Introduction - Compliance Review 16-Step Process

The CRI describes the DCMA objectives, roles, responsibilities, activities, and interactions for successfully conducting each phase of the 16-step process used for initial and ongoing verification of a contractor’s EVMS through formal Compliance Reviews (CRs). For the purposes of this instruction, the term “Compliance Review” is a common term used to denote any type of formal EVMS system review performed for determining compliance of the contractor’s EVMS. This includes the pre-acceptance Validation Review (VR), and post-acceptance reviews including the Implementation Review (IR) and Review for Cause (RFC) further described below. These reviews do not include on-going standard surveillance reviews as covered by the Standard Surveillance Instruction (SSI).
The 16-step process includes all the steps required to verify compliance and formally accept a contractor’s EVMS. The validation process includes a series of review events described in the process steps including a VR when the DCMA, has not formally accepted the contractor’s EVMS. Post-acceptance reviews refer to CRs conducted after acceptance of a system. Post acceptance reviews include a subset of the 16 steps to accommodate different review objectives. The DCMA Earned Value Management Center (EVMC) reserves the right to perform reviews of the contractor’s EVMS when deemed necessary to verify initial or ongoing compliance.

There are three types of CRs involved in this 16-step process and they are further defined by the following distinctive circumstances and corresponding objectives that describe them.

    a. The VR is a formal review to assess whether the contractor has implemented an integrated management planning and control system that complies with the ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS Guidelines for formal acceptance by the ACO.
    b. The IR is a formal review performed in lieu of a VR when the contractor proposes to use elements of an accepted system, but all system elements involving people, process, and tools of a site/facility had not been subject to a VR. This type of review extends a contractor’s previously accepted system from one program phase to another (i.e., System Design and Development to Production), from one contractor facility to another, or from a corporate system to facility or site not subject to previous review. An IR may also be required when significant EVM system description changes warrant an on-site review.
    c. The RFC is a formal review to solve a major system application problem identified by the Program Manager (PM), EVMS Specialist, or other stakeholder organization on a specific contract(s). The primary objectives of the RFC are to determine ongoing compliance with the contractor’s EVMS, investigate actual/potential EVMS deficiencies, evaluate progress against a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), identify remaining actions required to reaffirm system acceptability, ensure accuracy and reliability of performance data generated for government contracts, and determine if the EVMS acceptance should be disapproved (withdrawn).

Table 1 illustrates which steps are required during different types of CRs. This instruction covers all steps required of a VR, as well as the steps tailored to fit the other two types of CRs (IR, RFC).

1. Notification of Compliance Review Requirement (Step 1)

    1.1. A number of stakeholders are involved in initiating a request for a CR. Stakeholders include the EVMC, Contract Management Office (CMO), the Program Management Office (PMO), the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the contractor (if prime contractor on a subcontractor review), and other supported agencies. The CMO is responsible for notifying the EVMC of a requirement for a CR; however, any other EVMS stakeholder can initiate a request for a CR. After contract award, the CMO verifies that the EVMS DFARS 252.234-7002 clause is included in the contract in accordance with DODI 5000.02. CRs are only applicable if the actual, or expected, total contract value including planned options reaches or exceeds $50M.

        1.1.1. Initial Compliance Evaluation: When the contractor receives a contract requiring an EVMS acceptance and proposes to use a system at a contractor’s site/facility that has not been previously accepted by the DCMA, Tri-Services (Air
Force, Navy, and Army), or other organization who’s EVMS acceptance is recognized by DCMA through a formal review process, the CMO initiates the CR process by requesting a VR. The CMO sends the VR request to the DCMA EVMC CR Request POC.

            1.1.1.1. The Contractor is not required to have an accepted EVMS in order to be awarded a contract. During the solicitation, if the offeror proposes to use a system that has not been determined to be in compliance, the offeror is required to submit a comprehensive plan with milestones that indicates when the offeror’s EVMS will be compliant with the ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS Guidelines. When a company is acquired by another company with an accepted system, the acquiring company’s EVMS acceptance cannot be used to support the confirmation of an accepted system for contract award by the acquired company.

