Exhibit 300 FY2009

I. A. 1. Date of Submission:
2007-09-10

I. A. 2. Agency:
018

I. A. 3. Bureau:
50

I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
(short text - 250 characters)
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)

I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier:
For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system.
018-50-01-05-01-1030-00

I. A. 6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?
Please NOTE: Investments moving to O&M in FY2009, with Planning/Acquisition activities prior to FY2009 should not select O&M. These investments should indicate their current status.
Mixed Life Cycle

I. A. 7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?
FY2004

I. A. 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:
(long text - 2500 characters)
The mission of ERIC is to provide a comprehensive, easy-to-use, searchable, Internet-based bibliographic and full-text database of education research and information for educators, researchers, and the general public. It is the only system within the Federal Governent that provides this service. Prior to the initiation of the ERIC database, there was no existing Internet based system with this functionality. This initiative achieves the following high-level results for the Department of Education and its customers: expansion of electronic government. This project uses the Internet to enable citizens to access information and transact business. The project supports agency objectives by providng access to more education information that is more comprehensively described and either provides the corresponding full-text articles or links to publishers so that individuals can purchase those materials if they choose. ERIC provides access to education materials and thus complies with legislation authorizing the Institute of Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education.

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

I. A. 10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?
yes

I. A. 11. Contact information of Project Manager

I. A. 12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project?
no

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

I. A. 14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)? (For more information about the PART, visit www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part.)
no

I. A. 15. Is this investment for information technology?
yes

I. A. 16. What is the level of the IT Project? (per CIO Council PM Guidance)
Level 1 - Projects with low-to-moderate complexity and risk. Example: Bureau-level project such as a stand-alone information system that has low- to-moderate complexity and risk.
Level 2 - Projects with high complexity and/or risk which are critical to the mission of the organization. Examples: Projects that are part of a portfolio of projects/systems that impact each other and/or impact mission activities. Department-wide projects that impact cross-organizational missions, such as an agency-wide system integration that includes large scale Enterprise Resource Planning (e.g., the DoD Business Mgmt Modernization Program).
Level 3 - Projects that have high complexity, and/or risk, and have government-wide impact. Examples: Government-wide initiative (E-GOV, President's Management Agenda). High interest projects with Congress, GAO, OMB, or the general public. Cross-cutting initiative (Homeland Security).
Level 3

I. A. 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;(2) Project manager qualification is under review for this investment;(3) Project manager assigned to investment, but does not meet requirements;(4) Project manager assigned but qualification status review has not yet started;(5) No Project manager has yet been assigned to this investment
(1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment

I. A. 18. Is this investment identified as "high risk" on the Q4-FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB Memorandum M-05-23)?
no

I. A. 19. Is this a financial management system?
no

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

I. A. 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

I. A. 22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions:

I. A. 23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval?
no

I. A. 24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas?
Question 24 must be answered by all Investments:
no

I. B. 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.
Note: For the cross-agency investments, this table should include all funding (both managing and partner agencies).
Government FTE Costs should not be included as part of the TOTAL represented.

PY-1 and Spending Prior to 2007 PY 2007 CY 2008 BY 2009 BY+1 2010 BY+2 2011 BY+3 2012 BY+4 2013 and Beyond Planning 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000         Acquisition 10.554 6.927 0.250 0.111         Subtotal Planning & Acquisition                 Operations & Maintenance 1.556 0.896 0.982 0.452         Total                 Government FTE Costs 0.000 0.134 0.138 0.144         Number of FTE represented by cost 0 1 1 1

I. B. 2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?
no

I. B. 3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.
(long text - 2500 characters)
Changes in the contract budget for each year reflect changes in labor rates for the contractor's staff.

