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:   

 

 

 

32

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

APHIS Comprehensive Electronic Permit System (ePermits)

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

005-32-01-61-01-2001-00

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

FY2004

 

 

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)

 

 

APHIS Electronic Permits System (ePermits) provides a web-based tool that will enable industry to apply for APHIS permits and subsequently allow APHIS regulatory officials to issue/print, track, and rapidly verify the validity of a Federal Import Permit. The overall objective for ePermits is to establish a comprehensive electronic permit data collection and management system to track all activities associated with APHIS regulatory import permit processes. ePermits will greatly reduce the burden placed on US citizens in need of permits by providing a Web-based tool that enables the public to apply for, check application status, and receive permits on-line.

 

 

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)

 

 

Alison Young

 

 

Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

301-734-5226

 

 

E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Alison.I.Young@aphis.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:   

 

 

 

Budget Performance Integration

Financial Performance

Expanded E-Government

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

ePermits addresses the Presidents Management Agenda (PMA) for Improved Financial Management by providing enhanced capabilities to collect and track user fees associated with the issuance of permits and will be tied directly to Treasury's Pay.gov website. The system will also rely on several USDA e-Gov Smart Choice initiatives to become fully integrated with the USDA strategy. APHIS anticipates that ePermits would align with the USDA ePermits/Certificates LOB.

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

In FY 2005, APHIS Monitoring and Surveillance programs and Biotechnology Regulatory Services were assessed. In FY 2006, APHIS Pest and Disease Exclusion programs and Import- Export were assessed.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Effective

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

Level 3

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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   

 

 

 

4

 

 

I. A. 20. b. Software   

 

 

 

4

 

 

I. A. 20. c. Services   

 

 

 

92

 

 

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)

 

 

Tammi Hines

 

 

I. A. 22. b. Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

301-734-8296

 

 

I. A. 22. c. Title   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Privacy Officer

 

 

I. A. 22. d. E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Tammi.S.Hines@aphis.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:

 

 

yes

 

 

Section B: Summary of Spending (All Capital Assets)  

 

 

I. B. 1. Provide the total estimated life-cycle cost for this investment by completing the following table. All amounts represent budget authority in millions, and are rounded to three decimal places. Federal personnel costs should be included only in the row designated "Government FTE Cost," and should be excluded from the amounts shown for "Planning," "Full Acquisition," and "Operation/Maintenance." The "TOTAL" estimated annual cost of the investment is the sum of costs for "Planning," "Full Acquisition," and "Operation/Maintenance." For Federal buildings and facilities, life-cycle costs should include long term energy, environmental, decommissioning, and/or restoration costs. The costs associated with the entire life-cycle of the investment should be included in this report.   

 

Note: For the cross-agency investments, this table should include all funding (both managing and partner agencies).
Government FTE Costs should not be included as part of the TOTAL represented.

 

 

 

PY-1 Spending Prior to 2007

PY 2007

CY 2008

BY 2009

BY+1 2010

BY+2 2011

BY+3 2012

BY+4 2013 and Beyond

Total

Planning

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

Acquisition

9.740

1.720

0.800

1.160

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal Planning & Acquisition

9.740

1.720

0.800

1.160

 

 

 

 

 

Operations & Maintenance

0

0

1.519

1.820

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

9.740

1.720

2.319

2.980

 

 

 

 

 

Government FTE Costs

0.282

0.141

0.146

0.152

 

 

 

 

 

Number of FTE represented by cost

2

2

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

A slight increase of about $630,000 was added to the FY08 budget figures over the FY07 Presidents Budget for FY 2008. This increase was to cover D/M/E as needed as a result of changes to the regulatory process for permit issuance and to collect user fees on-line for new permits not previously included. In addition, server hosting charges rose slightly and Federal FTEs were included in the estimates. There have been no increases identified for FY09 and beyond over what was identified in FY08.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Section D: Performance Information (All Capital Assets)  

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

Strategic Goal(s) Supported

Measurement Area

Measurement Grouping

Measurement Indicator

Baseline

Target

Actual Results

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Mission and Business Results

Border and Transportation Security

Improved coordination in safeguarding the health of animals, plants, and ecosystems (supports APHIS strategic mission and goals)

3 independent permit programs

3 ePermit programs (enabling consistent management oversight) and 5 independent programs

Three programs: Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), and Veterinary Services (VS).

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

Additional Applicants using system

# Applicants using new forms

10% of applications received on line for VS and PPQ

As of 7/5/06, 32% of PPQ and VS applications were submitted electronically by applicants.

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Mission and Business Results

Payments

Payments

Collect and Process User Fees

# of Permits Collecting Fees on-line

As of 7/5/06, fees are being collected online for 2 permit application form types.

