In Part I, complete Sections A, B, C, and D for all capital assets (IT and non-IT). Complete Sections E and F for IT capital assets.
The following series of questions are to be completed for all investments.
I.
A. 1. Date of Submission:
2007-09-10
I.
A. 2. Agency:
018
I.
A. 3. Bureau:
07
I.
A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
(short
text - 250 characters)
Migrant
Student Information Exchange (MSIX)
I.
A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier:
For
IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system.
018-07-01-02-01-1000-00
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?
FY2005
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
Department of Education's (ED) mission, through implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), is to ensure equal access to education and to
promote educational excellence throughout the nation. The Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Office of Migrant Education (OME)
is responsible for administering the Migrant Education Program (MEP). OME
is mandated in the No Child Left Behind Act, Section 1308(b) to assist the
States in developing effective methods for the electronic transfer of
student records and in determining the number of migratory children in each
State. OME established the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) project
to accomplish this mandate. The future migrant student data exchange
capability directly supports the OESE/OME goals for the Migrant Education
Program (MEP) to ensure that all migrant students reach challenging
academic standards and graduate with a high school diploma, or complete a
General Education Diploma (GED), that prepares them for responsible
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment. The MSIX Software
Development Contract was awarded at the end of FY06. Implementation activities
are underway and are expected to culminate with fully deployment at the end
of FY07. The MSIX Project Team has successfully completed the two pilots to
test the prototype system prior to full deployment. Based on the results of
the pilots, MSIX is on schedule to be deployed on schedule at the end of
FY07. In order to meet that ambitious goal, the MSIX Project Team has been
actively coordinating technical activities with its primary stakeholders
(states, migrant associations, etc.) and conducting outreach sessions and
user group meetings to increase awareness around the new MSIX System. To
assure that the project activities are being completed in a timely manner,
independent verification and validation activities have commenced in
parallel with the software development effort. The project team has revised
its lifecycle cost estimates and completed a baseline change request so as
to ensure that the high visibility work effort is aligned with the
department's technical and information management standards. During the
software development effort, the MSIX Project Team recognized that there
was need to support the states' technical needs. MSIX was able to secure
additional funding to assist the states with preparing their technical
interfaces.
I.
A. 9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request?
yes
I.
A. 9. a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval?
2007-06-14
I.
A. 10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?
yes
Name
(short
text - 250 characters)
Phone
Number
(short
text - 250 characters)
E-mail
(short
text - 250 characters)
I. A. 11. a. What is the current FAC-P/PM certification level of the project/program 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. 12. a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including
computers)?
yes
I.
A. 12. b. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a
Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only)
no
I. A. 12. b. 1. If "yes," is an ESPC or UESC being used to help fund this investment?
I. A. 12. b. 2. If "yes," will this investment meet sustainable design principles?
I. A. 12. b. 3. If "yes," is it designed to be 30% more energy efficient than relevant code?
I.
A. 13. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives?
yes
I.
A. 13. a. If "yes," check all that apply:
Expanded
E-Government
I.
A. 13. b. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this
asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? (e.g. If E-Gov is
selected, is it an approved shared service provider or the managing
partner?)
(medium
text - 500 characters)
The
MSIX project supports PMA Goal 4. Expanded Electronic Government is a
primary factor driving MSIX's support of the PMA. MSIX is being developed
as a web-based application and hosted solution readily available to its
user population including educators, teachers, guidance councilors and
registrars. This investment truly supports the spirit behind the PMA
"The E-Government initiative will make it simpler for citizens to
receive high-quality services from the federal government."
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.)
yes
I.
A. 14. a. If "yes," does this investment address a weakness found
during the PART review?
yes
I.
A. 14. b. If "yes," what is the name of the PARTed Program?
(short
text - 250 characters)
Migrant
Education Program
I.
A. 14. c. If "yes," what PART rating did it receive?
Adequate
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. 19. a. If "yes," does this investment address a FFMIA compliance area?
I.
A. 19. a. 1. If "yes," which compliance area
(short
text - 250 characters)
I.
A. 19. a. 2. If "no," what does it address?
(medium
text - 500 characters)
I.
A. 19. b. If "yes," please identify the system name(s) and system
acronym(s) as reported in the most recent financial systems inventory
update required by Circular A-11 section 52
(long
text - 2500 characters)
I.
A. 20. a. Hardware
0
I.
A. 20. b. Software
1
I.
A. 20. c. Services
99
I.
A. 20. d. Other
0
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?
n/a
I.
A. 22. a. Name
(short
text - 250 characters)
I.
A. 22. b. Phone Number
(short
text - 250 characters)
I.
A. 22. c. Title
(short
text - 250 characters)
I.
A. 22. d. E-mail
(short
text - 250 characters)
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.
|
I.
B. 2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?
yes
I.
