Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) Archives

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

By Humphreys & Associates / May 1, 2024 / CADE, CAPE, earned value management, FlexFile

CADE, CAPE, earned value management, FlexFile

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.

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 »

EVMS Guidelines and Required Elements

By Humphreys & Associates / February 2, 2022 / Cost Variance, earned value training, EVM Training, EVMS Guidelines, Schedule Variance, Variance At Completion

Cost Variance, earned value training, EVM Training, EVMS Guidelines, Schedule Variance, Variance At Completion

Video Contents

This video reviews the data points that an Earned Value Management System provides and how variances can be calculated from those data points. Timely analysis of performance data and variances assists contractors to proactively resolve issues and effectively manage the remaining work on a project.

You can use the links below to jump to a specific part of the video.

Earned Value Contractors’ Internal Systems must be able to provide the following:
00:06 – Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS)
00:26 – Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP)
00:38 – Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP)
00:47 – Buget At Completion (BAC)
00:52 – Estimate At Completion (EAC)

Variances can be calculated using the BCWS, BCWP, ACWP, BAC and EAC.
00:58 – Variances Explanations
01:03 – Schedule Variance (SV)
01:19 – Cost Variance (CV)
01:31 – Variance at Completion (VAC)
01:45 – Why do we calculate Variances?

01:54 – EAC and BAC Comparison
2:06 – What does Variance at Completion (VAC) indicate?
2:18 – Structure your Earned Value Management System so that Variances can be traced to their source.
2:32 – Use your existing project management systems.

We also have additional free resources for learning about

You can also find Earned Value Definitions as well as additional free resources for learning more about EVMS concepts like Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP), Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP), Buget At Completion (BAC), and Estimate At Completion (EAC) in our EVMS Education Center and in other posts on this blog.

More EVMS Training

If you liked this video you can purchase the entire course below. This video is an excerpt from the Department of Defense (DOD) version of this eLearning module. We also offer the same course customized for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) specific Earned Value Management (EVM) implementation/requirements, as well as a version of the course customized for NASA’s EVM implementation/requirements.

— Purchase This Course —
EVMS DOD Virtual Learning Lab

— Purchase the DOE Version of this Course —
EVMS DOE Virtual Learning Lab

— Purchase the NASA Version of this Course —
EVMS NASA Virtual Learning Lab

EVMS Document Matrix

Not sure what the different requirements are between the DOE and NASA? Can’t remember if Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) is required for an NSA contract? Check out our easy to read Earned Value Management Systems Document Matrix

All Online Courses

All Online Courses Available from Humphreys & Associates

EVMS Guidelines and Required Elements Read Post »

Planning and Managing EVM by Elements of Cost (EOC) – Use a New EOC – Part 3

By Humphreys & Associates / May 1, 2019 / ACWP, BCWP, CAM, earned value training, Elements of Cost, EOC, EVM Training

ACWP, BCWP, CAM, earned value training, Elements of Cost, EOC, EVM Training

<< Review Part 2

In Part 2 we talked about the over-application of EOCs at or below the Work Package level and how a CAR assuming that a charge against an Element Of Cost (EOC) equals a charge against a “zero-budgeted WP” was inaccurate.

Use a New EOC

Both of the examples from part 2 were over-applications of the EOC requirement. The point here was that the work (it was to design a circuit card), was planned as labor and was also accomplished (earned) in the month it was planned; so the value would be “earned” as planned. In that period, however, it happened that the planned resource was not available, so the work was actually accomplished using a different EOC such as a subcontractor engineer. The contractor’s system properly showed that the design had been completed and the value earned and that the ACWP for that completion was also in the system (i.e. consistent with the BCWP). However, it just happened to be the Subcontract EOC instead of the Labor EOC originally planned, and the CAM addressed the cost difference in the VAR for the Control Account. The team’s comments on the CARs were that the CAM should have replanned the effort using the new EOC instead of the original one. The problem with this is that in many cases the CAM does not know the original resource is not going to be available until the day it happens. There would (1) be no time to process the change and (2) the change would occur in the “freeze period” (actually in the current month), and (3) this could result in unnecessarily large numbers of Change Requests since these types of events commonly occur in the industry.

