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:   

 

 

 

2007-09-10

 

 

I. A. 2. Agency:   

 

 

 

005

 

 

I. A. 3. Bureau:   

 

 

 

49

 

 

I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset:   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Farm Program Modernization (MIDAS)

 

 

I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier:   

 

For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system.

 

 

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

FY2007

 

 

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)

 

 

Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) will transform FSA's delivery of farm program benefits, on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), into a 21st century business model by:- Deploying a robust customer-facing internet-based self service channel. This project will provide capability to meet the increasing demand for customer self-service and eliminate FSA's reliance on aging technology. This project will reduce the risk of hardware failure by replacing the outdated AS400/S36 computing platform. This project will reengineer business processes to be common and centralize data assets to support all farm programs, eliminate program specific duplication of functionality and non-integrated, distributed data that exists between farm program software applications. It will accomplish increased compliance with modern internal control structures and effectively implement improved IT security. MIDAS will install commitment-based accounting practices (e.g., obligations, commitments, outlays, funds control) to upgrade both the program and financial management business practices of the CCC. When finished, CCC will become compliant with federal financial accounting standards (FISMA/A-123/FMFIA). The project is intended to align with Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) Financial Management Modernization Initiative (FMMI) investment.

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2007-08-29

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 11. Contact information of Project Manager  

 

 

Name   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Patrick Hanley

 

 

Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

202-720-9875

 

 

E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Patrick.Hanley@wdc.usda.gov

 

 

I. A. 11. a. What is the current FAC-P/PM certification level of the project/program manager?   

 

 

 

TBD

 

 

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:   

 

 

 

Human Capital

Financial Performance

Expanded E-Government

Eliminating Improper Payments

 

 

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 investment will bring CCC/FSA into compliance with standard Gov. Acct practices and enable new Bus. practices to electronically store customer apps and supporting materials reducing missing docs. thus eliminating or reducing improper payments

 

 

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)

 

 

Agricultural Marketing Loan Payments; however there are an additional 216 programs supported by this investment.

 

 

I. A. 14. c. If "yes," what PART rating did it receive?   

 

 

 

Moderately Effective

 

 

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)?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 19. Is this a financial management system?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 19. a. If "yes," does this investment address a FFMIA compliance area?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 19. a. 1. If "yes," which compliance area   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Logical and physical assess controls, change control, disaster recovery and separation of duties.

 

 

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)

 

 

Core Consolidated Financial Management Information Systems (CFMIS) that includes the CCC CORE General Ledger System.

 

 

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

 

 

I. A. 20. a. Hardware   

 

 

 

0

 

 

I. A. 20. b. Software   

 

 

 

10

 

 

I. A. 20. c. Services   

 

 

 

90

 

 

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. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions:  

 

 

I. A. 22. a. Name   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Norma Ferguson

 

 

I. A. 22. b. Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

202-720-5534

 

 

I. A. 22. c. Title   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

FSA's Privacy Officer

 

 

I. A. 22. d. E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Norma.Ferguson@wdc.usda.gov

 

 

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

 

 

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 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

0

0.476

12.085

12.302

 

 

 

 

 

Acquisition

16.688

0.200

120.069

108.270

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal Planning & Acquisition

16.688

0.676

132.154

120.572

 

 

 

 

 

Operations & Maintenance

0

0

12.118

13.364

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

16.688

0.676

144.272

133.936

 

 

 

 

 

Government FTE Costs

0

2.618

0.214

0.219

 

 

 

 

 

Number of FTE represented by cost

0

25

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

I. B. 2. a. If "yes," How many and in what year?   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

na

 

 

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)

 

 

The Secretary of Agriculture and Congress have identified the investment as critical to implementing proposed Agricultural Disaster legislation and the new Farm Bill. On March 6, 2007, the Secretary committed to having a plan to stabilize CCC program delivery and implement the Farm Bill. Footnote: The cost for the project represents $305 million in new procurements. The post implementation Maintenance and Operations money will come from discretionary funds.