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

# Users in ePermits process (supports eGov and PMA focus on Citizens)

No external users

2 external groups provided access to software

As of 7/6/06, 2 external groups are using the system: general applicant community using web access, and BRS applicant community using XML.

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

Response Time

Timeliness of response to permit application (supports eGov/PMA and the government and adoption efficiencies in the Alternatives Analysis)

90 days

15% reduction in turn-around time for implemented permit programs

As of 7/6/06, BRS Notification (17 days), VS On-hold shipment (18 days), PPQ 526 (55 days), PPQ 585 (1 day), PPQ 587 (4 days), PPQ 588 (13 days), PPQ 621 (4 days), VS 16-3 (20 days).

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

Number of applicants using ePermits instead of manual processes and applications (supports government efficiency and adoption benefits in Alternatives Analysis)

No applications submitted using ePermits

At least 10% of APHIS permit applications received electronically through ePermits for the Release 2 import programs

As of 7/5/06, 34% of applications were submitted electronically by applicants.

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

# Applicants registered with eAuthentication

0 applicants registered

25% of applications received electronically for forms implemented

As of 7/5/06, 34% of applications were submitted electronically by applicants.

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Technology

Availability

Number of new permits/forms automated (supports GPEA requirements, eGov/PMA customer satisfaction, and government efficiency benefit in Alternatives Analysis)

2 forms automated in pilot

10 total forms automated

10 forms: (1) PPQ 526, (2) PPQ 585, (3) PPQ 587, (4) PPQ 588, (5) (6) PPQ 621, (7) BRS Notification, (8) VS 16-3 for animal products, (9) VS 16-3 for organisms and vectors, (10) VS 16-7

2006

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Technology

User Satisfaction

User Satisfaction

# Repeat Customers using system

>60% use ePermits vs. paper

As of 7/6/06, 37% of applicants have submitted more than 1 application.

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Mission and Business Results

Border and Transportation Security

Improved coordination in safeguarding the health of animals, plants, and ecosystems (supports APHIS strategic mission and goals)

3 independent permit programs

3 ePermit programs (enabling consistent management oversight) and 5 independent programs

3 programs: BRS, PPQ, and VS; 6 independent programs: PPQ State Plant Health Directors (SPHDs), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 42 State Plant Regulatory Officials (SPROs), Area Veterinary in Charge (AVICs), PPQ and VS East & West R

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

Additional Applicants using system

# Applicants using new forms

35% of applications received on line for VS and PPQ

As of 5/22/07, 35% of PPQ and VS applications were submitted electronically by applicants (7,923 out of 22,408).

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Mission and Business Results

Payments

Increased payments collected online

Collect and Process User Fees

# of Permits Collecting Fees on-line for PPQ

As of 5/22/07, fees are being collected online for 3 permit application form types (VS 16-3, VS 17-129 and PPQ 621).

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

# Users in ePermits process (supports eGov and PMA focus on Citizens

2 external groups

4 external user groups (2 additional user groups) provided access to software

As of 5/22/07, 3 external groups are using the system: general applicant community using web access, BRS applicant community using XML, and CBP inspectors searching for and viewing permits.

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

Response Time

Timeliness of response to permit application (supports eGov/PMA and the government and adoption efficiencies in the Alternatives Analysis)

90 days

15% reduction in turn-around time for implemented permit programs

BRS Notification (37 days), BRS Permit (41 days), PPQ 525 (17 days), PPQ 526 (65 days), PPQ 546 (34 days), PPQ 585 (2 days), PPQ 586 (7 days), PPQ 587 (33 days), ), PPQ 588 (19 days), PPQ 621 (34 days), VS 16-3 (25 days), On-holdshipmnt (7 days).

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

Number of applicants using ePermits instead of manual processes and applications (supports government efficiency and adoption benefits in Alternatives Analysis)

No applications submitted using ePermits

At least 35% of APHIS permit applications received electronically through ePermits for the Release 3 import programs

As of 5/22/07, 27% of Release 3 applications (BRS Permit, PPQ 525, PPQ 546, PPQ 586, and VS 2005) applications were submitted electronically by applicants. The rate of electronic submission for all forms in the system is 38%.

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

# Applicants registered with eAuthentication

0 applicants registered

25% of applications received electronically for forms implemented

As of 5/22/07, 38% of applications were submitted electronically by applicants.

