Exhibit 300 FY2009

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

I. A. 2. Agency:
018

I. A. 3. Bureau:
18

I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
(short text - 250 characters)
Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN)

I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier:
For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system.
018-18-01-05-01-1010-00

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?
FY2002

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 Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) is a centralized, Internet-based system of elementary and secondary education data (K-12) from 52 state education agencies. This data is available for state, local education agency, and school levels and includes demographics, program participation, implementation, and outcomes. EDEN data is used for planning, policy, and management at the federal, state, and local levels. EDEN supports the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Department's goal of achieving budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. EDEN was created to allow the Department to make data-driven decisions about education and to drive school improvement. EDEN balances the burden of information collection with the value of collecting the information while improving the quality of the information. This is in line with the Paperwork Reduction Act, which has as one of its standards for information collection to use information technology to the maximum extent practicable to reduce burden, improve data quality, agency efficiency, and responsiveness to the public. EDEN significantly improves the timeliness of K-12 data. Since our alternatives analysis, new management changed our budget plans to address certain gaps and risks. And, following our success with the first EDEN-based Civil Rights Data Collection and other collections, program offices are increasingly requesting additional EDEN services throughout the year. Regulations published by the Department this year require mandatory submission by states of K-12 data via EDEN by November 2007, unless the Secretary grants the state an extension of up to two years. We have received some data from all states, but some state systems may not be able to submit all data via EDEN by the deadline. To help states, we have prioritized data and worked with states to develop submission plans. The EDEN system has three components. The first is the EDEN Submission System that collects the bulk of the K-12 data. The second is the survey/online collection capability that collects data that isn't "EDEN-able." Generally this data is extended text or one-time data. The third component is the EDFacts reporting capability. EDFacts provides ad hoc and standard reports for program offices, states, and for the EDEN project management office to manage the EDEN program.

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 2

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)?
yes

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?
yes

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 12.770 0.000 0.200 0.000         Acquisition 19.462 5.936 0.464 0.264         Subtotal Planning & Acquisition                 Operations & Maintenance 14.020 7.755 8.409 8.726         Total                 Government FTE Costs 4.271 1.354 1.627 1.676         Number of FTE represented by cost 39 12 14 14

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

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)

