Exhibit 300 FY2009

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 300 FY2009  

 

 

PART I: SUMMARY INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION  

In Part I, complete Sections A, B, C, and D for all capital assets (IT and non-IT). Complete Sections E and F for IT capital assets.

 

 

 

Section A: Overview (All Capital Assets)  

The following series of questions are to be completed for all investments.

 

 

 

I. A. 1. Date of Submission:   

 

 

 

2007-09-10

 

 

I. A. 2. Agency:   

 

 

 

005

 

 

I. A. 3. Bureau:   

 

 

 

03

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Integrated Acquisition System

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

 

 

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)

 

 

The Integrated Acquisition System (IAS) addresses several of the USDA’s business objectives while meeting applicable federal financial and acquisition requirements and mandates. These objectives included improved internal controls, increased accessibility to procurement data, providing a standard platform for the USDA procurement community, and leveraging modern internet-based technology. The IAS solution will replace 10 legacy systems with a single enterprise-wide procurement system with the following core functionality: * Electronic requisition processing * Electronic contract management * Invoice approval * Interface to USDA’s financial system, the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) * System Administration and Reporting * Extensibility and scalability to support more advanced strategic and standardized acquisition management practices IAS is a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solution that is web-based and compliant with Section 508 accessibility standards. IAS interfaces to two external systems, including FFIS and Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG). With FFIS, IAS checks for funds availability, commits and obligates funds real-time and allows users to authorize vendor payment. With FPDS-NG, IAS feeds award information directly to the eGovernment system to satisfy mandated reporting requirements. In June 2006 IAS completed implementation of the core functionality to all USDA agencies. There are approximately 10,000 current users, with about 8,800 requisitioners and budget approvers and another 1,200 contracting officers. Since October 2004, IAS has processed over $2 billion dollars of committed expenditures. In FY2008 and FY2009, the program plans to implement additional functionality and incorporate changes to ensure continued compliance with USDA and Federal technology priorities. In FY2008, this will include compliance with USDA's eAuthentication initiative, purchase card reporting to FPDS-NG and establishing a datamart. Electronic catalogs and electronic solicitation are also under consideration to be added to the system. The IAS investment is in the Control phase of the USDA Capital Planning and Investment Control process and is updated monthly for cost, schedule, and technical performance. The investment baseline review that was conducted in the second quarter of FY2006 did not identify any major corrective actions for the IAS program.

 

 

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)

 

 

Ruby Harvey, PMP

 

 

Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

202-401-4081

 

 

E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

ruby.harvey@usda.gov

 

 

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

 

 

 

TBD

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

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)

 

 

USDA employees gain access to a single source for accurate and timely procurement information. IAS is used to inform decision-making and drive results in support of the Improved Financial Performance Initiative. IAS supports the Expanded E-Gov Initiative by replacing 10 legacy systems with an enterprise-wide system linked directly to the Departments core financial system. IAS increases efficiency, establishes a common solution, and enables best practices in acquisition and contract management.

 

 

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 2

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

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   

 

 

 

13

 

 

I. A. 20. b. Software   

 

 

 

11

 

 

I. A. 20. c. Services   

 

 

 

68

 

 

I. A. 20. d. Other   

 

 

 

8

 

 

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)

 

 

Nicole Gray

 

 

I. A. 22. b. Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

202-401-4081

 

 

I. A. 22. c. Title   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

O&M Technical Lead/IT Specialist/ISSPM

 

 

I. A. 22. d. E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

nicole.gray@usda.gov

 

 

I. A. 23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

I. A. 24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas?   

 

Question 24 must be answered by all Investments:

 

 

no

 

 

Section B: Summary of Spending (All Capital Assets)  

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

PY-1 Spending Prior to 2007

PY 2007

CY 2008

BY 2009

BY+1 2010

BY+2 2011

BY+3 2012

BY+4 2013 and Beyond

Total

Planning

12.510

1.050

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

Acquisition

27.820

0

4.165

2.269

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal Planning & Acquisition

40.330

1.050

4.165

2.269

 

