DCMA

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

Revitalizing Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS)

By / / , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
Revitalizing Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS)

Quick Summary

  • Regulatory changes and updated standards are creating an opportunity to revitalize EVM Systems. The FAR overhaul, revised agency thresholds, and the EIA-748-E streamlined requirements while reinforcing the continued need for an effective EVMS.
  • Organizations have an opportunity to refocus on value-driven EVM practices. Rather than treating EVMS as a check-the-box requirement, this is an opportunity to renovate bloated processes and remove non-value-added activities to establish a flexible “living” system that supports proactive project management and credible forecasting.
  • BI and AI tools can transform EVM data into a real-time decision-making advantage. When supported by reliable, integrated data, these tools can rapidly organize information, improve visibility, identify risks early, and help project teams respond faster to changing priorities as well as technical, schedule, and cost challenges.

With the recent changes in the government regulatory requirements, the publication of the EIA-748-E Standard for EVMS, and evolving Business Intelligence (BI) and AI tools, the components for revitalizing Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) are falling into place. This is an opportunity to refocus on the original purpose of an EVMS and effective use of real-time EVM data to quickly address problems before they become critical.

As highlighted in a previous blog, “Earned Value Management (EVM): How Much is Enough?”, being merely “compliant” with the EIA-748 Guidelines should not be the goal. That strategy fails to take advantage of the benefits of an EVMS; it is also short-sighted. Too often an EVMS is perceived as a contractual check-the-box exercise or focused on detailed score keeping.

The goal should be about being efficiently expert at EVM; a commitment to become “best-in-class” as expert practitioners of EVM. Following this strategy, an organization’s EVMS is actively maintained and used to ensure it provides relevant, useful information needed to manage projects for success. EVM is a powerful project management methodology that integrates scope, schedule, and cost management to provide a clear picture of project performance, the forecast completion date, and estimate at completion. BI and AI tools are enhancing the ability to rapidly organize and analyze real-time EVM data for proactive management and clear transparent communication with the customer. This also aligns with the need for speed in delivering capabilities to the customer when trade offs between requirements, schedule, and cost must be made.

Trimming Contractual and Guideline Requirements

The regulatory environment has been evolving; government entities are either simplifying or changing the requirements for an EVMS. As a reminder, the Capital Programming Guide Supplement to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets establishes the government major acquisition requirements for an EVMS. This Guide states contractors must use an EVMS that meets the EIA-748 guideline requirements to monitor contract performance. All agency EVMS regulations point to the A-11.

A summary of recent changes follows.

Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul that began in May 2025 focused on removing most non-statutory rules and rewriting requirements in plain language. Subpart 34.2 – Earned Value Management System was trimmed to the basic EVMS and Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) requirements. The Pre-Award IBR and Notice of EVMS Post-Award IBR clauses were removed; it now just states an IBR is required. Subpart 52.234-4 – Contract Clause for EVMS text was streamlined. Key takeaways: Reaffirmed the value of an EVMS and IBRs. What is unchanged: An EVMS is required for major acquisitions for development contracts, requirements flow down to subcontractors, and IBRs are required.

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Class Deviations (2026-O0011 February 2026), in response to the FAR Overhaul. Subpart 234.2 Earned Value Management System, 234.201 Policy raised the contract value threshold from ≥ $20M to ≥ $50M for EVMS reporting and incorporated the 2015 Class Deviation Memo increasing the contract value threshold for compliance reviews to ≥ $100M. There are also new related Class Deviation Clauses: 252.234-7001 is now 252.234-7998 Notice of EVMS; 252.234-7002 is now 252.234-7999 EVMS.

