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:   

 

 

 

2007-12-19

 

 

I. A. 2. Agency:   

 

 

 

005

 

 

I. A. 3. Bureau:   

 

 

 

47

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

RMA-13 Emerging Information Technology Architecture - Electronic Written Agreement Project

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

005-47-01-51-01-0013-00

 

 

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.

 

 

Full-Acquisition

 

 

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

 

 

 

FY2005

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

This investment supports the replacement of current legacy systems and methods that are aged and stressed as a result of continuous agency program changes over the last ten years as well as integrates and automates a predominantly manual process known as the “Written Agreement” process into the overall Risk Management Agency (RMA) re-engineered system. The Government to Business (G2B) alternative will significantly reduce transaction costs, improve operational efficiency and provide a basis for reducing the administrative fees that are paid by the insurance companies. The G2B alternative is expected to be the most cost effective for RMA in the long term. It also places the Agency in step with the Federal Government direction towards e-Government. One assumption underlying this project is that the cost reductions and efficiencies associated with the G2B Exchange model will be a sufficient incentive for RMA’s private sector insurance partners to make the internal changes needed to integrate with this new electronic community. The IT strategy recommended supports RMA’s strategic plan by applying e-commerce technology to integrate RMA and its insurance delivery partners into one electronic Government-to-Business (G2B) community that support day-to-day operations, and provides a source of ongoing and reliable business intelligence for managing and continuously improving all aspects of the program. This involves a fresh approach to system development and will result in complete replacement of RMA systems. The objective of this investment is to enable RMA to identify and implement emerging technologies and best IT practices that most effectively support the business and mission delivery of RMA. The investment goal is information technology strategically aligned to support core business processes that in turn support its mission, strategic goals, and objectives successfully. The USDA E-Board most recently approved this investment on August 29, 2007.

 

 

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)

 

 

Dave Paul

 

 

Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

509-353-2147

 

 

E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

dave.paul@rma.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

 

 

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)

 

 

EITA is the central unifying system providing accountability & control over taxpayer's funds.It supports the initiative "Financial Performance" by routinely producing information that is timely,measurable & effective to immediate performance;useful to make more informed operational & financial decisions;reliable to ensure consistent,comparable trend analysis over time FMS approach are key components of the Presidents Financial Performance initiative(timeliness useful,reliability).

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Federal Crop Insurance Program

 

 

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

 

 

 

Moderately Effective

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

Level 2

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

All. This investment will address compliance w 1) Federal Financial Management System Requirements, 2) Federal Accounting Standards and 3) compliance with the Standard General Ledger at the transaction level.

 

 

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   

 

 

 

0

 

 

I. A. 20. b. Software   

 

 

 

0

 

 

I. A. 20. c. Services   

 

 

 

100

 

 

I. A. 20. d. Other   

 

 

 

0

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

 

I. A. 22. a. Name   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

Eric Baer

 

 

I. A. 22. b. Phone Number   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

816-823-1950

 

 

I. A. 22. c. Title   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

ISSPM

 

 

I. A. 22. d. E-mail   

 

(short text - 250 characters)

 

 

eric.baer@rma.usda.gov

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

Question 24 must be answered by all Investments:

 

 

no

 

 

Section B: Summary of Spending (All Capital Assets)  

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

PY-1 Spending Prior to 2007

PY 2007

CY 2008

BY 2009

BY+1 2010

BY+2 2011

BY+3 2012

BY+4 2013 and Beyond

Total

Planning

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

Acquisition

2.277

1.000

1.000

3.258

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal Planning & Acquisition

2.277

1.000

1.000

3.258

 

 

 

 

 

Operations & Maintenance

0

0

0.941

6.793

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

2.277

1.000

1.941

10.051

 

 

 

 

 

Government FTE Costs

0

0.300

0.450

0.550

 

 

 

 

 

Number of FTE represented by cost

0

3

4.5

4.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. C. 3. a. Explain Why:   

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

Section D: Performance Information (All Capital Assets)  

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

Strategic Goal(s) Supported

Measurement Area

Measurement Grouping

Measurement Indicator

Baseline

Target

Actual Results

2006

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Processes and Activities

Financial Management

Increase the availability and utilization of economically sounds risk management tools to meet producers needs

User requirements full collected and documented

Show reductions in costs of Program Operations equivalent to $14 million program wide, relative to pre- G2B status quo, increasing to $28 million in each of the subsequent years. Reduce the cycle time for completing insurance transactions.

All critical business areas interviewed, documented and approved.

2006

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Customer Results

Timeliness

Increase the availability & utilization of economically sound risk management tools to meet producers needs.

RMA's "as is" EA identified and documented into an EA Data Base

Existing investments supporting business systems being replaced by development support in RMA-13, RMA-01, RMA-02, RMA-04 and RMA-07 will be closed

Investments RMA-01, RMA-02, RMA-04 and RMA-07 limited to only O&M activities.