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 2006 Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve services for our customers and partners. (Strategic Plan 2002-07) Customer Results Response Time Average speed to answer inbound calls from SEA partners during hours of operation. (Data is collected daily and reported weekly.) As of October 31, 2005, the average speed to answer incoming calls was 4 seconds. 4 seconds or better As of 10/20/2006, 4 seconds 2006 Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve services for our customers and partners. (Strategic Plan 2002-07) Processes and Activities Knowledge Management EDEN Knowledge Management compliance with ED's policies, directives, and federal acts and statutes that govern records management, determined quarterly. Baseline established for period 10/1/05 to 3/31/2006: 93.5% 100% compliant Oct 05 - 96.6%; April 30, 2006: 93.5% 2006 Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve services for our customers and partners. (Strategic Plan 2002-07) Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Average score on annual partner satisfaction survey. Satisfied Annual average score of very satisfied or better Feb. 2007: Average score is better than very satisfied 2006 Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve services for our customers and partners. (Strategic Plan 2002-07) Mission and Business Results Lifecycle/Change Management EDEN compliance with ED enterprise architecture. 100% compliant 100% compliant As of October 2006, 100% 2006 Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve services for our customers and partners. (Strategic Plan 2002-07) Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Percent states submitting only through EDEN by collection. (Collection due dates and certification are determined by Program Offices.) Zero states submitted only through EDEN for all collections (October 2005). 100% for all collections by 11/1/2007, excluding 2-year extension exceptions approved by the Secretary. 10/06 CRDC 100%; July 2006: 1810-0614: 100%; 1820-0517: 46.2%; 1820-0043:46.2%; 1820-0521: 12.6% 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Average score on year-end annual partner satisfaction survey. Better than very satisfied score of FY 2006 Maintain or improve on score of better than very satisfied To be determined by survey conducted by third party after end of FY 2007 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Customer Results Response Time Average speed to answer inbound calls from SEA partners during hours of operation. (Data is collected daily and reported at the end of each week.) As of October 20, 2006, 4 seconds. Maintain 4 seconds or better 8/10/2007: 4 seconds 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Processes and Activities Knowledge Management EDEN Knowledge Management compliance with ED's policies, directives, and federal acts and statutes that govern records management. Baseline established for 10/1/2005 to 3/31/2006: 93.5% 100% compliant. Due to contract change, data will be available April and September April 2007: 96% 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Percent states submitting only through EDEN by collection. (Collection due dates and certification are determined by Program Offices.) 10/06 CRDC 100%; July 2006: 1810-0614: 100%; 1820-0517: 46.2%; 1820-0043:46.2%; 1820-0521: 12.6% 100% for all collections by 11/1/2007, excluding 2 year extension exceptions approved by the Secretary. As of July 07: 1820-0043, 65.4%; 1820-0517, 61.5%; 1820-0521, 63.5%. EASIE collection 100%. Title III Biennial Report 100%. CCD 100% 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Average score on year-end annual partner satisfaction survey. NA REPLACED The IPT reviewed performance measures and has determined this measure will be replaced with another performance measure for FY 08 and beyond in exhibit 300 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Customer Results Response Time Average speed to answer inbound calls from SEA partners during hours of operation. (Data is collected daily and reported weekly.) NA MEASURE DISCONTINUED The IPT reviewed performance measures and has determined this measure will be discontinued and replaced with a new performance measure for FY 08 and beyond in exhibit 300 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Processes and Activities Knowledge Management EDEN Knowledge Management compliance with ED's policies, directives, and federal acts and statutes that govern records management, determined quarterly. NA REPLACED The IPT reviewed performance measures and has determined this measure will be replaced with another performance measure for FY 08 and beyond in exhibit 300 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Percent states submitting only through EDEN by collection. (Collection due dates and certification are determined by Program Offices.) NA REPLACED The IPT reviewed performance measures and has determined this measure will be replaced with another performance measure for FY 08 and beyond in exhibit 300 2006 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Information Management Aggregate state capability for submissions by school year (SY) [Report ID#LEAD006] SY 2003-04: 69% 5% over prior SY SY 05-06: 83%SY 04-05: 73% 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Information Management Aggregate state capability for submissions by school year (SY) [LEAD006] In FY 2006, capabilities were: SY 03-04: 67%; SY 04-05: 73%; SY 05-06: 83% 3% over prior SY As of 8/21/2007: SY 06-07: 92% 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Information Management Aggregate state capability for submissions by school year (SY) [LEAD006] NA REPLACED The IPT reviewed performance measures and has determined this measure will be replaced with another performance measure for FY 08 and beyond in exhibit 300. (Data remains available on demand from EDFacts reporting system.) 