Exhibit 300 (BY2009) for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Q-net

1. Date of Submission:

2008-02-04

2. Agency:

009

3. Bureau:

38

4. Name of this Capital Asset:

CMS Q-net

5. Unique Project Identifier:

009-38-01-02-01-2200-00

6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?

Operations and Maintenance

7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?

FY2001 or earlier

8. Provide a brief summary and justification for this investment, including a brief description of how this closes in part or in whole an identified agency performance gap.

QualityNet (QNET), formerly the Standard Data Processing System (SDPS), was developed in response to the ongoing information requirements of the Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) and other affiliated partners (e.g., Clinical Data Abstraction Centers (CDAC)) to fulfill their contractual requirements. QIOs contract with CMS to improve the quality of care for beneficiaries by ensuring that this care meets professionally-recognized standards of health care. These partners are awarded contracts based on agency and legislative statements of work which directly reflect goals in the PMA Initiative "Expanded E-Government" and the HHS strategic plan of "Improving Health Care Quality, Safety, Cost and Value." The contract statements of work (SOW) cover 3-year periods. They include data center operations, application development, telecommunication fees, and all other IT infrastructure such as servers, racks, and backup. QNET provides the application, data, and physical infrastructure to support the SOW with the efficient collection, analysis, dissemination, and management of data guiding policy and intervention, as well as SOW evaluation. QNET, which became operational in May 1997, interfaces with CMS Central Office, the QIES systems, the ESRD system, 53 QIOs, and a CDAC. QNET is an information system solution that provides a common platform for users to share applications and databases to promote efficiency and increase production for all the contractors performing work on the SOW. The overall goal is to provide an IT infrastructure to support QIO operations, promote information sharing, and support management information, all in direct response to the 3- year SOW. As CMS has moved development to the Web, and as the QIO program mission has changed and legislative requirements have developed, QNET has expanded greatly to meet the needs its external communities, as well. In FY06, the QNET system began supporting the CMS' Pay for Performance program in its initial phase, The Physician Voluntary Reporting phase. QNET includes QualityNet.org which is the initial web portal for all external customers. Information resides primarily at QNet Complex 3 located at the BCSSI Data Center in Warrenton, VA on dedicated QNet servers and networks. In addition, the CMS claims warehouse and enrollment database resides at Complex 1, CMS Data Center in Baltimore, Maryland on CMS Office of Information Systems servers and networks. QNET is in the CPIC Steady State phase.

9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request?

yes

9.a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval?

2007-06-26

10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?

yes

11.a. What is the current FAC-P/PM certification level of the project/program manager?

TBD

12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project.

yes

12.a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)?

yes

12.b. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only)

no

13. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives?

yes

If yes, select the initiatives that apply:

Initiative Name
Expanded E-Government

13.a. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? (e.g. If E-Gov is selected, is it an approved shared service provider or the managing partner?)

QNET (formally SDPS) directly supports the Expanded E-Government Initiative, since QNET supports QualityNet Exchange and web e-government activities. QualityNet Exchange is a web interface that allows the public secure registration and the exchange of program-required data over the Internet, lowering costs for data collection and allowing greater outreach to provider and beneficiary communities. QualityNet Exchange is the primary application that is part of the QNET investment.

14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)?

yes

14.a. If yes, does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review?

yes

14.b. If yes, what is the name of the PARTed program?

2003: CMS - Medicare Program

14.c. If yes, what rating did the PART receive?

Moderately Effective

15. Is this investment for information technology?

yes

16. What is the level of the IT Project (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)?

Level 3

17. What project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)

(1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment

18. Is this investment identified as high risk on the Q4 - FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB memorandum M-05-23)?

no

19. Is this a financial management system?

no

20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 100%)

Area	Percentage
Hardware	3
Software	4
Services	90
Other	3

21. If this project produces information dissemination products for the public, are these products published to the Internet in conformance with OMB Memorandum 05-04 and included in your agency inventory, schedules and priorities?

yes

22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions.

