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:   

 

 

 

96

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Fire Program Analysis System - Phase 2 (FPA-2)

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

005-96-01-11-01-0172-00

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

Mixed Life Cycle

 

 

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

 

 

 

FY2005

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

This project, Fire Program Analysis - Phase 2 (FPA-2), is an interagency project of the five federal wildland fire management agencies: * US Forest Service (USFS) * Department of Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) * DOI National Park Service (NPS) * DOI U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) * DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). FPA-2 has involved the National Association of State Foresters as well as state and local fire organizations. The FPA-2 project will close important performance gaps for the interagency wildland fire management agencies, including gaps identified in: Federal Wildland Fire Policy, National Fire Plan, The Hubbard Report (i.e., Developing an Interagency, Landscape Scale Fire Planning Analysis and Budget Tool, November 2001), as well as discussions with and direction from OMB and the Congressional Appropriations Committee. FPA is chartered by the US Forest Service and DOI. The FPA Scope Definition (draft dated April 6, 2007) states: ?FPA will provide information relative to cost-effective, interagency, wildland fire management programs for a range of budget levels.? Cost-effective program scenarios will recognize the interactions among fire program components (e.g., the synergistic interactions of fuels treatments, wildland fire use, and suppression of unwanted wildland fires). These scenarios will be evaluated at the Fire Planning Unit (FPU) and national level to develop effective program options. A functional prototype is currently undergoing completion with a targeted operational application by June 2008. Training and implementation will be provided, as will two years of Operations and Maintenance (O&M), as part of the FPA project. FPA-2 is managed according to established OMB and Project Management Institute (PMI) standards and practices, including American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/EIA-748 Earned Value Management (EVM) and Certification and Accreditation (C&A) activities. The CPIC managing partner is the United States Forest Service (USFS). CPIC documentation is managed through USDA. The USDA E-Board approved FPA-2 on August 29, 2007 to continue operations under the CPIC Control Phase.

 

 

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)

 

 

Daniel Keller

 

 

Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

303-236-0635

 

 

E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

dkeller@fs.fed.us

 

 

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

 

 

 

TBD

 

 

I. A. 12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project?   

 

 

 

no

 

 

I. A. 12. a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 12. b. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only)   

 

 

 

no

 

 

I. A. 12. b. 1. If "yes," is an ESPC or UESC being used to help fund this investment?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. A. 12. b. 2. If "yes," will this investment meet sustainable design principles?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. A. 12. b. 3. If "yes," is it designed to be 30% more energy efficient than relevant code?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. A. 13. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 13. a. If "yes," check all that apply:   

 

 

 

Budget Performance Integration

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)

 

 

Developing FPA-2 will support (1) budget and performance integration and (2) expanded electronic government. FPA-2 will result in a federal interagency, objective driven, performance based fire program analysis for budgeting and organization planning. The project will use the web to provide government-to-government functionality and will result in a single, common planning and budgeting application for all five federal wildland fire agencies, state, and tribal governments.

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

Level 3

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

I. A. 20. a. Hardware   

 

 

 

10

 

 

I. A. 20. b. Software   

 

 

 

5

 

 

I. A. 20. c. Services   

 

 

 

85

 

 

I. A. 20. d. Other   

 

 

 

0

 

 

I. A. 21. If this project produces information dissemination products for the public, are these products published to the Internet in conformance with OMB Memorandum 05-04 and included in your agency inventory, schedules and priorities?   