Noted instances:

Work planned and earned as internal labor (Labor EOC) had to be performed by contract support (subcontract EOC) in that period because of the non-availability of the planned resource.
[Some Contractors consider each labor grade a separate EOC within labor] Work planned and earned for an Engineer 2. However, the period the work was performed used an Engineer 3 (higher cost).
The plan was to build sub-assemblies in-house (Labor EOC), but a machine breakdown necessitated having a vendor provide substitute off-the-shelf assemblies (Material EOC) that month.

In each of these cases, the “EOC ACWP substitution” was temporary, and the work resumed the next period as planned, using the originally planned Element of Cost. The key here is that in each case, the work was performed, and so it was earned; as it should have been. The only difference was that a different EOC was used to accomplish the work – a simple Cost Variance. While it is certainly true that each WP (and PP) should be planned and WPs earned using a single EOC, the misinterpretation here was that every EOC then is a Work package and they are not. In other words, temporarily using a different Engineer category than planned, or using contract support instead of internal labor, or substituting a purchased material item instead of fabricating internally, etc. simply represents a Cost Variances, and should not be cited as a violation of the EVMS Guidelines.

The “consistency” required by the Guideline and the sub-question is that the EOC actually used was expended in the same period in which the work was completed and the Earned Value claimed (i.e. consistent with the BCWP). The variance analysis would show BCWS, BCWP, and ACWP at the CA level with the EOC details at lower levels.

Now for the big “HOWEVER”!

If the switch in use of the alternate EOC is short term, then the differences should be addressed as a Cost Variance (which could be higher or lower than with the planned EOC); HOWEVER, if the change is expected to be permanent or long term, then the CAM should replan the remainder of the work package using the new EOC, and the EAC should be updated, as well, to reflect the new anticipated total cost using that revised EOC.

Note: Some contractors have what is called a “gray badge” environment, whereby a subcontractor charges their labor directly into the Prime contractor’s labor system. Under this arrangement, for this subcontractor, there would be no difference in EOC if the subcontractor performed the work instead of the prime contractor.

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

Planning and Managing EVM by Elements of Cost (EOC) – Use a New EOC – Part 3 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 »

Management Reserve; Comparing Earned Value Management (EVM) and Financial Management Views of “Reserves”

By Humphreys & Associates / October 20, 2015 / Altria, BAC, EVM, EVM Analysis, EVMS, IPMD, management reserves, MR, PASEG, PMSC, SOW

Altria, BAC, EVM, EVM Analysis, EVMS, IPMD, management reserves, MR, PASEG, PMSC, SOW

Management Reserve & Earned Value Management

Perhaps you have witnessed the collision of earned value management’s views on “management reserve” with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the finance department’s views on “balance sheet reserves.” Most companies tend to organize EVM, the function, reporting to either the programs’ organization or to the finance organization. Either will work but either can fail if the two organizations do not understand the interest of the other.

In this article we will outline three areas. The first will be EVM and Management Reserve (MR). The second will be finance and balance sheet “contingencies, loss provisions, or reserves.” The third will compare the two views and identify where they are similar and where they differ.

We will use two terms for both EVM and Financial Management; “in play” and “on the sideline.” “In play” for EVM means that it is in your Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) and Budget at Completion (BAC). “On the sideline” for EVM means “not in scope” therefore in MR. “In play” for financial management means recorded on the balance sheet (e.g.: current liability; an accrued liability). “On the sideline” for financial management means not recorded on the balance sheet, because it is more likely than not that a liability has been incurred. If material, however, it will likely be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements, even if it is not recorded on the balance sheet.

Earned Value Management and Management Reserve

A program manager and his or her team must deal with – mitigate – risk or be consumed by those risks as they become issues. There are two types of risks, known and unknown. The known risks are entered into a risk register, and their likelihood and consequence are determined. Mitigation for those known risks is done at the activity level in a program’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) (Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide — PASEG page 141, ¶ 10.3.1). Mitigation of known risks is part of the PMB (in the BAC) and is therefore “in play.”