B. 2. a. If "yes," How many and in what year?
(medium
text - 500 characters)
1.5
FTEs have been assigned by the Department to support the MSIX System in
FY07 and FY08. To meet the oversight and management requirements for MSIX,
It is expected that 2.5 FTEs will be required to oversee MSIX in FY09-FY13.
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)
|
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. 3. a. Explain Why:
(medium
text - 500 characters)
I. C. 4. Is there an acquisition plan which has been approved in accordance with agency requirements?
I. C. 4. a. If "yes," what is the date?
I. C. 4. b. If "no," will an acquisition plan be developed?
I.
C. 4. b. 1. If "no," briefly explain why:
(medium
text - 500 characters)
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.
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.
|
In
order to successfully address this area of the business case, each question
below must be answered at the system/application level, not at a program or
agency level. Systems supporting this investment on the planning and operational
systems security tables should match the systems on the privacy table
below. Systems on the Operational Security Table must be included on your
agency FISMA system inventory and should be easily referenced in the
inventory (i.e., should use the same name or identifier).
For existing Mixed-Life Cycle investments where enhancement, development,
and/or modernization is planned, include the investment in both the
"Systems in Planning" table (Table 3) and the "Operational Systems" table
(Table 4). Systems which are already operational, but have enhancement,
development, and/or modernization activity, should be included in both
Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3 should reflect the planned date for the system
changes to be complete and operational, and the planned date for the
associated C&A update. Table 4 should reflect the current status of the
requirements listed. In this context, information contained within Table 3
should characterize what updates to testing and documentation will occur
before implementing the enhancements; and Table 4 should characterize the
current state of the materials associated with the existing system.
All systems listed in the two security tables should be identified in the
privacy table. The list of systems in the "Name of System" column of the
privacy table (Table 8) should match the systems listed in columns titled
"Name of System" in the security tables (Tables 3 and 4). For the Privacy
table, it is possible that there may not be a one-to-one ratio between the
list of systems and the related privacy documents. For example, one PIA
could cover multiple systems. If this is the case, a working link to the
PIA may be listed in column (d) of the privacy table more than once (for
each system covered by the PIA).
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. 1. a. If "yes," provide the "Percentage IT Security"
for the budget year:
10.00
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.
|
I. E. 4. Operational Systems - Security:
|
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. 5. a. If "yes," have those weaknesses been incorporated into the agency's plan of action and milestone process?
I. E. 6. Indicate whether an increase in IT security funding is requested to remediate IT security weaknesses?
I.
E. 6. a. If "yes," specify the amount, provide a general
description of the weakness, and explain how the funding request will
remediate the weakness.
(long
text - 2500 characters)
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.
|
In order to successfully address this area of the business case and capital asset plan you must ensure the investment is included in the agency's EA and Capital Planning and Invesment Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and supports the FEA. You must also ensure the business case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the business, performance, data, services, application, and technology layers of the agency's EA.
I.
F. 1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture?
yes
I.
F. 1. a. If "no," please explain why?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
I.
F. 2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy?
yes
I.
F. 2. a. If "yes," provide the investment name as identified in
the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA
Assessment.
(medium
text - 500 characters)
MSIX
I.
F. 2. b. If "no," please explain why?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
I.
F. 3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target
architecture) and approved segment architecture?
no
I.
F. 3. a. If "yes," provide the name of the segment architecture.
(medium
text - 500 characters)
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%.
|
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.
|
I.
F. 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications
across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?
no
I.
F. 6. a. If "yes," please describe.
(long
text - 2500 characters)
Part II should be completed only for investments identified as "Planning" or "Full Acquisition," or "Mixed Life-Cycle" investments in response to Question 6 in Part I, Section A above
In selecting the best capital asset, you should identify and consider at least three viable alternatives, in addition to the current baseline, i.e., the status quo. Use OMB Circular A-94 for all investments and the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 for IT investments to determine the criteria you should use in your Benefit/Cost Analysis.
II.
A. 1. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this project?
yes
II.
A. 1. a. If "yes," provide the date the analysis was completed?
2005-05-04
II. A. 1. b. If "no," what is the anticipated date this analysis will be completed?
II.
A. 1. c. If no analysis is planned, please briefly explain why:
(medium
text - 500 characters)
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)
|
II.