 

 

 

n/a

 

 

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

 

 

I. A. 22. a. Name   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Daniel Keller

 

 

I. A. 22. b. Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

303-236-0635

 

 

I. A. 22. c. Title   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Project Manager

 

 

I. A. 22. d. E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

dkeller@fs.fed.us

 

 

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

2.710

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

Acquisition

1.676

5.001

6.950

0

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal Planning & Acquisition

4.386

5.001

6.950

0

 

 

 

 

 

Operations & Maintenance

3.201

0.251

0

1.652

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

7.587

5.252

6.950

1.652

 

 

 

 

 

Government FTE Costs

1.640

0.550

0.550

0.550

 

 

 

 

 

Number of FTE represented by cost

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. B. 3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The total cost of FPA-2 in the Summary of Spending (SOS) total gone down slightly from the first year's submission in Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) as well as last year's FY06 budget request. This is in response to Forest Service budget cuts. The total estimated cost (including FTEs) for FPA-2 was in FY05 was $36,224,000. The total estimated cost (including FTEs) in FY06 was $35,819,000, including FTEs. The total cost estimate (including FTEs) for FY07 is $32,352,724.

 

 

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)

 

 

The FPA-2 project uses the earned value management (EVM) methodology and reports EVM data monthly for all activities in the project baseline using the USDA WorkLenz tool. An Independent Baseline Review (IBR) was successfully completed for FPA in 2006. The IBR did result in required actions before complying with the ANSI requirements; all action items were successfully completed in 2006. In 2006, the FPA project was deemed compliant with ANSI 748-A EVM requirements To maintain EVM compliance, FPA-2 Project Manager uses a combination of WorkLenz, activity estimation tools, and actual cost tracking tools, as well as a suite of project management documents. For example, the FPA Project Manager has created a Work authorization Document, as well as Project Management Plan, Work Breakdown Structure Dictionary, and a Performance Measurement Plan. These plans provide the framework for managing the FPA Project and for ensuring that EVM requirements are met. The project baseline is described in Section C of this Exhibit 300. In addition, IBM?s design and development contract ? which accounts for approximately 95% of all contracting costs ? has been validated as ANSI-748A EVM compliant.

 

 

I. C. 3. Do the contracts ensure Section 508 compliance?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. C. 3. a. Explain Why:   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. C. 4. Is there an acquisition plan which has been approved in accordance with agency requirements?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. C. 4. a. If "yes," what is the date?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. C. 4. b. If "no," will an acquisition plan be developed?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. C. 4. b. 1. If "no," briefly explain why:   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

Section D: Performance Information (All Capital Assets)  

In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency’s mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure.

 

 

 

I. D. 1. Table 1. Performance Information Table   

 

In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency’s mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure.

Agencies must use the following table to report performance goals and measures for the major investment and use the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM). Map all Measurement Indicators to the corresponding "Measurement Area" and "Measurement Grouping" identified in the PRM. There should be at least one Measurement Indicator for each of the four different Measurement Areas (for each fiscal year). The PRM is available at www.egov.gov. The table can be extended to include performance measures for years beyond FY 2009.

 

 

 

Strategic Goal(s) Supported

Measurement Area

Measurement Grouping

Measurement Indicator

Baseline

Target

Actual Results

2006

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Mission and Business Results

Disaster Preparedness and Planning

Extent to which outcomes related to Information Lifecycle Management are achieved

Life cycle cost $36M. Deployment by 6/30/2008

Earned value indicates less than 10% variance in CPI, SPI and BAC.

Current CPI: 1.03. Current SPI: 0.98. BAC: $35,821,408

2006

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

Extent to which prototype users implement FPA

30 prototype users

Increase the number of users using and testing FPAv2 to more than 500 users from local Fire Planning Units (FPUs) as well as Regional, State, and National communities.

More than 550 prototype users are actively testing FPA.

2006

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Processes and Activities

Innovation and Improvement

# of fire program areas able to be analyzed using FPA

3; Initial response, wildland fire use, budget development and distribution

Increase to 6; Add extended attack, large fires, and prevention.

Completed IR, WFU and Budget analysis on 135 of 138 Fire Planning Units in April 2006.

2006

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Efficiency

Extent to which agencies use similar models, assumptions, and software to analyze fire program budget requests

Agencies use separate systems for fire program budget planning or have no systems at all.

