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:   

 

 

 

03

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

USDA Identity And Access Management (IAM)

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

005-03-03-11-01-8004-00

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

FY2003

 

 

I. A. 8. Provide a brief summary and justification for this investment, including a brief description of how this, closes in part or in whole, an identified agency performance gap:   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

From a beginning with an eAuthentication project in 2003, USDA has expanded its identity assurance effort in FY08 by including Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) projects resulting in an Identity And Access Management (IAM) investment. This combined major investment umbrella includes the mostly steady-state eAuthentication investment plus five inter-related development projects (Identity Management, Background Investigation Management, Credentialing, Physical Access Control System, and Logical Access Control Systems). These projects work synergistically to accept source identity verification information, store it, process it, and deliver it upon demand to consumer computer systems. These include physical access systems (facility doors), web applications (eAuthentication and Agency web applications), and logical access systems (smart-card logins to individual personal computers). IAM projects provide an enterprise foundation for identity assurance via the following projects and systems: eAuthentication, Enterprise Identity Management System (EIMS), HSPD-12, Credential Management, Background Investigation Management, Logical Access Control Systems (LACS), and electronic Physical Access Control System (ePACS).

 

 

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)

 

 

Owen Unangst

 

 

Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

970-295-5538

 

 

E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

owen.unangst@ftc.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:   

 

 

 

Expanded E-Government

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

The provision of expanded E-Government services to citizens relies on the reasonable assurance of online identity of citizens desiring to conduct business. eAuthentication and GSA are partnering to support customer registration and verification while BI Management tracks employee registration. EIMS is the central point for transferring identity assurance and updates to status to both LACS for web application logins and authorization for actions as well as PACS for identity badge entry to buildin

 

 

I. A. 14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)? (For more information about the PART, visit www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part.)   

 

 

 

no

 

 

I. A. 14. a. If "yes," does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. A. 14. b. If "yes," what is the name of the PARTed Program?   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. A. 15. Is this investment for information technology?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 16. What is the level of the IT Project? (per CIO Council PM Guidance)   

 

Level 1 - Projects with low-to-moderate complexity and risk. Example: Bureau-level project such as a stand-alone information system that has low- to-moderate complexity and risk.
Level 2 - Projects with high complexity and/or risk which are critical to the mission of the organization. Examples: Projects that are part of a portfolio of projects/systems that impact each other and/or impact mission activities. Department-wide projects that impact cross-organizational missions, such as an agency-wide system integration that includes large scale Enterprise Resource Planning (e.g., the DoD Business Mgmt Modernization Program).
Level 3 - Projects that have high complexity, and/or risk, and have government-wide impact. Examples: Government-wide initiative (E-GOV, President's Management Agenda). High interest projects with Congress, GAO, OMB, or the general public. Cross-cutting initiative (Homeland Security).

 

 

Level 3

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. A. 19. a. 2. If "no," what does it address?   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. A. 19. b. If "yes," please identify the system name(s) and system acronym(s) as reported in the most recent financial systems inventory update required by Circular A-11 section 52   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

I. A. 20. a. Hardware   

 

 

 

1

 

 

I. A. 20. b. Software   

 

 

 

6

 

 

I. A. 20. c. Services   

 

 

 

94

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions:  

 

 

I. A. 22. a. Name   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Owen Unangst

 

 

I. A. 22. b. Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

970-295-5538

 

 

I. A. 22. c. Title   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

IAM Identity & Access Management - Program Manager

 

 

I. A. 22. d. E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

owen.unangst@ftc.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

1.290

1.233

1.273

 

 

 

 

 

Acquisition

0

0

1.181

4.510

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal Planning & Acquisition

0

1.290

2.414

5.783

 

 

 

 

 

Operations & Maintenance

0

16.900

15.919

14.427

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

0

18.190

18.333

20.210

 

 

 

 

 

Government FTE Costs

0

0.506

0.526

0.547

 

 

 

 

 

Number of FTE represented by cost

0

1

3

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

In FY08, 2 additional FTEs needed to be hired at a GS14 level. ePACS needs 2 FTE in FY08: functional systems administrator and IT security specialist.