NASA FAR Supplement 1834.201 Policy Class Deviation (June 2025) as well as their solicitation clause (1852.234-1) and contract clause (1852.234-2) align with the DoD contract value threshold changes and revised clauses.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Although NNSA is part of the DOE, as of September 2025 they are the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) for NNSA projects. They purposely simplified their compliance and surveillance process to be able to rapidly respond to threats. Contractors self-assess their EVMS. NNSA uses an EIA-748 Guideline checklist, reviews data artifacts, and conducts interviews for evidence of compliance. Certification reviews are required when the Total Project Cost is > $300M and are subject to surveillance reviews.

EIA-748-E Standard for EVMS approved and published in February 2026. This long overdue update reduced the number of guidelines to 27 and reflects current business system capabilities. The previous set of 32 guidelines were revised or merged, two were added, and four were deleted to improve clarity.

With the publication of the EIA-748-E, industry guides as well as government agency compliance and surveillance review materials have been or are in the process of being updated. The NDIA IPMD Intent Guide for EIA-748-E will be available on the NDIA IPMD web site once it completes the membership review and approval process. The DoD Earned Value Management System Interpretation Guide (EVMSIG) is also being updated to reflect the EIA-748-E. Once the EVMSIG is published the DCMA EVMS Group will be updating their Business Practices, appendices, and EVMS Compliance Metrics (DECM). DCMA has already trimmed their DECMs to a set of 60 standard, 10 conditional, and 72 low priority tests.

Impact of BI and AI Enabled Tools and Apps

BI and AI tools speed up the process to pull data from different sources for defined use cases and to organize it for analysis. The time lag to view current data can be eliminated with the right business system interfaces and tools. These tools can quickly produce a variety of dashboards or data views with the ability to drill down into the data as well as to sort and filter as needed for root cause analysis. AI agents designed for specific use cases can also speed up the process to organize and present data for real-time decision making. These dashboards and views can be tailored for specific users such as project managers, control account managers (CAMs), functional managers, schedulers, finance, material or subcontract management, and others.

Taking advantage of BI and AI does require a defined enterprise strategy to successfully leverage these powerful tools. Data is the backbone of any AI model – data is needed to “teach” AI how to spot patterns and make predictions. This includes the vast volume of an organization’s transaction records, analytics, and proprietary information across multiple systems.

The problem? Organizations often lack a consistent, verified version of data (the single source of truth) – there is uncertainty about what data should be used to analyze and “feed” their AI models. Internal proprietary data must not be exposed to the outside world. The single source of truth must exist in a governed and curated environment; it must be organized and integrated with a defined data model to be able to analyze real-time streams of data while avoiding multiple versions of the truth.

The challenge is that many organizations are still doing their enterprise planning, including estimating, budgeting and many other functions, in spreadsheets. It is not accessible to others or captured in a common database. Employees end up debating discrepancies between spreadsheets rather than analyzing the data in question.

Once the system that contains the official single source of truth has been determined and how data is organized and integrated, there are a variety of commercial off the shelf (COTS) tools available for the next step. Employees (the power users) familiar with BI and AI tools can quickly turn ideas into apps in a matter of hours or days that help them and their team to get things done. They can quickly build business environment specific dashboards, analyze real-time data pulled from various data sets, and produce outputs designed for different users or use cases.

Putting All the Pieces Together

What are the three primary takeaways?

The requirement to provide a fact-based assessment of project progress and forecast isn’t going away. The FAR overhaul didn’t do away with EVMS or the related fundamental requirements. It does, however, require organizations to be efficiently expert at EVM. A “living” EVMS (i.e., actively maintained and used) that can be scaled/tailored to management needs for each project is essential.

Changes to the requirements provides an opportunity to update “bloated” processes and procedures or that haven’t been updated to reflect new tools. Since the EVMS will need to be reviewed anyway to verify it supports the revised guidelines as well as updated agency requirements, there may be non-value added content or steps that can be eliminated.

BI and AI tools are useful for organizing real-time data into actionable information. Organizations taking advantage of these tools can rapidly respond to realized or emerging risks and changing scope or priorities in response to evolving threats. This creates a competitive advantage.

