February 2005 meeting

NDIA Program Management Systems Committee Meeting

February 8-9, 2005
Pratt & Whittney
Jupiter, FL


Presentations, February 8-9, 2005  


Minutes of the NDIA Program Management Systems Committee (PMSC)
Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion, Jupiter, Florida, February 8-9

Pete Wynne, NDIA PMSC Chairman, called the meeting to order, and welcomed all the attendees.  Mike Martin, P&W host, also welcomed everyone.  A security safety briefing was given.

Dr. Ben Goldberg, Director of Engineering & Advanced Programs with Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion gave the keynote address.  He overviewed P&W Space Propulsion history, customers, and key programs.  Special interest topics included P&W Integrated Program Development, Risk Management, and an EVMS Resource Estimating Tool in use at Space Propulsion.  He emphasized standard work use by levels.  If a problem arises there is a 30 day requirement to update the standard work for the lessons learned. 

Bob Loop, Vice Chair reviewed the agenda.  He then presented material from Dave Muzio, OMB on the EVMS actions in progress. 

OMB Updates  Detailed charts are attached.  The proposed FAR rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register by the end of February.  He is asking for specified comments on the use of IBRs before award; when are they appropriate, thresholds, conditions or other issues.  Comments will be due within 60 days after publication in the register.  A final ruling is expected by July 2005.  A summary of the contents:

a. Applies to Major Systems Acquisitions all agencies, as designated by the agency or OMB, regardless of contract size or type.

b. Imposes ANSI/EIA 748 compliance.

c. Requires IBRs completion within 180 days after award if a pre-award IBR has not been conducted.

d.Requires validations if not previously approved

e.Requires potential subcontractor EVMS flowdown by agreement

f. Requires EVMS surveillance

The OMB letter to NDIA President has cleared legal approval and is expected to by signed no later than the week of February 14th.  Similarly the letter to Chief Acquisition Officers/Chief Information Officers providing additional guidance will be released the week of the 14th.  The letter will list have the OMB endorsement of the NDIA Intent, Surveillance, and IBR Guides as “best practices”.  Civilian agencies are recommended to attend NDIA meetings.  OMB is also requesting that NDIA PMSC start a new project to develop a full EVMS implementation guide.  Other OMB related initiatives:

1. OFPP will draft a rewrite of Part 34 to align with Circular A-11, Part 7 and plans to rescind Circular A-109.  The target completion is NLT December, 2005. 

2. Core Competencies:  All agencies shall use DoD set of core competencies to fulfill training, experience, and continuous learning requirements.  Affects contracting and Program
    Management positions.

3. Draft - OFPP envisions a common certification program.

4. Draft - GSA establishing Acquisition Workforce Training Fund to support Non-DoD agencies via a 5% tax on interagency ID/IQ contracts.

5. Federal Acquisition Institute is responsible for civilian training.  Will take direction from OFPP and have recently co-located with DAU to partner in development of core acquisition workforce     competencies and core curriculum.  DAU will also support EVM training to PMs and COs on major acquisitions.

Dave Muzio joined via phone to answer questions directly.

  • OMB can designate addition programs to be classified as Major Acquisitions.
  • View that any agency can issue an AA that should be recognized by other agencies requiring a validation.
  • Emphasized the A109 deletion is mainly a cleanup issue.
  • Was asked if recent budget cuts were based on Circular A-11, part 7 requirements. Somewhat – certainly performance based on cost/schedule metrics and goals were a factor.
  • A lot of feedback from the audience centered around pre-award IBRs and the feedback method. Dave encouraged formal feedback during public comment period.  NDIA PMSC will provide a coordinated response.

OSD EVMS Activities Update. Larry Axtell briefed status, (charts are attached).  The new EVMS policy original target was January 1.  Current status:  It has now cleared all government approvals.  Small business concerns were the major reason for the delay, it resulted in minor changes to accommodate.  The 50/20 million thresholds for application were retained.  He discussed the application of EVM on fixed price contracts will require a cost/benefit analysis as part of PMs decision to implement.  There was a minor rewording of the IMS DID to accommodate a duplicative, but conflicted section on format for delivery.  Other Actions

  • Revising DFARs clauses. (End of summer target)
  • Updating EVMIG to add tailoring guidance. (February target)
  • Updating WBS handbook
  • Updating DoD 5000.2 (May target) and Defense Acquisition Guidebook. (Summer target)

Discussion:  The risk management paper has not been considered for acceptance. Request that OSD consider version number or date for the DIDs, to distinguish clearly from previous obsolete versions. Question was raised about any plans to update the CFSR DID – yes in the spring. It was noted that other agencies using DCMA where not included in the EVMIG review.

