Air Force Integrated Baseline
Review (IBR) Process Guide
Version 3.0 20 September 2012
This is a process guide for performing incremental Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs). The document
details the process and contains sample forms and templates to plan and execute an incremental IBR.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
1 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Contents
Air Force Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Process ................................................................................... 4
1. Background Information ................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Organization of Document ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2. Purpose and Benefits of IBR ..................................................................................................... 4
1.3. Current IBR Guidance and Process Documentation ................................................................. 6
2. Introduction to Revised Air Force Process ....................................................................................... 7
2.1. Objectives of the Revised Air Force Process ............................................................................ 7
2.2. Incremental / Phased Approach ................................................................................................ 7
2.3. Benefits of Revised Air Force Process .................................................................................... 11
3. Sequential Description of IBR Activities ........................................................................................ 12
3.1. RFP Preparation / Pre-Award Activities ................................................................................. 12
3.2. Immediate Post Award Activities ........................................................................................... 16
3.3. IBR Phase I Artifact Quality and Data Integration ................................................................. 18
3.4. IBR Phase II – CAM and Business Office Discussions .......................................................... 20
3.5. IBR Exit Briefing and Follow-up ............................................................................................ 23
4. Detailed / Specific IBR Procedures ................................................................................................ 27
4.1. Organizing the Air Force IBR Team ....................................................................................... 27
4.2. Scoping the Performance Measurement Baseline ................................................................... 27
4.3. Training Throughout the IBR Process .................................................................................... 28
4.4. Artifact Adjustment During the IBR Process .......................................................................... 29
4.5. Integrating IBR Identified Risks into Program Risk Management ......................................... 30
4.6. Treatment of Opportunities ..................................................................................................... 32
4.7. Managing the Air Force IBR Process ..................................................................................... 33
4.7.1. Documentation Requirements ............................................................................................. 33
4.7.2. IBR Scoring ........................................................................................................................ 33
5. Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 39
Integrated Baseline Review Process
2 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6. Templates and Samples (Appendices) ............................................................................................ 40
6.1. Sample IBR Schedule (MS Project File) ................................................................................ 41
6.2. Sample IBR Program Event for IMP ...................................................................................... 42
6.3. Sample Notification Letter ...................................................................................................... 43
6.4. Sample Artifact List ................................................................................................................ 44
6.5. Sample Data Call Request ....................................................................................................... 50
6.6. Sample Document Trace Narratives, Integration Proofs and Mapping .................................. 52
6.7. Sample Readiness Review Template ...................................................................................... 59
6.8. Sample Business Office / CAM Discussion Questions ........................................................... 60
6.9. Sample CAM Checklist .......................................................................................................... 65
6.10. Sample CAM Scoring Criteria ............................................................................................ 68
6.11. Sample CAM Discussion Summary ................................................................................... 74
6.12. Sample Action Tracker / Sample Action item List ............................................................. 76
6.13. Sample IBR Exit Briefing ................................................................................................... 77
6.14. Sample Memo for the Record ............................................................................................. 79
6.15. Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ 80
Integrated Baseline Review Process
3 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Document Configuration Management Log
Versions
Content Summary / Change Description
1.0 - 31 March 2011
Initial Breakout of the IBR Process Document into separate volumes
(Process Document and Workbook Guide) Pending Changes – Update to
reflect the pilot process.
1.1 - 13 May 2011
Update of Document to make changes necessary to complete the pilot
process. Pending Change – Document will be completely revised
following feedback from the initial pilot
2.0 - 12 January 2012
Update of Document and templates to reflect lessons learned from pilot
and to create a single document with templates and samples and eliminate
the workbook. Pending Change – Updates from users.
3.0 – 20 September
2012
Update document for lessons learned in tailoring artifacts, artifact
integration, and risk management interfaces.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
4 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Air Force Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Process
1. Background Information
This document has been approved for, but not mandated for use. Please contact SAF/AQXC prior to use
and provide feedback from process use. This document incorporates revisions resulting from the initial
pilot.
The IBR process began a pilot in late March 2011 on the KC-46 Tanker Program. SAF/AQXC personnel
(authors of the process) were acting as advisors to the KC-46 Program Office as they went through this
process. In August 2011, the IBR pilot was completed. The incremental approach defined by this IBR
process was well received by both the contractor and Government Program Office. Several updates were
made to the process early in the process planning. The process originally drafted called for a number of
integration meetings organized by IBR risk area to validate the artifacts (documents) that define the
program baseline. Early planning indicated that some of the meetings could be consolidated into fewer
meetings. In addition, the integration of the five risk areas is now one process rather than individual
integration meetings. The IBR process has two phases. The first phase, concentrates on the documents
that represent the baseline, and the second phase focuses on contractor business office and Control
Account Manager (CAM) / Integrated Product Team (IPT) Lead discussions to ensure participants have a
thorough understanding of the program baseline.
The number of artifacts and integration points in the original IBR process were considerable. During early
planning, some artifacts were consolidated with their parent documents, such as including the Critical
Path as part of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) rather than a separate document. The current
number of artifacts has been reduced depending upon the acquisition phase of the program. A draft MS
Excel Workbook was provided with the original draft. The Workbook is replaced by a series of templates
and sample documents provided as appendices to this document.
This document will be updated based on the feedback from other users.
1.1. Organization of Document
This document contains several major sections:
Section 1 – Provides background and overview information
Section 2 – Provides an introduction to the Revised Air Force IBR Process
Section 3 – Provides a sequential description of IBR activities
Section 4 – Provides detailed, specific IBR procedures
Section 5 – Provides process summary
Section 6 – Provides templates and sample forms for executing an IBR
1.2. Purpose and Benefits of IBR
The IBR is an essential program management tool for identifying, quantifying, and mitigating risks when
executing complex weapons system and information technology projects. The IBR concept was
Integrated Baseline Review Process
5 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
developed in 1993 and published in DoD 5000.2-R due to a growing recognition within the Department
of Defense that unrealistic contract baselines were established, leading to significant cost and schedule
overruns and / or under-performance on technical objectives.
The IBR’s purpose is to develop a common understanding between the Air Force Program Management
Office (PMO) and the contractor PMO regarding the project’s baseline and the project’s technical,
schedule, cost, resources, and management process risks and impacts. The PMO cannot reduce risks
unless it first identifies them. The IBR helps to identify risks and opportunities and provides a means for
assessing their severity in a standardized and transparent fashion. The PMO and other stakeholders then
use the IBR’s results to make management decisions that consider cost, schedule, and technical tradeoffs.
These decisions include re-defining the program requirements or objectives, developing risk handling
plans, prioritizing where and when to apply resources, and other means to achieve an executable and
realistic program baseline.
Historically, IBRs were conducted without regard for a standard process. The lack of a quantifiable and
repeatable IBR process has resulted in inconsistent execution across the Air Force. This guide is a metrics
based approach designed to:
Standardize the rigor that is required in an IBR
Increase program performance through a standard IBR process
Be able to compare IBRs results between programs
Provide cost effective tools to aid the process
This document provides a standardized process for planning and conducting IBRs across the Air Force
enterprise. It establishes a disciplined approach to identifying and quantifying the risks and opportunities
inherent in Contractor performance plans and aligns the IBR process with established Air Force and
Department of Defense instructions and guidance.
Perhaps more importantly, this updated process and new instruction aims to streamline, simplify, and
focus the program team on building a meaningful, achievable, and truly integrated baseline that helps
identify program execution risks and opportunities early enough to enable effective course corrections.
The new instruction promotes Government and industry working collaboratively from the pre-contract
award phase through IBR closeout. This instruction also supersedes existing Air Force IBR team
handbooks and guides and provides sample worksheets, checklists, questionnaires, and other tools that
help the Government and Contractor PMO through all phases of the IBR process.
Note: Hereafter within this document, the term PMO refers to the joint Government and
Contractor program team. If a process or step specifically addresses a Government or
Contractor role or responsibility, then “Government” or “Contractor” is used
accordingly.
The benefits of this IBR process include:
A common understanding and quantification of program risks and opportunities
Integrated Baseline Review Process
6 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Early management insight into baseline planning assumptions and resources
Comparison of expectations, allowing differences to be addressed early in the planning phase
Correction of baseline planning errors and omissions
In-depth understanding of developing performance variances
Improved early warning of significant risks
Resource targeting to address challenges and handle risks
Mutual commitment by the Government and contractor PMOs to manage to the baseline
1.3. Current IBR Guidance and Process Documentation
IBRs are normally limited to cost and incentive contracts with an Earned Value Management
requirement. Department of Defense acquisition policy 48 CFR Parts 252 and 234, as flowed down to
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR)
subpart 234.203(2) and DFAR clause 252.234-7002 (May 2011) require conducting IBRs on all cost and
incentive contracts valued at $20M or greater. An IBR is also required on any subcontract, intra-
Government work agreement, or other agreement that meets or exceeds the $20M threshold for Earned
Value Management (EVM) implementation. The Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) DID,
DI-MGMT-81861 also lists the requirements for the performance of an IBR.
The IBR is not a one-time event or a single-point review. The program team conducts additional IBRs
when internal or external events significantly change a project’s baseline. These types of events include
changes to a project’s contract requirements or content, funding perturbations, or when a major milestone
occurs, such as moving from development to production. Additionally, IBRs are conducted whenever an
Over Target Baseline (OTB) or Over Target Schedule (OTS) is implemented.
The AF IBR Process Document presents an incremental approach to conducting the IBR. The DoD
Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG), October 2006 and NDIA IBR Guide,
September 2010 are two current documents that reflect a slightly different approach to conducting an IBR
from that proposed in this document. Both are guidance rather than compliance documents. Within the
Air Force, acquisition organizations should use this document as the principle guidance for conducting an
IBR.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
7 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
2. Introduction to Revised Air Force Process
This section of the document provides an overview of the incremental IBR process.
2.1. Objectives of the Revised Air Force Process
From an acquisition oversight perspective, the objective of this process is to provide a standardized
approach for conducting IBRs. IBRs are infrequently performed activities. As a result, few personnel
have experience with multiple IBRs. Using a standardized process across the Air Force acquisition
community will overcome that limited experience and reduce the amount of training required.
Similarly, the acquisition oversight organizations have a need to analyze IBR results and compare them
with program progress to determine the impact of IBRs. This is not possible with each acquisition
organization performing IBRs differently.
From a Program Management Office (PMO) perspective, the objective is to get an executable
Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) as soon as possible. A related objective is to ensure mutual
contractor / Government understanding of all the risks associated with the PMB. From a contractor’s
perspective, the joint collaborative efforts help the contractor understand the customer expectations better.
It also provides the contractor’s customer with insight to the methods and processes used to develop the
product.
A great portion of the IBR process is devoted to reviewing and evaluating data. Terms
used for data merit explanation. The term “artifact” is used to describe some information
that may or may not be a standalone document. One example of an artifact is the
program critical path that is displayed in the IMS. The term “document” refers to
elements of data that are standalone entities. The Contract Performance Report (CPR) or
Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) are documents. Several other terms for
data are used in this document. The term “deliverable” or “Contract Deliverable
Requirements List (CDRL) item” refers to data elements formally delivered from
contractor to Government as specified in the contract. The IMS is an example of a CDRL
item or deliverable. The final term “data call items” are items that are not deliverables
but needed for the IBR process. The Control Account Plan (CAP) is an example of a data
call item.
Some artifacts are assessed for quality in the IBR process. Others are vetted by other
processes (such as contract negotiations) are source documents for integration traces.
Some artifacts may be evaluated for quality (format and content) and evaluated as part of
integration traces to ensure the PMB is consistent across the family of program
documents. Some artifacts such as the Work Authorization Documents (WAD) are
available for use, as appropriate, in CAM discussions.
2.2. Incremental / Phased Approach
In a traditional IBR, some considered the IBR Exit Briefing the key deliverable of the IBR, but here the
IBR Exit Briefing is merely the culmination of a process. The process focuses on the quality and
integration of program documentation via a series of reviews or meetings that precede the IBR Exit
Briefing. These reviews are conducted by IBR phase and help the Government and contractor teams
Integrated Baseline Review Process
8 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
concentrate on the quality of contractual documentation and the five risk areas in a sequential manner.
The figure below (with notional timing) reflects the two phases of the IBR process.
IBR Phases
From the time the IBR process begins and through IBR Closeout, the team identifies, addresses, and
tracks actions. The IBR process also entails an assessment based on data call readiness; that is, the ability
of the Government and contractor teams to provide the necessary data in an adequate format (see section
3.3.1). Rather than wait for the interview portion later in the IBR process to find too many unanswered
questions or integration issues, the IBR process provides opportunity to address PMB quality and
integration issues early and throughout the process.
Note: The term “incremental IBR” is often used to reflect a series of IBRs at each point
where a significant amount of detailed planning occurs. As an example, an IBR is
conducted on the path from contract award to Preliminary Design Review (PDR).
Another IBR is conducted for the path from PDR to Critical Design Review (CDR). The
“incremental” nature of the process described herein is that the Government and
contractor teams are jointly participating / evolving the PMB. This process supports
incremental IBRs as described above.
The table below lists the major activities of this IBR Process and notional timing aspects, depicted as
calendar days in relation to Contract Award (CA).
Integrated Baseline Review Process
9 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Activity
Participants
Timing
Initial Meeting to Kick-off the IBR process
Government Agencies
CA-60d
Earned Value Management (EVM) Basics and Analysis
Training
Government Agencies
CA-30d
Contract Award
CA
Post Award Conference / Joint IBR Expectations to
introduce the IBR process
Government and
contractor
CA+15d
Notification / Call for data to determine preliminary
schedule and data call list
Government Agencies
CA+30d
IBR Process Walkthrough with Joint IBR Team to finalize
IBR schedule, artifact list and integration checks
Government and
contractor
CA+45d
Assign teams for each topic area
Government and
contractor
CA+45d
Begin Artifact Quality Assessments
Government and
contractor
CA+60d
Begin Data Integration Assessments
Government and
contractor
CA+70d
Begin Periodic Quality and Integration Progress Meetings
Government and
contractor
CA+77d
IBR Readiness Review to initiate CAM and Business
Office Discussions
Government and
contractor
CA+100d
IBR CAM Discussion Training
Government and
contractor
CA+105d
Begin CAM and Business Office discussions
Government and
contractor
CA+110d
IBR Readiness Decision to conduct IBR Exit Briefing
Government and
contractor
CA+130d
Formal conduct of the IBR Exit Briefing
Government and
Contractor
CA+145d
Issue coordinated IBR Report
Government and
contractor
CA+155d
Integrated Baseline Review Process
10 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Activity
Participants
Timing
Complete critical open action items and declare IBR
complete
contractor
CA+155 to
CA+180
Major IBR Activities
The chart below shows the relationship of the various IBR activities.
Form Govt
IBR Team
Govt IBR
Team
Orientation
Initial
Supplier
Interface
Meeting
Form Joint
IBR Team
Joint IBR
Team
Training
(Process)
Define
Artifact
Quality &
Integration
Traces
IPT # 1
Artifact
Quality &
Traces
IPT # 2
Artifact
Quality &
Traces
IPT # 3
Artifact
Quality &
Traces
IPT #N
Artifact
Quality &
Traces
IBR Data
Readiness
Review
Joint IBR
Team
Training
(Discussion)
Contractor
BMO
Discussion
CAM
Discussion
Session # 1
CAM
Discussion
Session # 2
CAM
Discussion
Session # n
Phase II
Status
Review
Data Improvement Efforts
CAM Improvement Efforts
IBR Exit
Briefing
Top Level IBR Process Flow
Integrated Baseline Review Process
11 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
2.3. Benefits of Revised Air Force Process
The table below compares the differences between the current single event IBR and an incremental IBR
process.
Transformed IBR Process
Focused on program execution risks and
opportunities
Risk topic areas with standard artifacts
Discussions based on risk areas
Focus on control account risks and
performance measurement baseline
One Government and one contractor focal
point for each artifact and integration trace
Fewer discussions with standard formats and
clear expectations
Consistent discussion focused on risk in the
PMB
Action Tracker Report with specific actions
by function
Flexible / tailorable IBR depending on phase,
size, complexity of program
Consistent, clear expectations and standard
methodologies
Transparent, clearly defined guidelines
IBR Exit Briefing is anti-climactic; merely a
final assessment step
IBR Go / No-Go assures when IBR is
conducted the results are meaningful
Joint contractor / Government Assessment
Traditional versus Transformed IBR Process
Integrated Baseline Review Process
12 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
3. Sequential Description of IBR Activities
This section walks through the IBR process chronologically beginning with a Request for Proposal (RFP)
preparation and culminating with the declaration of IBR completion.
3.1. RFP Preparation / Pre-Award Activities
RFP Preparation and Pre-Award activities begin when the Government identifies a requirement for a
Request for Proposal or Quote (RFP or RFQ) solicitation with an EVM requirement. The incremental
nature of this IBR proceeds more smoothly if RFP documents reflect this process. Tailor sections of the
RFP to reflect the IBR conduct. Some programs find it helpful to write a short concept of operations
(CONOPS) about how they execute the contract from an EVM perspective. That document helps to
identify contract documents tailored for the IBR and program execution. The chart below shows potential
RFP tailoring for the IBR.