The second type of risk – unknown or unknowable risks – are covered by management reserve if within the Scope of Work (SOW) of the existing contract. If contractor and customer conclude that the realized risk is outside the existing contract, then an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) would likely be created by the contractor; and a contract modification would be issued by the authorized customer contracting officer if they agreed. The program manager should ask this question of his team: what work is “at risk” and what work is not “at risk?” Does labor or material present more risk? Management reserve “is an amount of the overall contract budget held for management control purposes and for unplanned events” (Integrated Program Management Report–IPMR DI-MGMT-81861 page 9, ¶ 3.2.4.6). Management reserve is “on the sidelines.” MR has no scope. MR is not earmarked. MR stands in waiting.

Earned Value Management Reserve (MR) Compared To Financial Management “Contingency”

Because the audience reading this blog is most likely from the EVM community, I’ll offer a Financial Management example of a company that faces many risks and must manage those risks or be consumed by them. Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries (stock symbol: MO) are in the tobacco, e-Vapor and wine business. Altria’s history clearly shows that the company measures and successfully mitigates the risks they face. Altria faces a blizzard of litigation each year and must protect its shareholders from that risk. So how does Altria manage known risks (mostly from litigation) and how does Altria handle unknown risks?

Altria is a publicly traded company and its annual report (10K) is available on-line to the public. This data is from their 2014 annual report.

I am an MBA, not a CPA, so I’ll stick to Altria’s 2014 balance sheet. For those not familiar with financial statements, a balance sheet has on its left hand side all of a company’s assets – what the company owns and uses in its business (current assets = cash, accounts receivable, inventory; long term assets = property, plant and equipment). The right hand side of a company’s balance sheet shows current and non-current liabilities and shareholders’ equity. The top right hand side of the balance sheet includes current and non-current liabilities (accounts payable, customer advances, current and long-term debt, and accrued liabilities like income taxes, accrued payroll and employee benefits, accrued pension benefits and accrued litigation settlement costs) and the bottom of the right hand side of the balance sheet includes shareholders’ equity consisting of common and preferred stock, paid in capital and retained earnings.

Altria’s 2014 annual report shows under current liabilities; accrued liabilities; settlement charges (for pending litigation Contingency note # 18) a value of $3.5 billion dollars. The 2013 amount was $3.391 billion dollars.

So Altria has “in play” $3.5B for litigation for 2014. In financial terms, Altria has recorded $3.5 billion in expense related to the litigation, probably over several years as it became more likely than not that a liability had been incurred and was reasonably estimable. In EVM terms Altria has $3.5B in their baseline, or earmarked, or in scope for litigation (court cases).

What happens if Altria ultimately has more than $3.5B in litigation settlement costs? What does Altria have waiting on the “sidelines” to cover the unknown risks? Essentially Altria has on its balance sheet waiting “on the sidelines” $3.321 billion in cash and the ability to borrow additional funds or perhaps to sell additional shares of stock to fund the settlement costs. In EVM terms Altria has $3.5B in its baseline (on its balance sheet) to manage the risks associated with litigation. Altria’s market capitalization at the market close on May 17, 2015 was $52.82 billion and its 2014 net revenues were $24.522 billion. It is reasonable to understand that Altria has more than enough MR.

Differences Between EVM MR and Financial Management Balance Sheet Reserves

In EVM, MR is only released to cover unplanned or unknown events that are in scope to the contract but out-of-scope to any control account. A cost under-run is never reversed to MR, and a cost over-run is never erased with the release of MR into scope.

In industry in general, and Altria in particular, if the “in play” current liability for settlement charges of $3.5B are not needed (an under-run), then Altria will reverse a portion of the existing accrued liability into income, thereby improving profitability. If Altria’s balance sheet reserve of $3.5B is insufficient, then Altria’s future profits will be reduced as an additional provision will be expensed to increase the existing reserve (an over-run).

[Humphreys & Associates wishes to thank Robert “Too Tall” Kenney for authoring this article.]