 

 

Section C: Acquisition/Contract Strategy (All Capital Assets)  

 

 

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)

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Strategic Goal(s) Supported

Measurement Area

Measurement Grouping

Measurement Indicator

Baseline

Target

Actual Results

2008

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Mission and Business Results

Customer Services

Percent of Farm Program customer-facing transactions available in a web environment

Approximately 15 % in FY 2007

Increase to 30%

Information Available 09/2008

2008

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Customer Results

Timeliness

Appointments cancelled due to system unavailability

15 percent of appointments are cancelled due to system down time (during certain times of the season this figure is much higher)

Decrease cancellations to 10 percent

Information available 09/2008

2008

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Technology

Reliability

Percent of time that farm programs are available to internal users (Service Center Employees, authorized non-employees) during normal business hours

Existing systems are available on average 80 percent of the time during normal business hours

Increase average system availability to gt; 90% during normal business hours

Information available 09/2008

2008

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Management Improvement

Knowledge Management: Percent of IT staff with experience in web development (as defined by percent of staff who have participated in requirements analysis, design, and/or construction for web deployed systems)

20 percent in 2007

Increase to gt; 35 percent

Information available 09/2008

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Timeliness

Cycle time from update of payment information in control county to system update in affected counties (for Direct and Counter Cyclical Program, Marketing Assistance Loans, Non-Insured CDP, CRP and Disaster Programs).

3-5 days

Decrease cycle time to 0 days for programs (DCP and MAL)

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Mission and Business Results

Public Relations

Percent of Farm Program customer-facing transactions available in a web environment (as estimated by MIDAS program managers) Refers to the number of producers who do business through a web browser with FSA.

50 percent in FY08

Increase to 100 percent

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Secure and Affordable Food and Fiber

Customer Results

Timeliness

Response time: Average processing time for emergency and disaster designations (as identified and reported in FSA 2005 - 2010 Strategic Plan)

18 days

Reduce average processing time to = 15 days

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Customer Results

Timeliness

Response time: Average processing time for Marketing Assistance Loans benefits (from application completion to receipt of payment as identified by PSD)

7 days

Reduce average processing time to = 2 days

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Accounting

Percentage of internal processes that are streamlined systematically (corresponds to FSA's Cross Cutting Management Initiative 'Improving Business Process Effectiveness' in the FSA 2005-2010 Strategic Plan)

20 percent

Increase to 50 percent through implementation of COTS solution

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Mission and Business Results

Accounting

Percent of erroneous payments (from FSA 2005 -2010 Strategic Plan)

1.00 percent

Reduce to 0.0016 percent

Information available 09/2009

2008

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Innovation and Improvement

Percentage of programs that are reengineered

20 percent in 2007

50 percent in FY 2008

Information available 09/2008

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Mission and Business Results

Training and Employment

Percentage of users that are trained to use the system

0 percent in 2008

100 percent by FY 2010

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered

Complete Acceptance testing of COTS solution

40 percent in 2008

100 percent in FY 2010

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Secure and Affordable Food and Fiber

Processes and Activities

Availability

Complete load/stress testing of COTS solution

20 percent in 2008

100 percent in FY 2010

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Mission and Business Results

Customer Services

Percent of Farm Program customer-facing transactions available in a web environment

30 percent in 2008

Increase to 100 percent

Information available 10/2010

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Customer Results

Timeliness

Response time: Average processing time for emergency and disaster designations (as identified and reported in FSA 2005 -2010 Strategic Plan)

18 days

Reduce average processing time to = 15 days

information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Technology

Reliability

Percent of time that farm programs are available to internal users (Service Center Employees, authorized non-employees) during normal business hours

Existing systems are available on average 90 percent of the time during normal business hours

Increase average system availability to gt; 95% during normal business hours

Information available 09/2008

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Management Improvement

Knowledge Management: Percent of IT staff with experience in web development (as defined by percent of staff who have participated in requirements analysis, design, and/or construction for web deployed systems)

35 percent in 2008

Increase to gt; 50 percent

Information available 09/2009

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Accounting

Percentage of programs that are reengineered

50 percent in 2008

100 percent in FY 2010

Information available 09/2009

2008

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

System Development

Percent of extract, transform and load software developed

0 percent in 2007

Increase to 15 percent in 2008

Information available 09/2008

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

System Development

Percent of extract, transform and load software developed,

15 percent in 2008

Increase to 100 percent in 2009

Information available 09/2009

2008

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Data Reliability and Quality

Percentage of customer data converted

20 percent in 2008

increase to 70 percent in 2009

Information available 09/2008

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Data Reliability and Quality

percent of customer information converted

70 percent in 2009

Increase to 100 percent in 2010

Information available 09/2009

2008

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Data Reliability and Quality