 

 

 

 

Operations & Maintenance

62.800

13.690

13.749

12.940

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

103.130

14.740

17.914

15.209

 

 

 

 

 

Government FTE Costs

17.110

1.290

1.918

2.276

 

 

 

 

 

Number of FTE represented by cost

126

10

11

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

Changes from the FY2008 President's budget request in this year's Summary of Spending table are reflected in the FY2007 actual expenditures, FY2006 operating plan and Operations and Maintenance totals for FY2007 through FY2011. Reduced budget allocations occurred in FY2007, and are expected for FY2008 and FY2009. The total cost of the system is now expected to be $190.5 million. This increase results from adding systems functionality to IAS. As occurred in FY2007 and documented in the FY2008 Exhibit 300, USDA reviewed and reprioritized the Departmental budget for FY2007 and the out-years, which resulted in reduced funding for IAS. By strategically reprioritizing planned activities and milestones, the program was still able to complete implementation of the core application across the enterprise as scheduled by third quarter of FY2006. As a result, users across the enterprise are now able to realize the benefits delivered through the core functionality of the system. Completing IAS's implementation has also allowed the program to commence shutting down legacy systems earlier than planned. Due to considerable funding reductions in FY07, planned extended functionality to further enhance IAS was not feasible. FY2008 funding includes planned expenditures on development activities for some of the originally-envisioned extended functionality features of the system that had been previously deferred or curtailed. IAS program managers have reexamined the funding requirements for other future activities and infrastructure support in the operations and maintenance phase, such as help desk, training, network connections, and hardware refresh.

 

 

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

 

 

I. C. 1. Complete the table for all (including all non-Federal) contracts and/or task orders currently in place or planned for this investment. Total Value should include all option years for each contract. Contracts and/or task orders completed do not need to be included.   

 

SIS - Share in Services contract; ESPC - Energy savings performance contract ; UESC - Utility energy efficiency service contract; EUL - Enhanced use lease contract; N/A - no alternative financing used.
(Character Limitations: Contract or Task Order Number - 250 Characters; Type of Contract/Task Order - 250 Characters; Name of CO - 250 Characters; CO Contact Information - 250 Characters)

 

 

 

 

 

I. C. 2. If earned value is not required or will not be a contract requirement for any of the contracts or task orders above, explain why:   

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. C. 3. a. Explain Why:   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

Section D: Performance Information (All Capital Assets)  

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

Strategic Goal(s) Supported

Measurement Area

Measurement Grouping

Measurement Indicator

Baseline

Target

Actual Results

2005

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

IT Infrastructure Maintenance

Number of redundant procurement-related applications or systems

10 stove-pipe legacy acquisition systems exist at the end of FY04

Reduce redundant systems by 40% by end of FY05 over FY02 levels

40% (4 out of 10) legacy systems have been retired

2005

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Goods Acquisition

Extent to which USDA procurement actions (requisition, issuance of RFI/P/Q, award notification, delivery of commitment accounting documentation to finance staff, reconciliation of payments made with contracts) are conducted/ processed electronically

Each of the 10 USDA agencies or offices with procurement authority have manual processes, whether in their requisition process, contract management, or manual update to the USDA financial system

Increase USDA procurement actions over IAS to 39.1% by end of FY05 over FY02 levels

Procurement actions increased to 74%

2005

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

Innovation and Improvement

Number of acquisition-related systems or applications upgraded for compatibility with e-government or new e-government-related information and computer systems installed

0% of procurements systems have been completely migrated to IAS because no transactions are automatically transferred to FFIS. Nine of the legacy acquisition systems are client server and one is a mainframe. Each agency maintains manual processes.

USDA procurement systems have migrated 40% to IAS which is an e-government related system

70% of the USDA procurement systems have migrated to IAS

2005

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

Improvement

Number of procurement-related management processes reviewed or redesigned for compatibility with e-government initiatives and services

All 10 agencies with procurement authority used manual processes to support requisition and contract management activities

All agency processes (40%) have been reviewed and redesigned to comply with the processes put forth by the IAS project

70% of the USDA procurement processes have been redesigned by the IAS project.

