79R-

13

LEVELOFEFFORTPLANNI
NGAND
EXECUTIONONEARNEDVALUE
PROJECTS-WI THI
NTHE
FRAMEWORKOFEI A-748
 AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 79R-13

LEVEL OF EFFORT PLANNING AND EXECUTION ON EARNED

VALUE PROJECTS – WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ANSI
EIA-748
TCM Framework: 9.1 – Project Cost Accounting
9.2 – Progress and Performance Measurement
10.1 – Project Performance Assessment

Rev. August 13, 2020

Note: As AACE International Recommended Practices evolve over time, please refer to web.aacei.org for the latest
revisions.

Any terms found in AACE Recommended Practice 10S-90, Cost Engineering Terminology, supersede terms defined in
other AACE work products, including but not limited to, other recommended practices, the Total Cost Management
Framework, and Skills & Knowledge of Cost Engineering.

Contributors:
Disclaimer: The content provided by the contributors to this recommended practice is their own and does not necessarily
reflect that of their employers, unless otherwise stated.

August 13, 2020 Revision:

Noah J. Ashbaugh (Primary Contributor) Dan Melamed, CCP EVP
Dave Ingalls, EVP (Primary Contributor)

October 24, 2014 Revision:

Thomas W. Jaeger, EVP (Primary Contributor) Robert Loop, EVP PSP
Dan Melamed, CCP EVP Richard C. Plumery, EVP

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.

This document is copyrighted by AACE International and may not be reproduced without permission. Organizations may obtain permission
to reproduce a limited number of copies by entering into a license agreement. For information please contact editor@aacei.org
AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 79R-13
LEVEL OF EFFORT PLANNING AND EXECUTION ON
EARNED VALUE PROJECTS – WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF EIA-748
TCM Framework: 9.1 – Project Cost Accounting
9.2 – Progress and Performance Measurement
10.1 – Project Performance Assessment

August 13, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................1
2. Recommended Practice .............................................................................................................................................2
2.1. Nature of LOE Work in Relation to Other Project Work .....................................................................................2
2.2. LOE Planning .......................................................................................................................................................3
2.3. Measurement of LOE Performance ....................................................................................................................4
2.4. LOE in Project Schedules.....................................................................................................................................5
2.5. Revisions to LOE Tasks ........................................................................................................................................5
2.6. LOE on Service Work ...........................................................................................................................................5
2.7. LOE Performance Masking – Two Examples .......................................................................................................6
2.7.1. SPI and CPI Metrics: ....................................................................................................................................6
2.7.2. LOE Replanning: ..........................................................................................................................................7
2.8. LOE Best Practices – Summary ...........................................................................................................................7
2.8.1. Best Practice 1: Reserve LOE EV Method for tasks that are not measurable .............................................7
2.8.2. Best Practice 2: Avoid mixing LOE and Discrete activities ..........................................................................8
2.8.3. Best Practice 3: Recognize performance masking impacts during Planning and Evaluation Phase ...........8
2.8.4. Best Practice 4: LOE may be included in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) when needed for
visibility, but should NOT be included in Critical Path ..........................................................................................8
2.8.5. Best Practice 5: Investigate opportunities to utilize Apportioned Effort technique ...................................8
2.8.6. Best Practice 6: Owner and Contractor (also called Customer and Supplier Mutually assess approach to
LOE at the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) ........................................................................................................9
References .....................................................................................................................................................................9
Contributors...................................................................................................................................................................9

1. INTRODUCTION

This recommended practice (RP) describes the purpose, application, measurement and control of level of effort
(LOE) work in projects that operate with an earned value management system. It provides explanations of use and
management of LOE work as it pertains to EVM implementations that may not be contained in the Total Cost
Management (TCM) Framework.

This RP is intended to provide guidance for planning, managing and reporting performance of LOE tasks that most

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
79R-13: Level of Effort Planning and Execution on Earned Value Projects – Within the Framework of 8 of 8
EIA-748

August 13, 2020

EVM practitioners would consider to be sound practice for managing and claiming performance related to work that
is not considered to be measureable. The target audience for this RP is project managers, control account managers
(CAMs), and project staff responsible for planning projects and managing and measuring project performance. It is
also considered to be beneficial to EVM analysts who want a clearer understanding of LOE task management and
measurement.