Neil Albert briefed the status of the WBS Handbook updates. The original Mil standard was developed in 1993, and then made a guide in 1998. It is being updated by a joint OSD/DCARC effort.  It is currently behind schedule. The goals are to reflect acquisition phases, alternate approaches, and describe the WBS purpose. It will contain updated definitions that reflect the latest development approaches. Multiple appendices will cover Aircraft, Space, Ships, Unmanned Vehicle, How to handle common elements. They are trying to keep reporting to level 3 or 4.  Other specifics are contained in the presentation material. The target for the WBS Handbook publication is May 2005.

Government/Industry Working Group. Meetings were held in July, August, and November. Primary focus has been discussing and working through concerns regarding policy changes. Developed draft action plan to address overarching DoD and industry issues. 

NDIA Intent Guide: Pete Wynne briefed the status of the NDIA ANSI Intent Guide. The latest version is January 2005. The latest change was the addition of an appendix with templates of all 32 guidelines that can be used to conduct a compliance review. Section 3 contains recommendations of how to matrix existing internal policies to the ANSI Guidelines. The NDIA position is that the Intent Guide should be used for whenever there is a requirement for demonstration and/or the basis for surveillance. Steve Krivokopich, DCMA asked if he could rely on the intent guide. The answer was yes, and this response was reaffirmed by the executive committee the following day. NDIA PMSC believes this document should replace the equivalent sections of the EVMIG.  

Integrated Program Management Framework. Walt Berkey discussed the status of the action to prepare a roadmap describing purpose and use of the NDIA documents to assist new civilian practitioners (charts attached). The document framework is the ANSI/EIA standard, Intent Guide, Surveillance Guide, EVMS Equivalency Agreement, and IBR Guide. The benefit and value of each was presented, and several graphics about the relationships to the planning process. Comments:

  • It is useful to use the project management flow to display the integration of EVM with the project life cycle
  • Other aspects of project management such as risk management need to be incorporated
  • This action was integrated with he OMB request to develop an EVMS Implementation Guide.

Risk Management Working Group. Gay Infanti briefed the status of the group (charts attached). A paper was published in January documenting the results of the survey, conclusions, recommendations and a business case for change. This paper was the culmination of the scope for the original working group. The paper is available on the NDIA website. An overview is contained in the charts presented.  The team recommended another WG be chartered to address the recommendation in the paper. Training, policy, and process were emphasized. Of note: The follow-on team was authorized and Gay Infanti will lead the effort, with the assistance of a co-lead, John Driessnackfrom MCR. 

XML Working Group – Joan Ugljesa briefed the status of the group.  Charts are attached. The primary driver for developing a set of XML schemas for schedule and cost data exchange is that the new DiDs require changes to the ANSI X12 transaction sets (806 and 839) and related federal implementation conventions. There is no mechanism available to update the standards or the federal implementation conventions. In addition, XML is quickly becoming the de facto standard for exchanging data.  The end objective is to create a set of XML schemas that are software vendor neutral and that any project can use. The goal is help prevent new projects from reinventing the wheel every time they want to exchange data with someone. A new Open Applications Group (OAGi) A&D working group has been formed with the AF as the lead. Assuming all AF sponsorship issues are resolved shortly, the target completion for developing the XML schemas through the OAGi is July, 2005.  Once the schemas are approved by OAGi, OAGi will publish the schemas.  The next step will be to work with the sponsoring parties (AF, Boeing, Lockheed Martin) and the various commercial off the shelf software vendors to start the move to the new XML standard.

System Acceptance Working Group: Buddy Everage, Lead of System Acceptance Working Group briefed status. The team has broad industry and government representation. He briefed and received approval for a team charter. The team output will be a System Acceptance Guide, Business Case, Charter, and Ground Rules and Assumptions. The previously developed System Acceptance Business Caase and White Paper will build the framework for the Guide. The question was raised about qualification (s) for reviewers. Steve Krivokopich briefed that DCMA does not have a qualification guide for reviewers or any plan to qualify reviewers. Concerns were raised by the members regarding:

  • Conflict of interest between reviewers and contractors supporting implementation.
  • A customer brought up concern about the ability to relay upon 3rd party validations. There are enough problems with acceptance between agencies. The team concurred with the independence issue. Dave Muzio, OMB is 100% behind the recognition of existing validations. Due to the pending OMB EVMS requirements and the potential impact those requirements will have on all government agencies and the contractors supporting those agencies, the team has targeted the Fall conference in November 2005 as the delivery date for the System Acceptance Guide.