 

 

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)

 

 

Agency Costs related to LACS / Identify and Access Management Systems Statement: The following three costs areas will be incorporated into the cost of building and operating LACS and IAM systems. Agency costs for new/updated Background Investigations. --- This will be a agency cost and it will estimated to be based on total employees / contractors in relation to annual turnover percentages. Agency costs for computer-based card readers with associated software. --- This will be a agency cost based on number of computers users. Agency costs for building-based card readers and associated hardware and software. --- This agency cost is still to be determined.

 

 

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

2007

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of USDA federal employees enrolled in USDA eAuthentication service measure access to credentials for secure access to protected web sites

92,281 USDA federal employees were registered in eAuthentication as of April 2006

Increase to 105,000 USDA federal employees registered

97,204 USDA federal employees registered as of June 2007

2007

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Customer Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of web applications securely accessible using eAuthentication credentials for identity and access management

179 USDA web applications securely accessible in April 2006

Increase to 200 USDA web applications protected by eAuthentication

240 USDA web applications protected by eAuthentication as of June 2007

2007

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Information Management

eAuth: Number of monthly logins to web applications (measures usage of shared identity data via USDA eAuthentication credentials)

1,297,269 logins using eAuthentication credentials in April 2006

Increase 25% to 1,621,586 logins per month

1,699,595 eAuth logins in June 2007

2007

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management. Initiative 5: Service availability

Technology

Availability

eAuth: Percentage of availability of eAuthentication system as measure of 7/24/365 access to validated employee and customer identities and access roles for protected Agency web applications

During FY06, the eAuthentication system maintained 99% availability

Maintain 99% system availability

During FY07, system availability has been over 99%

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of USDA federal employees enrolled in USDA eAuthentication service measure access to credentials for secure access to protected web sites

97,204 USDA federal employees were registered in eAuthentication as of June 2007

Maintain registrations of 97,200

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Customer Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of web applications securely accessible using eAuthentication credentials for identity and access management

240 USDA web applications protected by eAuthentication as of June 2007

Increase to 280 USDA web applications protected by eAuthentication

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Information Management

eAuth: Number of monthly logins to web applications (measures usage of shared identity data via USDA eAuthentication credentials)

1,699,595 logins using eAuthentication credentials in June 2007

Support 10% increase of logins to 1,869,555

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management. Initiative 5: Service availability

Technology

Availability

eAuth: Percentage of availability of eAuthentication system as measure of 7/24/365 access to validated employee and customer identities and access roles for protected Agency web applications

Expected: During FY07, 99% system availability of identity and role information maintained for customers and Agency web applications

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

EIMS - Implement red site/blue site architecture to support 7/24/365 access to identity information for Agency and Department data systems

New project - no transparent failover architecture in place yet

Red/blue site architecture will enter full production prior to September 2008

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

EIMS - Achieve 99% system uptime to support 7/24/365 access to shared identity information for Agency and Department data systems

New project - no production baseline accessibility data available

Achieve 99% system uptime

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

EIMS - number of connections between official validated data sources and Agency and Department shared systems which consume identity data

New project - as of July 2007, one completed data connector exists

Implement 25 completed data connectors by September 30, 2008

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

LACS - Secure identity data sharing between eAuthentication-protected web applications allows single-sign-on access to multiple sites without additional logins

New project - no production baseline data available

75% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific Enterprise Single-Sign-on by July 1, 2008.