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Technology

Availability

Number of new permits/forms automated (supports GPEA requirements, eGov/PMA customer satisfaction, and government efficiency benefit in Alternatives Analysis)

additional forms automated in Release 3

12 total forms automated

(1) PPQ525, (2) PPQ526 for PPs, (3) PPQ526 for SA, (4) PPQ546, (5) PPQ585, (6) PPQ586, (7) PPQ587, (8) PPQ588, (9) PPQ621, (10) BRS Notif, (11) BRS Permit, (12) VS16-3 for APs, (13) VS16-3 for O&V, (14) VS16-3 for SAs (15) VS on-hold, (16) VS16-7

2007

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Technology

User Satisfaction

User Satisfaction

# Repeat Customers using system

>60% use ePermits vs. paper

As of 5/21/07, 42% of applicants who submitted electronically have submitted more than 1 application.

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Mission and Business Results

Border and Transportation Security

Improved coordination in safeguarding the health of animals, plants, and ecosystems (supports APHIS strategic mission and goals)

3 independent permit programs

3 ePermit programs (enabling consistent management oversight) and 5 independent programs

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

Additional Applicants using system

# Applicants using new forms

35%of applications received on line for VS and PPQ

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Mission and Business Results

Payments

Increased number of online payments

Collect and Process User Fees

3 Permits Collecting Fees on-line

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

# Users in ePermits process (supports eGov and PMA focus on Citizens)

4 external users

5 external groups provided access to software

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

Response Time

Timeliness of response to permit application (supports eGov/PMA and the government and adoption efficiencies in the Alternatives Analysis)

75 days

15% reduction in turn-around time for implemented permit programs

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

Number of applicants using ePermits instead of manual processes and applications (supports government efficiency and adoption benefits in Alternatives Analysis)

No applications submitted using ePermits

At least 40% of APHIS permit applications received electronically through ePermits for the Release 3 import programs

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

# Applicants registered with eAuthentication

0 applicants registered

40% of applications received electronically for forms implemented

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Technology

Availability

Number of new permits/forms automated (supports GPEA requirements, eGov/PMA customer satisfaction, and government efficiency benefit in Alternatives Analysis)

forms automated in Release 4

12 total forms automated

TBD

2008

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Technology

User Satisfaction

User Satisfaction

# Repeat Customers using system

42% use ePermits vs. paper

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Mission and Business Results

Border and Transportation Security

Improved coordination in safeguarding the health of animals, plants, and ecosystems (supports APHIS strategic mission and goals)

3 independent permit programs

3 ePermit programs (enabling consistent management oversight) and 5 independent programs

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

Additional Applicants using system

# Applicants using new forms

40% of applications received on line for VS and PPQ

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Mission and Business Results

Payments

Payments

Collect and Process User Fees

# of Permits Collecting Fees on-line for PPQ

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

# Users in ePermits process (supports eGov and PMA focus on Citizens

2 external groups

5 external user groups (2 additional user groups) provided access to software

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

Response Time

Timeliness of response to permit application (supports eGov/PMA and the government and adoption efficiencies in the Alternatives Analysis)

75 days

10% reduction in turn-around time for implemented permit programs

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Processes and Activities

Efficiency

Number of applicants using ePermits instead of manual processes and applications (supports government efficiency and adoption benefits in Alternatives Analysis)

No applications submitted using ePermits

At least 50% of APHIS permit applications received electronically through ePermits for the Release 3 import programs

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Customer Results

New Customers and Market Penetration

# Applicants registered with eAuthentication

0 applicants registered

50% of applications received electronically for forms implemented

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Technology

Availability

Number of new permits/forms automated (supports GPEA requirements, eGov/PMA customer satisfaction, and government efficiency benefit in Alternatives Analysis)

additional forms automated in Release 3

12 total forms automated

TBD

2009

USDA Goal 1 and Goal 4

Technology

User Satisfaction

Increased user satisfaction

# Repeat Customers using system

50% use ePermits vs. paper

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).

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

Comprehensive Electronic Permit System (ePermits)

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

Agency Component Description

FEA SRM Service Type

FEA SRM Component (a)

Service Component Reused - Component Name (b)

Service Component Reused - UPI (b)

Internal or External Reuse? (c)

BY Funding Percentage (d)

Customer Preferences

ePermits will enable internal and external customers to retrieve notification and other permit-specific information and reports from a centralized and fully-integrated national database

Customer Preferences

Alerts and Notifications

 

 

No Reuse

30

Customer Initiated Assistance

ePermits will provide a self-service function or potential importers to identify which forms they are required to submit and obtain approval, denial, or other appropriate response to their request

Customer Initiated Assistance

Self-Service

 

 

No Reuse

20

Routing and Scheduling

ePermits will allow applicants to apply online, track the status of their request throughout the process, and receive the final APHIS response

Routing and Scheduling

Inbound Correspondence Management

 

 

No Reuse

10

Tracking and Workflow

ePermits will automate creation, approval, printing and tracking of regulatory import permits.

