EVMS

Benefits of an EVMS Self-Governance Process

By / / , ,
, ,

Contractors with a cognizant federal agency (CFA) approved or certified Earned Value Management System (EVMS) are expected to establish and execute an annual EVMS self-governance plan. Sometimes also called self-surveillance or self-assessment, the objective is the same. The contractor is responsible for establishing an internal process to ensure their EVMS, as implemented at the contract/project level, continues to:

  • Provide valid, reliable, and auditable information for visibility into technical, schedule, and cost progress with fact-based performance analysis. Project personnel have timely information about actual conditions, trends, and potential problems to implement effective corrective actions.
  • Maintain the integrity of the performance measurement baseline (PMB) for measuring completed work and to manage the remaining work.
  • Comply with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guidelines.

Equally important, the contractor is responsible for ensuring project personnel are:

  • Following the process and procedures described in their approved EVM System Description.
  • Establishing and maintaining quality schedule, cost, and risk/opportunity data.
  • Routinely using the EVMS (process, procedures, and tools) and EVM data to proactively manage their work effort.

Why is a self-governance process important?

With an established self-governance process and data-driven analytics, a contractor can objectively demonstrate to their customer that EVM and the use of EVM data is an integral part of their project management process. Establishing a culture of self-disclosure of issues and resolution ensures the EVMS is actively maintained, and project personnel understand the importance of their role in implementing the EVMS. Everyone must have confidence in the EVMS to provide timely, relevant, and actionable information to effectively manage and control projects.

An effective self-governance process provides the structure to routinely observe and assess how the EVMS is implemented on projects. This structured process documents what is assessed and how it is assessed using defined objective measures such as data quality metrics that can be analyzed over time to track the occurrence and resolution of issues.

What are the benefits of implementing a self-governance process?

There are a number of benefits to implementing a self-governance process for the contractor as well as the government customer.

The contractor’s management benefits from increased visibility into the “health” of the EVMS. Consistently verifying the system is implemented and used as intended instills confidence. They know they can depend on the EVMS to provide timely, reliable, and actionable information for visibility and control.

Routinely analyzing the results from the self-governance activities provides fact-based information a contractor can use to implement actions that improve the EVMS process and procedures, the means and methods project personnel use to implement the EVMS, or the training methods and content. With a structured and repeatable process in place, the contractor can:

  • Quickly identify and quantify process, people, or tool issues as well as the potential impact to meeting project objectives. Early identification of a problem often helps to mitigate the impact to the project.
  • Identify the root cause of the issue. Is it a recurring theme (a systemic issue) or a unique to a single project? This helps to determine the best way to resolve the issue.
  • Determine what actions are the most effective in mitigating the impact or resolving the root cause. Measuring and verifying outcomes helps to ensure the corrective action achieves the desired result.
  • Identify best in class practices that could be used on other projects. This is often overlooked as a positive outcome of the self-governance process that encourages continuous system improvements and innovation in project implementations.
  • Provide best practice guidance and support to encourage early correction or quick resolution of implementation issues. This helps to increase project personnel proficiency levels. Knowing structured fact-based self-governance assessments are conducted helps to reinforce the message that EVM practices are an integral part of managing projects.

It also builds confidence with the customer. Implementing a process of self-disclosure and corrective actions implemented demonstrates an on-going commitment to maintaining the EVMS. It also demonstrates the willingness to maintain open communications. The benefit of this approach is that it can help to:

  • Reduce the need for onsite government customer reviews or shorten the duration of a surveillance visit. When the contractor is providing regular information about their internal process to verify the health of their EVMS and internal corrective actions, it demonstrates the EVMS is being used as intended and remains compliant with the EIA-748 guidelines.
  • Minimize disruptions to project personnel. This is a direct result of reducing the need for customer reviews. Internal self-governance activities, system or tool improvements, or training can be scheduled to avoid impacting project personnel’s ability to accomplish project objectives.
  • Ensure long-term sustainability of the EVMS. An EVMS should be continually maintained to ensure process, procedures, and tools reflect current requirements. The goal should be to take advantage of opportunities to streamline procedures, improve the quality of the schedule and cost data, upgrade tools, and enable data integration/traceability to reduce the time and effort required to manage project work effort.

