The intent of the Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Compliance
Review Instruction (CRI) is to provide the Defense Contract Management
Agency (DCMA), in its role as the Department of Defense (DoD) Executive
Agent for EVMS, with a standard process for conducting initial and
ongoing EVMS reviews to verify contractor EVMS compliance. The Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Subpart 242.302
(S-71), specifies DCMA’s responsibility for reviewing EVMS plans and for
verifying initial and continuing contractor compliance with EVMS
The purpose and objectives of compliance with the EVMS criteria are for
contractors to effectively use internal cost and schedule management
control systems and for the Government to be able to rely on accurate,
valid, reliable, timely, and auditable data produced by those systems
for determining product-oriented contract status.Since 1999, the DoD has recognized the 32 EVMS guidelines in the
American National Standards Institute/Electronics Industries Alliance
(ANSI/EIA)-748 Standard and the DCMA continues to use the ANSI/EIA-748
EVMS Guidelines as the basis for determining initial and ongoing
compliance of contractor management systems.The DCMA conducts formal EVMS reviews to verify initial and
ongoing compliance with the ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS Guidelines on applicable
contracts as prescribed by DoD Instruction (DODI) 5000.02 when the DoD
is the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) or when a delegation is accepted
from another agency.
Formal determination of compliance and acceptance by the cognizant
Administrative Contracting Officer (hereafter referred to as “ACO”)
provides assurances that the contractor’s EVMS produces reliable data on
high-risk contracts for program management decisions regarding cost,
schedule, and technical performance.
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
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
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
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
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.
126.96.36.199. 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
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.
188.8.131.52. 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.
184.108.40.206.1. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
• 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
• Control accounts with the highest amounts of Budgeted Cost for Work
• Percent complete of the effort
• Earned value methods (discrete, level of effort (LOE), and
• Element of cost (labor, material, other direct costs, and
• Activities on the critical path or near critical path
• Control accounts or indirect effort with significant cost or schedule
• 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
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
• 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
12.9. Discrepancy Reports (DRs):
12.9.1. The DR is used for documenting EVMS process and
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
• GS-9 through 12 (and equivalent) typically require Level II
• GS-13 and above (and equivalent) typically require Level III
Training Matrix Template
What TASKS are
Methods of training, including
On-the-Job Training (OJT)
Computer Based Training (CBT)
Course (Commercial, College/ Vocational)
Contractor Sponsored Training
Guidebooks(Other similar interventions)
Administrative Task (The task is wholly enabled by the contents
of the instruction and requires no training intervention)