Tailor IBR
Event in IMP
Tailor IPMR /
IMS CDRL /
DID for
CONOPS
Tailor SOW for
IBR process &
CONOPS
Tailor IPMR /
CPR CDRL /
DID for
CONOPS
Release RFP
Respond to
bidder
questions on
IBR process
Evaluate
Proposal
IBR Process
Document
Develop EVM
Program
Execution
CONOPS
Pre-award Activities
Integrated Baseline Review Process
13 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
3.1.1. RFP Document Tailoring for IBR
The Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS) should include a description of
the incremental nature of the IBR process and refer to the Air Force IBR Process Document for guidance.
Consider adding SOW wording to require the contractor to support requests for non-CDRL items as part
of the IBR data call.
Note: Statement of Work (SOW) and Performance Work Statement (PWS) are two terms
used to define the scope of work for the contractor. Where SOW is used in the document
it refers to SOW or PWS as applicable.
The contract deliverables should be consistent with the incremental schedule of the IBR. The delivery
schedule of PMB defining documents (IMS, CPR, and IPMR) should be consistent with the preliminary
IBR schedule. The IMS is especially important as it reflects the contractual SOW and is the primary
instrument used to determine project status and IMS, CPR, and IPMR CDRL reporting. The Air Force
maintains processes and tools to assess the contractor IMS and provide essential feedback to improve this
critical deliverable. Granularity requirements (i.e. activity duration limits) should be included in the SOW
or tailored Data Item Description to ensure that the Government gets the visibility needed to manage the
program. Consider making limits on rolling wave planning, such as requiring a minimum of the first year
from establishment of the PMB to be detail planned (no planning packages) or detailed planning to a
specified program event.
On large complex programs, developing the IMS may be a driving document for the IBR schedule. It is
common to take up to four months after contract award to develop a credible IMS. Compare the draft IBR
schedule with the deliverables schedule proposed in the RFP to ensure they allow for an incremental IBR.
When an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) is included in the RFP, adjust the Events, Accomplishments and
Criteria to reflect this IBR process. A sample template for the IBR Program Event is contained in Section
6.2.
Tailor the CPR / IPMR Data Item Description (DID) to ensure the CPR / IPMR provides the appropriate
level of visibility. Specify the level of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) that the contractor reports
on the CPR / IPMR. A review of MIL-STD–881 helps the Government PMO make this determination as
contractors use this as guidance when preparing the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS).
3.1.2. IBR Process in Blended Contract Environments
There may be cases where EVM is not flowed from the prime contractor to a number of suppliers. This is
most common where suppliers are providing goods or services at a Firm Fixed Price. The contract EVM
clauses in the contract specify when EVM is to be flowed down to suppliers. Remember to flow EVM
down to any non-US subcontractors, if EVM is required per the contract clauses.
When there is no flow down of EVM, a supplier does not have to support an IBR unless otherwise
specified in a contract clause or SOW. In this case, it is the prime contractor’s responsibility to get the
supplier information necessary to establish the PMB and identify any risks associated with executing to
that baseline. During the IBR, the prime contractor CAM that has responsibility for that supplier must be
able to address each of the risk area topics pertaining to that supplier. This means the CAM must be able
Integrated Baseline Review Process
14 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
to explain the supplier’s role in the program describing related items in technical, schedule, resources,
costs, and management processes for all risks.
Large portions of the PMB may be provided by suppliers without an EVM requirement. Add wording to
the SOW similar to that in the paragraph above and specify the visibility of supplier information required
in the IMS.
The term “blended contracts” can mean a combination of FFP and EV applicable Contract Line Item
Numbers CLINs in a contract or situations where subcontractors are not required to use EVM in a
contract where the prime is required to use EVM. In this document, the term is used relative to CLINs. In
a blended contract environment where a large percentage of the contract is Firm Fixed Price (FFP)
through suppliers, the use of multiple CLINs can help provide the granularity needed for the EVM portion
of the contract. As an example, consider a case where 50% of the contract effort is performed by a single
supplier with a FFP purchase agreement. On the CPR, this supplier’s Budgeted Cost of Work Performed
(BCWP) and Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) would always be equal and could distort program
level Cost Performance Index (CPI) calculations. Having this supplier’s work scope as a separate CLIN
and having separate CPRs or IPMRs for different CLINs would prevent this distortion.
See Section 4.2 Scoping the Performance Measurement Baseline for additional discussion of this subject.
3.1.3. Definition of Roles and Responsibilities
Definitions of roles and responsibilities for EVM and the IBR should be determined prior to award. The
PMO team should understand the roles and responsibilities defined below. After award, communicate the
roles and responsibilities to the contractor through the SOW or Post Award Conferences, Program Startup
Workshops, or other meetings. Several organization and individual roles and responsibilities are defined
below.
3.1.3.1. IBR Roles (Government and contractor )
Program Managers (PM) (Government and contractor) The Government PM owns and leads the IBR
process. The contractor PM is a co-leader of the IBR process but final decision authority rests with the
Government PM. The PMs ensure the program team gives necessary priority and dedication to prepare
for, conduct, and support follow-up for each activity. They help facilitate the various sessions and reviews
by requiring attendance, holding the team to the rules of engagement, and adhering to agendas.
Government and contractor PMs assign the panel of key program team members and external experts (if
required) who help conduct the IBR and document the formal IBR results / assessment.
IBR Integrators (Government and contractor) The Government PM selects the Government IBR
Integrator with the following characteristics:
The Integrators have a good perspective of integration (able to see the big picture of how
things fit together, how systems, subsystems, data, work, and the teams integrate).
A strong program knowledge and cost / schedule background is essential.
Technical knowledge is a plus.
The contractor PM selects the contractor IBR Integrator. These pivotal roles require individuals who are
organized, detail-oriented, objective, and respected by the program team. The two IBR Integrators remain
in their roles to provide continuity and consistency throughout the IBR process as much as practical. The
two IBR Integrators run the various meetings. This includes handling logistics, sending invitations,
Integrated Baseline Review Process
15 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
conducting the meetings, and managing follow-up tasks. They ensure the CAMs understand their IBR
roles and responsibilities and facilitate guest speakers that may conduct training. The Government IBR
Integrator maintains the master data set for the IBR. The IBR Integrators compile actions, risks,
opportunities, and questions as submitted.
Artifact Experts (Government and contractor) PMs and the IBR Integrators assign one Government
and one contractor expert for each artifact. These individuals are experts or expected to become experts
for their respective artifacts. They perform data trace presentations and help guide the team to evaluate
integration and quality aspects of the artifacts. They explore and report on the artifact deficiencies with
objectivity, frankness, and an aim toward improving the artifact for the betterment of the program. These
identified deficiencies may develop into actions. Contractor Artifact Experts help CAMs determine the
level of artifact integration within their Control Account documents.
See Section 4.1, Organizing the Air Force IBR Team.
3.1.3.2. Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)Role
DCMA participates as an invited member of the Government IBR team. Specific roles and
responsibilities are defined based on availability of skills and experience. DCMA participation gives them
a better understanding of the program and the PMB. It also makes clear that the PMO priority is
establishing a credible PMB and understanding the risks rather than EVMS compliance. DCMA
participation also allows the contractor to provide additional insight into contractor methods and
procedures.
The origin of the IBR is in Earned Value Management. The IBR requirement began in 1993 based on the
application of EVM in the contract. This situation sometimes causes confusion in document quality
evaluations and identification of EVMS compliance issues.
While many of the risk areas touch EVM artifacts, the focus of this IBR process is not EVMS
compliance. Review artifacts considered EVMS documents for quality with an emphasis on the complete
and accurate identification of the PMB and the risks associated with meeting the program objectives.
If, in the performance of the AF IBR Process, significant potential EVMS compliance discrepancies are
discovered, the program office can document these potential discrepancies as risks in the appropriate risk
categories and provide the observations to DCMA. DCMA can further investigate the matter as part of
their surveillance role.
3.1.3.3. Supplier Roles in an IBR
As EVM flows down from the prime contractor to subcontractors / suppliers (hereafter referred to as
suppliers), the requirement for Supplier IBRs is established. That requirement may be satisfied in two
ways. The prime contractor and Government PM may agree to have a consolidated IBR and the supplier’s
portion of the PMB is addressed as part of the overall program. Another option is to conduct separate
Supplier IBRs led by the prime contractor PM with participation from the Government PMO. This section
discusses both approaches.
The Government PM and the prime contractor may agree to have a consolidated IBR. This is often the
choice when the prime contractor is using the “One Team” concept. Under this concept, suppliers CAMs
perform at the same level as prime contractor CAMs. The contractor team appears as one contract with
one set of EVMS deliverables to the Government Program Office. This concept is frequently used when
the suppliers are business units of the prime contractor.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
16 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Under the “One Team” concept, the supplier’s portions are awarded almost simultaneously with the prime
award, enabling the incremental approach (maturing artifacts, integration and risk identification) of this
IBR process to succeed. This IBR process focuses on the PMB and the risks associated with executing the
program. EVMS compliance down through the suppliers is the responsibility of DCMA, alleviating this
duty from the IBR team. As a result, under this “One Team” approach the number of artifacts should not
be significantly increased. For example, a supplier’s effort can normally be identified as a specific section
of the prime contracts SOW and WBS.
When EVM is flowed down to suppliers, the Prime contractor and Government PM may elect to conduct
separate IBRs for the suppliers instead of a consolidated IBR. In this approach, the suppliers deliver a set
of EVMS artifacts to the prime who, after consolidating the data into the prime’s EVMS artifacts,
forwards the supplier artifacts to the Government.
From a risk management perspective, it is desirable to complete any separate supplier IBRs and Integrated
Risk Assessments (IRA), if applicable, before finalizing the prime contract IBR. That way all risks
identified at the lower level can be flowed into the top level IBR. In some cases, the supplier’s contracts
may not be awarded simultaneously with the prime contract. If there is a delay of several months, it may
not be possible to execute the supplier IBR using the approach described in this process document. It may
be necessary, due to timing, to revert to the traditional IBR approach (last minute data call and
compressed IBR activities) for suppliers.
When conducting the supplier IBR is not possible within the period of the Prime contractor’s IBR, then
the risks associated with that supplier’s PMB is addressed in the Prime contractor IBR. As a minimum,
the inability to perform the supplier IBR prior to the completion of the prime IBR should be reflected in
each applicable risk area (schedule, cost, technical, resources, and management processes). See also
section 4.2; Scoping the Performance Measurement Baseline.
3.2. Immediate Post Award Activities
Having completed the pre-award activities, the next efforts are associated with jointly preparing the plans
and assigning individual roles and responsibilities to conduct the IBR.
3.2.1. IBR Process Introduction and Detailed Planning
Soon (fifteen to thirty days) after contract award, the Government PMO team should meet with the
contractor team to introduce the IBR process in detail and plan the execution of the IBR. The introduction
should address roles and responsibilities, the IBR phases, artifact selection / integration, and CAM
selection criteria for Phase II discussions. If formal notification of the IBR is appropriate, a notification
letter may be prepared. Section 6.3 contains a sample notification letter. If there is a face-to-face meeting
such as at a Program Startup Workshop, joint agreement may be reached on the following topics.
3.2.1.1. Artifact Identification
Section 6.4 of this document contains a Sample Artifact List. This is a list of the most common artifacts
used in IBRs across a variety of acquisition phases. Consider including artifacts from the artifacts list, for
the IBR if they define the PMB or flow the PMB down to the execution level (control account). The
program management triangle with technical, schedule, and cost sides is a good representation of the
PMB.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
17 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
The technical side represents the requirements for the product or services created. The schedule side
represents the activities, durations, and sequence of work. The cost (resource) side represents the various
assets used to create the product or services. The artifacts selected represent all three sides. The Joint IBR
team should review this sample artifact list and decide which artifacts are applicable for this IBR.
Following that step, they should further identify which documents are already “vetted” and not subject to
quality evaluation. They should also determine which artifacts are deliverables (CDRL items) and which
are non-CDRLs with delivery addressed in the data call list.
3.2.1.2. Data Call Identification
The artifacts examined for the IBR include deliverables (CDRL items), as well as non-CDRL items such
as control account plans, work authorizations, and other EVMS data elements. These non-CDRL items
are defined in the Sample Artifact List. Take time to ensure that all parties understand these data call
items, as contractor s and EVMS software often use different names and formats for these items. During
the review of the data call items, the team should note when these items are available. For example, work
authorization documents are often not finalized until after the baseline has been set.
3.2.1.3. Integration with Other Program Events
Depending upon the acquisition phase, the program structure and sequence of events, other program
events can be folded into the IBR, reducing or eliminating duplicate efforts. One example is the Systems
Requirements Review (SRR). This review duplicates some portions of the review of technical artifacts
and the trace of system requirements from an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) or Capability
Development Document (CDD) to System Requirement Document (SRD) or System Specification (SS).
Another example is the IRA. Results from an IRA may streamline the required SRA activities. The IBR
team should consider these other events in the scheduling of the IBR activities.
3.2.1.4. IBR Schedule Preparation
As the delivery dates for the CDRL and non-CDRL artifacts are finalized, the detailed IBR schedule can
be completed. A template in Microsoft Project is included in Section 6.1. A copy of the file in Microsoft
Project format is available from SAF/AQXC.
When preparing the schedule, the joint IBR team should include schedule margin in the plan so that
completion of the IBR within 180 days of contract award is possible. The schedule should be statused
weekly and available to all members of the IBR team.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
18 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
3.2.2. Joint IBR Team Assignment of Responsibilities
After agreeing on the IBR schedule, individuals are assigned specific roles and responsibilities. This
includes the Artifact Experts, as well as risk area leaders.
The EVMIG documents five risk areas for identifying IBR risks (technical, cost, schedule, resources, and
management processes). The IBR process in the EVMIG is organized around those risk areas so that
integration teams are formed for each of those five areas. Today, most major acquisition programs use the
IPT approach in both the Government and contractor organizations. In some cases, the Government and
contractor IPT align exactly and joint IPTs are easily formed. The five risk areas do not align perfectly to
the IPT structures and may create some confusion in the initial organization of the IBR process. The Joint
IBR Team may elect to align responsibilities by IPTs, but retain reporting by the EVMIG risk areas.
3.3. IBR Phase I Artifact Quality and Data Integration
After the IBR team is organized and the IBR schedule developed, Phase I begins. Phase I is dedicated to
evaluating artifact quality and assessing data integration. Initial steps define the standards for measuring
the artifact quality and data integration. The artifacts and data integration points are then assigned to
teams and evaluated.
3.3.1. Jointly Defining Artifact Quality
During the initial post award activities, artifacts are identified for quality evaluation. The next step is joint
determination of the standard or quality proofs for each artifact. A number of quality standards may be
established for the artifacts:
Adequate quality of key program documentation may be defined as complying with contractual
CDRL requirements, as well as any DIDs referenced in the applicable CDRL.
Where a CDRL does not exist, the quality of a document can be established based on the
informed and experienced judgment of the document’s Artifact Experts, considering
characteristics such as document clarity, completeness, and conformance to common industry
standards.
Establishing the quality of a document should take into account if it has sufficient data elements
for the standard cross-documentation data traces defined in this document.
Section 6.4 contains a list of common artifacts, their most appropriate risk or IPT category and a narrative
description of desired artifact quality. The IBR team should review and update this list for their particular
program. It is extremely important that the definition of artifact quality standards are agreed to by both
contractor and Government IBR teams. Taking the time to reach consensus on these proofs early in the
process avoids downstream confusion and helps keep the process on track.
In addition to “deliverable” artifacts, the IBR also requires supporting documents. These documents are
normally requested through a data call letter. To avoid incorrect interpretations, the data call letter for
these other artifacts should contain enough definition that the contractor can readily determine the format,
content, and acceptability of each requested data item. A sample data call request is contained in Section
6.5.
Document quality should receive one of these scores: (1) Adequate Quality: Quality criteria are met.
There are no open action items regarding quality aspects or (2) Inadequate Quality: Quality criteria are
Integrated Baseline Review Process
19 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
not met. Artifacts judged to have inadequate quality should have associated action items. The status and
scoring of artifacts can be maintained by adding a scoring column to the artifact list spreadsheet.
It is important to maintain the current artifact scoring during the incremental IBR process. As corrective
actions are taken, an artifact status may move from “Inadequate” to “Adequate.” The Government IBR
Integrator should maintain the current status / scoring of all artifacts.
3.3.2. Jointly Defining the Data Integration Proof Statements
Data traces verify the integrity of the baseline from Government source documentation through the
contractor baseline at all levels. Data traces may flow from top-level program requirement documents,
such as the CDD, through to control account work authorizations. Data integration proof statements
explain the order or flow of documentation, the purpose of the data trace, the scope, risk area or
applicable IPT, and the proofs. The relationship of program documentation may vary between programs.
The IBR teams must review and agree upon these data relationships to establish an accurate standard to
score the existing documentation through data traces. Section 6.6 contains a sample template reflecting
these relationships.