2005

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Customer Results

Customer Training

Percentage of eligible USDA employees trained on the use of procurement e-business tools

The majority of the 10 USDA legacy systems do not offer training. 8.95% of eligible IAS users are trained

Train 39.1% of eligible users on the use of IAS. 95% of IAS users indicating less need for manual record keeping. Improve overall user satisfaction with IAS by 10% as indicated by user survey results

74% of eligible users trained on IAS. User surveys were not conducted in FY05. Plan to conduct surveys for FY07. User surveys were not conducted in FY05. Plan to conduct surveys for FY07.

2005

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

Percentage of the total user population supported by Procurement Help Desk. Percentage of customers satisfied with procurement help desk. Percentage of users with ability to submit change request.

IAS Help desk deployed to 8.95% of users. Since the Help Desk was started in October, 2004, there is no baseline for FY03. 8.95% of total users have the ability to submit change requests

Deploy Help Desk support to additional 30.09% of total user population. Increase employee satisfaction with Help Desk by 15% over FY03 levels. 39.1% of users have the ability to submit change requests through the IAS

Help desk deployed to 74% of user population. Conducted Help desk survey in FY05. 50% of users indicated General Satisfaction with ser vice. 74% of users have ability to submit change requests.

2005

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

Availability

Percentage of IAS availability ? system uptime

99.99% IAS availability. The 10 USDA systems have varying availability and maintenance requirements

IAS availability at 99.99% (uptime)

99.75%

2005

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

Compliance and Deviations

Rate of discrepancies between data housed in the core financial system and in Department procurement applications

Only 1 of 10 legacy systems has an automated interface to the USDA financial system

Decrease discrepancies by 50% of FY02 levels (FY02 estimate: 50% between PRCH and FFIS)

Due to the FFIS / IAS interface that automatically transmits funding data from the requisition to the financial system, the discrepancy rate has significantly decreased.

2006

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Goods Acquisition

Number of cross serviced procurements. A cross serviced procurement is defined as a funded request from one agency that is actually procured by another agency.

Two agencies (FSA and DASO) cross-serviced a total of 30 documents in FY05.

Increase the number of cross-serviced procurements by 10% over FY05 levels

Goal met. As of August, 2006 there are four agencies (FSA, DASO, MRP & REE) that cross serviced a total of 220 documents, representing a 633% increase.

2006

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Compliance

Extent to which USDA procurement actions (requisition, issuance of RFI/P/Q, award notification, delivery of commitment accounting documentation to finance staff, reconciliation of payments made with contracts) are conducted/processed electronically.

Each of the 10 USDA agencies or offices with procurement authority have manual processes, whether in their requisition process, contract management, or manual update to the USDA financial system.

Increase USDA procurement actions electronically over IAS from 74% in 2005 to 100% in 2006.

Goal met. Procurement actions increased to 100% in 2006. Planned user counts were a proxy for amount of actions conducted electronically.

2006

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

Cycle Time

Average USDA acquisition cycle time, or PALT; Procurement Action Lead Time (PALT) is defined as the number of days between a requisitions approval and release to FFIS and the subsequent awards release and approval by FFIS.

PALT in FY05: 26.5

Decrease average acquisition cycle time by 10% over FY05 levels

Goal met. PALT in FY06: 18.3, 31% decrease

2006

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

Percentage of the total user population supported by the IAS Help Desk. Percentage of customers satisfied with the IAS Help Desk. Percentage of users with ability to submit change request.

The majority of USDA agencies did not offer help desk support for the legacy procurement systems. A majority of users indicate overall dissatisfaction with legacy functions. Users indicate minimal ability to submit change requests.

Deploy Help Desk support to an additional 61% of users. Increase employee satisfaction with Help Desk by 15% over FY03 levels. 100% of total users have the ability to submit change requests through IAS.