Name	Maribel Franey
Phone Number	410-786-0757
Title	Director, Privacy Compliance
Email	Maribel.Franey@cms.hhs.gov

23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval?

yes

24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas?

yes

1. Provide the total estimated life-cycle cost for this investment by completing the following table. All amounts represent budget authority in millions, and are rounded to three decimal places. Federal personnel costs should be included only in the row designated Government FTE Cost, and should be excluded from the amounts shown for Planning, Full Acquisition, and Operation/Maintenance. The total estimated annual cost of the investment is the sum of costs for Planning, Full Acquisition, and Operation/Maintenance. For Federal buildings and facilities, life-cycle costs should include long term energy, environmental, decommissioning, and/or restoration costs. The costs associated with the entire life-cycle of the investment should be included in this report.

All amounts represent Budget Authority

Note: For the cross-agency investments, this table should include all funding (both managing partner and partner agencies).

Government FTE Costs should not be included as part of the TOTAL represented.

Cost Type	Py-1 & Earlier -2006	PY 2007	CY 2008	BY 2009
Planning Budgetary Resources	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Acquisition Budgetary Resources	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Maintenance Budgetary Resources	29.661	26.836	69.056	52.210
Government FTE Cost	1.823	3.000	3.100	3.200
# of FTEs	16	18	18	18

2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?

yes

2.a. If "yes," how many and in what year?

8 new FTEs to support new requirements and growth of system. Proper federal oversight of this system will require addtional FTE resources.If the agency is not given the addtional FTE's proper managment and oversight may lax. These should be added starting in FY08. This is due to a new scope of work and increase in effort. A zero base budget drill was performed and showed the need for at least 8 new FTE's to keep all work moving and properly managed.

3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.

Spending has increased from the FY2008 President's budget request since the Q-NET exhibit E300 now includes the costs needed to suppport the QIO 9th Scope of Work (SOW).

Agencies must use the following table to report performance goals and measures for the major investment and use the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM). Map all Measurement Indicators to the corresponding Measurement Area and Measurement Grouping identified in the PRM. There should be at least one Measurement Indicator for each of the four different Measurement Areas (for each fiscal year). The PRM is available at www.egov.gov. The table can be extended to include performance measures for years beyond FY 2009.

Row	Fiscal Year	Strategic Goal Supported	Measurement Area	Measurement Grouping	Measurement Indicator	Baseline	Planned Improvement to the Baseline	Actual Results
1	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	% of QIO Quality Targets Established	0% established	100%	75%
2	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Service Efficiency	% of helpdesk tickets closed within 10 days	0%	90% closed	50%
3	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	% of CART Hospital Measures Established	0%	100%	75%
4	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	% of HL7 Standards Used	0% standards used	0%	100%
5	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Errors	% of required patches/bug fixes to code	0%	10%	25%
6	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	% of QIO Quality Targets Established	75%	100%	90%
7	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Service Efficiency	% of helpdesk tickets closed within 10 days	50%	100%	75%
8	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	% of CART Hospital Measures Established	75%	100%	100%
9	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Response Time	% of custom applications delivered on time	60%	90%	50%
10	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Errors	% of required patches/bug fixes to code	25%	10%	20%
11	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	% of QIO Quality Targets Established	90%	100%	98% as of Q3
12	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Service Efficiency	% of helpdesk tickets closed within 10 days	75%	90%	98% as of Q3
13	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	% of NEW CART Hospital Measures Established for HQA and APU	0%	75%	75% as of Q3
14	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Response Time	% of custom applications delivdered on time	50%	75%	40% as of Q3
15	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Errors	% of required patches/bug fixes to code	20%	10%	85% as of Q3
16	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Response Time	% of custom applications delivered on time	40%	75%	TBD
17	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Service Efficiency	% of QIO Quality Targets Established	98%	100%	TBD
18	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	% of NEW CART Hospital Measures Established for HQA and APU	75%	100%	TBD
19	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Response Time	% of custom applications delivered on time	40%	85%	TBD
20	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Errors	% of required patches/bug fixes to code	85%	20%	TBD
21	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	% of QIO 9 SOW Quality Targets Established	0%	100%	TBD
22	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Service Efficiency	% of helpdesk tickets closed within 10 days	98%	100%	TBD
23	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	% of NEW 9 SOW CART Hospital Measures Established for HQA and APU	0%	75%	TBD
24	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	% of HL7 Standards established within EHR systems	0%	100%	TBD
25	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Errors	% of required patches/bug fixes to code	85%	10%	TBD
26	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Response Time	% of custom applications delivered on time	40%	90%	TBD
27	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Service Efficiency	% of helpdesk tickets closed within 10 days	98%	100%	TBD
28	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	% of NEW 9 SOW CART Hospital Measures Established for HQA and APU	0%	100%	TBD
29	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	% of HL7 Standards established within EHR systems	0%	100%	TBD
30	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Errors	% of required patches/bug fixes to code	85%	5%	TBD
31	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	% of 9 SOW measures monitored in the New MIS systems	0%	100%	TBD
32	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	% of 9 SOW measures monitored in the New MIS systems	0%	75%	TBD