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Customer Results

Key Asset and Critical Infrastructure Protection

ePACS - Total number of times system was used to support property protection

Zero card entries into protected facilities

1,000,000 allowed accesses at facility card readers

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Central Records and Statistics Management

ePACS Total PIV Cardholders imported into system

Number of PIV Cardholders imported upon production of system go-live date

10% increase in PIV cardholders imported into production

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Productivity

ePACS Productivity and Efficiency of Badging privilege revocation to meet FIPS 201 standard of 17 hours

30 days

Meet compliance standard of 17 hours

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Compliance

ePACS Management and Innovation: Federal and Departmental compliance (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100%(

25% compliant

50% compliant

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Customer Results

Availability

ePACS - Availability percentage for system administrators to modify local facility access

99% available

99.1% available

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Response Time

ePACS - System Response Time measured in seconds

0.99 Second

10% decrease in response time

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Interoperability

ePACS - Application integration with other PACS and relevant external systems

2 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

2 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Accessibility

ePACS - System Accessibility by end user

0% accessibility

99% accessibility by end users

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Data Reliability and Quality

ePACS - Data Integrity

Unknown

99.% accurate data field population

TBD

2008

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Load levels

ePACS - Efficiency of percentage of load level capacity

5% load level capacity utilitized

15.5% load level capacity utilitized

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth:Number of USDA federal employees enrolled in USDA eAuthentication service measure access to credentials for secure access to protected web sites

Expected: During FY08, 97,200 federal employees remain registered in eAuthentication

Maintain registrations of 97,200

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Customer Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of web applications securely accessible using eAuthentication credentials for identity and access management

Expected: During FY08, 280 USDA web applications will be protected by eAuthentication

Increase to 300 USDA web applications protected by eAuthentication

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Information Management

eAuth: Number of monthly logins to web applications (measures usage of shared identity data via USDA eAuthentication credentials)

Expected: During FY08, maintain 1,869,555 logins using eAuthentication credentials per month

Support 5% increase of logins to 1,963,033

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management. Initiative 5: Service availability

Technology

Availability

eAuth: Percentage of availability of eAuthentication system as measure of 7/24/365 access to validated employee and customer identities and access roles for protected Agency web applications

Expected: During FY08, 99% system availability of identity and role information maintained for customers and Agency web applications

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

EIMS - Achieve 99% system uptime to support 7/24/365 access to shared identity information for Agency and Department data systems

Expected: During FY08, 99% system availability of shared identity information maintained for Agency and Department customers

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

EIMS - number of connections between official validated data sources and Agency and Department shared systems which consume identity data

Expected: 30 data connectors supporting Agency and Department internal data structures

Increase to 35 completed data connectors by September 30, 2009

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

LACS - Secure identity data sharing between eAuthentication-protected web applications allows single-sign-on access to multiple sites without additional logins

Expected: 75% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific SSO

Increase to 80% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific Enterprise Single-Sign-on by July 1, 2009.

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

ePACS Reliability and Availability for system uptime

99% system uptime availability

99.1% system uptime availability

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Central Records and Statistics Management

ePACS Total PIV Cardholders imported into system

10% PIV Cardholders imported into production

10% increase in PIV cardholders imported into production

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Productivity

ePACS Productivity and Efficiency of Badging privilege revocation to meet FIPS 201 standard of 17 hours

Meet compliance standard of 17 hours

No more than 17 hours from compliance standard

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Compliance

ePACS Management and Innovation: Federal and Departmental compliance (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100%(

50% compliant75% compliant TBD

30% increase in PIV Cardholders imported into production

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Customer Results

Availability

ePACS - Availability percentage for system administrators to modify local facility access

99.1% available

99.1% available

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Response Time

ePACS - System Response Time measured in seconds

0.99 Second

10% decrease in response time

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Interoperability

ePACS - Application integration with other PACS and relevant external systems

4 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

1 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Accessibility

ePACS - System Accessibility by end user

99% accessibility by end users

99% accessibility by end users

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Data Reliability and Quality

ePACS - Data Integrity

99.9% accurate data field population

99.9% accurate data field population

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Load levels

ePACS - Efficiency of percentage of load level capacity

15.5% load level capacity utilized

25% load level capacity utilitized

TBD

2009

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

ePACS Reliability and Availability for system uptime

99% system uptime availability

99.1% system uptime availability

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of USDA federal employees enrolled in USDA eAuthentication service measure access to credentials for secure access to protected web sites

Expected: During FY09, 97,200 federal employees registered in eAuthentication

Maintain registrations of 97,200

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Customer Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of web applications securely accessible using eAuthentication credentials for identity and access management

