Exhibit 300 FY2009

I. A. 1. Date of Submission:
2007-09-10

I. A. 2. Agency:
018

I. A. 3. Bureau:
24

I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
(short text - 250 characters)
Enterprise Architecture-Consolidated

I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier:
For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system.
018-24-03-00-01-2480-00

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.
Operations and Maintenance

I. A. 7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?
FY2003

I. A. 8. Provide a brief summary and justification for this investment, including a brief description of how this, closes in part or in whole, an identified agency performance gap:
(long text - 2500 characters)
The Department of Education Enterprise Architecture Program is a tool used to assist with business and technology transformation. The Department?s continued use of EA ensures that business needs will drive technology acquisitions, which, in turn, will be monitored through well-defined and outcome-based performance measures. The goal of the EA is to provide more effective and efficient ED processes in order to successfully, efficiently, and diligently execute its mission. The scope of Enterprise Architecture includes its use to identify redundancy and duplication, define opportunities for collaboration, highlight potential business modernization efforts, facilitate consolidation and technical component reuse, and track performance metrics throughout the organization. As a result, EA provides the information base and analysis to:? Ensure an efficient, high-performing, diverse, competitively sourced workforce, aligned with mission priorities ? Enhance internal controls, data integrity, management information, and program and policy improvements ? Implement business processes and information technology to enable ED business objectives ? Link budget decisions and program priorities more closely with program performance, and recognize the full cost of programs. Additionally, continued EA Program funding will assist the Department in promoting the development, use, and sharing of standards and other information. The EA Initiative supports:? The use of EA to make informed business decisions throughout the Department;? Integration of EA with Capital Planning and Information Assurance;? Requirements set forth by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB assesses the Department?s Enterprise Architecture on a yearly bases. The resulting assessment rating directly affects the Department?s President?s Management Agenda eGov Scorecard;? Compliance with Federal legislation mandating EA. This legislation includes: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 . The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), The E-Government Act of 2002, Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 , OMB Circular A-11, and OMB Circular A-130. This investment supports central management of the EA program to address and balance the requirements of legislative drivers and Strategic goals. The Integration Leadership Support Core Integration Services project, previously listed on the Acquisition Plan as project en070082, will be incorporated into the FSA EA project for the FY08/09 budget request.

I. A. 9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request?
yes

I. A. 10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?
yes

I. A. 11. Contact information of Project Manager

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

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

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

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. 23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval?
no

I. A. 24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas?
Question 24 must be answered by all Investments:
no

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 and Spending Prior to 2007 PY 2007 CY 2008 BY 2009 BY+1 2010 BY+2 2011 BY+3 2012 BY+4 2013 and Beyond Planning 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000         Acquisition 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000         Subtotal Planning & Acquisition                 Operations & Maintenance 6.402 3.623 6.992 6.992         Total                 Government FTE Costs 1.050 0.560 1.076 1.082         Number of FTE represented by cost 1 3 5 5

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

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)

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)

Type of Contract/Task Order Has the contract been awarded? If so what is the date of the award? If not, what is the planned award date? Start date of Contract/Task Order End date of Contract/Task Order Total Value of Contract/Task Order ($M) Is this an Interagency Acquisition? Is it performance based? Competitively awarded? What, if any, alternative financing option is being used? Is EVM in the contract? Does the contract include the required security & privacy clauses? Name of CO CO Contact Information (phone/email) Contracting officer certification level If N/A, has the agency determined the CO assigned has the competencies and skills necessary to support this aquistion?

