Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Archives - Page 6 of 10

EIA 748-D Released – Change Notes

By Humphreys & Associates / April 9, 2019 / EIA-748D, EVMS Guidelines

Portions extracted from the EIA-748-D © SAE International (with permission).

Are you aware that a revision to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) / Electronics Industry Alliance (EIA) Standard 748 Earned Value Management Systems, has been released? The new revision is SAE / EIA 748-D. Officials have been discussing the changes at recent industry conferences.

Sections 2.1-2.5 – No Changes to EVMS Guidelines

No changes have been made to the 32 EVMS Guidelines in Sections 2.1-2.5 of the standard. The changes are primarily clarifications of the existing text:

Section 1 – Additional 4th Note

Section 1 “Scope of EVMS” previously “Introduction” in 748-C now has an additional 4th Note:

“Note 4: There are occasions where it is beneficial for complementary systems or methodologies (e.g., Enterprise/ Manufacturing Resource Planning, Agile Software Development, Theory of Constraints) to interface with the EVM System. These complementary systems or methodologies can be used to deliver functionality and value to the customer while EVM provides a standardized method for measuring progress and reporting across the contract. The EVMS documentation should describe the interface content as well as the recurring control process to maintain data conformance and system compliance.” © SAE

Section 2.6 – Six Additional Terms

Section 2.6 “Common Terminology” includes six additional terms:

ACTIVITY OR TASK: An element of work with an expected duration in the network schedule that is performed during the course of a project. Activities generally have expected resource requirements used to determine the budget for the work effort. One or more activities may relate to a work package.

AUTHORIZED UNPRICED WORK (AUW): A contract scope change which has been directed by the customer’s contracting officer but has not yet been fully negotiated/definitized. It includes a value, excluding fee or profit, typically associated with the authorized, unpriced change order.

ELEMENT OF COST (EOC): The categories of cost such as labor, material, subcontractor, and other direct costs as defined by company accounting practices.

OVER TARGET SCHEDULE (OTS): A replanned schedule baseline that extends beyond contract milestone dates, delivery dates, or completion date. An OTS is usually accompanied by an increase in budgets resulting in a corresponding Over Target Baseline (OTB). It typically requires customer approval to implement.

RISK AND OPPORTUNITY (R&O): An uncertain future event or situation that could impact the ability to achieve overall project requirements within defined cost, schedule, and technical objectives. Risk has two components: (1) the probability (or likelihood) of a particular outcome and (2) the consequences (or impact) of that outcome. The consequences of risks are typically thought of as negative that may need to be mitigated to minimize the impact to the project. A risk event with positive consequences is referred to as an opportunity that may be captured as a benefit to the project.

SUMMARY LEVEL PLANNING PACKAGE (SLPP): An aggregation of far-term work efforts (scope, schedule, and budget) that are not able to be identified at the control account level but can be distributed to reporting level WBS elements.

Section 2.6 – Term Changes

Section 2.6 “Common Terminology” includes changes/clarifications to existing terms:

ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION (EAC): The current estimated total cost for authorized project work. It equals the cumulative to date Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) plus the estimated costs to complete (Estimate to Complete or ETC) the authorized work remaining.

LEVEL OF EFFORT (LOE): Support type activities that lack measurable output or product that cannot be discretely planned or objectively measured in a practical manner. LOE automatically earns performance with the passage of time, an earned value technique.

MANAGEMENT RESERVE (MR): An amount of the total budget set aside for unplanned, in scope effort that may arise during the course of the project which cannot be identified in advance and is used to handle execution risks. Management reserve budget should be commensurate with the level of project risk. It is not part of the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB).

OVER-TARGET BASELINE (OTB): A Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) that exceeds the Contract Budget Base (CBB). It is implemented to produce a realistic schedule and budget plan for the project’s remaining work. It typically requires customer approval to implement.

Section 2.7 – 3 Additional References

Section 2.7 “List of Suggested References” has been updated to include 3 additional references. The complete list is below:

– NDIA IPMD EVMS Intent Guide
– NDIA IPMD IBR Guide
– NDIA IPMD Surveillance Guide
– NDIA IPMD EVMS Acceptance Guide
– NDIA IPMD EVMS Application Guide
– NDIA IPMD Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG)
– NDIA IPMD Industry Practice Guide for Agile on Earned Value Management Programs (New)
– NDIA IPMD Master Definitions List for IPMD Guides (New)
– NDIA IPMD Earned Value Management System Guideline Scalability Guide (New)

Sections 3 thru 5

In Section 3.2.1 WBS Dictionary, discussion regarding segregation by WBS element for direct costs has been removed.

