Post on 07-Jun-2018
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Joint Space Cost Council
Better EVMS Implementation Study: Integrating Identified Phase I Cost Impacts with
Phase II Government Value
August 2016
DRAFT Summary of Industry Survey Responses
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Background: Joint Space Cost Council (JSCC)
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Established by the Undersecretaryof Defense for Acquisition,Technology, and Logistics Supportto improve collaboration withoversight and service/agencylevelsFocus on cost credibility andrealism in estimates, budgets,schedules, data, proposals andprogram executionBroad participation across industryand governmentInitiatives consistent withgovernment and industry focus onAffordability
JSCC is an effective forum for government and industry collaboration to improve EVM implementation
3
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Industry and Government Study Phases Include Government Value
Government-Industry collaboration through all phases of the survey and analysis
JSCC Industry Day (joint Government/ Industry participation)
Identification of 78 Industry Cost Areas
Industry Survey to assess cost areas as high, medium, low, no impact
Phase I Recommendation Report, focusing on high and medium cost impact areas
Joint Government/ Industry Implementation Plan
JSCC Government
Day (joint Government/
Industry participation)
Identification of EVM Products and Management Activities used by the Government
Government Survey assessed areas based on Value
Phase II Recommendation Report, focusing on PM value assessment areas
Phase I Recommendation Report available at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/evm/docs/JSCC%20Better%20EVM%20Implementation%20%20Recommendations%2015%20April%202015.pdf 4
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Setting a Realistic Study Scope: Phase I
Ø The Phase I scope of the study was to identify the Delta Implementation CostImpact between EVM implemented on Government Programs and EVMimplemented on Commercial, Internal or Fixed Price Programs
Industry identified cost areas perceived as being Government driven and rated the impact high, medium, low or no impact
5
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Cost Impact for Each Cost
Area
High
Medium
Low
None
Phase I Approach
Ø A Cost Impact Survey was completed by 5 major contractors (Ball Aerospace,Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon) for 46 differentNASA, NRO, and SMC space programs. It resulted in data on 78 specific CostAreas and more than 1,000 comments from Industry regarding their assessments.
6
Phase I Data Results
Phase I Survey
Potential Areas for Cost Impact Identified by
Industry
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
The Structure of the Phase I JSCC Survey
Similar Cost Areas were grouped into 15 Cost Drivers to help facilitate the survey
Survey included an assessment of 78
different Cost Areas
Survey based on 78 industry-identified cost areas – Respondents assessed the Cost Impacts for each area as High, Medium, Low or No Impact
7
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Size of Programs that Participated in Phase I
8 8
0
5
10
15
20
< 50 $M < 100 $M < 500 $M < 1 $B >= 1 $B NotIdentified
Programs in JSCC Survey by $ Value
The survey responses included 46 programs - 17 greater than or equal to $1B as well as 7 in the $20M-$100M range
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Cost Impacts of EVM and Stakeholders Identified in Phase I
Gov Program Mgmt40%
Contracting Officer8%
KTR EVM Process Owner12%
KTR Program Mgmt10%
Cost Estimators2%
DCMA19%
PARCA1%
NRO ECE4%
DCAA0%
Not Provided4%
Stakeholders for High and Medium Impacts
High13%
Medium14%
Low28%
No Impact45%
Survey Impacts944 High and
Medium Impacts
~73% of all survey data points (2,644 of the 3,588 answers) had Low to No cost
premium identified to comply with Government EVM requirements.
Of the ~27% identified as High and Medium Impacts Government Program Management was identified as Primary Stakeholder, followed by DCMA. Contractor EVM Process Owner and
Contractor Program Management also identified as “Significant” Stakeholders. 9
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Phase I Synopsis from Data and Comments
Ø The cost impart of Implementing EVM on Government Programs is not significant.Industry is already performing the vast majority of EVM functions without anyGovernment Requirement.Many perceived cost impacts are actually a function of the Acquisition Environmentwith the Government and not related to the implementation of EVMThe highest value EVM cost impacts identified in Phase I are not consistent amongall Government Programs and there is no single Cost Area identified as High Impacton the majority of all surveyed Programs.The Government Program Manager is considered to be the biggest Stakeholder (asperceived by Industry) in driving EVM related cost impact (i.e.. Level of Reporting,Lack of Meaningful VAR Thresholds, Volume of IMS Tasks/Level of Detail,Additional Requirements beyond CDRLs, etc.)