Help desk deployed to 100% of user population. Help desk survey conducted in FY05 provided a 50% positive answer for General Satisfaction. 100% of users have ability to submit change requests.

2006

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Customer Results

Customer Training

Percentage of eligible USDA employees trained on the use of procurement e-business tools

In the legacy environment, e-government acquisition tools did not exist.

100% of eligible employees are trained

Goal met. 100% of eligible employees have been trained.

2006

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

Availability

Percentage of IAS availability ? system uptime

The 10 USDA legacy systems had varying availability and maintenance requirements

IAS availability at 99.99% (uptime)

Goal met. The IAS system is available 99.99% of the time, not including scheduled maintenance

2006

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

Compliance and Deviations

Rate of discrepancies between data housed in the core financial system and in Department procurement applications

Only 1 of 10 legacy systems had an automated interface to the USDA financial system.

Achieve statistically insignificant number of discrepancies between IAS and FFIS.

Goal met. Based on recent A-123 internal controls testing, the number discrepancies of were statistically insignificant

2007

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

Cycle Time

Average USDA acquisition cycle time, or PALT; Procurement Action Lead Time (PALT) is defined as the number of days between a requisitions approval and release to FFIS and the subsequent awards release and approval by FFIS.

PALT FY06: 18.3

Decrease average acquisition cycle time by 15% over FY06 levels.

Goal Met. Average PALT 13.9

2007

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

Availability

Percentage of IAS availability ? system uptime (not including system maintenance)

The 10 USDA legacy systems had varying availability and maintenance requirements.

IAS availability at 99.99% (uptime)

Goal met. The IAS system is available 99.99% of the time, not including scheduled maintenanceGoal met. The IAS system is available 99.9

2007

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Customer Results

Customer Training

Percentage of eligible USDA employees trained on the use of procurement e-business tools

The majority of the 10 USDA legacy systems did not offer training.

100% of all eligible employees are trained. Refresher training will be available to 10% of IAS users annually.

Goal met. 100% of eligible employees have been trained

2007

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Goods Acquisition

Number of cross serviced procurements. A cross serviced procurement is defined as a funded request from one agency that is actually procured by another agency.

FY06 procurements: 220

Increase the number of cross-serviced procurements by 10% over FY06 levels

Goal met. 539 cross-serviced documents were entered into IAS.

2007

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

Internal Data Sharing

Percent of data shared across Department

No consolidated procurement reports or data warehouse

100% of procurement spend and reporting data available to be shared to authorized USDA managers

Goal met. 100% of requested procurement spend was availalbe to authorized managers upon request.

2007

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

User Requirements

# of Change Requests (CRs) from IAS users per year

Total # of FY06 CRs from IAS users

Decrease the # of Change Requests from users by 10% over FY06.

Goal met. 56 CR's were processed for IAS.

2007

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

Productivity

Percentage of user errors (defined as Document Resolution Manager message rate)

Total # of FY06 user error rates

Reduce user error rate by 5% over FY06.

Goal met. IAS document error rates reduced from 52 in FY06 to 5 in FY07.

2008

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

User Requirements

# of Change Requests (CRs) from IAS users per year

Total # of FY07 CRs

Decrease the # of Change Requests from users by 8% over FY07.

 

2008

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

% of users indicating satisfaction with Help Desk

Results of FY07 Help Desk satisfaction survey

Increase user satisfaction with Help Desk by 5% over FY07.

 

2008

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

Productivity

Percentage of user errors (defined as Document Resolution Manager message rate)

Total # of FY07 user error rates

Reduce user error rate by 5% over FY07.

 

2008

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Efficiency

Number of invoices overdue as measured by the Prompt Pat Act (not paid after 30 days of receipt).

Number of invoices overdue (not paid within 30 days of receipt) in FY07 as measured by the Prompt pay Act

Reduce total # of overdue invoices by 5% over FY07.

 

2008

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Innovation and Improvement

Number of electronic catalogs in IAS

Zero. No electronic catalogs are planned to be added to IAS until FY08.