In Section 3.3.1 Control Accounts, discussion regarding guidance that a Control Account shall not span multiple WBS elements has been removed.

In Section 3.3.1, a new figure, Figure 1 – Establishing Control Accounts was added.

In Section 3.4.3 Subcontract/Procurement Schedules, the phrase “high risk” has been removed.

In Section 3.8.2 Cost Performance, The Labor Rate and Efficiency variance calculations were corrected. The corrected equations are below.

• Labor Rate Variance Calculation = Actual Hours x (Earned Rate – Actual Rate)
• Efficiency Variance Calculation = Earned Rate x (Earned Hours – Actual hours)

In Section 3.8.2 Cost Performance, the acronym “EAC” has been replaced with “ETC”.

In Section 3.10.2 Authorized Changes, discussion regarding allowable changes for optimum utility has been removed.

In Section 4 System Documentation, the term “GEIA” has been replaced with “SAE”.

In Section 5.1, Evaluation Process, the term “officer” has been replaced with “authority”.

In summary, EIA 748-D has added/modified a few items for clarification but does not change any of the implementation, reporting, surveillance, or enforcement aspects of Earned Value Management Systems.

Purchase a copy of the standard here: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/eia748d/

EIA 748-D Released – Change Notes Read Post »

Planning and Managing EVM by Elements of Cost (EOC) – Over-Application of EOCs – Part 2

By Humphreys & Associates / April 1, 2019 / CAR, Corrective Action Requests, earned value training, EIA-748-C, Elements of Cost, EOC, EVM Standard 748, EVM Training

CAR, Corrective Action Requests, earned value training, EIA-748-C, Elements of Cost, EOC, EVM Standard 748, EVM Training

<< Review Part 1

In part one of our series on Elements of Cost (EOC), we explained what EOCs are and gave an analogy of how EOCs would relate to building a patio. We also reviewed how EOCs can be “over thought” and emphasized the importance of properly applying indirect cost rates. This post is going to be focused on the Over-Application of EOCs.

Over-Application of EOCs

During some government reviews, the teams issued Corrective Action Requests (CARs) citing multiple examples of ACWP occurring on “zero-budgeted” Work Packages within Control Accounts. On the surface, this sounds pretty serious, but there were several “over-applications” in play here.

First, the review was being performed at (and in some cases below) the Work Package (WP) level, when the intent of the Guidelines has always been for variance analysis to be performed at the Control Account (CA) Level;
Second, the CAR assumption was that a charge against an Element Of Cost (EOC) equals a charge against a “zero-budgeted WP”.

For the first point we’ll look at Guideline 22 in the EVM Standard 748:

GL 22. At least on a monthly basis, generate the following information at the Control Account and other levels as necessary for management control using actual cost data from, or reconcilable with, the accounting system:

1) Comparison of the amount of planned budget and the amount of budget earned for work accomplished. This comparison provides the schedule variance.

2) Comparison of the amount of the budget earned and the actual direct costs for the same work. This comparison provides the cost variance.

Even the government’s sub-question e. under GL 22 reiterates this requirement:

e. Are the following elements for measuring performance available at the levels selected for control and analysis (at a minimum at the control account level):

1) Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS)?

2) Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP)?

3) Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP)?

While the intent of the words “and other levels” and “at a minimum” was to ensure that contractors did not only perform analysis at some higher, summary level, the government’s choice of those sub-question words also opens up the application of the analysis at lower levels. Be that as it may, the over-application still exists where it should not. Variance Analysis is supposed to be at the CA level and rolled up to higher levels for analysis. The bottom line for each of the CARs written is that BCWS, BCWP, and ACWP existed at the Control Account level, and the EOC visibility was available for variance analysis explanations at the lower levels in the contractors’ systems.

For the second point, let’s look at all the EVM Standard 748 Guidelines, specifically Guideline 16.