Expected: During FY09, 300 USDA web applications will be protected by eAuthentication

Increase to 310 USDA web applications protected by eAuthentication

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Information Management

eAuth: Number of monthly logins to web applications (measures usage of shared identity data via USDA eAuthentication credentials)

Expected: During FY10, the eAuthentication system will support about 1,963,033 logins per month

Support 5% increase of logins to 2,061,185

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management. Initiative 5: Service availability

Technology

Availability

eAuth: Percentage of availability of eAuthentication system as measure of 7/24/365 access to validated employee and customer identities and access roles for protected Agency web applications

Expected: During FY09, 99% system availability of identity and role information maintained for customers and Agency web applications

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

EIMS - Achieve 99% system uptime to support 7/24/365 access to shared identity information for Agency and Department data systems

Expected: During FY09, 99% system availability of shared identity information maintained for Agency and Department customers

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

EIMS - number of connections between official validated data sources and Agency and Department shared systems which consume identity data

Expected: 35 data connectors supporting Agency and Department internal data structures

Maintain 35 data connectors to support identification information sharing

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

LACS - Secure identity data sharing between eAuthentication-protected web applications allows single-sign-on access to multiple sites without additional logins

Expected: 80% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific SSO

Increase to 85% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific Enterprise Single-Sign-on by July 1, 2010.

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Central Records and Statistics Management

ePACS Total PIV Cardholders imported into system

40% PIV Cardholders imported into production

20% increase in PIV cardholders imported into production

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Productivity

ePACS Productivity and Efficiency of Badging privilege revocation to meet FIPS 201 standard of 17 hours

Meet compliance standard of 17 hours

No more than 17 hours from compliance standard

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Compliance

ePACS Management and Innovation: Federal and Departmental compliance (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100%(

90% compliant

95% compliant

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Customer Results

Availability

ePACS - Availability percentage for system administrators to modify local facility access

99.1% available

99.1% available

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Response Time

ePACS - System Response Time measured in seconds

0.891 response time

10% decrease in response time

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Interoperability

ePACS - Application integration with other PACS and relevant external systems

5 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

1 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Accessibility

ePACS - System Accessibility by end user

99% accessibility by end users

99.1% accessibility by end users

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Data Reliability and Quality

ePACS - Data Integrity

99.9% accurate data field population

99.9% accurate data field population

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Load levels

ePACS - Efficiency of percentage of load level capacity

50% load level capacity utilized

65% load level capacity utilitized

TBD

2010

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

ePACS Reliability and Availability for system uptime

99% system uptime availability

99.1% system uptime availability

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of USDA federal employees enrolled in USDA eAuthentication service measure access to credentials for secure access to protected web sites

Expected: During FY10, 97,200 federal employees remain registered in eAuthentication

Maintain registrations of 97,200

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Customer Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of web applications securely accessible using eAuthentication credentials for identity and access management

Expected: During FY10, 310 USDA web applications will be protected by eAuthentication

Increase to 320 USDA web applications protected by eAuthentication

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Information Management

eAuth: Number of monthly logins to web applications (measures usage of shared identity data via USDA eAuthentication credentials)

Expected: During FY10, the eAuthentication system will support about 2,061,185 logins per month

Support 5% increase of logins to 2,164,244

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management. Initiative 5: Service availability

Technology

Availability

eAuth: Percentage of availability of eAuthentication system as measure of 7/24/365 access to validated employee and customer identities and access roles for protected Agency web applications

Expected: During FY10, 99% system availability of identity and role information maintained for customers and Agency web applications

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

EIMS - Achieve 99% system uptime to support 7/24/365 access to shared identity information for Agency and Department data systems

Expected: During FY10, 99% system availability of shared identity information maintained for Agency and Department customers

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

EIMS - number of connections between official validated data sources and Agency and Department shared systems which consume identity data

Expected: 35 data connectors supporting Agency and Department internal data structures

Maintain 35 data connectors to support identification information sharing

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

LACS - Secure identity data sharing between eAuthentication-protected web applications allows single-sign-on access to multiple sites without additional logins

Expected: 85% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific SSO

Increase to 90% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific Enterprise Single-Sign-on by July 1, 2011.