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

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 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Enterprise Architecture OMB EA Assessment Score Achieve a "Green" in the Annual OMB EA Assessment Maintain a "Green" based on the revised criteria in OMB EA Assessment Framework OMB has assessed the Department of Education as GREEN in Completion (3.5), Use (4.0), and Results (3.5) based on evaluation of the February 2006 submission. 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Enterprise Architecture OMB EA Assessment MB EA Assessment score from FY2006 Maintain a "Green" based on the revised criteria in OMB EA Assessment Framework OMB has assessed the Department of Education as GREEN 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Enterprise Architecture OMB EA Assessment OMB EA Assessment score from FY2007 Maintain a "Green" based on the revised criteria in OMB EA Assessment Framework TBD 2006 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Customer Results New Customers and Market Penetration Number of program offices using the EA tool to build and maintain their architectures 0 2 2 (OCIO and FSA) 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Number of Program Offices that have access to the consolidated Enterprise Data Dictionary 0 12 0 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Customer Results New Customers and Market Penetration Number of program offices using the EA tool to build and maintain their architectures 2 5 TBD 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Number of Program Offices that have access to the consolidated Enterprise Data Dictionary 0 21 TBD 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Customer Results New Customers and Market Penetration Number of program offices using the EA tool to build and maintain their architectures 5 21 TBD 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Number of Program Offices that have access to the consolidated Enterprise Data Dictionary 21 Continue to provide access to all 21 Program offices within ED   2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Training and Employment Number of Program Offices that receive EA training 0 21 TBD 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Training and Employment Provide ongoing EA training to Program offices 21 Continue to provide EA training to all 21 Program offices within ED TBD 2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Training and Employment Provide ongoing EA training to Program offices 21 Continue to provide EA training to all 21 Program offices within ED TBD 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Customer Results Frequency and Depth Number of Program offices that continue to use EA tool to maintain their architectures 21 All 21 Program offices within ED continue to use the EA tool and repository to maintain their architectures TBD 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Number of data objects in Enterprise Data Dictionary after consolidation and validation 2000 3000 3000 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Number of data objects in Enterprise Data Dictionary after consolidation and validation 3000 4000 TBD 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Technology Data Standardization or Tagging Number of data objects in Enterprise Data Dictionary after consolidation and validation 4000 5000 TBD 2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Program Monitoring % of milestones achieved as identified in the EA quarterly report 100% Maintain achieving 100% of the milestones TBD 2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Program Monitoring % of milestones achieved as identified in the EA quarterly report 100% Maintain achieving 100% of the milestones TBD 2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Managment: Obejctive 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results. Mission and Business Results Program Monitoring % of milestones achieved as identified in the EA quarterly report 100% Maintain achieving 100% of the milestones TBD 2007 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Mission and Business Results Enterprise Architecture Enterprise Architecture: EA Maturity Score using the OMB maturity model. 1 5 3 2007 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Customer Results New Customers and Market Penetration New Customers and Penetration: Percentage of EA business case review reports prepared for use by the Major and Significant Investments, as a part of FSA's internal CPIC process. 0% 100% TBD 2007 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Cycle Time: the average number of business days taken from submission of a major or significant investment's business case during the CPIC select phase, to the return of a completed EA review report for that investment. 10 15 TBD 2007 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Technology Compliance and Deviations Compliance and Deviation: Percentage of Enhancement or New Development projects in FSA's IT portfolio that are able to make use of Enterprise Archtiecture held metadata and products to meet project needs. 70% 80%   2008 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Customer Results New Customers and Market Penetration Percentage of surveyed Federal Student Aid business units that are aware of the EA program, its role in Federal Student Aid and the services it offers. 100% Maintain 100% awareness of FSA EA Program Will be collected at end of FY 2008 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Mission and Business Results Enterprise Architecture Federal Student Aid's EA maturity score using the OMB maturity model. 3 4 Will be collected at end of FY 2008 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Percentage of identified opportunities for the incorporation of an EA service to support an enterprise process, for which the EA service is satisfactorily integrated into the process. 0% 100% Will be collected at end of FY 2008 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Technology IT Contribution to Process, Customer, or Mission Percentage of identified instances in which EA knowledge products are found to be incorrect other than by events occuring within the immediate update period." 0% 100% Will be collected at end of FY 2009 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Mission and Business Results Enterprise Architecture Federal Student Aid's EA maturity score using the OMB maturity model. Actual achieved at the end of FY08 4 Will be collected at end of FY 2009 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Customer Results New Customers and Market Penetration Percentage of surveyed Federal Student Aid business units that are aware of the EA program, its role in Federal Student Aid and the services it offers. 100% Maintain 100% awareness of FSA EA Program Will be collected at end of FY 2009 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Customer Results Customer Impact or Burden Percentage of surveyed Federal Student Aid business units that have made use of or received at least one offered EA service in the past year, and has perceived a value to the service provided. 100% Maintain 100% Will be collected at end of FY 2009 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Percentage of identified opportunities for the incorporation of an EA service to support an enterprise process, for which the EA service is satisfactorily integrated into the process. 100% Maintain 100% Will be collected at end of FY 2009 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Customer Results Customer Impact or Burden Percentage of surveyed Federal Student Aid business units that have made use of or received at least one offered EA service in the past year, and has perceived a value to the service provided. 0% 100%   2006 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Mission and Business Results Enterprise Architecture EA Maturity Score using the OMB maturity model. 1 4 3.5 2006 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Technology IT Contribution to Process, Customer, or Mission Percentage of management processes (PMO, LCM, CPIC, etc.) are aligned to meet internal business mission and goals and external regulatory requirements. 3 4 4 2006 Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.Cross-goal Strategy on Management. Technology Compliance and Deviations Percentage of business cases reviewed and remediated by EA that were found to be inconsistent with the As-Is or To-Be Architectures. 25% 50% 60%