Summary and Conclusions  Pete Wynne closed the meeting summarizing the concerns or significant issues raised today:

  • Next meeting (See 9th minutes)
  • Suggestion to make joint meeting one day and industry meeting other day
  • The request for small business representative on the Joint Industry/Government EVM working Group.
  • Working Group status and the decision to proceed with Recommendations
  • OMB request for the PMSC to consider developing an industry implementation guide
  • Intent Guide – 5 updates in last year.  The Guide is now stable and under configuration control.
  • New Business:  Standard and Intent Guide silent on fixed price considerations.  PMSC will be documenting reservations with the OSD proposed policy & DID changes. These reservations deal with potential cost growth.

Wednesday February 9th, 2005. 

Pete Wynne, NDIA PMSC Chairman opened the session and welcomed the attendees. Bob Loop, Vice Chair reviewed the current agenda and previous meeting minutes.  There were no comments to the previous minutes.  Walt Berkey motioned for acceptance of the August PMSC minutes and Gay Infanti seconded the motion.  The minutes were approved.  Past meeting minutes are available on the NDIA PMSC website. 

Clearing House – Pete Wynne, NDIA PMSC Chairman announced two new working groups formed:  Risk Management and EVMS Industry Implementation Guide.  Walt Berkey discussed the OMB requested EVM Implementation Guide and its merger with the Inegrated Program Management Framework activity.  He reviewed existing capabilities and the need for a comprehensive guide that meets DoD requirements but communicates to a much broader and less knowledgeable audience.  Working team will attempt to quickly develop a guide within a roughly six month timeframe.  Walt Berkey and Wayne Abba will co-lead the team.  Question was raised – will it have more generic language?  Walt – there is a need to walk the reader through existing language EVM language in ANSI/EIA 748 and relate that to common project management terminology.  Will the guide be prescriptive?  Walt – yes to agencies little to no program management background, but certainly not from a DoD perspective.  Other comment – Approach has to include tailoring of an EVMS application for in-house implementation where the purpose is management value and caudate of compliance is not the purpose.. 

Pete Wynne recognized the approval of the System Acceptance WG charter. Requested charter, timeline, outputs to be generated for all of the teams by the next meeting. He re-emphasis the ANSI Intent Guide status:

  • It is a recommended guide, accepted and approved by member companies, and intended to be suitable for government reliance.
  • Now under baseline control, the plan is to update for currency every 2 years
  • Will consider additional input in the intervening period.

Other clearing house issues

  • Received OMB  letters for comment
  • Reservations still exist with the DIDs and DFAR clauses regarding the cost of implementation.  (FP, IMS are primary concerns). It was noted that all of NDIAs process issues were addressed in the DIDs.
  • 2007 is the next date required for ANSI 748 reaffirmation. The Committee will begin the process in the fall of 2005.  GEIA/ANSI requires reaffirmation every 5 years. There are two levels:  Change and no change.  One customer comment:  may want to remove from ANSI, the copyright issues are burdensome. Of note:  PMSC went to GEIA and ANSI to have a public standard.  DID not do this with Intent Guide or Surveillance Guide to encourage use. ANSI is public, and GEIA is government
  • Decided not to start the subcontract working group at this time primarily due to priorities with the System Acceptance/Implementation/Risk/EDI working groups which are all active at this time.

APM Meeting: Walt Berkey attended on behalf of NDIA the APM EVM meeting hosted by the MOD.  Both countries (UK and US) are both using the ANSI/EIA 748 EVMS Guidelines in their EVM implementations.  UK industries (5) presented how they are using EV.  These applications were all non government and included construction, software development, and modernization of the London Underground.  The Ministry of Defense does not intend to issue an EVMS policy but requests Program Managers to implement EVM as a best practice.  He also participated in the Defence EVM Implementation Group (DEVMIG) which is chaired by MOD and attended by representatives from 7 UK industries.  That team is discussing how to enhance EVMS value for the Program Manager.  They already have developed and use implementation guides.  In some ways The UK is ahead of the US in the institutionalization of EVMS.  The DEVMIG agreed that it would of benefit to open communications with NDIA in sharing meeting minutes and initiatives. 