Tracking and Workflow

Process Tracking

 

 

No Reuse

30

Financial Management

ePermits will accept and track payments for permit applications and interface with USDA Finance Center and Pay.GOV for processing

Financial Management

Credit / Charge

 

 

No Reuse

0

Security Management

ePermits will be integrated with the USDA eAuthentication component for this functionality

Security Management

Identification and Authentication

Identification and Authentication

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

Internal

10

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

FEA TRM Service Area

FEA TRM Service Category

FEA TRM Service Standard

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

Self-Service

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Internet Explorer

Self-Service

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Internet Explorer

Inbound Correspondence Management

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Internet

Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP)

Inbound Correspondence Management

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Hosting

Internal (within Agency)

Inbound Correspondence Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

Section 508

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

Security

Identification and Authentication

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Authentication / Single Sign-on

Security

Inbound Correspondence Management

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP)

Inbound Correspondence Management

Service Access and Delivery

Support Platforms

Platform Independent

Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition (J2EE)

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Browser

Internet Information Server

Process Tracking

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Software Configuration Management

Requirements Management and Traceability

Process Tracking

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Test Management

Functional Testing

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

Enterprise Server

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Interoperability

Data Format / Classification

XML Schema

Identification and Authentication

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

XML Schema

Credit / Charge

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Internet

Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP)

 

 

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)

 

 

Yes, wherever possible. The system will utilize Treasury's Pay.Gov solution for user fee collection. At the Department level, the application is leveraging the eAuthentication module. Components that were developed for other federal agencies and reused in this alternative include (1) the Application Controller architecture framework, which is a framework for an object-oriented software architecture that provides event-based implicit-invocation, which provides high cohesion and loose coupling for ease of code maintenance and higher reusability; (2) Comprehensive error handling, which provides consistent complete error reporting throughout the application, as well as a sophisticated error logging and notification capability to communicate errors to the application support team immediately, in most cases before the user can report the problem to the help desk; and (3) Integrated Security, which controls access to every component in the system using user id/password authentication, timed logout functionality, role-based security for ease of administration, password obfuscation, and a host of other security features.

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2004-07-16

 

 

II. A. 1. b. If "no," what is the anticipated date this analysis will be completed?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. A. 1. c. If no analysis is planned, please briefly explain why:   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

II. A. 2. Use the results of your alternatives analysis to complete the following table:   

 

(Character Limitations: Alternative Analyzed - 250 characters; Description of Alternative - 500 Characters)

 

 

 

Description of Alternative

Risk Lifecycle Cost Estimate

Risk Lifecycle Benefits Estimate

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

3

?This alternative consists of a single system built using COTS and GOTS components. ?Instead of multiple new web-based systems, one for each program (BRS, PPQ, and VS) to handle their own permits, this alternative is made up of a single cross programmatic system.

20683.000

49904.000

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

Alternative 3 was chosen because it outperformed the other alternatives in all four quantitative decision criteria used and in the qualitative analysis. Risks associated with the 3 alternatives are incorporated into each of the cost elements. During the analysis it was determined that the difference in risk among 3 alternatives was negligible; therefore a quantitative risk analysis was conducted only on the chosen alternative. The status quo alternative was not included above as it was not acceptable from a Homeland Security standpoint.

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The chosen alternative achieves significant quantitative benefits through the replacement of the costly labor-intensive business processes with less costly automated systems. While the government expects growth in workload, and thus process costs, this investment will reduce the rate of cost growth significantly. For the chosen alternative, the net present value is $21.5 million, the internal rate of return is 31%, the risk-adjusted return on investment is 219%, and the payback period is 5 years. In addition, a quantitative risk analysis was performed to determine risk-adjusted costs and the impact of these costs on the alternative analysis. The analysis accounted for the risks that are primarily government and/or not mitigated through the current fixed-price, performance-based contract. Costs of all other risks are transferred in the contractor?s fixed price estimates. As a result after evaluating all risks in the Risk Mitigation Plan, the resulting residual risk is $138K, accounting for less than 1% of the total budget. This factor does not impact the positive nature of Net Present Value or Return on Investment.

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

This Investment

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

UPI if available

Date of the System Retirement

Joint Permit System (JPS)

 

2010-12-31

PITS

 

2007-06-30

BIDS

 

2008-09-30

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2007-06-08

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

no

 

 

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)

 

 

For the 2009 to 2013 period, funding has been identified to maintain the system and to update the application software as regulatory changes occur. There are likely to be changes to the permit issuance process for Veterinary Services, Plant Protection and Quarantine and Biotechnology Regulatory Services. In addition to the regulatory changes, there are likely to be changes affecting the user fees charged for those who require a permit. Funding has been included in the 2009 budget for these regulatory changes. $1.2 million has been identified annually for the period 2009 through 2013 for regulatory changes and for workflow revisions required by the organization.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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