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
EVM Experts from Government and Industry published Final Recommendations to reduce the Cost Impact of EVM on Government Programs and addressed the following three themes: 1) The Control Account level (size and number) significantly impacts the cost of
EVM2) Program volatility and lack of clarity in program scope as well as uncertainty
in funding may impact the cost of EVMS, just as any other ProgramManagement Discipline
3) Volume of IBRs and Compliance/Surveillance reviews and inconsistentinterpretation of the 32 EIA 748 Guidelines impacts the cost of EVM
10
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Phase II
Government Program Manager Assessment of
EVM Products and Management Activities
11
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Focus of Phase II
Gov Program Mgmt40%
Contracting Officer8%
KTR EVM Process Owner12%
KTR Program Mgmt10%
Cost Estimators2%
DCMA19%
PARCA1%
NRO ECE4%
DCAA0%
Not Provided4%
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Government PM is more
than twice as large as the 2nd largest
Stakeholder
In order to understand how the CostImpacts identified in Phase I areValue-Added, the JSCC performed asecond phase of the study to identifyvalue of EVM Products and EVM-Related Management ActivitiesJSCC focused on GovernmentProgram Managers
Government PM was thelargest Stakeholder identified inPhase I (in attributing the mostMedium and High CostImpacts)Government PM is the primarybeneficiary of those Productsand Activities
12
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
EVMProducts
and Processes
109
8
7
6
5
4
32
1
HIGHEST
LOWEST
EVMProducts
and Processes
109
8
7
6
5
4
32
1
HIGHEST
LOWEST
Setting a Realistic Study Scope: Phase II
Ø The scope of Phase II of the study was to identify the Government Valueof specific EVM Products and Management ActivitiesPhase II also included some inquiries regarding the current Assessmentof Quality of EVM Data and Timeliness of EVM Data
Ø
10 9
8
7
6
5
4
3 2
1
HIGHEST VALUE
LOWEST VALUE
Quality of EVM
Data
Government Value
Please provide your assessment of the value of the following EVM Products
and Management Activities:
1) EVM data by WBS2) EVM data by OBS3) Staffing Reports4) VARs5) IMS 6) Integrated Master Plan7) Contract Funds Status
Report8) Schedule Risk Analysis9) EVM Metrics10) IBR11) OTB/OTS12) Surveillance Reviews
Assessment
What is your assessment of the overall Data Quality of your Contractor's EVM-‐
related data?
Timeliness of EVM
Data
EVM Products
And Management
Activities What is your assessment of the Timeliness of Data
provided by the Contractor in order for you to use it to
assist in program management decisions?
13
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
109
8
7
6
5
4
32
1
HIGHESTVALUE
LOWESTVALUE
EVMProductsAnd
ManagementActivities
Phase II Approach
Ø An EVM Products and Management Activities Value Survey was completed byGovernment Program Managers (or their equivalent) for 32 different space programs. Thesurvey provided data on 12 specific EVM Products and Management Activities andincluded more than 400 comments from Program Managers regarding their assessments.