There is no Guideline that specifically requires BCWP to be claimed the exact same way BCWS was planned; however, it is intuitive that this has to be true in order for cumulative values for BCWP and BCWS to equal BAC so that the work can be considered complete. [While the government’s sub-question b. under Guideline 22 expects BCWP to be calculated “consistent with the way the work is planned”, GL 22 itself (above) is silent on that inferred expectation.] The Guideline 16 and its sub-question b. also require consistency of the direct costs:

GL 16. Record direct costs in a manner consistent with the budgets in a formal system controlled by the general books of account.

Are elements of direct cost (labor, material, subcontractor, and other direct costs) accumulated within control accounts in a manner consistent with budgets using recognized acceptable costing techniques and controlled by the general books of account?

In the examples noted for the CAR referenced above, the work package task was a specific Element Of Cost (EOC) and was planned and completed in the same period, but no ACWP was accumulated for that specific EOC because the work was accomplished using another resource that fell into another EOC category. When the team looked at that EOC containing the ACWP, they interpreted the finding as a “zero-budgeted Work Package” with ACWP against it. [They also cited the original Work Package itself for having BCWP with no ACWP for the element of cost that was planned and earned.]

Humphreys & Associates is available for consulting and information on this topic. Give us a call!

Planning and Managing EVM by Elements of Cost (EOC) – Over-Application of EOCs – Part 2 Read Post »

EVM Consulting | Corrective Action Response

By Humphreys & Associates / December 3, 2018 / CAP, CAR, Corrective Action Requests, CPR/IPMR, EVM Consulting, IBR, IMS, SSI

CAP, CAR, Corrective Action Requests, CPR/IPMR, EVM Consulting, IBR, IMS, SSI

How do I respond to a Corrective Action Request?

In EVM Consulting, we deal with Corrective Action Requests (CARs) on a regular basis, so we have plenty of real-world experience. We created an outline of valuable information about DRs / CARs based on our collective experience. Part 1 of the guide is designed to inform you of why CARs are received and who issues them, so you can work to prevent them. Part 2 will prepare you to respond to a CAR in an effective and efficient way.

Corrective Action Response: Sources – Part 1 of 2

In Part 1 of the series we illuminated the varied sources of Corrective Action Requests:
1) Standard Surveillance Instruction (SSI)
2) Agencies that do not use the DCMA for surveillance, such as the Department of Energy.
3) Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)
4) Procedures that are compliant with the EIA-748 Guidelines
5) Contract Performance Report (CPR)
6) Integrated Project Management Report (IPMR)
7) Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)
8) Discrepancy Reports (Levels I-IV)

Corrective Action Response: Planning and Closure – Part 2 of 2

In part 2 of the series, we addressed responding to a Corrective Action Request (CAR):
1) Review the DRs/CARs with the customer
2) Organize for successful CAP management
3) Begin a thorough Root Cause Analysis
4) Develop and evaluate Corrective Action Plans
5) Develop verification closure steps
6) Develop a detailed Integrated Master Schedule for CAP implementation
7) Submit CAP and CAP IMS to the customer for approval prior to implementing the Corrective Actions
8) Implement Corrective Action Plans and track progress to successful completion
9) CAR closure and follow-up

EVM Consulting | Corrective Action Response Read Post »

EVM Training – Decision Making and Charlie Munger – Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 4

By Humphreys & Associates / October 1, 2018 / Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

This is the fourth and final blog in this series about the human tendency toward misjudgment. In Parts 1, 2, and 3 we learned about Charles (Charlie) T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berskshire Hathaway and partner of Warren Buffet, and his listing of 25 innate human tendencies toward misjudgment that we harbor. In those three blogs we learned much from him and we will continue that learning in this blog. Charlie was born in 1924 so, at the time of this blog, Charlie he is 94, a wise old man from whom we should learn.

As mentioned previously, I went through each of the 25 “tendencies” that are defined and discussed by Charlie and tried to think about how the tendency could disadvantage or could potentially aid decision making.

Kantian Fairness

The first of the tendencies discussed here is the “Kantian Fairness Tendency.” This does not apply to all people from all cultures around the world, but it certainly does to those you are most likely to be engaged with; those at your place of work. The tendency is that people tend to give and expect fair treatment. It is something innate and reinforced with something learned. An example would be the way people line up to wait and the way they expect others to obey the unwritten rules of waiting in line. People expect to be treated fairly and will wait their turn for that. Applying this tendency to decision-making, people expect the decision process to be fair. If it were to be skewed and unfair, they would hesitate to participate. Being unaware that there is such a bias can be dangerous to the decision-making process. If unfairness could be introduced and carefully hidden, the outcome could be skewed. Any unfairness must be rooted out, no matter how difficult.