2006

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Processes and Activities

Information Management

Increase the availability & utilization of economically sound risk management tools to meet producers needs.

User requirements fully collected and documented.

Complete requirements gathering phase. Document all event processes and interfaces between customer groups.

aRequirements collected and approved.

2006

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Technology

Information Management

Increase the availability & utilization of economically sound risk management tools to meet producers needs.

Business process & requirements full documented

Fully documented "as is" EA for RMA.

"As is" process model has been completed.

2007

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Customer Results

Accessibility

Inclusion of all customer needs in requirements and ability to share information

Business processes & requirements fullly documented

Fully documented processes used in development of final "As is" for RMA. Requirments phase completed and design well underway

Requiements completed, approved and posted to SharePoint site.

2007

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Processes and Activities

Availability

Increase the availability and utilization of economically sound risk management tools to meet producers' needs

System Design completed for Actuarial, Accounting, Policy Acceptance Services, and Regional Office Exception System.

Design of 95 % of the business systesm design within the support of RMA-13, RMA-01 and RMA-02.

EITA system design is 78 percent complete as of June 2007

2007

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Technology

Reliability

Improve program integrity and protect taxpayer funds

System testing, protyping and testing completed for 25% of the EITA development tracks (actuarial)

System refinement process, user testing, quality review of the Actuarial track for the EITA system which is about 25% of the total system.

Pending

2007

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Mission and Business Results

Access

Availability of policy and actuarial information to producers, agents and other stakeholders

Producer, agent, and stakeholder access via internet to policy, pricing, and rating documents

System finalization , user sign off, quality sign off and migration to production.

Pending

2008

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Mission and Business Results

Information Management

Business and technology

Business requirements for 90% of the business tracks of EITA complete

Remaining deferred task requirments collected and documented

Pending

2008

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Processes and Activities

Accessibility

Provide program integrity and protect tax payer funds by giving approved insurance providers tools to analyze their business data submitted to RMA

90% of the analysis tools available to AIPs

Approved Insurance Providers able to efficiently analyze their transmitted data.

Pending

2008

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Technology

Efficiency

Rating tools automated to provide consistent actuarial rate generation.

50% of the Rating Tool requirements are completed

Rating Tools to be accessable for statistical rate determination

Pending

2008

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Customer Results

Information Management

Improve program integrity and protect taxpayers' funds

95% of the reporting tools available to producers and stakeholders are available via the web browser

Processes, applications, and systems well documented, tested by/with customer and approved for production

Pending

2009

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Technology

Reliability

Improve program integrity and protect taxpayers' funds.

90% of the $24 billion RMA book of business is accessible by producers and stakeholders.

System tested and CM process in place (development, test, production) to ensure data accuracy and integrity.

Pending

2009

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Mission and Business Results

Information Management

Availability of policy and actuarial information.

Business requirements for the deferred tasks for EITA are 50% complete

System finalization, customer sign off, customer training, and move to production completed.

Pending

2009

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Processes and Activities

Availability

Increase the availability and utilization of risk management tools.

400% improvement to the availablity of reports for producers and stakeholders.

Increased availability of insurance experience via reports on the internet to producers and stakeholders.

Pending

2009

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Customer Results

Information Management

Improve program integrity and protect taxpayer funds

98% of the insurance reporting tools are available to producers and stakeholders are available via the website.

Processes, applications, and systems well documented, tested by/with customer and approved for production

Pending

2010

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Technology

System Development

EITA Implementation

System 100% implemented

System finalization incorporating RMA-1 and RMA-2 Investments

Pending

2010

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Mission and Business Results

Access

Inclusion of all customer neeeds in applications and ability to share information

99% of the information access outlined in the requirements is available

Complete insurance experience access

Pending

2010

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Processes and Activities

Productivity

Systems and applications make customer use easier and more efficient.

300% increase in number of tools available to users

Development of business systems completed, tested and in production

Pending

2010

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Customer Results

Information Management

Stakeholder requirements completely implemented

99% of Stakeholder approved requirements implemented

Applications and Systems well documented

Pending

2011

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Technology

Operations and Maintenance Costs

EITA System includes functions previously performed under RMA-01and RMA-02

System finalization, customer sign off, customer training, and moved to production completed

System tested and CM process in place to ensure data accuracy and integrity

Pending

2011

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Mission and Business Results

Improvement

10% improvement to program integrity

100% of the deferred requirements for EITA are complete

Complete functionality of risk tools and deferred EITA tasks

Pending

2011

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Processes and Activities

Automation

Conversion of manual written agreement processes to electronic processes

99% of manual written agreement processes incorporated in the EITA system

System tested and CM process in place

Pending

2011

USDA Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

Customer Results

Service Efficiency

Inclusion of all customer needs in application and ability to share information

System and applications design make customer use easier and more efficient and no more than a 1% customer access complaint rate

Fully documented processes, applications and queries meet customer data availability requirements as well as data processing requirements.