I. C. 1. Complete the table for all (including all non-Federal) contracts and/or task orders currently in place or planned for this investment. Total Value should include all option years for each contract. Contracts and/or task orders completed do not need to be included.
SIS - Share in Services contract; ESPC - Energy savings performance contract ; UESC - Utility energy efficiency service contract; EUL - Enhanced use lease contract; N/A - no alternative financing used.
(Character Limitations: Contract or Task Order Number - 250 Characters; Type of Contract/Task Order - 250 Characters; Name of CO - 250 Characters; CO Contact Information - 250 Characters)

Type of Contract/Task Order Has the contract been awarded? If so what is the date of the award? If not, what is the planned award date? Start date of Contract/Task Order End date of Contract/Task Order Total Value of Contract/Task Order ($M) Is this an Interagency Acquisition? Is it performance based? Competitively awarded? What, if any, alternative financing option is being used? Is EVM in the contract? Does the contract include the required security & privacy clauses? Name of CO CO Contact Information (phone/email) Contracting officer certification level If N/A, has the agency determined the CO assigned has the competencies and skills necessary to support this aquistion?

I. C. 2. If earned value is not required or will not be a contract requirement for any of the contracts or task orders above, explain why:
(long text - 2500 characters)

I. C. 3. Do the contracts ensure Section 508 compliance?

I. C. 4. Is there an acquisition plan which has been approved in accordance with agency requirements?

I. D. 1. Table 1. Performance Information Table
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.

Strategic Goal(s) Supported Measurement Area Measurement Grouping Measurement Indicator Baseline Target Actual Results 2004 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Mission and Business Results Higher Education # of existing websites distributing ERIC information to the public. (IES legislation requires information dissemination in a cost effective and non-duplicative manner.) In October 2003, there were 35 websites that disseminated ERIC information. This number was reduced to 3 websites by January 2004. By September 1 2004, implement a single web site to disseminate ERIC information. The new ERIC website went live on September 1, 2004. 2004 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer satisfaction with website A customer satisfaction survey was not completed prior to FY 2005, so it is not possible to identify a customer satisfaction baseline at this time. The survey will be conducted in FY 2005. In FY 2005, ERIC will implement a formal survey to assess customer satisfaction and receive customer feedback. The goal is to achieve a 70% customer satisfaction survey in FY 2005. In FY 2005, ERIC will implement a formal survey to assess customer satisfaction and receive customer feedback.In FY 2005, ERIC will implement a formal survey to assess customer satisfaction and receive customer feedback. 2004 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication 6 ? 9 months Implement a website that will reduce the amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication to 1 month. This level of improvement is not scheduled to occur until FY 2005. The ERIC website went live on September 1, 2004. Information continues to be added to the website. 2004 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Technology Availability % of time the online system (website, database, and search engines) is available to the public. The ERICWeb site only became operational on September 1, 2004. Implement a new ERIC web site by September 1, 2004. ERICWeb site was opened on September 1, 2004 as scheduled with access to one million bibliographicrecords accessioned from 1966- July 2003. 2005 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Mission and Business Results Higher Education % of full text material in areas of information mandated by legislation available to the public Approximately 1% of full text material was available to the public at the end of FY 2004. 100% of full text material will be available to the public by end of FY 2005 100 percent of the content acquired from ERIC approved sources under agreement has been processed as of September 1, 2005. 2005 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer satisfaction with website A customer satisfaction survey was not completed prior to FY 2005, so it is not possible to identify a customer satisfaction baseline at this time. The survey will be conducted in FY 2005. Maintain at least a 70% customer satisfaction rating (this performance goal is based on industry best practices as identified by the American Customer Satisfaction Index for websites). ASCI survey, a random pop-up-up survey of 20 questions, was implemented on the ERIC Web site in September 2005. First score of 71% is above the average for government Web site using the ASCI. 2005 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication 6 ? 9 months was the average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication during FY 2004 1 month Daily processing by September 1, 2005 amounted to 37,249 records. Of these 13,590 were released in completed state and 13,098 were released as "in progress" or stub records. 2005 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Technology Availability % of time the online system (website, database, and search engines) is available to the public. 98% This baseline is only based on one month of data ? September 2004. 99% 99.5% as of September 2005 2006 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Mission and Business Results Cultural and Historic Exhibition % of new content in all areas of information mandated by legislation available to the public Only a limited degree of full text material was available to the public at the end of FY 2004. 