1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture?

yes

2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy?

yes

2.a. If yes, provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment.

CMS Q-net

3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture?

no

4. Identify the service components funded by this major IT investment (e.g., knowledge management, content management, customer relationship management, etc.). Provide this information in the format of the following table. For detailed guidance regarding components, please refer to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/.

Component: Use existing SRM Components or identify as NEW. A NEW component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM.

Reused Name and UPI: A reused component is one being funded by another investment, but being used by this investment. Rather than answer yes or no, identify the reused service component funded by the other investment and identify the other investment using the Unique Project Identifier (UPI) code from the OMB Ex 300 or Ex 53 submission.

Internal or External Reuse?: Internal reuse is within an agency. For example, one agency within a department is reusing a service component provided by another agency within the same department. External reuse is one agency within a department reusing a service component provided by another agency in another department. A good example of this is an E-Gov initiative service being reused by multiple organizations across the federal government.

Funding Percentage: Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the funding level transferred to another agency to pay for the service.

Row	Agency Component Name	Agency Component Description	Service Type	Component	Reused Component Name	Reused UPI	Internal or External Reuse?	Funding %
1	Identification and Authentication	Defines the set of capabilities that support obtaining information about those parties attempting to log on to a system or application for security purposes and the validation of those users.	Security Management	Identification and Authentication			No Reuse	5
2	Access Control	Access Control - Support the management of permissions for logging onto a computer, application, service, or network; includes user management and role/privilege management.	Security Management	Access Control			No Reuse	5
3	Standardized / Canned	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of pre-conceived or pre-written reports.	Reporting	Standardized / Canned			No Reuse	5
4	Ad Hoc	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of dynamic reports on an as needed basis.	Reporting	Ad Hoc			No Reuse	5
5	Data Warehouse	Defines the set of capabilities that support the archiving and storage of large volumes of data.	Data Management	Data Warehouse			No Reuse	10
6	Meta Data Management	Defines the set of capabilities that support the maintenance and administration of data that describes data.	Data Management	Meta Data Management			No Reuse	5
7	Data Exchange	Defines the set of capabilities that support the interchange of information between multiple systems or applications; includes verification that transmitted data was received unaltered.	Data Management	Data Exchange			No Reuse	20
8	Data Integration	Defines the set of capabilities that support the organization of data from separate data sources into a single source using middleware or application integration and the modification of system data models to capture new information within a single system.	Development and Integration	Data Integration			No Reuse	10
9	Software Development	Defines the set of capabilities that support the creation of both graphical and process application or system software.	Development and Integration	Software Development			No Reuse	30
10	Business Rule Management	Defines the set of capabilities that manage the enterprise processes that support an organization and its policies.	Management of Processes	Business Rule Management			No Reuse	5

5. To demonstrate how this major IT investment aligns with the FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM), please list the Service Areas, Categories, Standards, and Service Specifications supporting this IT investment.