        1.1.2. VR: If the contractor does not provide confirmation of acceptance, the CMO notifies the EVMC CR Request POC in writing of the requirement for a VR. The VR is generally limited to one time for the contractor (prime or subcontractor) unless the EVMS acceptance has been withdrawn.
        1.1.3. Post-Acceptance: A CR is also requested when acceptance of a contractor’s EVMS is extended to another facility or site, there has been a substantial change to the EVMS, or the contractor’s EVMS is experiencing significant deficiencies and ongoing surveillance has had limited or no success in correcting these deficiencies.

            1.1.3.1. IR: The CMO reviews the contractor’s EVMS to determine if one or more of the conditions described in Introduction sub-paragraph b. above exist, and if so, the CMO notifies the EVMC Review CR Request POC of the requirement for an IR.

                1.1.3.1.1. The review approach is similar to that of a VR; however, not all process steps are required to verify compliance.

        1.1.4. RFC: If one or more of the conditions described in Introduction sub-paragraph c. above exists, a request to conduct an RFC can be initiated from the CMO, EVMC, PMO, or other stakeholder organizations such as the Service Commands, Program Executive Officers, or the OSD. To determine the need and scope for a RFC, inputs are requested and considered from organizations performing or overseeing EVMS surveillance operations.

    1.2. The CMO (ACO or DCMA EVMS Specialist), with assistance from the contractor, completes the Review Request Information Sheet (RRIS) and submits it to the EVMC CR Request POC with all required attachments and artifacts. The EVMC reviews these documents for applicability and adequacy, as well as for prioritization for the EVMC’s CR review schedule. The EVMC Review Request POC updates the EVMS Review Request Log and files the completed RRIS in the DCMA Earned Value Management Community Portal. Upon verification of a review requirement, the EVMC sends a receipt acknowledgement email to the requestor and indicates the status of the request.

        1.2.1. The EVMC CR Request POC confirms the addition of the review requirement to the CR schedule.
        1.2.2. The EVMC maintains information on contractor EVMS acceptance and review schedules, and conducts EVMS compliance reviews as required. During the final quarter of the calendar year, the EVMC develops the review schedule for the following year.
        1.2.3. Prior to establishing the baseline review schedule, the Review Chiefs will confirm with the contractor the proposed review dates. Immediately following establishment of the annual EVMC review schedule, the assigned Review Chiefs notify the contractors in writing of their scheduled review dates. The EVMC provides the baseline EVMS review schedule to the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) HQ and the Service POCs.

2. Initial Visit (IV) Notification Letter To Contractor (Step 2)

    2.1. The Review Chief prepares the Initial Visit (IV) Contractor Notification Letter for approval by the Review Director. Following approval, the Review Chief or Review Deputy sends the letter to the contractor at least 90 days (calendar days used throughout this instruction) prior to the date of the on-site visit and copies the stakeholders.

        2.1.1. The Review Chief sends the contractor the Self-Assessment (SA) Package with the IV Notification Letter.

    2.2. The Review Chief formally requests results from the most recently completed DCAA audit or an update if the audit required follow-up actions via the DCAA Request letter.

        2.2.1. If DCAA has not recently completed an EVMS audit, the Review Chief requests DCAA conduct an independent EVMS audit in support of the VR process. The DCMA uses the DCAA audit report in its determination of contractor compliance as early in the VR process as possible. The Review Chief contacts the cognizant DCAA Field Audit Office (FAO) to establish the reasonable timeframe for receiving the audit report and requests the audit with sufficient lead-time, no later than 90 days prior to the scheduled CR, for the DCAA to complete the audit report prior to the date of the Readiness Assessment (RA) (Step 7).

3. Initial Visit To Contractor Site (Step 3)

    3.1. As soon as possible after contract award, representatives from the DCMA EVMC and key government stakeholders visit the contractor’s facilities. The purpose of the IV is to provide an early dialogue between the EVMC and the contractor on the VR process, set review expectations among the stakeholders, and identify areas of noncompliance and potential problems with the EVMS processes and procedures. The visit is usually one or two days in length.
    3.2. IV team composition: IV team members usually include the Review Chief, Review Deputy, CMO, PMO, and DCAA representatives.
    3.3. Assemble VR team: The Review Director and Review Chief identify key members for the VR team as early as possible to support the annual review schedule. The team membership is updated as necessary.