Data traces are scored as “Adequate” or “Inadequate.” Traces rated as inadequate should have
corresponding action items to restore the artifacts to an adequate rating. Common discoveries during
traces include:
Scope of work in SOW not assigned to any control account
Differences in work scope between SOW, WBS Dictionary, or Work Authorization
Work scheduled inconsistently to the time-phased budget for that work
Section 6.6 contains a list of common documentation traces. The IBR Team should use this table as a
starting point and refine it to match the particulars of their program.
3.3.3. Assigning and Evaluating Artifact Quality and Data Integration
After artifact quality standards and data integration proof statements have been finalized, the artifacts may
be assigned to teams for evaluation. Teams should periodically report evaluation status to the IBR
Integrator.
The AF IBR Process touches artifacts at least twice. The first review of an artifact is an assessment of its
quality. If the artifact is a contract deliverable, the contract including SOW, CDRL, and DID outline the
requirements for the artifact. Normally, an artifact that meets these requirements is considered to have
satisfactory quality. Sometimes during an IBR, additional standards may be established for an artifact,
such as meeting the DCMA 14 Point Assessment Criteria for an IMS. The higher standard may be
imposed to ensure that related activities like the Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) yields credible results.
As the teams evaluate the artifact quality and data integration, they should record any anomalies. This is
best accomplished with screenshots accompanied by a written description of the anomaly. This helps the
artifact owner to understand what corrections are required. When one or more anomalies represent a
significant update or correction that needs to be made, an action item should be prepared and forwarded to
the IBR Integrator. The report should state clearly, what standard or proof is not met, provide an example,
and include the recommended corrective action. The IBR Integrator keeps a master list of the action
items. If the anomaly is sufficiently severe, turn the anomaly into a risk for determining the severity of
Integrated Baseline Review Process
20 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
consequence. Since the evaluation team is composed of both contractor and Government personnel,
feedback from the evaluation to the organization responsible for correcting the artifact should be
immediate.
There may be a direct relationship between artifact quality and data integration. If artifact quality is not
acceptable and the trace team is unaware of the documented quality issues, the trace may not be accurate
or it may require repeating the trace after artifact revision. Since different personnel may be assessing an
artifact at the same time (data quality and integration trace), it is recommended that the IBR Integrator
hold a weekly status review for all IBR team members.
3.3.4. Readiness Review for Transition to Phase II
As artifact quality and data integration evaluations are concluding, the team should be preparing for a
Readiness Review. The purpose of the Readiness Review is to present the status of Phase I of the IBR to
both Government and contractor PMs and gain approval to begin Phase II, the CAM and Business Office
discussions.
The Readiness Review should include a review of all artifact quality and data integration checks. The
review should also include a review of all action items, both those closed as well as any items still open.
Section 6.7 contains a sample Readiness Review briefing outline.
Some artifacts may not be adequate by the time of the Readiness Review. In this case, the IBR leadership
may elect to continue artifact improvements and initiate the second phase of the IBR (CAM Discussions)
or delay Phase II. This decision should consider whether the artifacts condition would affect or invalidate
the discussions of control account details.
3.4. IBR Phase II – CAM and Business Office Discussions
After receiving a go-ahead from the IBR leadership, the second phase of the IBR process begins. During
this phase, Business Office and CAM discussions are conducted. Business Office discussions focus on the
management processes used by the contractor to implement and manage the program using Earned Value.
The management processes discussed should include those pertaining to CAM roles and responsibilities.
There are two advantages to having separate Business Office discussions. First, the processes and
procedures provide a background for the CAM discussions. Second, the discussions do not need to be
repeated during the CAM discussions, allowing the focus to be on control account-related risks. During
the Business Office discussions, the contractor explains any program unique EVMS procedures, as well
as a review of the information systems / software used for EVM.
3.4.1. Business Office Discussion Topics
The following are potential topics for Business Office discussions:
Work authorization process and common documentation
Contract Budget Base (CBB) Log and the Management Reserve (MR) /Undistributed Budget
(UB) guidance
How routine EVM information is developed and maintained
Introduction to the IMS, including integration of suppliers / contractor data
How subcontracts /suppliers are managed
Integrated Baseline Review Process
21 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Role of Program Control and CAM
How the PMB Status is maintained
3.4.2. Control Account / CAM Selection Criteria
The CAM selection criteria are discussed when the IBR process is originally introduced to the contractor.
At this point, the criteria are applied in the selection of control accounts and CAMs for discussions. The
selection criteria recommended are high dollar value control accounts, control accounts on the critical
path, and control accounts associated with high-risk events. A combination of the Responsibility
Assignment Matrix (RAM), IMS, and Risk Register are used for the CAM selection process. In addition,
a copy of the dollarized RAM will assist with the control account selection.
3.4.2.1. Percent of PMB Sampled
The EVMIG recommends selection of at least 80% of the PMB value for review. The sampling for an
IBR has been interpreted in various ways by IBR teams in the past. Some teams use PMB dollars to
calculate the recommended percentage for sampling. Others use the number of control accounts. Some
use direct labor hours. The guidance in the EVMIG is not specific on how the percentage should be
calculated. Additionally, the EVMIG implies that FFP subcontracts and FFP material items may be
excluded from selection. Control Accounts that are 100 percent LOE and properly removed from the
critical or driving paths in the IMS are also candidates for exclusion.
CAMs are often assigned a number of control accounts. Individual CAM discussions tend to focus on the
high or medium-risk control accounts to get a satisfactory amount of detail during the limited time
available for discussions. This raises the question whether credit should be taken for all CAM control
accounts when only one or two control accounts are discussed.
This IBR process recommends the following steps to select control accounts (that then determine CAMs)
for discussion sessions.
Identify and select all control accounts with a program level of medium or high risk, based on
probability multiplied by consequence.
Identify and select all control accounts on the current program critical path.
Remove the previously selected control accounts from consideration and select the next five to
ten highest dollar value control accounts.
Remove all the previously selected control accounts from consideration and have each
Government Program IPT select one control account from the remaining list that concerns them
the most based on the five IBR risk areas (technical, cost, schedule, resources, and management
processes).
The combination of the incremental IBR process with a quality review of artifacts, and document traces
provides the IBR team more insight to potential problems than a single event IBR. This additional insight
reduces the need to “cover the waterfront” with a high percentage of control accounts sampled.
3.4.3. Scheduling and Conducting Discussions
Depending on the program size, complexity, number of CAMs, number of control accounts, and risks, the
CAM discussions are often conducted using one of these options:
Integrated Baseline Review Process
22 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Option 1: Individual CAM Discussions. Present CAMs one at a time (optionally including Government
and contractor IPTs and IBR stakeholders) to discuss the CAM's understanding of their area of
responsibility and to determine the risk levels associated with accomplishing the work scope of their
control accounts within cost and schedule. Direct the questions to individual CAMs. The CAMs should
demonstrate control account ownership, adequate span of control, and ability to understand and act on the
data to establish and execute the control account baseline. In some cases, allow CAMs to have support
staff such as planners, schedulers, or analysts from other disciplines (e.g., finance, earned value,
scheduling, or supply chain management) in attendance. CAM support staff may help answer some
questions but the CAM must demonstrate overall ownership and understanding of their control accounts.
Option 2: Round Table Discussions. Round table discussions include a gathering of a group of CAMs
(optionally including Government and contractor IPTs and IBR stakeholders) to discuss the CAMs’
understanding of their area of responsibility and to determine the risk levels associated with
accomplishing the program baseline within cost and schedule. This grouping of CAMs is normally
focused on a common WBS element such as Guidance and Navigation. Questions are directed to
individual CAMs and the CAMs respond in this public forum. Specific CAM knowledge and the
interdependencies among control accounts are explored during these discussions. If the program has a
significantly large number of CAMs, round table discussions may be divided into manageable subgroups
to facilitate thorough discussions. Round table discussions may require more preparation time, including a
dry run or demonstration to ensure that the flow of artifacts, questions, and data traces transition smoothly
and that enough time is allocated for the sessions.
Option 3: Combination of Options 1 and 2, above. The PMs and IBR Integrators can use a mix of both
techniques to assess CAM knowledge, data integration, and data quality.
3.4.4. CAM Questions and Discussion Topics
The IBR incremental process with artifact quality evaluations, data integration traces, and a Business
Office discussion session enable CAM discussions to focus on identifying risks at the control account
level. Section 6.8 provides a number of questions that may be used during the discussion sessions.
Additionally, Section 6.9 provides a CAM checklist. This checklist is a detailed list addressing CAM
knowledge, skills, and responsibilities. It should be shared with the CAMs prior to discussion sessions
and may be used by interviewers to prompt questions.
Occasionally IBR teams may attempt to limit CAM discussions due to time constraints or lists of
questions. The purpose of the IBR is a joint understanding of all risks associated with executing the PMB.
CAM and Business Office discussions are allowed to “deep dive” into any area that appears to contain
risks to program execution. This point needs to be made clear prior to any discussions.
3.4.5. CAM Scoring and Recording of Discussions
The IBR CAM discussions are assessed using a three-point scale; 1 for high risk, 2 for medium risk, and 3
for low risk. The scoring captures systemic issues and be used for the overall IBR assessment. Those
areas found to be scored as inadequate (1 or 2) are documented as actions and monitored through IBR
close out. The scoring criteria are contained in Section 6.10 and contain potential ratings for each of the
five risk areas (technical, schedule, cost, resources, and management processes).
Following each CAM discussion, the IBR team should convene to review observations and reach
consensus regarding any action items. Ideally, this session takes place the same day as the discussion. The
Integrated Baseline Review Process
23 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Government IBR Integrator determines the level of collaboration based on the contractor’s participation
and demonstrated management approach.
If the IBR team discovers a serious concern, the IBR Integrator is responsible to ensure it is added to the
AF IBR Action Tracker and reported to the local DCMA or Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for
follow up.
A record of each CAM discussion should be prepared. The record should include:
General Information - CAM and Interviewers names, date of discussion, and control accounts
addressed
Summary by risk area
New / additional risks identified
Acton Items
Any Planned Follow Up
Summarize CAM discussion ratings at program level. The overall CAM discussions are rated Red,
Yellow, or Green for the categories of technical, schedule, cost, resources, and management processes.
For the overall scoring:
Green = 2.6 or greater
Yellow = less than 2.5 and greater than 2.0
Red = 1.9 or less
3.4.5.1. Translation of CAM discussions into Risks and Action Items
The CAM discussion records provide a mechanism to ensure that individually identified risks and action
items are included into the overall IBR history and scoring. Overall scoring of CAM discussions are
recorded for each of the risk topic areas. CAM discussion ratings that are less than Green are expected to
have program level recommendations associated with them. As an example, consider that the average
Schedule rating for all CAM discussions is red and the most cited comment is that CAMs cannot
determine if they are on the critical path. Then a general recommendation or action item for CAM training
in scheduling theory and reading schedule reports may be appropriate.
A sample form for summarizing CAM and Business Office discussions is contained at Section 6.11.
At the end of the CAM discussions, the IBR team should be able to determine if the assembled contractor
team can effectively manage at the control account level and ensure that all significant risks are identified.
3.5. IBR Exit Briefing and Follow-up
The culmination of the IBR is an Exit Briefing. If the incremental IBR process has been well-exercised,
all significant risks have been identified, action items prepared, and all critical action items completed.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
24 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
3.5.1. Prerequisites for IBR Exit Briefing
The IBR incremental process places emphasis on completing action items by the two major review points
(Readiness Review and IBR Exit Briefing). Action items from quality assessments and integration traces
are expected to be completed by the Readiness Review Meeting (that initiates CAM discussions).
Similarly, action items from the CAM discussions are expected to be completed by the Exit Briefing. This
emphasis results in a minimum number of action items carried forward from the Exit Briefing.
3.5.2. IBR Exit Briefing Content
The IBR Event is a presentation led by the Government IBR Team that includes the following.
Top level review of the IBR results
Rating of risk areas
Review of open action items
Review of program-level risks
Review of the SRA for major milestones and program completion dates
Review of the IBR Event, Accomplishments, and Accomplishment Criteria, as depicted in the
IMP, as part of the Exit Briefing.
Section 6.13 contains a sample of an Exit Briefing.
3.5.3. PMB Approval – Criteria and Documentation
The IBR Program Event described in the IMP normally includes an Accomplishment Criteria for approval
of the PMB. This PMB approval is the Government acceptance that the PMB is well defined, achievable,
and the risks associated with its achievement understood by both contractor and Government teams.
The definition of the PMB is addressed by the artifact quality reviews and the data integration traces.
During Phase I of the IBR, the trace from requirements into detailed work packages that define the effort
necessary to satisfy all requirements is verified. In addition, achievability of the PMB is examined by
teams focusing on technical, schedule, cost, and resource aspects of the plan during this phase. The
understanding of risks is possible through artifact reviews, integration traces, and CAM discussions.
The PMB is the schedule for expenditure of resources at the control account level that reflects the scope
of the contract. The PMB is defined by several documents:
The IMS reflects the time sequencing of the contract scope
The Control Account Plan reflects the time phased budget by control account
The SOW reflects the scope of work to be performed
The requirements documents (e.g. SRD, Technical Requirements Document (TRD), Spec) reflect
the performance required of the product based on the scope of work
The IMP reflects the events, accomplishments, and criteria for the scope of work
Integrated Baseline Review Process
25 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Work Authorizations reflect the assignment of work to CAMs
Therefore, if there are discrepancies in the above documentation, the PMB may not be correctly defined.
If there are discrepancies in the definition between the documents, the flow from requirements to detailed
plans may not be correct. Phase I of the IBR process is focused on PMB definition, its completeness,
accuracy, and proper integration across the family of documents.
The decision for PMB approval will be made prior to the IBR Exit Briefing and the following questions
should be considered in determining if the PMB is adequately defined:
Is the entire scope of work included in the PMB?
Is the work sequenced and time-phased?
Are requirements well defined and either cross-referenced or flowed down to the control account
level?
Is there joint understanding between the contractor and Government teams on the definition of the
PMB?
The PMB should be reasonably achievable. Some deviation from the baseline is common in almost all
programs. However, when programs deviate significantly from the baseline, the benefits of Earned Value
Management diminish as the number and magnitude of variances grow. Eventually, a time and labor
intensive reprogramming may be required. For these reasons, the PMB should be reasonable and
achievable.
The following questions should be considered in determining if the PMB is achievable:
Are activities sequenced, as the work should be performed?
Are activities sequenced in the most effective and efficient manner?
Are adequate resources planned for the work scope?
Is the schedule margin consistent with the projected completion dates based on the SRA?
Is there adequate cost margin (Management Reserve) for the program risks identified to date?
Is the cost margin consistent with the schedule margin?
Is there cost margin beyond the risks identified to date?
Have rolling wave planning approaches limited detailed visibility of critical program events?
Are there peaks and valleys in staffing profiles that may be difficult to achieve?
Are the management processes in place adequate to identify risks / opportunities in a timely
manner?
Is the PMB consistent with prior contractor performance history?
Integrated Baseline Review Process
26 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Do both contractor and Government teams have the same understanding of program risks?
Based upon PMB definition and achievability, the PM makes the final decision to approve the PMB.
Approval of the PMB is not the same as IBR completion. The closure of the IBR is discussed in the
following section.
When the PMB is approved, normally the PM completes a Memo for the Record (MFR) to document that
the PMB has been approved. This additional documentation is appropriate since the PMB is manifest in a
wide variety of artifacts, some that are not approval deliverables. Section 6.14 contains a sample MFR.
The MFR may also address the closure of the IBR if the timing of the PMB approval and the IBR closure
are identical.
3.5.4. IBR Closure – Criteria and Documentation
The IBR is considered closed when all the accomplishment criteria for the IBR Program Event are met as
defined in the IMP. Normally the last item to be completed is the closing of any critical action items.
Critical action items are steps that must be completed to satisfactorily define the PMB, adjust the PMB to
make it achievable, or further define any potential risk events that are not yet included in the Risk
Register. Action items of less severity than critical may be categorized as “major” or “minor.”
At the IBR Exit Briefing conclusion, the action items have been reviewed and a schedule for the
completion of all open actions has been agreed to by the IBR Government and contractor Team.
Depending upon agreement between the DCMA Contract Management Office (CMO) and the
Government PMO, the local CMO may be responsible for monitoring the subsequent closeout of the
remaining actions (those not deemed critical action items). A monthly report updating the actions is sent
to the Government PMO. Upon completion of the actions, the local CMO documents the closeout in the
form of a report to the Government PMO. Alternatively, the Government PMO may monitor the closeout
of the remaining action items. In either case, the DCMA and Government PMO should maintain close
liaison until all IBR action items are complete.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
27 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
4. Detailed / Specific IBR Procedures
This section contains specific IBR procedures for topics that cut across the chronological description of
activities contained in Section 3.
4.1. Organizing the Air Force IBR Team
This incremental IBR process places different requirements on personnel than a compressed single IBR
event. It is advisable to have a core Air Force IBR Team that can devote a portion of their time to the IBR
from contract award through IBR closure. As the IBR progresses, other personnel can be included for
document quality evaluations, integration traces, and CAM discussions. The core team should minimally
include the IBR Integrator and representatives from Engineering, Finance, and Program Management
organizations. There may be consideration given to calling in advisors or subject matter experts (SMEs)
such as contracts, logistics and risk to augment the team where needed. Ideally, the core team members do
not rotate out during the IBR period to maintain continuity. It may be worthwhile for the contractor to
organize with an IBR core team.