What are the characteristics of an effective self-governance process?

An effective self-governance process should be visible, structured, and endorsed by management. Key characteristics and features include:

  • Leadership engagement that encourages continuous improvement and a culture of compliance.
  • Encourages issue identification and tracking with timely closure and verifiable results.
  • A chartered authority structure with cross-organizational engagement that routinely interacts with leadership. This approach develops a broader base of internal expertise and experience.
  • A data-driven methodology to routinely assess system health using clearly defined and independently positioned oversight with a clear line to senior management.
  • Effective, consistent, and defined structured approach that is repeatable and sustainable.
  • Encourages improving project personnel skill levels using proven training  and mentoring techniques.
  • Transparency and means to collect feedback, both critical and praiseworthy.

Need help establishing a self-governance process? 

H&A earned value consultants often assist clients to create and implement a repeatable and sustainable self-governance process to verify their EVMS continues to support the EIA-748 guidelines as well as to assess how project personnel are implementing the EVMS. The objective is to establish a structured process to collect fact-based information useful for creating action plans to address identified deficiencies in the EVMS, how the EVMS is implemented, data quality, or the proficiency levels of project personnel. This structured process is also used to track action plans to closure and verify results.

An industry best practice is to include the EVMS self-governance or self-surveillance process in the EVM System Description along with other artifacts such as the EVMS self-governance charter. Contractors often use government customer surveillance artifacts such as DCMA or DOE automated or manual metrics as the basis to assess the quality of their schedule and cost data as part of their self-governance or self-surveillance process.

If you need help updating your EVM System Description to include a self-governance process, or need to create a self-governance plan, call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

Benefits of an EVMS Self-Governance Process Read Post »

How Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) Contribute to Project Success

By / / , , , ,
, , , ,

What is an Integrated Baseline Review or IBR?

An IBR is a formal review of a contractor’s performance measurement baseline (PMB) a customer conducts shortly after contract award or other project events to gain confidence in the contractor’s ability to deliver and meet contract objectives. Conducting an IBR helps to assure there is mutual agreement on the scope of work, schedule, resource requirements, and budget to meet the customer’s needs. It also assures there is a mutual understanding of the project’s risks and opportunities as well as how they will be managed.

Conducting an IBR is often a contractual requirement along with the requirement to implement an earned value management system (EVMS). Contractual documents specify the time frame for when the IBR must occur after contract award. This is typically within 90 to 180 calendar days. A customer may also conduct an IBR at critical milestones, funding gates, when transitioning to another project phase, or when significant changes are incorporated into a PMB.

What an IBR is Not

An IBR is not an EVMS compliance review. The intent of an IBR is not to devolve into a review of the contractor’s EVMS and whether it complies with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guidelines. That said, the contractor must be able to demonstrate they have a disciplined project control system in place. The contractor should be able to demonstrate to the customer that the project’s scope of work is properly planned, scheduled, resourced, budgeted, authorized, and managed using their project control system.

What are the benefits of conducting an IBR?

Conducting an IBR contributes to successful project execution because it helps to ensure a realistic PMB has been established.

IBRs provide the opportunity for the contractor and customer to verify:

  • There is shared understanding of the scope of work, technical requirements, and accomplishment criteria. As the work breakdown structure (WBS) is decomposed into manageable product-orientated work elements, it provides a common frame of reference for communication between the contractor and customer. The WBS dictionary should capture the technical requirements that must be met as well as expected deliverables and outcomes. The contractor must have a clear understanding of customer’s needs, assumptions, and expectations to be able to create a realistic schedule and budget plan. The IBR provides the opportunity for the contractor to verify the scope of work details with the customer before the project execution phase begins. In instances where the technical requirements evolve over time as work progresses, rolling wave planning is often used to detail plan the current work effort with more macro planning for future work effort to ensure the entire scope of work is included.
  • An executable PMB has been established for the entire contractual scope of work. The PMB should accurately reflect how the contractor plans to accomplish the work within the contractual period of performance and negotiated contract cost. The customer’s funding profile may also determine the timing of activities and when resources are required. The schedule and budget should be in alignment. The budget time phasing should reflect the schedule activities and resource requirements. It is also useful to verify appropriate earned value methods and techniques have been selected for the work packages to assure objective and meaningful project performance can be measured and reported as work progresses.
  • The required resources have been identified and assigned to the project. This contributes to producing an executable schedule and budget plan. The staffing plan should accurately reflect the sequence of work and skill mix as well as resource availability and demand to accomplish the project’s objectives. Flat loading labor hours may not accurately reflect common challenges of ramping up resources after contract award or the availability of critical resources for specific tasks. Other resource factors include the timing or availability of critical or high value materials as well as subcontractors responsible for performing work or providing services.
  • Project technical, schedule, and cost risks/opportunities have been identified and assessed. This also contributes to producing an executable schedule and budget plan. Where possible, risk mitigation actions have been incorporated into the PMB to reduce known risks to an acceptable level. For example, the timing or duration of activities as well as resource requirements may need to be adjusted. Schedule margin activities may be incorporated into the integrated master schedule (IMS). It also provides fact-based information to determine the amount of management reserve set aside to handle realized risks. This is often the most valuable component of the IBR. It is essential all parties have an understanding of the identified risks or opportunities, potential impact if they are realized, and risk mitigation or opportunity capture plans.

Why it is important to verify these details during an IBR?

A realistic schedule and budget plan helps to prevent cost growth surprises because of technical, schedule, or budget challenges. The better the up-front planning, the less the likelihood of cost growth during project execution. It also increases credibility with the customer. The contractor can demonstrate their ability to deliver to the customer needs and manage the work effectively.

Benefits of Preparing for an IBR

Establishing a project’s PMB is a significant and often formal event as it signals the transition from the planning to execution phase. It represents the culmination of the integrated planning, scheduling, budgeting, work authorization, and risk/opportunity management processes.

A common best practice is to conduct an internal baseline review regardless of whether a formal IBR with the customer is required prior to setting the PMB. Implementing a standard process to conduct an internal review of the complete set of project data and artifacts with the project personnel assures an executable schedule and budget plan has been established to accomplish the contractual scope of work within the contractual period of performance and negotiated contract cost in alignment with the contract’s funding profile.

These internal reviews help to ensure there is a common understanding of the scope of work, major project events, planned sequence of work, schedule of deliverables, resource requirements, time phased budget, funding profile, and project risks/opportunities. It also provides an opportunity to verify the quality of the integrated schedule and cost data as well as top down and bottom up traceability. 

Need help preparing for an IBR?

A common earned value consulting service H&A provides is conducting a mock IBR with project personnel to prepare for the formal customer IBR. The objective is to conduct a thorough assessment of the project’s PMB to verify it reflects the entire contractual scope of work and technical requirements as well as identified technical, schedule, cost, or resource risks that may impact the ability to execute the work as planned. This provides an opportunity to correct any issues with the PMB prior to the IBR event.

Another standard earned value consulting service we offer is conducting IBR training for project team members. H&A earned value consultants can help you to establish a standard internal process to verify an executable PMB is in place for a given project. Once again, the objective is to prevent cost growth surprises and management is aware of the project’s risks and opportunities that may impact profit margins. 

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

How Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) Contribute to Project Success 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 »

EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1

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

Large Radio Antenna with Dawn Sky in the Background image for EVM Training - Decision Making and Charlie Munger blog post

Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 1

Charlie Munger and EVM Training

So, what does Charles (Charlie) T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berskshire Hathaway and partner of Warren Buffet have to do with EVM training? Decision Making.  You can imagine the big-money decisions he has helped Buffett make during the many years of building up the legendary outfit. Along the way, he kept track of the happenings around him that through various speeches and writings espoused some clear thinking. Born in Omaha in 1924, Charlie began working with Warren at Buffett & Son, a grocery store owned by Warren Buffett’s grandfather. Eventually graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law in 1948, Charlie moved into the business world.