Returning to a Focus on Proactive Management

This is an opportunity to return to the original objective of an EVMS: timely and relevant information for proactive decision making to ensure project success and a happy customer. The effectiveness of an EVMS should be measured by the technical, schedule, and cost performance metrics. Product acceptance and in-process controls are examples of technical performance metrics. Schedule status and forecast, cumulative to date cost performance index (CPI), estimate at completion (EAC), and the to complete performance index (TCPI) are examples of schedule and cost performance metrics.

Too often the perceived approach to a “compliant” EVMS is to drive the data to an excessive level of detail along with restrictive rules and guidance that result in a system that is cumbersome and painful to use. It reinforces the perception that EVMS is too costly – something the customer doesn’t want to pay for because they don’t see the value.

The alternative? An organization that is efficiently expert at EVM where the customer has directly experienced the value of using real-time performance data to successfully manage their program. Non-value activities have been eliminated. An actively maintained and used EVMS is also resilient; project teams can quickly respond to evolving priorities and threats. Taking advantage of the power and agility of BI and AI tools/apps can help project teams to focus on what matters with real-time data and analytics.

Taking Advantage of the Opportunity to Revitalize EVM

Changing the view that EVMS is burdensome, costly, and of no value will take time. It depends upon organizations choosing to become efficiently expert at EVM.

Recent changes in requirements and the guidelines will require organizations to review the state of their EVM Systems. It creates an opportunity to eliminate non-value added activities. At the same time, powerful BI/AI tools enable real-time data analysis so project teams can be more proactive as well as renovate EVMS functions. The effectiveness of the EVMS is apparent because it provides real-time visibility into project performance with a credible forecast completion date and estimate at completion.

There is no need for excessive oversight by government customers that drives up the cost of managing projects when the customer has confidence the organization’s EVMS provides the visibility they need – and that earned value based project management is a valuable tool.

Next Steps

Consider having an independent third party complete a thorough assessment of your EVMS process areas and documentation to identify where content can be trimmed and clarified or where non-value added steps can be removed – particularly if you are starting to integrate BI and/or AI tools into your EVMS and other business systems. Call us today to get started.

Revitalizing Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) Read Post »

Who Owns Subcontractor Management Reserve (MR)?

By / / , , ,
, , ,
Who Owns Subcontractor Management Reserve?

Subcontractor, Prime Contractor… Customer?

There has long been discussion regarding who “owns” a subcontractor’s Management Reserve (MR).  Some believe that since the entire contract value was awarded by the prime contractor to the subcontractor, the MR belongs to the prime.  Unfortunately, they might have been influenced by some of their customers who believe a prime contractor’s MR belongs to the customer – even to an extreme in which the customers interject themselves in the prime contractor’s decision process in using their MR. So contractors might figure that if the customer is doing that to them, they should do the same to their subcontractors.

DCMA Cross Reference Checklist

They may try to justify this by pointing out that in the DCMA Cross Reference Checklist (CRC dated 22 March 2019) Guideline # 14 Sub-question b asks:  

“Is major subcontractor Management Reserve (MR) incorporated and traceable to the prime contractor’s EVMS?”

While this might sound to some as though it justifies the argument that the MR belongs to the prime, it really doesn’t.  The actual guideline 14 question is simply asking if the contractor implementing EVMS (in this case the subcontractor) simply does or does not “Identify management reserves and undistributed budget.”  Since the subcontractor is implementing their management system on their contract with the prime, the only requirement is that the subcontractor identifies a Management Reserve (MR) amount (which could be zero, by the way). If they do, then (strangely) subquestion b puts the onus on the prime contractor to reflect the subcontractor’s MR in their EVM system [i.e., strange because how would a subcontractor demonstrate to a review team that their MR is being reflected in the prime’s EVM System?]. This question would be more appropriate if the subcontractor was also the prime to a lower-tier subcontractor.

