Exhibit 300 (BY2009) for HRSA - OIT Electronic Handbooks

PART ONE

OVERVIEW

1. Date of Submission:: 2008-02-04

2. Agency:: 009

3. Bureau:: 15

4. Name of this Capital Asset:: HRSA - OIT Electronic Handbooks

5. Unique Project Identifier:: 009-15-01-06-01-1060-00

6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?: Mixed Life Cycle

7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?: FY2009

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.: The mission of HRSA is to improve and expand access to quality health care for all. HRSA assures the availability of quality health care to low income, uninsured, isolated, vulnerable and special needs populations. In meeting its mission, HRSA relies on the Electronic Handbooks (EHBs) to assist with improving the performance of HRSA funded programs, sharing data and conducting business in a more efficient manner. The EHBs currently serves more than 20,000 users in managing HRSA grants and projects. EHBs supports HRSA with program administration, grants administration and monitoring, management reporting, and performance measurement and analysis. The investment serves HRSA's goal to integrate existing grant support systems into one transparent enterprise-wide system. In conjunction with GRANTS.GOV, this system as a result has streamlined the application and administration process and has enabled applicants, grantee organizations and HRSA to communicate and conduct activities electronically. It allows HRSA to operate in a paperless fashion, with improved business efficiency, and in compliance with mandated Agency-wide and Federal policies, procedures and legislation. The investment consists of a core system (the Electronic Handbooks platform), as well as four internal performance reporting systems. The core system provides all potential grantees a means to access competitive funding opportunities published as a part of the annual HRSA Preview and to submit applications electronically. HRSA uses HHS ACF's Center of Excellence (COE) for grant award processing. The performance reporting systems are used for completing post-award reporting requirements and aid with conducting in-depth analysis of program grant allocation, use and effectiveness. The EHBs have allowed for a standardization of many of HRSA's business processes as a result of the consolidation. The following bureaus/offices have their performance systems integrated with the core EHBs system: Bureau of Health Professions, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Maternal and Child Health Bureau and Bureau of Primary Health Care. Future plans for the EHBs investment include: (1) Developing performance reporting systems for Office of Rural Health Policy, the Office of Health Information Technology and the Healthcare Systems Bureau and (2) Adding additional functionality to the core system, to include the Program Management and Final Review modules.

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

9.a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval?: 2007-06-26

10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?: yes

11.a. What is the current FAC-P/PM certification level of the project/program manager?: Senior/Expert-level

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

12.a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)?: yes

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

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

If yes, select the initiatives that apply:

Initiative Name
Expanded E-Government

13.a. 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?): EHBs provide a single-point of access for HRSA employees and grantees to manage grants. It enables grantees to browse funding opportunities and submit new applications electronically. It also allows grantees to electronically perform post-award activities such as submitting performance data, progress reports and other deliverables. EHBs have led to the consolidation of HRSA's grant management processes. In addition, it provides for more accurate and in-depth reporting of each grant's progress.

14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)?: yes

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

14.b. If yes, what is the name of the PARTed program?: 2004: HRSA - Health Centers

14.c. If yes, what rating did the PART receive?: Effective

15. Is this investment for information technology?: yes

16. What is the level of the IT Project (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)?: Level 2

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

18. Is this investment identified as high risk on the Q4 - FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB memorandum M-05-23)?: no

19. Is this a financial management system?: no

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

Area	Percentage
Hardware	0
Software	1
Services	99
Other	0

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

22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions.

Name	Caroline Lewis
Phone Number	301.443.2053
Title	Acting Associate Administrator Office of Administration and Financial Management
Email	clewis@hrsa.gov

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

24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas?: no

SUMMARY OF SPEND

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

Cost Type	Py-1 & Earlier -2006	PY 2007	CY 2008	BY 2009
Planning Budgetary Resources	0.906	0.532	0.393	0.224
Acquisition Budgetary Resources	18.391	7.546	8.887	4.378
Maintenance Budgetary Resources	10.121	2.802	4.339	5.331
Government FTE Cost	2.680	1.254	1.302	1.351
# of FTEs	10	7	8	8

2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?: no

2.a. If "yes," how many and in what year?: Not applicable as additional FTEs will not be hired.

3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.: The summary of spending table has not changed as this is the first year the investment requires an Exhibit 300 to be submitted. Previously, the investment was categorized as a tactical investment.

PERFORMANCE

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.