        3.3.1. The Review Chief is responsible for:
• Initiating the Contractor Notification Letter
• Assigning a Review Deputy
• Assembling the review team
• Establishing team assignments

    3.4. Prior to the IV, the team reviews the proposed system description, procedures, and the information provided in the RRIS.
    3.5. During the IV:

        3.5.1. The contractor presents the EVMS design, operation, and applicable reports. The IV team identifies areas of noncompliance and potential problems with the EVMS processes and procedures, and documents system description issues. The DRs are coordinated with the Review Director and the Compliance Technical Lead. The IV team does not conduct Control Account Manager (CAM) or other program or business manager interviews during this visit.
        3.5.2. DCMA IV entrance brief: The Review Chief briefs the VR process from IV through ACO acceptance. The IV entrance brief familiarizes the contractor with the contractor Self-Assessment (SA), and the EVMC Data Analysis (DA), which are the next steps in the process.
        3.5.3. At the end of the IV, the EVMC, in coordination with the contractor, develops a notional CR schedule considering the contractor’s EVMS implementation plan, key program dates, durations for each phase in the 16-step CR process, and any other contractor review dates established by the EVMC in its current review schedule.

4. Site Visit Trip Report (Step 4)

    4.1. Within 30 days after completion of the IV, the Review Chief submits the IV Trip Report, and when applicable, the Corrective Action Request (CAR) and ACO letter, in coordination with the Compliance Technical Lead to the Review Director. The trip report includes summary assessments of actual or potential issues with the contractor’s EVMS processes and procedures, and concerns or issues with meeting the established dates in the DCMA review schedule.
    4.2. The Review Director processes the CAR, when required, in accordance with the DCMA CAR instructions.

5. Contractor Self-Assessment (Step 5)

    5.1. The SA is an internal EVMS review conducted independently by the contractor. The SA provides the contractor an opportunity to assess compliance with its EVMS using DCMA assessment tools and to determine its readiness for
demonstrating a fully integrated and compliant system to the Government review team.
    5.2. When necessary, the EVMC provides clarification to the contractor regarding EVMC data requests.
    5.3. The contractor provides the SA products to EVMC for review and evaluation (see Step 7) in response to the IV Notification Letter.

6. EVMC Data Analysis (Step 6)

    6.1. The EVMC conducts an independent DA of the EVMS data provided by the contractor. The DA is verification of data with the contractor for the purposes of ensuring data integrity for the tools used to provide the review team an analysis of the contractor’s EVMS data to aid the review team in preparing for and conducting the CR. Determination of compliance is the review team’s responsibility during the RA (Step 7) or CR using the analysis of the DA to follow up on potential findings. Discussions with the contractor are held to clarify data sets for analysis and address data anomalies.
    6.2. For a VR, the DCMA DA and the contractor’s SA are conducted in parallel.

7. Readiness Assessment (RA) (Step 7)

    7.1. The RA provides an opportunity to review contractor progress toward implementing the guidelines, to clear up misunderstandings, and to assess the contractor's readiness to demonstrate a fully integrated management control system. Any discrepancies should be identified to the contractor for correction.
    7.2. Following receipt of the DCAA EVMS audit report, the Review Chief, working with the ACO, dispositions the DCAA findings in accordance with the DCMA Contract Audit Follow-Up Instruction (CAFU) and DoD Instruction 7640.02 Policy for Follow-up on Contract Audit Reports.

        7.2.1. If audit results are not received within the timeframe negotiated with the EVMC, then the Review Chief incorporates the audit results as an addendum to the report. If there are any issues identified in the DCAA audit report that DCMA recognizes, the CAR, if applicable, is revised to address the findings.

    7.3. After the contractor provides the package of SA products to DCMA, the review team evaluates the SA products for completeness. The Review Chief is responsible for determining if the SA products are complete using the SA Checklist and evaluates whether the results are adequate and accurate. The review team compares the contractor’s SA with the EVMC DA and DCAA findings.
    7.4. The Review Chief documents findings in coordination with the Compliance Technical Lead and submits the RA Report to the Review Director. This report describes deficiencies in sufficient detail to allow the ACO to understand the potential adverse impact to the Government.
    7.5. If there are deficiencies identified, the Review Director processes a CAR in accordance with DCMA CAR instructions and takes one of the following actions depending on the condition of the SA:

        7.5.1. The SA is incomplete or inadequate; the Review Director may reject the contractor’s SA.
        7.5.2. The SA is complete and adequate; Review Director accepts the contractor’s SA.