Special Issue

Concerns were raised by certain members regarding inadequate representation and information flow from the Joint Government/Industry EVM Working Group.  A Motion for consideration was made by Kevin Martin and seconded by Dave Roberts.  There was extensive discussion which is captured below:

  • Feeling that large business has only representation
  • Main impact of threshold and policy changes (and OMB) will be to small business
  • Feeling that consultants have more interface with small business
  • Pete Wynne pointed out that the OSD working group membership is controlled by OSD.
  • Discussion that procurement committee has chair that meets with small business 4 times a year.
  • Discussion of outside representation or inside representation
  • Discussion that the NDIA chair(s) are already elected to represent all companies and issues.
  • Discussion of what a small business is

There were several amendments proposed that were acceptable to the author. So by mutual agreement the motion was amended to consolidate some of the related discussions within the motion.  The motion was carried and accepted. The revised motion as passed is below:

{Preamble to the resolutions has been deleted based on discussions, the resolution was the only action voted on and agreed}

Be it resolved that NDIA PMSC 1) Seek to add a new industry position to the EVM Working Group through discussion with DoD that would be allocated to a small business member of the PMSC and 2) If not successful in adding a small business position to the EVM working group allocate one of its two positions in the EVM Working Group to a small business member of the PMSC, that its representative to be selected by the PMSC.  For the purpose of the resolution, small business includes companies with 1500 or less employees.”

“Was also resolved that the small business representative must work with the other small business members to brief status and consolidate feedback.”  Was a part of the other motion  but a separate thought.

Compliance Outcome Measures  Dave Roberts briefed a presentation on metrics that were developed with DCMA for validation as a component of corrective action (charts attached). The metrics had minimums and maximums for each outcome. The minimum were not well defined. Steve Krivokopich clarified that the metrics are being used by Bell and Boeing (Philadelphia). Presentation asked questions about surveillance and scores for compliance.  This effort is the catalyst to start the process.  The customer feedback is that across the industry we have process issues. Plan to give these metrics to surveillance teams.  DCMA and NDIA PMSC strongly feel metric would be complimentary to surveillance and not replace surveillance. Discussion:

  • One member discussed it looks like movement backwards in EVMS evolution. Many of the metrics “realisms” are in the eye of the beholder.  Why not metrics based on performance?
  • Metrics look like manual effort required rather than automated.
  • Need flexibility from the Government in establishing pertinent metrics
  • DCMA open to input on the development of metrics
  • Concern that this a contractors system and not the government’s
  • Gary Humphreys mentioned a workshop planed on metrics at the May CPM conference.

Defense Cost and Resource Center  Mike Augustus briefed status (charts attached.) Major activities have been coordination with DCAA and OSD.  An audit procedure has been developed and used as the basis for yearly DCAA audits.  The CSDR status has been included in the DAES assessments, and taken into consideration in Mil-HDBK 881 and the revised EVMS DIDs.   In CY 2004, improvements were noted in the quality of the information as reported in the DAES assessments.   There have been significant delays in the delivery of eRoom and Pre-processor/Validator.  The contractor has been replaced and there are not yet revised timeframes of when this capability will be ready.   Training approach has been modified and five sessions were held since our last meeting.  Discussion:

  • Goal is to “stay green” on the assessments.
  • Training approach is with many examples and goes form by form
  • Recommendation to consider a version number or date on the October 2003 changes in form.
  • Main issue with yellow or red rating:  Is there an approved plan/WBS to recover?
  • Manual Status.  The February 2004 version is current and approved.  The May 2004 version was issued as interim guidance.
  • Instructions of how to implement have been moved to a CWBS DID
  • Trying to be aligned with EVMS
  • Only main CSDR/CCDR requirement(s):  Approved WBS/Dictionary and agreement with an approved CSDR implementation plan.

DCMA Center Activities:  Steve Krivokopich, DCMA briefed the status...