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. 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.

Agency/or Contractor Operated System Planned Operational Date Date of Planned C & A update (for existing mixed life cycle systems) or Planned Completion Date (for new systems)

I. E. 4. Operational Systems - Security:

Agency/or contractor Operated System? NIST FIPS 199 Risk Impact level (High, Moderate, Low) Has C & A been Completed, using NIST 800-37? (Y/N) Date Completed: C & A What standards were used for the Security Controls tests? (FIPS 200/NIST 800-53, Other, N/A) Date Completed: Security Control Testing Date the contingency plan tested

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

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.

(b) Is this a new system? (Y/N) (c) Is there a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) that covers this system? (Y/N) (d) Internet Link or Explanation (e) Is a System of Records Notice (SORN) required for this system? (Y/N) (f) Internet Link or Explanation

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

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

I. F. 3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture?
no

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) EDNet Services Information Technology Infrastructure Services provided by the DoED EdNet Investment. Organizational Management Network Management Network Management 018-24-02-00-01-1020-00 Internal 0 Data Architecture Enterprise Data Architecture Data Management Data Classification     No Reuse 10 Business Architecture Enterprise Business Architecture, Governance, and Communications Business Intelligence Decision Support and Planning     No Reuse 15 EA Tool/Repository Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Knowledge Discovery Modeling     No Reuse 2 EA Tool/Repository Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Reporting Ad Hoc     No Reuse 1 EA Tool/Repository Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Reporting Standardized / Canned     No Reuse 1 EA Tool/Repository Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Visualization Graphing / Charting     No Reuse 2 Business Architecture Enterprise Business Architecture, Governance, and Communications Investment Management Strategic Planning and Mgmt     No Reuse 15 Technology Architecture Application Architecture, Infrastructure Architecture, EA Integration, and Compliance Management of Processes Change Management     No Reuse 1 Business Architecture/EA Governance Enterprise Business Architecture, Governance, and Communications Management of Processes Governance / Policy Management     No Reuse 15 Program Management EA Program Management Management of Processes Risk Management     No Reuse 10 EA Tool/Repository Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Content Management Content Review and Approval     No Reuse 2 EA Tool/Repository and EA site on ConnectED Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Content Management Content Publishing and Delivery     No Reuse 2 EA Tool/Repository and EA site on ConnectED Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Content Management Tagging and Aggregation     No Reuse 1 EA Tool/Repository and EA site on ConnectED Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Document Management Document Referencing     No Reuse 1 EA Tool/Repository and EA Governance Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Document Management Document Review and Approval     No Reuse 2 EA Tool/Repository Improve the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Document Management Document Revisions     No Reuse 1 EA Tool/Repository and EA site on ConnectED mprove the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Document Management Library / Storage     No Reuse 1 Data Architecture Application Architecture, Infrastructure Architecture, EA Integration, and Compliance Knowledge Management Information Mapping / Taxonomy     No Reuse 2 EA Tool/Repository and EA site on ConnectED mprove the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Knowledge Management Information Retrieval     No Reuse 2 EA Tool/Repository and EA site on ConnectED and Data Architecture mprove the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 5 EA Tool/Repository mprove the alignment between the ED's mission statement and goals and the supporting IT Infrastructure creating a true line-of-sight from the business goals and strategy down to applications and technology. Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 2 Business Architecture/EA Governance Enterprise Business Architecture, Governance, and Communications Investment Management Portfolio Management     No Reuse 10 Performance Architecture/EA Governance Enterprise Performance Architecture, Governance, and Communications Investment Management Performance Management     No Reuse 5 FSA CPIC Support Improve the Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process for FSA and reduce the level of effort currently required to produce the FSA business cases and Exhibit 300s Management of Processes Requirements Management     No Reuse 7 FSA EA Reporting and Analysis BI support Provide Integrated Technical Architecture / Enterprise Application Integration (ITA/EAI) hosted Business Integelligence components for performing reporting and analysis Development and Integration Enterprise Application Integration Enterprise Application Integration   Internal 0