    7.6. If there are no remaining deficiencies, no CAR is processed and no CAP is necessary (skip to Step 9).

8. Readiness Assessment Corrective Action Plan (Step 8)

    8.1. Within 14 days of receiving the EVMS review report and CAR, the ACO accomplishes the following:

        8.1.1. Makes an initial determination on any significant system deficiencies and notifies the contractor in writing with sufficient detail to allow the Contractor to understand the deficiency.
        8.1.2. Requests the contractor respond to the initial determination within 30 days; and,
        8.1.3. Forwards the contractor’s response to the EVMC. The EVMC evaluates the contractor’s response and provides a recommendation to the ACO who makes a final determination and notifies the contractor in writing concerning:
                • Remaining significant deficiencies;
                • The adequacy of any proposed or completed corrective action(s);
                • The contractor, within 45 days of receipt of the final determination, must either correct the deficiencies or submit an acceptable CAP showing milestones and actions to eliminate the deficiencies.

8.2. The CAP instruction requires the contractor provide the following:

        8.2.1. A Microsoft Project® schedule file (or compatible file that can be read by MS Project) reflecting activities, milestones, verification/test points, progress and time necessary to resolve deficiencies;
        8.2.2. A working source file containing a brief description of each deficiency, associated DR(s) and guideline number(s), root cause of the deficiency, corrective and preventative actions to resolve deficiencies and prevent recurrence including process, training, tools, and enforcement actions;
        8.2.3. Description of verification methods, objective measures, metrics, artifacts, documentation, and products required to assess corrective/preventative action effectiveness;
        8.2.4. Description of test objectives, measureable success, and exit criteria that validate the resolution of the issues identified.

    8.3. Similar deficiencies noted in DRs are combined and captured as issues in the CAP. The EVMC reviews, approves, and tracks CAP activities to closure with CMO assistance in accordance with the SSI.
    8.4. During the CAP period, the Review Chief conducts periodic meetings to discuss contractor progress.
    8.5. If the Review Director rejected the SA, the CAP describes actions required to accomplish a satisfactory SA and to resolve all EVMS issues that result from SA completion.
    8.6. The EVMC may require an additional data submittal for DA as part of CAP completion verification or may wait until the VR to verify all CAP actions for closure.
    8.7. In coordination with the CMO, the Review Chief verifies that the contractor has satisfactorily completed all corrective actions.

9. Compliance Review Go/No-Go (Step 9)
    9.1. The Go/No-Go is a decision point to determine whether to proceed with a CR considering, but not limited to the following factors:

        9.1.1. For a VR: RA results, CAP completion, and baseline status
        9.1.2. For an IR: DA evaluation results and baseline status
        9.1.3. For an RFC: baseline status
        9.1.4. For a follow-up CR: DA evaluation results, CAP completion, and baseline status

    9.2. The Review Chief and Review Director confer with the EVMC Compliance Technical Lead and the EVMC Director on the information listed above for one of the following decisions:

        9.2.1. Go decision: the EVMC finalizes dates for the VR, and the review team begins preparation for the VR.
        9.2.2. A No-Go decision: The contractor is notified of the No-Go decision and is removed from the review schedule or moved to the review schedule queue. If there are significant data issues as a result of the DA evaluation, the Review Chief prepares a CAR in accordance with the DCMA CAR instructions.

10. Compliance Review Notification Letter To Contractor (Step 10)

    10.1. The Review Chief issues the CR Notification Letter to the contractor no later than 90 days prior to the CR, and requests the contractor deliver EVMS data to the EVMC no later than 45 days prior to the CR. The notification letter provides the dates for the CR and is signed by the Review Director.
    10.2. The CR agenda spans one or two weeks on-site depending on the type of compliance review, number of contracts, size and value of the contracts, number of CAMs, size of the review team, and scope of the review. VRs and IRs are normally two weeks in duration, and RFCs vary between one and two weeks depending on the scope of the review. Follow-up reviews normally do not exceed one week
    10.3. The Review Chief requests DCAA provide results from the most recently completed DCAA EVMS audit or an update if the audit required follow-up actions via the DCAA request letter. If DCAA has not recently completed an EVMS audit, the Review Chief requests DCAA conduct an independent EVMS audit in support of the CR process, The
Review Chief contacts the cognizant DCAA FAO to establish the reasonable timeframe for receiving the audit report. The Review Chief requests the audit with sufficient lead-time, no later than 90 days prior to the scheduled CR, for the DCAA to complete the audit report prior to the CR.