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Lifecycle/Change Management EDEN compliance with ED enterprise architecture. In FY 2006, 100% compliant 100% compliant As of Feb 2007, the system is 100% compliant with the EA 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Lifecycle/Change Management EDEN compliance with ED enterprise architecture. NA REPLACED The IPT reviewed performance measures and has determined this measure will be replaced with another performance measure for FY 08 and beyond in exhibit 300(Audits will still be conducted, but not reported here.) 2006 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Information Management Aggregate state capability for submissions by school year (SY) [Report # LEAD006] SY 2003-04: 69% 5% over prior SY SY 2005-06, 85%; SY 2004-05, 73% 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Customer Results Response Time Average speed to answer inbound calls from State partners during hours of operation. July 2007, 5 seconds within queue. Minimum of 50% of calls in queue within 60 seconds, all others (voice mail) within 5 minutes. NEW MEASUREMetrics are collected weekly and reported monthly by the 15th. 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Customer Results Response Time Average speed to answer inbound calls from State partners during hours of operation. To be determined based on prior year results. Maintain or improve upon last year's results. NEW MEASUREMetrics are collected weekly and reported monthly by the 15th. 2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Customer Results Response Time Average speed to answer inbound calls from State partners during hours of operation. To be determined based on prior year results. Maintain or improve upon last year's results. NEW MEASUREMetrics are collected weekly and reported monthly by the 15th. 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Information Management EDFacts reports response time from a cross-section of reports. 19 seconds as of August 2007 Not to exceed 30 seconds average response time across reports. NEW MEASUREResults to be reported by the 15th of each month. 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Information Management EDFacts reports response time from a cross-section of reports. To be determined based on prior year results. Maintain or improve upon prior year's results. NEW MEASUREResults to be reported by the 15th of each month. 2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Mission and Business Results Information Management EDFacts reports response time from a cross-section of reports. To be determined based on prior year results. Maintain or improve upon last year's results. NEW MEASUREResults to be reported by the 15th of each month. 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Processes and Activities Innovation and Improvement Reduction in State Education Agency data transmission problems [LEAD003] The current running average for October 1 through July 31, 2007 is 51.32% success rate in transmissions for all states. (The baseline will be the average for the entire fiscal year, but can't be completed until after September 30.) Improvement of 5% annual average success rate over prior fiscal year. NEW MEASUREA running average is reported monthly through the end of the prior month. (Report LEAD003 is available online with user selected time period that can run through the current day and time.) 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Processes and Activities Innovation and Improvement Reduction in State Education Agency data transmission problems [LEAD003] To be determined based on prior year results. Maintain or improve upon last year's results. NEW MEASUREResults reported monthly through the end of the prior month. (Report LEAD003 is available online with user selected time period that can run through the current day and time.) 2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Processes and Activities Innovation and Improvement Reduction in State Education Agency data transmission problems [LEAD003] To be determined based on prior year results. Maintain or improve upon last year's results. NEW MEASUREResults reported monthly through the end of the prior month. (Report LEAD003 is available online with user selected time period that can run through the current day and time.) 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Technology Efficiency Percentage of critical trouble tickets closed or with an action plan to fix in three days. 95% were closed or had an action plan within 3 days for FY 2007 Maintain or improve upon FY 2007 baseline NEW MEASUREMetrics are collected monthly and reported monthly by the 15th 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Technology Efficiency Percentage of critical trouble tickets closed or with an action plan to fix in three days. To be determined based on prior year results. Maintain or improve upon last year's results. NEW MEASUREMetrics are collected monthly and reported monthly by the 15th 2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Management, Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. (Strategic plan 2007-12) Technology Efficiency Percentage of critical trouble tickets closed or with an action plan to fix in three days. To be determined based on prior year results. Maintain or improve upon last year's results. NEW MEASUREMetrics are collected monthly and reported monthly by the 15th

