 |
 |
 |
 |
Fiscal Year 2008 Exhibit 300s
USAID-DoS IT Infrastructure Integration
| Exhibit 300 FY2009 | | | | | | | | Exhibit 300 FY2009 | | | | | | | PART I: SUMMARY INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION | | 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. | | | | | | | Section A: Overview (All Capital Assets) | | The following series of questions are to be completed for all investments. | | | | | | | I. A. 1. Date of Submission: | | 2007-06-29 | | | | |
| I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset: | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | USAID/DoS IT Infrastructure Integration (formerly known as Joint USAID-DoS Infrastructure Center of Excellence) | | | | |
| I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: | | For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system. | | | 184-15-02-01-01-2021-00 | | | | |
| 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. 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) | | To fully align foreign policy and development assistance to support the President's National Security Strategy and Management Agenda, the Department of State (DoS) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have begun integrating common, overseas management structures. This collaboration will help both organizations execute joint goals, such as providing employee support, increasing operational efficiencies and reducing redundancies and costs for the taxpayer. To implement this initiative, a DoS/USAID Joint Management Council (JMC) was created to include seven working groups to address issues surrounding specific management functions. Working with the JMC and supporting the FY2004-2009 Joint Strategic Plan and FY2007 Annual Performance Plan, a USAID team developed an approach exploring the most effective means to coordinate, optimize, and potentially connect the respective overseas Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) IT infrastructures and corresponding policies in support of the common, overseas structures.
USAID resources will work jointly with DoS to plan and execute the critical coordination and optimization of the overseas infrastructure environments in a 3-phase development approach during FYs 08-11 that includes: 1) Project Ramp-Up, 2) Piloting and Engineering, and 3) Overseas Deployment. During the second phase, USAID and DoS will determine the feasibility of the network perimeter portion of the new architecture design while also focusing on the harmonization of the risk and policy differences. These actions will allow DoS and USAID to create more near-term collaboration opportunities at Tier 1 posts while the new architecture and operational support model are engineered and then tested. Note that this business case assumes full funding provision for DoS particularly in the second phase (to match or exceed USAID's investment in FYs 2008 & 2009) and, depending on the outcome of the second phase, additional funds may be requested for this effort by DoS and USAID in FYs 2010 and 2011. This effort provides several strategic benefits to USAID, DoS, and the U.S. Government overall including economies of scale, support of the goals of both Transformational Diplomacy and Rightsizing and Regionalization efforts, and the opportunity to build a more optimized and coordinated environment for the Foreign Affairs community (supporting, for example, direct local email transfer between USAID and DoS at overseas posts). | | | | |
| 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? | | 2007-07-31 | | | | |
|
| I. A. 10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project? | | yes | | | | | | | | 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: | | Right Sized Overseas Presence | | | | |
| 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) | | | This solution provides infrastructure to support Joint Overseas Administrative Support Platform (JOASP) support for co-located missions and posts which alights with the Administration’s emphasis on "Rightsized Overseas Presence" as part of the Presidential Management Agenda (PMA). This solution provides a stable and adequate, yet flexible infrastructure; gains economies of scale; provides more central/regional coordination between both the USAID missions and DoS Embassies. ___________________ | | | | |
|
| 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. 14. a. If "yes," does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review? | | | |
| I. A. 14. b. If "yes," what is the name of the PARTed Program? | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | | |
| I. A. 14. c. If "yes," what PART rating did it receive? | | | |
|
| I. A. 15. Is this investment for information technology? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 16. What is the level of the IT Project? (per CIO Council PM Guidance) | Level 1 - Projects with low-to-moderate complexity and risk. Example: Bureau-level project such as a stand-alone information system that has low- to-moderate complexity and risk.
Level 2 - Projects with high complexity and/or risk which are critical to the mission of the organization. Examples: Projects that are part of a portfolio of projects/systems that impact each other and/or impact mission activities. Department-wide projects that impact cross-organizational missions, such as an agency-wide system integration that includes large scale Enterprise Resource Planning (e.g., the DoD Business Mgmt Modernization Program).