11. Compliance Review Preparation (Step 11)

    11.1. CR preparation follows the same process for all types of CRs with the following exceptions:

        11.1.1. VR: The review team reviews CAP corrective actions from the RA to prepare the review team to verify closeout actions during the VR.
        11.1.2. IR: While the DCMA EVMS Cross Reference Checklist is used, the IR team focuses on implementation of the EVM system.
        11.1.3. RFC: The scope and conduct of the RFC is limited to system processes that are affected. Input from the CMO is considered when determining the need for and the scope of the review. The review team examines any previous review findings and surveillance reports to identify areas of special interest.
        11.1.4. Follow-up reviews to the CRs listed above: The team reviews CAP corrective actions from the prior respective CRs to prepare the review team to verify closeout actions during the VR.

    11.2. The CR team: Roles required during the CR process include 1) Review Director, 2) Review Chief, 3) Review Deputy, 4) Review Assistant, 5) Area Team Leads, 6) Interview Team Leads, and 7) other review team members as assigned to EVMS area teams and interview teams. Members normally serve on both area teams and interview teams. The Review Director maintains overall control of the review process. The Review Chief is responsible for execution of the review.

        11.2.1. As a source for review team members, the Review Deputy obtains the EVM Specialist Certification Program (ESCP) Board list of available CMO personnel who have signed up to participate on a Compliance Review in their geographic area.

    11.3. The Review Chief provides CR guidance and training to the team members. The Review Team Handbook is used to communicate team member assignments, team roles, expectations, and team member products. Prior to the review, the Review Chief assigns the review team members to interview teams and area teams. These teams organize and work together to identify areas of noncompliance and actual/potential EVMS deficiencies prior to the review.
    11.4. Preparation for the CR includes guideline evaluations. The Area Team Leads are responsible for final guideline evaluations. The Area Team Leads assign duties to team members prior to arriving onsite.
    11.5. Contractor’s system description: The Review Chief provides the contractor’s system description and procedures to the review team. Review team members prepare for the CR by reading the contractor’s EVMS Description and verifying compliance using the EVMS Guideline Cross Reference Checklist. The Area Team Leads use the checklist to verify the adequacy and completeness of the contractor’s EVMS description and procedures for their assigned areas. The EVMC provides specific rationale for non-compliant text, but does not recommend revised language as it could interfere with the contractor’s business practices. The review team assessments ensure the following in verifying adequacy and completeness of the contractor’s EVMS description and procedures:
• Descriptions include the policies, procedures, and methods designed to satisfy the Guidelines
• Descriptions are in the form and detail necessary to permit guideline evaluation for compliance
• Descriptions delineate roles & responsibilities of operating personnel, and internal authorizations and controls required
    11.6. To ensure complete coverage of all EVMS areas, the Review Chief selects contractor managers for interviews including, but not limited to, the Program Manager, Business Finance Manager, Indirect Managers, Planning/Scheduling Manager, Risk Manager, other Functional Managers as applicable, Integrated Product Team Leaders, and Control Account Managers (CAMs). The Review Chief determines the questions to be used for the manager interviews. The number and selection of CAM and other applicable manager interviews may be determined by the following:
    • Total dollar value of the control accounts shown on dollarized Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM)
    • Program risk areas
    • EVMS process, implementation, or performance measurement data issues or anomalies
    • Control accounts with the highest amounts of Budgeted Cost for Work Remaining (BCWR)
    • Percent complete of the effort
    • Earned value methods (discrete, level of effort (LOE), and apportioned)
    • Element of cost (labor, material, other direct costs, and subcontract(s))
    • Activities on the critical path or near critical path
    • Control accounts or indirect effort with significant cost or schedule variances
    • Control accounts with frequent baseline changes
    • Input from the PMO and CMO EVMS Specialist regarding concern areas
    11.7. A DA is prepared prior to the CR. The Review Chief assigns Area Leads and their area team members to evaluate the data and the analysis prior to the on-site review. The assignments include data traces for applicable guidelines using the contractor data. The team members work with the Area Leads and Interview Leads to develop and document the data traces. The review team reviews the data, develops selected data traces, and generates DRs based on the contractor’s data prior to the on-site visit. The data review familiarizes the team members with the contractor’s documentation and processes, facilitating a more efficient review.
    11.8. Prior to the review, all review team members identify areas of noncompliance and potential problems using the following materials:

        11.8.1. Contractor System Description and procedures mapping to the Guideline Cross-Reference Checklist.
        11.8.2. Team Handbook and applicable forms and formats.