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?
yes

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 C&A Complete. What standards were used for the Security Controls tests? Date Complete(d): 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) Data Usage FY 08 Services that produce the user guide and enable ED offices and states to use EDEN data and how to understand it. Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 5 Data Definition FY 08 Services that support data element definition and provide the data element attachment for the OMB clearance package that defines the data to be collected by EDEN and is required to obtain OMB approval in the paperwork clearance process. Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 3 Data Infrastructure FY 08 Services that create, update, and maintain EDEN file specifications, XML schema, and supporting documentation that are used by EDEN data suppliers and others. Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 7 Data Quality FY 08 Services that provide data quality plans, training materials, and training that support improvements in state-supplied data, enables cross-Program Office data sharing and improved information product quality. Content Management Content Authoring     No Reuse 7 Data Acquisition FY 08 Services that support transmission of data to EDEN, including creating the EDEN workbook and user guide that provide information needed to submit data to EDEN. Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 4 Partner Customer Support FY 08 Services that support state data suppliers so they can submit data to EDEN efficiently and accurately. Customer Relationship Management Partner Relationship Management     No Reuse 20 Knowledge Management FY 08 Services that provide maintenance of EDEN knowledge repository and ensure it is kept up-to-date, accessible, and well-organized for EDEN data suppliers and for the EDEN PMO so that documents are ready to use by whoever needs it. Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 3 Capability Building FY 08 Services that provide introductory and intermediate training on data usage, training materials, and identify areas for improvement. Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 7 FY 08 Alternatives Analysis FY 08 Services that will identify and analyze alternatives for how EDEN will look in the future with regard to other sources of data, technology, and other considerations. Investment Management Portfolio Management     No Reuse 2 Enable Mass School District Changes in EDEN FY 08 Services that enhance EDEN to enable states to make mass-changes in EDEN data to school districts, rather than one-by-one. Development and Integration Software Development     No Reuse 3 Usability and Other Enhancements FY 08 Services that provide miscellaneous enhancements to EDEN such as improving navigation and ease of use, correcting directory issues, changing permitted value lengths, submission and transmittal status report improvements, and other issues. Development and Integration Software Development     No Reuse 3 Travel FY 08 Services that provide travel to support EDEN training and conferences with SEA partners. Customer Relationship Management Partner Relationship Management     No Reuse 0 PMO Support/IV&V FY 08 Services that support the administration, monitoring, and review of EDEN activities. Management of Processes Program / Project Management     No Reuse 7 Software Licenses FY 08 Services that provide for software licenses. Systems Management License Management     No Reuse 6 Contract Incentives FY 08 Funds that provide for contractor incentives. Management of Processes Program / Project Management     No Reuse 4 Platform Infrastructure FY 08 Services that update and maintain EDEN. Systems Management Remote Systems Control     No Reuse 8 EDNet Services Information Technology Infrastructure Services provided by the DoED EdNet Investment Asset / Materials Management Computers / Automation Management Computers / Automation Management 018-24-02-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 EDNet Services Information Technology Infrastructure Services provided by the DoED EdNet Investment Development and Integration Instrumentation and Testing Instrumentation and Testing 018-24-02-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 EDNet Services Information Technology Infrastructure Services provided by the DoED EdNet Investment Organizational Management Network Management Network Management 018-24-02-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 EDNet Services Information Technology Infrastructure Services provided by the DoED EdNet Investment Security Management Cryptography Cryptography 018-24-02-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 EDNet Services Information Technology Infrastructure Services provided by the DoED EdNet Investment Security Management Intrusion Detection Intrusion Detection 018-24-02-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 Data Warehouse Services FY 08 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment Data Management Data Mart Data Mart 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 Data Warehouse Services FY 08 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment Data Management Extraction and Transformation Extraction and Transformation 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 Data Warehouse Services FY 08 