  • Rich Zell is out of the office.  Please call Steve with any concerns.
  • Metrics were discussed in Dave Bell’s presentation
  • In process to transfer responsibility for compliance reviews to the Boston and Carson District offices.  Existing validations in-work will continue to be handled by the center with the exception of the FCS contract that will transfer.
  • Working with DAU to develop ANSI Criteria  training, similar to the prior AFIT course. The training is releivant to surveillance as well as intial compliance. Training objective is that all DCMA people needing EVMS attend the course.
  • 180 DCMA people are working with EVMS.
  • EVMS validation list.  Asked NDIA, ACO’s for existing list, both respond to hard to develop.  Gary Humphrey’s provided the list he previously maintained, that was last updated in 1997.  New list will be published on the DCMA website.  Contractors have access at www.dcma.mil.  Every contractor is encouraged to review the list and provide corrections. Any corrections will be required to provide sufficient documentation from the prior review or acceptance.  The list will be published within 1-3 months and he will send NDIA PMSC notice when it is posted and we will  distribute to our membership.
  • Question is list been validated for currency?  It is the best information we have available, but will ask the ACO’s to annually validate the currency of the list by measures and surveillance results.
  • General Scott’s direction is to establish leadership meetings to discuss earned value. They are planning to invite service executives.  Goal to start first one by the end of March.  Could invite Mike Wynne to participate.  Question:  Site or Corporate?  Will vary.  Emphasizes that this is a work in progress and details are not firm.  Focus on the health of EVMS system, but could also be an opportunity for the contractor to bring up “difficult contractual environments” that inhibit the use of the contractor’s EVMS process.We will be developing a short video on the importance of EVMS for our CMOs.

Air Force Update – Lt. Col. John Garrett briefed status.  Air Force is developing EVMIG language to distinguish between validation and surveillance between $20 and $50 million EVMS thresholds.  They are working on development of the  XML new standard with an open architecture.  And EVMS expertise at the service is transitioning.  3 out of 4 Acquistion Center Points of Contact, their field “experts are leaving or have left the service.

DCAA Update – Pete Wynne discussed DCAA issues.  He noted that CSDR, CPR, and System audits are increasing.  The committee needs to get an invite for their representation at our session.  Discussion:  One company been told they review and have cognizance over 15 or 17 of the 32 guidelines.  There is some duplication of efforts between DCAA and DCMA.  Another member was asked to document procedure to prepare reports.  Another company used the CSDR manual and the DIDs as the procedure successfully.

DOE Update - David Treacy retired and DOE was not represented at the meeting.  Mike Donnelly is currently filling in for David.

Miscellaneous – Pete Wynne introduced the PMSC Executive officers to the committee. They are Pete Wynne, Bob Loop, Walt Berkey, Peter Deacon, Buddy Everage, Randy Steeno, Gay Infanti, Joe Kusick, Wayne Abba, Nick Pisano, and Joan Ugljesa.
NRO Update - Bill Norris briefed.  Lt. Col. Jim Gordon has transitioned to new position.  The replacement will be a civilian position with a military deputy.  The agency does not fall under DoD policy and therefore has its own implementation clauses and CDRLs.  Directive 7 has changed.  They are currently updating policy and DIDs to coincide with the soon to be released revised OSD application thresholds and IMS/CPR DIDs.  They have a unique CFSR with no intention of standardization with OSD of this particular DID. 

NGA-IC Update – Ivan Bembers briefed the status of the intelligence committee (IC) (charts attached).  Ivan is the EVMS focal point for National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency working for Peggy Poindexter.  The Intelligence Comittey’ys Earned Value Management Council charter currently includes the following active members:  CIA, DIA, NGA, NSA, and NRO.  It is chaired by the ICSAE and is called the Intelligence Community EVM Council.  The primary purpose of the council is to provide a venue for collaboration and recognition of Government/Industry implementation of EVMS.  Any EVMS advanced agreements and surveillance agreements within the Intelligence Community may be signed by members of the council who decise to participate in a particular IC EVM Council agreement with a given company.  The committee also serves as a sharing of best practices or communication of concerns between the agencies.  In response to an Industry representative’s concern…agencies within the IC applying and overseeing EVM requirements on contracts have a long history of recognizing DCMA Advanced Agreements.  Any concerns regarding this should be brought to the attentions of the IC.

Navy Update - Commander Joe  Illar briefed.  Navy’s main concerns are about the quality of the EVMS information, and its effective use in the management of acquisition programs.  The Navy is working the quality issue through active participation in the DoD/Industry working group, and they are also acting on a series of audits performed by the Naval Audit Service. The Navy currently takes EVMS information and populates an On-Line dashboard.  They are currently considering better ways to package and communicate EVM data to various levels of management.

FAA Update -  Keith Kratzert briefed.  Keith has taken a new position in Acquisition Planning and Policy Division.  Kevin Martin, Joe Houser and Wayne Abba will be supporting some initiatives.

