| | Exhibit 300 (BY2009) for HRSA - BHPr National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB)/Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank (HIPDB)PART ONE
OVERVIEW
- 1. Date of Submission:
- 2008-02-04
- 2. Agency:
- 009
- 3. Bureau:
- 15
- 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
- HRSA - BHPr National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB)/Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank (HIPDB)
- 5. Unique Project Identifier:
- 009-15-01-02-01-1010-00
- 6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?
- Mixed Life Cycle
- 7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?
- FY2004
- 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.
- The NPDB was designed to protect public health by providing vital information that restricts the ability of incompetent health care practitioners from moving State to State without discovery of previous substandard performance or unprofessional conduct. The NPDB discloses to eligible entities information on medical malpractice payments, adverse clinical privileges and licensure and other adverse actions taken against physicians and dentists by State licensing authorities, hospitals and professional societies. The HIPDB was designed to reduce healthcare fraud & abuse by collecting and disclosing to authorized entities information on health care related civil judgments and criminal convictions, adverse licensure and certification actions, exclusions from health care programs, and other adjudicated actions taken against health care providers, suppliers and practitioners. Both Data Banks must recover all costs through the collection of user fees. Under the current Firm-Fixed Price and Time and Material (T&M) contract, the NPDB-HIPDB system is continuously enhanced to meet legislative and Government initiatives that reasonably fit the architecture; including expanding the database to include additional data elements and/or add new reports and client categories and functional enhancements. As a result of the small percentage of enhancements, and the vast amount of operations & maintenance that are integrated throughout the current NPDB-HIPDB, this program is considered a mixed life-cycle. Therefore, the NPDB-HIPDB IT investment consists of a combination of Development-Modernization-Enhancement (DME) and steady-state (SS) processes. Agency performance gaps don't exist within the NPDB-HIPDB investment because of applied managed processes and periodic reviews ensure that the NPDB-HIPDB operates on track and within budget. Established performance metrics also help ensure that the contractor is motivated to stay within budget and deliver top results. As a result, system users receive higher performance, greater quality and responsiveness.
- 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?
- Senior/Expert-level
- 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
- 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?)
- This investment directly supports the PMA through the expansion/improvemen t of E-Government. It is considered a HRSA critical applications initiative that meets statutory requirements, & is needed to provide for the health & safety of workers & the public. The primary objective of the information is to improve the quality of health care by promoting patient safety & improving patient protection and promote access to, & appropriate use of, health care information on individuals & organizations.
- 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?
- 2006: HRSA - National Practitioner/Health Integrity Data Banks
- 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 2
- 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
- 19.a. If yes, does this investment address a FFMIA compliance area?
- no
- 19.a.1. If yes, which compliance area:
- N/A.
- 19.a.2. If no, what does it address?
- N/A.
- 19.b. If yes, please identify the system name(s) and system acronym(s) as reported in the most recent financial systems inventory update required by Circular A11 section 52.
- N/A.
- 20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 100%)
Area | Percentage |
---|
Hardware | 4 | Software | 0 | Services | 71 | Other | 25 |
- 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 | Caroline Lewis | Phone Number | (301) 443-3312 | Title | Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination | Email | clewis@hrsa.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
SUMMARY OF SPEND
- 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 | 18.250 | 4.565 | 2.732 | 2.830 | Acquisition Budgetary Resources | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | Maintenance Budgetary Resources | 54.750 | 14.018 | 12.240 | 11.600 | Government FTE Cost | 11.472 | 3.880 | 3.880 | 3.700 | # of FTEs | 62 | 31 | 31 | 31 |
- 2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?
- no
- 2.a. If "yes," how many and in what year?
- N/A
- 3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.
- No change.
PERFORMANCE In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency's mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure.
