anything that requires an explanation. This is illustrated in Figure 2. This narrative is included with the data submittal.

Figure 2: Example of providing remarks about the FlexFile data content.

C*CERT+ also interfaces with existing EVM cost tools and accounting systems to produce the existing legacy 1921 reports, the FlexFile, and other data submittals as well as to consolidate separate projects/CLINs/task orders into a single contract report.

Once the C*CERT+ Standard Category Mapping Rules are set up, they can be shared throughout the corporation or business unit to establish a standard and repeatable process for producing the data deliverables. This mapping process translates the contractor’s source data into an output that matches the CSDR data submittal format rules. This saves a tremendous amount of time and makes it much easier to consistently produce the CSDR data deliverables. An example of the Mapping Rules is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Mapping Rules translate contractor unique cost data into a format that matches the CSDR data submittal requirements.

Do your process and procedures or training materials need an update to include specific guidance for project control teams to produce required DoD contractual reports or data submittals using your tool sets of choice? Give us a call today at (714) 685-1730 to get started. 

Introduction to the Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Reporting Requirements Read Post »

Formal Reprogramming: OTB or OTS Best Practice Tips

By / / , , , ,
, , , ,
Formal Reprogramming: OTB or OTS Best Practice Tips

As a result of an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) compliance or surveillance review, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or DOE Office of Project Management (PM-30) may issue a corrective action request (CAR) to a contractor. H&A earned value consultants frequently assist clients with developing and implementing corrective action plans (CAPs) to quickly resolve EVMS issues with a government customer.

A recent trend our earned value management consultants have observed is an uptick in the number of CARs being issued related to over target baselines (OTB) and/or over target schedules (OTS). On further analysis, a common root cause for the CAR was the contractors lacked approval from the contracting officer to implement the OTB and/or OTS even though they had approval from the government program manager (PM).

So why was a CAR issued?  It boils down to knowing the government agency’s contractual requirements and EVMS compliance requirements.

What is an OTB/OTS and when it is used?

During the life of a contract, significant performance or technical problems may develop that impact schedule and cost performance. The schedule to complete the remaining work may become unachievable. The available budget for the remaining work may become decidedly inadequate for effective control and insufficient to ensure valid performance measurement. When performance measurement against the baseline schedule and/or budgets becomes unrealistic, reprogramming for effective control may require a planned completion date beyond the contract completion date, an OTS condition, and/or a performance measurement baseline (PMB) that exceeds the recognized contract budget base (CBB), an OTB condition.

An OTB or OTS is a formal reprogramming process that requires customer notification and approval. The primary purpose of formal reprogramming is to establish an executable schedule and budget plan for the remaining work. It is limited to situations where it is needed to improve the quality of future schedule and cost performance measurement. Formal reprogramming may be isolated to a small set of WBS elements, or it may be required for a broad scope of work that impacts the majority of WBS elements.

Formal reprogramming should be a rare occurrence on a project and should be the last recourse – all other management corrective actions have already been taken. Typically, an OTB/OTS is only considered when:

  • The contract is at least 35% complete with percent complete defined as the budgeted cost for work performed (BCWP) divided by the budget at completion (BAC);
  • Has more than six months of substantial work to go;
  • Is less than 85 percent complete; and
  • The remaining management reserve (MR) is near or equal to zero.

A significant determining factor before considering to proceed with a formal reprogramming process is the result from conducting a comprehensive estimate at completion (CEAC) where there is an anticipated overrun of at least 15 percent for the remaining work.

When an OTB is approved, the total allocated budget (TAB) exceeds the CBB, this value referred to as the over target budget. Figure 1 illustrates this.

Before Over Target Baseline
Figure 1 – Over Target Baseline Illustration

When an OTS is approved, the same rationale and requirements for an OTB apply. The planned completion date for all remaining contract work is a date beyond the contract completion date. The purpose of the OTS is to continue to measure the schedule and cost performance against a realistic baseline. The process must include a PMB associated with the revised baseline schedule. Once implemented, the OTS facilitates continued performance measurement against a realistic timeline.