All agencies use the same models, assumptions, and software to analyze budget requests

Completed national fire program budget analysis using FPA budget module. FPA results inform the budget.

2007

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Mission and Business Results

Disaster Preparedness and Planning

Extent to which outcomes related to Information Lifecycle Management are achieved

Life cycle cost $32,324,000.

Earned value indicates less than 10% variance in CPI, SPI and BAC, in accordance with USDA requirements.

Current CPI: 1.07 (as of 7/20/2007). Current SPI: 1.02 (as of 7/20/2007). BAC: $32,324,000.

2007

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

Extent to which participation from the seven Prototype areas participate in testing the Functional Prototype

Desire full participation by the seven Prototype areas in testing activities.

All seven Prototype areas participate in the testing activities.

All seven Prototype areas are currently participating in testing activities.

2007

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Processes and Activities

Innovation and Improvement

Extent to which the Functional Prototype provides the required modules

Three modules desired are Initial Response Simulation (IRS), Decision Support, and Large Fire.

The Functional Prototype includes all three modules.

The Functional Prototype includes all three modules.

2007

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Efficiency

Extent to which agencies use similar models, assumptions, and software to analyze fire program budget requests

Agencies use separate systems for fire program budget planning or have no systems at all.

All agencies use the same models, assumptions, and software to analyze budget requests

Prototype testing includes representatives of various agencies.

2007

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Reliability

% of unscheduled/ unplanned system down time of Functional Prototype infrastructure

Number of hours of unscheduled/ unplanned downtime

Prototype infrastructure available 95% of the time or more

Prototype infrastructure is available 95% of the time or more.

2008

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Mission and Business Results

Disaster Preparedness and Planning

Extent to which outcomes related to Information Lifecycle Management are achieved

Life cycle cost $32,324,000. Deployment by 6/30/2008.

Earned value indicates less than 10% variance in CPI, SPI and BAC.

Current CPI: . Current SPI: . BAC: 32,324,000

2008

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

Extent to which all FPUs begin to use the completed application (scheduled for June 30, 2008).

Seven FPUs participated in the testing of the Functional Prototype

Increase the number of users of the completed application to 25 FPUs

 

2008

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Processes and Activities

Innovation and Improvement

Extent to which the FPA application includes the following eight modules: 1) modeled performance measures, 2) costs, 3) decision support, 4) initial response simulation (IRS), 5) large fire, 6) fuels treatment and temporal considerations, 7) prevent

Three modules were included in the Functional Prototype: IRS, decision support, and large fire.

Increase the number of modules from three to all eight.

 

2008

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Efficiency

Extent to which agencies use similar models, assumptions, and software to analyze fire program budget requests

Agencies use separate systems for fire program budget planning or have no systems at all.

All agencies use the same models, assumptions, and software to analyze budget requests

 

2008

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Reliability

% of unscheduled/ unplanned system down time FPA infrastructure

Number of hours of unscheduled/ unplanned downtime

FPA available 95% of the time or more

 

2009

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Mission and Business Results

Disaster Preparedness and Planning

Extent to which outcomes related to Information Lifecycle Management are achieved

Life cycle cost $32,324,000.

Earned value indicates less than 10% variance in CPI, SPI and BAC.

Current CPI: . Current SPI: . BAC: 32,324,000

2009

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

Extent to which all FPUs use the completed FPA application for fire planning activities in 2010.

25 FPUs using FPA.

98% of FPUs using FPA.

 

2009

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Processes and Activities

Innovation and Improvement

Fully functioning application supports FPU- and national-level fire planning activities.

FPA is not yet used for fire planning activities

Full use of FPA for FPU- and national-level fire planning activities.

 

2009

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Efficiency

Extent to which agencies use similar models, assumptions, and software to analyze fire program budget requests

Agencies use separate systems for fire program budget planning or have no systems at all.