Products & Management Activities
EVM data by WBS
EVM data by OBS
Staffing (Manpower) Reports
Variance Analysis Reports
Integrated Master Schedule
Integrated Master Plan
CFSR
Schedule Risk Analysis
EVM Central Repository
EVM Metrics
Integrated BaselineReviewSurveillance Review
OTB & OTS
Phase II Survey
Phase II Data Results
14
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Size of Programs that Participated in Phase II
Survey responses included 32 different programs with a wide range of Values – 19 greater than or
equal to 1 $B as well as 1 in the 50-100 $M range 15
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Value Ratings – Converting to Net Promoter Score (NPS)
Net Promoter Score (NPS) was adopted as one way to interpret the results of Phase IIThe NPS metric was introduced in 2003 in the Harvard Business Review and adopted bynumerous companies* to differentiate between individuals who would actively “promote”a product or service and those less likely to exhibit value creating behavior.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
Detractors Passives Promoters
Low Neutral High
ØØ
% Promoters - % Detractors = Net Promoter Score
Net Promoter Score takes into account Positive Impact of Promoters and the Negative Impact of Detractors to yield a Summary Score
*Charles Schwab, Apple, GE, Intuit, American Express, etc.16
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Interpreting Phase II Data – Net Promoter Score (NPS)
% Promoters - % Detractors = NPS 16% – 62% = -46% NPS
% Promoters - % Detractors = NPS 61% – 5% = +56% NPS
Net Promoter Scores identify Strong Positive Responses as well as
Strong Negative Responses to Survey Questions
17
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
JSCC Phase II Overview of Data
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
>= +50%>= +25% &< +50%
> -‐25% & <+25%
<= -‐25% & >-‐50%
<= -‐50%:
NPS Breakout
44%
34%
22%
Organization
NASA
NRO
SMC
3%
28%
10%59%
Program Size
>=50 $M & <100 $M
>=100 $M & <500 $M
>=500 $M & <1 $B
>=1 $B
59%28%
13%
System Type
Space System
Ground System
Other
34%
22%
44%
Respondent
PM
Deputy PM
Other
29%
29%13%
29%
% Subcontract
<25%
>=25% & <50%
>=50% & <75%
>=75%
53%37%
10%
Responsibility
Multiple Contracts
Single Contract
Segment of Contract
-‐100% -‐75% -‐50% -‐25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
EVM data by Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
EVM data by Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS)
Staffing (Manpower) Reports
Variance Analysis Reports (VARs)
Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)
Integrated Master Plan (IMP)
Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR)
Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA)
EVM Metrics
Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)
Surveillance Reviews
OTB or OTS
Products/Processes Net Promoter Scores
COMMENTS: 406
Most EVM Products and Management
Activities show NPS Value
leaning towards High
Value
18
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Average Raw and Net Promoter Scores of EVM Products and Management Activities
EVM Products/Management Activities AVG Raw Score Promoters Detractors Passives NPSIntegrated Master Schedule (IMS) 8.7 75% 13% 13% 63%Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR) 8.7 61% 6% 33% 56%Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) 8.4 46% 4% 50% 42%EVM Metrics 8.4 53% 9% 38% 44%Variance Analysis Reports (VARs) 8.1 41% 19% 41% 22%Staffing (Manpower) Reports 8.0 48% 19% 32% 29%EVM data by Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 7.9 44% 22% 34% 22%OTB or OTS 7.8 44% 25% 31% 19%Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA) 7.0 32% 36% 32% -‐4%Surveillance Reviews 6.4 22% 43% 35% -‐22%Integrated Master Plan (IMP) 5.9 24% 52% 24% -‐29%EVM data by Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS) 5.5 15% 62% 23% -‐46%
Sorted by Average RAW Score
Even though there were some negative Net Promoter Scores, ALL average Raw Values were well above 6 (out of 10) except the IMP and EVM data by OBS
Structure. EVERY EVM Product or Management Activity received Promoters (values of 9 or 10) from the total population of Program Managers interviewed.