Reporting vs. Ownership

The above only addresses the reporting of a subcontractor’s MR, but what does the government documentation actually say about the “ownership” of the subcontractor’s MR?

Note: A point to remember in this entire discussion is that the Guidelines, the EVMIG, the Cross Reference Checklist (CRC), and the EVMSIG were written to apply to any contractor required to implement EVMS on a contract – whether they be a prime contractor to a government customer or a subcontractor to a prime contractor (their “customer”).

EVMSIG Chapter 3 Introduction

The EVMSIG Chapter 3 Introduction (pg. 17) says this about MR:

“An allowance is made for a portion of the CBB to be withheld outside of the PMB as Management Reserve (MR) for internal management control purposes. MR is intended to provide the contractor with a budget to manage risk within the established contract scope (Guideline 14).”

As this introductory paragraph points out, MR is established by the contractor (or the subcontractor) for their internal management control purposes to have budget to manage risk within the contract scope. There is no mention of customer involvement in the decision-making process.

Para 3.9 (Guideline 14), Intent of Guideline

A more definitive statement in the EVMSIG is: “Para 3.9 (Guideline 14), Intent of Guideline” in the second paragraph – bullets and underlines have been added for emphasis:

  • “MR belongs to the contractor Program Manager, not the Government,…” [ergo, NOT the prime in a prime/ sub relationship]
  • [It] “provides the contractor with a budget for unplanned activities within the current program scope. MR enables program management to respond to future unforeseen events within the work scope of the program by distributing budget to mitigate program risks.”
  • “To establish MR, the contractor’s program management sets aside budget based on the program’s risk management process and assessment.”
  • [MR] “is not a source of funding for additional work scope or the elimination of performance variances.”
  • “MR is not a contingency fund and may neither be eliminated from contract prices by the customer during subsequent negotiations nor used to absorb the cost of contract changes.” And finally,
  • “MR belonging to a major subcontractor must be incorporated into the prime contractor’s EVMS with traceability to the subcontractor’s reported MR.”

Subcontractor Reports

This last bullet specifically points out that the MR belongs to the subcontractor, and that it must be reflected in the prime’s EVMS as reported by the subcontractor.  Some choose to include a subcontractor’s MR in their own MR value; having it there, however, increases the risk of having the prime think they have more MR to use when, in fact, they do not.  The subcontractor’s MR is not the prime’s to use, so the prime would need a very good mechanism in place to keep the two MR amounts separated.  This needed segregation becomes more complicated if the prime has more than one subcontractor.  Regardless of where the contractor places the subcontractor MR, EVMS requires it to be traceable to the MR value the subcontractor reports.

A Contractor’s Control Mechanism

Management Reserve (MR) is something that is allowed to provide a contractor with flexibility in handling the unknowns on a contract.  It doesn’t matter if it is a prime contractor to a government customer or a lower-tier subcontractor to a higher level (or prime) contractor.  MR is a contractor’s control mechanism and should not be subjected to any level of customer involvement.  The guidelines and implementation/ interpretation documentation try to control improper uses of MR (e.g., covering performance variances, performing out of scope work, etc.), but customers – at all levels – should not interject themselves in a contractor’s decision-making process on the use of MR. Remember also, if customers involve themselves in that process, there is a risk that their perceived “direction” to the contractor could make them complicit in poor MR decisions.

Who Owns Subcontractor Management Reserve (MR)? Read Post »

Formal Reprogramming – What Happened?

By / / , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Graph of an Increasing Budget

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away….an Over Target Baseline (OTB) – by design – was a rare occurrence (and the OTS concept did not even exist as part of Formal Reprogramming). Formal Reprogramming was a very difficult and cumbersome process that most contractors (and the government) really did not like to consider. The government, in its 1969 Joint Implementation Guide, said:

“Reprogramming should not be done more frequently than annually and preferably no more frequently than once during the life of the contract.”

