Dod program indicators

However, work performed is often specified at too high a level to identify problems early. This is linked back to the generation of the WBS during the initial program planning and whether it was created at a detailed enough level i. In cases where the detail is insufficient, EVM is unlikely to report real problems for several months.

It is usually program engineers and acquisition analysts who are able to identify and report technical and schedule problems before the EVM can report them. TPMs are metrics that track key attributes of the design to monitor progress toward meeting requirements [7, 8]. More detailed tracking of technical performance by contractors is becoming popular as a way to measure progress and surface problems early using Technical Performance Indices at the lowest product configuration item i.

Appropriate insight into evaluating the work performed for EVM can be challenging. It often requires close engineering team participation to judge whether the EVM is accurately reporting progress. A case where this is particularly challenging is in large programs requiring cross-functional teams and sub-contracts or associate contracts.

Keeping the EVM reporting accurate and timely is the issue. To do this, the contractor's team must have close coordination and communication. Check that forums and methods are in place to accurately report EVM data for the entire program.

Several years ago, MITRE engineers assisted in the development of a suite of "leading indicators" to track more detailed systems engineering activities for a DoD customer. Table 1 summarizes some of these metrics expanded to generically apply here , which were to be assessed as red, yellow, or green, according to specified definitions. An analysis of the overlap of the leading indicators with PoPS metrics was conducted. Although several metrics have similar names, the essence of what is captured is different, and there is very little overlap.

Are the risks coming to closure without significant impact? As opposed to the risk handling metric above, this one looks at the severity of the risks—which ones are likely to occur with a med-high impact to the program.

Although this suite of "leading indicators" was not officially implemented by the customer, they make a good set of items to consider for metrics; they also capture areas not covered in other models. MITRE is proud to be an equal opportunity employer. The Inspector General Act of , Section 8 c 3 , requires the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to "provide policy direction for audits and investigations relating to fraud, waste, and abuse.

The following links to resources can help increase an auditor's awareness of possible audit risk factors, as well as their responsibilities for audit planning, executing, reporting, and referring the matter to the appropriate investigative organization when an audit identifies fraud indicators. The resources highlight key generally accepted government auditing standards GAGAS , requirements, and overall DoD audit expectations and best practices for identifying and detecting potential fraud.

GAGAS describes fraud as: a type of illegal act involving the obtaining of something of value through willful misrepresentation. However, the various scenarios and the accompanying fraud indicators describe situations related to some common fraud schemes that DoD auditors might encounter. Contract Audit Fraud Detection Resources.

Send us some quick feedback on our resources. DoD employees must disclose any known fraud, abuse, corruption, mismanagement, or waste to the appropriate DoD, Federal government, other appropriate official, or hotline. DoD employees are also encouraged to report any suspected irregularities indicating that fraud, waste, abuse, corruption, or mismanagement may have occurred or may be ongoing. Individuals should be able to make all disclosures without the fear of reprisal. DoD auditors or non-Federal government auditors performing audits 1 for the DoD have additional responsibilities.

The DoD OIG expects auditors to be proactive in identifying and referring to the appropriate investigative organization known or potential fraud, abuse, or corruption. Subcontract Pricing. Purchasing System - Circumventing Internal Controls. Construction Failure. Emergency Relief Supply Fund. Foreign Service National Fraud. Multiple Subcontractors. Fraudulent Invoices. Unusual and Compelling Authority. Inherently Governmental Functions. Reconstruction Funds.

Suspect Invoice Charges. Fuel Accountability. Related Third Party Transaction. Active Duty Overpayments. Travel Fund Embezzlement. Invalid Travel Receipts. Excessive Overtime Fraud. Military Pay. Duplicate Payroll Charges. Separated Employees. Service Member Improper Payments. Ghost Employees. Fraud Case Study - Timesheet Fraud. Worker's Compensation. Asset Misappropriation. Excess Inventory. Treasury Checks. In-Kind Gifts. Billing Scheme. Check Tampering - Forged Maker.

Expense Reimbursement. Authorized Maker.