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)

 

 

Consolidated Farm Loan Program Information and Delivery System #103

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

005-49-01-51-01-0103-00

 

 

I. A. 6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?   

 

Please NOTE: Investments moving to O&M in FY2009, with Planning/Acquisition activities prior to FY2009 should not select O&M. These investments should indicate their current status.

 

 

Mixed Life Cycle

 

 

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

 

 

 

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)

 

 

This investment directly support FSA's Farm Loan Program (FLP) and its goal of assisting American farmers and ranchers by providing them with ownership, operating and emergency loans. Specifically, the FLP acts as a lender of last resort to new and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who are unable to obtain credit through commercial lenders, helping them to establish or stabilize their operations in the face of financial hardship and/or natural disasters. FLP is administered through a network of 850 USDA Service Centers, 50 State offices, the Loan Accounting Division, the Loan Operations Division, and a National Program Office. As a result, the legacy FLP systems and business environment is highly decentralized. The status quo environment presents a combination of strategic, operational, and technical issues that, taken together, severely undermine FSAs ability to continue to support the mission of reliably and equitably providing loans to qualified farmers. The CFLPIDS investment has been specifically designed to achieve the following key benefits: - Enable an integrated, timely view of the programs risk profile by creating a centralized data repository. - Streamlined, modernized business processes that eliminate redundant data entry. - Faster delivery and obligation of loans to eligible farmers and ranchers. - Automation of routine tasks that currently require substantial manual effort. - Redeployment of some USDA Service Center staff to higher value added activities - Significant reductions in scheduled and unscheduled system outages and associated productivity losses. - A return to regular work schedules for USDA Service Center staff due to improved system availability. - More accurate, comprehensive, reliable and available data for reporting, research and inquiry. - Reduced loan delinquency through improved system capability to ensure that official lending procedures are followed for each loan application. By reengineering redundant processes, centralizing and integrating data, and leveraging modern technology, FLPIDS will allow the FLPs business objectives to drive technology implementation, rather than allowing legacy technology to drive business operations. This investment will provide staff with tools to do their job more productively and provide customers with efficient and effective service.

 

 

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)

 

 

Terry Tanner, PMP Jim Bolego, PMP Duane Miller, PMP Donald Franck, PMP Ed Zera, PMP Terry Mills, PMP

 

 

Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

314-539-6378

 

 

E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

terry.tanner@stl.usda.gov jim.bolego@stl.usda.gov duane.miller@stl.usda.gov donald.franck@stl.usda.gov ed.zera@stl.usda.gov terry.mills@kc.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?   

 

 

 

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:   

 

 

 

Financial Performance

Expanded E-Government

 

 

I. A. 13. b. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? (e.g. If E-Gov is selected, is it an approved shared service provider or the managing partner?)   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

FLPIDS will enhance Financial Performance by implementing a standardized and systematically enforced loan eligibility process that will ensure that only eligible producers will receive loans. It will enhance Expanded E-Government by (i) creating a single point of access, (ii) reducing reporting burdens and duplication, (iii) sharing real-time information, and (iv) automating internal processes.

 

 

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)

 

 

Direct Farm Loan Program

 

 

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 2

 

 

I. A. 17. What project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council’s PM Guidance):   

 

(1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment;(2) Project manager qualification is under review for this investment;(3) Project manager assigned to investment, but does not meet requirements;(4) Project manager assigned but qualification status review has not yet started;(5) No Project manager has yet been assigned to this investment

 

 

(1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment

 

 

I. A. 18. Is this investment identified as "high risk" on the Q4-FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB Memorandum M-05-23)?   

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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)

 

 

FLPIDS is designed to streamline and modernize the Farm Loan Programs inefficient, duplicative and paper-based loan making and loan servicing process and system. By reengineering redundant processes, centralizing and integrating data, and leveraging modern technology, FLPIDS will significantly enhance Service Centers ability to provide and support timely loans.