Influence-from-Mere-Association

The second tendency covered in this fourth blog is subtle. It is the “Influence-from-Mere-Association Tendency.” Munger points out the problem with this tendency by explaining that if something good happened to us in the past, we will be more influenced by things that were associated with that good event or outcome. Something that is associated with a known good thing is not weighed and measured by the same standards as something that is a stand-alone non-associated item. But we do not really know in all cases that the things we are considering really factored into the previous success at all. If we are told that or assume that or just plain “know that” from company lore, we are on dangerous ground. We would need to know the exact cause and effect chain for the good outcome in the past to be sure we are dealing with a positive associated influence. About the best we can do is be skeptical and challenge things that are presented as associated with previous good outcomes. Our process should require proof of association when association is a factor.

Social-Proof

The third tendency here is one we should all be very familiar with. Munger calls it the “Social-proof Tendency.” You might know it by the name “groupthink” or “the herd instinct.” We need to understand that people tend to act and think as the others around them act and think. This tendency can become an issue in a team or group charged with deciding a crucial issue. Will the members have the strength for independent thought and action or will many of them “go along to get along”? The instinct can be much worse if the situation is a high stress one. The herd must react quickly to stress and the first movement, of the first spooked members, could lead to a stampede. Our decision process has to be sensitive to this and counter it is if needed. Deciders must be coached to avoid being a blind follower and to value independent thought and action. If necessary, the process might have to require mixing the attendance or substituting more independent-minded people.

Contrast Mis-reaction

Another powerful tendency is also one that can be easily exploited against the process. This is the so-called “Contrast Mis-reaction Tendency.” This can be seen as the reaction toward what is perceived as the lesser of two evils. We have all been taught that it is good to compare and contrast choices; but that is only useful when enough truth is known about the choices. A manipulative manager might use this tendency for mis-reaction by explaining to the deciders that there are two outcomes. The first is Outcome A which is described by the manager in such terms as to leave no doubt this is a terrible choice. The second one is Outcome B, also not good, but which appears to be so much better that A; by contrast, our reaction is a mis-reaction toward the one that is automatically more appealing. In this way, the unknowing members of the team see the obvious contrast and are drawn to the outcome favored by the manager while, to them, the whole process appears above board. Our process must be made to present all the choices and to treat them factually, so an uninfluenced choice is made. A good decision-making process does not make false contrasts.

There is not enough time to cover all the tendencies fairly. To do that, you should attend a Humphreys & Associates workshop to explore the entire subject of decision making.

Crucial Decision

In closing, I am going to postulate a situation where the authority to make a crucial decision is assigned, in a high stress situation, to a weak “groupthink team” with a strong leader who has a bloated opinion of himself. The team has been shown some very limited choices, some of which have been described as distasteful ones. The leader is in denial and trying to avoid loss. He wants to force a quick decision. How do you rate the chances of this scenario yielding a good well-considered decision, now that you can see the underlying tendencies to misjudgment?

EVM Training – Decision Making and Charlie Munger – Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 4 Read Post »

EVM Training – Decision Making and Charlie Munger Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 3

By Humphreys & Associates / September 3, 2018 / Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 3

Are Your People Being Manipulated?

In part 1 and part 2 of this topic we learned about Charles (Charlie) T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berskshire Hathaway and partner of Warren Buffet, and his listing of 25 innate human tendencies toward misjudgment that we harbor. In those two blogs we started to learn from him and we will continue that learning in this blog. Charlie was born in 1924 so, at the time of this blog, Charlie is 94, a wise old man from whom we should learn.

As mentioned in Parts 1 and 2, I went through each of the 25 “tendencies” that are defined and discussed by Charlie and tried to think about how the tendency could disadvantage or could potentially aid decision making.

Is there a possibility that people in your decision-making processes are being manipulated? Have you ever been manipulated and known it? Have you ever been manipulated but didn’t know it? Of course, that question can only be answered by thinking back now; if you didn’t know it then, maybe you can see it with hindsight.