All agencies use the same models, assumptions, and software to analyze budget requests

 

2009

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Reliability

% of unscheduled/ unplanned system down time FPA infrastructure

Number of hours of unscheduled/ unplanned downtime

FPA available 95% of the time or more

 

2010

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Mission and Business Results

Disaster Preparedness and Planning

Extent to which outcomes related to Information Lifecycle Management are achieved

Life cycle cost $32,324,000.

Earned value indicates less than 10% variance in CPI, SPI and BAC.

Current CPI: ; Current SPI . BAC $32,324,000

2010

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

Extent to which all FPUs use the completed FPA application for fire planning activities in 2010.

98% of FPUs using FPA.

99% of FPUs using FPA.

 

2010

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Processes and Activities

Innovation and Improvement

Fully functioning application supports FPU- and national-level fire planning activities.

FPA is not yet used for fire planning activities

Full use of FPA for FPU- and national-level fire planning activities.

 

2010

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Efficiency

Extent to which agencies use similar models, assumptions, and software to analyze fire program budget requests

Agencies use separate systems for fire program budget planning or have no systems at all.

All agencies use the same models, assumptions, and software to analyze budget requests

 

2010

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Reliability

% of unscheduled/ unplanned system down time FPA infrastructure

Number of hours of unscheduled/ unplanned downtime

FPA available 95% of the time or more

 

2011

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Mission and Business Results

Disaster Preparedness and Planning

Extent to which outcomes related to Information Lifecycle Management are achieved

Agencies use separate systems for fire program budget planning or have no systems at all.

Earned value indicates less than 10% variance in CPI, SPI and BAC.

 

2011

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

Extent to which all FPUs use the completed FPA application for fire planning activities in 2010.

99% of FPUs using FPA.

100% of FPUs using FPA.

 

2011

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Processes and Activities

Innovation and Improvement

Fully functioning application supports FPU- and national-level fire planning activities.

FPA is not yet used for fire planning activities

Full use of FPA for FPU- and national-level fire planning activities.

 

2011

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Efficiency

Extent to which agencies use similar models, assumptions, and software to analyze fire program budget requests

Agencies use separate systems for fire program budget planning or have no systems at all.

All agencies use the same models, assumptions, and software to analyze budget requests

 

2011

USDA SP Goal 6: Protect and enhance the nation’s natural resource base and environment. FS SP Goal 1: Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire. Fire Plan Goal 1: Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression. DOI SP End Outcome Goal 1: Improve Protecti

Technology

Reliability

% of unscheduled/ unplanned system down time FPA infrastructure

Number of hours of unscheduled/ unplanned downtime

FPA available 95% of the time or more

 

 

 

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

In order to successfully address this area of the business case, each question below must be answered at the system/application level, not at a program or agency level. Systems supporting this investment on the planning and operational systems security tables should match the systems on the privacy table below. Systems on the Operational Security Table must be included on your agency FISMA system inventory and should be easily referenced in the inventory (i.e., should use the same name or identifier).

For existing Mixed-Life Cycle investments where enhancement, development, and/or modernization is planned, include the investment in both the “Systems in Planning” table (Table 3) and the “Operational Systems” table (Table 4). Systems which are already operational, but have enhancement, development, and/or modernization activity, should be included in both Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3 should reflect the planned date for the system changes to be complete and operational, and the planned date for the associated C&A update. Table 4 should reflect the current status of the requirements listed. In this context, information contained within Table 3 should characterize what updates to testing and documentation will occur before implementing the enhancements; and Table 4 should characterize the current state of the materials associated with the existing system.

All systems listed in the two security tables should be identified in the privacy table. The list of systems in the “Name of System” column of the privacy table (Table 8) should match the systems listed in columns titled “Name of System” in the security tables (Tables 3 and 4). For the Privacy table, it is possible that there may not be a one-to-one ratio between the list of systems and the related privacy documents. For example, one PIA could cover multiple systems. If this is the case, a working link to the PIA may be listed in column (d) of the privacy table more than once (for each system covered by the PIA).