Add 5 electronic catalogs to IAS by the end of FY08. .

 

2008

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Goods Acquisition

Dollar volume obligated in IAS

FY07 obligation spend (estimated to be $1.3 billion)

Achieve $1.4 billion of obligation spend in IAS.

 

2009

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Customer Results

Customer Satisfaction

% of users indicating satisfaction with Help Desk

Results of FY08 Help Desk satisfaction survey

Increase user satisfaction with Help Desk by 5% over FY08.

 

2009

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

Productivity

Percentage of user errors (defined as Document Resolution Manager message rate)

Total # of FY08 user error rates

Reduce user error rate by 5% over FY08.

 

2009

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Efficiency

Number of invoices overdue as measured by the Prompt Pat Act (not paid after 30 days of receipt).

Number of invoices overdue (not paid within 30 days of receipt) in FY08 as measured by the Prompt pay Act

Reduce total # of overdue invoices by 5% over FY08.

 

2009

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Innovation and Improvement

# of IAS users using IAS electronic catalogs

Total # of IAS users using IAS electronic catalogs in FY08

Increase number of IAS users using electronic catalogs by 5% over FY08.

 

2009

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Goods Acquisition

Dollar volume obligated in IAS

FY08 obligation spend (estimated to be $1.4 billion)

Achieve $1.4 billion of obligation spend in IAS.

 

2009

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Technology

User Requirements

# of Change Requests (CRs) from IAS users per year

Total # of FY08 CRs

Decrease the # of Change Requests from users by 5% over FY08.

 

2010

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Processes and Activities

Productivity

Percentage of user errors (defined as Document Resolution Manager message rate)

Total # of FY09 user error rates

Reduce user error rate by 5% over FY09.

 

2010

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Innovation and Improvement

# of IAS users using IAS electronic catalogs

Total # of IAS users using IAS electronic catalogs in FY09

Increase number of IAS users using electronic catalogs by 5% over FY09.

 

2010

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Goods Acquisition

Dollar volume obligated in IAS

FY09 obligation spend (estimated to be $1.4 billion)

Achieve $1.4 billion of obligation spend in IAS.

 

2010

USDA E-Government Goal 3: Improve internal efficiency by promoting enterprise-wide solutions USDA E-Government

Mission and Business Results

Efficiency

Number of invoices overdue as measured by the Prompt Pat Act (not paid after 30 days of receipt).

Number of invoices overdue (not paid within 30 days of receipt) in FY09 as measured by the Prompt pay Act

Reduce total # of overdue invoices by 5% over FY09.

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

I. E. 4. Operational Systems - Security:   

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

Integrated Acquisition System (IAS)

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

Integrated Acquisition System (IAS)

 

 

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)

Supply Chain Management - Procurement

IAS supports the end-to-end process for procurement, from requisitioning and contract development to invoice approval.

Customer Relationship Management

Procurement

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Sourcing Management

IAS captures information about the type of goods and services that are purchased by USDA, as well as the costs of those items or services.

Supply Chain Management

Sourcing Management

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

5

Storefront / Shopping Cart

The requisition module can provide shopping cart functionality and electronic catalogs which can offer users preferred pricing on products and services.

Supply Chain Management

Storefront / Shopping Cart

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Supply Chain Management - Inventory and Distribution

IAS can support catalog content which can be used to populate a requisition.

Supply Chain Management

Catalog Management

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

9

Supply Chain Management - Inventory and Distribution

The acquisition module of IAS supports the ordering of goods and services compliant with the FAR and FPDS-NG reporting requirements.

Supply Chain Management

Ordering / Purchasing

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Supply Chain Management - Inventory and Distribution

The IAS system tracks the status of each order through the procurement lifecycle. Invoices and requisitions require approvals before the transactions can be processed.

Supply Chain Management

Invoice / Requisition Tracking and Approval

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Change Management

The IAS Customer Care organization provides change management support to agencies in order to support the new financial and procurement processes and policies.