 

 

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)

 

 

FLPIDS is a collection of integrated applications that together will provide robust financial management support for the Farm Loan Program. FLPIDS is made up of the following existing and proposed applications: Appraisals is a standalone PC-based COTS program first implemented in 2000 and is used to support loan collateral appraisal activities in the field. Farm Business Plan (FBP) is a COTS program that supports determination of loan eligibility; it was implemented 9/2004. FBP data w/b transferred to another system (DLS), eliminating a duplicate data entry point. Direct Loan System (DLS) will replace Service Center loan making and servicing functions currently provided by the legacy Management of Agricultural Credit (MAC) application, eliminating duplicate data entry into MAC and the Program Loan Accounting System (PLAS). PLAS is a legacy mainframe system that continues to provide core loan accounting functions for the entire loan portfolio. It will interface with DLS to support loan making and servicing functions. AgCredit, implemented in 2004, supports treatment of delinquent borrowers in accordance with appropriate Government regulations and will be integrated with DLS. Electronic Debt and Loan Restructuring System (eDALR$) will replace the existing PC-based standalone DALR$ application in 2008 as the loan restructuring eligibility and decision support tool. This system will interface with DLS eliminating duplicate data entry. Farm Loan Program Risk Assessment (FLPRA) replaced the National Internal Review (NIR) supporting annual internal program review and auditing. FLPRA is a powerful risk management tool that helps focus management attention on the highest priority areas such as discrimination and compliance with lending policies and procedures. Loan Servicing Technology for America's Rural Residents (Loan STARR) will provide a seamlessly integrated service delivery of multiple components through a single portal for customers and business partners. With the integration of servicing components into Loan STARR, the consolidated system will be able to provide the automation needs for originating and servicing of USDA loans and grants.

 

 

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   

 

 

 

5

 

 

I. A. 20. b. Software   

 

 

 

10

 

 

I. A. 20. c. Services   

 

 

 

85

 

 

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)

 

 

Terry Tanner

 

 

I. A. 22. b. Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

314-539-6378

 

 

I. A. 22. c. Title   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

FLPIDS Project Manager

 

 

I. A. 22. d. E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

terry.tanner@stl.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

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

Acquisition

13.421

2.481

3.800

4.640

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal Planning & Acquisition

13.421

2.481

3.800

4.640

 

 

 

 

 

Operations & Maintenance

9.421

2.364

4.215

4.617

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

22.842

4.845

8.015

9.257

 

 

 

 

 

Government FTE Costs

16.269

4.503

4.608

4.526

 

 

 

 

 

Number of FTE represented by cost

178.3

43.0

43.0

41.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

no change

 

 

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

2006

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

Average number of days from application receipt to disposition for Emergency Loans

37 days

Decrease average to 35 days by end of FY06

Average processing time for Emergency Loans was 36 days for FY06

2006

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

First Year Delinquent Rates for New Loans (average of previous 4 years)

13.4%

Decrease to 11% by end of FY06

Average First Year Delinquency Rates on New Loans was 7.0% for FY06

2006

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Delivery Time

Average number of days required to complete loan processing (from application completed to final disposition)

14 days

Maintain at 14 days for FY06

Average number of days required to complete loan processing was 11 days for FY06

2006

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Response Time

Number of States with average loan processing time greater than 20 days

12 States

Decrease to 6 States by end of FY06

5 States have average loan processing time greater than 20 days for FY06

2006

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Improvement

Number of separate systems to query to provide input data to annual audit process

850 (one standalone system per Service Center)

Reduce to one central system by end of FY06

FLPRA was implemented 10/05 which allowed one standalone system per Service Center to provide input data to the annual audit process for FY06

2006

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Interoperability

Maximum number of manual data entry and/or manual file transfer points amont systems during an delinquent loan life cycle

5 points

Maintain at 5 points

The maximum number of manual dat entry and/or manual file transfer points among systems during a delinquent loan life cycle remained at 5 for FY06

2006

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

% of time that system is available to internal users during normal business hours

Existing system is available 80% of the time during normal business hours

Maintain availability at 80% during normal business hours

System availability was approximately 85% to 90% for FY06

2007

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

Average number of days from application receipt to disposition for Emergency Loans

37 days

Decrease average to 34.5 days by end of FY07

Data available 9/07

2007

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

First Year Delinquent Rates for New Loans (average of previous 4 years)