4.2. Scoping the Performance Measurement Baseline
Scoping of the PMB, that is defining which portions of the contract that will be applicable to the IBR is
essential. PMB scoping needs to be done before artifact quality checks and artifact integration
evaluations began. The IBR team needs to have a sound understanding of the scope of the PMB as well
as the timing for the development of the PMB at the IBR evaluation level.
During the RFP preparation phase of the acquisition, the Government PMO will have a reasonable idea
how the program contract will be structured. This will certainly be clear at the prime contractor level.
The CLIN structure will define the portions of the contract that are applicable to Earned Value
Management. This will become the primary selection method for scoping the PMB. CLINs that are cost
plus or fixed price incentive types typically become part of the PMB.
When Earned Value Management is flowed down to the subcontractors, the basic scope of the PMB is
unchanged but the timing of its definition may be extended. Consider the example below:
Prime $10M
FFP CLIN
Prime $80M
FPIF CLIN
Prime $20M
T&M CLIN
Sub A $10M
FFP
Sub B $15M
FPIF
Sub C $20M
FPIF
Sub D $10M
T&M
Prime CA Sub A CA Sub B CA Sub C CA Sub D CA
January February March April May
Sample PMB Scope
Integrated Baseline Review Process
28 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
In the example above the prime contractor has three CLINs. Only the FPIF CLIN is applicable to EVM
and subsequently Earned Value Management. Beside the prime contractor’s direct efforts, there are four
subcontractors. Those subcontractors that are under the FPIF CLIN and meet the EVM thresholds will
require an IBR. Subcontractor C would be expected to have an IBR as well as the prime contractor. The
Prime contractor’s scope would be the entire 80M of effort in the FPIF CLIN (even though subcontracted
efforts are FFP). Subcontractor C would have an IBR covering the 20M FPIF effort.
4.3. Training Throughout the IBR Process
IBRs are infrequently performed activities. As a result, training is required for personnel participating in
an IBR. Not all participants are available throughout the IBR period so some training sessions may have
to be offered multiple times. Three distinct training sessions are appropriate. The first session orients
Government and contractor personnel to the IBR process and provides an EVM refresher. The second
session informs attendees about the specifics of Phase I and prepares the joint IBR team for those efforts.
This is normally a joint training session. The final session prepares the team for Business Office and
CAM discussions. The attendance necessary for this session includes Government and contractor
personnel participating as part of the IBR team in the discussion sessions.
An outline of recommended subject matter for each session is shown below. Note that some material is
repeated, as personnel may be joining the IBR team as the process unfolds.
IBR Orientation and EVM Refresher Training
o EVM Basics Refresher
EVM Background
WBS
Scheduling
Budgeting
EV Methods
EV Measurements
EV Reporting
o IBR Requirements / Timeline
o Overview of IBR Process
o IBR Roles / Responsibilities
o IBR Schedule / Next Steps
IBR Phase I Training
IBR Timeline
Overview of IBR Process
Integrated Baseline Review Process
29 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
IBR Roles / Responsibilities
Phase I Activities
o Artifact Quality Evaluations
o Integration Traces
Phase I Recording / Reporting / Scoring
Action Item Identification and Management
Readiness Review Preparation
IBR Phase II Training
IBR Timeline
Overview of IBR Process
IBR Roles / Responsibilities
Phase II Activities
o Business Office Discussions
o CAM Discussions
Preparations
Rules for Conduct
Phase II Recording / Reporting / Scoring
Action Item Identification and Management
IBR Exit Briefing Preparation
4.4. Artifact Adjustment During the IBR Process
Missing Artifacts - Artifacts for an IBR include those that define the PMB (scope and timing), the risks
and mitigations identified to date, as well as the management processes, procedures, and reports that will
be used to manage to the PMB in an Earned Value Management environment. It may be possible that
errors in program planning have created some holes in the minimum artifact set.
If essential artifacts are missing, this will normally be identified during the artifact selection process. For
example a RAM may be identified but not be available. There are two responses to missing artifacts; one
is to create the needed artifact using the data call request to the contractor as the requesting vehicle. A
second approach is to dissect the data elements needed that would be in the artifact and determine if one
or more other documents might provide that needed information. As an example, a PMO did not initiate a
Integrated Baseline Review Process
30 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
WBS or require the contractor to prepare a WBS deliverable. Rather a “baseline book” was prepared that
included the essential WBS index and WBS element descriptions.
The IBR team should seek alternatives to get all information required to define the PMB and its execution
processes. Where possible avoid requiring new artifacts when the information exists in one or more other
data sources.
Evolving Artifacts - Early in the IBR cycle, the IBR team identifies the artifacts and traces they think are
applicable for the IBR. The artifacts originally chosen for the quality evaluations and traces may change
during the IBR process. For example, an Integrated Test Matrix that becomes available later may be a
better document to trace test plans from requirements to activities in the IMS. Thus, the IBR team needs
to stay flexible during the process.
During the incremental process of the IBR, CAM discussions may be spaced over a period of several
weeks. In addition, the contractor may be updating the IMS weekly and the CPR / IPMR may be updated
during this time. This is a different situation from a single event IBR where a specific month end set of
artifacts are established as the standard for all evaluations. In the incremental process, discussing the
current artifact places additional burdens on the Government team, as they have to continually update
their reference artifacts. It is less burdensome on the contractor team since CAM duties are always
focused on updating and analyzing the latest artifacts.
The incremental process is designed to yield the best PMB possible with complete understanding by both
Government and contractor teams. Following current artifacts through the discussions helps the team
focus on the current PMB and potential risk to that baseline.
4.5. Integrating IBR Identified Risks into Program Risk Management
In the final scoring of the PMB during the IBR process, the IBR open action items are merged with
existing program risk lists and CAM discussion scores to yield IBR scores in each of the risk topic areas.
Open action items should be identified with one or more risk topic areas if the IBR action item
spreadsheet is used. During an IBR, there may be situations when discoveries merit entering the item into
a risk database. There are a number of approaches to maintaining program risk lists / databases. This
section discusses the most common situations and provides recommended procedures for translating open
action items into risk databases.
Situation 1 – The program is using a Government and contractor integrated risk database. Active Risk
Manager is one example of such a database. The risk database has levels associated with identified risks
so that the Government program office may have the top level and the prime contractor and
subcontractors have numerous subordinate levels. This risk system may be web-based where all levels of
participants may enter risks and associated data into the database.
In this situation, action items are identified during the IBR process. Action items that cannot be closed by
the completion of Phase II are submitted to the two IBR integrators who make a decision on the
appropriate next step. If the integrators agree that the action item meets the criteria for an identified risk,
the action item tracker is annotated with the decision and the appropriate IBR team member is assigned
the task to get the risk entered into the integrated risk database at the appropriate level. This may entail
assigning a contractor or subcontractor IPT Lead with the responsibility of entering the risk into the
database.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
31 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
When the IBR is being scored, the Government and contractor IBR integrators with assistance from other
IBR team members will determine which open risks are appropriate for inclusion into the IBR scoring.
This may entail a decision on the level of risks to include. This decision will also depend upon the level
or scope of the IBR. If for example, the IBR is a subcontractor IBR, the role of Government integrator
may be performed by the prime contractor and the risks at the prime contractor level may be the highest
level of risks considered in the IBR scoring. Where contractor and Government teams cannot reach
consensus on the identified risk, the matter will be elevated to the Government and contractor program
managers for resolution.
Situation 2 – The Government program office and the prime contractor have separate risk databases. In
this situation it is assumed that the Government program office has access to the prime contractor’s risk
database either through a data call item or through participation in the prime contractor’s risk review /
management board.
When Government and contractor teams have separate risk databases, they should use the same DoD
defined five-by-five matrix, but they may have different risk consequence standards (the scales that
determine if a risk is low, moderate, or high). These differences may come into play when integrating
risks into the IBR scoring.
In this situation, action items are identified during the IBR process. Action items that cannot be closed by
the completion of Phase II are submitted to the two IBR integrators who make a decision on the
appropriate next step. If the integrators agree that the action item meets the criteria for an identified risk,
the action item tracker is annotated with the decision and the appropriate IBR team member is assigned
the task to get the risk entered into the appropriate risk database. The contractor’s risk database may have
multiple levels. If the identified risk is being entered into the contractor’s database, the contractors risk
management plan will define the entry level.
When the IBR is being scored, both the contractor’s risk database and the Government’s risk database
will be reviewed. The two IBR Integrators will lead a decision session with the IBR team to determine
which of the risks in each of the databases are applicable to the scope of the IBR and should be included
as an input into the IBR risk topic area scores.
Situation 3 – The Government program office does not have a risk management plan or risk database. The
Government program office in conjunction with the contractor uses the contractor’s risk management
program and risk database to document all the applicable program risks. In this situation, the Government
program office normally participates as part of the contractor’s risk review board.
In this situation, action items are identified during the IBR process. Action items that cannot be closed by
the completion of Phase II are submitted to the two IBR integrators who make a decision on the
appropriate next step. If the integrators agree that the action item meets the criteria for an identified risk,
the action item tracker is annotated with the decision and the appropriate IBR team member is assigned
the task to get the risk entered into the contractor’s risk database. The contractor’s risk database may
have multiple levels. If the identified risk is being entered into the contractor’s database, the contractors
risk management plan will define the entry level.
When the IBR is being scored, the contractor’s risk database will be reviewed. The two IBR Integrators
will lead a decision session with the IBR team to determine which of the risks are applicable to the scope
of the IBR and should be included as an input into the IBR risk topic area scores.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
32 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Five versus three risk consequence / impact areas - The EVMIG recommends the evaluation of the PMB
in five risk topic areas. Risk databases and risk management systems normally have three impact areas for
an identified risk (cost, schedule, and technical). The IBR scores risk in five areas (cost, schedule,
technical, resources, and management processes). It is fairly straight forward to translate risks in the
database to the cost, schedule, and technical risk topic areas by reading the risk impact or consequence. If
the IBR process identifies a risk that is associated with resources, the impact or consequence is normally
cost, schedule, technical or a combination of the three. Management process risks in a risk database are
rare.
Management process risks identified in an IBR can be entered into the risk database only when the
consequence or impact is quantifiable. As a result, most management process action items do not get
transferred into a risk database. For example, consider that the IBR CAM discussions may reveal that the
CAMs require additional training on Variance Analysis but that the training will not take place prior to
the Exit Briefing. It is hard to quantify the impact so the action item may not be appropriate for a risk
database. The open action item would be used as an input to the management process risk topic area
score. It is unlikely that anything other than open action items or CAM discussion scores will be used as
inputs for management process scoring.
Translating Risks into IBR Scores – The process of translating risks in the risk database to IBR scores
should be defined and agreed upon by the contractor and Government IBR teams.
There are two perspectives on risks; the contractor’s and the Government’s. There may be cases where a
risk is applicable to the contractor and not to the Government. One example would be a cost risk to the
contractor in a FPIF contract where the cost ceiling has already been reached. It is important in the
scoring to identify when risks are applicable to only one of the parties.
Risks with quantified cost, schedule, and technical risks should be considered in the IBR scoring. The
process of combining the risks to gauge a total impact on the PMB should be discussed and agreed upon
by both Government and contractor. A simple adding of all the schedule impacts to determine the overall
schedule risk for the IBR may overstate the risk especially if risk events can occur in parallel. Some of
the techniques used in the Independent Risk Assessment process may be useful for determining the net
impact to the PMB from multiple risks.
The questions below may be helpful for determining whether to include risks and how to translate them
into the IBR scores:
Does the risk impact the Government, the contractor or both?
If the risk were viewed by the other party, would the impact and risk rating be the same?
Are there differences in the consequence standards between the Government and contractor risk
management systems?
Are risk events mutually exclusive; are they serial?
How would the risk rate when compared to the scoring guidance in the process document? Is a
high risk in the risk database still a high risk when overall PMB scoring is applied?
4.6. Treatment of Opportunities
Most Contractors combine their risk and opportunities management into a single process. Risk
Management Plans or Risk and Opportunity Management Plans usually outline the Contractor’s
processes. Opportunities and risks are often categorized as having technical, cost, or schedule impacts.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
33 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Technical opportunities may add capability to the system and require an Engineering Change Proposal
(ECP). Technical opportunities may also introduce new processes or procedures that have a favorable cost
or schedule impact on the program.
The IBR team ensures that the data call for the Risk Register includes the list of opportunities as well.
When the list of program opportunities is received, it is evaluated by the appropriate technical, cost, or
schedule IBR team members.
The appropriate IBR team considers the impact of opportunities on the SRA three point values. Where
opportunities exist to improve the schedule, these opportunities are considered in predicting the
completion dates for key milestones. If the schedule impact of an opportunity has not been quantified, the
schedule group seeks help from the technical group or others to estimate the schedule impact.
The appropriate IBR team reviews the opportunities list to ensure that opportunities have been properly
considered in the preparation of the program Estimate at Completion (EAC). Most opportunity scales
have a quantified dollar value associated with each opportunity. If that is not available, the cost impact
group may have to seek assistance in estimating the cost benefit of an opportunity.
The appropriate IBR team reviews the opportunities list for any efforts that may result in a favorable cost
or schedule impact to the program. The team validates the feasibility of the technical opportunity before
recommending that the cost or schedule impact be considered by the other risk groups.
The reduction in risks associated with the consideration of opportunities is documented and included in
the presentation of IBR results.
4.7. Managing the Air Force IBR Process
This section discusses situations and activities in the management of the incremental IBR process. Most
of these activities are the responsibility of the Government IBR Integrator.
4.7.1. Documentation Requirements
The IBR Integrator is the collection point for IBR information. The IBR Integrator should develop a file
or folder system that will facilitate maintenance of the status of the IBR, as well as the history, including
the evolution of artifacts and traces. All versions of artifacts evaluated for quality or integration traces are
archived. In addition, each update of the action item list or any scoring of artifact quality and integration
traces are also archived.
A record of action items is maintained throughout the IBR process. Section 6.12 contains a sample action
item tracking log.
Risk Register history is maintained as well. Risk Register databases should be dynamic, only reflecting
current status. Obtain monthly Risk Register snapshots to help track the IBR process and history.
4.7.2. IBR Scoring
IBR scoring consists of converting the results of the incremental process into ratings. The rating areas can
be the same ones defined in the EVMIG (technical, cost, schedule, resources, and management processes)
or they may be aligned by IPT. Rating by IPT area aligns the risks with the people responsible for their
management. IPTs normally include Engineering, Integration, Test, Program Control, and Sustainment.
The decision on risk topics should be made early in the IBR process. If the contractor IPT structure is the
same as the Government’s then use of IPTs has a better chance for success.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
34 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Inadequate artifact quality evaluations result in action items to improve the definition of the PMB.
Inadequate data integration traces also result in action items to make the PMB consistent across all
applicable documents. Leading up to the IBR Exit Briefing, there may be action items still open from
Phase I and / or Phase II.
Individual and summary scores are calculated during the CAM discussions in Phase II. The challenge is
how to integrate the open action items from Phase I with the CAM scoring into a single set of scores for
the IBR. Some IBR teams may be tempted to establish separate IBR level scoring for artifact quality and
data integration. However, this should be avoided. The purpose of the Incremental IBR process is to
identify and improve the PMB. Early scoring may be discouraging when preparing artifacts that take
longer to mature and tends to reduce joint collaboration. A final scoring made just prior to the IBR Exit
Briefing is more appropriate since the overall goal is to understand risks in the baseline and jointly make
improvements to minimize these risks.
One scoring approach is to list each open action item by risk area immediately prior to the IBR Event. A
critical action item would represent high risk. Major action items would represent medium risk and minor
action items represent low risk. This approach works for cases where there are action items.
The second part of this approach involves the Risk Register. During the incremental IBR process, the
team identifies and enters risks into the Risk Register. Risks should be grouped by the “IF-THEN-
THEREFORE” statement. For example, “IF the selected power supply cannot provide the power margin,
THEN a new power supply has to be designed, THEREFORE costing $100K and delaying integration 90
days. This risk event should be grouped under technical, even though the impact may be cost, schedule,
and resources. Consider all risks in the Risk Register when making the scoring determination.
The IBR team may take the following approach when determining how to score the five risk areas:
Group the program risks from the Risk Register by the five topic areas. Use the “IF-THEN-
THEREFORE” statement to define the risk c area.
Review the open action items for document quality and integration traces. Translate these into
risks and assign them to the appropriate risk topic area. Translate any incomplete actions into an
“IF-THEN-THEREFORE” risk statement to determine the appropriate risk area. For example,
“IF the IMS logic is incorrect or incomplete, THEN critical tasks may not be performed when
needed THEREFORE the delivery date may slip, which costs $X.”