 

 

 

I. E. 1. Have the IT security costs for the system(s) been identified and integrated into the overall costs of the investment?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 1. a. If "yes," provide the "Percentage IT Security" for the budget year:   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 2. Is identifying and assessing security and privacy risks a part of the overall risk management effort for each system supporting or part of this investment?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 3. Systems in Planning and Undergoing Enhancement(s) – Security Table:   

 

The questions asking whether there is a PIA which covers the system and whether a SORN is required for the system are discrete from the narrative fields. The narrative column provides an opportunity for free text explanation why a working link is not provided. For example, a SORN may be required for the system, but the system is not yet operational. In this circumstance, answer “yes” for column (e) and in the narrative in column (f), explain that because the system is not operational the SORN is not yet required to be published.

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 4. Operational Systems - Security:   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 5. Have any weaknesses related to any of the systems part of or supporting this investment been identified by the agency or IG?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 5. a. If "yes," have those weaknesses been incorporated into the agency's plan of action and milestone process?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 6. Indicate whether an increase in IT security funding is requested to remediate IT security weaknesses?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 6. a. If "yes," specify the amount, provide a general description of the weakness, and explain how the funding request will remediate the weakness.   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 7. How are contractor security procedures monitored, verified, and validated by the agency for the contractor systems above?   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 8. Planning & Operational Systems - Privacy Table:   

 

Details for Text Options:
Column (d): If yes to (c), provide the link(s) to the publicly posted PIA(s) with which this system is associated. If no to (c), provide an explanation why the PIA has not been publicly posted or why the PIA has not been conducted.

Column (f): If yes to (e), provide the link(s) to where the current and up to date SORN(s) is published in the federal register. If no to (e), provide an explanation why the SORN has not been published or why there isn’t a current and up to date SORN.

Note: Links must be provided to specific documents not general privacy websites.

 

 

 

 

 

Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA) (IT Capital Assets only)  

In order to successfully address this area of the business case and capital asset plan you must ensure the investment is included in the agency's EA and Capital Planning and Invesment Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and supports the FEA. You must also ensure the business case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the business, performance, data, services, application, and technology layers of the agency's EA.

 

 

 

I. F. 1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. F. 1. a. If "no," please explain why?   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. F. 2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy?   

 

 

 

no

 

 

I. F. 2. a. If "yes," provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment.   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. F. 2. b. If "no," please explain why?   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

There is no transition activity underway at this time.

 

 

I. F. 3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture?   

 

 

 

no

 

 

I. F. 3. a. If "yes," provide the name of the segment architecture.   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. F. 4. Service Component Reference Model (SRM) Table :   

 

Identify the service components funded by this major IT investment (e.g., knowledge management, content management, customer relationship management, etc.). Provide this information in the format of the following table. For detailed guidance regarding components, please refer to http://www.egov.gov.

a. Use existing SRM Components or identify as “NEW”. A “NEW” component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM.
b. A reused component is one being funded by another investment, but being used by this investment. Rather than answer yes or no, identify the reused service component funded by the other investment and identify the other investment using the Unique Project Identifier (UPI) code from the OMB Ex 300 or Ex 53 submission.
c. ‘Internal’ reuse is within an agency. For example, one agency within a department is reusing a service component provided by another agency within the same department. ‘External’ reuse is one agency within a department reusing a service component provided by another agency in another department. A good example of this is an E-Gov initiative service being reused by multiple organizations across the federal government.
d. Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount transferred to another agency to pay for the service. The percentages in this column can, but are not required to, add up to 100%.