93% of full text material will be available to the public in FY 2006 For Q4 2006, the workflow system documents that 6,572 records( 5,787 EJs and 785 EDs) were published to ERIC. Overall, there were 4% more records published compared to the previous quarter. There were 15% more EJs; 40% fewer EDs. 2006 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Customer Results Customer Complaints Customer satisfaction rate with website A customer satisfaction survey was not completed prior to FY 2005. The first overall rating score of 70 (FY2006) will serve as the baseline for the project. Maintain at least a 70% customer satisfaction rating (this performance goal is based on industry best practices as identified by the American Customer Satisfaction Index for websites) For the period 07/01/06 - 09/30/06, the overall satisfaction score was 68, a decline of three points from the previous quarter based on a sample of 1,550 responses. 2006 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication 6 ? 9 months was the average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication during FY 2004 1 month For Q4 2006, 19% of the EJs were processed within 30 days; 30.6% within 60 days; 99% were published within 150 days. For EDs, 75.8% were processed within 30 days; 96.8% within 60 days, and 99% within 105 days. 2006 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Technology Availability % of time the online system (website, database, and search engines) is available to the public. 98% This baseline is only based on one month of data ? September 2004. 99.5% Sampled "up" time was down 0.30% to 99.16% for the sample set for Q4 2006. 2007 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Technology Availability % of time the online system (website, database, and search engine) is available to the public. 98% This baseline is only based on one month of data - September 2004. 99% For Q42006, the website and database were up 99.83% of time. 2007 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Customer Results Customer Complaints Customer satisfaction rate with Web site. A customer satisfaction survey was not competed prior to FY 2005, so it is not possible to identify a customer satisfaction baseline at this time. The survey will be conducted in Fy 2005 and will serve as the baseline for the project. Maintain at least a 70% customer satifaction arting ( this performance goals is based on industry best practices as identified by the american Customer Satisfaction Index for Web sites). For December 2006, the customer satisfaction score was 68 based on 601 respondents to the survey. 2007 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Mission and Business Results Cultural and Historic Exhibition % of new content in all areas of information mandated by legislation available to the public. Only a limited degree of full text material was available to the public at the end of FY 2004. 95% of full text material will be available to the public in FY 2006. A project initiated to digitize the backfile of about 339,000 full text documents. Once copyright permission is obtained from the authors, the ERIC web site will post additional documents for which permission to disseminate has been grantd. 2007 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication. 6 to 9 months was the average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication during FY 2004. 1 month For Q42006, the cycle time from date of acquisition to promotion to ERIC was as follows: for journals, 62.13 days; for non-journal records, the average was 80.19 days. 2008 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Customer Results Customer Complaints Customer satisfaction rate with Web site. A customer satisfaction survey was not competed prior to FY 2005, so it is not possible to identify a customer satisfaction baseline at this time. The survey will be conducted in Fy 2005 and will serve as the baseline for the project. Maintain at least a 70.05% customer satifaction rating ( this performance goals is based on industry best practices as identified by the american Customer Satisfaction Index for Web sites). 12/2008 2008 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Mission and Business Results Cultural and Historic Exhibition % of new content in all areas of information mandated by legislation available to the public. Only a limited degree of full text material was available to the public at the end of FY 2004. 100% of full text material will be available to the public in FY 2006. 12/2008 2008 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication. 6 to 9 months was the average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication during FY 2004. 3 weeks 12/2008 2008 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Technology Availability % of time the online system (website, database, and search engine) is available to the public. 98% This baseline is only based on one month of data - September 2004. 99.5% 12/2008 2009 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Customer Results Customer Complaints Customer satisfaction rate with Web site. A customer satisfaction survey was not competed prior to FY 2005, so it is not possible to identify a customer satisfaction baseline at this time. The survey will be conducted in Fy 2005 and will serve as the baseline for the project. Maintain at least a 70.05% customer satifaction rating ( this performance goals is based on industry best practices as identified by the american Customer Satisfaction Index for Web sites). 12/2009 2009 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Mission and Business Results Cultural and Historic Exhibition % of new content in all areas of information mandated by legislation available to the public. Only a limited degree of full text material was available to the public at the end of FY 2004. 100% of full text material will be available to the public in FY 2006. 12/2009 2009 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication. 6 to 9 months was the average amount of time to enter a journal into the database after publication during FY 2004. 3 weeks 12/2009 2009 Goal 1: Obejctive 5: Increase information and options for parents. Technology Availability % of time the online system (website, database, and search engine) is available to the public. 98% This baseline is only based on one month of data - September 2004. 99.5% 12/2009

I. E. 1. Have the IT security costs for the system(s) been identified and integrated into the overall costs of the investment?