The Future of the Industry

Very recently a representative from a company called our leadership and asked for some help with gaining knowledge about the future of our industry. We are in the same industry and compete sometimes, so it seemed odd that this was happening. Along with the request for a favor came an offer; an offer to attend a session with others of their clients and associates on the future of the industry during which we would be given the chance to make even more valuable inputs.

What was going on? What a massive ego-stroking effort. I think it was application of the Ben franklin effect. Simply stated in Franklin’s own words about a situation where he had an opposition figure he needed to deal with, “Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce and curious book, I wrote a note to him, expressing my desire of perusing that book, and requesting he would do me the favour of lending it to me for a few days. He sent it immediately, and I return’d it in about a week with another note, expressing strongly my sense of the favour. When we next met in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never done before), and with great civility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on all occasions, so that we became great friends, and our friendship continued to his death.” In this story notice the use of the words “serve me.” Just asking for and receiving the smallest favor from the man changed the man’s attitude toward Franklin.

Enhancing Opinions

It can be analyzed like this: asking someone at work, with whom we may be opposed or with whom we are ‘on-the-outs’ can tell them that we consider them to have something valuable that we do not have, and we need. It might be made to sound as if they have more information, more under-standing, more ability. If they respond positively and give us something as slight as their time and attention, we stand a chance of enhancing their opinion of us because they then cannot see us as someone simultaneously unworthy and worthy. They just saw us as worthy of their time and atten-tion, so obviously we recognize and have acknowledged their value.

How does this play into decision-making? You need to be aware of the dynamics of any situation and to watch out for the subtle ways that influence can be used to maneuver a decision to the spot desired by someone or some faction. You need to be especially watchful if the person or faction doing the maneuvering is one you believe to not have the best interests of the project at heart.

More Tendencies

Let’s cover more of the tendencies and carry on our discussion about developing a sound decision making process farther. Please note that Charlie Munger named these tendencies, and sometimes I think he made up words that do not sit well with Microsoft spell checking tools.

Tendency #9

Tendency #9 is the one just discussed as the Ben Franklin effect. Munger named it the “Reciprocation Tendency.” It is the tendency to reciprocate favors and disfavors and can be a strong subconscious motivator. If the person being manipulated by Franklin had thought, “There’s that wily Ben again trying to win me over by asking me for help,” the ploy would not have worked. It must be subconsciously received. Isn’t this tendency why procurement departments prohibit buyers from taking favors from sellers? Judges do not associate with defendants. That is a procedural way to stop the potential for misuse of the tendency.

Tendency #12

Tendency #12 could be easily related to the Ben Franklin effect. Munger calls this the “Excessive Self-regard Tendency.” We have all known someone who has a very highly inflated opinion of themselves and we may even have seen the risk in that. This person can, and often does, misjudge his/her own knowledge, competence, capability to the high side. These people choose to associate with people like themselves, and they definitely are partial to their own ideas and conclusions. These people also can be negatively motivated when provided with a counter argument. They are dangerous in decision making because they may not be motivated by facts. They may just be on that personal voyage known as the ego trip. You could even worry that someone else has used the Ben Franklin ploy to get this ego-challenged person to align with this thinking.

Tendency #13

Tendency #13 may align with #12 since it is Munger’s “Over-optimism Tendency.” This is the human tendency to err on the side of optimism when thinking about the future, the work required, and the outcomes possible. For this person there is no time spent better than time walking down the primrose path trying out their new rose-colored glasses. There are so many opportunities for optimism to cause damage on a project, it is sobering. An overly aggressive schedule or budget that is seen as do-able is not going to work. A defined product or set of tasks that would be very hard to achieve could be seen as not-that-tough with the disastrous outcome you would expect. Your deci-sion-making process should force a way to look at facts realistically. Quickly committing to the impossible would be a death warrant. Also, a decision-making process should avoid the potential that an overly optimistic person is also one who has excessive self-regard. Using experts or others, who are not going to have to live with the decisions, can help bring reality into the process. Don’t you go to the doctor to hear the truth?

Conclusion

This is the third blog on the topic of Munger’s human tendencies toward misjudgment. Analyses like these blogs can be helpful to us at Humphreys & Associates in our support of clients and in our formulation of training materials. Hopefully this information has started you or helped you on your way to creating or beefing up a process for decision making that curbs or circumvents these human tendencies.