Management of Processes

Change Management

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Business Rule Management

The IAS system provides process management controls such as mandatory approval chains and user profile configuration. Example: A requisition must be approved by a Budget Approver who has proper security (via user profile) to approve a requisition.

Management of Processes

Business Rule Management

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Performance Management

IAS supports the entry and storage of vendor performance data within the acquisition module.

Investment Management

Performance Management

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Customer Relationship Management

The IAS program has established a monthly End User Forum and Error Manager Forum, which provides a communication channel for end user feedback.

Customer Relationship Management

Customer Feedback

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Customer Relationship Management

The program has established a Customer Care team which provides agencies with a point of contact to address all agency needs and concerns on a full time basis.

Customer Relationship Management

Customer Feedback

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Customer Relationship Management

The program has established an IAS Help desk to answer system questions and resolve system issues.

Customer Relationship Management

Customer Feedback

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

3

Customer Relationship Management

The program conducted a Help Desk survey in May, 2005 and is planning for future surveys. The program routinely surveys the user community during the End User and Error Manager Forums.

Customer Relationship Management

Surveys

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

3

Personalization and Portal Services

Users can manage certain profile preferences allowing for default information to automatically populate procurement documents.

Customer Preferences

Personalization

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Customer Data Aggregation

The IAS system can store specific statements and clause templates to be used on an as-needed basis.

Customer Preferences

Personalization

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Forms Management and Application Acceptance

IAS provides automatic notifications for approvals, status, and when documents require action from a document resolution manager.

Customer Preferences

Alerts and Notifications

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Customer Relationship Management

IAS provides Profile Management, which allows organization and user profiles to be managed by a system administrator.

Customer Preferences

Contact and Profile Management

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Online Help

IAS provides online help for field descriptions, FAQ?s and provides links to other sites, including the FAR and FedBizOpps. IAS also supports a Web site which provides online user guide documentation and other agency specific guidance.

Customer Initiated Assistance

Online Help

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Online Tutorials

Web-based training for the requisition module has been deployed and is updated to keep current with each release. User guides have also been created and are accessible on the IAS Web site.

Customer Initiated Assistance

Online Tutorials

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Process Tracking

IAS provides multiple reports for the acquisition community to track workload and transaction status.

Tracking and Workflow

Process Tracking

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Records Management

IAS currently stores a record of each transaction created in the system.

Document Management

Library / Storage

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Document Management and Tracking

IAS requires an approval chain within the requisition module to enforce document review and approval. The acquisition module also stores warrant information, which dictates the approvals needed.

Document Management

Document Review and Approval

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Ad-Hoc

IAS can support ad hoc reports for dynamic acquisition management reporting.

Reporting

Ad Hoc

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Standardized / Canned

IAS supports standardized reports for acquisition management reporting that can be used to assess how well daily work is being performed. The reports can also be used to determine if acquisition goals are being met.

Reporting

Standardized / Canned

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

OLAP

IAS is able to integrate with standard OLAP reporting tools.

Reporting

OLAP

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Data

IAS provides data to an enterprise data warehouse, which contains both financial and procurement data.

Data Management

Data Warehouse

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Extraction

The IAS database can be queried for data extraction and analysis through a third party reporting tool.

Data Management

Extraction and Transformation

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Loading

IAS data is archived both in the IAS system and in the data warehouse per FAR regulations.

Data Management

Loading and Archiving

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Data

IAS has an architecture that enables data recovery within specified timeframes.

Data Management

Data Recovery

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Enterprise Application Integration

An interface has been developed between IAS and the USDA financial management system (FFIS) that is used primarily for the management of administrative funds.

Development and Integration

Enterprise Application Integration

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

2

User Authentication and Access Control

All users may only access IAS through the USDA WAN by providing correct user identification and passwords.

Security Management

Identification and Authentication

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

3

User Authentication and Access Control

Access is managed by roles defined in the user profiles. These profiles are managed by the IAS Help Desk.