Contractual Obligations

An OTB does not change any contractual parameters or supersede contract values and schedules. An OTS does not relieve either party of any contractual obligations concerning schedule deliveries and attendant incentive loss or penalties. An OTB and/or OTS are implemented solely for planning, controlling, and measuring performance on already authorized work.

Should you encounter a situation where it appears your best option is to request an OTB and/or OTS, the DoD and DOE EVMS policy and compliance documents provide the necessary guidance for contractors. It is imperative that you follow agency specific guidance to prevent being issued a CAR or your OTB/OTS request being rejected.

DoD and DOE both clearly state prior customer notification and contracting officer approval is required to implement an OTB and/or OTS. These requirements are summarized the following table.

ReferenceDoD/DCMA1DOE
RegulatoryDFARS 252.234-7002 Earned Value Management System
“(h) When indicated by contract performance, the Contractor shall submit a request for approval to initiate an over-target baseline or over-target schedule to the Contracting Officer.”
Guide 413.3-10B Integrated Project Management Using the EV Management System
6.1.2 Contractual Requirements.
“…if the contractor concludes the PB TPC and CD-4 date no longer represents a realistic plan, and an over-target baseline (OTB) and/or over-target schedule (OTS) action is necessary. Contracting officer approval is required before implementing such restructuring actions…”
Attachment 1, Contractor Requirements Document
“Submit a request for an Over-Target Baseline (OTB) or Over-Target Schedule (OTS) to the Contracting Officer, when indicated by performance.”
EVMS Compliance2Earned Value Management System Interpretation Guide (EVMSIG)3
Guideline 31, Prevent Unauthorized Revisions, Intent of Guideline
“A thorough analysis of program status is necessary before the consideration of the implementation of an OTB or OTS. Requests for establishing an OTB or an OTS must be initiated by the contractor and approved by the customer contracting authority.		EVMS Compliance Review Standard Operating Procedure (ECRSOP), Appendix A, Compliance Assessment Governance (CAG)
Subprocess G. Change Control
G.6 Over Target Baseline/Over Target Schedule Authorization
“An OTB/OTS is performed with prior customer notification and approval.”
See Section G.6 for a complete discussion on the process.
Contractor EVM SD4DCMA Business Process 2  Attachment, EVMS Cross Reference Checklist (CRC), Guideline 31.
“b. Are procedures established for authorization of budget in excess of the Contract Budget Base (CBB) controlled with requests for establishing an OTB or an OTS initiated by the contractor, and approved by the customer contracting authority?”		DOE ESCRSOP Compliance Review Crosswalk (CRC), Subprocess Area and Attribute G.6
“Requests for establishing an OTB or an OTS are initiated by the contractor and approved by the customer contracting authority.”

Notes:

  1. When DoD is the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA), DCMA is responsible for determining EVMS compliance and performing surveillance. DCMA also performs this function when requested for NASA.
  2. Along with the related Cross Reference Checklist or Compliance Review Crosswalk, these are the governing documents the government agency will use to conduct compliance and surveillance reviews.
  3. For additional guidance, also see the DoD EVM Implementation Guide (EVMIG) , Section 2.5 Other Post-Award Activities, 2.5.2.4 Over Target Baseline (OTB) and Over Target Schedule (OTS). The EVMIG provides more discussion on the process followed including the contractor, government PM, and the contracting authority responsibilities.
  4. Your EVM System Description (SD) should include a discussion on the process used to request an OTB/OTS. The EVM SD content should be mapped to the detailed DCMA EVMS guideline checklist or the DOE Compliance Review Crosswalk (subprocess areas and attributes) line items.

Best Practice Tips

The best way to avoid getting a CAR from a government agency related to any OTB or OTS action is to ensure you have done your homework.

