EVP — AACE Earned Value Professional Quick Reference
Compact earned value formula, baseline, forecasting, variance, and control reference for AACE International AACE Earned Value Professional (EVP) candidates.
Exam-Focused Use
This Quick Reference supports independent review for the AACE International AACE Earned Value Professional (EVP) exam, code EVP. Use it to rehearse earned value terminology, formulas, baseline logic, forecasting assumptions, and common decision points.
For calculation questions, write down BAC, PV, EV, AC, EAC, ETC, and status date first. Most traps come from mixing budget, actual cost, calendar schedule, and authorized baseline concepts.
Earned Value Core Terms
| Term | Also seen as | Meaning | Exam trap |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAC | Budget at Completion | Total budget for the measured work scope | Usually excludes management reserve unless reserve has been allocated into the baseline |
| PV | BCWS | Budgeted value of work scheduled by the status date | Planned value is not actual spending |
| EV | BCWP | Budgeted value of work actually accomplished | EV is earned by progress, not by paying invoices |
| AC | ACWP | Actual cost incurred for the work performed | Should include accruals/recognized costs, not just cash paid |
| CV | Cost Variance | EV - AC | Negative means over cost; positive means under cost |
| SV | Schedule Variance | EV - PV | Expressed in budget units, not days |
| CPI | Cost Performance Index | EV / AC | Below 1.0 means cost efficiency is worse than planned |
| SPI | Schedule Performance Index | EV / PV | Can become less useful late in the project because SV trends to zero at completion |
| EAC | Estimate at Completion | Current forecast of final cost | Formula depends on the performance assumption |
| ETC | Estimate to Complete | Forecast cost of remaining work | ETC = EAC - AC |
| VAC | Variance at Completion | BAC - EAC | Negative means projected overrun |
| TCPI | To-Complete Performance Index | Required future efficiency | Compare TCPI to historical CPI for realism |
| PMB | Performance Measurement Baseline | Time-phased budget plan for authorized work | Excludes management reserve |
| MR | Management Reserve | Budget reserve for in-scope unknowns | Not for poor performance or out-of-scope work |
| UB | Undistributed Budget | Authorized budget not yet distributed to control accounts | Temporary; should not become hidden reserve |
| CBB | Contract Budget Base | Authorized budget base for the contract work | CBB = PMB + MR in common EVM usage |
| TAB | Total Allocated Budget | Total budget allocated to work | May exceed CBB after a formal over-target baseline |
| CA | Control Account | Management control point at WBS/OBS intersection | Has scope, schedule, budget, responsible manager |
| CAM | Control Account Manager | Person accountable for control account performance | Must explain variance, forecast, and corrective action |
| WP | Work Package | Near-term, detailed, planned work | Should have objective earning method |
| PP | Planning Package | Future work not yet detailed into work packages | Must be refined before execution |
| LOE | Level of Effort | Support activity measured by time passage | Earns EV as planned; masks schedule variance |
| Apportioned Effort | AE | Work tied proportionally to another discrete task | Its EV depends on the base effort |
| OTB | Over-Target Baseline | Formal baseline above contract budget base | Not a routine variance fix |
| OTS | Over-Target Schedule | Formal schedule baseline beyond contractual/specified schedule | Requires disciplined explanation and control |
Essential Formula Sheet
Variance formulas:
\[ \text{CV} = \text{EV} - \text{AC}, \qquad \text{SV} = \text{EV} - \text{PV} \]Index formulas:
\[ \text{CPI} = \frac{\text{EV}}{\text{AC}}, \qquad \text{SPI} = \frac{\text{EV}}{\text{PV}} \]Completion formulas:
\[ \text{ETC} = \text{EAC} - \text{AC}, \qquad \text{VAC} = \text{BAC} - \text{EAC} \]Progress formulas:
\[ \%\text{Complete} = \frac{\text{EV}}{\text{BAC}}, \qquad \%\text{Spent} = \frac{\text{AC}}{\text{BAC}}, \qquad \%\text{Planned} = \frac{\text{PV}}{\text{BAC}} \]To-complete performance:
\[ \text{TCPI}_{BAC} = \frac{\text{BAC} - \text{EV}}{\text{BAC} - \text{AC}}, \qquad \text{TCPI}_{EAC} = \frac{\text{BAC} - \text{EV}}{\text{EAC} - \text{AC}} \]Earned schedule, when used:
\[ \text{SV(t)} = \text{ES} - \text{AT}, \qquad \text{SPI(t)} = \frac{\text{ES}}{\text{AT}} \]Where ES is earned schedule time from the PV curve and AT is actual elapsed time at the status date.