Review the CAM discussion scores by risk area and include these into the grouping. Make a
summary “IF-THEN-THEREFORE” statement from each of the CAM discussion ratings and add
this to the grouping. For example, if the schedule risk is rated high because the CAMs could not
identify their critical path, then an “IF-THEN” statement might read, “IF the CAMs cannot
determine their critical path, THEN they may not perform tasks when needed and the delivery
schedule may slip.”
Once all risks are visible in their appropriate risk areas, the IBR team can discuss and determine
the appropriate rating for each area.
The chart below shows the flow of scoring for the IBR and PMB approval.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
35 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Artifact
Evaluation
Process
Artifact
Integration
Trace Process
CAM
Discussions
Process
Business
Office
Discussion
CAM
Discussion
Summary
Action Item
List
Open Action
Items
Risk Register
IBR Score by
Five Risk
Topic Areas
PMB Overall
Rating Criteria
PMB Approval
PMB Approval
Criteria
IBR Scoring
The following sections list scoring guidance for the overall IBR using the risk areas in the EVMIG.
4.7.2.1. Technical Risk Area
Low (Green)
PMB reflects a comprehensive technical plan that covers all efforts within the SOW, is consistent
with contract requirements, and has adequate definition and identification of tasks in the baseline.
Work scope responsibility properly allocated to the performing organization that controls budget
and schedule.
Presented technical plan has opportunities identified to handle all medium and high risk areas.
Medium (Yellow)
Technical plan does not cover some effort within the SOW, but is consistent with most contract
requirements and has adequate definition and identification of tasks in the baseline. Any omitted
tasks have no material effect on Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) or Technical Performance
Measurements (TPMs).
All significant work scope responsibility is properly allocated to the performing organization that
controls budget and schedule.
Few identified opportunities are available to handle medium and high risks.
High (Red)
Integrated Baseline Review Process
36 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Technical plan does not include significant efforts within the SOW, is not consistent with contract
requirements, lacks adequate definition and identification of tasks in the baseline, or does not
meet KPPs/TPMs as currently planned.
Work scope responsibility, in many cases, is not properly allocated to the performing
organization that controls budget and schedule.
Technical plan does not identify risk handling plans to bring the program within an acceptable
risk level and is likely to cause a significant disruption to schedule, increased cost, or degradation
of performance.
4.7.2.2. Schedule Risk Area
Low (Green)
Low risk in adequacy of time required to achieve the project schedule objectives.
All required contract work scope is represented in the baseline schedule.
Virtually all work task plans have appropriate durations, demonstrate logical minimal float,
follow a logical sequence of work, and support contractual milestones.
Use of constraints and leads/lags is minimized. Discrete task interdependencies clearly identify
the program critical path to contract completion and critical paths to all major program milestones
and/or IMP events.
Medium (Yellow)
Medium risk in adequacy of time required to successfully achieve the project schedule objectives.
Most of the required contract work scope is represented in the baseline schedule.
Greater than or equal to 80% of work task plans within the planning window have appropriate
durations, demonstrate minimal float, follow a logical sequence of work, and support contractual
milestones.
Use of constraints and leads/lags is apparent but minimized. The schedule is capable of
forecasting downstream impacts to the demonstrated program critical path.
High (Red)
Inadequate time allocated for performing defined tasks to achieve the project schedule objectives.
Much of the required contract work scope is not represented in the baseline schedule.
Proper technical approach for the critical path is not evident.
Fewer than 80% of tasks have appropriate durations.
Use of constraints and leads/lags is not minimized. Proper technical approach for the critical path
is not evident. Program lacks a valid critical path to assess schedule risk impacts.
4.7.2.3. Cost Risk Area
Low (Green)
PMB is executable within the project cost objectives for the authorized work scope.
Baseline is derived from a sound Basis of Estimate (BOE) using historical data or similar
programs and fully aligns with the project schedule.
Medium (Yellow)
PMB is marginally executable within the project cost objectives for the authorized work scope.
Baseline derived from a sound BOE, using historical data or similar programs and aligned with
the project schedule.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
37 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Budget values, time phasing, and breakout between labor / material / other direct cost assigned
are optimistic.
High (Red)
PMB does not fully address program requirements and is not executable within the project cost
objectives for the authorized work scope.
Baseline not derived from a sound BOE, using historical data or similar programs and is not
aligned with the project schedule.
Budget values, time phasing, and breakout between labor / material / other direct costs assigned
are inadequate, given funding, schedule, and resource constraints, and are likely to cause a
significant increase in cost.
4.7.2.4. Resource Risk Area
Low (Green)
Resources (e.g. facilities, personnel, skills) to support task planning within the project schedule
are adequate.
Medium (Yellow)
Resources (e.g. facilities, personnel, skills) to support task planning within the project schedule
are inadequate; availabilities and constraints not fully considered.
High (Red)
Resources (e.g. facilities, personnel, skills) to support task planning within the project schedule
are inadequate; availabilities and constraints not fully considered and likely to cause a significant
disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.
4.7.2.5. Management Processes Risk Area
Low (Green)
Management processes provide timely and accurate performance data.
Processes are in place and implemented in accordance with the contractor’s Earned Value
Management System Description (EVMSD) and internal operating instructions.
Few issues identified with the processes and their application.
Medium (Yellow)
Concerns that the management processes may hinder timely and accurate performance data.
Most, but not all, processes are in place and implemented in accordance with the EVMSD and
internal operating instructions.
CAMs are not using the management processes correctly.
High (Red)
Concerns that the management processes prevent accurate and timely reporting of performance
data.
Few management processes are in place.
There is inadequate integration between cost and scheduling systems.
Processes are not documented.
CAMs are not using the management processes.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
38 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
A combined team of Government and contractor IPT Leads should review the open action items and the
Risk Register and present the PM a preliminary scoring by risk topic area. The Government PM is the
final determiner of the IBR scores.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
39 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
5. Summary
This IBR Process Document provides background and overview information and includes an overview of
the incremental IBR process. The IBR process is then discussed chronologically. Specific guidance is
provided on non-chronological activities. Finally, a series of templates and sample forms for executing an
IBR are provided in appendices.
Some key characteristics of this IBR process include teams organized by the five standard IBR risk areas
(technical, schedule, resource, cost, and management processes), early formation of teams, and early
review and refinement of the PMB definition. The PMB must trace from top-level requirements to the
work performed at the control account level. The work scope has both cost and schedule dimensions. All
documents correctly reflecting the PMB are essential for effective execution of programs. The various
artifacts (data elements that may or may not be standalone documents) associated with the PMB are
evaluated for quality, as well as integration with other artifacts. Where exceptions are discovered, artifacts
are refined immediately by the joint Government and contractor IBR team. Refined documents are
checked again to validate the changes. As documents are reviewed, risks are identified and understood.
After the PMB artifacts have reached an acceptable level for quality and integration, discussions with
CAMs are held to ensure the PMB is executable and achievable at the lowest work level.
The IBR process document includes a list of recommended IBR artifacts, integration points among the
various artifacts, and recommended topics for CAM discussions. The IBR process document also includes
scoring criteria for artifacts and CAM discussions, as well as action item tracking templates.
Programs required to perform IBRs may be in different acquisition phases, have different contract types,
and most certainly different deliverables, documents, and artifacts. This IBR process has been designed to
be flexible in its conduct and adaptable to each program’s distinctive characteristics. The IBR teams using
this process are advised to maintain the overarching objectives.
Several samples or templates in Section 6 are available in their native software format. These documents
are either on the acquisition portal or available from SAF/AQXC.
For questions regarding this process or the document, please contract SAF/AQXC at (202) 404-2113
(commercial).
Integrated Baseline Review Process
40 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6. Templates and Samples (Appendices)
The appendices contain templates and samples for conducting an incremental IBR. All these templates
and samples are shown as illustrations in this process document. Samples and templates in their native
software formats are available from SAF/AQXC or on the Air Force Acquisition Portal located at
https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-
af/USAF/ep/globalTab.do?channelPageId=s5FDEA9F02769C1090127867185EE02F8
Integrated Baseline Review Process
41 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.1. Sample IBR Schedule (MS Project File)
A template that corresponds to the process document is shown below. Please note the durations are
notional and should be specifically determined by the IBR team.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
42 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.2. Sample IBR Program Event for IMP
The following is a sample IBR Program Event with accomplishments and criteria consistent with the Air
Force IBR Process.
SOW WBS OBS
15 01 000
Phase I - IBR Data Quality and Data Integration Evaluated
15 01 001
IBR data package and need dates defined and documented.
15 01 002
IBR Phase I training conducted
Joint Government / Contractor IBR team responsibilities assigned
IBR Deliverables and Artifacts quality evaluation completed
IBR Deliverables and Artifacts integration evaluation completed
Critical Action Items identified and documented
Critical Phase I Action Items closed
Phase II Readiness Review completed
15 02 000
Phase II - Control Account Managers (CAM) Evaluated
15 02 001
Control accounts to be examined identified
IBR Phase II training conducted
CAM interview preparations completed
Joint Government / Contractor evaluation of Control Account Managers Completed
Critical Action Items identified and documented
Critical Phase II Action Items closed
15 03 000
Performance Measurement Baseline Approved
15 03 001
IMS and EVMS deliverables updated to reflect approved baseline
Monthly Performance Reporting Process Operational
Baseline Change Management Process Operatonal
Estimate-at-Completion Process Operational
Earned Value Management Processes Operational
IBR Exit Meeting Conducted
Performance Measurement Baseline Approval reported to Oversight Agencies
Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Event (15)
Notes:
Click on the +/- sign in the left margin to reveal/hide the list of Significant Accomplishment (SA) and Accomplishment Criteria (AC)
PE
SA
AC
Accomplishment/Criteria Nomenclature
Cross-Reference
Integrated Baseline Review Process
43 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.3. Sample Notification Letter
The following is a sample notification letter. This letter may be dispatched from the Administrative
Contracting Officer (ACO) or PM formally initiating the IBR process.
[Mr./Mrs./Ms Name]
[Title]
[Supplier Name]
[Address]
Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. [Name]:
The [program name] PMO, department of the Air Force intends to conduct an Integrated
Baseline Review (IBR) on the [Program Name] on [date].
The purpose of the IBR is to work in a collaborative manner to jointly assess the viability
of the [program] baseline regarding technical risk. The IBR is an incremental process and will
involve joint collaborative workshops / meetings for; technical, schedule, resources, cost, and
management process. These workshops will permit the government and contractor(s) to arrive at
a common understanding of each area of the program particularly program risk. A Schedule Risk
Assessment (SRA) will also be conducted as part of the IBR.
The IBR will be conducted using the Air Force IBR Process Document. A copy of that
document was made available to you as part of the RFP.
In our initial meetings to plan the IBR schedule we will jointly determine the documents
to be used for this review.
We also request that the team be provided with non-escort badges, a working area
(conference room) with tables and access to fax/copy machines, LCD projectors, scanners,
printer (connected to a laptop), and telephones.
Upon successful completion of the IBR, the Gov’t PM will issue a final report to the
Program Executive Officer reflecting satisfaction of the contractual requirements.
[Review Lead’s Name] will be the Review Lead and the POC for this review. Questions
concerning the review and requested documentation should be directed to [Review Lead’s
Name] [Review Lead’s email address] or phone number [(xxx) xxx-xxx].
If you have any questions pertaining to this notification, please contact the Program
Control IPT Lead at [Review Chief’s email address] or phone number [(xxx) xxx-xxxx].
Sincerely,
[program manager name]
[title]
Integrated Baseline Review Process
44 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.4. Sample Artifact List
Shown below is a sample artifact list. The artifact list may be different for each IBR, depending upon
contract requirements and acquisition phase. The sample list provides a number of columns that should be
completed early in the IBR planning process, as the data determines key IBR schedule dates. The columns
in the sample list provide space to identify if the artifact is applicable to the IBR, the delivery method,
whether the item is already available, a CDRL item, or a data call item (delivered separate from CDRL
items). The team assigned to evaluate the item (may be IPT or Risk Topic Team). The table also includes
a summary of the quality criteria if different from CDRL or DIDs. Included in the list are some candidate
data elements that are part of deliverables or data call items.
Artifact Name Artifact Description
Applicable
to this IBR
Delivery
Method
Date
Available
Evaluation
Team
Quality Standard
Summarized
Contract or Subcontract
(exclusive of SOO /
SOW)
Overarching agreement between
Government and supplier. Establishes the
bounds of the PMB.
Considered a static
source document. Not
normally evaluated.
Initial Capabilities
Document (ICD)
Describes the capability gap derived from
the JCIDS process & proposes materiel
approaches to resolve the gap. / Used to
trace requirements in the PMB
ICD is a static source
document that will not
change. Quality score
should be limited to
identifying obvious flaws
that prevent it from
contributing to standard
cross-documentation
data traces.
Capabilities
Development Document
(CDD)
Captures the information necessary to
deliver an affordable & supportable
capability as described in the Acquisition
Strategy. Provides the operational
performance attributes necessary to
design a proposed system(s) & establish
a program baseline.
CDD is a static source
document that will not
change. Quality score
should be limited to
identifying obvious flaws
that prevent it from
contributing to standard
cross-documentation
data traces.
Capability Production
Document (CPD)
A document that addresses the
production elements specific to a single
increment of an acquisition program. The
CPD defines an increment of militarily
useful, logistically supportable, and
technically mature capability that is ready
for a production decision. Captures the
information necessary to support
production, testing, & deployment of an
affordable & supportable system within an
Acquisition Strategy.
CPD is a static source
document that will not
change. Quality score
should be limited to
identifying obvious flaws
that prevent it from
contributing to standard
cross-documentation
data traces.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
45 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Artifact Name Artifact Description
Applicable
to this IBR
Delivery
Method
Date
Available
Evaluation
Team
Quality Standard
Summarized
System Requirements
Document (SRD) or
Technical Requirements
Document (TRD)
SRD/TRD defines system level functional
and performance requirements. 'Note:
One or more of these documents may
exist at the same time. Whichever is
latest is used in the IBR process.
SRD is considered a
static source document
that will not change.
Quality score should be
limited to identifying
obvious flaws that prevent
it from contributing to
standard cross-
documentation data
traces.
Weapon System
Specification
Performance goals at system level.
Document is evaluated to
ensure requirements
trace from top level
documents. Normally
evaluated during SRR.
Key Performance
Parameters (KPPs)
Performance goals at system level. May
not exist as a standalone document.
KPPs are considered a
static source data that will
not change. Quality score
should be limited to
identifying obvious flaws
that prevent it from
contributing to standard
cross-documentation
data traces.
Critical Technical
Parameters (CTPs) &
Technical Performance
Measurements (TPM)
Generally derived from KPPs for testing
reasons (as in, what TPMs need testing in
order to achieve KPP) & integrated with
the TEMP.
CTPs are a static source
document that are
included in the TEMP and
should not change.
Quality score should be
limited to identifying
obvious flaws that prevent
it from contributing to
standard cross-
documentation data
traces. TPMs should be
scored based on SME
expertise and extent to
which flaws prevent it
from contributing to
standard cross-
documentation data
traces
Statement of Work
(SOW), Performance
Work Statement (PWS)
or Statement of
Objectives (SOO)
Document that describes the program
scope, activities and deliverables.
SOW is a static source
document that is part of
the contract and should
not change. Quality score
should be limited to
identifying obvious flaws
that prevent it from
contributing to standard
cross-documentation
data traces. Both IBR
phases should focus on
identifying any area where
interpretations of the
SOW differ between
Government and
Contractor.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
46 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Artifact Name Artifact Description
Applicable
to this IBR
Delivery
Method
Date
Available
Evaluation
Team
Quality Standard
Summarized
Integrated Master Plan
(IMP) or Equivalent
Document that describes a hierarchical,
event-based approach to program
planning and execution by Program
Events (PEs) , Significant
Accomplishments (SAs), and
Accomplishment Criteria (ACs).
Normally an approval
CDRL item. Quality check
limited to deliverable
requirements.
Systems Engineering
Plan (SEP) or Systems
Engineering
Management Plan
(SEMP)
The SEP describes the program’s overall
technical approach, including systems
engineering processes, resources, & key
technical tasks, activities, & events along
with their metrics & success criteria.
SEP is a Government
document and SEMP is a
CDRL deliverable. Quality
should be judged based
on compliance to CDRL
and associated DID.
Quality can also be
judged based on SME
expertise and flaws that
prevent it from
contributing to standard
cross-documentation
data traces.
Test & Evaluation
Master Plan (TEMP)
Document that describes the approach to
test engineering on the program.
TEMP is a Government
document. Quality score
should be limited to
identifying obvious flaws
that prevent it from
contributing to standard
cross-documentation
data traces.
Test & Evaluation
Program Plan (TEPP) or
Integrated Test Plan
(ITP)
Contractor document that describes
approach to testing.
TEPP or ITP are
contractor documents.
Quality should be judged
based on compliance to
CDRL and associated
DID. Quality can also be
judged based on SME
expertise and flaws that
prevent it from
contributing to standard
cross-documentation
data traces.
Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS) / WBS
Dictionary
Document that organizes the program for
management and reporting purposes.
Document describes each WBS element
Each WBS element narrative briefly
describes the work scope, defines
deliverables and associated activities, as
well as applicable milestones.