  • Verify your EVM SD, related procedures, and training clearly defines how to handle this situation. These artifacts should align with your government customer’s EVMS policy and regulations as well as compliance review guides, procedures, and checklists. Be sure your EVM SD or procedures include the requirement to notify and gain approval from the government PM and contracting officer, as well as what to do when the customer does not approve the OTB or OTS. Also discuss how to handle approving and managing subcontractor OTB/OTS situations; the prime contractor is responsible for these actions. Your EVMS training should also cover how to handle OTB/OTS situations. Project personnel should be aware of contractual requirements as well as your EVMS requirements and be able to demonstrate they are following them.
  • Maintain open communication with the customer. This includes the government PM as well as the contracting officer and any other parties involved such as subcontractors. Requesting an OTB or OTS should not be a surprise to them. Verify a common agreement has been reached with the government PM and contracting officer that implementing an OTB or OTS is the best option to provide visibility and control for the remaining work effort.
  • Verify you have written authorization from the government PM and the contracting officer before you proceed with implementing an OTB or OTS. You will need this documentation for any government customer EVMS compliance or surveillance review. Your baseline change requests (BCRs) and work authorization documents should provide full traceability for all schedule and budget changes required for the formal reprogramming action.

Does your EVM SD or training materials need a refresh to include sufficient direction for project personnel to determine whether requesting an OTB or OTS makes sense or how to handle OTB/OTS situations? H&A earned value consultants frequently help clients with EVM SD content enhancements as well as creating specific procedures or work instructions to handle unique EVMS situations. We also offer a workshop on how to implement an OTB or OTS .  Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

Formal Reprogramming: OTB or OTS Best Practice Tips Read Post »

Comparing the Efficacy of Independent Estimate at Completion (IEAC) Methods Using Real Project Data

By / /
Comparing the Efficacy of Independent Estimate at Completion (IEAC) Methods Using Real Project Data

“Data! Data! Data!” he cried impatiently. “I can’t make bricks without clay.”

-Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Copper Beeches

There are many discussions about EACs and evaluating EACs including using Independent EAC (IEAC) formulae to compare with the contractor EACs. With good reason, we should wonder how accurate are those IEACs that we use so often and sometimes make decisions based on them. Are we misjudging contractor’s EACs based on formulae that are weak or inappropriate?

Humphreys & Associates has initiated a study to determine how accurate IEACs are, and we would like your help. The study will compare different IEAC formulae against the Program Manager (PM) most likely EAC at the 25, 50, and 75 percent complete point for completed projects. The objective is to assess how closely the IEACs and PM most likely EAC were able to predict the final cost outcome for the project.

How Accurate are IEAC Formulae?

Many formulae exist for using recorded data from an earned value management system (EVMS) to make independent estimates of the final cost at completion (EAC) for the element in question. The element might be a control account, a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) element, or even an entire project.

What is not known is how accurate these methods are at forecasting the final actual cost for the project. This study hopes to determine that answer.

Real World IEAC Data

This study was initiated by collecting earned value data from 12 completed projects. We need projects that are completed because, on a completed project, the final actual outcome is known. We collected project data at the 25, 50, and 75 percent complete points. At each of these points, the IEAC formulae were applied to determine how closely they were able to predict the final actual cost outcome for the project. The quest is to learn how the various IEACs performed. Is any one of them more accurate than the others?

From this investigation, any indication of the relative efficacy of the formulae would be used to inform future use of the IEAC methods.

Our Method for Testing IEACs

In general, the IEAC approach is to use existing recognized formulae. We have chosen these IEACs as a starting point:

  • IEAC 1 = BAC/CPIe at the percent point reported. This formula can be stated in words as “the entire project is performed at the same efficiency as experience to date.”
  • IEAC 2 = ACWP + [BCWR/CPI (.5) + SPI (.5)]. This formula uses weighted SPI and CPI which theoretically allows for sensitivity to both cost and schedule historical performance. The weights used in this application are even at .50 and .50.
  • IEAC 3 = ACWP + [BCWR/CPI x SPI]. This formula uses the SPI and CPI multiplied together which theoretically allows for sensitivity to both cost and schedule performance to date.
  • IEAC 4 = ACWP + BCWR. This formula assumes the remaining work will be done as budgeted with no factoring.

One additional non-traditional IEAC will be used.

IEAC 5 = Use of IEAC 2 weighted SPI and CPI but decreasing the proportion applied to the SPI as the percent of project completion increases. In other words, the impact of schedule performance diminishes as the project becomes closer to completion.

We will also take the average of all the formulae to see how that works.

Initial Data Set

One aerospace contractor and one US Government agency have provided the required data for 12 completed projects with an interest in the outcome of the study. The source of the data and the specific projects will not be disclosed in the study.