I. E. 2. Is identifying and assessing security and privacy risks a part of the overall risk management effort for each system supporting or part of this investment?

I. E. 3. Systems in Planning and Undergoing Enhancement(s) – Security Table:
The questions asking whether there is a PIA which covers the system and whether a SORN is required for the system are discrete from the narrative fields. The narrative column provides an opportunity for free text explanation why a working link is not provided. For example, a SORN may be required for the system, but the system is not yet operational. In this circumstance, answer "yes" for column (e) and in the narrative in column (f), explain that because the system is not operational the SORN is not yet required to be published.

Agency/or contractor Operated System Planned Operational Date Planned or Actual C&A Completion Date

I. E. 4. Operational Systems - Security:

Agency/or contractor Operated System? NIST FIPS 199 Risk Impact level (High, Moderate, Low) Has C & A been Completed, using NIST 800-37? (Y/N) Date Completed: C & A What standards were used for the Security Controls tests? (FIPS 200/NIST 800-53, Other, N/A) Date Completed: Security Control Testing Date the contingency plan tested

I. E. 5. Have any weaknesses related to any of the systems part of or supporting this investment been identified by the agency or IG?

I. E. 6. Indicate whether an increase in IT security funding is requested to remediate IT security weaknesses?

I. E. 7. How are contractor security procedures monitored, verified, and validated by the agency for the contractor systems above?
(long text - 2500 characters)

I. E. 8. Planning & Operational Systems - Privacy Table:
Details for Text Options:
Column (d): If yes to (c), provide the link(s) to the publicly posted PIA(s) with which this system is associated. If no to (c), provide an explanation why the PIA has not been publicly posted or why the PIA has not been conducted.

Column (f): If yes to (e), provide the link(s) to where the current and up to date SORN(s) is published in the federal register. If no to (e), provide an explanation why the SORN has not been published or why there isn't a current and up to date SORN.

Note: Links must be provided to specific documents not general privacy websites.

(b) Is this a new system? (Y/N) (c) Is there a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) that covers this system? (Y/N) (d) Internet Link or Explanation (e) Is a System of Records Notice (SORN) required for this system? (Y/N) (f) Internet Link or Explanation

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

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

I. F. 3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture?
no

I. F. 4. Service Component Reference Model (SRM) Table :
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.egov.gov.

a. Use existing SRM Components or identify as "NEW". A "NEW" component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM.
b. 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.
c. '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.
d. Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount transferred to another agency to pay for the service. The percentages in this column can, but are not required to, add up to 100%.