This RP is aligned with the TCM Framework, as well as the Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA) - 748 Earned Value
Management Systems (EVMS) guidelines. (Guideline 12, parts of Guidelines 6 and 7 regarding task planning and
scheduling, and parts of Guidelines 30 and 31 regarding revisions and change control.) This document provides
further explanation of the intent and application of LOE that is not contained in the EIA-748 standard and the
National Defense Industries Association (NDIA) Earned Value Management Systems Intent Guide.

This document is not intended to be a standard but provides further clarification of recommended EVM practices as
they apply to planning, implementing, and reporting LOE work being performed under the EIA-748 standard.

2. RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

LOE activities are tasks of a general or supportive nature that have no measurable product or output. LOE work is
defined as: “Support effort (e.g., supervision) that does not readily lend itself to measurement of discrete
accomplishment. It is generally characterized by a level of support over a specific period of time.”[8]

2.1. Nature of LOE Work in Relation to Other Project Work

All contract direct costs fall within one of three categories:

• Discrete Effort – Discrete effort is defined as “Tasks that have a specific measurable end product or end
result”[8]. Discrete work has definable end products that is budgeted by element of cost (e.g. labor, material,
other direct cost) and is scheduled, to the day, when it starts, finishes, and identifies all interim milestone
dates. Discrete work is measurable and can be broken into steps or measurable tasks, each of which can be
budgeted based on resources required to complete the work, and it can be objectively determined how
much work is accomplished.

• Apportioned Effort – Apportioned effort is defined as: “An earned value technique in which status is
assessed consistent with a base task (s). The earned value percent complete of the base effort is used to
status the apportioned effort work package. Apportioned effort is technically related and time-phased
proportionally to the based unit designated”[8]. As the rate of completion is considered fixed between
apportioned effort and its related discrete effort scope element, the performance claimed for the
apportioned effort aligns to the percent completion of the associate discrete effort. This is appropriate in
situations when apportioned effort cannot be independently scheduled or statused, but you may gain an
advantage on performance visibility or that scope would not appropriately be considered LOE. An example
would be a work package consisting of the effort required to provide management or oversight to a specific
scheduled activity (aligned activity). If planned as LOE, the oversight performance would always be claimed
in the planned period, even if the aligned activity completed early or late. But apportioning the effort, it
allows the performance to be claimed in the same reporting period as the aligned activity. This helps
eliminate false variances / performance masking, and increases the fidelity of the EV data.

• Level of Effort (LOE) – LOE activities are typically related to management, oversight and functions for which
performance cannot be measured or is impractical to measure. The measurement of these activities is
based on the passage of time since they have no discrete measurable output and cannot be associated with

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
79R-13: Level of Effort Planning and Execution on Earned Value Projects – Within the Framework of 8 of 8
EIA-748

August 13, 2020

a physical product or deliverable that can be assessed whether the task is completed (as an apportioned
effort activity could). LOE work has the same budgeting requirements as discrete work. It has to be
scheduled with a start and finish date, but does not have internal milestones or steps that could be used to
measure progress or performance. Most management and project control functions are examples of LOE
tasks, e.g. project management, control account management and most project control work. Support work
is usually LOE work, such as security, quality control, maintenance, etc. LOE tasks do not have identifiable
steps or products to assess whether the tasks have been completed or how much actual work was
performed. Some LOE tasks may have discrete deliverables (e.g. monthly reports). Although such repetitive
tasks can be planned and scheduled, they do not represent physical progress of discrete efforts. For
example, managers manage the work of others and support functions provide support to others, but
neither produces an end product. LOE work cannot be measured to any degree of precision and it would
not add value to the project to attempt to measure its progress. The nature of a project often determines
the percentage of the work that will be measured as LOE. While maintenance and operations contracts
might contain have a high content of LOE work, projects performing construction may have a lower
percentage of work measured on a LOE basis. Organizations should not require that all of their projects
have a specific percent of work measured on an LOE basis; the specified percent may be inappropriate for
the work content of a given project. Designation of work as LOE should be limited to work that is truly not
measurable because projects that have a high LOE content do not have a high level of objective
performance data and, as a result, will not achieve the full benefits of EVM. LOE work is often performed in
support of discrete work, but not necessarily in direct relation to the amount of discrete work (i.e. it is not
apportioned effort). LOE work may represent a relatively higher percentage of the project work initially, as
in project startup, but then tail down as the project matures, and then increases as the project closes.