Pending

 

 

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)

 

 

The EITA system is in development. Security requirements are being developed with the help of the implementation team. A full C&A will be performed before the system goes live, estimated to be late FY2007, early FY2008. FIPS-199 security categorization and a preliminary PIA will be complete 3Q FY 2007. A security plan and NIST 800-53 review will follow, with contingency planning ongoing in parallel.

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

yes

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

There is no multi-agency transition activity underway at this time.

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

Agency Component Description

FEA SRM Service Type

FEA SRM Component (a)

Service Component Reused - Component Name (b)

Service Component Reused - UPI (b)

Internal or External Reuse? (c)

BY Funding Percentage (d)

Process Automation Services

Assure SRA Compliance

Financial Management

Process Tracking

 

005-47-01-51-01-0001-00

No Reuse

20

Support Services

Issue, store and manage payment to private industry partners

Financial Management

Payment / Settlement

 

005-47-01-51-01-0001-00

No Reuse

35

Back Office Services

Manage debt accounts in compliance with Treasury Offset Program

Financial Management

Debt Collection

 

005-47-01-51-01-0001-00

No Reuse

10

Back Office Services

Assure timely accurate finance statement, audit reports and confirm

Financial Management

Debt Collection

 

005-47-01-51-01-0001-00

No Reuse

25

Business Management

Assure financial viability. RMA industry partners sharing risk.

Financial Management

Auditing

 

005-47-01-51-01-0001-00

No Reuse

10

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

FEA TRM Service Area

FEA TRM Service Category

FEA TRM Service Standard

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

Process Tracking

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Independent

Visual Studio Net

Process Tracking

Component Framework

Business Logic

Platform Dependent

C Sharp (C#)

Email

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Collaboration / Communications

Electronic Mail (E-Mail)

Information Sharing

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Collaboration / Communications

Facsimile (FAX)

Enterprise Application Integration

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Other Electronic Channels

System to System

Information Sharing

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Uniform Resource Locator (URL)

Information Sharing

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

WEB Service

Information Sharing

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Initernet Explorer

Information Sharing

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Wireless / PDA

 

Information Sharing

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Web Browser

Pocket PC Phone Edition

Governance / Policy Management

Service Access and Delivery

Access Channels

Legislative / Compliance

Section 508

 

 

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

 

 

 

no

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2001-12-20

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(medium text - 500 characters)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Description of Alternative

Risk Lifecycle Cost Estimate

Risk Lifecycle Benefits Estimate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Government to Business (G2B) Model

Retains functional scope of status quo but is a transaction based electronic business (e-business) model in real-time.

11400.000

30000.000

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

RMA chose the G2B Exchange Model as it will support RMA's strategic plan by applying e-commerce technology to integrate RMA and its insurance delivery partners into one electronic Government-to-Business (G2B) community. This strategy supports day-to-day operations, as well as provide a source of ongoing and reliable business intelligence for managing and continuously improving all aspects of the program. This will involve a fresh approach to system development and most likely will result in complete replacement of all RMA systems.

 

 

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

 

(long text - 2500 characters)

 

 

RMA chose the G2B Exchange Model option as it offers the following primary advantages over the other major alternatives: 1) Real time/online response to transactions, with nearly instantaneous updates to data; 2) 100% audit of insurance transaction, with much better control over fraud.; 3) Most supportive of e-Gov. Better support of the President's Management Agenda Goal of improved financial performance. Best web accessibility, useability, etc. 4) Makes the best use of the rich functionality and performance of current generation technology; 5) Fully compliant with Enterprise Architecture and related IT technical and amangement standards and guidelines; 6) Improved maintainability and flexibility and 7) Reduced life cycle cost.

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

Migration Investment

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

UPI if available

Date of the System Retirement

RMA-1 Financial Management System

005-47-01-51-01-0001-00

2010-10-30

RMA-2 Corporation Insurance Information System

005-47-01-51-01-0002-00

2010-10-30

 

 

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?   

 

 

 

2006-12-11

 

 

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)

 

 

The EITA system is in development and this is the initial Risk Management Plan

 

 

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)

 

 

Investment risks are tracked and contained by the EITA project risk manager and these duties are covered in the WBS of the EITA project plan. The Risk Manager reports to the Program Manager, who has the overall responsibility for Risk Management on the RMA SYSTEMS INTEGRATION SERVICES Program. The Risk Manager is responsible for the effective management of the Risk Management Process as described in this plan. The Risk Management Committee is selected from the top levels of the SAIC Team Organization, including all those managers that report directly to the Program Manager. RMA Technical and Management personnel are also included on the Risk Management Committee as desired by RMA. The function of the Risk Management Committee is to provide overall guidance on the risk management activities and regularly review the risks that could potentially have the most significant impact on the RMA SYSTEMS INTEGRATION SERVICES Program. The Risk Committee also sanctions the appointment of Risk Owners and the opening and closing of risks on the Risk Register. The Risk Owners are responsible for formulating and implementing the risk containment strategies.

 

 

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