WBS / WBS Dictionary is
a contractor deliverable.
Quality should be judged
based on compliance to
the CDRL and associated
DID.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
47 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Artifact Name Artifact Description
Applicable
to this IBR
Delivery
Method
Date
Available
Evaluation
Team
Quality Standard
Summarized
Master Phasing
Schedule (MPS)
Summary graphic depicting key program
elements, including major phases, major
tasks, and key deliverables or events.
Usually in Gantt format with bars and
milestones representing the entire
program on a single page with meaningful
labels. Typically follows the IMP structure
(grouped efforts by IMP Events), depicts
all key milestones, reflects timeline (FY or
CY), and reflects progress thru the Status
Date / Time Now. Ideally, the MPS is an
extract derived from the IMS. Includes “As
Of Date.”
This document is
normally initially drafted by
the Government. It may
later on become the Tier
0 portion of the IMS. Since
it is often used in
leadership presentations,
accurate reflection of the
IMS in the schedule is a
key quality check.
Integrated Master
Schedule (IMS) (IPMR
Format 6)
Depending on the program complexity,
may be a single file or multiple
subprogram files. Minimally, contains
standard scheduling data plus fields
identifying WBS, control account
managers (CAMs), control accounts
(CAs), baseline dates & durations, and
physical percent complete for each task.
The IMS is a deliverable.
The CDRL and DID
establish the minimum
quality standards. Other
checks should include the
DCMA 14 Point
Assessment and a check
for readiness for an SRA
IMS Health Metrics
Report on the soundness of schedule
construction. Often included with IMS
delivery.
Check to ensure as a
minimum DCMA 14
Points are included in
metrics
IMS Basis &
Assumptions (B&A)
Information on user defined fields and
IMS construction approach. Often
included with IMS delivery
Document should contain
adequate information to
permit independent
evaluation of the IMS.
Program Critical Path
Depiction of the longest path from status
date to program completion. Intergral part
of IMS
CP should be visible
using native scheduling
software
Next Major Milestone
Driving Path (DP)
Depiction of path from status date to next
major milestone. Integral part of IMS.
Next Milestone DP should
be visible using native
scheduling software
Integrated Baseline Review Process
48 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Artifact Name Artifact Description
Applicable
to this IBR
Delivery
Method
Date
Available
Evaluation
Team
Quality Standard
Summarized
Other Major Milestone
Driving Path(s)
Depiction of path from status date to other
major milestones. Integral part of IMS.
Other Major Milestone DP
should be visible using
native scheduling
software
Status or Progress
IMS update to reflect progress and
changes to forecast dates. Integral part of
IMS.
IMS should be statused to
the time now or status
date.
Forecast or Look-Ahead
IMS views that focus on near term
activities. Integral part of IMS.
IMS should contain filter
or views so that near term
activities can be easily
identified.
Program Resource
Profile
A time phase list or chart that shows the
allocation of personnel working on the
program. Ideally this list will have some
definition of labor categories or
specialties.
This may be an extract
from a resource loaded
IMS. If possible the profile
should include planned
and actual totals by
month.
Schedule Risk
Assessment (SRA)
Rigorous process to estimate probability
of program completion by specific dates.
Often included with IMS delivery.
Check SRA against SAF
/AQ SRA process
document.
Control Account Plan
(CAP)
Program budget time phased by control
account
Not a CDRL item. Used to
validate control accounts
and work scope in the
IMS. Should total to PMB
Contractor Performance
Report (CPR) Integrated
Program Management
Report (IPMR)
Multiple format report displaying PMB and
explaining deviations from plan. Status
date should be consistent with IMS status
date.
Should meet the CDRL
and DID requirements as
well as CPR quality
checklists from SAF/AQ
Bill of Material (BOM)
Listing of material items used in
manufacturing
Check for completeness
and linkage to control
accounts
Responsibility
Assignment Matrix
(RAM)
Allocation of program scope assignment
to control accounts
Not a deliverable. Verify
that totals match PMB.
Useful with IMS and Risk
Register for selecting
Control Accounts for
discussion.
Estimate at Completion
(EAC) Rationale
Contractor justification for EAC value
Not a deliverable. Verify
that totals are consistent
with CPR data.
Organization Chart(s)
Chart displaying lines of responsibility
from CAM to Program Manager
Check to see
responsibility path from
CAMs to PM. See of
consistent with Control
Account Structure.
Control Account Work
Authorization
Documents (WAD)
Documents defining the scope of work
assigned to individual control accounts
Check to ensure that all
scope of work addressed
and all scope has budget.
Risk & Opportunity
Management Plan
Document defining contractor approach
for risk and opportunity management
Normally an approval
CDRL item. Quality check
limited to deliverable
requirements.
Risk Register
Listing of Risks and Opportunities to
include ratings and where applicable risk
mitigations
Not a deliverable. Check
that all risks identified in
IBR process are entered
into Risk Register.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
49 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Artifact Name Artifact Description
Applicable
to this IBR
Delivery
Method
Date
Available
Evaluation
Team
Quality Standard
Summarized
Budget Control Logs
Document that track the changes to the
PMB and Management Reserve.
Check that the baseline is
configuration controlled
and the cost system
reflects the PMB.
Cost Analysis
Requirements
Description
Describes the system or capability to be
developed in sufficient detail to be a
reference document for cost analysis.
A source document that
will not be evaluated.
Rather is used to check
that the PMB is consistent
with the approved cost
analysis baseline.
Below are additional
Items that may come up
in Business Office or
CAM Discussions (TBD)
Basis of Estimate (BOE)
Contractor documented rational for
resources by WBS, OBS, or SOW.
Normally evaluated as part of source
selection.
Should reflect the
baseline for CA that have
not been adjusted since
the baseline was set.
Earned Value
Management System
Description and
Program Unique
Instructions
Contractor's detailed process and
procedures for Earned Value
Measurement. Used by DCMA to
measure compliance.
For validated systems
DCMA will approve
EVMSD. Should be
consistent with EVM
Standard 748B
Subcontract
Management Plan
Contractor document that addresses
integration of subcontractor data into
program management information and
outlines roles and responsibilities for
management of the subcontractor.
Plan should ensure
subcontractor risk and
management data is
integrated into overall
program management.
LOE Percent Calculation
Chart or table that show percent of LOE
in each CA and the percent of LOE in the
PMB
LOE percentages should
not distort EVM progress
reporting and be
consistent with EVMSD
Management Reserve
(MR) and Schedule
Margin (SM) Burn Down
Charts
Charts that show the consumption of SM
and MR over account periods
Remaining MR and SM
should be consistent and
realistic.
Material Thresholds for
High / Low Value
Procedures for measuring the progress of
material received and consumed in the
program.
Progress for material
items must be consistent
with these procedures
Variance Analysis
Reports
Reports beyond the CPR or IPMR
Format 5 that address variances.
Should identify problem,
recommend corrective
action as appropriate and
measure progress of
corrective actions.
Sample Artifact List
Integrated Baseline Review Process
50 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.5. Sample Data Call Request
The IBR process may require data that is not normally provided as contract deliverables. These data may
be associated with integration traces, verifying that the PMB completely and accurately flows down to the
control accounts. Other data elements are essential to identify risks in the five risk areas.
The formality that the data call request is presented to the contractor can be determined by the IBR
Integrator. If there is any doubt regarding data delivery when needed, a formal request through the PMO
contracting organization is appropriate.
The sample below lists common data call items. Since the IBR process may span several iterations of
these data call items, the request should specify if updates are needed by the IBR team.
Data Call Item Description Need Date Update Submittals
Master Phasing Schedule
(If prepared and
maintained by Contractor)
Summary graphic depicting key program
elements, including major phases, major
tasks, and key deliverables or events.
Usually in Gantt format with bars and
milestones representing the entire
program on a single page with
meaningful labels. Depicts all key
milestones, reflects timeline (FY or CY),
and reflects progress thru the Status
Date / Time Now. Ideally, the MPS is an
extract derived from the IMS. Includes
“As Of Date.”
At start of
Document
Quality
Evaluations
When updated
Organization Chart
Organizational Breakdown Structure
showing accountability path from
Control Account Manager to Program
Manager
At start of
Document
Quality
Evaluations
When updated
Control Account Work
Authorization Documents
Report or extract from Contractor EVMS
that shows the scope of work for each
control account assigned to a CAM and
the control account period of
performance.
At start of data
intrgration
traces
When updated
Risk Register
Listing of program risks and
opportunities to include probability,
consequence and handling activities. In
lieu of report access to contractor
database may be acceptable.
At start of
Document
Quality
Evaluations
When updated
Integrated Baseline Review Process
51 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Data Call Item Description Need Date Update Submittals
Contract Budget Logs
Report or Logs that show the
establishment of the baseline reconciles
to the contract, changes to the PMB, and
the status of Management Reserve
When the PMB
is established
Monthly Updates
Technical Performance
Measurement (TPM)
Progress Report (If not a
contract deliverable)
Report that shows the progress of the
contractor in achieving technical
performance. May be a separate
deliverable or incorporated in the IMS
At start of
Document
Quality
Evaluations
When updated
Dollarized Responsibillity
Assignment Matrix (RAM)
Spreadsheet or matrix depicting control
accounts where the WBS and OBS
(Organization/ IPT/Function) intersect.
(dollarized RAM) and PMB totals. Ideally,
identifies 1) CA status (Open, Closed, or
Future); 2) Discrete vs. LOE; 3) major
subcontractors; and 4) MR and UB values
that total to the TAB level.
At start of
Document
Quality
Evaluations
When updated
Control Account Plan
Time phased plan by task with each
element of cost (EOC) and resource
categories broken out at the task level.
Minimally, provide CAPs that contain
monthly BCWS (hours and costs) spreads
by CA by work package / planning
package, including EV methods. Note:
Typical EOCs include labor, material,
subcontract, and ODCs.
At start of
Document
Quality
Evaluations
When updated
IMS Basis and Assumptions
or IMS Supplemental
Guidance documents (If
not delivered as part of
the IMS)
Document describing program-specific
methodology for analyzing the critical
path—including specific UIDs/Activity
IDs. Includes data dictionary specifying
fields (code, number, text, and flags),
embedded formulas, and master/
subproject structure mapping (if
applicable). Describes use of constraints
(particularly late date constraints and
deadlines), Note fields, and any custom
views, filters, groups, or reports used to
manage the IMS.
At start of
Document
Quality
Evaluations
When updated
Additional Items (TBD)
Integrated Baseline Review Process
52 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.6. Sample Document Trace Narratives, Integration Proofs and Mapping
The purpose of document or artifact traces is to ensure that the documents that reflect the PMB are
consistent with one another. Different IPT or CAMs may, in the performance of their duties, use only a
subset of the documents that reflect the PMB. It is important that whatever data they use is correct and
consistent with the execution plan.
The table below lists a number of possible traces designed to ensure that the PMB is consistently
documented. It is important that the IBR team review and agree with these traces for the specific program.
Changes may be made to the table below to reflect the relationships for specific programs. This enables
CAM discussions to focus on technical control account risks and performance matters.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
53 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Trace Name Trace Components / Artifacts Trace Order Trace Standard
Risk Area /
IPT
POCs
TRACE - Requirements
Validation (Milestone
B to C) Purpose:
Requirements
consistently and
accurately flow from
overarching
documents to the
effort required to
deliver the capability
Capability Development
Document (CDD)
Previously vetted source
document containing KPPs,
KSAs and additional
attributes
Technical /
Engineering
IPT
System Requirements
Document (SRD)
CDD --> SRD SRD traces to the CDD
Critical Technical Parameters
(CTP) / Technical Performance
Measurements (TPM)
SRD -->
CTP/TPM
CTPs and TPMs are
consistent with SRD
requirements and measure
progress toward KPPs and
KSAs
TPMs can be traced to
organization and schedule
TPM --> CA,
WBS, and IMS
TPMs are attributed to a
single WBS element and
progress toward achieving
the TPMs are contained in
the IMS
Test and Evaluation Master
Plan (TEMP) / Test and
Evaluation Program Plan
(TEPP)
SRD --> TEMP /
TEPP
Testing Plans reflect
validation and verification
of flowed down
requirements. TEMP is
aligned with KPPs and KSAs.
System Specification (SS) SRD --> SS
Spec reflects requirements
in SRD
Statement of Work (SOW) or
Performance Work Statement
(PWS)
SS --> SOW
Scope of SOW references
and includes all effort
needed to achieve specified
requirements.
Requirements documents
are referenced in the SOW
Systems Engineering Plan
(SEP)
CDD --> SEP
SEP is consistent with CDD
and articulates process for
managing TPMs
Cost Analysis Requirements
Document (CARD)
CARD --> SOW,
SRD, WBS
CARD is an approval
document that sets the cost
analysis baseline. The PMB
should be consistent with
the CARD
Systems Engineering
Management Plan (SEMP)
SEP --> SEMP
The contractor prepared
SEMP should be consistent
with the systems
engineering approach
outlined in the Government
prepared SEP
Integrated Baseline Review Process
54 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Trace Name Trace Components / Artifacts Trace Order Trace Standard
Risk Area /
IPT
POCs
TRACE - Requirements
Validation between
Milestone A and
Milestone B (other
traces listed above
may also apply)
Technical /
Engineering
IPT
Systems Engineering Plan
(SEP)
ICD --> SEP SEP is consistent with ICD
System Requirements
Document (SRD)
ICD --> SRD SRD traces to the ICD
TRACE - Requirements
Validation between
Milestone C and Full
Rate Production (FRP)
(other traces listed
above may also apply)
Technical /
Engineering
IPT
Capability Production
Document (CPD)
CPD --> ITP
Integrated Test Plans (ITPs)
should trace to the
Requirements Cross
Reference Table in the CPD
TRACE - Test and
Evaluation Activities
Planned in IMS
T&E is frequently a schedule
driver.
Technical /
Engineering
IPT
Test and Evaluation Master
Plan (TEMP)
TEMP --> IMS
The IMS must fully
represent the required
activities to accomplish the
TEMP. Detailed activities or
planning packages should be
consistent with the top level
T&E schedule in the TEMP
TRACE - Integrated
Master Plan (IMP)
incorporated in IMS
All IMP events,
accomplishments and
accomplishment criteria
should be integrated into
the IMS
Schedule /
Program
Control IPT
Integrated Master Plan (IMP) IMP --> IMS
The IMP can either be
duplicated in the IMS or all
events, accomplishments,
and criteria cross referenced
to applicable activities or
summary tasks.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
55 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Trace Name Trace Components / Artifacts Trace Order Trace Standard
Risk Area /
IPT
POCs
TRACE - Work Scope
Integration
The scope of work in the
SOW should be incorporated
into the WBS /WBS
Dictionary and the Work
Authorization documents
that assign the work to
Control Account Managers
(CAM)
Statement of Work (SOW)
Performance Work Statement
(PWS)
SOW --> WBS
Dictionary
The entire SOW should be
mapped to WBS elements.
The wording of the WBS
dictionary should be
consistent with the
referenced section of the
SOW
Technical /
Engineering
IPT
WBS / WBS Dictionary
WBS Dictionary
to Work
Authorization
Documents
All WBS elements should be
mapped to control accounts.
The wording of WBS
elements and work
authorizations should be
consistent and clearly
understandable
Cost /
Program
Control IPT
TRACE - WBS
Integration
The entire WBS should be
reflected in the schedule,
budget allocation, and
performance reporting
documents for the contract
See below
WBS / WBS Dictionary WBS --> IMS
The WBS should be mapped
to the IMS to time phase the
scope of work. LOE may not
be reflected in the IMS
Schedule /
Program
Control IPT
Integrated Master Schedule
(IMS)
IMS --> CAP
The IMS is used to time
phase the budget which is
contained in the CAP. The
CAP should be consistent
with the IMS
Schedule /
Program
Control IPT
Control Account Plan (CAP)
CAP --> CPR /
IPMR
The CAP should be reflected
in the CPR / IPMR formats
both totals and time phasing
should be correct.
Management
Processes /
Program
Control IPT
Integrated Baseline Review Process
56 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Trace Name Trace Components / Artifacts Trace Order Trace Standard
Risk Area /
IPT
POCs
TRACE - Schedule to
Cost Integration
The schedule portion of the
PMB should be tightly
integrated to the cost
portion of the PMB. These
traces should be verified
prior to CAM discussions
Management
Processes /
Program
Control IPT
Work Authorization
Documents (WAD)
CAP --> WAD
Earlier tracing verified that
the CAP was time phased
consistent with the
baselined IMS. This trace
verifies that the CAP time
phasing has be correctly
allocated to the CAMs
TRACE - Risk to IMS
High risk tasks should be
identified in the IMS for the
SRA. Additionally risk
mitigation activities with a
schedule impact should be
listed in the IMS
Schedule /
Program
Control IPT
Risk Register
Risk Register
--> IMS
The high risk events in the
Risk Register should be
mapped to the IMS so that
individual three point
duration estimates can be
determined for the SRA.