I. F. 5. Table 1. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table:
To demonstrate how this major IT investment aligns with the FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM), please list the Service Areas, Categories, Standards, and Service Specifications supporting this IT investment.

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

FEA TRM Service Area FEA TRM Service Category FEA TRM Service Standard Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name) Network Management Service Access and Delivery Service Transport Service Transport Macromedia Cold Fusion provided by EDNet; Microsoft Windows Server provided by EDNet Network Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Platform Dependent Microsoft Windows Server (Provided by EDNet) Network Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database Microsoft SQL Server provided by EDNet Network Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers Macromedia Cold Fusion provided by EDNet; Microsoft Internet Information Server provided by EDNet Network Management Component Framework Presentation / Interface Static Display Macromedia Cold Fusion provided by EDNet Network Management Component Framework Data Management Database Connectivity Microsoft SQL Server provided by EDNet Network Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Servers / Computers Compaq Proliant provided by EDNet Network Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Telelogic System Architect provided by EDNet Network Management Component Framework Presentation / Interface Content Rendering Macromedia Cold Fusion provided by EDNet Network Management Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis Telelogic System Architect (Information Web Publisher) provided by EDNet Ad Hoc Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis Telelogic System Architect v10.4 Standardized / Canned Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis Telelogic System Architect v10.4 Data Classification Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification Enterprise Data Dictionary (Microsoft SQL server) Content Review and Approval Service Access and Delivery Delivery Channels Intranet EA site on ConnectED (Intranet) Content Publishing and Delivery Service Access and Delivery Delivery Channels Intranet EA site on ConnectED (Intranet) Tagging and Aggregation Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Telelogic System Architect v10.4 Information Retrieval Service Access and Delivery Delivery Channels Intranet EA site on ConnectED (Intranet) Document Referencing Service Access and Delivery Delivery Channels Intranet EA site on ConnectED (Intranet) Information Mapping / Taxonomy Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification Consolidated Enterprise Data Dictionary(Microsoft SQL Server) Information Sharing Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Other Electronic Channels Consolidated Enterprise Data Dictionary(Microsoft SQL Server) Knowledge Capture Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Telelogic System Architect v10.4 Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Access and Delivery Delivery Channels Intranet EA site on ConnectED (Intranet) Modeling Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Telelogic System Architect v10.4 Graphing / Charting Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Telelogic System Architect v10.4 Document Review and Approval Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Software Configuration Management Documentum.ERoom Enterprise Document Revisions Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Software Configuration Management Documentum.ERoom Enterprise Content Review and Approval Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Software Configuration Management Documentum.ERoom Enterprise Knowledge Capture Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database Microsoft Office 2000 Access Meta Data Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database Microsoft Office 2000 Access Information Mapping / Taxonomy Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Embarcadero Technologies Inc. E/R Studio v7.1 (with Meta Integration Technology Inc's Metawizard and export options) Information Sharing Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Embarcadero Technologies Inc. E/R Studio v7.1 (with Meta Integration Technology Inc's Metawizard and export options) Library / Storage Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Modeling Telelogic System Architect v10.4

