| FY2008 Exhibit 300 | | | | | | | 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: | | 2006-09-12 | | | | |
| I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset: | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | USAID/DoS IT Infrastructure Integration (formerly known as Joint USAID-DoS Infrastructure Center of Excellence) | | | | |
| I. A. 5. Unique ID: (For IT investments only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system.) | | 184-15-02-01-01-2021-00 | | | | |
| I. A. 6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2008? | | (Please NOTE: Investments moving to O&M ONLY in FY2008, with Planning/Acquisition activities prior to FY2008 should not select O&M. These investments should indicate their current status.) | | | Mixed Life Cycle | | | | |
| 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) | | | To fully align foreign policy and development assistance to support the President’s National Security Strategy and Management Agenda, the Department of State (DoS) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have begun integrating common, overseas management structures. This collaboration will help both organizations execute joint goals, such as providing employee support, increasing operational efficiencies, and reducing redundancies and costs for the taxpayer. To implement this initiative, a DoS/USAID Joint Management Council (JMC) was created to include seven working groups to address issues surrounding specific management functions. Working with the JMC and supporting the FY2004-2009 Joint Strategic Plan and FY2007 Annual Performance Plan, a USAID team developed an approach exploring the most effective means to coordinate, optimize, and potentially integrate the respective overseas Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) IT infrastructures and corresponding policies in support of the common, overseas structures. USAID resources will work jointly with DoS to plan and execute the critical coordination and optimization of the overseas infrastructure environments in a 3-phase development approach during FYs 07-11 that includes: 1) Project Ramp-Up, 2) Piloting and Engineering, and 3) Overseas Deployment. During the second phase, USAID and DoS will determine the feasibility of the network perimeter portion of the new architecture design while also focusing on the harmonization of the risk and policy differences. These actions will allow DoS and USAID to create more near-term collaboration opportunities at Tier 1 posts while the new architecture and operational support model are engineered and then tested during pilots to ensure all business requirements have been met before a full deployment overseas is agreed upon. Note that this business case assumes full funding provision for DoS particularly in the second phase (to match or exceed USAID’s investment in FYs 2007 – 2009) and, depending on the outcome of the second phase, additional funds may be requested for this effort by DoS and USAID in FYs 2010 and 2011. This effort provides several strategic benefits to USAID, DoS, and the U.S. Government overall including economies of scale, support of the goals of both Transformational Diplomacy and Rightsizing and Regionalization efforts, and the opportunity to build a more optimized and coordinated environment for the Foreign Affairs community. | | | | |
| 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? | | 2006-08-30 | | | | |
|
| I. A. 10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project. | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 12. a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only) | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 12. b. 1. If "yes", is an ESPC or UESC being used to help fund this investment? | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. 2. If "yes", will this investment meet sustainable design principles? | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. 3. If "yes", is it designed to be 30% more energy efficient than relevant code? | | | |
|
|
| I. A. 13. Does this investment support one of the PMA initiatives? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 13. a. If "yes", check all that apply: | | Expanded E-Government | | | Right Sized Overseas Presence | | | | |
| I. A. 13. b. Briefly describe how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s). | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | Provides stable and adequate, yet flexible infrastructure; gains economies of scale; and provides more central/regional coordination | | | | |
|
| I. A. 14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)? | | (For more information about the PART, visit www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part.) | | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 14. a. If "yes", does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review? | | | |
| I. A. 14. b. If "yes", what is the name of the PARTed Program? | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | | |
| I. A. 14. c. If "yes", what PART rating did it receive? | | | |
|
| I. A. 15. Is this investment for information technology? (see section 53 for definition) | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 16. What is the level of the IT Project (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)? | | Level 1 - Projects with low-to-moderate complexity and risk. Example: Bureau-level project such as a stand-alone information system that has low- to-moderate complexity and risk. Level 2 - Projects with high complexity and/or risk which are critical to the mission of the organization. Examples: Projects that are part of a portfolio of projects/systems that impact each other and/or impact mission activities. Department-wide projects that impact cross-organizational missions, such as an agency-wide system integration that includes large scale Enterprise Resource Planning (e.g., the DoD Business Mgmt Modernization Program). Level 3 - Projects that have high complexity, and/or risk, and have government-wide impact. Examples: Government-wide initiative (E-GOV, President's Management Agenda). High interest projects with Congress, GAO, OMB, or the general public. Cross-cutting initiative (Homeland Security). | | | Level 3 | | | | |