NASA Update – NASA Update – Tommy Watts briefed.  His emphasis is on EVM as a program/project management process.  The NASA EVM Policy Directive and the EVM Procedures Documents will be deleted.  The appropriate EVM policy and procedures will be incorporated into the NASA Program and Project Management Procedural Requirements document.  This document will be supplemented with a EVM handbook. This handbook will contain more detailed EVM procedures and other material such as IBR's and EVM assessments.  NASA’s major new program areas place significant, future emphasis on the Exploration Office programs.  The head of this office is Admiral Steidle who has a NAVAIR background and is a strong advocate of EVM.  He will have a major influence on the NASA EVM culture. Current planning will require EVM on all Exploration Office projects including the in-house (Government) efforts.  A question was raised about the Exploration office following the NAVAIR IBR process – answer it is anticipated that there will be a strong NAVAIR influence.  Exploration is developing a Program Management (PM) handbook that will include EVM for the exploration office projects.
NASA accepts a DCMA Advanced Agreement and is placing more emphasis on participating in the joint surveillance process.  More emphasis is being placed on EVM being in the program management community  as a program management process and not the finance community.  Even though it is changing, NASA culture tends to relate this to the financial community.   Another issue  is  that technical changes are  considered  too often without  understanding the cost and schedule implications.   The  NASA Chief Engineer wants Project Management training for PM's place more emphasis on the integration aspects of technical, schedule and cost along with the associated risk 

Pete Wynne announced the August 2005 meeting will be hosted by CS Solution and held in Destin, Florida at the end of August.   The May 2005 meeting is changing and will be at a location to be announced soon. 

DAU Update – David Bachman briefed DAU status.  DAU received DoD direction to develop an EVMS guideline and surveillance course.  There is a generation of practitioners that have never benefited from taking the prior AFIT course.  A three phase approach is being used to develop the new course.  The first phase requires  9-15 month to complete.   The first phase wil be an instructor lead resident course, evolving into a hybride course (combination on-line and resident course) in phase two.  Selected modules from the on-line course will be spun-off as standalone continuing education tutorials in phase three of the development. 
Dave briefed the status of the EVM Community of Practice website.  It can be found at http://acc.dau.mil/evm.  Included is a new OMB recommended references sections that has links to the NDIA Intent, Surveillance, and IBR guides. It also has links to training, policy and other related EVMS issues. 

MDA Update –  Dave Melton briefed the MDA EVM program.  MDA has eight major programs and 12 total programs that use EVM.  He introduced his staff in attendance.  MDA is currently adjusting to budget cuts, based on the President's Budget, that will impact all programs from FY 2006 through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) timeframe.  This will have varying levels of impact on the different programs and their contract performance measurement baselines (PMBs).  Dave encouraged industry participants to continue to do a good job maintaining realistic PMBs through timely incorporation of changes into the PMB.  To support this goal, MDA is trying to put a lot of emphasis with their program management teams on using the IBR as a continuous process for planning, updating, and maintaining the PMB.  To help ensure a strong EVM program across MDA, Dave's staff evaluates the following six EVM-related factors for each program:

  1. EVM Contractual Requirements: SOW, DFARS clauses, CDRL tailoring, no CPI/SPI metrics used in award fee (AF) criteria, but encourage good use of data in AF criteria.
  2. Baseline development/IBRs/Baseline Maintenance: start early and continue process often. Integrate with risk management program.
  3. Analysis and Integration: Ability in the agency to use accurate and forward-looking EVM data, integrate with scheduling, financial, and technical performance measures. Ability to discuss issues with program office and contractor.
  4. EVM Systems:  Is good validated EVMS in place?  Is it being applied well on MDA contracts?
  5. DCMA:  Do we get good DCMA reports?  Are we able to discuss issues directly with DCMA and get their support as required?
  6. Training:  Are our analysts well trained in EVM and related areas?  Do we provide excellent EVM training for others in MDA and joint government/contractor training in preparation for IBRs?

Closing Discussions
Pete Wynne led the discussion.  A member proposed DCMA collect metrics on contract incentives and other related issues.  How wide-spread are the use of SPI/CPI metrics in award fee for example.  Asked membership for volunteers to host future NDIA meetings in 2006/2007.  Dekker announced interest in potentially hosting the February 2006 meeting in San Diego. 

The committee thanked Mike Martin and Pratt & Whitney for an excellent job hosting the workshop.  The meeting was adjourned with the next session in the April-June timeframe TBD.