 

 

 

Agency Component Description

FEA SRM Service Type

FEA SRM Component (a)

Service Component Reused - Component Name (b)

Service Component Reused - UPI (b)

Internal or External Reuse? (c)

BY Funding Percentage (d)

FPA-2 Access Control Service

Support Services

Security Management

Access Control

 

 

No Reuse

1

FPA-2 Rules Management Service

Business Management Services

Management of Processes

Business Rule Management

 

 

No Reuse

1

FPA-2 Categorization Service

Digital Asset Services

Knowledge Management

Categorization

 

 

No Reuse

2

FPA-2 Data Classification Service

Back Offices Services

Data Management

Data Classification

 

 

No Reuse

3

FPA-2 Data Exchange Service

Back Offices Services

Data Management

Data Exchange

 

 

No Reuse

3

FPA-2 Data Integration Service

Back Offices Services

Development and Integration

Data Integration

 

 

No Reuse

2

FPA-2 Decision Support Service

Business Analytical Services

Business Intelligence

Decision Support and Planning

 

 

No Reuse

3

FPA-2 Forecasting Service

Business Analytical Services

Business Intelligence

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

 

 

No Reuse

3

FPA-2 Authentication Service

Support Services

Security Management

Identification and Authentication

 

 

No Reuse

1

FPA-2 Retrieval Service

Digital Asset Services

Knowledge Management

Information Retrieval

 

 

No Reuse

2

FPA-2 Geospatial Service

Business Analytical Services

Visualization

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

 

 

No Reuse

5

FPA-2 Mathematical Analysis Service

Business Analytical Services

Analysis and Statistics

Mathematical

 

 

No Reuse

10

FPA-2 Meta Data service

Back Offices Services

Data Management

Meta Data Management

 

 

No Reuse

5

FPA-2 Modeling Service

Business Analytical Services

Knowledge Discovery

Modeling

 

 

No Reuse

20

FPA-2 Simulation Service

Business Analytical Services

Knowledge Discovery

Simulation

 

 

No Reuse

20

FPA-2 Reports Service

Business Analytical Services

Reporting

Standardized / Canned

 

 

No Reuse

5

 

 

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)

Access Control

Component Framework

Security

Certificates / Digital Signatures

SSL

Access Control

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Authentication / Single Sign-on

LDAP

Access Control

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Hosting

Internal

Access Control

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

Security

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Network Devices / Standards

Hub, Switch, Router, Network Interface Card, Transceivers, Gateway, ISDN, T1/T3, DSL, Firewall

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Wide Area Network (WAN)

ATM

Business Rule Management

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

EJB

Business Rule Management

Component Framework

Security

Certificates / Digital Signatures

SSL

Business Rule Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Business Rule Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Business Rule Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Business Rule Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Modeling

CASE

Categorization

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

EJB

Categorization

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Format / Classification

XML

Categorization

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

XML Schema

Categorization

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Categorization

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Categorization

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Categorization

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Modeling

CASE

Data Classification

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

XMI

Data Classification

Component Framework

Data Management

Database Connectivity

JDBC

Data Classification

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Hosting

Internal

Data Classification

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Data Classification

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Data Exchange

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

XMI

Data Exchange

Component Framework

Data Management

Database Connectivity

JDBC

Data Exchange

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

Web Service

Data Exchange

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Hosting

Internal

Data Exchange

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

IP

Data Exchange

Service Interface and Integration

Interface

Service Description / Interface

WSDL

Data Exchange

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Format / Classification

XML

Data Exchange

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

XML Schema

Data Exchange

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Data Exchange

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

WebSphere

Data Exchange

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Data Exchange

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Data Exchange

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Data Integration

Component Framework

Data Interchange

Data Exchange

XMI

Data Integration

Component Framework

Data Management

Database Connectivity

JDBC

Data Integration

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

Web Service

Data Integration

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Hosting

Internal

Data Integration

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Format / Classification

XML

Data Integration

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

XML Schema

Data Integration

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Data Integration

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Decision Support and Planning

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

EJB

Decision Support and Planning

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

WebSphere

Decision Support and Planning

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Decision Support and Planning

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Decision Support and Planning

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Decision Support and Planning

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Decision Support and Planning

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Modeling

CASE

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

EJB

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

WebSphere

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Demand Forecasting / Mgmt

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Modeling

CASE

Identification and Authentication

Component Framework

Security

Web Browser

SSL

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Authentication / Single Sign-on