Psychology of Human Misjudgment

This blog is narrowly focused on what I gleaned from Charlie’s writings about the “psychology of human misjudgment.” Looking to see how this information could be used to help guide a EVM training workshop on the topic of decision making, I went through each of the 25 “tendencies” that he defined and discussed. I would never have guessed that we humans have 25 tendencies that impinge on our thinking processes, but after studying his list, I think he nailed it. Most of the tendencies are backed up with some reference to psychological studies; so be assured Charlie did not make them up. This blog will treat them in numerical order and will add thoughts from the Humphreys & Associates earned value training material on decision making that will make the Charlie Munger points more specific to the subject at hand.

In our EVM training material, we emphasize the process of decision making is critical, and Charlie thought so way before I did. Bad decisions can come from good processes, but that is less likely than bad decisions coming from no process or, even worse, from a bad process. At one point Munger advises the use of checklists can help navigate through the minefield of human tendencies toward misjudgment. An amazingly timely idea, because here at Humphreys & Associates we are just wrapping up our work on “The Big Book of Project Management Checklists” that is aimed at doing just that.

Blocking Human Misjudgement

What about human misjudgment? It appears we humans are fraught with innate tendencies that, if not blocked, can lead us to make misjudgments. A misjudgment would be a wrong decision in terms of this blog. With all that follows in the blog about misjudgment, we are trying to discern a sound process for earned value decision making, with tools like decision trees, that can help avoid or counter the influences of the counterproductive tendencies. Developing your decision-making process should involve findings tactics that help you avoid or defeat or neutralize these tendencies in your EVMS processes.

Tendency #1 – Reward and Punishment Super-Response

Let’s cover one tendency as an example. Tendency #1 is called the “Reward and Punishment Super-Response Tendency.” The word “super” attached to the idea of response to reward is to emphasize that this is a case of over responding. We all know people move toward what is incentivized; they seek the reward. It must be obvious that, if the wrong thing is incentivized, people will be moving in the wrong direction. According to Munger, there is a strong tendency to move toward the reward; an overly strong tendency. Charlie cites some great examples from his experience. Your decision-making process should include some “clearing the minefield” efforts early on in the process to make sure that the decision will not be made in a move toward a reward that would be wrong for the situation. A simple example could be that you are involved in deciding about launch-ing a long-term effort that would cost quite a bit that does not have certainty to the outcome. If you are incentivized toward short terms profits, then you have the biased tendency to discard the idea in favor of short term gains.

Deprival Super-Reaction Tendency

There is a potentially related tendency called the “Deprival Super-Reaction Tendency.” This is the tendency to feel more pain from a loss than to feel pleasure from a gain of the same amount or thing. According to this tendency, there is more motivation associated with avoiding pain than making a gain. The see-saw is weighted in one direction. How counterproductive is that tendency toward carefully considered decision-making? If we are trying to make a gain in our decision process, we are not only fighting the facts of the situation but also our innate bias against taking a risk. The idea can be seen in the commonly observed action of throwing good money after bad. A loss is imminent, so the decision is to spend more to head it off to potentially save the day and avoid the pain; is that wise? Think about the situation where someone says or is known to think that “I will not be denied no matter the cost.” You probably do not want that kind of thinking involved in your decision making. Now think about a situation where tendency #1 and tendency #2 both align against one of the options being considered. Would an option that faces the tendency to risk some pain of loss and to move against a potential reward stand a chance if those tendencies were not neutralized?

Blog Series

Hopefully you get the idea now. This blog will be followed by another that covers some of the remaining tendencies identified by Charles T. Munger. I hope to learn more from and will translate what I learn here and in our EVM training material. Stay tuned.

EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1 Read Post »

EVM Consulting – Modeling & Simulation

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

Fighter Jet Air Plain Flying in Front of Moon

Forewarned is Forearmed

Forewarned is forearmed. John Farmer, of New Hampshire, said that in a letter in 1685. But that advice is most likely biblical and very much older. No matter the source of the thought, we should take it as divine guidance if we are project managers. Maybe we should have it cut into a stone tablet, so we can share it with our team members.