Row	Fiscal Year	Strategic Goal Supported	Measurement Area	Measurement Grouping	Measurement Indicator	Baseline	Planned Improvement to the Baseline	Actual Results
1	2008	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Mission and Business Results	Information Management	Provide an electronic format for processing performance reporting: Percentage of grant performance reports received electronically through EHBs	In 2007, approx. 60% of grant performance reports were processed electronically	Increase the percentage of grant performance reports processed electronically to 65%	TBD
2	2008	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Customer Results	Response Time	Improve HRSA's ability to respond to inquiries: Average resolution time to EHBs grant management inquiries at the call center	In 2007, the average resolution response time was 3 hours	Respond to inquiries within 2.75 hours	TBD
3	2008	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Decrease response time to changes in grant activity change requests (scope requests) to better define government insurance liability: Average days to respond to scope requests	In 2007, the average number of days to respond to scope requests was 180 days	Respond to scope requests within 90 days	TBD
4	2008	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	Reduce the administrative burden associated with correcting error-laden performance reports: Percentage of reports submitted error-free upon first submission	In 2007, approx. 50% of reports received were submitted error-free upon first submission	Increase the percentage of grant performance management reports received error-free to 55%	TBD
5	2009	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Mission and Business Results	Information Management	Provide an electronic format for processing performance reporting: Percentage of grant performance reports received electronically through EHBs	In 2008, approx. 65% of grant performance reports were processed electronically	Increase the percentage of grant performance reports processed electronically to 75%	TBD
6	2009	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Customer Results	Response Time	Improve HRSA's ability to respond to inquiries within 30 days: Percentage of inquiries that are responded to within 30 days	In the current environment, the percentage of inquiries responded to within 30 days is unknown, as HRSA does not have a means to track this data	70% of inquiries are responded to within 30 days	TBD
7	2009	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Decrease response time to changes in grant activity change requests (scope requests) to better define government insurance liability: Average days to respond to scope requests	In 2008, the average number of days to respond to scope requests was 90 days	Respond to scope requests within 60 days	TBD
8	2009	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	Reduce the administrative burden associated with correcting error-laden performance reports: Percentage of reports submitted error-free upon first submission	In 2008, approx. 55% of reports received were submitted error-free upon first submission	Increase the percentage of grant performance management reports received error-free to 65%	TBD
9	2010	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Mission and Business Results	Information Management	Provide an electronic format for processing performance reporting: Percentage of grant performance reports received electronically through EHBs	In 2009, approx. 75% of grant performance reports were processed electronically	Increase the percentage of grant performance reports processed electronically to 85%	TBD
10	2010	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Customer Results	Response Time	Improve HRSA's ability to respond to inquiries within 30 days: Percentage of inquiries that are responded to within 30 days	In the current environment, the percentage of inquiries responded to within 30 days is unknown, as HRSA does not have a means to track this data	Increase the percentage of inquiries are responded to within 30 days to 80%	TBD
11	2010	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Decrease response time to changes in grant activity change requests (scope requests) to better define government insurance liability: Average days to respond to scope requests	In 2009, The average number of days to respond to scope requests is 60 days	Respond to scope requests within 30 days	TBD
12	2010	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	Reduce the administrative burden associated with correcting error-laden performance reports: Percentage of reports submitted error-free upon first submission	In 2009, approx. 65% of reports received were submitted error-free upon first submission	Increase the percentage of grant performance management reports received error-free to 75%	TBD
13	2011	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Mission and Business Results	Information Management	Provide an electronic format for processing performance reporting: Percentage of grant performance reports received electronically through EHBs	In 2010, approx. 85% of grant performance reports were processed electronically	Increase the percentage of grant performance reports processed electronically to 90%	TBD
14	2011	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Customer Results	Response Time	Improve HRSA's ability to respond to inquiries within 30 days: Percentage of inquiries that are responded to within 30 days	In the current environment, the percentage of inquiries responded to within 30 days is unknown, as HRSA does not have a means to track this data	Increase the percentage of inquiries are responded to within 30 days to 90%	TBD
15	2011	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Decrease response time to changes in grant activity change requests (scope requests) to better define government insurance liability: Average days to respond to scope requests	In 2010, the average number of days to respond to scope requests was 30 days	Maintain response of scope requests to within 30 days	TBD