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Central Records and Statistics Management

ePACS Total PIV Cardholders imported into system

60% PIV Cardholders imported into production

20% increase in PIV cardholders imported into production

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Productivity

ePACS Productivity and Efficiency of Badging privilege revocation to meet FIPS 201 standard of 17 hours

Meet compliance standard of 17 hours

No more than 17 hours from compliance standard

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Compliance

ePACS Management and Innovation: Federal and Departmental compliance (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100%(

95% compliant

99% compliant

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Customer Results

Availability

ePACS - Availability percentage for system administrators to modify local facility access

99.1% available

99.1% available

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Response Time

ePACS - System Response Time measured in seconds

0.891 response time

10% decrease in response time

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Interoperability

ePACS - Application integration with other PACS and relevant external systems

6 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

1 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Accessibility

ePACS - System Accessibility by end user

99% accessibility by end users

99.1% accessibility by end users

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Data Reliability and Quality

ePACS - Data Integrity

99.9% accurate data field population

99.9% accurate data field population

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Load levels

ePACS - Efficiency of percentage of load level capacity

65% load level capacity utilized

80% load level capacity utilitized

TBD

2011

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Technology

Availability

ePACS Reliability and Availability for system uptime

99% system uptime availability

99.1% system uptime availability

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of USDA federal employees enrolled in USDA eAuthentication service measure access to credentials for secure access to protected web sites

Expected: During FY11, 97,200 federal employees remain registered in eAuthentication

Maintain registrations of 97,200

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Customer Results

Information Systems Security

eAuth: Number of web applications securely accessible using eAuthentication credentials for identity and access management

Expected: During FY11, 320 USDA web applications will be protected by eAuthentication

Increase to 330 USDA web applications protected by eAuthentication

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Information Management

eAuth: Number of monthly logins to web applications (measures usage of shared identity data via USDA eAuthentication credentials)

Expected: During FY11, the eAuthentication system will support about 2,164,244 logins per month

Support 5% increase of logins to 2,272,456

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management. Initiative 5: Service availability

Technology

Availability

eAuth: Percentage of availability of eAuthentication system as measure of 7/24/365 access to validated employee and customer identities and access roles for protected Agency web applications

Expected: During FY11, 99% system availability of identity and role information maintained for customers and Agency web applications

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Availability

EIMS - Achieve 99% system uptime to support 7/24/365 access to shared identity information for Agency and Department data systems

Expected: During FY11, 99% system availability of shared identity information maintained for Agency and Department customers

Maintain 99% system availability

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

EIMS - number of connections between official validated data sources and Agency and Department shared systems which consume identity data

Expected: 35 data connectors supporting Agency and Department internal data structures

Maintain 35 data connectors to support identification information sharing

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

LACS - Secure identity data sharing between eAuthentication-protected web applications allows single-sign-on access to multiple sites without additional logins

Expected: 90% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific SSO

Increase to 95% of federal employee eAuthentication accounts are capable of eAuthentication-specific Enterprise Single-Sign-on by July 1, 2012.

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Mission and Business Results

Central Records and Statistics Management

ePACS Total PIV Cardholders imported into system

80% PIV Cardholders imported into production

10% increase in PIV cardholders imported into production

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Productivity

ePACS Productivity and Efficiency of Badging privilege revocation to meet FIPS 201 standard of 17 hours

Meet compliance standard of 17 hours

No more than 17 hours from compliance standard

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Processes and Activities

Compliance

ePACS Management and Innovation: Federal and Departmental compliance (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100%(

99% compliant

100% compliant

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 5: Service Availability

Customer Results

Availability

ePACS - Availability percentage for system administrators to modify local facility access

99.1% available

99.1% available

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Response Time

ePACS - System Response Time measured in seconds

0.8019 response time

10% decrease in response time

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Interoperability

ePACS - Application integration with other PACS and relevant external systems

6 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

1 connections with external systems supporting identity and physical access data sharing

TBD

2012

USDA IT Strategic Goal 4 "Technology and Architecture" OCIO Initiative 3: Support for Identity Access Management

Technology

Accessibility

ePACS - System Accessibility by end user

99% accessibility by end users

99.1% accessibility by end users

TBD

 

 

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)

 

 

Enterprise Identity Management

 

 

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)

eAuthentication

eAuthentication provides identification and authentication services via registration and site protection.