Formula Selection Table
| Need | Formula | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Cost variance | CV = EV - AC | Negative: over cost for work accomplished |
| Schedule variance | SV = EV - PV | Negative: less work earned than planned |
| Cost efficiency | CPI = EV / AC | 0.80 means earning 0.80 budget units per actual cost unit |
| Schedule efficiency | SPI = EV / PV | 0.90 means earning 90% of planned budgeted work rate |
| Forecast if future work follows plan | EAC = AC + (BAC - EV) | Past variance is treated as non-recurring |
| Forecast if current cost efficiency continues | EAC = AC + (BAC - EV) / CPI | Common when cost performance trend is expected to persist |
| Simplified CPI forecast | EAC = BAC / CPI | Algebraically similar when CPI applies to total BAC |
| Forecast with cost and schedule pressure | EAC = AC + (BAC - EV) / (CPI x SPI) | Use only when schedule inefficiency is expected to affect cost |
| Bottom-up forecast | EAC = AC + bottom-up ETC | Best when remaining work has been re-estimated |
| Final variance forecast | VAC = BAC - EAC | Negative VAC means overrun expected |
| Required efficiency to meet BAC | TCPI = (BAC - EV) / (BAC - AC) | If much higher than CPI, BAC may be unrealistic |
| Required efficiency to meet EAC | TCPI = (BAC - EV) / (EAC - AC) | Tests whether the new EAC is credible |
Fast Interpretation Rules
| Result | Meaning | Likely management focus |
|---|---|---|
| CV < 0 | Over budget for work performed | Cost root cause, productivity, rates, rework, procurement costs |
| CV > 0 | Under budget for work performed | Confirm real efficiency, not delayed invoices or missing accruals |
| SV < 0 | Behind planned value | Schedule logic, critical path, resources, constraints |
| SV > 0 | Ahead of planned value | Confirm work sequence and quality, not premature EV credit |
| CPI < 1.0 | Cost efficiency unfavorable | Forecast EAC impact; identify corrective action |
| CPI > 1.0 | Cost efficiency favorable | Validate actuals and scope completeness |
| SPI < 1.0 | Schedule efficiency unfavorable | Use IMS/critical path, not SPI alone |
| SPI > 1.0 | Schedule efficiency favorable | Check whether high-value noncritical work is distorting schedule view |
| TCPI greater than CPI | Future must be more efficient than past | Ask whether corrective action supports it |
| TCPI far greater than 1.0 | Aggressive recovery needed | BAC or EAC may be unrealistic |
| SV = 0 at completion | Normal arithmetic result | Does not prove the project finished on time |
| EV = PV for LOE | Expected for level-of-effort work | LOE can hide schedule problems |
Mini Calculation Example
Given:
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| BAC | 1,000 |
| PV | 500 |
| EV | 450 |
| AC | 600 |
| Metric | Calculation | Result | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| CV | 450 - 600 | -150 | Over cost |
| SV | 450 - 500 | -50 | Behind planned value |
| CPI | 450 / 600 | 0.75 | Poor cost efficiency |
| SPI | 450 / 500 | 0.90 | Behind planned rate |
| EAC using CPI | 1,000 / 0.75 | 1,333 | Forecast overrun |
| VAC | 1,000 - 1,333 | -333 | Negative completion variance |
| TCPI to BAC | (1,000 - 450) / (1,000 - 600) | 1.375 | Must perform far better than current CPI |
Exam reasoning: the project is both over cost and behind schedule. A rebaseline is not the first answer; first validate data, analyze root cause, forecast, and plan corrective action.