2.2. LOE Planning

When an LOE task is planned to be performed during a given period, the value budgeted for that task is claimed,
even if no work is performed. To accomplish this measurement, the LOE budget must be time phased by element of
cost according to when the resources will be applied to the effort. A common misunderstanding is that LOE budget
must be evenly spread across the period of the task. LOE budget can be evenly spread, but only if that reflects how
the resources will be used. If that is not the case, the resources should be spread according to when they are
expected to be applied to the LOE activity. If the LOE resource expenditure is expected to increase as project activity
increases and then decrease as the project approaches completion, then the resources should be planned
accordingly. In such a scenario, if the resources are uniformly planned, rather than when the resources are expected
to be used, significant cost variances may result.

Once LOE tasks are budgeted and scheduled, if the timing of the tasks changes because of unforeseen events, the
tasks may need to be replanned according to when they will be performed. Otherwise, cost variances will distort the
true performance of the control account and the project. In this case, future LOE activities may be internally
replanned so long as this replanning is consistent with the controlling system description. Generally, this replanning
should not impact open work packages, the total allocated budget, or any contractual milestones.

When LOE tasks are to support discrete tasks, a scheduling relationship between the LOE and discrete tasks should
be established. This is sometimes referred to as a Hammock task. However, it is important to avoid having LOE
activities driving the critical path. One way to accomplish this is with management milestones. These milestones can
be constrained and then linked to the discrete work. The LOE is planned between a starting and ending management
milestone. As the sequence of discrete activities moves, the management milestones will move accordingly if
logically linked. Through baseline control, if the LOE is desired to be changed, the management milestones may be
moved.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
79R-13: Level of Effort Planning and Execution on Earned Value Projects – Within the Framework of 8 of 8
EIA-748

August 13, 2020

Activities are occasionally classified as LOE when they should be an apportioned effort (AE). If this occurs,
performance is earned as planned as opposed to when the work is actually performed, thereby resulting in
overstating or understating performance. Care should be taken to ensure that apportioned effort tasks are classified
appropriately.

Another common misunderstanding is that LOE tasks are always labor activities. LOE tasks can also be material,
subcontracts, or other direct costs (ODCs), such as travel that can be planned and measured as LOE if their
application to the work is not identifiable and measurable. Otherwise, they should be planned and measured as
discrete or apportioned effort. Miscellaneous, low-cost material such as fasteners, cables, etc. may be planned as
LOE as it is understood they will be necessary, but does not merit the effort of detail planning. However, high cost
material should normally be managed as discrete, as it is generally known when the material is to be applied and
performance can be measured and claimed when the material is applied. Travel can be planned and measured as
discrete when it is known when the travel is to be performed, but can be planned and measured as LOE if appropriate
for the situation based on only general expectations. However, travel is too often planned and evenly spread across
the period of performance, resulting in significant cost variances until the task is completed. The fundamental
principle for budgeting LOE tasks is to time phase the work and resources based on when the work is expected to be
accomplished. By doing so, the task will start with a plan that is realistic and stands a reasonable chance of not
incurring early or significant variances that distort the performance of the rest of the project. For example with
travel, if there are periods of quarterly or annual meetings or conferences that cause a surge in travel, then these
months should be planned appropriately.

2.3. Measurement of LOE Performance

Since progress for LOE work is measured with the passage of time, earned value (EV) must equal planned value (PV),
which also implies that there is no schedule variance in LOE tasks. There may be situations where EV and PV are not
equal, as discrete work may be mixed within the LOE work package or control account, resulting in differences
between the EV and PV values. In general, however, LOE and discrete work should not be mixed in the same control
account; otherwise it can mask the true cost and schedule performance of the discrete work. If LOE and discrete
work packages are ever mixed within the same control account, the CAM should must ensure visibility into the cost
and schedule performance of the discrete effort. This can be accomplished by placing the LOE work into a separate
work package with specific charge numbers, thereby providing visibility into the performance of the discrete work.
If the LOE effort within the control account exceeds a threshold (e.g. 20 percent), then the CAM should consider
placing the LOE work into a separate control account because of the masking effect the LOE work can have on the
discrete work performance, as demonstrated in Figure 1. While the 20 percent threshold provided in this RP is an
acceptable threshold for analysis, no given percentage should be interpreted as absolute due to the variability of
activities on projects, programs and contracts does not always allow for more objective measurement.