Security Management

Identification and Authentication

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

eAuthentication

eAuthentication provides access control to applications via the ability to delegate access via Identity Minder

Security Management

Access Control

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

eAuthentication

eAuthentication enables users to be managed via Active Directory and Identity Minder.

Security Management

Customer / Account Management

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

eAuthentication

Roles, privileges, and access are managed and supported via Identity Minder

Security Management

Customer / Account Management

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

eAuthentication

eAuthentication captures the authentication audit trail and provides the ability to perform analysis on the data.

Security Management

Audit Trail Capture and Analysis

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

eAuthentication

eAuthentication has self-service registration, information and password change screens for the users.

Customer Initiated Assistance

Self-Service

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

eAuthentication

eAuthentication has online registration functionality for level 1, 2, and 3 credentials.

Customer Initiated Assistance

Reservations / Registration

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

eAuthentication

eAuthentication uses a structured change management process for migrating any new changes into production.

Management of Processes

Change Management

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

eAuthentication

eAuthentication uses a structured configuration management process for migrating any new changes into production

Management of Processes

Configuration Management

Identification and Authentication

005-03-01-81-04-0250-24

External

2

EIMS - Business Rule Management

The EIMS system provides designation of authoritative source for identity related information, e.g., EmpowHR is authoritative for employee SSN

Security Management

Access Control

Information Sharing

 

No Reuse

0

EIMS - Business Rule Management

EIMS transfers identity-related data from ?producers? to ?consumers? for HSPD-12 and other applications or services that need employee and contractor data on an Enterprise level

Security Management

Access Control

Information Sharing

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Security Management

Access Control

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Security Management

Data Classification

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Security Management

Data Classification

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Security Management

Intrusion Prevention

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Security Management

Audit Trail Capture and Analysis

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Security Management

License Management

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Security Management

Remote Systems Control

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Forms Management

Forms Creation

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Forms Management

Forms Modification

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Data Management

Data Exchange

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Data Management

Data Warehouse

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Data Management

Meta Data Management

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Data Management

Data Cleansing

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Data Management

Extraction and Transformation

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Data Management

Loading and Archiving

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Data Management

Data Recovery

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Data Management

Data Classification

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Management of Processes

Program / Project Management

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Management of Processes

Change Management

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Management of Processes

Configuration Management

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Management of Processes

Requirements Management

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Management

Information Retrieval

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Management

Information Retrieval

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Management

Information Sharing

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Management

Information Mapping / Taxonomy

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Management

Categorization

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Management

Knowledge Engineering

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Management

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Management

Smart Documents

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Records Management

Record Linking / Association

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Records Management

Document Classification

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Records Management

Document Library

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control SystemPhysical Access Control System

Records Management

Digital Rights Management

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Visualization

Graphing / Charting

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Knowledge Discovery

Data Mining

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Business Intelligence

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Business Intelligence

Decision Support and Planning

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Reporting

Ad Hoc

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Reporting

Standardized / Canned

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Human Resources

Time Reporting

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Human Capital / Workforce Management

Resource Planning and Allocation

 

 

No Reuse

0

ePACS

Physical Access Control System

Human Capital / Workforce Management

Workforce Directory / Locator

 

 

No Reuse

0

 

 

I. F. 5. Table 1. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table:   

 

To demonstrate how this major IT investment aligns with the FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM), please list the Service Areas, Categories, Standards, and Service Specifications supporting this IT investment.

a. Service Components identified in the previous question should be entered in this column. Please enter multiple rows for FEA SRM Components supported by multiple TRM Service Specifications
b. In the Service Specification field, agencies should provide information on the specified technical standard or vendor product mapped to the FEA TRM Service Standard, including model or version numbers, as appropriate.