Baseline Structure
| Layer | Purpose | Key control point |
|---|---|---|
| Contract or authorized project scope | Defines the work to be managed | Scope must be traceable to WBS |
| WBS | Product/project scope decomposition | Every control account should map to WBS elements |
| OBS | Organization responsibility structure | Identifies who performs/manages the work |
| RAM | Responsibility assignment matrix | Connects WBS scope to responsible organization |
| Control account | Primary EVM management point | Integrates scope, schedule, budget, actuals, and responsibility |
| Work package | Detailed executable work | Objective EV method selected before work starts |
| Planning package | Future work not yet detailed | Must be converted to work packages before execution |
| PMB | Time-phased budget baseline | Measures performance; excludes MR |
| MR | Management-controlled reserve | Used for in-scope unknowns, not baseline padding |
| CBB | Authorized budget base | Commonly PMB + MR |
| TAB | Allocated budget total | May differ from CBB after formal OTB |
Baseline Integrity Checklist
A defensible performance measurement baseline should have:
- Authorized scope tied to the WBS.
- Defined responsible organization and CAM.
- Time-phased budget aligned to the integrated schedule.
- Objective earning methods for discrete work.
- Work authorization before work begins.
- Clear separation of distributed budget, undistributed budget, and management reserve.
- Change control for scope, schedule, and budget changes.
- Traceability from baseline to actual costs and performance reports.
- Variance thresholds and documented analysis expectations.
- Forecasting discipline, not just historical reporting.
Control Account Reference
| Element | What it should contain | EVP exam emphasis |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Specific authorized work | Avoid ambiguous or duplicated scope |
| Schedule | Activities, logic, milestones, status date | EV must align with schedule status |
| Budget | Time-phased resources/cost | Budget is not a spending plan alone |
| EV method | How value is earned | Must be objective and appropriate |
| Actual cost collection | Cost account mapping and accrual rules | AC must match the work scope being measured |
| CAM accountability | Variance analysis and forecast | CAM explains root cause, impact, and action |
| Risk linkage | Known threats/opportunities | EAC should reflect risk exposure |
| Change history | Approved baseline revisions | Prevents unauthorized baseline movement |
Earned Value Measurement Methods
| Method | How EV is earned | Best for | Common trap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0/100 | 0% until complete, then 100% | Short tasks with clear completion | Too harsh for long-duration work |
| 50/50 | 50% at start, 50% at finish | Short tasks with start/finish evidence | Overstates progress when many tasks are merely started |
| Weighted milestones | Predefined value at milestone completion | Engineering, procurement, deliverable-based work | Milestones must be objective and weighted before work starts |
| Percent complete | EV based on assessed progress | Longer work where physical progress can be measured | Subjective if not backed by measurable criteria |
| Physical measurement | EV from installed quantities or measured output | Construction, manufacturing, field work | Requires reliable quantity tracking |
| Units complete | EV per completed unit | Repetitive production | Unit budget must reflect real effort/cost pattern |
| Apportioned effort | EV tied to a related discrete work base | Inspection or support proportional to production | Bad if base activity is not genuinely related |
| Level of effort | EV equals planned passage of time | Management/support activities | Produces no schedule variance by design |
| Fixed formula | Preset split such as 25/75 or 50/50 | Low-value, short-duration tasks | Can distort status if task durations are too long |
Choosing the EV Method
| Situation | Prefer | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Tangible deliverables with objective events | Weighted milestones | Subjective percent complete |
| Repetitive measurable quantities | Units complete or physical measurement | LOE |
| Long engineering package with interim deliverables | Weighted milestones | 0/100 if it hides progress too long |
| Short procurement action | 0/100 or 50/50 | Detailed percent complete |
| Ongoing project management support | LOE | Treating LOE as discrete deliverable progress |
| Quality inspection proportional to production | Apportioned effort | Standalone subjective progress |
| High-risk work package | Objective milestones with evidence | Formula earning that front-loads EV |
Performance Analysis Workflow
flowchart LR
A[Authorize scope and baseline] --> B[Status schedule and progress]
B --> C[Collect actual costs]
C --> D[Calculate PV, EV, AC]
D --> E[Compute variances and indices]
E --> F[Validate data quality]
F --> G[Analyze root cause]
G --> H[Update EAC and risk view]
H --> I[Define corrective action]
I --> J[Report and control changes]
J --> B
Variance Analysis Quality
| Weak variance explanation | Strong variance explanation |
|---|---|
| “Overrun due to labor.” | “CPI unfavorable due to 20% higher labor hours from rework on drawing package X; corrective action is design review checklist and senior review before release.” |
| “Behind schedule; will monitor.” | “SPI unfavorable because supplier test fixture delivery missed baseline date; recovery requires alternate fixture approval by date X.” |
| “Costs are high.” | “Actual material unit price exceeded baseline assumption; EAC updated using current vendor quote and procurement strategy revised.” |
| “Variance is timing.” | “AC includes early material receipt while EV will be earned at installation next period; no EAC impact if installation occurs as planned.” |
| “Need more budget.” | “Remaining work re-estimated bottom-up; current TCPI to BAC is unrealistic compared with demonstrated CPI; EAC revised.” |
A good variance analysis usually includes:
- What happened.