- 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 | 2006 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | Collections and Receivables | Dollar amount of unreconciled query fee deposits | $31,728 | Reduce unreconciled deposits to zero | $0.00 | 2 | 2006 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Customer Complaints | Ratio of number of complaints by queriers and reporters to Customer Service Center to number of reports and queries processed. | 0.5% | Reduce complaint ratio to 0.25% | 0 .00001% | 3 | 2006 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Cycle Time | Time between query and response | 4 hours | Less than 2 hours | average time is 55 minutes | 4 | 2006 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Availability | Number of hours of non-planned down-time | 52 for the year | 0 | 2.1 hours (127 minutes) | 5 | 2007 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | User Fee Collection | Amount of user fees collected | 20,457,339 | Increase by 3% | 18,947,985 | 6 | 2007 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Response Time | Average time for electronic report processing with notification back to user | 3.5 hours | 2.5 hours | .4 hours | 7 | 2007 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Errors | Percentage of erroneous disclosure information about individuals | between .015% and .01% | less than .005% | .0004% | 8 | 2007 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Availability | Percentage of available time of accessible and functioning web site | between 94% and 98% | more than 99% | 99.9% | 9 | 2008 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | User Fee Collection | Amount of user fees collected | 21,071,059 | Increase by 3% | TBD | 10 | 2008 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Response Time | Average time for electronic report processing with notification back to user | 3.5 hours | 2.5 hours | TBD | 11 | 2008 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Errors | Percentage of erroneous disclosure information about individuals | between .015% and .01% | less than .005% | TBD | 12 | 2008 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Availability | Percentage of available time of accessible and functioning web site | between 94% and 98% | more than 99% | TBD | 13 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | User Fee Collection | Amount of user fees collected | 21,703,190 | Increase by 3% | TBD | 14 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Response Time | Average time for electronic report processing with notification back to user | 3.5 hours | 2.5 hours | TBD | 15 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Errors | Percentage of erroneous disclosure information about individuals | between .015% and .01% | less than .005% | TBD | 16 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Availability | Percentage of available time of accessible and functioning web site | between 94% and 98% | more than 99% | TBD | 17 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | User Fee Collection | Amount of user fees collected | 22,354,285 | Increase by 3% | TBD | 18 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Response Time | Average time for electronic report processing with notification back to user | 3.5 hours | 2.5 hours | TBD | 19 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Errors | Percentage of erroneous disclosure information about individuals | between .015% and .01% | less than .005% | TBD | 20 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Availability | Percentage of available time of accessible and functioning web site | between 94% and 98% | more than 99% | TBD | 21 | 2011 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | User Fee Collection | Amount of user fees collected | 23,024,913 | Increase by 3% | TBD | 22 | 2011 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Response Time | Average time for electronic report processing with notification back to user | 3.5 hours | 2.5 hours | TBD | 23 | 2011 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Errors | Percentage of erroneous disclosure information about individuals | between .015% and .01% | less than .005% | TBD | 24 | 2011 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Availability | Percentage of available time of accessible and functioning web site | between 94% and 98% | more than 99% | TBD | 25 | 2012 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | User Fee Collection | Amount of user fees collected | 23,715,660 | Increase by 3% | TBD | 26 | 2012 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Response Time | Average time for electronic report processing with notification back to user | 3.5 hours | 2.5 hours | TBD | 27 | 2012 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Errors | Percentage of erroneous disclosure information about individuals | between .015% and .01% | less than .005% | TBD | 28 | 2012 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Availability | Percentage of available time of accessible and functioning web site | between 94% and 98% | more than 99% | TBD | 29 | 2013 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | User Fee Collection | Amount of user fees collected | 24,427,129 | Increase by 3% | TBD | 30 | 2013 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Response Time | Average time for electronic report processing with notification back to user | 3.5 hours | 2.5 hours | TBD | 31 | 2013 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Errors | Percentage of erroneous disclosure information about individuals | between .015% and .01% | less than .005% | TBD | 32 | 2013 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Availability | Percentage of available time of accessible and functioning web site | between 94% and 98% | more than 99% | TBD |
Enterprise Architecture In order to successfully address this area of the business case and capital asset plan you must ensure the investment is included in the agency's EA and Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and supports the FEA. You must also ensure the business case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the business, performance, data, services, application, and technology layers of the agency's EA. - 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.