LOE progress measurement (i.e. EV) is always assessed in the period and for the value in which the LOE work was
planned. If no LOE work is planned for a period, but work is accomplished, no progress is claimed but actual costs
associated with the work performed are recorded. Actual costs related to LOE work are always recorded in the period
the costs are incurred, even if no work was planned for the period. If more resources are expended than planned to
accomplish the work, then those resources are recorded as actual costs within the period resulting in a cost variance
for the period.

LOE tasks can mask the true performance of discrete work when included in either the cost performance index (CPI)
or schedule performance index (SPI) calculations because EV is claimed in the planned period regardless of
execution, and therefore the LOE work always has an SPI of 1.0. LOE performance should generally be evaluated
separately from that of discrete work, to gain a fuller picture of actual status.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
79R-13: Level of Effort Planning and Execution on Earned Value Projects – Within the Framework of 8 of 8
EIA-748

August 13, 2020

2.4. LOE in Project Schedules

There are advantages and disadvantages to including LOE in project schedules. By including LOE work in the
schedule, all project work and related resources are visible in the schedule and can be exported to the EVM system
to establish the cost and schedule baseline. It also facilitates updates to the project baseline. However, LOE tasks
should not influence the schedule’s critical path and should be clearly identified as LOE in the schedule so they may
be filtered out when necessary. When LOE work is included in the schedule, LOE tasks must be filtered out when
schedule risk analysis (SRA) is performed; otherwise it will invalidate the SRA results.

To avoid some of the negative effects of LOE in schedules, LOE activities should be specifically identified in the
schedule using custom fields or coding structure, and should be identified in the task description (e.g. adding LOE to
the description). Use of custom fields or coding structure facilitates identification, categorization and filtering of LOE
activities for critical path analysis and schedule risk analysis. Many LOE efforts contain detailed activities which have
a long estimated duration that may inadvertently define the length of a project or program and become a false
critical path. One way to circumvent issues associated with including LOE in a schedule is to represent the effort as
“hammock” activities. It has no duration of its own but derives one from the time difference between the two points
to which it is connected from the detailed activities. Conversely, schedulers may choose to avoid the use of logic
links on LOE activities (e.g., the “hammock activities” described above) however, they may create LOE activities that
are slightly shorter than the actual planned project length. All of these techniques need to be thoroughly
documented.

2.5. Revisions to LOE Tasks

When baseline changes are made to discrete project tasks, the effects on the timing and duration of any related LOE
tasks should be reviewed. If the discrete work moves out or back, it usually means the related LOE work will be
performed in the period in which the discrete work was moved. Once performance trends reflect that LOE
tasks/resources are not being performed or consumed as originally planned, they should be replanned to ensure
that the project performance is represented accurately. If required, replanning of LOE work should be accomplished
in a manner that will retain performance measurement information, (i.e. no changes to budgets, work performed,
or actual costs previously claimed, except for correction of errors and accounting adjustments). If LOE tasks build
significant variances early in the project, those variances will inflate the true project CPI and SPI and present a
misleading cost and schedule performance picture.

2.6. LOE on Service Work

Generally, EVMS should not be contractually mandated on service contracts 1. When EVMS is imposed on service
contracts to measure performance, several problems are encountered. By its nature, service/support work is largely
not measurable. As a result, methods for measuring performance are usually contrived unless LOE is used. When
LOE is used, it is not an accurate means of measuring cost or schedule performance, because it is effectively
measuring against a spend plan, i.e. how much is spent versus how much was planned to be spent. Further, LOE
work will offset the performance variance and trends of the discrete work unless the discrete work performance is
measured separately. In such heavily service/support-oriented work, it is usually best to isolate the work that is LOE
from the discrete work to enable visibility into the performance of the discrete work.

1 A service contract means a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose primary purpose is to perform an
identifiable task rather than to furnish an end item of supply. For example: Maintenance, overhaul, repair, servicing, rehabilitation, salvage,
modernization, or modification of supplies, systems, or equipment.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
79R-13: Level of Effort Planning and Execution on Earned Value Projects – Within the Framework of 8 of 8
EIA-748

August 13, 2020

2.7. LOE Performance Masking – Two Examples

2.7.1. SPI and CPI Metrics:

LOE work should be scheduled based on when the resources are expected to be applied. It should not be front loaded
for the purpose of generating early positive cost variances. Further, if resources for LOE activities are, (or will be),
applied at a different time than planned, the baselined LOE work should be replanned using compliant change
management practices. This does not have the same restrictions as replanning of discrete work and can be done at
any time, as long as it does not change historical project performance. Such changes and their reasons, should be
reported on customer reports in the next reporting period. The customer should always be notified of the rationale
for changing the previously reported PV or EV from prior reporting periods.