Agency Component Description FEA SRM Service Type FEA SRM Component (a) Service Component Reused - Component Name (b) Service Component Reused - UPI (b) Internal or External Reuse? (c) BY Funding Percentage (d) Communications and Web Site Operations Information Specialists prepare and edit text for the Web site, make conference presentations and communicate with users groups, while graphic designers construct interface design revisions. Content Management Content Authoring     No Reuse 1 Communications and Web Site Operations Information Specialists prepare and edit text for the Web site, make conference presentations and communicate with users groups, while graphic designers construct interface design revisions. Content Management Content Review and Approval     No Reuse 1 Communications and Web Site Operations Information Specialists prepare and edit text for the Web site, make conference presentations and communicate with users groups, while graphic designers construct interface design revisions. Content Management Content Publishing and Delivery     No Reuse 1 Processing (A&I), QC, and Data Entry Information Specialists and Lexicographers use publishers' journal data that is transformed for the ERIC software to create stub records, suggest metadata elements, and perform quality control for ERIC records. Document Management Document Referencing     No Reuse 4 Maintenance Activities Technicians the software for the server, the ERIC database, the database search engine as well as the platforms and operating system to maintain the ERIC system's availability to the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Document Management Library / Storage     No Reuse 8 Processing (A&I), QC, and Data Entry Information Specialists and Lexicographers use publishers' journal data that is transformed for the ERIC software to create stub records, suggest metadata elements, and perform quality control for ERIC records. Document Management Indexing     No Reuse 10 Acquisitions and Curatorial Enhancements Curators use Web harvesters to cull grey literature and enhance the ERIC database with acquisitions for which copyright permission has been obtained. Knowledge Management Information Retrieval     No Reuse 4 Processing (A&I), QC, And Data Entry Information Specialists and Lexicographers use publishers' journal data that is transformed for the ERIC software to create stub records, suggest metadata elements, and perform quality control for ERIC records. Knowledge Management Information Mapping / Taxonomy     No Reuse 8 Communications and Web Site Operations Information Specialists prepare and edit text for the Web site, make conference presentations and communicate with users groups, while graphic designers construct interface design revisions. Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 2 Processing (A&I), QC, and Data Entry Information Specialists and Lexicographers use publishers' journal data that is transformed for the ERIC software to create stub records, suggest metadata elements, and perform quality control for ERIC records. Knowledge Management Categorization     No Reuse 8 Processing (A&I), QC, and Data Entry Information Specialists and Lexicographers use publishers' journal data that is transformed for the ERIC software to create stub records, suggest metadata elements, and perform quality control for ERIC records. Data Management Meta Data Management     No Reuse 8 Acquisitions and Curatorial Enhancements Curators use Web harvesters to cull grey literature and enhance the ERIC database with acquisitions for which copyright permission has been obtained. Data Management Loading and Archiving     No Reuse 4 Processing (A&I), QC, and Data Entry Information Specialists and Lexicographers use publishers' journal data that is transformed for the ERIC software to create stub records, suggest metadata elements, and perform quality control for ERIC records. Records Management Document Classification     No Reuse 4 Processing (A&I), QC, And Data Entry Information Specialists and Lexicographers use publishers' journal data that is transformed for the ERIC software to create stub records, suggest metadata elements, and perform quality control for ERIC records. Records Management Record Linking / Association     No Reuse 8 Acquisitions and Curatorial Enhancements Curators use Web harvesters to cull grey literature and enhance the ERIC database with acquisitions for which copyright permission has been obtained. Customer Preferences Subscriptions     No Reuse 3 Processing (A&I), QC, and Data Entry Information Specialists and Lexicographers use publishers' journal data that is transformed for the ERIC software to create stub records, suggest metadata elements, and perform quality control for ERIC records. Document Management Classification     No Reuse 4 Acquisitions and Curatorial Enhancements Curators use Web harvesters to cull grey literature and enhance the ERIC database with acquisitions for which copyright permission has been obtained. Document Management Document Conversion     No Reuse 4 Communications and Web Site Operations Information Specialists prepare and edit text for the Web site, make conference presentations and communicate with users groups, while graphic designers construct interface design revisions. Knowledge Management Knowledge Distribution and Delivery     No Reuse 2 Search Enhancements Technicians shall revisit relevance ranking and search performance to ensure that system features optimize user efficiency. Search Pattern Matching     No Reuse 2 Search Enhancements Technicians shall revisit relevance ranking and search performance to ensure that system features optimize user efficiency. Search Precision / Recall Ranking     No Reuse 3 Abstracting Enhancements Structured abstracts for research documents can be created by contributors online, and an instructional video assists contributors in defining metadata elements describing the document. Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 2 Steering Committee & Content Expert Operations Experts in education research and methodology and major technical aspects of an online database advise the contractor on reseach and development issues. Management of Processes Governance / Policy Management     No Reuse 2 Project Management Planned and Reporting This component includes scheduling and defining work activities, level of effort, and reporting to meet contract deliverables. Management of Processes Program / Project Management     No Reuse 1 Usability Testing Usability test plans are implemented approximately three times annually and results are documented to improve user interfaces and augment search performance. Development and Integration Instrumentation and Testing     No Reuse 6

I. F. 5. Table 1. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table:
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.

a. 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
b. 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.