19
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Phase II EVM Expert Working Group: Step 1
Ø A group of EVM Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) representing Government and Industrymet to review all data and comments received from the Phase II surveysAs a first step in generating Phase II analysis, SMEs performed the following functions:Ø
1) Consolidated comments from all surveys and developed a comprehensive list ofissues identified by Government Program Managers
2) Reviewed the Program Manager’s assessment of the current state of Data Qualityand Data Timeliness
3) Consolidated comments regarding Timeliness and Quality of EVM Data andprovided suggestions on improvements
Phase IIData Results
SUBJECT MATTER WORKING GROUP
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY
DCMA BALL AEROSPACE
NGA LOCKHEED MARTIN
NASA RAYTHEON
NRO NORTHRUPGRUMMAN
PARCA
SMC (USAF)
CONSOLIDATION OF VALUE COMMENTS
SUGGESTIONS FOR INCREASED VALUE
20
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Integrating Phase I and Phase II
Understanding the Value of the Cost Impact Identified in Implementing
EVM on Government Contracts
21
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Phase II EVM Expert Working Group: Step 2
Ø In addition to consolidating value comments and generating suggestions,the SMEs performed a second step, of generating Cross Index of DirectRelationships between Phase I (Cost Impacts) and Phase II (Value of EVMProducts and Management Activities)
Phase IIData Results
SUBJECT MATTER WORKING GROUP
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY
DCMA BALL AEROSPACE
NGA LOCKHEED MARTIN
NASA RAYTHEON
NRO NORTHRUPGRUMMAN
PARCA
SMC (USAF)
CONSOLIDATION OF VALUE COMMENTS
SUGGESTIONS FOR INCREASED VALUE
CROSS INDEX BETWEEN PHASE I
COST IMPACTS AND PHASE II VALUE ASSESSMENTS
22
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
The Phase I and Phase II Matrix
Ø The Matrix includes 78 Cost Areas (from Phase I) and 12Products/Management Activities (from Phase II)There are 936 specific intersections that contain an assessment of whether or not the Product or Management Activity has a DirectImpact on the Cost AreaExperts from Government and Industry identified DirectRelationships between Phase I Cost Impacts and Phase IIProducts and Management Activities using the followingstatement:
“the Customer Requirement for Product/Management Activity A(from Phase II) can directly influence Cost Area X (from Phase I)”
The completed Matrix provides a way to identify the Cost Impactsthat are generated by specific Government EVM Products andManagement Practices
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø The Matrix shows that ALL Products and ManagementPractices directly influence Multiple Cost ImpactsThe Matrix shows that Cost Impacts are directly influencedby multiple Products and Management Practices
Ø The completed Phase I and Phase II
Matrix
23
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Products & Management Activities
EVM data by WBS
EVM data by OBS
Staffing (Manpower) Reports
Variance Analysis Reports
Integrated Master Schedule
Integrated Master Plan
CFSR
Schedule Risk Analysis
EVM Central Repository
EVM Metrics
Integrated BaselineReviewSurveillance Review
OTB & OTS
Input and Output: Correlating Phase I Cost Impacts with Phase II Government Value Assessments
Phase I Data
Step 1
Step 1: Phase I identifies Cost Impact for 78 specific Cost Areas
and scores them as High, Medium, or Low.
Recommendations are made to reduce those identified Cost Impacts.
Phase I Recommendations
Phase II Data
Step 2
Step 2: Phase II identifies
Government Value for Specific EVM Products and Management Activities and
assesses them as 1 (Low) to 10 (High)
Phase II Recommendations
Step 3
Step 3: Government and Industry EVM Experts develop a matrix to correlate Cost Area Impacts to specific EVM
Products and Processes
Step 4
Step 4: Products and Management Activities are analyzed to understand maximum benefitand potential for future EVM trade studies
24
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
18895
50 53106
38 81 96164
177
99
76 80
129
61
93108
142
388
234
157 158
249
105
161211
316
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
EVM data by W
BS
EVM data by OBS
Staffin
g (M
anpo
wer) R
eports
Varia
nce An
alysis Re
ports
Integrated
Master S
ched
ule
Integrated
Master P
lan
CFSR
Sche
dule Risk
Analysis
EVM M
etrics
Num
ber o
f Cost Impa
cts
Shared Cost Impacts for EVM ProductsHigh Medium Low
19595
50 53106
38 81 96164
180
99
76 80
129
61
93108
142
402
234
157 158
249
105
161211
316
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
EVM data by W
BS
EVM data by OBS
Staffin
g (M
anpo
wer) R
eports
Varia
nce An
alysis Re
ports
Integrated
Master S
ched
ule
Integrated
Master P
lan
CFSR
Sche
dule Risk
Analysis
EVM M
etrics
Num
ber o
f Cost Impa
cts
Cost Impacts for EVM ProductsHigh Medium Low
Cost Impacts are Spread Across Multiple Reporting Requirements
Ø Although the study indicates the Government PM value for the IMP and EVM data by OBSas the lowest for all products, the majority of cost impacts required to develop these reportsare shared with other deliverables.
