Client: Department of the Navy
Contract Number:
N0018922PZ087
POP:
02/01/2022 – 06/30/2024
Total Contract Value:
$7,288,367.80*
We worked closely with the DON Office of Financial Management Operations (FMO) to implement a strategic, holistic approach for implementing an internal controls program in accordance with OMB Circular A-123 and in support the DON Integrated Risk Management (IRM) Strategy. We developed a Current State assessment of FMO’s business operations and identified Future State opportunities for improvement via current & future state analyses, risks assessments, and design and application of a cross-cutting risk management methodology.
The streamlined policy and framework allowed identification and prioritization of FMO’s 60+ risks across 20 risk owners. Consequently, FMO Leadership had a comprehensive risk profile while enabling a clear line of sight into those risks that may prevent FMO from meeting its operational, reporting, and compliance objectives. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller) (OASN (FM&C)) adopted FMO’s risk management methodology for use across the DON.
For OASN (FM&C) FMR, we implemented MICP utilizing our proven five-phased internal control program approach we implemented previously at FMO. Through this approach, Iberia identified, assessed, and prioritized nine risks across three risk owners.
We collaborated with DASNs across OASN (FM&C) on the Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Strategic Implementation Review (SIR). We provided strategic observations and recommended corrective actions on the Navy ERP program management processes through our examination of over 500 system artifacts and conducted 21 stakeholder interviews. We performed the analysis using the Standard Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) approach. We grouped the SDLC activities into three categories: how the Navy ERP program was structured, how it is built, and how it has been deployed. During the review, we identified themes from existing documentation or interviews and evidence that would identify key areas for improvement. This was the most effective structure to demonstrate to leadership the complexity of the issues and the tradeoffs entailed in the recommendations.