Security Management

Access Control

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

0

User Authentication and Access Control

IAS supports 128-bit encryption and uses Secure Socket Layer (SSL) for authentication and validation.

Security Management

Cryptography

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

0

User Authentication and Access Control

IAS supports central management of users both manually and by system rules, such as password expiration requirements.

Security Management

Access Control

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

User Authentication and Access Control

Based on access rights, IAS users can log in only to specific modules and capabilities based on their user name and password. This is managed in conjunction with FFIS roles and privileges, as the two systems interface in real-time.

Security Management

Access Control

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

Audit Trail Capture and Analysis

The activities of IAS users in creating and modifying records is tracked in the database so that there is a trail of activities for auditing.

Security Management

Audit Trail Capture and Analysis

 

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

No Reuse

1

 

 

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)

Procurement

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

 

Sourcing Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Storefront / Shopping Cart

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Storefront / Shopping Cart

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

Oracle

Storefront / Shopping Cart

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Embedded Technology Devices

 

Catalog Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Ordering / Purchasing

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Internet Explorer

Ordering / Purchasing

Service Access and Delivery

Service Requirements

Legislative / Compliance

 

Invoice / Requisition Tracking and Approval

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Change Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Software Configuration Management

Change Management

Business Rule Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Application Servers

Oracle

Performance Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

Oracle

Customer Feedback

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

HTML

Customer Feedback

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Collaboration / Communications

 

Surveys

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Collaboration / Communications

 

Personalization

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Alerts and Notifications

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Supporting Network Services

SMTP

Alerts and Notifications

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

HTML

Contact and Profile Management

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Online Help

Service Access and Delivery

Service Transport

Service Transport

Internet Explorer

Online Tutorials

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

Real Player

Process Tracking

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Library / Storage

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Library / Storage

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Hardware / Infrastructure

Servers / Computers

 

Document Review and Approval

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

JavaScript

Ad Hoc

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

XML for analysis

Standardized / Canned

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

XML for analysis

OLAP

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

JOLAP

Data Warehouse

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

SAN-NITC provided

Extraction and Transformation

Component Framework

Data Management

Reporting and Analysis

SQL Server, Microsoft (V)

Loading and Archiving

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

Javascript

Loading and Archiving

Service Interface and Integration

Interoperability

Data Types / Validation

XML

Loading and Archiving

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

Network-Attached Storage ? NITC

Data Recovery

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Storage

SAN-NITC

Data Recovery

Component Framework

Data Management

Database Connectivity

JBDC

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Platform Dependent

Windows 2003

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Software Engineering

Software Configuration Management

Change Management

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Interface and Integration

Integration

Middleware

Websphere, IBM (V)

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

DB2, IBM (V)

Enterprise Application Integration

Component Framework

Security

Certificates / Digital Signatures

SSL, Netscape (V)

Identification and Authentication

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

AIX, IBM (V)

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Support Platforms

Platform Dependent

Windows

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Delivery Servers

Web Servers

Apache

Cryptography

Component Framework

Security

Certificates / Digital Signatures

SSL, Netscape (V)

Access Control

Service Access and Delivery

Delivery Channels

Internet

Internet Explorer

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Access Control

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

Audit Trail Capture and Analysis

Service Platform and Infrastructure

Database / Storage

Database

Oracle

 

 

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 IAS acquisition module directly links to the Integrated Acquisition Environment's Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) and indirectly links to the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) service. Contracting Officers cannot complete an obligation document over $2,500 until all the required FPDS-NG fields have been completed, validated, and sent to FPDS-NG. FPDS-NG collects data on most federal acquisitions within IAS (all contracts, and Task Orders, Delivery Orders, Purchase Orders over $2,500 in value). IAS also requires vendors to update and maintain their Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) data in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). CCR is a portal managed by DOD that provides a single point of registration, validation and access of all trading partner data. Vendors are required to register in CCR if they wish to do business with the federal government. IAS will not approve payment of an invoice if the vendors have not updated their EFT related data in CCR. IAS also has the ability to post solicitations to FedBizOps. This functionality is not currently enabled, but being reviewed to be implemented for future implementation.