Virtually EVERY Phase I Cost Impact attributed to a Product is shared by other
Products or Management Activities
Shared Cost Impacts are a subset of all Cost Impacts
If any IPMR format were removed from contract, the results of the JSCC study indicate the cost savings are intangible
25
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
What Program Managers Telling Us about the Most Significant Cost Impacts of Implementing EVM on Government Programs
(as identified in Phase I of the JSCC Study)
Theme 1: The Control Account level (size and number) significantly
impacts the cost of EVM
Cost Impact IS VALIDATED* by Government Value of
EVM Products and Management Activities
Theme 2: Program volatility and lack of clarity in program scope as well as uncertainty in funding may impact the
cost of EVMS, just as any other Program Management Discipline
Cost Impact is NOT ATTRIBUTED* to EVM
Products and Management Activities
Theme 3: Volume of IBRs and Compliance/Surveillance reviews and inconsistent interpretation of the 32 EIA 748 Guidelines impacts
the cost of EVM
Cost Impact IS VALIDATED* by Government Value of the Integrated Baseline Review
(IBR)
These Cost Impacts ARE VALIDATED* by
Government Value of the Surveillance Review (SR)
*Assessment is based on EVM Expert WorkingGroup correlation of Cost Impact (Phase I) and
Government Value (Phase II)
26
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
JSCC Study Theme 1
Program Managers are aware that they have an Impact on the Size and Number of Control Accounts
Theme 1: The Control Account level (size and number) significantly
impacts the cost of EVM
5 Specific Phase I Recommendations were made to help Reduce these Cost Impacts
Cost Impact IS VALIDATED* by Government Value of
EVM Products and Management Activities
Phase II Recommendations will Recommend Ways to
Provide More Value
Government Program Managers score EVM
Data by WBS as High-‐to-‐ Medium Value
Government Program Managers score Metrics as High-‐to-‐Medium Value
Government Program Managers score
Associated EVM Products as High-‐to-‐Medium Value
Government Program Managers recognize the Need for Multiple CLINs
*Assessment is based on EVM Expert WorkingGroup correlation of Cost Impact (Phase I) and
Government Value (Phase II) 27
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
JSCC Study Theme 1 Government Value vs Cost Impact
LOW GOVERNMENT VALUE HIGH GOVERNMENT VALUE
LOW COST IM
PACT
HIGH
COST IM
PACT
Phase I Recommendations should help Reduce the Existing Cost Impacts
Phase II Recommendations should help Increase the
Existing Value
All Associated EVM Products are Currently are Scored at High-to-Medium Value with a Medium-to-Low Cost Impact
28
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
JSCC Study Theme 2
Theme 2: Program volatility and lack of clarity in program scope as well as uncertainty in funding may impact the cost of EVMS, just as any other Program Management Discipline
*Assessment is based on EVM Expert WorkingGroup correlation of Cost Impact (Phase I) and
Government Value (Phase II)
4 Specific Phase I Recommendations were made to help Reduce these Cost Impacts
Cost Impact is NOT ATTRIBUTED* to EVM
Products and Management Activities
These Cost Impacts are defined by Program
Volatility, Scope Changes, and Funding Issues
These Cost Impacts are Directly Related to the Cost of doing Business with the Federal Government
29
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
JSCC Study Theme 3
Without a Valid Process, there can be no Valid Data
*Assessment is based on EVM Expert WorkingGroup correlation of Cost Impact (Phase I) and
Government Value (Phase II)
Theme 3: Volume of IBRs and Compliance/ Surveillance reviews and inconsistent
interpretation of the 32 EIA 748 Guidelines impacts the cost of
EVM
7 Specific Phase I Recommendations were made to help Reduce these Cost Impacts
These Cost Impacts ARE VALIDATED* by
Government Value of the Integrated Baseline Review
(IBR) Process
Phase II Recommendations will Recommend Ways to
Provide More Value
Government Program Managers score IBR as High-‐to-‐Medium Value