16	2011	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	Reduce the administrative burden associated with correcting error-laden performance reports: Percentage of reports submitted error-free upon first submission	In 2010, approx. 75% of reports received were submitted error-free upon first submission	Increase the percentage of grant performance management reports received error-free to 85%	TBD
17	2012	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Mission and Business Results	Information Management	Provide an electronic format for processing performance reporting: Percentage of grant performance reports received electronically through EHBs	In 2011, approx. 90% of grant performance reports were processed electronically	Increase the percentage of grant performance reports processed electronically to 93%	TBD
18	2012	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Customer Results	Response Time	Improve HRSA's ability to respond to inquiries within 30 days: Percentage of inquiries that are responded to within 30 days	In the current environment, the percentage of inquiries responded to within 30 days is unknown, as HRSA does not have a means to track this data	Increase the percentage of inquiries are responded to within 30 days to 93%	TBD
19	2012	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Decrease response time to changes in grant activity change requests (scope requests) to better define government insurance liability: Average days to respond to scope requests	In 2011, the average number of days to respond to scope requests was 30 days	Maintain response of scope requests to within 30 days	TBD
20	2012	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	Reduce the administrative burden associated with correcting error-laden performance reports: Percentage of reports submitted error-free upon first submission	In 2011, approx. 85% of reports received were submitted error-free upon first submission	Increase the percentage of grant performance management reports received error-free to 90%	TBD
21	2013	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Mission and Business Results	Information Management	Provide an electronic format for processing performance reporting: Percentage of grant performance reports received electronically through EHBs	In 2012, approx. 93% of grant performance reports were processed electronically	Increase the percentage of grant performance reports processed electronically to 95%	TBD
22	2013	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Customer Results	Response Time	Improve HRSA's ability to respond to inquiries within 30 days: Percentage of inquiries that are responded to within 30 days	In the current environment, the percentage of inquiries responded to within 30 days is unknown, as HRSA does not have a means to track this data	Increase the percentage of inquiries are responded to within 30 days to 95%	TBD
23	2013	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Decrease response time to changes in grant activity change requests (scope requests) to better define government insurance liability: Average days to respond to scope requests	In 2012, the average number of days to respond to scope requests was 30 days	Maintain response of scope requests to within 30 days	TBD
24	2013	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Technology	Data Reliability and Quality	Reduce the administrative burden associated with correcting error-laden performance reports: Percentage of reports submitted error-free upon first submission	In 2012, approx. 90% of reports received were submitted error-free upon first submission	Maintain the percentage of grant performance management reports received error-free at 90%	TBD
25	2007	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Mission and Business Results	Information Management	Increase the number of grant applications received electronically	In 2006, 1,041 applications were received electronically	Increase the number of grant applications received electronically to 1,400	1,662 applications received electronically as of 8/30/2007.
26	2007	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Customer Results	Response Time	Reduce the average resolution time for errors and responding to issues/queries	In 2006, the average response time was 8 business hours	Reduce the average response time to 7 business hours	Average response time is 4 hours as of 8/30/2007.
27	2007	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Improve the timeliness of grantee performance data to support HRSA program planning and evaluation	In 2006, the time lapse was 12 months	Reduce the time lapse to 5.5 months	Unable to report results till later in FY07.
28	2007	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Technology	Availability	Increase site availability	In 2006, site availability was 93%	Increase site availability to 97.5%	Site availability is 99.98% as of 8/30/2007.
29	2006	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Mission and Business Results	Information Management	Increase the number of grant applications received electronically	In 2005, 464 applications were received electronically	Increase the number of grant applications received electronically to 900	1,041 applications were received electronically
30	2006	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Customer Results	Response Time	Reduce the average resolution time for errors and responding to issues/queries	In 2005, the average response time was 15 business hours	Reduce the average response time to 13 business hours	Average response time is 8 business hours
31	2006	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Improve the timeliness of grantee performance data to support HRSA program planning and evaluation	In 2005, the time lapse was 14 months	Reduce the time lapse to 13 months	The time lapse is 12 months
32	2006	Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources	Technology	Availability	Increase site availability	In 2005, site availability was 91%	Increase site availability to 97.5%	Site availability is 93%