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment Reporting Ad Hoc Ad Hoc 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 Data Warehouse Services FY 08 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment Reporting OLAP OLAP 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 Data Warehouse Services FY 08 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment Reporting Standardized / Canned Standardized / Canned 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 EDNet Services Information Technology Infrastructure Services provided by the DoED EDNet Investment. Collaboration Email Email 018-24-02-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 Security/C&A FY 08 funds that provide Certification & Accreditation services Security Management Certification and Accreditation     No Reuse 0 Data Definition FY 09 services that support data element definition and provide the data element attachment for the OMB clearance package that defines the data to be collected by EDEN and is required to obtain OMB approval in the paperwork clearance process. Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 3 Data Infrastructure FY 09 services that create, updates, and maintain EDEN file specifications, XML schema, and supporting documentation that are used by EDEN data suppliers and others. Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 7 Data Quality FY 09 services that provide data quality plans, training materials, and training that support improvements in state-supplied data, enables cross-Program Office data sharing and improved information quality. Content Management Content Authoring     No Reuse 7 Data Acquisition FY 09 services that support transmission of data to EDEN, including creating the EDEN workbook and user guide that provide information needed to submit data to EDEN. Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 4 Data Usage FY 09 services that produce the user guide and enable ED offices and states to use EDEN data and how to use it. Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 5 Knowledge Management FY 09 services that provide maintenance of EDEN knowledge repository and ensure it is kept up-to-date, accessible, and well-organized for EDEN data suppliers and for the EDEN PMO so that documents are ready to use by whoever needs it. Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 3 Capability Building FY 09 services that provide introductory and intermediate training on data usage, training materials, and identify areas for improvement. Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 7 Platform Infrastructure FY 09 services that update and maintain EDEN. Systems Management Remote Systems Control     No Reuse 8 Software Licenses FY 09 services that provide for software licenses Systems Management License Management     No Reuse 5 PMO Support/IVV FY 09 services that support the administration, monitoring, and review of EDEN activities. Management of Processes Program / Project Management     No Reuse 7 Travel FY 09 services that provide travel to support EDEN training and conferences with SEA partners. Customer Relationship Management Partner Relationship Management     No Reuse 0 Contract Incentives FY 09 funds that provide for contractor incentives. Management of Processes Program / Project Management     No Reuse 3 Security/C&A FY 09 funds that provide for Certification and Accreditation services. Security Management Certification and Accreditation     No Reuse 0 PIMS Reports FY 09 services that provide for reports that can be generated as needed for managing the EDEN program. Reporting Ad Hoc     No Reuse 3 ADI Option FY 08 services that provide web-ex training, conferences, and communications and obtain feedback from data suppliers Customer Relationship Management Partner Relationship Management     No Reuse 10 ADI Option FY 09 services that provide web-ex training, conferences, and communications and obtain feedback from data suppliers Customer Relationship Management Partner Relationship Management     No Reuse 10 Partner Customer Support FY 09 Services that support state data suppliers so they can submit data to EDEN efficiently and accurately. Customer Relationship Management Partner Relationship Management     No Reuse 20 ED Data Warehouse FY 09 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment (that EDEN now operates) Data Management Data Mart Data Mart 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 3 ED Data Warehouse FY 09 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment (that EDEN now operates) Data Management Extraction and Transformation Extraction and Transformation 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 3 ED Data Warehouse FY 09 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment (that EDEN now operates) Reporting Ad Hoc Ad Hoc 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 3 ED Data Warehouse FY 09 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment (that EDEN now operates) Reporting OLAP OLAP 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 3 ED Data Warehouse FY 09 Data Warehouse and Reporting provided by the DoED Data Warehouse Investment (that EDEN now operates) Reporting Standardized / Canned Standardized / Canned 018-24-03-00-01-1020-00 Internal 3 Contract-end Transition FY 09 services that provide for transition of the Operations, Maintenance and Enhancement contract Management of Processes Program / Project Management     No Reuse 4