Approved risk mitigation
activities with schedule
impacts should be included
in the IMS
TRACE - Budget
Baseline Changes
If the PMB has changed
since the initial baseline
was set, the associated
artifacts should be updated
Baseline Change Document
(BCD)
BCD --> IMS,
WAD, WBS, CPR
/ IPMR, CAP
Ensure that all artifacts
impacted by a baseline
change are correctly
updated
Management
Processes /
Program
Control IPT
Integrated Baseline Review Process
57 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Trace Name Trace Components / Artifacts Trace Order Trace Standard
Risk Area /
IPT
POCs
TRACE - Responsibility
Assignment Matrix
(RAM) Integration
The RAM is used to CA
discussion selection and
contains the Organizational
Breakdown Structure (OBS).
This trace validates the RAM
Management
Processes /
Program
Control IPT
OBS OBS --> RAM
Ensure the latest OBS is in
the RAM
WBS / WBS Dictionary WBS --> RAM
Verify that all WBS elements
are in the RAM
Contract Budget Baseline
(CBB) Logs
CBB --> RAM
Verify that the RAM reflects
the latest baseline change
WAD WAD --> RAM
Verify that the RAM reflects
the latest WADs
TRACE - Performance
Reporting
Reconciliation
The information in the
Contract Performance
Report should trace to
source artifacts
Management
Processes /
Program
Control IPT
IMS
IMS --> CPR /
IPMR
For non-LOE work packages,
progress is recorded through
the IMS. Verify that IMS
progress is correctly
reflected in the CPR
Cost System -->
CPR / IPMR
ACWP and LOE BCWP often
come from the cost
accumulation system to the
CPR. Verify the values are
correct.
BCD / CBB -->
CPR / IPMR
Any PMB changes should be
reflected in the CPR. Check
the BCD and CBB to ensure
that changes are reflected
Integrated Baseline Review Process
58 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Trace Name Trace Components / Artifacts Trace Order Trace Standard
Risk Area /
IPT
POCs
TRACE - Estimate at
Completion (EAC)
The EAC should be
consistent with the rolled
up source data.
Cost /
Program
Control IPT
Integrated Master Schedule
(IMS)
IMS --> EAC
The period of performance
for the EAC should be
consistent with the forecast
period of performance in
the IMS
Cost System
Cost System -->
EAC
The EACs at the control
account level in the cost
system should roll up to the
program level EAC
TRACE - Management
Reserve and Schedule
Margin
Management Reserve (MR)
is budget withheld from the
PMB for contingencies.
Schedule Margin (SM) is
baselining in advance of
contractual need dates
See below
Contract Budget Baseline
(CBB) Logs
CBB --> CPR /
IPMR
The MR in the CBB should be
consistent with the MR in
the CPR / IPMR
Cost /
Program
Control IPT
Integrated Master Schedule
(IMS)
IMS --> SM, EAC
The SM in the IMS should be
consistent with the period
of performance for the EAC
and the budget available for
contingencies in MR.
Schedule /
Program
Control IPT
TRACE - Government
Furnished Material,
Equipment,
Information
Government provided
assets included in the PMB
should be consistent with
lists in the contract.
Schedule /
Program
Control IPT
Contract Contract --> IMS
The IMS should reflect any
government provided assets
as an external feed-in
milestones
Sample Integration Trace Table
Integrated Baseline Review Process
59 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.7. Sample Readiness Review Template
The Readiness Review is an event that serves two purposes. It is an IBR progress report to senior
leadership and additionally a review to ensure that the PMB definition is adequate to proceed with Phase
II, CAM discussions. If the PMB is not stable or adequately defined, detailed discussions on control
account execution have no value. The outline below identifies the recommended subject matter for the
Readiness Review.
Review IBR Event Status using IMP Accomplishments and Criteria
For each risk area (Technical, Cost, Schedule, Resources, and Management Processes)
o Review progress / status of each document quality evaluation
Artifact / document reviewed
Rating (Adequate / Inadequate)
Findings
Actions Items Open and Closed
Issue / Action Item burn down progress and closure plan
o Review progress / status of each integration trace
Trace performed
Rating (Adequate / Inadequate)
Findings
Actions Items Open and Closed
Issue / Action Item burn down progress and plan
o Review current risks (contractor’s Risk Register)
o Review any risks that would impact Phase II (CAM Discussions)
o Present Plan / Schedule for IBR Phase II
Control Account Selection Criteria and Results
Training Planned
Schedule of discussions
Integrated Baseline Review Process
60 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.8. Sample Business Office / CAM Discussion Questions
During Phase II of the IBR process, discussions are held with CAMs to understand their risks and
opportunities and their readiness to execute the program at the control account level. Prior to these
discussions, the contractor Business Office discusses with the IBR team, the various systems and data
used to establish, maintain, and execute the PMB.
Business Office Discussion Questions
The following questions are appropriate for the Business Office discussion.
What is the work authorization process and common documentation?
What is the CBB Log and MR/UB guidance?
What were the baseline instructions to the CAMs?
How CAM routine EVM information elements are developed and maintained?
Introduction to the IMS
o Critical Path
o Current float analysis
o Weekly/monthly update process
o Schedule health assessment process
o Schedule Risk Assessment process
o Schedule Margin (if applicable)
How are subcontracts / suppliers managed?
o Where EVM is not flowed down, how is the contractor planning to manage the
subcontracted effort?
o What is the role of the CAM in subcontractor / supplier management?
o How are the subcontracts integrated into the IMS?
Role of Program Control and CAM
o Responsibilities of the program control organization
o To whom does the “business support person” report?
o How many CAMs does a business support person handle?
Integrated Baseline Review Process
61 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Current Status
o Variance Analysis Reports (VAR)
o EACs reported
o Risk Register
o Baseline Change Requests (BCR) processed
o CBB log or the equivalent.
o Undistributed Budget
o Management Reserve
Are there subcontractors with EVM flow down? What is the timing and process for those IBRs?
Will subcontractor tasks in the IMS be resource loaded? If so, will they be loaded with material
dollars?
For CAMs that have both discrete and Level of Effort (LOE) in their work packages, how can the
control account period of performance be clearly identified if LOE is only in the cost system?
What are the program unique processes and procedures that are distinctive from those in the
EVMS Description Document?
CAM Discussion Questions
The contractor Business Office discussions allow the CAM discussions to focus on specific control
account information. The following list of questions (by risk area) may be used to promote discussion and
understand specific risks. PMOs are encouraged to develop questions tailored to the specifics of the
contract.
Management:
How many control accounts are yours?
What is the total dollar amount of your control accounts?
How many work packages and planning packages in your control accounts? Provided in advance
by Program Control, the CAM should be able to discuss the scope of each/any Work Package
(WP) or Planning Package (PP) and the way it is planned. A spreadsheet such as the example
below may help to focus discussions.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
62 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
CA / Work
Package #
Title
Budget at
Completion
Percent
Complete
BCWP
Method
Estimate at
Completion
Government selects at least two work packages and planning packages for the scope of the
following questions unless the question calls out the control account level.
Please discuss the process you used to develop the performance measurement baseline for the
work packages in your Control Account.
Do you have LOE effort? If so, how did you determine if LOE was appropriate?
How many people are working on your control accounts?
Do you feel you have had adequate Planning / EVM training or do you need more?
Technical:
What is your scope of work?
How does your work package structure relate to the scope in your Work Authorization?
Do you agree you will be able to accomplish the scope, within schedule, and budget as shown in
your Work Authorization?
Are you responsible for any subcontracts or suppliers? How do you monitor performance on
these? What is the process for managing subcontractor or supplier earned value?
Please discuss any pending BCRs.
Do you have or foresee any technical, cost and/or schedule risks and impacts?
Schedule:
Integrated Baseline Review Process
63 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
For the selected work packages and planning packages, please open the IMS. Please discuss
rationale for any time phasing of the work packages or planning packages.
Are all of your work packages and planning package represented in the IMS?
Do you have any detailed schedules below the work package?
Please discuss any schedule interfaces, logic, and constraints.
How do you know if a task from another control account will affect your effort?
How are you informed by other organizations or IPTs of changes in their output that may affect
your control accounts schedules?
Please show how you manage your control account tasks using total float?
o Are you on the program’s critical path? If not on the critical path, please identify how
close you are to the critical path.
o What happens when you are on the critical path? How do you get off it?
o Which tasks have the least amount of total float? Discuss likelihood of executing to the
planned durations (confidence in task durations).
o Which tasks have the most amount of total float?
Please define / address all schedule related risks, including any handling plans currently modeled
in the schedule.
Do you have any percent complete effort? If so, please demonstrate Basis of Evidence (i.e.,
earned value methodology) for how performance is measured on the selected work packages?
o Do you use interim milestones on any of your work packages to measure progress?
o Is the earned value method chosen appropriate for the type of work performed?
o Does the method chosen objectively measure performance?
o Does the earned value assessment correlate with technical achievement?
Resources and Cost:
What is your total Control Account budget amount? Of this total budget amount, how much is
distributed to work packages and how much is retained in planning packages? Do you have any
unbudgeted work?
How are your budgets time-phased for each work package and planning package?
Please discuss the basis of estimate used to develop the baseline for this control account (e.g.,
history, similar program, standard work)?
o Is your budget and Estimate to Complete (ETC) sufficient to perform the work?
o What is the current EAC? How does the EAC compare to the Budget at Completion
(BAC)?
Integrated Baseline Review Process
64 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
o Do you have any resource concerns?
Do you have any reportable variances?
Is your EAC realistic?
Please discuss the current staffing requirements for this control account through completion of the
SOW and in support of schedule milestones. Please discuss any issues or risks associated with
staffing.
Demonstrate that your EAC/baseline is reasonably segregated by labor, material, and other direct
charge categories.
Please discuss other elements of costs (e.g., travel, material, or other costs) and any issues or risks
associated with these resources.
Other CAM Discussion Questions:
What challenges, uncertainties, or difficulties can impede your performance?
Which is the most challenging: technical, schedule, resources or cost risk impacts going forward?
Integrated Baseline Review Process
65 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.9. Sample CAM Checklist
CAM discussion questions may present opportunities to explore a number of areas in detail. Time
limitations may make it impossible to ask all the questions listed in the section above. The following
checklist may be offered to CAMs to ensure they are familiar with all of their responsibilities and which
risk area applies to each item. The checklist may also be used to ensure an adequate sampling of control
account information and CAM knowledge.
Tech Sched Res Cost
Mgmt
I have traced the effort in my control accounts from the contract through the
applicable technical artifacts (such as the 'Initial Capabilities Document (ICD),
CDD, CPD, System Requirements Document (SRD), Technical Requirements
Document (TRD), KPPs, Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), SEMP, and TEMP) to
my respective portions of the SOW, Statement of Objectives (SOO), WBS,
IMP, IMS and am confident the relationships are sound, accurate and
complete.
X
I have reviewed, understand and can demonstrate the applicable CDRLs and
deliverables that apply to my Control Account(s).
X
I have reviewed, understand and can demonstrate the Contract Line Item
Numbers (CLINs) applicable to my effort.
X
I have reviewed, agree with and can demonstrate the WBS Dictionary and
associated SOW references to the work scope, including deliverables for my
Control Account(s).
X
I have reviewed and agree with the dollarized Responsibility Assignment
Matrix (RAM) & confirmed that the Control Account budgets align with the
Work Authorization(s) documents for my Control Account(s).
X X
I have reviewed and can reconcile the BOE(s) to my Control Account(s)
budget(s).
X
I have reviewed and agree with the Work Authorization(s) to assure that the
budget by element of cost is complete, sufficient to execute the scope and
match that shown on the RAM.
X X X
I have reviewed the SOW and Work Authorization documents applicable to
each Control Account I am responsible for and I do not have any unbudgeted
work.
X X
I have reviewed and agree with the sections of the Integrated Master Plan (if
applicable) & the Master Phasing Schedule (if applicable) which reflect major
events or control milestones that precede or succeed my Control Account(s).
X X
Risk Area
Integrated Baseline Review Process
66 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Tech Sched Res Cost
Mgmt
I understand and can demonstrate the exit criteria for my effort. X
I have reviewed and agree with the sections of the Integrated Master
Schedule that are assigned to my Control Account(s) or to me, including work
packages, planning packages, & logic tasks or milestones (if applicable).
X X
I have reviewed and agree with the detail planning (including any planning
packages) in my Control Account(s) and agree this accurately represents the
SOW and schedule in the control account and provides me a good tool to
manage and control my effort.
X X
I have reviewed the durations of the tasks in my Control Account(s) and
agree the durations are realistic and reflect the way the work will be
executed.
X
I have reviewed and understand the EV methods used in my detail planning
and agree those used are the appropriate methods for this program.
X X
My planning does not use the rolling wave concept; all my tasks are detail
planned through completion. - OR - My planning includes planning packages
using the rolling wave concept and I understand and can demonstrate this
process.
X X
I understand the concept of a critical path, how it is used on this program and
can demonstrate how I determine if my effort is on the critical path.
X
I understand and can demonstrate what negative total float means, how it
may impact my tasks and how to develop a mitigation plan to eliminate or
minimize negative total float.
X X
I have reviewed, understand and can demonstrate the handoffs or
interdependencies between my Control Accounts and other Control
Account(s) or external efforts such as Government Furnished Equipment
(GFE), Government Furnished Information (GFI), Inter-Organizational
Transfers (IOTs), Sub contracts & Contractors.
X X X X
I have reviewed and understand the manpower profile of my Control
Account(s) and can reconcile any peaks and valleys.
X
I have reviewed any material in my control account plans; I understand and
can demonstrate how and why the material was planned as shown, if
applicable
X X
I have reviewed, understand and can demonstrate how any Government
Furnished Equipment / Government Furnished Property (GFP), and
Government Furnished Information is planned and reported in my Control
Account(s).
X X X X
I have reviewed the actual costs to date for each of my Control Account(s)
and they are accurate.
X
Risk Area
Integrated Baseline Review Process
67 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Tech Sched Res Cost
Mgmt
I have reviewed, understand and can demonstrate the use of Estimated
Actuals in my Control Account(s) for situations requiring its use to align
Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) with Budgeted Cost for Work
Performed (BCWP) to avoid a false under run or other incorrect cost variance.
X X
I understand the concept of cost / schedule integration and can demonstrate
how this applies to my effort.
X X X
I have reviewed and agree that the amount of resources I have in each
Control Account(s) is adequate and available (make separate line) to
accomplish the effort.
X X
I have reviewed, agree with, and can reconcile the planning, status and EACs
of any subcontracted (contractor / IOT) effort in my Control Account(s).
X X X
I have reviewed, agree with, and can reconcile with the status in my Control
Account(s) including any Quantifiable Backup Data (QBD) used to
substantiate the %EV for any work packages with the Percent Complete (PC)
Earned Value Technique (EVT) as applicable to my Control Account(s).
X X
I understand and can demonstrate the statusing process and how to provide
status and claim earned value on my effort.
X X
I have reviewed and agree with the remaining work (unearned work) for
ongoing or future work packages or planning packages in my Control
Account(s).
X X
I have reviewed and agree with the most recent Variance Analysis Report(s)
for my Control Account(s).
X
I have reviewed and agree with the EAC for each of my Control Account(s). X
I understand and can demonstrate the use and purpose of Management
Reserve (MR) and when it would be appropriate for requesting MR for a
Control Account.
X
I understand the Baseline Change Request process and my responsibilities
when presenting BCRs for approval.
X
I have reviewed and agree with the risks & opportunities for my work found
in the program Risk Register (or equivalent).
X
I have received EVM training. If not, I have a plan in place to receive such
training within the next 30 days.
X X X X X
Risk Area
Integrated Baseline Review Process
68 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.10. Sample CAM Scoring Criteria
Each IBR discussion is evaluated for technical, schedule, cost, resource, and management risk. It should
be noted this activity is success-oriented, working toward having an IBR resulting in a high level of
confidence that the program delivers within cost and schedule.
Use the overview of the risk areas summarized below as a reminder for the discussion process:
Technical Risk - Ability of the project's technical plan to achieve the objectives of the scope of
work. This includes the effects of factors such as available technology, software development
capability, and design maturity.
Schedule Risk - Adequacy of time allocated for performing defined tasks to successfully achieve
the project schedule objectives. This includes effects on a schedule of interdependency of
scheduled activities to achieve project milestones and supports PMs’ ability to identify the critical
path.
Cost Risk - Ability of PM to successfully execute project cost objectives, recognizing
relationships of budget, resources, funding, schedule, and scope of work. This includes effects of
assumptions used for estimates and resource allocation on budgets for work items.
Resource Risk - Availability of personnel and facilities when required for performing defined
tasks to execute program successfully.
Management Processes Risk – The degree that management processes provides effective
integrated cost / schedule / technical planning and baseline change control. This includes the
ability of processes to establish and maintain valid, accurate, and timely performance data,
including that from subcontractors, for early visibility and tracking risks.
The IBR CAM discussions are assessed using a three-point scale; 1 for high risk, 2 for medium risk, and 3
for low risk. The scoring is meant to capture systemic issues and issued for the overall IBR assessment.