- HRSA National Practitioner Data Bank/Healthcare Integrity Protection DB
- 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 | Query | Defines the set of capabilities that support retrieval of records that satisfy specific query selection criteria. | Search | Query | | | No Reuse | 35 | 2 | Library / Storage | Defines the set of capabilities that support document and data warehousing and archiving. | Document Management | Library / Storage | | | No Reuse | 1 | 3 | Knowledge Capture | Defines the set of capabilities that facilitate collection of data and information. | Knowledge Management | Knowledge Capture | | | No Reuse | 5 | 4 | Knowledge Distribution and Delivery | Defines the set of capabilities that support the transfer of knowledge to the end customer. | Knowledge Management | Knowledge Distribution and Delivery | | | No Reuse | 10 | 5 | Information Retrieval | Defines the set of capabilities that allow access to data and information for use by an organization and its stakeholders. | Knowledge Management | Information Retrieval | | | No Reuse | 2 | 6 | Standardized / Canned | Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of pre-conceived or pre-written reports. | Reporting | Standardized / Canned | | | No Reuse | 5 | 7 | 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 | 8 | Data Mart | Defines the set of capabilities that support a subset of a data warehouse for a single department or function within an organization. | Data Management | Data Mart | | | No Reuse | 10 | 9 | Program / Project Management | Defines the set of capabilities that manage and control a particular effort of an organization. | Management of Processes | Program / Project Management | | | No Reuse | 2 | 10 | Reservations / Registration | Defines the set of capabilities that allow electronic enrollment and confirmations for services. | Customer Initiated Assistance | Reservations / Registration | | | No Reuse | 10 |
- 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 | Query | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 2 | Library / Storage | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Vendor: Oracle, Product: Oracle v10g | 3 | Knowledge Capture | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 4 | Knowledge Distribution and Delivery | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 5 | Information Retrieval | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 6 | Standardized / Canned | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 7 | Ad Hoc | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 8 | Data Mart | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Support Platforms | Platform Dependent | Vendor: SRA, Product: Sun / Unix | 9 | Program / Project Management | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 10 | Reservations / Registration | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 11 | Self-Service | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 12 | Knowledge Capture | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 13 | Knowledge Distribution and Delivery | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Vendor: Netscape & Microsoft, Product: Netscape v 7.02, 7.1, or 7.2 and IE v6.0, 6.0 SP1, or 6.0 SP2 | 14 | Self-Service | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 15 | Reservations / Registration | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 16 | Program / Project Management | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 17 | Information Retrieval | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 18 | Knowledge Capture | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 19 | Ad Hoc | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 20 | Standardized / Canned | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 21 | Query | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 22 | Self-Service | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 23 | Reservations / Registration | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 24 | Program / Project Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 25 | Information Retrieval | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 26 | Knowledge Distribution and Delivery | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 27 | Ad Hoc | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 28 | Standardized / Canned | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 29 | Query | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Vendor: SRA, Product: NPDB/HIPDB | 30 | Data Mart | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Delivery Servers | Web Servers | Vendor: SRA, Product: Apache / Unix based web server |
- 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?
- no
PART TWO
RISK You should perform a risk assessment during the early planning and initial concept phase of the investment's life-cycle, develop a risk-adjusted life-cycle cost estimate and a plan to eliminate, mitigate or manage risk, and be actively managing risk throughout the investment's life-cycle.
Answer the following questions to describe how you are managing investment risks. - 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?
- yes
- 1.a. If yes, what is the date of the plan?
- 2007-06-30
- 1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?
- no
- 3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:
- The NPDB-HIPDB investment receives no appropriations from Congress. The user fees collected are primarily used to operate, maintain, and enhance the NPDB-HIPDB. Previsions in the law allow the Data Banks to upgrade and incorporate new technologies as they occur, or as legislative mandates are imposed on the Data Banks. Therefore, risk, as a result of Life-cycle costs, can indeed increase due to external mandates outside of HHS/HRSA's control during scheduling/enhancement phase. However, the firm-fixed price contract vehicle that is currently in-place strictly controls the costs associated with the system. Contract modifications are reviewed in detail for budgetary purposes and will not be put into place unless the value of the contract modification meets a new system need. Unexpected costs that come from risks associated with the system are discussed and mitigated in the NPDB HIPDB Risk Assessment, NPDB-HIPDB system security plan, and NPDB-HIPDB COOP. During the scheduling phase, release contents are determined. New functionality and System Change Requests (SCRs) for a specific release are selected before release planning begins. At the Configuration Control Board (CCB), the Government and the Contractor assign specific SCRs to the planned release. This phase establishes the overall goals of the release. It is also during this phase that the release schedule is outlined. After this phase, changes may be introduced; however, the overall release goals will remain the same.
COST & SCHEDULE
- 1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard 748?
- yes
- 2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%?
- no
- 2.b. If yes, explain the variance.
- Not applicable
- 2.c. If yes, what corrective actions are being taken?
- Not applicable
- 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
- no
|
|
|