A. 3. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment
Committee and why was it chosen?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
Alternative
1 - Consolidated Replica (status quo) was selected because it has major
advantages over the remaining alternatives and was determined to best meet
the requirements of MSIX. Compared to the other three alternatives, the consolidated
replica had the lowest percentage of risks (10%) as compared to the other
alternatives (Peer-to-Peer, 50%; Transaction Broker, 33%; and Transaction
Broker with Directory Service, 33%). As a web-based system, the selected
alternative will allow stakeholders (the states) to access the system via a
web browser. Compelling advantages include: ? Provides the least invasive
technology of all the alternatives from the perspective of the MEP
component systems. ? Provides a high-performance option because end-user
searches execute against one data source. ? Provides a consolidated data
store, which facilitates the generation of reports based on aggregate
statistics. ? Provides a means to identify and merge duplicate records via
the consolidated database, which improves the quality of data and provides
more accurate information. ? Supports the implementation of robust business
rules, such as a notification system. This alternative provides the least
amount of risk to the government. OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and
Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs states that
"Cost-effectiveness analysis?[is] appropriate when the benefits from
competing Alternatives are the same or where a policy decision has been
made that the benefits must be provided." ED is mandated by NCLB Act
Section 1308 (b) to develop a system for the electronic transfer of student
records and to assist states in determining the number of migratory
students in each State. Circular A-94 further emphasizes "cost-effectiveness
analysis is appropriate whenever it is unnecessary or impractical to
consider the dollar value of the benefits provided by the possible
Alternatives. This is the case whenever (i) each Alternative has the same
annual benefits expressed in monetary terms; or (ii) each Alternative has
the same annual effects, but dollar values cannot be assigned to their
benefits." During the benefits analysis phase, it became evident that
differentiating tangible benefits could not be identified or quantified for
purposes of the study because tangible benefits were equal across all
Alternatives analyzed. Therefore, only intangible benefits were analyzed.
II.
A. 4. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
Based
on the Alternative Analysis that was conducted for this investment, the
consolidated database replica alternative met the requirement of the
Department and the stakeholders (the States). MSIX as implemented in the
consolidated replica will ensure timely updates between the states without
the states having to replace their current migrant student tracking
systems. Once implemented the states will have access to migrant student
data via a centralized system that will be coordinated at the Federal
Level. Furthermore, the consolidated database will allow the states and ED
to better manage student records and eliminate duplication of records and
merge records as necessary.
II.
A. 5. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or
in-whole?
no
II. A. 5. a. If "yes," are the migration costs associated with the migration to the selected alternative included in this investment, the legacy investment, or in a separate migration investment?
II. A. 5. b. Table 1. If "yes," please provide the following information:
|
You should have performed a risk assessment during the early planning and initial concept phase of this investment's life-cycle, developed a risk-adjusted life-cycle cost estimate and a plan to eliminate, mitigate or manage risk, and be actively managing risk throughout the investment's life-cycle.
II.
B. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?
yes
II.
B. 1. a. If "yes," what is the date of the plan?
2007-07-15
II.
B. 1. b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last
year's submission to OMB?
no
II.
B. 1. c. If "yes," describe any significant changes:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
II. B. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?
II. B. 2. a. If "yes," what is the planned completion date?
II.
B. 2. b. If "no," what is the strategy for managing the risks?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
II.
B. 3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle
cost estimate and investment schedule:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
In order
to launch and deploy MSIX in a timely manner, an aggressive development
schedule (one year in length) was adopted by the project team. The
assessment of risks had to be reevaluated to account for the aggressive
development schedule. New risks were identified and many of the known risks
had to be raised to higher priority and a great likelihood of occurrence.
Furthermore in order to align its stakeholders with the MSIX Investment,
the project team identified an elevated risk in terms of getting data from
the stakeholders. To reduce and mitigate this risk, additional funds were
dedicated to support the states to assist them with preparing their
technical interfaces for MSIX. In order to mitigate this risk in the
future, MSIX will continue to support the states and help them with their
technical and data needs specifically dedicating funds for future state
support from FY08-FY11. Security for MSIX was also identified as potential
high risk to the project given the project's aggressive implementation schedule.
In order to mitigate this security risk, the lifecycle costs have been
adjusted for security activities, and additional funding has been dedicated
to reduce the risks associated with IT security, contingency planning, and
disaster recovery.
EVM is required only on DME portions of investments. For mixed lifecycle investments, O&M milestones should still be included in the table (Comparison of Initial Baseline and Current Approved Baseline). This table should accurately reflect the milestones in the initial baseline, as well as milestones in the current baseline.
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. 2. a. If "yes," was it the CV or SV or both ?
II.
C. 2. b. If "yes," explain the causes of the variance:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
II.
C. 2. c. If "yes," describe the corrective actions:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
II.
C. 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
yes
II.
C. 3. a. If "yes," when was it approved by the agency head?
2007-02-26
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)
|
Part III should be completed only for investments identified as "Operation and Maintenance" (Steady State) in response to Question 6 in Part I, Section A above.
You should have performed a risk assessment during the early planning and initial concept phase of this investment's life-cycle, developed a risk-adjusted life-cycle cost estimate and a plan to eliminate, mitigate or manage risk, and be actively managing risk throughout the investment's life-cycle.