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) Email Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Collaboration / Communications Microsoft Exchange Server provided by EDNet OLAP Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Other Electronic Channels Cognos Report Net, Visualizer, and Power Play Knowledge Capture Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Legislative / Compliance Section 508 Network Management Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Authentication / Single Sign-on SSH Tectia Servers; MS Active Directory provided by EDNet Network Management Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Hosting Hosting provided by EDNet Knowledge Capture Service Access and Delivery Service Transport Service Transport MS Internet Information Server Knowledge Capture Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers HP Proliant DL380G; Windows 2000; MS IIS 6 with WWW & SMTP; MS .Netframework; MS J#.Net Redistributable Knowledge Capture Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Servers / Computers HP Proliant DL580G2; Sunfire V440 Knowledge Capture Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database HP Proliant DL580G2, MS Windows 2000, MS SQL Server Knowledge Capture Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Storage HP Proliant DL580G2 with external storage 4X72.8GB - RAID5 Cryptography Component Framework Security Certificates / Digital Signatures SSL encryption provided by EDNet Knowledge Capture Component Framework Security Supporting Security Services SSH Sftw Tectia Server Knowledge Capture Component Framework Presentation / Interface Content Rendering MS IIS 6 with WWW & SMTP Knowledge Capture Component Framework Presentation / Interface Static Display MS SQLXML 3; MS IIS with WWW & SMTP; ResQSoft Ad Hoc Component Framework Presentation / Interface Static Display Cognos Report Net, Visualizer, and Power Play Knowledge Capture Component Framework Business Logic Platform Independent Sun Java Development Kit Knowledge Capture Component Framework Business Logic Platform Dependent ResQSoft Engineer, Web Survey 5.9 OLAP Component Framework Business Logic Platform Dependent Cognos Report Net, Visualizer, and Power Play Knowledge Capture Component Framework Data Interchange Data Exchange MS SQLXML 3; Soft Artisans FileUp; MS .NET Framework Standardized / Canned Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis Cognos Report Net, Visualizer, and Power Play Knowledge Capture Service Interface and Integration Integration Enterprise Application Integration MS .NET Framework Redistributable Knowledge Capture Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification MS .Net Framework Redistributable; MS SQLXML 3 Knowledge Capture Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers HP Proliant, DL380G3, Windows 2000, MS IIS6 with WWW & SMTP, MS.Net Framework, SSH Software Tectia Server, MS SQLXML3, SunFire V440, Soalris 10, Java Enterprise System Software, Unix, Jakarta Tomcat Information Sharing Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis Perot, EDFacts User Quick Reference Guides and Training Manuals for Basic and Ad Hoc users produced using MS Office and Adobe Knowledge Capture Component Framework Data Interchange Data Exchange Perot, Attachment to OMB Package for Data Collection Approval produced using MS Office Knowledge Capture Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Types / Validation Perot, EDEN File Specifications by school year produced using MS Office Content Authoring Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Types / Validation Perot, EDEN Data Quality Plan and updates produced using MS Office Partner Relationship Management Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Collaboration / Communications Perot, Partner Customer Support Services provided using telephone and email Information Sharing Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Collaboration / Communications Perot, MS SharePoint provided by Perot @https://teams.psgs.com/sites/EDEN/default.aspx Information Sharing Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis Perot, Data Usage Training Plan, Guides, and Materials produced using MS Office and Adobe Portfolio Management Service Interface and Integration Integration Enterprise Application Integration EDEN Integrated Project Team, FY 2008 EDEN Alternatives Analysis produced using MS Office 2003 and MS Project 2002 Software Development Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Integrated Development Environment Perot, enhancements/maintenance to EDEN developed on Perot's offsite platform Software Development Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Test Management Perot, System Test Plans produced using MS Office Software Development Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Test Management CTGi, Acceptance Test Plans produced using MS Office 2003 Partner Relationship Management Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Collaboration / Communications EDEN Integrated Project Team, EDEN Training Conferences for SEA Partners materials produced using MS Office Program / Project Management Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Legislative / Compliance CTGI, Independent Verification & Validation for compliance with requirements accomplished using MS Office tools Program / Project Management Component Framework Security Supporting Security Services CTGI, C&A Support accomplished using EDNet and EDEN Program / Project Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Software Configuration Management CTGI, EDEN Change Control Board support produced using MS Office 2003 License Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Integrated Development Environment ResQSoft, ResQSoft license License Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Integrated Development Environment Cognos, Cognos licenses Remote Systems Control Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Integrated Development Environment Perot, Perot's offsite development environment for creating updates to EDEN Computers / Automation Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Wide Area Network (WAN) Dept. Education's EDNet WAN Instrumentation and Testing Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Test Management Dept. Education EDNet services Intrusion Detection Component Framework Security Supporting Security Services Dept. Education EDNet services Data Mart Component Framework Data Interchange Data Exchange Dept. Education Data Warehouse services Extraction and Transformation Component Framework Data Interchange Data Exchange Dept. Education Data Warehouse services Certification and Accreditation Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Legislative / Compliance C&A services (supplier to be determined) Information Sharing Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Other Electronic Channels Perot, data extracts using EDEN Computers / Automation Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Servers / Computers GSA Schedule, replacement parts, upgrades for hardware Partner Relationship Management Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Collaboration / Communications ADI, EDEN Training and Conferences for SEA partners materials produced using MS Office