12. Conduct the Compliance Review (Step 12)

    12.1. Regardless of the type of CR, i.e., VR, IR, or RFC, the outcome of the review includes a formal determination of whether the contractor’s EVMS complies with the ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS Guidelines, as required by DFARS 252.234-7002. All types of CRs assess compliance of the contractor’s EVMS process and implementation, and use applicable contracts for EVMS assessment.
    12.2. The primary objectives of the CR are to assess whether the:
    • Processes, procedures, and methods are compliant with the EVMS Guidelines
    • Descriptive documents containing contractor’s policies and procedures are being implemented in actual operation
    • EVMS is consistently & properly applied on contracts
    • EVMS is integrated into risk management
    • EVMS data is used in the management of the programs
    12.3. The CR follows a similar process for all types of CRs with the exceptions noted in paragraph 11.1.
    12.4. CR team: The team members for the CR include representatives from the EVMC, and may include representatives from CMOs, PMOs, DCAA, and other stakeholders as applicable. The total number of team members is determined by the scope of the review.
    12.5. CR team entrance brief: At the start of the review, the Review Chief presents the entrance brief to the contractor to introduce the purpose and objectives of the review.
    12.6. Contractor entrance briefing: The Review Chief ensures the contractor provides a presentation on the system’s design and operation, and describes system process flows and applicable reports to the review team. If applicable, the overview identifies EVMS changes, open CAR or CAP actions, and potential areas of noncompliance.
    12.7. Manager Interviews:

        12.7.1. The purpose of the manager interviews is to verify that managers are following EVMS processes and procedures and using their EVMS to manage their work. The interviews are designed to allow the contractor to demonstrate EVMS compliance and use of its system.
        12.7.2. The Review Chief schedules no more than two interview slots per day. This allows the interview team members time to document interview results and related findings.
        12.7.3. The interview team may allow manager assistants to locate specific details within the data and schedule being reviewed. However, the manager should request input from their support staff rather than being spontaneously provided assistance by them. The screen shots of live data are captured during the interviews. These screen shots are used as exhibits to support findings and guideline evaluation write-ups. The Interview Lead obtains screen shots at the conclusion of the interview.
        12.7.4. The Review Chief normally conducts the contractor program manager interview.

    12.8. The Interview Findings Form (IFF):

        12.8.1. Document all interviews on IFFs. The interview team is not limited to the questions on the Interview Finding Form (IFF). The manager’s responses may lead to other questions not listed on the IFF. The completed IFFs are submitted to the Interview Team Lead prior to the start of the next manager interview. The IFF can be used to store the screen shots that are provided by the manager at the end of the interview.

    12.9. Discrepancy Reports (DRs):

        12.9.1. The DR is used for documenting EVMS process and implementation discrepancies.
        12.9.2. Write a DR against only a single guideline. There are two types of discrepancies: 1) process and 2) implementation. A process discrepancy relates to a problem or concern with the how the system description and procedures describe compliance with the ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS Guidelines. An implementation discrepancy applies to issues or concerns related to proper implementation of compliant processes and procedures.
        12.9.3. DR severity level: a Level 1 DR is a significant discrepancy that materially affects performance measurement and correction must occur before a review is closed, whereas a Level 2 DR is less significant with little or no impact to performance measurement and not materially enough to keep the review open. Although minor, Level 2 DRs still need correction.
        12.9.4. The review team uses DRs to determine whether a guideline is noncompliant. The term significant deficiency is synonymous with guideline noncompliance. A significant deficiency is a shortcoming in the system that materially affects the ability of officials of the DoD to rely upon information produced by the system that is needed for management purposes. Determination of guideline noncompliance is based on the systemic and material nature of the discrepancies including their impact on the accuracy, validity, reliability, and timeliness of performance measurement data and its impact to effective planning and control of cost and schedule.
        12.9.5. Combine similar, but not unique, discrepancies of the same type into a single DR wherever and whenever possible, with all relevant supporting documentation attached rather than generating new DRs for each deficiency. DRs that are similar in nature are combined at various points during the review process at the discretion of the Review Chief. Similar issues over several CAM interviews may be recorded in separate DRs as the issues are identified and combined after completion of all interviews. Likewise, DRs resulting from data analysis can be combined when the analysis is completed. Refer to paragraph 3.4 for guidance on documenting system description DRs.
        12.9.6. For additional DR guidance, refer to the CR Team Handbook.