 

 

 

FEA TRM Service Area

FEA TRM Service Category

FEA TRM Service Standard

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

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Collaboration / Communications

eAuth - Electronic Mail (E-Mail) Multiple versions across USDA

Access Control

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

eAuth - URL

Access Control

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

eAuth - Web ServiceCA Identity Minder

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Channels

Web Servers

eAuth - Internet Information Server

Event / News Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

eAuth - SecurityCA SiteMinderCA Identity Minder

Portfolio Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

eAuth - LDAPMS Active Directory

Customer / Account Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

eAuth - X.500

Customer / Account Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

eAuth - DNS

Customer / Account Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

eAuth - Internet Protocol

Customer / Account Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

eAuth - HTTP

Customer / Account Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

eAuth - HTTPS

Customer / Account Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Supporting Network Services

eAuth - SAML

Audit Trail Capture and Analysis

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Supporting Network Services

eAuth - SQL Server

Self-Service

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

eAuth - Netscape Communicator

Self-Service

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

eAuth - Internet Explorer

Reservations / Registration

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

eAuth - Netscape Communicator

Reservations / Registration

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

eAuth - Internet Explorer

Change Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Software Configuration Management

eAuth - Version Management

Configuration Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Software Configuration Management

eAuth - Version Management

Business Rule Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

EIMS - Microsoft Identity Integration Server (MIIS)

Alerts and Notifications

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

EIMS - SMTP

Alerts and Notifications

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

EIMS - HTML

Library / Storage

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

EIMS - Microsoft SQL Server

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

EIMS - NET

Ad Hoc

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

EIMS - - XML

Standardized / Canned

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

EIMS - - XML

Extraction and Transformation

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

EIMS - Microsoft SQL Server

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

EIMS - Java

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

EIMS - XML

Data Recovery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

EIMS - Storage Area Network (SAN) ? NITC

System Resource Monitoring

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Collaboration / Communications

EIMS - HP Openview

System Resource Monitoring

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Collaboration / Communications

EIMS - Innerwall Secure Enclave

System Resource Monitoring

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Collaboration / Communications

EIMS - KeePass Password Safe

System Resource Monitoring

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Collaboration / Communications

EIMS - Microsoft Operations Manager (MOM)

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Platform Dependent

EIMS - Windows 2003

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Software Configuration Management

EIMS - Change Management

Enterprise Application Integration

Component Framework

Security

Certificates / Digital Signatures

EIMS - SSL

Access Control

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel

Strategic Planning and Mgmt

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel

Strategic Planning and Mgmt

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel

Intrusion Prevention

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MS SQL Server2005, MS Windows Server 2003

Audit Trail Capture and Analysis

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

License Management

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel

Remote Systems Control

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel

Forms Creation

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server 2005 ePACS -

Forms Modification

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server 2005

Data Exchange

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel

Data Exchange

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel

Data Exchange

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel

Data Warehouse

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - MS Windows Server 2003, Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Meta Data Management

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Cleansing

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, MSSQL Server2005, Lenel

Data Cleansing

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, MSSQL Server2005, Lenel

Data Cleansing

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Extraction and Transformation

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Extraction and Transformation

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Extraction and Transformation

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Loading and Archiving

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Recovery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Recovery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Recovery

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Classification

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Classification

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Classification

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Program / Project Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

ePACS - Lenel

Program / Project Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Program / Project Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Program / Project Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Program / Project Management

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Program / Project Management

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Change Management

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Change Management

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Change Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Change Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Change Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Change Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Change Management

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Change Management

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Configuration Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Configuration Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Configuration Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Configuration Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Configuration Management

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Configuration Management

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Configuration Management

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Information Retrieval

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Information Retrieval

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Knowledge Capture

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Information Mapping / Taxonomy

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Information Mapping / Taxonomy

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Information Mapping / Taxonomy

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Information Mapping / Taxonomy

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Information Mapping / Taxonomy

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Information Mapping / Taxonomy

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Categorization

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Categorization

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Categorization

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Categorization

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Categorization

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Knowledge Engineering

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel

Knowledge Distribution and Delivery

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Smart Documents

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Record Linking / Association

