Compliance Assessement Governance (CAG) 2.0 - ECRSOP Attachment A

Proudly Serving the EVM Community for 43 Years.
The Leader in Earned Value Management Consulting and Training

EVMS DOE Documents
Compliance Assessement Governance (CAG) 2.0 - ECRSOP Attachment A

DOE Compliance Assessment Governance (CAG) 2.0 - ECRSOP Attachment A, dated June 1, 2022

This appendix to the DOE Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Compliance Review Standard Operating Procedure (ESCRSOP) provides detailed guidance for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an effective EVMS or similar performance-based management system when an EVMS is not required. While it is based on the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS, it provides a framework for assessing systems that incorporate environment and human factors (the operating environment and implementation maturity) and ten subprocesses that collectively contribute to an effective system that successfully integrates project/program scope, schedule, and budget. It is intended for internal DOE project/program managers, directors, and other department resources as well as contractors to the DOE. It is intended to improve consistency in the approach for assessing an EVMS as well as provide guidance DOE or contractor personnel can use for self-governance - a process that promotes the continuous improvement and use of the EVMS to reduce the risk of cost escalation and to achieve schedule, budget, and performance goals.

Version 2.0 is a direct result of a DOE initiated study by Arizona State University (ASU) that created the Integrated Program Project Management (IP2M) Maturity and Environment Total Risk Rating (METRR) as a means to assess an EVMS environment and implementation maturity factors.

IP2M METRR consists of four environmental categories that are further divided into a total of 27 factors necessary for the effective implementation of the EVMS. Environment factors are rated on a scale from "not acceptable" and "needs improvement" to "meets some," "meets most," and "high performing." Environment factors that meet the factor description criteria receive a high-performing rating, while those that meet some of the criteria receive a "meets some" rating. Each environmental factor has an associated relative weight; all factor scores sum to 1,000 points. A point scale provides a gauge of the environment within which a project is being managed. The higher the environment score, the higher the likelihood a project team will achieve their schedule and budget objectives.

The study also identified ten subprocesses necessary for an EVMS that build on the five EIA-748 process areas. This include: (A) organizing, (B) planning and scheduling, (C) budgeting and work authorization, (D) accounting considerations, (E) indirect cost management, (F) analysis and managerial reporting, (G) change control, (H) material management, (I) subcontract management, and (J) risk management. Attributes are assigned to each subprocess to describe its inherent quality and characteristics. The adequacy of subprocesses and attributes, individually and collectively, facilitates regular assessments such as self-governance activities, to gauge how effective the system is in meeting project management requirements.

The 10 subprocesses are further divided into a total of 56 attributes that are assessed on a maturity scale of 1 to 5. A "1" rating means work on this attribute has not started while a "5" means best in class. Attributes mature enough for an EIA-748—compliant EVMS receive a maturity level of "4." Those that are not yet mature receive scores of "2" or "3," depending on their levels of maturity as determined by the assessment. The maturity levels for the 56 attributes are described in detail; this provides a common understanding of the basis for an assessment.

Download Document