Percent of land use data converted

10 percent in 2007

Increase to 40 percent in 2008

Information available 09/2008

2009

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Data Reliability and Quality

Percent of Land use data converted

40 percent in 2008

Increase to 100 percent in 2009

Information available 09/2009

2010

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Technology

Reliability

Percent of time that farm programs are available to internal users during normal business hours

Existing systems are available 95 percent of the time during normal business hours

Increase average system availability to gt 97 % during normal business hours

Information available 09/2009

2010

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Management Improvement

Knowledge Management: Percent of IT staff with experience in web development (as defined by percent of staff who have participated in requirements analysis, design, and/or construction for web deployed systems)

50 percent in 2009

Increase to gt 75%

Information available 09/2010

2011

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Technology

Reliability

Percent of time that farm programs are available to internal users during normal business hours

Existing systems are available on average 97 percent of the time during normal business hours

Increase average system availability to gt 98% during normal business hours

information available 09/2010

2011

Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches

Processes and Activities

Management Improvement

Knowledge Management: percent of IT staff with experience in web development (as defined by percent of staff who have participated in requirements analysis,design, and/or construction for web deployed systems)

75 percent in 2010

Increase to gt 85 percent

Information available 09/2011

 

 

Section E: Security and Privacy (IT Capital Assets only)  

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:   

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

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)

 

 

Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Services (MIDAS)

 

 

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%.

 

 

 

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)

Customer Relationship Management

Provide a framework to promote the effective collaboration between an organization and its business partners.

Customer Relationship Management

Partner Relationship Management

Partner Relationship Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Customer Relationship Management

Provide a framework to promote the effective collaboration between an organization and its business partners.

Customer Relationship Management

Contact and Profile Management

Contact and Profile Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Customer Preferences

Defines the set of capabilities to change a user interface and how data is displayed.

Customer Preferences

Personalization

Personalization

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Customer Preferences

Defines the set of capabilities that allow a customer to join a forum, listserv, or mailing list

Customer Preferences

Subscriptions

Subscriptions

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Customer Preferences

Defines the set of capabilities that allow a customer to be contacted in relation to a subscription or service of interest.

Customer Preferences

Alerts and Notifications

Alerts and Notifications

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Customer Initiated Assistance

Defines the set of capabilities that provide an electronic interface to customer assistance.

Customer Initiated Assistance

Online Help

Online Help

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Customer Initiated Assistance

Defines the set of capabilities that allow an organization's customers to sign up for a particular service at their own initiative.

Customer Initiated Assistance

Self-Service

Self-Service

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Customer Initiated Assistance

Defines the set of capabilities that support the plan for performing work or services to meet the needs of an organization's customers.

Customer Initiated Assistance

Scheduling

Scheduling

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Tracking and Workflow

Defines the set of capabilities for managing the life cycle of a particular claim or investigation within an organization to include creating, routing, tracing, assignment and closing of a case as well as collaboration among case handlers.

Tracking and Workflow

Case Management

Case Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Management of Process

Defines the set of capabilities that control the process for updates or modifications to the existing documents, software or business processes of an organization.

Management of Processes

Change Management

Change Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Management of Process

Defines the set of capabilities that control the hardware and software environments, as well as documents of an organization.

Management of Processes

Configuration Management

Configuration Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Management of Process

Defines the set of capabilities for gathering, analyzing and fulfilling the needs and prerequisites of an organization's efforts.

Management of Processes

Requirements Management

Requirements Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Management of Process

Defines the set of capabilities for the management and control of a particular effort of an organization.

Management of Processes

Program / Project Management

Program / Project Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Management of Process

Defines the set of capabilities intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, business rules and other matters within an organization.

Management of Processes

Governance / Policy Management

Governance / Policy Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Management of Process

Defines the set of capabilities intended to help determine the level that a product or service satisfies certain requirements.

Management of Processes

Quality Management

Quality Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Management of Process

Defines the set of capabilities for the management of the enterprise processes that support an organization and its policies.

Management of Processes

Business Rule Management

Business Rule Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Management of Process

Defines the set of capabilities that support the identification and probabilities or chances of hazards as they relate to a task, decision or long-term goal.

Management of Processes

Risk Management

Risk Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Visualization

Defines the set of capabilities that support the conversion of data into graphical or picture form.