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Document Classification

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Recovery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Digital Rights Management

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel

Graphing / Charting

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Graphing / Charting

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Graphing / Charting

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Mining

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Mining

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Data Mining

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Mining

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Windows Server 2003, Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Mining

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Data Mining

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Decision Support and Planning

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Ad Hoc

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Ad Hoc

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Time Reporting

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

Resource Planning and Allocation

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Workforce Directory / Locator

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Application Servers

ePACS - Lenel

Workforce Directory / Locator

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

ePACS - Lenel, MSSQL Server2005

 

 

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)

 

 

Credential Management: Although this investment is still in the early conceptual stages, GSA will drive addressing if the system / application will leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc) in detail. Background Investigation Management: This is a modernization of the SETS project and will not leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government. Identity Management: EIMS will leverage the GSA HSPD-12 solutions during its D/M/E efforts. eAuthentication: eAuthentication is steady-state in the main, but does not leverage existing outside components across the Government. LACS: This sub-project is too early in conceptual stages to determine if it will be able to leverage existing components. ePACS: This sub-project does not currently plan to leverage existing outside components across the Government.

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2007-07-23

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enterprise PACS Management

The enterprise PACS management approach uses one system to control multiple stand-alone head-end PACS. During our research, we found several products that claim this capability

54938357.160

139000.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The Identity & Access Management (IAM) / HSPD12 initiative are owned and managed by multiple USDA / Federal Agencies, some of these agencies will have PLANNING, ACQUISITION AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION which include: Alternatives Analysis, Risk Management, and Cost and Schedule Performance plan in there OMB 300 submission. The current status of systems with a PLANNING, ACQUISITION AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION plan components are: Enhance controls to ensure critical information is not lost during the management of the emergency, Agencies maintain local control of access control systems and associated peripherals, Tight security posture can be maintained with little or no network usage due to stand-alone architecture of keeping individual PACS, Improved accuracy and standardization of reporting capabilities due to increased technical knowledge of single vendor system by personnel, Advantage in implementation efforts due to increased technical knowledge of single vendor system by personnel, Potential for cost savings on PACS licenses and hardware through price breaks on bulk hardware and software purchases, Potential for cost savings on PACS maintenance through price breaks, Agency interoperability ? issue badge at one agency with one vendor's PACS, enter facility at another agency using a different vendor's PACS, Flexibility for agencies to use the head-end PACS of their choice, Reduction in time savings for system administrators based on centralized architecture Cost avoidance of future hiring of multiple system administrators, Increased functionality of PACS will be available to include centralized alarm monitoring, visitor management and video monitoring capabilities, Disaster Recovery/Failover environment will be provided through centralized hosting of system, Reduces complete dependence upon a single vendor to ease transition in the event the selected vendor goes out of business, Provides a transitional period that allows agencies that are unable to migrate their PACS to the USDA standard with the ability to interface their individual PACS with a user specific directory system on a case-by-case basis. Additional information is in the attached Cost-Benefit Analysis.

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

II. A. 5. a. If “yes,” are the migration costs associated with the migration to the selected alternative included in this investment, the legacy investment, or in a separate migration investment?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2007-07-23

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

II. B. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. B. 2. a. If "yes," what is the planned completion date?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. B. 2. b. If "no," what is the strategy for managing the risks?   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

II. B. 3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

Throughout the program life-cycle, the IAM program management team will use a formal risk assessment management process for early identification and mitigation of risks. USDA understands that all risks cannot be eliminated due to limited time and resources; however, a risk management process supports taking calculated risks and resource allocation decisions with improved knowledge. In the IAM Risk Management Plan, risks are identified and mitigations specified. The risk categories are aligned with OMB major investment categories. As the assessment process identifies new risks, the program management team will assess probability with a qualitative rating of Low, Medium or High. These ratings are aligned with OMB rating categories. To minimize the risk of not having qualified government resources to manage the project and enterprise-wide implementation, comprehensive planning, documentation, and oversight are built-in to project planning.

 

 

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