FEA TRM Service Area FEA TRM Service Category FEA TRM Service Standard Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name) Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database SQL server Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Legislative / Compliance Sec. 172 of Public Law 107-279, Education Sciences Reform Act Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Authentication / Single Sign-on BEA LDAP;Windows 2003 Active Directory Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Hosting Dedicated Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Access and Delivery Service Transport Service Transport Nokia Loadbalancer (Nokia IP530); Microsoft Internet Information Server; Microsoft Internet FTP Server Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Platform Independent Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition (J2EE) Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Storage HP MSA1000; HP NAS HEAD (HP ProLiant DL580 G2) Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers Internet Information Server Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers Apache Tomcat Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Integrated Development Environment BEA WebLogic Workshop; Netbeans; Eclipse Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Software Configuration Management Atlassian JIRA; Subversion Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Test Management WebQA by Watchfire; Apache J Unit; Apache J Meter; Apache J Test; Badboy Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Documentum Workflow; Argo UML Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Servers / Computers HP ProLiant DL380 G3 ; DELL (6450, 2650, 2550) Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Local Area Network (LAN) Gigabit network Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Network Devices / Standards Switches (Cisco 6513) , firewalls (Nokia IP530) from data network Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Component Framework Presentation / Interface Static Display Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Component Framework Presentation / Interface Dynamic Server-Side Display Java Server Pages (JSP) Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Component Framework Presentation / Interface Content Rendering Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Component Framework Business Logic Platform Independent Javascript; Java Servlet; Java Portal Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Component Framework Data Management Database Connectivity JDBC;OLE/DB Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification XML;Dialog B;PDF Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Types / Validation XML Schema Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Transformation eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transform (XSLT) Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Platform Dependent Microsoft Windows 2003 Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Portal Servers BEA WebLogic Portal

I. F. 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?
no

II. A. 1. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this project?
yes

II. A. 2. Use the results of your alternatives analysis to complete the following table:
(Character Limitations: Alternative Analyzed - 250 characters; Description of Alternative - 500 Characters)

Description of Alternative Risk Lifecycle Cost Estimate Risk Lifecycle Benefits Estimate 1. Development of new system by contractor Status Quo: Market research comprised of program assessment and staff analysis revealed the following problems with the existing system: (1) Lack of design uniformity, (2) Focus on the gray literature, (3) Long delays in bringing information online, (4) Reliance on abstracts and absence of full-text access, (5) Inefficient use of resources, (6) Use of resources for low priority functions, (7) Spotty coverage, and (8) Misleading synthesis of information.     2. Development of new system by government FTE Market research comprised of program assessment and staff analysis revealed the following problems with the existing system: (1) Lack of design uniformity, (2) Focus on the gray literature, (3) Long delays in bringing information online, (4) Reliance on abstracts and absence of full-text access, (5) Inefficient use of resource. It was concluded by program management that the weakne     3. Enhance existing system Data for this alternative, which has been in existence for over 35 years, is reported from previous RFPs, quarterly and annual reports provided by the contractors, and other historical data. This alternative proposes the use of a combination of contractors and government FTE. Existing requirements could be developed and documented through a separate procurement and implemented by the existing system, thereby achieving the outcomes implied by the program assessment.     4. Development of new system with multiple contractors. Data for this alternative, which has been in existence for over 35 years, is reported from previous RFPs, quarterly and annual reports provided by the contractors, and other historical data. This alternative proposes the use of a combination of contractors, one focusing on the intellectual content and another delivering IT. Existing requirements could be developed and documented through a separate procurement and implemented by the existing system.

II. A. 3. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen?
(long text - 2500 characters)
The alternative selected was the development of a new system by contractor. The Department of Education does not have staff with expertise in engineering, programming, and the information technology specialization required to operate such a system. Moreover, the most economical alternative was to competitively award the project to contractors with staff experienced in architecture and systems maintenance.

II. A. 4. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long text - 2500 characters)
Measurable qualitative benefits towards Goal 1: Objective 5: Increase information and options for parents. The public can now access the ERIC system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Through put time for record publishing has decreased from approximately nine months to less than thirty days. The number of records published to ERIC has increased for each of the last five quarters in 2006-2007 so that roughly 3,000 new entries are added every month with updates made weekly. More than 63,000 new records (2004-2007) were released in ERIC as of May 2007.