- Why it happened.
- Whether the variance is one-time or recurring.
- Impact on schedule, cost, technical scope, and EAC.
- Corrective action, owner, and due date.
- Whether baseline change, MR use, or customer change is required.
Forecasting Decision Table
| Scenario | Better EAC approach | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Past cost variance is isolated and corrected | AC + (BAC - EV) | Remaining work expected to follow plan |
| Current cost efficiency likely continues | AC + (BAC - EV) / CPI | Historical CPI is predictive |
| Schedule compression will increase cost | AC + (BAC - EV) / (CPI x SPI) | Cost and schedule inefficiency both affect remaining work |
| Remaining work has changed in detail | AC + bottom-up ETC | New estimate is more credible than index-only forecast |
| Major risk has materialized | Bottom-up ETC plus risk impact | Formula-only EAC may miss known future exposure |
| Actuals are incomplete or misposted | Fix AC first | Forecast from bad actuals is misleading |
| Scope change is authorized | Update baseline through change control, then forecast | EAC must reflect authorized scope |
| Work is mostly complete | Bottom-up ETC | Small remaining denominator can distort indices |
| LOE dominates remaining work | Review discrete work separately | LOE can make SPI appear healthier than reality |
Change Control and Reserve Use
| Event | Correct treatment | Incorrect treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Customer adds out-of-scope work | Formal change control; adjust scope, schedule, and budget if authorized | Use MR to fund new scope |
| In-scope risk occurs | Allocate MR if approved and consistent with governance | Hide cost overrun by adding budget after the fact |
| Planning package is detailed | Convert to work packages; maintain traceability | Change total scope without authorization |
| Accounting error found | Correct actual cost data | Rebaseline to remove unfavorable CPI |
| Performance overrun occurs | Analyze, forecast, correct; update EAC | Automatically add budget to erase variance |
| Authorized but not yet priced work appears | Track and budget consistently with authorization rules | Treat as unapproved informal work |
| Baseline no longer useful due major overrun | Consider formal OTB/OTS process | Quietly move historical budgets retroactively |
| Work already performed without authorization | Escalate and resolve authorization issue | Earn EV as if baseline existed |
Management Reserve Rules
| Rule | Practical meaning |
|---|---|
| MR is outside the PMB | It is not part of performance measurement until allocated |
| MR is for in-scope unknowns | It is not for customer-directed new scope |
| MR allocation should be documented | MR log should show reason, amount, and approval |
| MR allocation changes PMB/BAC for affected work | It should not change CBB by itself |
| MR should not mask poor performance | Cost variance remains visible unless valid baseline change rules apply |
Replanning, Reprogramming, OTB, and OTS
| Term | Meaning | When it appears | Exam distinction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal replanning | Adjusting future baseline details within authorized scope/budget | Normal planning refinement | Should preserve traceability and not erase history improperly |
| Reprogramming | More significant restructuring of plans | When current plan is not executable | Requires disciplined approval and documentation |
| OTB | Over-target baseline | Formal recognition that allocated budget exceeds contract budget base | Used when original budget is no longer realistic for management control |
| OTS | Over-target schedule | Formal schedule baseline beyond target/contractual schedule | Schedule management reset, not proof of no delay |
| Single-point adjustment | Resetting variances in a formal rebaseline context | Sometimes associated with OTB | Must be transparent; not routine variance cleanup |
High-yield point: Do not choose rebaseline as the first response to a variance. First validate data, analyze causes, update forecasts, and define corrective action. Formal baseline resets are governance events.