These real-world projects did not have an exact 25%, 50%, or 75% dataset. The closest dataset to each of those completion percentages was used. One example dataset looks like this (color coding should be ignored):

Example Product Data

How can you help?

We need more project data to gather enough varying project outcomes to make the test realistic. We do not plan to keep the types of projects or products separate but will take all the data we can get and look at them all.

Please consider providing data for the study. We have created an Excel spreadsheet template to help gather project data in a common format for analysis. You can download this template here. Add as many tabs as needed for each project. Send your completed spreadsheet to humphreys@humphreys-assoc.com.

In a separate blog we will outline other help we need to complete the study and to analyze the results.

IEAC_Study_Project_Data_Template-Rev-06052023Download

Comparing the Efficacy of Independent Estimate at Completion (IEAC) Methods Using Real Project Data Read Post »

Tips for Producing an Earned Value Management System Description

By / / , ,
, ,
Tips for Producing an EVM System Description Blog Post Banner Image.

There are a variety of ways a contractor can produce the documentation that describes their Earned Value Management System (EVMS), how it is implemented, used, and maintained. This is typically referred to as the EVM System Description (SD), though other names may be used. For example, it could be titled the Integrated Project Management System Description or Project Controls System Description to align with corporate or contractual naming conventions. EVM practices may be just one part of their overall project management system.

Regardless of the title, a contractor with an EVMS contractual requirement must be able to provide the necessary documentation to their customer to demonstrate their system complies with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guidelines. This includes any additional implementation guidance associated with the government agency responsible for conducting EVMS certification or validation reviews.

What is the purpose of an EVM System Description?

There are two purposes for an EVM SD; one is internal, the other is for the external customer.

The primary user of the EVM SD is project personnel such as project managers, project controls, schedulers, and control account managers (CAMs) responsible for implementing the EVMS on their project. It is essential they have a clear understanding of the required corporate EVM process and procedures as well as how to meet the intent of the EIA-748 guidelines using the applicable schedule, cost, analysis, risk, and other project control toolsets.

The government customer uses the EVM SD to gain an understanding of the contractor’s EVMS. The EVM SD must adequately document how the contractor’s system meets the intent of the EIA-748 guidelines. It should include a map of the EVM SD content to the EIA-748 guidelines or similar government customer checklist. The purpose of a government agency’s compliance review is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of a contractor’s EVMS. This includes the EVM SD as well as related processes and procedures. They also assess how the contractor has implemented the EVMS to verify the EVMS is providing timely, reliable, and auditable information.

Once the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) has determined the contractor’s EVMS complies with the EIA-748 guidelines, they conduct routine surveillance to ensure the contractor’s system as documented in the EVM SD and implemented on projects continues to comply with the EIA-748 guidelines. The contractor’s EVM SD is also a typical artifact required for an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR).

What needs to be included in the EVM SD?

An EVM SD should explain the methodology the contractor uses to comply with the EIA-748 guidelines as well as any government agency specific requirements. For example, DCMA uses the DoD EVMS Interpretation Guide (EVMSIG) and their Earned Value Management System Center Business Practice (BP) documents such as the BP 2 EVM System Description Review attachment EVMS Cross Reference Checklist (CRC). The DOE Office of Project Management (PM) uses their EVMS Compliance Review Standard Operating Procedure (ECRSOP) and related appendices including their Compliance Assessment Governance (CAG) document and EVMS Compliance Reference Crosswalk (CRC).

The EVM SD should provide an executive overview, reference the corporate EVMS policy, and address all of the subsystems that make up the EVMS. H&A earned value consultants have reviewed countless system descriptions over the years; contractors take a variety of approaches to discuss their subsystems.

Some contractors align with the EIA-748 five process areas (Organizing; Planning, Scheduling, and Budgeting; Accounting; Analysis and Management Reports; and Revisions and Data Maintenance). Others include additional sections covering indirect costs, material management, and subcontractor management. The planning, scheduling, and budgeting process area is often broken down into two sections – one for planning and scheduling and the other to cover work authorization and budgeting (a total of nine process groups). For more discussion, see the blog on the Benefits of Using Nine Process Groups.