FEA SRM Component: Service Components identified in the previous question should be entered in this column. Please enter multiple rows for FEA SRM Components supported by multiple TRM Service Specifications.

Service Specification: In the Service Specification field, Agencies should provide information on the specified technical standard or vendor product mapped to the FEA TRM Service Standard, including model or version numbers, as appropriate.

Row	SRM Component	>Service Area	Service Category	Service Standard	Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name)
1	Software Development	Component Framework	Data Management	Database Connectivity	Active Data Objects
2	Software Development	Component Framework	Data Interchange	Data Exchange	Altova XMLSpy
3	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	Altova XMLSpy
4	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Cognos
5	Data Warehouse	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Cognos
6	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
7	Data Warehouse	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
8	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Integrated Development Environment	Eclipse
9	Software Development	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Enteprise Java Beans
10	Data Exchange	Service Interface and Integration	Interoperability	Data Format / Classification	Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1
11	Software Development	Service Interface and Integration	Interoperability	Data Format / Classification	Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1
12	Software Development	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Static Display	Hyper Text Markup Language
13	Data Exchange	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Hardware / Infrastructure	Network Devices / Standards	Internet Message Access Protocol
14	Data Exchange	Service Access and Delivery	Service Transport	Supporting Network Services	Internet Message Access Protocol
15	Software Development	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java
16	Software Development	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java 2 Enterprise Edition
17	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Independent	Java 2 Enterprise Edition
18	Software Development	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Java Server Pages
19	Software Development	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	JavaScript
20	Software Development	Service Interface and Integration	Interoperability	Data Types / Validation	JAXP
21	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Test Management	LoadRunner
22	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Test Management	Mercury Interactive Test Director
23	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	Mindreef SOAP Scope
24	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Test Management	Mindreef SOAP Scope
25	Data Integration	Component Framework	Data Management	Database Connectivity	Object Linking and Embedding, Database
26	Software Development	Component Framework	Data Management	Database Connectivity	Object Linking and Embedding, Database
27	Standardized / Canned	Component Framework	Data Management	Database Connectivity	ODBC, JDBC, ADO, OLE/DB, DAO
28	Data Integration	Component Framework	Data Management	Database Connectivity	Open Database Connectivity
29	Software Development	Component Framework	Data Management	Database Connectivity	Open Database Connectivity
30	Ad Hoc	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Modeling	Oracle XML Query Service
31	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Integrated Development Environment	PowerBuilder
32	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Software Configuration Management	Serena PVCS - Dimensions
33	Data Exchange	Component Framework	Data Interchange	Data Exchange	SOAP
34	Identification and Authentication	Service Access and Delivery	Service Requirements	Authentication / Single Sign-on	Sun Identity Manager
35	Access Control	Service Access and Delivery	Service Requirements	Authentication / Single Sign-on	Sun Identity Manager
36	Software Development	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	SWING
37	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Modeling	Unified Modeling Language
38	Business Rule Management	Service Interface and Integration	Interoperability	Data Types / Validation	XML , UML, EMF, JAXP, JDOM
39	Meta Data Management	Service Interface and Integration	Interoperability	Data Format / Classification	XML, ORACLE, Power Designer

6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?

no

1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

yes

1.a. If yes, what is the date of the plan?

2007-07-07

1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?

no

1. Was operational analysis conducted?

yes

1.a. If yes, provide the date the analysis was completed.

2007-07-31

What were the results of your operational analysis?

Some planned milestones actually started a month or two behind schedule, the actual costs compared to the planned costs decreased. Other planned milestones start/end dates were on schedule when compared to actual milestone start/end dates and costs were also on target. New milestones were added to the investment and were approved by HHS.Two major audits were performed, one from the Senate Finance Committee (Grassley) and one from IOM , all issues are being addressed in the 9 SOW. The issues were reviewed and approved by OMB for future funding to continue.

1.c. If no, please explain why it was not conducted and if there are any plans to conduct operational analysis in the future.

Not Applicable.