TBD

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Hosting

Internal

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

Security

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

HTTPS

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Network Devices / Standards

Hub, Switch, Router, Network Interface Card, Transceivers, Gateway, ISDN, T1/T3, DSL, Firewall

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Wide Area Network (WAN)

ATM

Information Retrieval

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

EJB

Information Retrieval

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Content Rendering

DHTML

Information Retrieval

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Dynamic Server-Side Display

JSP

Information Retrieval

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Static Display

HTML

Information Retrieval

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

Web Service

Information Retrieval

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Internet Explorer

Information Retrieval

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

TBD

Information Retrieval

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

IP

Information Retrieval

Service Interface and Integration

Interface

Web Browser

WSDL

Information Retrieval

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Format / Classification

XML

Information Retrieval

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

XML Schema

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

WebSphere

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Network Devices / Standards

Hub, Switch, Router, Network Interface Card, Transceivers, Gateway, ISDN, T1/T3, DSL, Firewall

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Information Retrieval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Modeling

CASE

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Content Rendering

DHTML

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Dynamic Server-Side Display

JSP

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Static Display

HTML

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

Web Service

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Internet Explorer

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

TBD

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Mapping / Geospatial / Elevation / GPS

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Mathematical

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Mathematical

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Mathematical

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Mathematical

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Modeling

CASE

Mathematical

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

EJB

Mathematical

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

Web Service

Meta Data Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Hosting

Internal

Meta Data Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Meta Data Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Meta Data Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Modeling

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

EJB

Modeling

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

Web Service

Modeling

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Internet Explorer

Modeling

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

TBD

Modeling

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

WebSphere

Modeling

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Modeling

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Modeling

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Modeling

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Modeling

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Modeling

CASE

Standardized / Canned

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

EJB

Standardized / Canned

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Content Rendering

DHTML

Standardized / Canned

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Dynamic Server-Side Display

JSP

Standardized / Canned

Component Framework

Presentation / Interface

Static Display

HTML

Standardized / Canned

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

Web Service

Standardized / Canned

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Internet Explorer

Standardized / Canned

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

TBD

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

WebSphere

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Service Description / Interface

CASE

Standardized / Canned

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

TBD

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

WebSphere

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

RAM, Hard Disk Drive, Microprocessor, Redundant Array of Independent Disks

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Integrated Development Environment

WebSphere Studio

Standardized / Canned

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Modeling

CASE

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The FPA project team has identified three key Presidential Initiatives to leverage: Disaster Management, Geospatial One-Stop, and the ESRI Smart Buy Initiative. The Disaster Management Initiative focuses on helping citizens and members of the emergency management community at the local, tribal, state, and Federal levels by improving public safety response through more effective and efficient interoperable data communications and to serve as a unified point of access to disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery information (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/c-2-2-disaster.html ). The FPA project is aligned with this initiative. Information on FPA is available through the Web site, http://www.disasterhelp.gov. In May of 2005, OMB agreed with FPAs assertion that alignment with this initiative is in progress. The Geospatial One Stop Initiative provides Federal and state agencies with single a point of access to map-related data enabling the sharing of existing data to maximize geospatial investments to leverage resources and reduce redundancies (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/c-2-1-geo.html). FPA-2 will include geospatial data. This data will be obtained from the US Geological Survey (USGS); no new geospatial data will be created as part of FPA-2. The ESRI Smart Buy initiative simplifies procurement of software and services for employees of the U.S. federal government (http://www.esri.com/industries/federal/products/fgp.html) Under FPA-PM, ESRI software was procured using the ESRI Smart Buy initiative. As a result, no new GIS software will be needed for FPA-2. Therefore, alignment with this initiative was completed under FPA-PM.