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Acquisition, Analytics and Policy (AAP) – formerly PARCA – , in their latest OTB/OTS guide, states that Formal Reprogramming now has expanded to include an Over Target Schedule (OTS).  However, in that guide, it is stated in Paragraph 1.3.8:

“Ideally, formal reprogramming should be done no more than one time during the life of a contract. However, there may be instances where another formal reprogramming is warranted… When formal reprogramming is accomplished in accordance with the procedures in this guide, with a realistic cost and schedule estimate established for the remaining work, it should not be necessary to undergo formal reprogramming again.”

Today, though, whenever contractors incur a significant cost or schedule variance, instead of resolving the variance cause, the first words seem to be: “Let’s do an OTB or OTS.”  The lure of “getting rid of cost and schedule variances” seems too good to pass up.  Unfortunately, an OTB/OTS implementation has never been an instantaneous process. With AAP’s 12 step OTB/OTS process, it is obvious that the contractor will not be able to start today and incorporate the OTB/OTS in the next Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) dataset. In fact, AAP’s OTB/ OTS guide states in paragraph 3.8:

“It may be difficult to ascertain the length of time it will take to implement a new baseline based on the scope of the effort. It is not uncommon for the entire process to take up to six months which would be too long of a period without basic cost reporting.”

The last line of the above cited paragraph was referencing the reporting requirements to the customer when an OTB/OTS is being implemented.

The IPMDAR Implementation and Tailoring Guide (5/21/2020) even recognizes the issues with timeliness of implementing an OTB/OTS:

2.3.2.5.5  Formal Reprogramming Timeliness. Formal reprogramming can require more than one month to implement. During formal reprogramming, reporting shall continue, at a minimum, to include ACWP, and the latest reported cumulative BCWS and BCWP will be maintained until the OTB/OTS is implemented. 

So why does it take so long to implement the OTB/OTS?  Can the contractor just adjust the bottom line variances and move on?  Actually no, nothing is really that simple.  This is one of the reasons that implementing an OTB and OTS should not be taken lightly.   The AAP OTB/OTS Guide addresses adjustments this way:

“3.5.6.2 Adjusting Variances: A key consideration in implementing an OTB is to determine what to do with the variances against the pre-OTB baseline. There are essentially five basic options. This is a far more detailed effort than these simple descriptions imply, as these adjustments have to be made at the detail level (control account or work package).”

When considering the number of control accounts and work packages involved in a major contract, a Formal Reprogramming can become a rather daunting task.  The contractor also has to report the effects of the Formal Reprogramming in the IPMDAR Reprogramming Adjustments columns. These adjustment columns appear on both Format 1 and Format 2 of the IPMDAR database, which means the contractor must undertake the assessment for both the contract’s WBS and the OBS – for each WBS element and for each OBS element reported.  This can be further complicated if the OTB/OTS exercise were flowed down to subcontractors for a given program.  The AAP OTB/ OTS Guide, paragraph 3.8 also states:

“The customer should be cognizant of the prime contractor’s coordination complexities and issues with its subcontractors. The time to implementation may be extended due to accounting calendar month overlaps, compressed reiterations of contractor ETC updates, internal reviews, subcontractor MR strategy negotiations, senior management approvals, etc., all while statusing the normal existing performance within a reporting cycle.”

In the early days, when implementing an OTB with variance adjustments, the company and the customer agreed on a month-end date to make the data adjustments.  Then the contractor ran two CPRs or IPMRs (now the IPMDAR): (1) the first report as though no OTB had been implemented [to determine the amount of adjustments to cost variance (CV) and schedule variance (SV) at all the reporting levels] and, (2) the second report [after the OTB implementation had been completed – no matter how long it took] showing the Column 12 adjustments plus whatever BAC changes were being implemented.

