Exhibit 300 FY2009

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

I. A. 2. Agency:
018

I. A. 3. Bureau:
45

I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
(short text - 250 characters)
Enterprise Information System (Data Strategy)

I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier:
For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system.
018-45-01-06-01-1130-00

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.
Full-Acquisition

I. A. 7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?
FY2003

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)
NOTE – THIS INITIATIVE WILL BE DISCONTINUED AS OF FY09.†

The Data Strategy initiative has been the primary driver and director for all modernization efforts that have been undertaken within Federal Student Aid since the project's initiation in 2003. This initiative defined the Federal Student Aid Target State Vision for the delivery of Federal Student Aid and the sequencing of the TSV. In its prior state the Data Strategy Initiative gave strategic direction to Federal Student Aid for the management of data and systems. The Data Strategy Initiative has now morphed into a systems development initiative that will implement key components within the Federal Student Aid Target State. The first key component to be implemented is Information Services. The remaining components of the TSV will be implemented within ADance initiative and will be included in that business case.

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 Total Planning $14.147 $3.000 $0.000 $0.000           Acquisition $0.000 $0.000 $1.500 $0.000           Subtotal Planning and Acquisition                   Operations and Maintenance $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000           TOTAL                   Government FTE Costs $2.915 $0.525 $0.550 $0.000           Number of FTE represented by cost $27.000 $5.000 $5.000 $5.000

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)

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 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Data Reliability and Quality # of Data Improvement Areas, Strategies & Designs (Data Flows, Data Quality) 0 2 2 2004 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education # of Reporting and Access Areas, Strategies & Designs (Developed Target State that showed Data Access strategy and Data Flows) 0 1 1 2004 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered # of Data Exchange Areas, Strategies and Design (Number of data exchange areas identified for FSA Development efforts) 0 21 21 2004 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Efficiency #of Areas for Streamlining Data Access and Reporting (Number of systems from which data might have gone from CDA) 0 8 8 2005 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Data Reliability and Quality: # of Data Improvement Areas, Strategies & Designs (CDA, Shared Services, SAHM, Enterprise Analytics) 0 4 1 2005 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Budget and Performance Integration Management Improvement: # of Reporting and Access Areas, Strategies & Designs (Developed Target State that showed Data Access strategy and Data Flows). 0 2 2 2005 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered: # of Data Exchange Areas, Strategies and Design (# of systems and CDA) 0 9 1 2005 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Efficiency Efficiency:# of Areas for Streamlining Data Access and Reporting. (Number of Systems which might have gone from CDA 0 9 1 2006 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Data Reliability and Quality:# of Data Improvement Areas, Strategies & Designs(CDA, Shared Services, SAHM, Enterprise Analytics 0 4 4 2006 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Budget and Performance Integration Management Improvement: # of Reporting and Access Areas, Strategies & Designs (Developed Target State that showed Data Access strategy and Data Flows). 0 1 1 2006 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered: # of Data Exchange Areas, Strategies and Design (# of systems and CDA) 0 11 11 2006 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Efficiency Efficiency: # of Areas for Streamlining Data Access and Reporting (Number of systems from which data might have gone from CDA) 0 11 11 2007 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Complaints Percentage of key Federal Student Aid stakeholders involved in gathering detailed requirements for the IF. 0 100% 100% 2007 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Compliance and Deviations Percentage of work products and deliverables that are accepted through Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) review on initial pass 0 95 95% 2007 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Percentage of time needed for processing records from external partners, as documented through system specifications compared to current baseline. 0 60% 60% 2008 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Cycle Time: Data Processing Time. Currently running at 100% CPU. 100% 90% Actual results will be available in 2008 2008 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Access Number of self-service functions available for customers 0 5 Actual results will be available in 2008 2008 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology IT Contribution to Process, Customer, or Mission Number of point-to-point communications 9 6 Actual results will be available in 2008 2008 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Information Management Number of tools retired as aresult of the IF 0 3 Actual results will be available in 2008 2007 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Interoperability Percentage of Federal Student Aid's mission critical programs and systems supported by IF. 0 76% 76% 2009 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Services Percentage of key Federal Student Aid stakeholders involved in defining detailed requirements for the EIS 0 100% Actual results will be available in 2009 2009 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Automation Percentage of Federal Student Aid's mission critical programs and systems supported by EIS. 0 76% Actual results will be available in 2009 2009 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Time required toPercentage of time needed for processing records from external partners, as documented through system specifications compared to current baseline. 0 60% Actual results will be available in 2009 2009 Goal 3: Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Compliance and Deviations Percentage of work products and deliverables that are accepted through Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) review on initial pass 0 95% Actual results will be available in 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?
yes