13.4%

Decrease to 10% by end of FY07

Data available 9/07

2007

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Delivery Time

Average number of days required to complete loan processing (from application completed to final disposition)

14 days

Decrease to 13.5 days by end of FY07

Data available 9/07

2007

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Response Time

Number of States with average loan processing time greater than 20 days

12 States

Decrease to 0 States by end of FY07

Data available 9/07

2007

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Improvement

Number of separate systems to query to provide input data to annual audit process

850 (one standalone system per Service Center)

Maintain at one cenrtal system thru FY07

Data available 9/07

2007

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Interoperability

Maximum number of manual data entry and/or manual file transfer points amont systems during an delinquent loan life cycle

5 points

Decrease to 2 points by FY07

Data available 9/07

2007

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

% of time that system is available to internal users during normal business hours

Existing system is available 80% of the time during normal business hours

FLPIDS Service Center applications will be available to Service Center 95% of the time during normal business hours

Data available 9/07

2008

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

Average number of days from application receipt to disposition for Emergency Loans

37 days

Decrease average to 34days by end of FY08

Data available 9/08

2008

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

First Year Delinquent Rates for New Loans (average of previous 4 years)

13.4%

Maintain at 10% for FY08

Data available 9/08

2008

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Delivery Time

Average number of days required to complete loan processing (from application completed to final disposition)

14 days

Decrease to 13 days by end of FY08

Data available 9/08

2008

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Response Time

Number of States with average loan processing time greater than 20 days

12 States

Maintain at 0 states

Data available 9/08

2008

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Improvement

Number of separate systems to query to provide input data to annual audit process

850 (one standalone system per Service Center)

Maintain at one central system through FY08

Data available 9/08

2008

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Interoperability

Maximum number of manual data entry and/or manual file transfer points among sysems during a delinquent loan life cycle

5 points

Maintain at 2 for FY08

Data available 9/08

2008

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

% of time that system is available to internal users during normal business hours

Existing system is available 80% of the time during normal business hours

FLPIDS Service Center applications will be available to Service Center 95% of the time during normal business hours

Data available 9/08

2009

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

Average number of days from application receipt to disposition for Emergency Loans

37 days

Decrease average to 33.5 days by end of FY09

Data available 9/09

2009

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

First Year Delinquent Rates for New Loan

13.4%

Maintain at 10% for FY 09

Data available 9/09

2009

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Delivery Time

Average number of days required to complete loan processing (from application completed to final disposition)

14 days

Decrease to 12.5 days by end of FY09

Data available 9/09

2009

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Response Time

Number of States with average loan processing time greater than 20 days

12 States

Maintain at 0 States

Data available 9/09

2009

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Improvement

Number of separate systems to query to provide input data to annual audit process

850 (one standalone system per Service Center)

Maintain at one central system through FY09

Data available 9/09

2009

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Interoperability

Maximum number of manual data entry and/or manual file transfer points among systems during a delinquent loan cycle

5 points

Maintain at 2 for FY09

Data available 9/09

2009

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

% of time that system is available to internal users during normal business hours

Existing system is available 80% of the time during normal business hours

FLPIDS Service Center applications will be available to Service Center 95% of the time during normal business hours

Data available 9/09

2010

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

Average number of days from application receipt to disposition for Emergency Loans

37 days

Decrease to average 33 days by end of FY10

Data available 9/10

2010

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

First Year Delinquent Rates for New Loans

13.4%

Maintain at 10% for FY10

Data available 9/10

2010

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Delivery Time

Average number of days reqired to complete loan processing (from application completed to final disposition)

14 days

Decrease to 12 days by end of FY 10

Data available 9/10

2010

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Response Time

Number of States with average loan processing time greater than 20 days

12 States

Maintain at 0 States for FY10

Data available 9/10

2010

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Improvement

Number of separate systems to query to provide input data to annual audit process

850 (one standalone system per Service Center)

Maintain at one central system through FY10

Data available 9/10

2010

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Interoperability

Maximum number of manual data entry and/or manual file transfer points among systems during a delinquent loan cycle

5 points

Maintain at 2 for FY10

Data available 9/10

2010

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

% of time that system is available to internal users during normal business hours