A DOE contractor may align with the DOE CAG 10 subprocesses; this is similar to the nine progress group approach plus a section on risk and opportunity management. Other contractors use the project life cycle approach (initiation, planning, execution, monitor and control, and close out) to organize their content.

We recommend including a section on self-governance or self-surveillance (see Benefits of an EVMS Self-Governance Process). As noted in this blog, contractors with an approved EVMS are expected to establish and execute an annual EVMS self-governance plan.

The government customer expects contractors to map their EVM SD content to the applicable government agency EVMS compliance checklist. This is typically an appendix to the EVM SD. In most instances, this is the DCMA BP 2 EVMS Cross Reference Checklist or the DOE ECRSOP EVMS Compliance Reference Crosswalk. These checklists include attributes and/or questions that provide a more comprehensive guide to assess how a contractor meets the intent of the guidelines. The government customer also uses these checklists to identify and record the areas in the system documentation that meet the intent or note deficiencies the contractor needs to address.

The system description should include a concise description of what’s required, diagrams, illustrations, process flowcharts, as well as sample forms and reports with example data. In preparation for a compliance review, H&A earned value consultants often assist clients in creating an EVMS storyboard that visually depicts the entire system using the workflow diagrams along the inputs and outputs, and who is doing what using the applicable tool that demonstrates the system in operation.

Single or multiple documents?

A common question H&A earned value consultants are asked is whether the EVM SD should be a single document that includes the complete set of flowcharts, forms, and reports or a summary document with supporting procedures. Typically, the supporting procedures include the process flowcharts and sometimes the applicable artifacts (forms and reports). There are pros and cons to each approach.

Single Document Approach
Pros Cons
  • Provides an integrated view of the entire EVMS process.
  • Provides a complete discussion of a topic without having to reference multiple documents. Requirement discussion and process flowcharts with responsibility swim lanes along with example inputs/outputs provides a complete picture.
  • Configuration control is easier to manage, only need to make changes in one place.
  • Easier to search for a topic in a single document.
  • Easier to map the contents of a single document to the DCMA or DOE CRC.
  • Easier to create and maintain cross reference links between sections within a single document (See or See Also references).
  • For a company new to EVM, can appear to be an overwhelming task to produce a single, comprehensive document.
  • Can be a lengthy document.
  • More difficult to partition the content to different process owners to complete their section and to combine the content.
Summary Document with Supporting Procedures Approach
Pros Cons
  • Shorter summary document provides a general overview as a quick introduction to the EVMS. Can appear less daunting. Can be used as a strategy to introduce EVM concepts and incorporate into standard business practices.
  • Modular approach to creating and maintaining content. Can be easier to create the initial content.
  • Useful for targeted training using the individual procedures for a process area. For example, training focused on the steps required for developing the WBS and WBS dictionary with expected outputs.
  • Someone must review multiple documents to gain a complete understanding of the EVMS.
  • Fragmented and potentially siloed view of the system.
  • Potentially larger volume of content (over a single document), content is often repeated for context.
  • Configuration control. More difficult to maintain content to ensure consistency in multiple documents as well as maintain cross references between documents.
  • More difficult to map content in multiple documents to the DCMA or DOE CRC.

Regardless of which approach you take, keep in mind that the government customer will be approving the complete set of EVM SD documents (one or multiple documents). Any document referenced in the EVM SD is also subject to review. When you make changes to your EVM SD, the government customer will need to review and approve those changes to ensure continuing compliance with the EIA-748 guidelines. This is a formal process; changes must be processed through the contracting officer. 

Need help with your EVM System Description?

Whether you need to update your existing EVM SD or create one, H&A earned value consultants can help you to organize the content and artifacts in alignment with your business requirements. They also work with you to ensure your EVMS satisfies the EIA-748 guideline requirements as well as government agency specific requirements. H&A often assists with designing an EVMS and ensuring the project control software tools are configured to support the EVMS as well as verifying the quality of the data. For clients new to EVM, H&A offers a template that provides the basis to develop an EVM SD. This template is intended to assist clients with designing and implementing an EVMS that meets EIA-748 guideline requirements as well as the more rigorous requirements of specific government customers.

Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

Tips for Producing an Earned Value Management System Description Read Post »

Scroll to Top