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 - Multiple Contractors This alternative assumes that multiple contractors will perform OM&E activities for: Customer Support Services; and OM&E services for EDEN Submission System, EDEN Data Analysis and Reporting System, and EDEN Survey Tool. Technology will reside at ED facilities, and ED employees/project management support contractors will integrate the effort.     2 - Contractor This alternative assumes that the technology for the EDEN production system will continue to reside at ED facilities, and a contractor (or prime) will conduct and integrate EDEN OM&E activities. A core staff of ED employees/project management support contractors will oversee the contract.     3 - Outsource The Outsource alternative assumes a contractor (or prime) will maintain the EDEN system and conduct all tasks associated with OM&E. In addition, the technology will be transferred to contractor facilities instead of residing at ED facilities. ED employees/project management support contractors will oversee the contract. ED Offices will obtain data either from the website or through special connectivity to EDNet from the outsource facility.     4 - Status Quo The Status Quo alternative is to not put EDEN into production and to continue with process-intensive data collection.

II. A. 3. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen?
(long text - 2500 characters)
Alternative 2 is best suited to achieve Departmental goals while presenting the least risk and cost. Status Quo would not be able to achieve the strategic benefits desired by the Department. Comparison of the Status Quo to the alternatives is somewhat misleading because it does not provide the same capabilities. Alternative 2 has less risk than Status Quo, and this result was mainly affected by judgments related to data quality, data usage, and the impact on state data suppliers. Risks related to maintaining the Status Quo in some areas, such as project management, were considered slightly greater than Alternative 2 because there are numerous collections to manage. There is, of course, no risk in implementing the Status Quo. Alternative 1 suffered because of management and other complexities, leading to higher cost and risks. While Alternative 3 could be a good alternative for the future after states transition to EDEN, it is not the best selection at this time. A key risk affecting Alternative 3 is business processes are not yet fully stabilized, which could complicate outsourcing of work and technology. Outsourcing is better accomplished when business processes are stable, according to our research. Our 2006 updated analysis did not include costs for prior years. Transition of multiple data collections into EDEN is in progress. By regulation, states must transition to EDEN by November 2007, excluding 2 year extension exceptions approved by the Secretary. An alternatives analysis is planned for FY 08 to address post-transition EDEN and our upcoming technology refreshment needs.

II. A. 4. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long text - 2500 characters)
Benefits include: Because the nature of work will be focused on higher-level analysis and business intelligence rather than paper-based data collection and quality, employee jobs will be enhanced. Cross-program data sharing though common data meanings and formats will help eliminate knowledge silos within the Department: there will be more job and resource flexibility as well as the ability to develop business intelligence. State decision-makers and the Department have a clear set of data that improves communications because everyone is seeing the same set of data. States can monitor their own education programs using EDEN data and the immediate access to it, and Internet-based reporting for states has already begun. Completion of the Department enterprise architecture, which includes collection consolidation. Better data quality: for example, data collected through EDEN allowed one office to produce its report that fall, while the last year's report (under the old collection process) was also finally completed that fall, an improvement of many months. Improved information access, timeliness, and availability of current data to decision-makers, such as the President and Congress, will facilitate better decision-making about education programs, giving more bang for the buck. Reduction in the number of collection approval requests submitted by the Department to OMB also reduces burden to everyone, including on the public for reviewing and commenting. Better compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

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?
yes

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

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)

Planned Completion Date Planned Total Cost Actual Completion Date Actual Total Cost Variance - Schedule Variance - Cost     NaN

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:

Description of Alternative Risk Adjusted Lifecycle Costs estimate Risk Adjusted Lifecycle Benefits estimate Baseline Status Quo NaN NaN

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:

Budgeted Cost Savings Cost Avoidance Justification for Budgeted Cost Savings Justification for Cost Avoidance   NaN NaN

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

UPI if available Date of the System Retirement

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.

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 Agency responsible for activity                   NaN