    12.10. Daily Team Meetings

        12.10.1. At the end of each day, the Interview Team Leads brief the Review Chief regarding EVMS findings noted during the interviews in a Government-only meeting. The Review Chief notes all information received, on a white board, easel white paper, or optimally on a screen projection wired to a laptop. Similar themes or issues are combined for daily informal briefs to the contractor.

    12.11. Daily brief with the contractor: The purpose of the daily brief is for the Review Chief to keep the contractor informed of the review progress. The contractor must be cautioned that the daily brief findings are only preliminary and are not to be published nor considered final results.
    12.12. Guideline Evaluations: The Area Team Leads are responsible for completing the Guideline Evaluations and Area Summaries. These documents must be completed the before the exit brief.
    12.13. Exit brief: The Review Chief presents the CR exit brief summarizing the CR preliminary findings.
    12.14. Within 30 days after completion of a CR, the Review Chief records the names of the review team members and their roles (interview lead, area lead, etc) and submits the list to the ESCP Board.
    12.15. Within 30 days after completion of a CR, the Review Chief sends an assessment of EVMC review team member participation to the member’s supervisor. The Review Chief may send letters of appreciation to review team members as applicable.

13. Generate Compliance Review Report (Step 13)

    13.1. The Review Chief prepares a preliminary CR Report that documents EVMS findings and recommendations and submits the report, and DRs if applicable, to the Review Director for concurrence in coordination with the
Compliance Technical Lead. The Review Chief forwards the report to the ACO within 45 days of completion of the CR for initial determination of compliance by the ACO. Following receipt of contractor response to the Preliminary CR Report, the EVMC finalizes the CR report and submits it to the ACO, with the proposed CAR and DRs, if applicable, for final determination.
    13.2. If the cognizant DCAA provides completed and/or updated EVMS audit results prior to the completion of the CR (Step 12), the Review Chief, working with the ACO, dispositions the DCAA findings in accordance with the CAFU and DoDI 7640.02.

        13.2.1. For a VR or IR: If audit results are not received within the timeframe negotiated with the EVMC, then the Review Chief incorporates the audit results as an addendum to the report. If there are any issues identified in the DCAA audit report that DCMA recognizes, the CAR, if applicable, is revised to address the findings.
        13.2.2. For an RFC: If audit results are not received within the timeframe negotiated with the EVMC, then the Review Chief determines whether to incorporate the audit results into the CR report as an addendum or incorporate the audit results into ongoing surveillance, and notifies the DCAA accordingly. If the DCAA audit report identifies any issues that are recognized by the EVMC, the CAR, if applicable, is revised or a new CAR issued to address the findings.

14. Compliance Review Corrective Action Plan (Step 14)

    14.1. For CAP process and content for the CR, refer to paragraphs 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.7 of this instruction.
    14.2. CR CAP Follow-up Review: When required by the Review Director, a follow-up review is generally limited to one week in duration, but can be up to two weeks if a comprehensive review of all applicable guidelines is necessary. The purpose of the follow-up review is to verify the progress made on the CAP and to ensure the contractor complies with all applicable EVMS guidelines.

        14.2.1. Paragraph 8.6 applies to follow-up CR CAPs.
        14.2.2. Team member roles for follow-up reviews are the same as those indicated in paragraph 11.2, and team members may include other stakeholders as warranted by the scope of the review. Larger programs with significant follow up activity may require a larger review team.
        14.2.3. The follow-up review focuses on, but is not limited to, resolution of previously identified deficiencies. The review team verifies that the contractor has satisfactorily implemented the CAP.