Government Program Managers recognize the Need for a Good
Performance Measurement Baseline
Government Program Managers recognize the Need to Understand Risk
in the Baseline
These Cost Impacts ARE VALIDATED* by
Government Value of the Surveillance / Compliance Review (CR/SR) Process
Government Program Managers score SR as Medium-‐to-‐High Value
Government Program Managers see High Value in EVM Data and Metrics
Government Program Managers identify need for Better EVM-‐Related
Data Quality
Government Program Managers indicate SRs should be performed every
Two Years
30
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
JSCC Study Theme 3 Government Value vs Cost Impact
Phase I Recommendations should help Reduce the Existing Cost Impacts
Phase II Recommendations should help Increase the
Existing Value
LOW GOVERNMENT VALUE HIGH GOVERNMENT VALUE
LOW COST IM
PACT
HIGH
COST IM
PACT
IBR is Currently are Scored at High-to-Medium Value and SR is Currently are Scored at Medium-to-High Value. Both are scored
as a Medium-to-Low Cost Impact
31
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
In Conclusion…
Ø The Cost Impact of Implementing Earned Value Management on a Government Program does not appear to be significant Ø Most EVM related functions are ALREADY being performed by Industry
There are Acquisition Environmental Issues (Funding Volatility, Scope Changes, etc.) that are often mistakenly considered to be Cost Impacts to EVM
Ø
Ø The Government PM considers EVM related products and processes to be value-added in their management toolkit The Cost/Value for EVM Products and Processes appears to be primarily High Value at Low Cost
Ø
Ø There is clearly room to improve Value on some Products and Processes – management to better understand what EVM-related data is actually providing and understanding how to use it better Phase II Recommendations will address the Increasing the Value of EVM Products and Processes Most Phase I Cost Impacts are spread across Multiple Products and Processes
Ø
Ø Ø Ineffective or poorly implemented management and contracting practices can generate
Cost Impacts to the Cost of Implementing EVM (Driving WBS to extremely Low Levels, Using Multiple CLINs and requiring Multiple Reports, Customizing Reporting Requirements, etc.)
The Recommendations from Phase I and Phase II should provide ways to generate even better efficiencies (more value for less cost) for implementing EVM on Government Programs
Ø
32
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Final Thought
The 1994 Coopers & Lybrand/TASC study estimated the cost of Government mandated C/SCSC (the predecessor to Earned Value Management) to be 0.9% of Value Added Costs of Government contracts.* Since that time, Earned Value Management (EVM) has become embraced by Industry as a best practice on all types of contracts including both Government and commercial efforts. As a result, since a contractor must use some type of management approach, the Government should only be concerned with any delta costs for implementing EVM on Government contracts and not all full costs of EVM (since Industry will use this approach to manage regardless of the type of contract).
Using this premise, all of the data in the JSCC study indicates that as a rule, the delta implementation cost of implementing EVM is significantly less than 0.9% identified in 1994. There may be some unique situations where this value may be breached, however, this is typically driven by Government Program Management in order to meet a specific programmatic need.
*According to Coopers and Lybrand/TASC, Value Added Costs = Total Costs - Material/Subcontract Purchases
33
JSCC Joint Space Cost Council
Speaker Contact Information
Ivan Bembers Chief of the National Reconnaissance Office Earned Value Management Center of Excellence
Michelle Jones Cost and Acquisition Assessment Group Support Booz Allen Hamilton Email: jones_michelle@bah.com
Ed Knox Earned Value Management Center of Excellence Support Tecolote Research, Inc. Email: eknox@tecolote.com
Jeff Traczyk Earned Value Management Center of Excellence Support
Stefanie Terrell NASA
34