Most of our work as project managers is spent in the “controlling” phase which is made up of the three steps “measure, analyze, act.” Our EVMS and IMS exist to be able to support this management function. The measuring part is done very well in our EVMS and our IMS; we know where we are and how we got there. The analyzing is equally well handled in the IMS and EVMS. Only the management task of acting is not well supported. Generally, we lack decision making support and tools.

EVM Consulting - Measure, Analyze, Act

Deterministic Path

No matter how well constructed and how healthy our IMS is, it has a deterministic path forward. The logic links between the activities are there because we expect them to be fulfilled. Indeed, if activity “B” is a finish-to-start successor to activity “A” we fully expect that at some point activity “A” will finish and will provide its output to activity “B”. That is a single path forward and it is a deterministic path. It is also a somewhat simplistic model.

EVM Consulting - Deterministic Relationships in EVMS

Multiple Outcomes

Our management system asks us to perform root cause analysis followed by corrective action. But what if there is more than one corrective action to be taken. And worse; what if the corrective actions can have multiple outcomes with each enjoying its own probability. That means multiple choices and multiple outcomes. How would we show that in our plan? How would we analyze the multiple possible futures that such a situation presents?

Happily, there are ways to model a future without a set path. And once we have the future model, there are also ways to simulate the outcomes to give the probabilities we need to decide which actions to take. We are talking about probabilistic branching, and we are saying that we can build a probabilistic map of the future to use in making decisions; especially making decisions on corrective actions.

Take a simple example of running a test on the project. The expectation is that eventually we will pass the test. We will keep trying until we do. In the IMS deterministic model the test portion of the IMS might look like this:

EVM Consulting - Run the Test then Use the Product

Simulation

We can simulate this situation with different expected durations for the test. That is helpful information, but it does not explain or even capture what is going on in those different durations. It looks like we are just taking longer to do the testing but is that really what is happening? What is going on here? We certainly don’t show that.

In the real world, this simple model might have three potential outcomes. There might be three paths we can take to get to the point where we use the product. Each path has a time and money cost. We might run the test and find that we passed. Or we might have to stop the test for issues on the item or the test setup. We might even fail the test and must correct something about the product to improve our chances of passing a rerun. Eventually we will get to a usable product. But what do we put in our estimate and our plan? What do we tell the resources we need? What do we tell the boss? The customer?

EVM Consulting - Real World Testing

Full Future Model

We now have a much better understanding of the future and can explain the situation. We also can simulate the situation to find out the most likely time and cost outcomes, so we can explain the future without any histrionics or arm waving.
If the issue is important enough we can build out the full future model and simulate it.

EVM Consulting - Full Future Model and Simulation

No matter how far we pursue the model of the future, having a valid model and being able to stand on solid ground are very valuable to us as project managers.

This is not to say that we should model out complex situations as a routine in the IMS. That would be impossible, or at least prohibitively costly. We are saying that when situations arise, we need to be able to use the IMS to help us make decisions.

This type of probabilistic modeling of the future is particularly useful in defining major decision points in our plan. When we reach a decision point the IMS may have multiple branches as successors but that implies we take every branch and that is not valid. Modeling each branch and its probabilities is valid. In the example below, where the milestone represents a decision point, we have shown three possible paths to take. If each were modeled out into the future with time and cost data, we should have the information we need to choose the path we wish to pursue. Without processes and tools like this, we would be flying blind.

Future Blog Posts

This discussion will be continued in future blogs to develop a better foundational understanding of the process and power of probabilistic modeling in our EVMS.

EVM Consulting - Decision Point

Good information sets the stage for good decisions. The IMS and the EVMS have sufficient information to help us model the pathways ahead of our critical decisions. We just need to learn to take advantage of what we have available to us.

Find out how an experienced Humphreys & Associates EVM Consultant can help you create a full future model and simulation of your most vital EVMS Systems. Contact Humphreys & Associates at (714) 685-1730 or email us.

EVM Consulting – Modeling & Simulation Read Post »

Scroll to Top