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) †FSA Data Strategy: Data Management Data validation for format, context, timeliness and consistency. Data Management Data Cleansing     No Reuse 5 †FSA Data Strategy: Data Management Data exchange between FSA internal systerms and FSA trading partners. Data Management Data Exchange     No Reuse †30 †FSA Data Strategy: Data Management Provide deparmtmental data organized for a specific group of users. Data Management Data Mart     No Reuse †5 †FSA Data Strategy: Data Management Provide FSA data management Data Management Meta Data Management     No Reuse †25 †FSA Data Strategy: Data Management Provide a subject oriented, time variant, integrated repository of data for strategic decision making Data Management Data Warehouse     No Reuse †5                                                                                 †FSA Data Strategy: Knowledge Management Provide consistent data to internal FSA staff and trading partners. Knowledge Management †Information Sharing     No Reuse †30

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 SRM Component FEA TRM Service Area FEA TRM Service Category FEA TRM Service Standard Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name) Data Exchange Service Interface and Integration Data Interchange Data Exchange IBM Information Server v8 Information Sharing Service Interface and Integration Data Interchange Data Format / Classification IBM Information Server v8 Data Mart Service Platform and Infrastructure Data Management Data Transformation IBM Information Server v8 Data Warehouse Service Platform and Infrastructure Data Management Data Transformation IBM Information Server v8 Meta Data Management Component Framework Data Management Modeling IBM Information Server v8 Data Cleansing Service Interface and Integration Integration Data Format / Classification IBM Information Server v8

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 EIS Alternative 1 Integrates a coexistence style of master data management (MDM), builds an operational data store (ODS) with Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) for the database element. Through this combination of components, data management will be automated using the coexistence style MDM leading to improved data quality for master data loaded onto the database. There will be two databases, the ODS and EDW.     EIS Alternative 2 The 2nd alternative integrates a co-existence style MDM, maintains the current state for NSLDS. Through this combination of components, data management will be automated through the coexistence style MDM leading to improved data quality for master data loaded onto the database. The database in this alternative is the current state NSLDS and will be used for storing data and analytical reporting.     EIS Alternative 3 Keep the current state of technologies and architecture but perform a technology refresh. The combination of components that comprise alternative three will use a the current state NSLDS as the database for which data is stored and analytical reporting is run, perform data management from source systems and external partners manually by NSLDS staff, and use the Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) bus to serve as the middleware between Federal Student Aid systems and applications.     Status Quo This alternative is the status quo alternative. The National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). NSLDS will continue in its current state to perform Student Aid History management. The current mainframe and software solution would remain in place with no significant enhancements other than software version upgrades and OS upgrades mandated for continued system support.

II. A. 3. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen?
(long text - 2500 characters)
IF/SAHM & EIS Alternative 1 was selected because it provides the most cost effective solution combined with an improved mechanism for the delivery of service for Federal Student Aid.Both a technical evaluation and an economic analysis were performed to determine the preferred alternative to the existing functionality. Technical Analysis: To develop the IF alternatives, sessions were held to evaluate each component of the alternative using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (an explanation of the AHP is provided below). Provided here is reasoning for each component's incorporation into the alternative and the options evaluated for each component. MDM was selected as a component for alternatives in order to architect how data from multiple data sources for person and organization will be harmonized and reconciled as master data across applications within the database. The options for the MDM component included: ?Current state ?Registry style MDM?Coexistence style MDM?Transaction hub style MDM Database architecture was selected as a component for alternatives in order to architect how data will be entered into the database and how analytical reporting will be extracted from the database. The options for the database architecture component included:?Current state ?Enhance current state database to support operational and analytical functions?Build ODS with Data Marts?Build ODS with EDWThe two components - MDM and database architecture are integral to determine the architecture for the IF. These components, when combined, provide the architecture for tools and products used to implement the Enterprise Information System. Each of the component options, above, were evaluated against one another using AHP. We used the AHP results to generate a combination of the top options to formulate the three alternatives presented in the following subsections. Each of the component options was evaluated to derive a best case for each component. Each component was then examined to determine how these options could be merged with one another to derive an overall option. The selected alternative demonstrates an ROI of .94, a total benefit of $37.4 Million, and a payback in FY15.

II. A. 4. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long text - 2500 characters)
This initiative allows for improved timeliness and integrity of the data. The initiative streamlines and simplifies the interface between Federal Student Aid and Stakeholders/Financial Partners. The analytics that will be provided by EA&R are cross-function as well as cross-enterprise and will help Federal Student Aid's business processes by getting answers to those who need them sooner and reducing the time spent putting together reports.

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%?
yes

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

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:

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.