III. A. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?
III. A. 1. a. If "yes," what is the date of the plan?
III. A. 1. b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?
III.
A. 1. c. If "yes," describe any significant changes:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
III. A. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?
III. A. 2. a. If "yes," what is the planned completion date?
III.
A. 2. b. If "no," what is the strategy for managing the risks?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
III. B. 1. Was operational analysis conducted?
III. B. 1. a. If "yes," provide the date the analysis was completed.
III.
B. 1. b. If "yes," what were the results?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
III.
B. 1. c. If "no," please explain why it was not conducted and if
there are any plans to conduct operational analysis in the future:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
(Character Limitations: Description of Milestone - 250 Characters)
III. B. 2. a. What costs are included in the reported Cost/Schedule Performance information (Government Only/Contractor Only/Both)?
III. B. 2. b. Comparison of Planned and Actual Cost
|
Part IV should be completed only for investments identified as an E-Gov initiative, an Line of Business (LOB) Initiative, or a Multi-Agency Collaboration effort., selected the "Multi-Agency Collaboration" choice in response to Question 6 in Part I, Section A above. Investments identified as "Multi-Agency Collaboration" will complete only Parts I and IV of the exhibit 300.
Multi-agency Collaborations, such as E-Gov and LOB initiatives, should develop a joint exhibit 300.
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.
|
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)
|
IV.
A. 3. Partner Funding Strategies ($millions)
For
jointly funded initiative activities, provide in the "Partner Funding
Strategies Table": the name(s) of partner agencies; the UPI of the partner
agency investments; and the partner agency contributions for CY and BY.
Please indicate partner contribution amounts (in-kind contributions should
also be included in this amount) and fee-for-service amounts. (Partner
Agency Asset UPIs should also appear on the Partner Agency's exhibit 53.
For non-IT fee-for-service amounts the Partner exhibit 53 UPI can be left
blank) (IT migration investments should not be included in this table)
|
IV. A. 4. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this project?
IV. A. 4. a. If "yes," provide the date the analysis was completed?
IV. A. 4. b. If "no," what is the anticipated date this analysis will be completed?
IV.
A. 4. c. If no analysis is planned, please briefly explain why:
(medium
text - 500 characters)
IV. A. 5. Use the results of your alternatives analysis to complete the following table:
|
IV.
A. 6. Which alternative was selected by the Initiative Governance process
and why was it chosen?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
IV.
A. 7. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
IV.
A. 8. Table 1. Federal Quantitative Benefits ($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. A. 9. a. If "yes," are the migration costs associated with the migration to the selected alternative included in this investment, the legacy investment, or in a separate migration investment?
IV. A. 9. b. Table 1. If "yes," please provide the following information:
|
You should have performed a risk assessment during the early planning and initial concept phase of this investment's life-cycle, developed a risk-adjusted life-cycle cost estimate and a plan to eliminate, mitigate or manage risk, and be actively managing risk throughout the investment's life-cycle.
IV. B. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?
IV. B. 1. a. If "yes," what is the date of the plan?
IV. B. 1. b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?
IV.
B. 1. c. If "yes," describe any significant changes:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
IV. B. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?
IV. B. 2. a. If "yes," what is the planned completion date?
IV.
B. 2. b. If "no," what is the strategy for managing the risks?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
You
should also periodically be measuring the performance of operational assets
against the baseline established during the planning or full acquisition
phase (i.e., operational analysis), and be properly operating and
maintaining the asset to maximize its useful life. Operational analysis may
identify the need to redesign or modify an asset by identifying previously
undetected faults in design, construction, or installation/integration,
highlighting whether actual operation and maintenance costs vary
significantly from budgeted costs, or documenting that the asset is failing
to meet program requirements.
EVM is required only on DME portions of investments. For mixed lifecycle
investments, O&M milestones should still be included in the table
(Comparison of Initial Baseline and Current Approved Baseline). This table
should accurately reflect the milestones in the initial baseline, as well
as milestones in the current baseline.
Answer the following questions about the status of this investment. Include
information on all appropriate capital assets supporting this investment
except for assets in which the performance information is reported in a
separate exhibit 300.
IV. C. 1. Are you using EVM to manage this investment?
IV. C. 1. a. If "yes," does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard - 748?
IV.
C. 1. b. If "no," explain plans to implement EVM:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
IV.
C. 1. c. If "N/A," please provide date operational analysis was
conducted and a brief summary of the results?
(long
text - 2500 characters)
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. 2. a. If "yes," was it the CV or SV or both ?
IV.
C. 2. b. If "yes," explain the causes of the variance:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
IV.
C. 2. c. If "yes," describe the corrective actions:
(long
text - 2500 characters)
IV.
C. 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
Applicable
to ALL capital assets
IV.
C. 3. a. If "yes," when was it approved by the agency head?
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.
|