Figure 1 demonstrates the effect mixing LOE and discrete work has on the SPI and CPI of control accounts. In Figure
1, the SPI and CPI for an example pure discrete control account are .70 and .80, respectively. If 35 percent of this
control account was LOE work and the CPI for the LOE work is 1.2 (which is often the case when LOE work is front
loaded or the LOE work is delayed), the account’s SPI and CPI would increase to .81 and .94, respectively, because
of the masking effect of the LOE work. In the example, the LOE work increased the SPI by .11 and the CPI by .14. As
also indicated in Figure 1, the higher the percent of LOE work in an otherwise discrete control account, the more the
LOE work masks the true performance of the control account. Obviously, this masking effect also applies at the
project level. For example, if a project is 30 percent complete and the CPI for LOE work alone is an inflated 1.30,
either because LOE work was front-loaded or delayed, a 25 percent LOE content can significantly inflate the project
CPI and the SPI. This should be taken into account when using CPI and SPI to estimate the project’s completion cost
and end date.

Figure 1 – Effects of LOE on SPI and CPI in a Mixed Discrete and LOE Work Package or Control Account

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
79R-13: Level of Effort Planning and Execution on Earned Value Projects – Within the Framework of 8 of 8
EIA-748

August 13, 2020

2.7.2. LOE Replanning:

When discrete work is performed as planned, normally the directly related LOE support work is also performed. If
the dates for discrete work change in the future, the dates of any directly related LOE support work should also
change. If the discrete work slips and the related LOE task is not replanned to correspond to the revised dates of the
replanned discrete work, misleading cost variances will result: positive initially then negative when the discrete work
is actually performed. Such misleading variances should be avoided by replanning the LOE work to the same period
in which the discrete work is rescheduled. Lack of such proactive internal replanning can be interpreted as non-
compliance with EVM practices because the current schedule for the LOE work no longer reflects when the work is
expected to be performed. Such proactive replanning is allowed and expected.

Table 1 – Effects of Not Replanning LOE

Notice the effects of not replanning LOE in Table 1. By not replanning the LOE scope (shaded accounts) to future
periods when the related discrete work was moved out, the CPI increased because few actual costs were incurred,
which created misleading independent EACs and incorrect TCPI values for these accounts. The project SPI and CPI
are both inflated, because they are based on work claimed but not performed, and distort the project’s true cost
and schedule performance to date. In this example management was not able to see until much later the 20 percent
overrun of the project. The shaded LOE accounts have positive cost variances of $9.6M (i.e. $1.74M + 7.89M = -
$9.6M), which initially inflates the project CPI. However, these accounts are forecasting negative variances at
completion of -$6.8M (i.e. -$3.33M - $3.45M = -$6.8M). In analyzing performance of such cases, the project analyst
should consider computing a project SPI and CPI based solely on the discrete and apportioned effort and report it
separately from the consolidated project CPI/SPI. The discrete CPI and SPI values can then be used to assess the
project’s true performance and to compute a more realistic independent project EAC for the measurable work.

2.8. LOE Recommended Practices – Summary

2.8.1. Recommended Practice 1: Reserve LOE EV Method for tasks that are not measurable

By definition LOE should be limited to tasks that are neither measurable nor have an identifiable end product or
deliverable, i.e. discrete work should not be managed as LOE. Doing so would result in loss of cost and schedule
visibility of the discrete work performance, could invalidate the project schedule, and could result in calculation of a

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
79R-13: Level of Effort Planning and Execution on Earned Value Projects – Within the Framework of 8 of 8
EIA-748

August 13, 2020

false critical path. To ensure the performance of discrete work can be accurately determined and is not masked, LOE
work should not be mixed with discrete or apportioned effort. If LOE is ever mixed with discrete work, the CAM must
have a means for visibility into the performance of the discrete work. Otherwise, it can significantly distort
measurement of the discrete or apportioned work. EVMS procedures should provide a clear definition of LOE, as
well as statements concerning the time phasing of resources by element of cost.