Existing system is available 80% of the time during normal business hours

FLPIDS Service Center applications will be available to Service Center 95% of the time during normal business hours

Data available 9/10

2010

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

Increase Lending to Minorities, Women, and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers

FY04 - FY05 Average is 36.7%

Increase to 38.8% for FY10

Data available 9/10

2011

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

Average number of days from application receipt to disposition of Emergency Loans

37 days

Decrease to average 32 days by end of FY11

Data available 9/11

2011

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

Program Monitoring

First Year Delinquent Rates for New Loans

13.4%

Maintain at 10% for FY11

Data available 9/11

2011

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Delivery Time

Average number of days required to complete loan processing (from application completed to final disposition)

14 days

Maintain at 12 days for FY 11

Data available 9/11

2011

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Customer Results

Response Time

Number of States with average loan processing time greater than 20 days

12 States

Maintain at 0 States for FY11

Data available 9/11

2011

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ran

Technology

Improvement

Number of separate systems to query to provide input data to annual audit process

850 (one standalone system per Service Center)

Maintain at one central system through FY11

Data available 9/11

2011

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Technology

Interoperability

Maximum number of manual data entry and/or manual file transfer points among systems during a delinquent loan cycle

5 points

Maintain at 2 for FY11

Data available 9/11

2011

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

% of time that system is available to internal users during normal business hours

Existing system is available 80% of the time during normal business hours

FLPIDS Service Center applications will be available to Service Center 95% of the time during normal business hours

Data available 9/11

2011

USDA Goal #1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers), FSA Goal #1 (Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches)

Mission and Business Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

Increase Lending to Minorities, Women, and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers

FY 04 -FY05 Average is 36.7%

Increase to 40.0% for FY11

Data available 9/11

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

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)

 

 

There is no transition activity underway at this time.

 

 

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)

PLAS External Reporting Process

FLPIDS supports the sharing of customer information with external sources while providing secure data transmissions and protecting the privacy of customer information. Customer information is required to be shared with private sector entities such as Credit Bureau Reporting, and other government entities such as Treasury.

Data Management

Information Sharing

 

 

No Reuse

4

DLM / PLAS Funds Disbursements

FLPIDS interfaces with the Treasury Department to disburse obligated funds to approved farm loan customers through EFT or paper check methods.

Financial Management

Payment / Settlement

 

 

No Reuse

5

PLAS / DLS / DALR$ Debt Collection Systems

FLPIDS supports not only the collection of debt owed, but also works with the customer to better manage overall debt. These systems ensure compliance with 1951S regulations governing treatment of delinquent borrowers.

Financial Management

Debt Collection

 

 

No Reuse

5

CFLPIDS on-line and batch reporting system for internal use and Voice Recognition System for customer interface

FLPIDS provides internal users with up to date information concerning customer accounts and also allows the customer to use the phone system to interact individually.

Data Management

Information Retrieval

 

 

No Reuse

8

FSA Data Warehouse for internal and external reporting

FLPIDS maintains a Data Warehouse consisting of a central repository of farm loan application and servicing information. This system incorporates security features that track system actions taken by recording User IDs and timestamps.

Reporting

Information Retrieval

 

 

No Reuse

10

PLAS - DLS interfaces

PLAS is a legacy system that provides batch update processing to newer on-line WEB applications such as DLM and DLS.

Development and Integration

Legacy Integration

 

 

No Reuse

5

DLM Goal Reports, Workload Scheduling, and Office Management Systems

FLPIDS incorporates functions that monitor workflow and allows Management to review work performance statistics

Human Capital / Workforce Management

Resource Planning and Allocation

 

 

No Reuse

3

FLPIDS centralized database

FLPIDS maintains a centralized database and keeps it current through instantaneous update.

Data Management

Ad Hoc

 

 

No Reuse

5

PLAS / DLS Reporting System

FLPIDS supports a wide variety of reports to help manage the program at all levels and also provide the President an Congress with highly detailed reports outlining overalloperations.

Reporting

Standardized / Canned

 

 

No Reuse

8

DLM Goal Reports, Workload Scheuling, and Office Management Systems.