Level 3 - Projects that have high complexity, and/or risk, and have government-wide impact. Examples: Government-wide initiative (E-GOV, President's Management Agenda). High interest projects with Congress, GAO, OMB, or the general public. Cross-cutting initiative (Homeland Security). | | | Level 3 | | | | |
| I. A. 17. What project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council’s PM Guidance): | | (1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment;(2) Project manager qualification is under review for this investment;(3) Project manager assigned to investment, but does not meet requirements;(4) Project manager assigned but qualification status review has not yet started;(5) No Project manager has yet been assigned to this investment | | | (1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment | | | | |
| I. A. 18. Is this investment identified as "high risk" on the Q4-FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB Memorandum M-05-23)? | | no | | | | |
| I. A. 19. Is this a financial management system? | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 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. 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? | | n/a | | | | |
| I. A. 23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval? | | no | | | | |
| I. A. 24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas? | | Question 24 must be answered by all Investments: | | | no | | | | |
|
| Section B: Summary of Spending (All Capital Assets) | | | | | | | 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 |
|---|
| Planning | $1.000 | $0.290 | $0.000 | $1.200 |
|---|
| Acquisition | $3.140 | $0.700 | $0.000 | $3.800 |
|---|
| Subtotal Planning and Acquisition | $4.140 | $0.990 | $0.000 | $5.000 |
|---|
| Operations and Maintenance | $0.000 | $0.000 | $0.000 | $0.000 |
|---|
| TOTAL | $4.140 | $0.990 | $0.000 | $5.000 |
|---|
| Government FTE Costs | $0.300 | $0.320 | $0.080 | $0.320 |
|---|
| Number of FTE represented by cost | $1.000 | $2.000 | $0.500 | $2.000 |
|---|
| | | | |
| 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) | | | One additional FTE will be added in FY07. | | | | |
|
| 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) | | | In FYs 2005 and 2006, USAID and DoS planning and engineering teams worked together to define the best method of supporting the common, overseas management structures from an IT perspective. After analyzing the benefits, advantages, and challenges with a number of options, the two agencies agreed to conduct two proofs of concepts overseas and to collaborate on issues requiring resolution. This BY 2009 business case and revised funding request are based on this analysis and subsequent discussions. Specifically, an additional FTE per year is needed in PY 2007 and through BY+2 2011 due to the communication requirements between DoS management, USAID management, and the Posts overseas. Also, additional funds have been requested for acquisition and planning starting in BY 2009 due to the planned deployment of the selected IT solution to the majority of Posts overseas that have a local USAID Mission. | | | | |
|
| Section D: Performance Information (All Capital Assets) | | 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. | | | Fiscal Year | Strategic Goal(s) Supported | Measurement Area | Measurement Grouping | Measurement Indicator | Baseline | Target | Actual Results |
|---|
| 2008 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Technology | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Increase number of cross-trained Network Operating Center (NOC) and help desk staff by 40%. | Less than 20% of staff are cross-trained on the respective networks | 60% of staff are cross-trained on the respective networks | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Technology | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Increase number of joint governance structures to oversee the IT coordination and optimization effort and the number of corresponding agreements by 100% | Zero (0) MOUs in place to guide the coordination and optimization effort | One (1) overarching MOU in place to guide the coordination and optimization effort | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Technology | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Increase number of shared ISPs overseas by 15% | USAID and DoS share less than 5% of Internet Service Providers (ISP) overseas. | 20% of collocated missions and embassies share ISP connections | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Technology | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Decrease number of Wide Area Network (WAN) aggregation points by 50% | Two (2) separate WAN aggregation points | One (1) synchronized WAN aggregation point | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Technology | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Increase number of pilot assessments of shared DMZ environment by 100% | 0% of mission and embassy applications assessed in DMZ environment | 100% of pilot mission and embassy applications successfully assessed and piloted in DMZ environment | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Technology | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Increase number of completed pilot satisfaction assessment forms by 100% | No baseline (process not yet started) | 100% of Mission Directors and Ambassadors sign pilot acceptance completion form | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Technology | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Decrease number of disparate services, e.g., remote access, by 10% | No baseline | 3-5 services are seamlessly operated | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Technology | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Increase number of shared ISPs | USAID and DoS share less than 5% of ISP Service (increase to occur in FY08) | 50% of collocated missions and embassies share ISP connections | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Mission and Business Results | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Missions can share JOASP suite of applications with DoS embassies. | USAID mission accesses embassy JOASP and web applications via Washington DC. | USAID Mission and DoS Embassy share local interconnection. | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Customer Results | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Improve mission user experience accessing JOASP services. | Mission users experience delayed access (no access) due to current latency ridden infrastructure. | Local interconnect should greatly enhance the mission user experience through improved performance and access. | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Processes and Activities | International Development and Humanitarian Aid | Enhance process and administrative tracking for mission service requests. | Currently the only enterprise solution is manual entry of data is the only process to request services from the mission via JOASP (WebPASS) applications. | Local access to the JOASP services will be automatically placed into centralized trouble ticketing and issues resolution databases. | TBD |
|---|
| | | | |
|
| Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA) (IT Capital Assets only) | | 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? | | no | | | | | | | | I. F. 1. a. If "no," please explain why? | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | the invesmtnet will fall under the USAID-DoS joint EA. | | | | |
|
| I. F. 2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy? | | no | | | | | | | | 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) | | | | |
| I. F. 2. b. If "no," please explain why? | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | It is envisioned that this investment will fall under the USAID-DoS Joint Enterprise Architecture (EA). | | | | |
|
| 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%. | | | Agency Component Name | 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) |
|---|
| Business Management Services | Planning for the coordination and optimization effort and related activities | Investment Management | Strategic Planning and Mgmt | Strategic Planning and Mgmt | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Program/Project Management | Joint Program Management Office Support | Management of Processes | Program / Project Management | Program / Project Management | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Support Services | Common remote access and control systems | Systems Management | Remote Systems Control | Remote Systems Control | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| | | | |
| 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) |
|---|
| Strategic Planning and Mgmt | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD |
|---|
| Program / Project Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD |
|---|
| Governance / Policy Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | TBD |
|---|
| Quality Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | TBD |
|---|
| Risk Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD |
|---|
| Change Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD |
|---|
| Requirements Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | TBD |
|---|
| Network Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Supporting Network Services | TBD |
|---|
| Decision Support and Planning | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | TBD |
|---|
| Identification and Authentication | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | TBD |
|---|
| Access Control | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | TBD |
|---|
| Call Center Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Supporting Network Services | TBD |
|---|
| Remote Systems Control | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Supporting Network Services | TBD |
|---|
| System Resource Monitoring | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD |
|---|
| Video Conferencing | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Video Conferencing | TBD |
|---|
| Voice Communications | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Peripherals | TBD |
|---|
| | | | |
| 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 IV: Planning For "Multi-Agency Collaboration" ONLY | | 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. | | | | | | | Section A: Multi-Agency Collaboration Oversight (All Capital Assets) | | 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. 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: | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to Top ^
|
|
 |
 |
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:25:36 -0500
|
|
|
|