Schedule and EVM Integration
| Concept | What to remember |
|---|---|
| Status date | Common cut-off for PV, EV, AC, and schedule status |
| Integrated master schedule | Should contain logic, durations, milestones, and status consistent with EV |
| Critical path | Determines schedule completion risk better than SPI alone |
| Float/slack | High SPI can coexist with critical path delay if noncritical work earned value early |
| Constraints | Excessive hard constraints can hide schedule logic problems |
| Out-of-sequence work | May earn EV but can distort schedule forecast |
| LOE activities | Should not drive critical path or mask discrete work performance |
| Baseline dates | Must be controlled; unauthorized changes weaken variance meaning |
| Resource loading | Supports time-phased budget and realism of the PMB |
| Schedule risk | Should influence EAC/ETC when recovery actions add cost |
Risk, Contingency, and EAC
Risk is not separate from earned value management; it affects forecast credibility.
\[ \text{EMV} = \text{Probability} \times \text{Impact} \]| Item | Role in EVM |
|---|---|
| Risk register | Identifies threats/opportunities that may affect cost and schedule |
| Management reserve | Budget for in-scope unknowns at management level |
| Contingency in estimates | Planned allowance tied to identified uncertainty, depending on estimating approach |
| EAC | Should reflect known risks, trends, and remaining work realism |
| Corrective action | Should reduce future variance or risk exposure |
| Opportunity | May improve EAC, schedule, or resource use if credible |
Exam trap: a favorable CPI does not eliminate risk. A low-probability, high-impact event may still require management attention and reserve planning.
Data Quality Checks
| Check | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Does EV correspond to completed, authorized work? | Prevents premature performance credit |
| Does AC match the same scope as EV? | Avoids false CPI |
| Are accruals included? | Prevents favorable CPI caused by late invoices |
| Are baseline changes approved? | Protects PMB integrity |
| Are LOE and discrete work separated? | Prevents LOE from hiding real schedule variance |
| Is PV time-phased to the schedule? | Avoids meaningless SPI/SV |
| Are actual rates and quantities separated? | Helps root-cause cost variance |
| Are material commitments confused with actual costs? | Commitment is not always AC unless reporting rules define it that way |
| Are subcontractor costs/status current? | Late supplier data can distort project metrics |
| Are negative or unusual values explained? | Prevents mechanical formula use |
Common Exam Traps
| Trap | Correct thinking |
|---|---|
| “Positive SV means project will finish early.” | SV is budget-based; check critical path and schedule forecast |
| “SPI = 1.0 means on time.” | At completion SPI often trends to 1.0; use schedule analysis |
| “Use MR to cover overruns.” | MR is for in-scope unknowns, not poor performance |
| “Rebaseline whenever CPI is bad.” | Analyze, forecast, and correct first |
| “AC equals cash paid.” | AC should reflect incurred cost according to accounting/status rules |
| “EV is based on money spent.” | EV is based on budgeted value of completed work |
| “Percent complete is always acceptable.” | It must be objective and verifiable |
| “LOE is harmless.” | LOE can mask schedule variance and inflate performance appearance |
| “All EAC formulas are interchangeable.” | Each formula carries a different assumption |
| “A favorable CPI proves no problem.” | Missing actuals, deferred work, or quality issues may be hidden |
| “Negative VAC requires baseline change.” | VAC is a forecast result; baseline change requires authorization/governance |
| “Undistributed budget is reserve.” | UB is authorized budget not yet distributed; it is not MR |
| “Schedule variance is measured in days.” | Traditional SV is measured in budget units |
| “Budget includes fee/profit automatically.” | EVM budgets generally focus on cost for authorized work; check the reporting basis |
Role and Artifact Reference
| Role/artifact | Main purpose | EVP focus |