 

 

PART II: PLANNING, ACQUISITION AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION  

Part II should be completed only for investments identified as “Planning” or “Full-Acquisition,” or “Mixed Life-Cycle” investments in response to Question 6 in Part I, Section A above

 

 

 

Section A: Alternatives Analysis (All Capital Assets)  

In selecting the best capital asset, you should identify and consider at least three viable alternatives, in addition to the current baseline, i.e., the status quo. Use OMB Circular A-94 for all investments and the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 for IT investments to determine the criteria you should use in your Benefit/Cost Analysis.

 

 

 

II. A. 1. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this project?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

II. A. 1. a. If "yes," provide the date the analysis was completed?   

 

 

 

2005-08-15

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

Staged development and implementation. The scope is the same as Alternative 2 plus Fuels, and Rehabilitation and Restoration Modules. Sequential and joint development of functional modules, using a single team and spiral software development. Lessons learned will be leveraged, as will reusable components and development patterns. Use of common open standards (e.g., XML).

113833356.000

70060526.000

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The analysis of both costs and benefits was developed using a risk adjusted methodology. This methodology is known as the expected value methodology and is detailed in the Economic Analysis Handbook published by the Defense Economic Analysis Council. An evaluation of discounted financial returns as well as risk adjusted discounted financial returns has determined that Alternative 3 presents the most favorable risk adjusted outcome. Also, a review of quantifiable non-financial benefits has determined that Alternative 3 presents the most favorable outcome with regard to work process simplification and enhanced consistency in fire program analysis.

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

Qualitative benefits were assessed in the following areas: accuracy, availability, compatibility, efficiency, maintainability, modularity, reliability, and security. A summary of the qualitative benefits of the selected alternative are as follows: 1) The selected alternative improves accuracy through reduced data entry. All FPA modules will be integrated to promote automated data exchange and analysis. Elimination of manual data transfers should improve data accuracy. 2) Alternative 3 will require the most time to implement. The schedule for implementation is in FY09 for the FY11 budget. However, all FPA functional modules will be fully integrated. No additional projects will be required to automate manual operations. 3) The functional modules will apply existing business rules and automate manual procedures, processes, and calculations. The modules will be consistent with interagency WFM policy; however, individual WFM agencies may currently use agency-specific processes. 4) Alternative 3 is expected to offer faster and more accurate processing of WFM planning and analysis versus Alternatives 1 & 2. Information exchanged between all FPA functional modules will be integrated through automated processes. A significant reduction in the number of work processes (primarily data translation and transfer) is expected to be achieved through this alternative. 5) Alternative 3 is expected to have the lowest and maintenance costs of the three alternatives. The comprehensive integration and use of services oriented messaging between functional modules provides the most maintainable configuration over the evaluation period. 6) This alternative will utilize modular software design following. All functional modules will be fully modular and integrated, utilizing services oriented design patterns. 7) Alternative 3 is expected to be the most reliable configuration of the alternatives. All FPA modules will be integrated eliminating the use of manual data transfers and integration. This alternative will utilize hardware and software components that are compliant with technical reference models issued by the Forest Service, USDA, DOI, and the FEA. 8) This alternative will provide information audit trail capability and a repeatable process for secure data integration across all of the FPA-2 functional modules. Alternative 3 is offers the optimal security configuration of all the FPA-2 alternatives.

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

Legacy Investment

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

UPI if available

Date of the System Retirement

National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS)

 

2008-07-30

Interagency Initial Attack Assessment (IIAS)

 

2008-07-30

FirePro (DOI Park Service)

 

2008-07-30

FireBase (DOI Fish and Wildlife Service)

 

2008-07-30

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2007-05-15

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

Life cycle cost estimates were developed with consideration of risk. Sufficient risk reserve was included in the LCC to account for overall project uncertainty, specifically in the out years where risk and uncertainty increase. Because of the nature of the out year budget planning and due to the budget constraints of the Forest Service, funding and schedule are generally fixed. As a result, risk adjustments have the effect of reducing scope.

 

 

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