FLPIDSstrives to reduce potenial liability for acts of lending discrimination by enabling a proactive program review process that focuses detailed audits where they are most needed to address potential problems as early as possible

Management of Processes

Risk Management

 

 

No Reuse

8

FLPIDS Policies and Procedures

FLPIDS incorporates strict policies and procedures for the consistent treatment of borrowers by systematically requiring users to follow the correct lending and servicing procedures. This is primarily done through stringent on-line and batch edits embedded throughout the system.

Management of Processes

Quality Management

 

 

No Reuse

5

FBP, DLS, EDALR$

FLPIDS supports the full customer lifecycle from creating a Farm Business Plan, through loan servicing and payoff and including debt and loan restructuring if necessary

Customer Relationship Management

Customer / Account Management

 

 

No Reuse

5

FBP, DLS, EDALR$

FLPIDS processes have been designed to provide maximum assistance to customers in preparing the Farm Business Plan, loan application or servicing request, and potential loan and debt restructuring

Customer Relationship Management

Customer / Account Management

 

 

No Reuse

3

SCIMS customer database

FLPIDS supports entering / updating customer profile information and interfaces to a USDA-wide customer demographic information repository.

Data Management

Customer / Account Management

Customer / Account Management

005-49-01-51-01-0103-00

Internal

0

FLPIDS centralized database

FLPIDS has been designed to support retrieval of individual customer or overall USDA loan program information.

Data Management

Information Retrieval

 

 

No Reuse

8

DLS, PLAS Process Management

FLPIDS has been designed to manage loan making and servicing workflow across all 850 field service centers, 50 state offices, and the National Office

Tracking and Workflow

Auditing

 

 

No Reuse

5

PLAS and DLS Correspondence Management Process

FLPIDS interfaces with the Pitney Bowes system to create outbound correspondence related to loan applications, standard servicing, and special servicing issues including communications required by 1951S regulations for treatment of delinquent borrowers.

Communication

Customer / Account Management

 

 

No Reuse

3

Aglearn

USDA personnel training system

Knowledge Management

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

 

Internal

0

PLAS and DLM interface to the Program Funds Control System (PFCS)

PFCS is a COTS software package that manages the annual Appropriations provided to the Farm Loan Programs.

Financial Management

Revenue Management

Revenue Management

 

Internal

0

PLAS, DLS, EDALR$, FBP Data Retrieval system

FLPIDS has been designed to support management, staff and/or customer retrieval of records meeting specific criteria. From FOI requests to Judicial and Legislative special requirements, FLPIDS provides the ability to quickly and accurately assemble pertinent, relevent, and concise information.

Data Management

Query

 

 

No Reuse

10

 

 

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)

Customer / Account Management

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Microsoft Internet Explorer

Customer / Account Management

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Collaboration / Communications

Electronic Mail (E-mail)

Customer / Account Management

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

Web Service

Computers / Automation Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Network Devices / Standards

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)

Computers / Automation Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Network Devices / Standards

Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP)

Software Development

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Platform Independent

Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition (J2EE)

Computers / Automation Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Database 2 (DB2)

Software Development

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

WebShpere Studio

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Mainframe

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Wide Area Network (WAN)

Internal (within Agency)

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Browser

Internal (within Agency)

Software Development

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Software Configuration Management

Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition (J2EE)

Quality Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Test Management

Installation testing

Intrusion Prevention

Component Framework

Security

Supporting Security Services

Web Services Security (WS-Security)

Internal Controls

Component Framework

Security

Supporting Security Services

Database 2 (DB2)

Data Exchange

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

Message Oriented Middleware (MOM): IBM Websphere MQ

Customer / Account Management

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Dynamic Server-Side Display

Java Server Pages (JSP)

Computers / Automation Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Platform Independent

Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition (J2EE)

Data Integration

Component Framework

Data Management

Database Connectivity

Websphere Studio

Quality Management

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

Database 2 (DB2)

Computers / Automation Management

Service Interface and Integration

Integration

Middleware

WebSphere Studio

Extraction and Transformation

Service Interface and Integration

Integration

Database Connectivity

Websphere Studio

Computers / Automation Management

Service Interface and Integration

Integration

Enterprise Application Integration

WebSphere Studio

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

WebSphere Studio

Computers / Automation Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Hosting

Internal (within Agency)

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Authentication / Single Sign-on

Web Services Security (WS-Security)

Revenue Management

Service Access and Delivery

Interface

Data Exchange

Oracle COTS funds control software package referred to as Program Funds Control (PFCS).

