Insights into Current Industry EVMS Issues

H&A earned value consultants routinely attend and present at the NDIA Integrated Program Management Division (IPMD) forums that are held twice a year as well as serve on the IPMD Board of Directors. The IPMD forum presentations, discussions between industry and government customer representatives, and Clearinghouse Committee topics provide an opportunity to discuss current challenges and options for resolving them. If you are not familiar with the IPMD Clearinghouse Committee, a time slot on the agenda is reserved for this committee’s working session. Industry Earned Value Management System (EVMS) practitioners raise and discuss issues along with the government EVMS counterparts to develop mutually acceptable resolutions and/or recommendations. Issues raised during the Clearinghouse Committee sessions have often been the basis for launching many other IPMD committees such as the Planning and Scheduling Committee and Prime/Sub Committee.

In addition to EVMS related challenges that surface on recent H&A engagements, the H&A blogs and articles are often written to address common issues or general themes from these IPMD forums. The August 2026 forum was no different. What follows is a short list of discussion and presentation topics from the August 2026 forum with links to H&A blogs or articles that address these current issues and presentations.

• The value of an EVMS. This was a general theme from three presenters that aligns with recent H&A EVMS Education Center articles including one titled “Ten Project Failure Risks: Using an EVMS to Improve Project Outcomes.” The purpose and value of an EVMS is often lost when the focus is on producing contractual reports or managing to a set of compliance metrics instead of using the data as an early alert system for emerging risks and issues. An EVMS provides management a disciplined way to understand the current status of a project and where it may be headed. Management must provide the response to the EVMS alert signals, make decisions, and take action while there is still time to protect project outcomes.
• Approach for integrating subcontractor schedule data into a prime’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). There are often differing opinions from the contractor’s or the government customer’s point of view about how the IMS should be structured to include this data. The main goal is to determine a logical approach that does not overcomplicate the structure and content of the IMS that makes it difficult to maintain or compromises the overall purpose of an IMS. The H&A blog “Integrating Subcontractor Data into an Integrated Master Schedule” discusses this common challenge and risks when scheduling requirements are not clearly defined. It also discusses three approaches for incorporating subcontractor schedule data with pros and cons for each approach.
• Schedule Risk Assessments (SRAs). The continuing discussions on SRAs often center around the quality of the SRA data and that it is being treated like a check the box exercise. The solution isn’t to require contractors to perform monthly SRAs. That fails to address the root cause: meaningless duration estimates. In some instances global factors are applied to existing duration estimates as a short-cut. Producing a useful SRA starts with a high-quality IMS along with a disciplined risk management process and focused analysis of selected tasks that have a high probability of impacting a major event or project completion date. The H&A blog “Maximizing the Value of Schedule Risk Assessments (SRAs)” provides suggestions on how to implement a straight-forward process that helps to produce a more realistic IMS.
• Estimates at Completion (EACs). This is another continuing discussion between industry and their government customers about practices that help to ensure a contractor’s forecast completion date (FCD) and EAC are realistic. The H&A blog “Maintaining a Credible Estimate at Completion (EAC)” emphasizes the importance of realistic EACs and why it matters to all stakeholders. The blog discusses practices that can help to ensure EACs are actively maintained along with suggestions for practical process improvements including leveraging evolving tools and analytics.
• Proactive management of Level of Effort (LOE). The LOE topic often comes up in the Clearinghouse working sessions. When the percentage of LOE work packages and their total budget value for a given project is low, some consider LOE to be a non-factor in the overall picture of project performance. However, that is not always the case. Selecting the LOE earned value method must be a conscious decision (not a planning short-cut) and actively managed to ensure the timing and duration as well as any relationship to discrete work packages remain valid. The H&A blog “Level of Effort (LOE) Best Practice Tips” discusses common LOE issues and provides suggestions on how to ensure LOE is properly planned and managed.

Interested in Learning More?

The NDIA IPMD Clearinghouse Committee is a useful resource for industry to discuss EVMS related issues and identify options to resolve them. H&A is a direct conduit to the Clearinghouse Committee co-leads that work with the government counterparts to document recommended solutions. If you need help resolving an issue with your EVMS, we can help. Call us today.