I. F. 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?
no

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

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 Baseline Status Quo NaN NaN

II. A. 3. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen?
(long text - 2500 characters)

II. A. 4. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long text - 2500 characters)

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

II. B. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

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

II. B. 3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:
(long text - 2500 characters)

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. 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?

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)

III. A. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?
yes

III. A. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?

III. B. 1. Was operational analysis conducted?
no

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)

Planned Completion Date Planned Total Cost Actual Completion Date Actual Total Cost Variance - Schedule Variance - Cost Sypherlink Acquisition             EA Measurement Plan Enacted (Monitoring and Reporting)             FY 2005 Program Support             Department-Wide Architecture-related Initiatives Incorporated into EA             FY 2005 Governance Enhancements             FY 2005 EA Repository and Content Enhancements             FY 2005 EA Data Architecture and Data Management Support             FY 2006 Program Support             FY 2006 Governance Maintenance             FY 2006 EA Repository and Content Maintenance             FY 2006 EA Data Architecture and Data Management Support             Support the CPIC Process             FY 2007 Program Support             FY 2007 Governance Maintenance             FY 2007 EA Repository and Content Maintenance             Prioritized EA Governance and Business Case Improvement Recommendations             FY 2007 EA Data Architecture and Data Mgt Support             FY 2008 EA Program Support             FY 2008 Governance Maintenance             FY 2008 EA Repository and Content Maintenance             FY 2008 EA Data Architecture and Data Mgt Support             Implement EA Governance Improvements             EA Governance Policy and Procedures to Support CPIC, SDLC and IT Modernization Activities             EA Content Assessed and Under Repository Control             Develop EA Communication Plan             Detailed Project Planning and Tracking (FY 2004)             Detailed Project Planning and Tracking (FY 2004)             Initial Data Architecture and Data Management Plan Implemented             Provide EA Communications to ED Community             FY 04 4th Quarter Maintenance/FSA EA             Initial Sequencing Plan Draft             FY 05 1st Quarter Maintenance/FSA EA             FY 05 2nd Quarter Maintenance             FY 05 3rd Quarter Maintenance             FY 05 4th Quarter Maintenance             FY 06 1st Quarter Maintenance/FSA EA             FY 06 Quarter FSA EA Support Services             FY 06 3rd Quarter FSA EA Support Services             FY 06 4th Quarter FSA EA Support Services             FY 07 Maintenance/FSA EA             FY 08 Maintenance/FSA EA             Initial EA Content Enhancements Implemented (FY 2004)             Initial EA Repository Enhancements Implemented (FY 2004)             Initial EA Content Enhancements Implemented (FY 2005)             Initial EA Repository Enhancements Implemented (FY 2005)             Sequencing Plan Updated, Approved and Enacted             FY2008 EA Training             FY2008 Technical Architecture Maintenance and Support             FY 09 Maintenance

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.

Joint exhibit approval date

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)

Partner Agency Asset Title Partner Agency Exhibit 53 UPI

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)

Partner Exhibit 53 UPI CY Contribution CY Fee-for-Service BY Contribution BY Fee-for-Service     NaN NaN NaN NaN

IV. A. 4. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this project?

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. B. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

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

IV. C. 1. Are you using EVM to manage this investment?

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. 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
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.