Management Reserve; Comparing Earned Value Management (EVM) and Financial Management Views of “Reserves” Read Post »

EVMS compliance: Material Transfers and Loan/Paybacks

By Humphreys & Associates / March 25, 2015 / ACO, ACWP, BCWP, DCAA, EVMS, Loan, Material, MMAS, payback, TBLP

ACO, ACWP, BCWP, DCAA, EVMS, Loan, Material, MMAS, payback, TBLP

Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Compliance | Material Transfers and Loans/Paybacks

Last Updated May 22, 2025

In a high rate production environment, it is not unusual for different Contract Lot Buys to have demands for the same required parts. Circumstances driven by delivery schedules, fee incentives, national priorities, or quality issues will prioritize the demand for these common parts. Companies must ensure they are able to respond to these dynamics while satisfying contractual requirements and continuing to remain compliant with the EIA-748 Standard for Earned Value Management System (EVMS) guidelines. A documented Material Transfer and Borrow and Payback (e.g., TBLP) policy/procedure describing a disciplined, auditable approach is a mandatory prerequisite for project managers in an EVMS contract environment.

Material Management and Accounting System (MMAS)

There are a number of applicable Government documents that come into play but none more important than the Material Management and Accounting System (MMAS). It is a DoD Policy (DFARS 242.7202) that contractors have a MMAS that:

(1) Reasonably forecasts material requirements.
(2) Ensures the cost of purchased and fabricated material charged or allocated to a contract are based on valid time-phased requirements.
(3) Maintains a consistent, equitable, and unbiased logic for costing of material transactions.

DFARS.242-7004 Material Management and Accounting System Subpart, paragraph (d) System criteria includes a list of requirements. Selected subparagraphs discuss material transfers and loan/paybacks as follows:

Subparagraph 6 (Material Transfers) requires the contractor’s policies and procedures provide detailed descriptions of circumstances that will result in manual or system generated transfers of parts.
Subparagraph 7 (Material Costing) requires that the contractor’s system transfer parts and associated costs within the same billing period or use an Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) approved “Loan/Payback” technique.
Subparagraph 8 (Inventory Allocations) requires that the contractor’s system handle allocations of common inventory in such a manner as to preclude improper allocation and costing of allocations.

Material Transfer versus Loan/Payback

For a number of reasons, a material transfer involves the most problematic issues for accommodating changing demands and priorities for common parts:

Transfer costs are based on labor, material and applicable burdens when originally incurred and not based on the year when they are physically transferred (i.e. 2024 costs vs. 2025 costs). Related funding issues may also surface (requesting 2014 funding to ‘build’ a 2024 requirement in 2025).
Replacement costs will, in most cases, be at a higher value and there may be a potential schedule impact; both represent negative impacts to the customer.
Previously reported Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP) and Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) for work already accomplished will be impacted.
Potential for inadvertently gaining a cost benefit when transfers are made between a Cost Plus and Fixed Price contract.

A transfer approach should only be considered when there is no replenishment currently in the procurement system. If there is a replenishment currently in the ‘pipeline’ then a loan/payback approach should be used as this will result in no cost transfer.

Under a loan/payback scenario, a part is moved temporarily from the contract, but the cost of the part remains on the contract. As noted earlier, contractor procedures for the loan/pay-back technique must be approved by the ACO. When the technique is used, the contractor must have controls to ensure that:

Parts are paid back expeditiously.
Procedures and controls are in place to correct any over-billing that might occur.
Monthly, at a minimum, identify the borrowing contract and the date the part was borrowed.
The cost of the replacement part is charged to the borrowing contract.

Material management and planning within an EVMS environment is quite challenging. Thankfully, there are a number of Earned Value Management Systems software programs available to assist contractors in meeting and managing this challenge.

A number of Humphreys & Associates earned value consultants have extensive experience in production environments that can assist in guiding your efforts in this complex endeavor to ensure a firm foundation is established that meets or exceeds your material management and EVMS needs. Call us today at (714) 685-1730.

EVMS compliance: Material Transfers and Loan/Paybacks Read Post »