Review:
EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1
EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 2

EVM Training – Decision Making and Charlie Munger Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 3 Read Post »

EVM: Is DCMA A Contractor’s “Friend or Foe?”

By Robert “Too Tall” Kenney / August 15, 2018 / CAP, CAR, DCMA, Defense Contract Management Agency, EAC, EVM, EVM Consulting, EVMS

CAP, CAR, DCMA, Defense Contract Management Agency, EAC, EVM, EVM Consulting, EVMS

Is DCMA A Contractor’s “Friend or Foe?”

I’ll answer this provocative question now. DCMA, local and headquarters, are an EVM contractor’s “friend” with remarkable, but not unlimited, patience. When required, DCMA can become the contractor’s “tough love” friend.

DCMA and the contractor share the same interests – successful contract performance. DCMA is part of a triad that includes the Government’s program team, the contractor’s program team and their DCMA counterparts.

The title “Defense Contract Management Agency” reminds me of “grilled cheese sandwich” – the recipe and the product are in the name – “contract management” leads to well managed contracts.

EAC Vignette – Part One:

Contractor A has learned that their collocated DCMA has concerns about the company’s EAC process and resulting declared EACs. The company has learned that a Level III CAR on GL # 27 is being considered. Contractor A’s senior management decides to replace their EVM Core Leader with “new blood” to improve the company’s “relationship” with DCMA and avoid a Level III CAR.

Contractor A’s new EVM leader meets with her team and with the program managers that have an EVM contractual requirement. Company A’s new EVM leader is told that DCMA’s EAC concerns are a new issue. The company’s new EVM leader asks to meet with her DCMA counterpart to discuss their GL # 27 concerns, and to present a draft of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP).

During the meeting with DCMA’s EVM leader she mentions that the EAC concerns were a surprise to the company. The company’s new EVM leader briefs her draft CAP to her DCMA counterpart.

After the draft CAP has been briefed, the DCMA EVM leader comments, “your draft CAP is a good start. After I have time to fully digest your draft CAP I will send my comments and suggestions. As for being surprised by our EAC concerns, here is a file with 3+ years of letters, emails, meeting minutes from DCMA to your company outlining our continuing and growing concerns with your company’s EAC process.”

EAC Vignette – Part Two:

DCMA issued a Level III Corrective Action Request (CAR) to the contractor and is considering withholdings as an incentive for the company to quickly improve their EAC processes.

As promised, the DCMA EVM leader sent the following note to the company’s new EVM leader:

“I sent your draft GL # 27 CAP to my team for their comments and recommendations. My team’s key recommendations are:

1). Identify the weaknesses in your existing EAC processes. For each weakness, identify a corrective action. As much as possible, “mistake proof” your new processes. You should consider a review of several 100% complete contracts, and “replay” those contracts month-by-month using your new EAC processes to test their effectiveness.

2). As noted in our CAR, the company is required to report progress on the Corrective Action Plan (CAP). You should treat your CAP as a program. At a minimum, you should have an IMS and use appropriate earned value techniques to measure progress.

3). A sister division in your parent corporation, has a very mature and effective EAC process. You should considering asking for their assistance as you develop your CAP and begin its execution.

4). If you have questions as you execute your CAP, please don’t hesitate to contact me. If I don’t know the answer to your question, I’ll find someone that does know the answer and will share it with you.”

Personal Observations:

Based on my 32 years as an employee of defense contractors, and 7 years in earned value consulting, I offer the following:

1). DCMA “local” knows your company much better than you might think.

2). DCMA “headquarters” has knowledge and insight into many companies. From DCMA’s website: “We are the independent eyes and ears of DoD and its partners, delivering actionable acquisition insight from the factory floor to the front line …. around the world.”

3). A CAR from DCMA informs the company of “what” needs corrected but not “how” to correct the issue. That said, DCMA knows what will or will not work. Maintain a dialogue with DCMA.

4). “Compliance” is a lower bound for performance. DCMA will not object if a company decides to improve well beyond mere compliance.

5). Please consider the possibility that what may appear to be a “new” problem for your company, may have already been solved by another company. Find who has already solved your “new” problem. Ask for help.

DCMA will never be a foe. Never.

EVM: Is DCMA A Contractor’s “Friend or Foe?” Read Post »