| I. A. 17. What project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per OMB's PM Guidance): | | (1) - The project manager assigned for this investment has been validated as qualified in accordance with OMB PM Guidance.; (2) - The project manager assigned for this investment is in the process of being validated as qualified in accordance with OMB PM Guidance.; (3) - The project manager assigned for this investment is not validated as qualified in accordance with OMB PM Guidance.; (4) - The qualifications for the project manager named have not been evaluated.; (5) - No project manager is currently assigned for this investment.; (6) - N/A -- This is not an IT 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 2006 agency high risk report (per OMB's "high risk" memo)? | | no | | | | |
| I. A. 19. Is this a financial management system? | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 19. a. If "yes", does this investment address a FFMIA compliance area? | | | | | | | I. A. 19. a. 1. If "yes" which compliance area? | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | N/A | | | | |
| 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 FY2008 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 | | | | |
|
| Section B: Summary of Funding | | | | | | | 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 2006 | PY 2006 | CY 2007 | BY 2008 | | Planning | $1.00 | $0.00 | $0.29 | $0.00 | | Acquisition | $3.14 | $0.00 | $0.70 | $5.00 | | Subtotal Planning & Acquisition | $4.14 | $0.00 | $0.99 | $5.00 | | Operations & Maintenance | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | | TOTAL | $4.14 | $0.00 | $0.99 | $5.00 | | Government FTE Costs | $0.15 | $0.15 | $0.32 | $0.32 | | Number of FTE represented by cost | $1.00 | $1.00 | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| | | | |
| 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 FY2007 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes. | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | In FYs 2005 and 2006, USAID and DoS planning and engineering teams worked together to define the best method of supporting the common, overseas management structures from an IT perspective. After analyzing the benefits, advantages, and challenges with a number of options, the two agencies agreed to conduct two proofs of concepts overseas and to collaborate on issues requiring resolution. This FY 2008 business case and revised funding request are based on this analysis and subsequent discussions. | | | | |
|
| Section D: Performance Information | 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 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 or qualitative measure.
Agencies must use Table 1 below for reporting performance goals and measures for all non-IT investments and for existing IT investments that were initiated prior to FY 2005. The table can be extended to include measures for years beyond FY 2006. | | | | | | | I. D. 1. Table 1 | | (Character Limitations: Strategic Goal(s) Supported - 250 Characters; Performance Measure - 250 Characters; Actual/baseline (from Previous Year) - 250 Characters; Planned Performance Metric (Target) - 250 Characters; Performance Metric Results (Actual) - 250 Characters; Measurement Indicator - 250 Characters; Baseline - 250 Characters; Planned Improvement to the Baseline - 250 Characters; Actual Results - 250 Characters) | | | Fiscal Year | Strategic Goal(s) Supported | Performance Measure | Actual/baseline (from Previous Year) | Planned Performance Metric (Target) | Performance Metric Results (Actual) | | 2007 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Increase number of cross-trained Network Operating Center (NOC) and help deskstaff by 40% | Less than 10% of staff are cross-trained on the respective networks | 50% of staff are cross-trained on the respective networks | TBD | | 2007 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Increase number of joint governance structures to oversee the IT coordination and optimization effort and the number of corresponding agreements by 100% | Zero (0) MOUs in place to guide the coordination and optimization effort | One (1) overarching MOU in place to guide the coordination and optimization effort | TBD | | 2008 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Increase number of shared ISPs overseas by 15% | USAID and DoS share less than 5% of Internet Service Provider (ISP) overseas | 20% of collocated missions and embassies share ISP connections | TBD | | 2008 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Decrease number of Wide Area Network (WAN) aggregation points by 50% | Two (2) separate WAN aggregation points | One (1) synchronized WAN aggregation point | TBD | | 2008 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities. | Increase number of pilot assessments of shared DMZ environment by 100% | 0% of mission and embassy applications assessed in DMZ environment | 100% of pilot mission and embassy applications successfully assessed and piloted in DMZ environment | TBD | | 2008 | 12- Management and Organizational Excellence- Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities | Increase number of completed pilot satisfaction assessment forms by 100% | No baseline (process not yet started) | 100% of Mission Directors and Ambassadors sign pilot acceptance completion form | TBD | | 2009 | 12 - Management and Organizational Excellence - Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capabilities | Decrease number of disparate services, e.g., remote access, by 10% | No baseline | 3-5 services are seamlessly operated | TBD | | 2009 | 12 - Management and Organizational Excellence - Ensure a high quality workforce supported by modern and secure infrastructure and operational capacities | Increase number of shared ISPs | USAID and DoS share less than 5% of ISP Service (increase to occur in FY08) | 50% of collocated missions and embassies share ISP connections | TBD |
| | | | |
|
| Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA) | | In order to successfully address this area of the business case and capital asset plan you must ensure the investment is included in the agency's EA and Capital Planning and Invesment Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and supports the FEA. You must also ensure the business case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the business, performance, data, services, application, and technology layers of the agency's EA. | | | | | | | I. F. 1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. F. 1. a. If "no", please explain why? | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. F. 2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. F. 2. a. If "yes", provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment. | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | This investment most closely aligns with the infrastructure consolidation, integration and standardization activity under the Mobile Computing & Infrastructure goal within the DoS and USAID Joint Enterprise Architecture (JEA) and draft Joint IT Strategic Plans. | | | | |