Those areas found to be scored as inadequate (1 or 2) are documented as action items and monitored
through IBR closeout. The scoring criteria are:
Technical Risk - Evaluation Criteria:
3- Low risk: (All points should be true to score low risk)
Contractor CAMs have developed a comprehensive technical baseline plan that covers all
efforts within the SOW, is consistent with contract requirements, and has adequate definition
and identification of task in the baseline.
Work scope responsibility is properly allocated to the performing organization that controls
budget and schedule.
Technical plan considers the effect of factors such as available technology, software
development capability, design maturity, and rework.
Presented plan has efforts identified to handle all medium and high risk areas and the
mitigation plans if completed reduce the risk to low.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
69 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
The plan has little potential to cause disruption to schedule, increase costs, or degradation of
performance.
Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring is probably sufficient to
overcome difficulties.
2 – Medium risk: (if any are true and there are no high risks in the assessment)
Technical plan does not cover some effort within the SOW, but is consistent with most
contract requirements and has adequate definition and identification of tasks in the baseline.
Any omitted tasks have no material effect on KPPs or TPMs.
All significant work scope responsibility is properly allocated to the performing organization
that controls budget and schedule.
Technical plan does not fully consider the effects of factors such as available technology,
software development capability, human system design options, design maturity, and rework.
Few identified efforts are available to handle potential risk areas.
Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring expected to be sufficient to
overcome difficulties.
1 – High risk: (if any are true, this risk level is appropriate)
Technical plan does not include significant efforts within the SOW, is not consistent with
contract requirements, lacks adequate definition and identification of tasks in the baseline, or
does not meet KPPs / TPMs as currently planned.
Work scope responsibility, in many cases, is not properly allocated to the performing
organization that controls budget and schedule.
Technical plan does not consider the effects of factors such as available technology, software
development capability, design maturity, and rework.
The approach does not identify risk mitigation plans to bring program within an acceptable
risk level and is likely to cause a significant disruption to schedule, increased cost, or
degradation of performance.
Risk may be unacceptable even with contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Schedule Risk – Evaluation Criteria
3 - Low risk: (All points should be true to score low risk)
Low risk in adequacy of time allocated for performing defined tasks to achieve the project
schedule objectives.
All discrete contract work scope is represented in the baseline schedule.
Proper technical approach is demonstrated in the construction of the program critical path.
Tasks within planning window have appropriate durations for management purposes.
Tasks beyond the planning window have appropriate durations.
Tasks demonstrate total float with minimized values, follow a logical sequence of work, and
support intermediate / master schedules and contractual milestones.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
70 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Use of constraints and leads / lags is minimized to assess risk / opportunities to the critical
path.
Discrete task interdependencies, including major critical subcontract work, clearly identifies
the program critical path to contract completion and are able to demonstrate driving paths to
all major program milestones and / or IMP events.
Sufficient schedule margin exists to accommodate normal schedule disturbances and achieve
program objectives.
Normal contractor effort and Government monitoring are expected to resolve documented
difficulties.
2 – Medium risk: (if any are true and there are no high risks in the assessment)
There is a medium risk in adequacy of time allocated for performing defined tasks to achieve
the project schedule objectives.
Most required contract work scope is represented in the baseline schedule.
Discrete task interdependencies, including major critical subcontract work, somewhat identify
the program critical path to contract completion and are able to somewhat demonstrate
driving paths to all major program milestones and / or IMP events.
Most of the tasks within planning window have appropriate durations.
Most of the tasks beyond the planning window have appropriate durations.
Most of the tasks demonstrate total float with minimized values, follow a logical sequence of
work, and support intermediate / master schedules and contractual milestones.
There is a use of constraints or leads and lags that are not justified, but appear to be
infrequent.
Sufficient schedule margin does not exist to accommodate normal schedule disturbances, but
anticipate minimal impact to program objectives.
Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring are expected to resolve
documented difficulties.
1 – High risk: (if any are true, this risk level is appropriate)
Inadequate time is allocated for performing defined tasks to achieve the project schedule
objectives.
Much of the required contract work scope is not represented in the baseline schedule.
Proper technical approach is not demonstrated in the construction of the program critical
path.
A minimal number of tasks within planning window have appropriate (shortest) durations.
A minimal number of tasks beyond the planning window have appropriate durations.
A minimal number of tasks demonstrate total float with minimized values, follow a logical
sequence of work, and support intermediate / master schedules and contractual milestones.
Use of constraints and leads / lags is not minimized.
There are serious concerns with the accuracy of the critical path and inclusion of the technical
approach.
Program lacks a valid critical path to assess schedule risk and the ability to forecast impacts
to major critical subcontract work, downstream program milestones, and / or IMP events.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
71 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Insufficient schedule margin exists to accommodate normal schedule disturbances, but
anticipate minimal impact to program objectives.
Risk is unacceptable even with contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Cost Risk - Evaluation Criteria:
3- Low risk: (All should be true for scoring the risk level)
Budget is executable within the technical and schedule objectives for the authorized work
scope of the control account.
Basis of the work package scope is well understood and risks, assumptions, or complexity
factors have been documented for the differences between the BOE and control account
budget.
Budget values, time phasing, and breakout between labor / material / other direct cost
assigned are reasonable.
2 – Medium risk: (if any are true and there are no high risks in the assessment)
Budget is marginally executable within the technical and schedule objectives for the
authorized work scope of the control account.
Budget values, time phasing, and breakout between labor material / other direct cost assigned
are optimistic and may represent a risk in terms of cost achievability.
Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring is probably sufficient to
overcome difficulties.
1 – High risk: (if any are true, this risk level is appropriate)
Budget is not executable within the technical and schedule objectives for the authorized work
scope of the control account.
Budget values, time phasing, and breakout between labor / material / other direct cost
assigned are inadequate given contractual cost, schedule, and resource constraints, and is
likely to represent a risk in terms of cost achievability.
Risk may be unacceptable even with contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Resource Risk - Evaluation Criteria:
3- Low risk: (All should be true for scoring at this risk level)
Resources are adequate; taking into consideration any / all resource availabilities, constraints,
and their limitations.
Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of
performance.
Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring is probably sufficient to
overcome difficulties.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
72 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
2 – Medium risk: (if any are true and there are no high risks in the assessment)
Resources may be inadequate; availabilities and some constraints not fully considered.
This can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of
performance.
Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring is probably sufficient to
overcome difficulties.
1 – High risk: (if any are true, this risk level is appropriate)
Resources are inadequate; availabilities and constraints not fully considered.
This is likely to cause a significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of
performance.
Risk may be unacceptable even with contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Management Processes Risk - Evaluation Criteria:
3- Low risk: (All should be true for scoring at this risk level)
Has access to the management processes and knows where to get help.
Has a basic knowledge of Baseline Maintenance, Risk Management, Scheduling, and
Estimate at Completion updates, Subcontractors Management (as applicable) and Managerial
Analysis.
Implemented management processes are in accordance with the system description and
internal operating instructions and provide effective integrated cost / schedule / technical
planning and baseline change control.
Is able to demonstrate impact to the critical path, predict and handle cost and schedule risks,
and execute the program successfully meeting all cost and schedule risks, and execute the
program successfully meeting all program requirements.
Utilizes appropriate earned value methods consistent with the type of work performed.
Management Processes are providing timely and accurate performance data.
Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of
performance.
Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring is probably sufficient to
overcome difficulties.
2 – Medium risk: (if any are true and there are no high risks in the assessment)
Does not have access to all the management processes or does not know where to get help.
Has partial knowledge of Baseline Maintenance, Risk Management, Scheduling, and
Estimate at Completion updates, Subcontractors Management (as applicable) and Managerial
Analysis.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
73 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Is not implementing some management processes in accordance with the system description
and internal operating instructions that may not provide effective integrated cost / schedule /
technical planning and baseline change control.
Is unsure how to demonstrate impact to the critical path, predict and handle cost and schedule
risks, and execute the program successfully meeting all cost and schedule risks, and execute
the program successfully meeting all program requirements.
Appropriate earned value methods are generally utilized and are consistent with the type of
work performed.
Has some potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of
performance.
Increased contractor effort and increased Government monitoring is probably sufficient to
overcome difficulties.
1 – High risk: (if any are true, this risk level is appropriate)
Does not have access to the management processes and does not know where to get help.
Has little knowledge of Baseline Maintenance, Risk Management, Scheduling, and Estimate
at Completion updates, Subcontractor Management (as applicable) and Managerial Analysis.
Is not implementing management processes in accordance with the system description and
internal operating instructions that may not provide effective integrated cost / schedule /
technical planning and baseline change control.
Unable to demonstrate impact to the critical path, predict and handle cost and schedule risks,
unable to execute the program successfully meeting all cost and schedule commitments, and
unable to execute the program successfully meeting all program requirements.
Appropriate earned value methods are not utilized or are not consistent with the type of work
performed.
Management processes are not providing timely and accurate performance data.
There is significant potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of
performance.
Significant contractor effort and significant Government monitoring is not sufficient to
overcome difficulties.
Risk is unacceptable even with contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
74 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.11. Sample CAM Discussion Summary
CAM discussions begin with an IBR team meeting where any areas that may need a deeper than normal
discussion are identified. Following the discussion session, the IBR team meets to document the findings
and record any action items. Later on in the IBR process, the challenge is to translate the findings from
the CAM discussions into an overall assessment of the PMB and the capability of the contractor team to
execute that baseline. Thus, CAM discussion results need to be carefully and consistently recorded.
The following is a template that may be useful for recording CAM discussions.
CAM Discussion Summary
Control Accounts assigned to CAM:
CAM Name:
Government Discussion Lead:
Discussion Assessment:
Technical: Low Medium or High Risk
Specific examples justifying risk rating
Schedule: Low Medium or High Risk
Specific examples justifying risk rating
Cost: Low Medium or High Risk
Specific examples justifying risk rating
Resource: Low Medium or High Risk
Specific examples justifying risk rating
Management Processes: Low Medium or
High Risk
Specific examples justifying risk rating
Identification of Risks:
Describe any additional risk candidates identified
in CAM discussion.
Integrated Baseline Review Process
75 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Post Discussion Actions:
For each action detail the following:
Description of Action Item: Specific narrative
description of action item.
Response: Contractor response to action item
assignment
Status: Status of corrective / preclusive actions
Planned Follow Up:
Define any follow-up activity by the IBR team or
the CAM (such as providing additional documents
or information).
The CAM discussion ratings are summarized at the total program level. The overall IBR is assessed as
red, yellow, or green for the technical, schedule, cost, resources, and management processes categories.
Recall that Low risk receives 3 points, Medium risk 2 points, and High risk 1 point. For the overall
scoring:
Green = 2.6 or greater
Yellow = less than 2.5 and greater than 2.0
Red = 1.9 or less
Integrated Baseline Review Process
76 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.12. Sample Action Tracker / Sample Action item List
This IBR is an incremental process that spans a number of months. Tracking action items to closure is
important to ensure the goals of the IBR are achieved. Tracking action items also provides a history of
progress of the PMB and is helpful if additional IBRs are conducted on the same program. SAF/AQXC
provides a Microsoft Excel action item tracking spreadsheet that includes workbooks that are synched to a
master action item spreadsheet. A screenshot of the Air Force Integrated Baseline Review Action Tracker
is shown below.
Tech Sched Res Cost
Mgmt
EX. A Task XYZ duration > 44 days Review and confirm duration is accurate. IMS John Doe
Planner /
Schedulers
X IMS UID 294 2010.04.01 abc.xls John Smith
Date
Submitted
Data Item
Risk Area
Originator
U.S. Air Force
Integrated Baseline Review Action Tracker
POC / CAM
Data Item
ID
Type
Condition
Action Description
(i.e. Add, Delete, Update, Create, Align...)
(The next step is…)
Affected Artifact(s)
File Name
Control
Account
Flag Duplicates
Import All
Delete Duplicates
Import Latest
Integrated Baseline Review Process
77 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.13. Sample IBR Exit Briefing
The IBR Exit Briefing is the final full joint contractor and Government IBR team gathering. The purpose
is to validate the team’s understanding of the PMB, its risks and the plans to execute the program. A
considerable amount of information is presented at the IBR Exit Briefing. The information presented is
the assessment of the joint IBR team. The presenters of the information are normally the Government IBR
team but contractor presenters are also appropriate. The material presented is similar to that presented at
the Readiness Review but will also reflect progress made during Phase II. Listed below is the minimum
content for the presentation.
Bottom Line Up Front (i.e. PMB and risks well understood; PMB achievable)
IBR Direction (Requirements that the IBR satisfies)
IMP IBR Event Status (Review accomplishments and criteria)
IBR Timeline (Recap for leadership in attendance)
Phase I Action Item Status (Open and Closed Items; update from Readiness Review)
o Document Quality Evaluation Results
o Integration Trace Results
Schedule Risk Assessment Results
Phase II (CAM Discussion) Summary and Scoring
Phase II (CAM Discussion) Action Item Status
Review latest update to Program Risk Register
Risk Topic Area Assessment
o Program Technical Risk Rating / Justification
o Program Schedule Risk Rating / Justification
o Program Cost Risk Rating / Justification
o Program Resources Risk Rating / Justification
o Program Management Processes Risk Rating / Justification
Integrated Baseline Review Process
78 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
Review of remaining IBR Open Action Items
PMB Approval Recommendation
IBR Closure Plan
Detailed Backup Charts (as appropriate)
Integrated Baseline Review Process
79 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.14. Sample Memo for the Record
The following is a sample memo documenting the approval of the PMB and the completion of the IBR.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS CENTER (AFMC)
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE OHIO
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: [Program name] Integrated Baseline Review
1. The [Program] Directorate and [contractor name], with support from the Defense Contract
Management Agency, conducted an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) starting [date] and extending
through [date].
2. The primary culminating elements of the [program name] IBR were:
a. System Requirements Review [date]
b. Integrated Risk Assessment [date]
c. IBR Integration Meeting [date]
d. Schedule Risk Assessment [date]
f. Supplier IBRs
- Supplier #1 [date]
- Supplier #2 [date]
g. Exit Briefing [date]
3. Based on the findings of the [program name] IBR, I approve the Performance Measurement Baseline
(PMB) represented in the [month/year] month-end Contract Performance Report and associated
Integrated Master Schedule.
4. [Describe any additional requirements or corrective actions contractor must complete to close out the
IBR]
5. Please address any questions to [name], [phone number].
[PM name]
[title]
Attachment:
1. [program name]IBR Exit Briefing
Integrated Baseline Review Process
80 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
6.15. Acronyms
AC Accomplishment Criteria
ACWP Actual Cost of Work Performed
B&A Basis and Assumptions
BCD Baseline Change Document
BCR Baseline Change Request
BCWP Budgeted Cost of Work Performed
BCWS Budgeted Cost of Work Schedules
BOM Bill of Materials
CAM Control Account Manager
CAP Control Account Plan
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CAR Corrective Action Request
CBB Contract Budget Base
CDD Capability Development Document
CDR Critical Design Review
CDRL Contract Deliverable Requirements List
CLIN Contract Line Item Number
CONOPS Concept of Operations
CPD Capability Production Document
CPI Cost Performance Index
CPR Contract Performance Report
CTP Critical Technical Parameter
CWBS Contract Work Breakdown Structure
DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency
DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency
DFAR Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
DID Data Item Description
DR Discrepancy Request
EAC Estimate At Completion
ECP Engineering Change Proposal
EOC Element of Cost
ETC Estimate To Complete
EV Earned Value
EVM Earned Value Management
EVMS Earned Value Management System
EVMSD Earned Value Management System Description
EVT Earned Value Technique
FFP Firm Fixed Price
FRP Full Rate Production
GFE Government Furnished Equipment
GFI Government Furnished Information
GFP Government Furnished Property
IBR Integrated Baseline Review
ICD Initial Capability Document
Integrated Baseline Review Process
81 Version 3.0, 20 September 2012
IMP Integrated Master Plan
IMS Integrated Master Schedule
IOT Inter-Organizational Transfer
IPMR Integrate Program Management Report
IPT Integrated Product Team
IRA Integrated Risk Assessment
ITP Integrated Test Plan
KPP Key Performance Parameter
LOE Level Of Effort
MFR Memorandum For the Record
MPS Master Phasing Schedule
MR Management Reserve
NDIA National Defense Industry Association
OBS Organizational Breakdown Structure
ODC Other Direct Costs
OTB Over Target Baseline
OTS Over Target Schedule
PC Percent Complete
PDR Preliminary Design Review
PE Program Element
PMB Performance Measurement Baseline
PMO Program Management Office
PP Planning Package
QBD Quantifiable Backup Data
RAM Responsibility Assignment Matrix
RFP Request For Proposal
RFQ Request For Quote
SA Significant Accomplishment
SEP Systems Engineering Plan
SM Schedule Margin
SME Subject Matter Expert
SOO Statement Of Objectives
SOW Statement Of Work
SRA Schedule Risk Assessment
SRD System Requirements Document
SRR System Requirements Review
SS System Specification
TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan
TEPP Test and Evaluation Program Plan
TPM Technical Performance Measures
TRD Technical Requirements Document
UB Undistributed Budget
VAR Variance Analysis Report
WAD Work Authorization Document
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
WP Work Package