Visualization

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

005-49-01-51-01-0084-00

Internal

0

Knowledge Discovery

Defines the set of capabilities that facilitate the identification of useful information from data.

Knowledge Discovery

Data Mining

Data Mining

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Data Management

Support the interchange of information between multiple systems or applications; includes verification that transmitted data was received unaltered.

Data Management

Data Exchange

Data Exchange

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Data Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support the archiving and storage of large volumes of data.

Data Management

Data Warehouse

Data Warehouse

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Data Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support the maintenance and administration of data that describes data.

Data Management

Meta Data Management

Meta Data Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Data Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support the removal of incorrect or unnecessary characters and data from a data source.

Data Management

Data Cleansing

Data Cleansing

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Data Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support the manipulation and change of data.

Data Management

Extraction and Transformation

Extraction and Transformation

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Data Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support the population of a data source with external data.

Data Management

Loading and Archiving

Loading and Archiving

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Data Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support the restoration and stabilization of data sets to a consistent, desired state.

Data Management

Data Recovery

Data Recovery

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Development and Integration

Defines the set of capabilities that support the redesigning of disparate information systems into one system that uses a common set of data structures and rules.

Development and Integration

Enterprise Application Integration

Enterprise Application Integration

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Development and Integration

Defines the set of capabilities that support the org. of data from separate data sources into a single source using middleware or app. integration and the mod. of sys. data models to capture new info. within a single sys.

Development and Integration

Data Integration

Data Integration

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Development and Integration

Defines the set of capabilities that support the validation of application or system capabilities and requirements.

Development and Integration

Instrumentation and Testing

Instrumentation and Testing

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Development and Integration

Defines the set of capabilities that support the creation of both graphical and process application or system software.

Development and Integration

Software Development

Software Development

005-49-01-51-01-0084-00

Internal

0

Security Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support obtaining information about those parties attempting to log on to a system or application for security purposes and the validation of those users.

Security Management

Access Control

Access Control

005-03-02-01-01-8003-00

Internal

0

Security Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support the confirmation of authority to enter a computer system, application or network.

Security Management

Access Control

Call Center Management

005-03-02-01-01-8003-00

Internal

0

Security Management

Defines the set of capabilities that guarantee the unaltered state of a file.

Security Management

Digital Signature Management

Digital Signature Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Search

Defines the set of capabilities that support retrieval of records that satisfy specific query selection criteria.

Search

Query

Query

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Communication

Defines the set of capabilities that support the administration of online groups that share common interests.

Communication

Community Management

Community Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Business Rules Engine

Allows the creation and administration of business rules to administer various programs.

Management of Processes

Business Rule Management

Business Rule Management

005-49-01-51-01-0097-00

Internal

0

Financial Management

Defines the set of capabilities that support the accounting practices and procedures that allow for the handling of revenues, funding and expenditures.

Financial Management

Payment / Settlement

Payment / Settlement

005-03-01-01-01-1102-00

Internal

0

Supply Chain Management

Defines the set of capabilities for planning, scheduling and controlling a supply chain and the sequence of organizations and functions that mine, make or assemble materials and products from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer.

Supply Chain Management

Warehouse management

Warehouse management

005-45-01-61-01-8012-00

Internal

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 TRM Service Area

FEA TRM Service Category

FEA TRM Service Standard

Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name)

Self-Service

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Internet Explorer

Content Review and Approval

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

TBD

Document Review and Approval

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Intranet

TBD

Business Rule Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

TBD

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Authentication / Single Sign-on

TBD

Configuration Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Hosting

TBD

Configuration Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

TBD

Configuration Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

TBD

Configuration Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Platform Independent

TBD

Software Development

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

TBD

Requirements Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Software Configuration Management

Rational Suite (ReqPro)

Quality Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Test Management

TBD

Query

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Data Management

Database

TBD

Data Mart

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Data Management

Storage

TBD

Asset Transfer, Allocation, and Maintenance

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

TBD

Asset Transfer, Allocation, and Maintenance

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Wide Area Network (WAN)

TBD

Computers / Automation Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Local Area Network (LAN)