| I. F. 2. b. If "no" please explain why? | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. F. 3. 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/. | | FEA SRM 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. FEA Service Component Reused - 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 Porject 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 comonent 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. (Character Limitations: Agency Component Name - 250 Characters; Agency Component Description - 500 Characters) | | | Agency Component Name | Agency Component Description | FEA SRM Service Type | FEA SRM Component | FEA Service Component Reused - Component Name | FEA Service Component Reused - UPI | Internal or External Reuse? | BY Funding Percentage | | Business Management Services | Planning for the coordination and optimization effort and related activities | Investment Management | Strategic Planning and Mgmt | | | No Reuse | 2 | | Program/Project Management | Joint Program Management Office Support | Management of Processes | Program / Project Management | | | No Reuse | 2 | | Business Management Services | IT Coordination and Optimization Governance standards and processes | Management of Processes | Governance / Policy Management | | | No Reuse | 16 | | Business Management Services | Monitoring of quality of services by Joint PMO | Management of Processes | Quality Management | | | No Reuse | 2 | | Business Management Services | IT coordination and optimization risk management | Management of Processes | Risk Management | | | No Reuse | 2 | | Business Management Services | IT coordination and optimization change management and communications | Management of Processes | Change Management | | | No Reuse | 2 | | Business Management Services | IT coordination and optimization requirements collection and analysis | Management of Processes | Requirements Management | | | No Reuse | 2 | | Business Management Services | Network Operating Center (NOC) and help desk staff and process cross-pollination | Organizational Management | Network Management | | | No Reuse | 14.4 | | Business Analytical Services | Policy refinement (to meet needs of this effort) | Business Intelligence | Decision Support and Planning | | | No Reuse | 14.4 | | Support Services | Common remote access and control system | Systems Management | Remote Systems Control | | | No Reuse | 14.4 | | Support Services | Active Directory Synchronization | Security Management | Identification and Authentication | | | No Reuse | 14.4 | | Support Services | Active Directory Synchronization | Security Management | Access Control | | | No Reuse | 14.4 |
| | | | |
| I. F. 4. 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. (Character Limitations: Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name) - 250 characters) | | | FEA SRM Component | FEA TRM Service Area | FEA TRM Service Category | FEA TRM Service Standard | Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name) | | Strategic Planning and Mgmt | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD | | Program / Project Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD | | Governance / Policy Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | TBD | | Quality Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | TBD | | Risk Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD | | Change Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD | | Requirements Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | TBD | | Network Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Supporting Network Services | TBD | | Decision Support and Planning | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | TBD | | Identification and Authentication | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | TBD | | Access Control | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | TBD | | Call Center Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Supporting Network Services | TBD | | Remote Systems Control | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Supporting Network Services | TBD | | System Resource Monitoring | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | TBD | | Video Conferencing | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Video Conferencing | TBD | | Voice Communications | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Peripherals | TBD |
| | | | |
| I. F. 5. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. F. 5. a. If "yes", please describe. | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | The integration activity will allow USAID and DoS to jointly leverage existing components as specified in the following documents: 1) JEA, 2) Joint IT Strategic Plans, and 3) IT Infrastructure Integration (i3) Planning Concepts and Preliminary Approach. | | | | |
|
| I. F. 6. Does this investment provide the public with access to a government automated information system? | | no | | | | | | | | I. F. 6. a. If "yes", does customer access require specific software (e.g., a specific web browser version)? | | | | | | | I. F. 6. a. 1. If "yes", provide the specific product name(s) and version number(s) of the required software and the date when the public will be able to access this investment by any software (i.e. to ensure equitable and timely access of government information and services). | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | | |
|
|
|
|
| PART IV: FOR "E-GOV AND LINES OF BUSINESS OVERSIGHT" ONLY | | Part IV should be completed only for investments which in FY08 are considered an E-Gov initiative or a Line of Business (LOB), i.e., selected the "E-Gov and LOB Oversight" choice in response to Question 6 in Part I, Section A above. Investments currently identified as "E-Gov and LOB Oversight" will complete only Part I and IV of the exhibit 300. | | | | | | | Section A: E-Gov and Lines of Business Oversight (All Capital Assets) | | Multi-agency initiatives, 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; 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. (Character Limitations: Partner Agency Asset Title - 250 Characters) | | | | |
| 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.) | | | | |
|
|
|
|