Under the current OTB/OTS Guide, it appears as though this process is being done all at once. As stated in the AAP OTB/ OTS Guide paragraph 3.8 above, this implementation could take up to 6 months to complete, so lagging the second report until the OTB/OTS implementation is completed seems logical. The last sentence in paragraph 3.8 also stipulates that regardless of how long implementation takes, the contractor and customer will agree on interim reporting that will be required, further stating that:

“In all cases, at least ACWP should continue to be reported.”

Perhaps this agreement with the customer should also specify the content of the first IPMDAR following OTB/OTS implementation.

All things taken into account, the process of requesting and getting approval for an OTB or OTS can be a long and difficult process, especially if, at the end of it all, the contractor’s request is denied.  Even if it were approved and the contractor implements and works to the newly recognized baseline, immediately doing another one is not a pleasant thought – and remember, it was not intended to be pleasant. Reprogramming was always supposed to be a last resort action, when reporting to the current baseline was totally unrealistic.

Now, what about those cases where a contract has one or two elements reporting against totally unrealistic budget (or schedule) baselines?  The AAP OTB/ OTS Guide does cover a partial OTB, but reiterates that this is still an OTB because the Total Allocated Budget (TAB) will exceed the Contract Budget Base (CBB).  In the early days, however, the government allowed what was called Internal Operating Budgets (IOBs) for lower level elements (control accounts, or specific WBS elements, etc.) that were having problems resulting in an unrealistic baseline for the work remaining. The 1987 Joint Implementation Guide, paragraph 3-3. I (5) described IOBs as follows:

“(5) Internal Operating Budgets. Nothing in the criteria prevents the contractor from establishing an internal operating budget which is less than or more than the total allocated budget. However, there must be controls and procedures to ensure that the performance measurement baseline is not distorted.

(a) Operating budgets are sometimes used to establish internal targets for rework or added in-scope effort which is not significant enough to warrant formal reprogramming. Such budgets do not become a substitute for the [control] account budgets in the performance measurement baseline, but should be visible to all levels of management as appropriate. Control account managers should be able to evaluate performance in terms of both operating budgets and [control] account budgets to meet the requirements of internal management and reporting to the Government.

(b) Establishment and use of operating budgets should be done with caution.  Working against one plan and reporting progress against another is undesirable and the operating budget should not differ significantly from the [control] account budget in the performance measurement baseline. Operating budgets are intended to provide targets for specific elements of work where otherwise the targets would be unrealistic. They are not intended to serve as a completely separate work measurement plan for the contract as a whole.”

Current literature no longer specifically addresses Internal Operating Budgets (IOBs), but with the recent trend of contractors jumping to the OTB/OTS conclusion, it might be a better alternative to have individual instances of unrealistic budgets (or schedules) that do not otherwise push the total program to the need for a complete OTB and/or OTS implementation.

These could be good discussion topics for future AAP and DCMA meetings with industry representatives, to determine if there are ways to streamline the process, or at least reduce the amount of requests to implement Formal Reprogramming.  Variances are, after all, performance measurement indicators that should not just be routinely and artificially eliminated.

Formal Reprogramming – What Happened? Read Post »

Clarification on the New Department of Defense Earned Value Management System EVMS Thresholds | DOD & DPAP

By / / , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Department of Defense Earned Value Management System (EVMS) ThresholdsOn September 28, 2015, the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Directorate (<abbr=”Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Directorate”>DPAP) released a memorandum entitled “Class Deviation – Earned Value Management System Threshold”. In this memo the DoD changed the threshold for <abbr=”Earned Value Management System”>EVMS application to $100 million for compliance with EIA-748 for cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts. That same memorandum stated that no EVMS surveillance activities will be routinely conducted by the Defense Contract Management Agency (<abbr=”Defense Contract Management Agency”>DCMA) on contracts or subcontracts between $20 million to $100 million. As attachments to this memorandum, there was a reissuance of the Notice of Earned Value Management System <abbr=”Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations”>DFARs clause (252.234-7001) and the Earned Value Management Systems DFARs clause (252.234-7002), with both reflecting the new $100 million threshold.In response to this guidance, a series of questions from both contractors and other government personnel were submitted to Shane Olsen of the DCMA EVM Implementation Division (<abbr=”EVM Implementation Division”>EVMID). Below are the salient points from this communication:

  • There will be no EVMS surveillance of DFARs contracts under $100 million. Contracts without the DFARs clause, such as those under other agencies using the FAR EVM clause, will continue surveillance under their current thresholds.
  • The $100 million threshold is determined on the larger of the contract’s Ceiling Price or Target Price; as reported on the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) or Contract Performance Report (CPR) Format 1.
  • The threshold is based on the Contract Value including fee (at Price) as noted above. If there is an approved Over Target Baseline (OTB) which increases the Total Allocated Budget (TAB), this cannot push a contract over the threshold.
  • The new thresholds not only apply to subcontracts, but also Inter-organizational work orders with an EVMS flow-down.
  • Regardless of the circumstances, the DCMA will not conduct surveillance on contracts less than $100 million. However, if there are Earned Value issues that the buying command or other parties believe need to be reviewed, then the DCMA may conduct a Review for Cause (RFC) of the system against potentially affected guidelines.
  • The DCMA Operations EVM Implementation Division (EVMID) will not be conducting Compliance Reviews in FY-2016 unless there is an “emergent need”.
  • If a site is selected for a Compliance Review, only contracts greater than $100 million would be in the initial scope of the Implementation Review (IR). However, if an issue is discovered that requires the team to “open the aperture”, other contracts are not precluded.

The DCMA is still working on a response to the following questions:

  • How do I handle a contract that is currently below $100 million but has options that, in aggregate, would exceed $100 million?
  • How is the contract value determined on:
    • Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contracts
    • Non-ID/IQ with Multiple CLIN-Level or Task Order reports?

This blog will be updated and reposted as answers to these questions are given.

Clarification on the New Department of Defense Earned Value Management System EVMS Thresholds | DOD & DPAP Read Post »

Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG) Rescinded

By / / , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,

Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG) Rescinded | DFARSThe DoD EVM Implementation Guide (EVMIG, Oct 2006) was rescinded on September 15, 2015 by the Office of Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analysis (PARCA). The EVMIG had provided guidance for understanding Earned Value Management System (EVMS) concepts; detailed procedures for implementing the EIA-748 EVMS Standard, Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS), on government contracts; tailoring guidance for EVMS application and reporting; and post award procedures. Most of the details contained in the EVMIG are also available in other, more recent, publications and the EVMIG is replaced with these other references. EVM System information can be found in the DoD EVM System Interpretation Guide (EVMSIG) which provides overarching DoD interpretation of the 32 EIA-748 EVMS guidelines. Additional information can be found in multiple Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) compliance instruction documents.

PARCA identified the following references to replace the contents and guidance found in the EVMIG:

EVM Concepts and Guidelines
EVM Concepts TBD EVM Analysis Guide
Defense Acquisition University (DAU) EVM Community of Practice
PARCA EVM Website
EVM System (EVMS) Concepts EVMSIG
DCMA Surveillance Guide

 

Procedures For Government Use of EVM
Organizational Roles and Responsibilities TBD EVM Application Guide
PARCA EVM Website
Defense Acquisition Guide (DAG)
WBS Development and Use MIL-STD-881C
TBD EVM Application Guide
EVM/EVMS Policy and Application TBD EVM Application Guide
PARCA EVM Website
Cost and Schedule Reporting Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) Data Item Description (DID) and IPMR Guide
TBD EVM Application Guide
EVMS System Compliance EVMSIG
DCMA Surveillance Guide
Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Program Manager’s Guide to the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)
TBD EVM Application Guide
Reprogramming Formal Reprogramming Over Target Baseline (OTB)/Over Target Schedule (OTS) Guide
EVMSIG
Training Defense Acquisition University Website
PARCA EVM Website

Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG) Rescinded Read Post »

Scroll to Top