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2006-08-25

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Description of Alternative

Risk Lifecycle Cost Estimate

Risk Lifecycle Benefits Estimate

1 - Integrated Acquisition System (IAS)

IAS is a web-enabled COTS solution that provides a single enterprise-wide business process that integrates the acquisition, budget and finance community. IAS will provide for an end-to-end acquisition process that includes requisitions and contract management in a single system. The IAS solution also includes provision of extended functionalities such as eCatalogs, deployment of eSourcing, and the implementation of a shared Data Mart between IAS and FFIS.

184078082.000

126779933.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

Alternative 1 continues to provide the best solution among the viable alternatives because IAS provides the best combination of value, risk and cost. The financial benefits are the highest among the alternatives at $127 million, clearly illustrating why developing extended functionality is crucial to achieving business goals. Although more expensive, IAS' Savings to Investment ratio is also the highest at 176%, which is much higher than Comprizon's 112% and LEF's 60%.

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

The IAS solution provides a modern, integrated e-procurement solution to the USDA acquisition community that will enable it to enhance support of USDAs mission. When fully deployed, USDA will have the back office acquisition suite and technology foundation necessary to meet legislative requirements, the PMA, USDAs strategic goals, and leverage other value-added e-Government services such as GSAs IAE. The IAS alternative includes the development of a real time interface to FFIS that is compliant with current federal financial management requirements. USDAs IAS - financial interface and associated enterprise-wide business process include commitment accounting as a component of the overall acquisition business process. This combination of business process and integrated interface provides USDA with better financial controls, reporting capabilities, audit trails, and accurate status of funds. Providing a common, Department-wide system for all users of USDA procurement systems enables the standardizing of administrative and financial management processes. In addition, the IAS alternative initiates the development of a shared Data Mart with the USDA OCFO. The Data Mart, which will be located in USDAs National Information Technology Center (NITC), will support IAS by providing access to all USDA procurement-related data with business intelligence capability for advanced reporting and data mining functions, including acquisition reporting and on-going spend analysis at the agency. Such a rich store of data provides insight into broader patterns of procurement actions across the enterprise and opportunities to identify potential economies of scale to be pursued via BPAs or contracting vehicles. Finally, by consolidating multiple acquisition systems, a centralized Help Desk improves user support. IAS customer care personnel improve response times to system users needing help desk assistance. They also institute a Department-wide acquisition systems training program to maximize the efficient and effective use of systems by employees.

 

 

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

PURCH

005-03-01-81-01-1020-00

2006-09-30

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2006-09-01

 

 

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)

 

 

The IAS Project follows a continuous risk management model that includes a process for estimating risk impact to the lifecycle cost estimate. While most identified risks can be mitigated, some risks that are difficult to mitigate or transfer must instead be accepted. These remaining risks are identified from specific IAS project tasks and categorized into major risk areas. The team defines each risk in terms of risk probability and potential cost impact. Mitigation strategies are developed for major risks. However, for each major risk that cannot be fully mitigated, a probability is assigned based on three levels: Basic, Medium and High. These risks are rated on levels of potential cost impact. To know which costs are affected, each risk is associated with specific cost categories. The potential cost of such risks are calculated using a defined methodology. To calculate the potential cost of risk that has not already been mitigated, an events probability is multiplied by the cost impact level. The resulting percentage for each risk is multiplied by their associated cost category. Each risk with cost impact is summed and added to the total funding estimate. Mitigation strategies for major risks are captured in the Risk Management working plan. Also identified in this plan are the costs necessary for the implementation of the mitigation strategies. These costs are be added to the project budget as contingency funds. The contingency funds are included in the cost category associated with the risk being mitigated. The Lifecycle cost presented in the Summary of Spending table, the Alternatives Analysis table and the Cost and Schedule Performance table are all risk-adjusted with the primary source of risk remaining in the lifecycle occurring in the operation and maintenance phase.

 

 

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