    14.3. CAP Closeout: Based on satisfactory completion of CAP verification activity, the Review Chief, in coordination with the CMO, recommends CAP closure to the Review Director. The Review Director then dispositions the CAR in accordance with CAR instructions. This step is the closing milestone of the CR CAP.
    14.4. Finalize CR Report: After CR CAP closure, the Review Chief finalizes the CR Report through the inclusion of an addendum, documenting satisfactory verification of corrective actions. The Review Chief sends the final CR Report to the ACO and applicable the stakeholders.
    14.5. Successful demonstration of the contractor’s EVMS for all applicable guidelines during the VR process results in EVMS acceptance by the ACO in coordination with the EVMC.
    14.6. Failure to correct significant deficiencies may result in contractual remedies and EVMS disapproval (withdrawal of EVMS acceptance for contractors with accepted systems) in accordance with applicable DFARS.

15. Issue Letter of Acceptance (Step 15)

    15.1. The Review Director recommends EVMS acceptance to the ACO. The ACO formally accepts the contractor’s EVMS through a Letter of Acceptance (LOA). The LOA acknowledges that the contractor has successfully demonstrated EVMS compliance with applicable guidelines.
    15.2. Following a successful VR, the ACO sends the LOA to the contractor and negotiates an Advance Agreement (AA) in coordination with the Review Director.
    15.3. Following a successful IR, the Review Chief notifies the contractor and ACO to add the pertinent CAGE code(s) to the LOA and AA as applicable.
    15.4. The ACO in coordination with the EVMC ensures pertinent CAGE codes are included in the LOA and AA.

16. Post Compliance Review Documents to Portal (Step 16)

    16.1. The Review Chief is responsible for ensuring that contractor CR information is stored in the DCMA EVM Community Portal. Historical records support internal and external information queries or decisions regarding future reviews. Although the ACO maintains the official contractual records, the EVMC archives CR working files such as the CR Report, correspondences, CAR, and other applicable files, e.g. IFFs, guideline evaluations.
    16.2. The Accepted Contractor List is updated in the EVM Community Portal to reflect that type of acceptance.
    16.3. Access to the EVM Community Portal is restricted. For access, contact the DCMA EVM Portal Administrator.

• EVMS Specialist Certification Program (ESCP)
• DAWIA certification in the field of Business - Financial Management. For further information, see the “AT&L Memo - BCEFM Career Field Restructure”, dated April 1, 2009. Certification levels for Civilian Positions:                                          • GS-5 through 8 (and equivalent) typically require Level I certification.
      • GS-9 through 12 (and equivalent) typically require Level II certification.
      • GS-13 and above (and equivalent) typically require Level III certification.

• Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Subpart 242.302 (S-71)
• DoD Instruction 5000.02: Operation of the Defense Acquisition System
• DFARS 252.234-7001 Notice of EVMS and DFARS 252.234-7002 EVMS
• DoD Instruction 7640.02 Policy for Follow-up on Contract Audit Reports

008- OC Execution/Documentation of EVMS Compliance Reviews

• PLAS Process code: C070 - EVMS Supplier Compliance Reviews

Documents/Memorandums:

• OUSD AT&L Memo, March 7, 2005, Subject: Revision to DoD EVM Policy
• OUSD AT&L Memo, April 23, 2007, Subject: DCMA's EVM Roles and Responsibilities
• OUSD AT&L Memo, July 3, 2007, Subject: Use of EVM in the Dept of Defense
• Department of Defense EVM Implementation Guide (EVMIG (Oct 2006)
• Concept of Operations for EVM (Aug 2006)
• Memorandum of Understanding

Forms, Templates, Guides, Samples:

• General FAQs and other EVMS-Help and Assistance
• Glossary – EVM • BCF-262 "White Card"-EVM - Side A, Side B Updated 07/11/08
• National Defense Industrial Association Program Management Systems Committee EVMS Intent Guide (Nov 2006)
• Review Request Information Sheet (RRIS)
• DCMA EVMS Cross Reference Checklist
• Accepted Contractor List

• TBD

• Earned Value Management Community

DCMA Instruction Point of Contact information is not available to the general public.

DCMA employees please click the follow links the process POCs:
• DCMA EVMC Compliance Technical Lead: POC
• DCMA EVMC CR Request: POC
• DCMA EVM Portal Administrator: POC