|---|---|---|
| Project manager | Overall cost, schedule, scope, and stakeholder accountability | Uses EVM to decide and communicate |
| CAM | Manages control account execution | Owns variance explanation and EAC input |
| Scheduler | Maintains integrated schedule | Aligns schedule status with EV status |
| Cost analyst | Calculates metrics and trends | Tests data quality and forecasts |
| Finance/accounting | Provides actual cost data | Ensures AC timing and coding integrity |
| Subcontract manager | Manages supplier performance | Integrates subcontractor EV and actuals |
| Change control board | Reviews baseline changes | Prevents unauthorized PMB movement |
| Risk manager | Maintains risk exposure | Links risk to reserve and EAC |
| WBS dictionary | Defines work scope | Prevents scope ambiguity |
| RAM | Maps responsibility | Shows who owns each control account |
| Work authorization document | Authorizes scope, budget, schedule | Prevents informal work |
| Variance analysis report | Explains significant variance | Must include cause, impact, action |
| EAC log or forecast file | Tracks estimate changes | Supports forecast credibility |
| MR log | Tracks reserve allocation | Shows governance and rationale |
| Baseline change log | Records approved changes | Preserves audit trail |
“What Should the Manager Do Next?” Decision Table
| Situation in question stem | Best next action |
|---|---|
| CPI suddenly worsens | Validate actuals and EV, then analyze root cause |
| SPI is favorable but critical path slipped | Use schedule/critical path analysis; do not rely on SPI alone |
| Supplier invoice missing | Accrue or correct AC before interpreting CPI |
| CAM reports variance with no cause | Require root-cause analysis and corrective action |
| Customer requests added scope | Process through change control before adding baseline budget |
| In-scope technical risk materializes | Assess impact, consider MR allocation, update EAC |
| Control account has future work poorly defined | Convert planning packages to detailed work packages before execution |
| Percent complete appears subjective | Replace or support with objective milestones/physical measures |
| EAC formula conflicts with bottom-up estimate | Evaluate assumptions; use the more supportable forecast |
| TCPI to BAC is much higher than current CPI | Question whether BAC is achievable; update EAC if warranted |
| Historical variances were erased by baseline movement | Challenge baseline integrity and documentation |
| LOE dominates favorable SPI | Separate discrete work analysis from LOE |
| Work performed before authorization | Escalate authorization and baseline control issue |
| Overrun is due to poor productivity | Forecast impact and corrective action; do not use MR automatically |
| Baseline is no longer a useful management tool | Consider formal replanning/OTB/OTS governance |
Rapid Calculation Checklist
Before solving:
- Identify the status date.
- List PV, EV, AC, BAC.
- For variance, start with EV minus something:
- Cost: EV - AC.
- Schedule: EV - PV.
- For index, start with EV divided by something:
- Cost: EV / AC.
- Schedule: EV / PV.
- Positive variance is favorable; index above 1.0 is favorable.
- For EAC, identify the assumption:
- Future at plan.
- Future follows CPI.
- Future affected by CPI and SPI.
- Bottom-up re-estimate.
- Compare TCPI to current CPI for realism.
- Check whether the question asks for calculation, interpretation, or management action.
Final Review Targets
Prioritize these before practice sets:
- EV, PV, AC distinctions.
- CV, SV, CPI, SPI, EAC, ETC, VAC, and TCPI.
- EAC formula assumptions.
- Control account structure and CAM accountability.
- PMB, MR, UB, CBB, and TAB distinctions.
- EV measurement method selection.
- Variance analysis quality.
- Schedule integration and critical path limits of SPI.
- Change control versus MR use versus rebaseline.
- Data quality problems that invalidate metrics.
Next step: work timed earned value calculation and scenario questions, then review each miss by asking whether the error was formula selection, baseline logic, forecasting assumption, or management response.