Enterprise Architecture

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 Investment 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.

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

2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy?: no

2.b. If no, please explain why?: This investment needs to be identified in the HHS transition strategy.

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

4. 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.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/. Component: Use existing SRM Components or identify as NEW. A NEW component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM. Reused Name and UPI: 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. Internal or External Reuse?: 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. Funding Percentage: Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the funding level transferred to another agency to pay for the service.

Row	Agency Component Name	Agency Component Description	Service Type	Component	Internal or External Reuse?	Funding %
1	Task Management	Defines the set of capabilities that support a specific undertaking or function assigned to an employee.	Collaboration	Task Management	No Reuse	1
2	Inbound Correspondence Management	Defines the set of capabilities that manage externally initiated communication between an organization and its stakeholders.	Routing and Scheduling	Inbound Correspondence Management	No Reuse	1
3	Outbound Correspondence Management	Defines the set of capabilities that manage internally initiated communication between an organization and its stakeholders.	Routing and Scheduling	Outbound Correspondence Management	No Reuse	1
4	Process Tracking	Defines the set of capabilities that allow the monitoring of activities within the business cycle.	Tracking and Workflow	Process Tracking	No Reuse	1
5	Library / Storage	Defines the set of capabilities that support document and data warehousing and archiving.	Document Management	Library / Storage	No Reuse	9
6	Smart Documents	Defines the set of capabilities that support the interaction of information and process (business logic) rules between users of the document. (i.e. the logic and use of the document is embedded within the document itself and is managed within the document parameters)	Knowledge Management	Smart Documents	No Reuse	9
7	Knowledge Capture	Defines the set of capabilities that facilitate collection of data and information.	Knowledge Management	Knowledge Capture	No Reuse	9
8	Information Sharing	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of documents and data in a multi-user environment for use by an organization and its stakeholders.	Knowledge Management	Information Sharing	No Reuse	9
9	Standardized / Canned	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of pre-conceived or pre-written reports.	Reporting	Standardized / Canned	No Reuse	9
10	Ad Hoc	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of dynamic reports on an as needed basis.	Reporting	Ad Hoc	No Reuse	9
11	Data Exchange	Defines the set of capabilities that support the interchange of information between multiple systems or applications; includes verification that transmitted data was received unaltered.	Data Management	Data Exchange	No Reuse	14
12	Program / Project Management	Defines the set of capabilities that manage and control a particular effort of an organization.	Management of Processes	Program / Project Management	No Reuse	9
13	Workgroup / Groupware	Defines the set of capabilities that support multiple users working on related tasks.	Organizational Management	Workgroup / Groupware	No Reuse	9
14	Online Tutorials	Defines the set of capabilities that provide an electronic interface to educate and assist customers.	Customer Initiated Assistance	Online Tutorials	No Reuse	9
15	Call Center Management	Defines the set of capabilities that handle telephone sales and/or service to the end customer.	Customer Relationship Management	Call Center Management	No Reuse	3
16	Contact and Profile Management	Defines the set of capabilities that provide a comprehensive view of all customer interactions, including calls, email, correspondence and meetings; also provides for the maintenance of a customer's account, business and personal information.	Customer Relationship Management	Contact and Profile Management	No Reuse	1
17	Scheduling	Defines the set of capabilities that support the plan for performing work or services to meet the needs of an organization's customers.	Customer Initiated Assistance	Scheduling	No Reuse	1

5. 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. FEA SRM Component: 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. Service Specification: 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.

Row	SRM Component	>Service Area	Service Category	Service Standard	Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name)
1	Data Exchange	Component Framework	Data Interchange	Data Exchange	SOAP
2	Library / Storage	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Microsoft SQL Server 2000
3	Standardized / Canned	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Business Objects Crystal Reports 11
4	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Business Objects Crystal Reports 11
5	Information Sharing	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Dependent	Adobe Captivate
6	Task Management	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	EHBs,Window 2003, SQL Server 2000/2005
7	Inbound Correspondence Management	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	EHBs, Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000/2005, MS IIS
8	Outbound Correspondence Management	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	EHBs, Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000/2005, MS IIS
9	Knowledge Capture	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Integration	Enterprise Application Integration	EHBs, windows 2003, SQL Server 2000/2005
10	Program / Project Management	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	EHBs, Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000/2005
11	Workgroup / Groupware	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	EHBs, MS Active Directory
12	Online Tutorials	Service Access and Delivery	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	MS Internet Explorer, Carasoft Robohelp, Captivate, Webtv
13	Call Center Management	Service Access and Delivery	Access Channels	Collaboration / Communications	ATT&T FTS 2000 Crossover, Nortel ACD, Remedy

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

PART TWO

RISK

You should perform a risk assessment during the early planning and initial concept phase of the investment's life-cycle, develop 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.

Answer the following questions to describe how you are managing investment risks.

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

1.a. If yes, what is the date of the plan?: 2007-05-11

1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?: no

1.c. If yes, describe any significant changes:: Not applicable

3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:: A risk assessment of the EHBs investment was conducted to quantify risks and adequately account for risk in the life cycle cost. The risks analyzed derive from the EHBs risk management plan and ongoing risk management discussions. Once identified, risks are quantified by assigning probability and cost impact. Mitigation strategies are developed for the risks. During this effort, the costs necessary for the implementation of the mitigation strategy are also captured. These costs will be added to the project budget as contingency funds. The last step for risk assessment is to adjust cost elements directly. In order to define an appropriate level of impact on costs, each risk is considered with the effects of mitigation. Mitigated risks will have lower probabilities and impacts, but often enough, risk cannot be entirely eradicated. This residual risk, in the form of a multiplier, is applied to those individual cost elements that may be affected by such risk. For example, the probability of a schedule risk occurring is multiplied by the impact of the risk on schedule and those schedule-dependent cost elements. Risk adjusted costs are then inflated to present realistic life cycle cost estimates.

COST & SCHEDULE

1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard 748?: yes

2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%?: no

3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?: no