II. A. 5. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole?
no

UPI if available Date of the System Retirement

II. B. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?
yes

II. B. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?

II. B. 3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:
(long text - 2500 characters)

II. C. 1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard - 748?
yes

II. C. 2. Is the CV or SV greater than 10%?
no

II. C. 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
no

II. C. 4. Comparison of Initial Baseline and Current Approved Baseline
Complete the following table to compare actual performance against the current performance baseline and to the initial performance baseline. In the Current Baseline section, for all milestones listed, you should provide both the baseline and actual completion dates (e.g., "03/23/2003"/ "04/28/2004") and the baseline and actual total costs (in $ Millions). In the event that a milestone is not found in both the initial and current baseline, leave the associated cells blank. Note that the 'Description of Milestone' and 'Percent Complete' fields are required. Indicate '0' for any milestone no longer active. (Character Limitations: Description of Milestone - 500 characters)

Initial Baseline - Planned Completion Date Initial Baseline - Total Cost Current Baseline - Planned Completion Date Current Baseline - Actual Completion Date Current Baseline - Planned Total Cost Current Baseline - Actual Total Cost Current Baseline Variance - Schedule Current Baseline Variance - Cost Percent Complete FY 08 Development, Modernization, and enhancements                   FY08 Operations and Maintenance                   FY08 IT Security                   FY09 Development, Modernization, and Enhancements                   FY09 IT Operations and Maintenance                   FY09 IT Security

III. A. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

III. A. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?

III. B. 1. Was operational analysis conducted?

III. B. 2. Complete the following table to compare actual cost performance against the planned cost performance baseline. Milestones reported may include specific individual scheduled preventative and predictable corrective maintenance activities, or may be the total of planned annual operation and maintenance efforts).

(Character Limitations: Description of Milestone - 250 Characters)

IV. A. 1. Stakeholder Table
As a joint exhibit 300, please identify the agency stakeholders. Provide the partner agency and partner agency approval date for this joint exhibit 300.

Joint exhibit approval date

IV. A. 2. Partner Capital Assets within this Investment
Provide the partnering strategies you are implementing with the participating agencies and organizations. Identify all partner agency capital assets supporting the common solution (section 300.7); Managing Partner capital assets should also be included in this joint exhibit 300. These capital assets should be included in the Summary of Spending table of Part I, Section B. All partner agency migration investments (section 53.4) should also be included in this table. Funding contributions/fee-for-service transfers should not be included in this table. (Partner Agency Asset UPIs should also appear on the Partner Agency's exhibit 53)

Partner Agency Asset Title Partner Agency Exhibit 53 UPI

IV. A. 3. Partner Funding Strategies ($millions)
For jointly funded initiative activities, provide in the "Partner Funding Strategies Table": the name(s) of partner agencies; the UPI of the partner agency investments; and the partner agency contributions for CY and BY. Please indicate partner contribution amounts (in-kind contributions should also be included in this amount) and fee-for-service amounts. (Partner Agency Asset UPIs should also appear on the Partner Agency's exhibit 53. For non-IT fee-for-service amounts the Partner exhibit 53 UPI can be left blank) (IT migration investments should not be included in this table)

Partner Exhibit 53 UPI CY Contribution CY Fee-for-Service BY Contribution BY Fee-for-Service     NaN NaN NaN NaN

IV. A. 4. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this project?

IV. A. 5. Use the results of your alternatives analysis to complete the following table:

IV. A. 6. Which alternative was selected by the Initiative Governance process and why was it chosen?
(long text - 2500 characters)

IV. A. 7. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long text - 2500 characters)

IV. A. 8. Table 1. Federal Quantitative Benefits ($millions):
What specific quantitative benefits will be realized (using current dollars)
Use the results of your alternatives analysis to complete the following table:

IV. A. 9. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole?

IV. B. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

IV. B. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?

IV. C. 1. Are you using EVM to manage this investment?

IV. C. 2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%? (CV% = CV/EV x 100; SV% = SV/PV x 100)
NOT applicable for capital assets with ONLY O&M.

IV. C. 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
Applicable to ALL capital assets

IV. C. 4. Comparison of Initial Baseline and Current Approved Baseline
Complete the following table to compare actual performance against the current performance baseline and to the initial performance baseline. In the Current Baseline section, for all milestones listed, you should provide both the baseline and actual completion dates (e.g., "03/23/2003"/ "04/28/2004") and the baseline and actual total costs (in $ Millions). In the event that a milestone is not found in both the initial and current baseline, leave the associated cells blank. Note that the 'Description of Milestone' and 'Percent Complete' fields are required. Indicate '0' for any milestone no longer active.