 

 

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)

 

 

FLPIDS will leverage existing Treasury EFT services via Program Funds Control System (PFCS) to support disbursement of loan funds to customers. FLPIDS also uses USDA ITS Shared Services such as eAuthentication for security/single sign-on, the ITS Web Farm at NITC for web server services, and AgLearn for online training.

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2005-05-25

 

 

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

1- Mixed Enhancement / COTS Model

Alternative 1: Mixed Enhancement/COTS Model Integrate a mix of custom enhancements and COTS products to centralize processing and replace outdated systems. This alternative utilizes a mix of technology to achieve a centralized FLPIDS system. The new FLPIDS applications will share a common DB2 database, which will enable sharing data across systems and improve reporting capabilities.

155454491.000

875208785.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

Alternative 1 provides FSA with the optimal combination of value, cost and risk. It provides the most complete solution, delivering all Service Center functionality in a consolidated browser-based user interface and provides the benefits of a centralized database. It is expected to provide substantially greater benefits, both non-financial and financial, as demonstrated by its high value score and it has the highest NPV and SIR and the shortest payback period of any of the alternatives.

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

FLPIDS will provide a modernized, integrated system and process reengineering that will streamline and standardize the loan making, servicing, and reporting processes, resulting in an overall better, quicker, and more positive customer experience. The Mixed Enhancement / COTS model is significantly easier to maintain than the legacy system due to its centralized server platform and flexible architecture. This solution presents a substantial improvement in maintainability due to the elimination of redundant features and data that must be kept synchronized in the Legacy environment. Data will be available in a real-time centralized database for regional and national management queries and reporting. This solution will greatly improve the efficiency of the loan making, servicing, and reporting processes by eliminating duplicative data entry, automating tasks, and enforcing compliance, enabling FSA staff to focus on improving risk management and proactively managing the lending process. This solution fully aligns to the USDA and Federal Enterprise Architectures. The productivity and efficiency enhancements provided by this solution will enable FSA to "do more with less", and actually improve its ability to meet its mission, desite staffing reductions. FLPIDS will increase staff productivity and efficiency by creating a single point of entry and a centralized data repository, eliminating duplicative data entry and minimizing time spent on error corrections, login procedures, report extraction, query processing, and toggling between multiple systems. Also, this centralized system will aid in the ability to avoid future lawsuits and respond more effectively to future litigation, due to the improved accessibility of detailed loan program data for managing analysis and tracking. The inability to produce loan application data to defend the Government has been identified as a weakness in the current environment.

 

 

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:   

 

 

 

 

UPI if available

Date of the System Retirement

Program Loan Accounting Systems(PLAS) Automated Discrepancy Processing System (ADPS) - Loan Making Portion - Field Office Transactions

 

2007-05-01

Program Loan Accounting System (PLAS) Automated Discrepancy Procesing Systems (ADPS) Loan Servicing Portion - Field Office transactions

 

2008-09-01

Debt and Loan Restructure System (DALR$)

 

2008-02-01

Management of Agricultural Credit (MAC) - Loan Making Portion

 

2007-05-01

Management of Agricultural Credit (MAC) - Loan Servicing Portion

 

2008-09-01

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2007-03-19

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

CFLPIDS risks have been reassessed in light of the recent security events.

 

 

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)

 

 

FLPIDS follows a rigorous approach to accurately estimate program life-cycle costs. We include costs to mitigate risks in the event risk occur throughout the project life-cycle. We use ranges for estimates and adjust cost estimates for risk.. We update costs on a regular basis and upon availability of most accurate cost data. We implement project management, performance based contracting, and earned value management system practices. FLPIDS has a demonstrated history of accurate cost projections and meeting budget targets. Methods for risk adjusted cost are implemented and monitored regularly by the program management team. Firm fixed price contracts will also be used to minimize government risk.

 

 

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