TBD

Digital Signature Management

Component Framework

Security

Certificates / Digital Signatures

TBD

Personalization

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Dynamic Server-Side Display

TBD

Business Rule Management

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

TBD

Information Retrieval

Component Framework

Data Management

Database Connectivity

TBD

Standardized / Canned

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

TBD

Change Management

Service Interface and Integration

Integration

Enterprise Application Integration

TBD

Data Classification

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Format / Classification

TBD

Data Exchange

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

TBD

Data Exchange

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

TBD

 

 

I. F. 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. F. 6. a. If "yes," please describe.   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The MIDAS investment will leverage components that provide the best value for the government. This could be industry proposed alternative solutions or existing components/applications in USDA?s IT portfolio. If existing assets are determined to provide the best value, assets such as: SCIMS (Service Center Information Management System, Eligibility Web Service, Master Reference Tables, Office Information Profile, eAuthentication, Electronic Authorization System, Electronic Representation, Stellant (COTS document management solution), ESRI Geospatial Suite, Hyperion, and Web-based Supply Chain Management will be used. The OCFO's FMMI COTS acquisition will be integrated (when available).

 

 

PART II: PLANNING, ACQUISITION AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION  

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

 

 

 

Section A: Alternatives Analysis (All Capital Assets)  

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?   

 

 

 

2007-03-16

 

 

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)

 

 

 

Description of Alternative

Risk Lifecycle Cost Estimate

Risk Lifecycle Benefits Estimate

 

 

 

 

COTS "To Be" Solution (Accelerated Alt. 3)

Align business delivery to an integrated COTS and reengineer business processes for simplification and consolidation

545708000.000

256482760.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. A. 3. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen?   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The Agency has selected the accelerated COTS (Alt 2) solution. This solution will correct many of the material weaknesses that have been identified including the Financial weaknesses. Provides FISMA compliant business recovery and interfaces to FMMI solution. This is in alignment with OMB's direction to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf technology.

 

 

II. A. 4. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The qualitative benefits of this investment include: resolving audit findings; A-123 weaknesses and FISMA self-assessment findings; and KPMG reviewer identified weaknesses in CCC's operations that include: information security control; financial system functionality and funds control; financial accounting and reporting; producer monitoring; and implementation of credit reform cash flow models. This investment will further correct material weaknesses including IT Access Controls and segregation of duties. Through this investment, CCC will resolve long standing noncompliance with FFMIA. Of these benefits listed above, the benefits for CCC to have a modern computing platform for reliable program benefits delivery is paramount. Footnote: The cost for the project represents $305 million in new procurements. The post implementation Maintenance and Operations money will come from discretionary funds.

 

 

II. A. 5. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

This Investment

 

 

II. A. 5. b. Table 1. If "yes," please provide the following information:   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section B: Risk Management (All Capital Assets)  

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?   

 

 

 

2007-02-27

 

 

II. B. 1. b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

II. B. 1. c. If "yes," describe any significant changes:   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

After the high-profile security breaches this year we reassessed our investments risks positions accordingly. High level risks and costs have been identified, however, it must be stressed that MIDAS is still in the initial planning stages and therefore the costs associated with each risk are preliminary at best. In addition, OMB asked that we further plan for mitigating the risks.

 

 

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)

 

 

A quantitative risk analysis is still being finalized on MIDAS to create a realistic cost and schedule and to determine the cost and schedule reserves. These cost will be reflected in the life cycle costs and investment schedule when completed. Footnote: The cost for the project represents $305 million in new procurements. The post implementation Maintenance and Operations money will come from discretionary funds.

 

 

Section C: Cost and Schedule Performance (All Capital Assets)  

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?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. C. 2. Is the CV or SV greater than 10%?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. C. 3. a. If "yes," when was it approved by the agency head?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: FOR "OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE" INVESTMENTS ONLY (STEADY-STATE)  

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.

 

 

 

Section A: Risk Management (All Capital Assets)  

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)

 

 

 

 

 

Section B: Cost and Schedule Performance (All Capital Assets)  

 

 

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)

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

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: 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. 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:   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section B: Risk Management (All Capital Assets)  

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)

 

 

 

 

 

Section C: Cost and Schedule Performance (All Capital Assets)  

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.

 

 

 

 

Métier | work forward
Powered by WorkLenz
© Copyright. Métier, Ltd. 1999-2007. All rights reserved.
Patent Pending Application Numbers: 09/334,256;09/536,378;09/536,383;7,062,449;60/642,983;11/090,038
Version 5.0