2.8.2. Recommended Practice 2: Avoid mixing LOE and Discrete activities

Figure 1 illustrated the impact of LOE mixing within discrete control accounts. It is important to ensure LOE does not
distort the progress reported for discrete project work. It is recommended that LOE work be managed in work
packages or control accounts separate from discrete work to eliminate the masking effect that would result by
comingling the work. EVMS procedures should specifically prohibit LOE work from being mixed with discrete or
apportioned tasks. If it is, there must be a means of accurately determining the cost and schedule performance of
the discrete work.

2.8.3. Recommended Practice 3: Recognize performance masking impacts during Planning and Evaluation Phase

The avoidance of LOE mixing with discrete activities is clearly a consideration for the initial planning stage in
determining the components of individual work packages and control accounts, however it is also important during
the execution and review phase to consider possible LOE masking impacts to performance measurement. EV
analysts should look beyond the top-level performance metrics to understand the root cause factors demonstrating
cost and schedule status and, if appropriate, evaluate LOE and discrete control accounts separately in order to better
understand the true project performance.

2.8.4. Recommended Practice 4: LOE may be included in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) when needed for
visibility, but should NOT be included in Critical Path

LOE may be included in the IMS and is beneficial in providing the traceability in establishing the integrated cost and
schedule budget baseline. However, the LOE activities should not in any way impact the critical path of the IMS or
influence any SRA results. The most effective way to ensure LOE activities do not impact critical path would be to
clearly identify, categorize, and document those activities in a custom field in order to provide an effective ‘filtering’
option. One approach to planning LOE activities within the schedule is to use a ‘hammock’ activity, but that is not
the only acceptable approach, as described in the LOE in Project Schedules section above.

2.8.5. Recommended Practice 5: Investigate opportunities to utilize Apportioned Effort technique

Apportioned effort is an EV technique that allows the performance claiming of an individual work package to be
directly proportional to the percent complete of a related discrete effort. This is appropriate when the apportioned
effort cannot be independently statused, but is logically linked to a discrete effort that can be and in doing so
provides additional performance visibility and limits LOE performance masking.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
79R-13: Level of Effort Planning and Execution on Earned Value Projects – Within the Framework of 8 of 8
EIA-748

August 13, 2020

2.8.6. Recommended Practice 6: Owner and Contractor (also called Customer and Supplier Mutually assess approach
to LOE at the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)

The IBR event serves as a great opportunity to mutually review and validate adherence to the above 5 recommended
practice recommendations regarding LOE. The NDIA IBR guide [11] provides more information regarding the
planning and conduct of these reviews.

REFERENCES

1. Earned Value Management Systems EIA-748-D Intent Guide, NDIA, August 2016
2. Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG), Version 2.0, NDIA, June 22, 2012
3. GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, GAO-16-89G, December 2015.
4. DOD Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG), DCMA, October 2006
5. Earned Value Management Systems, EIA-748-D, GEIA, June 2013
6. Interpretive Guide to the Evaluation/Demonstration Review Checklist for C/SCSC (Appendix E, Joint
Implementation Guide), Air Force Institute of Technology, September 1991. [Also referred to as the Bowman
Guide]
7. NDIA Planning and Scheduling Excellence guide v4.0, NDIA, September, 2019
8. AACE International, Recommended Practice 10S-90 Cost Engineering Terminology, AACE International,
Morgantown, WV, (latest revision).
9. H. L. Stephenson, Ed., Total Cost Management Framework: An Integrated Approach to Portfolio, Program and
Project Management, 2nd ed., Morgantown, WV: AACE International, Latest revision.
10. R. Stratton, "The Earned Value Management Maturity Model", Barrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006.
11. NDIA Guide to the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) v3.0, NDIA, September 2019

CONTRIBUTORS

Disclaimer: The content provided by the contributors to this recommended practice is their own and does not
necessarily reflect that of their employers, unless otherwise stated.

August 13, 2020 Revision:

Noah J. Ashbaugh (Primary Contributor)
Dave Ingalls, EVP (Primary Contributor)
Dan Melamed, CCP EVP

October 24, 2014 Revision:

Thomas W. Jaeger, EVP (Primary Contributor)
Robert Loop, EVP PSP
Dan Melamed, CCP EVP
Richard C. Plumery, EVP

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.