| Exhibit 300 FY2009 | | | | | | | PART I: SUMMARY INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION | | In Part I, complete Sections A, B, C, and D for all capital assets (IT and non-IT). Complete Sections E and F for IT capital assets. | | | | | | | Section A: Overview (All Capital Assets) | | The following series of questions are to be completed for all investments. | | | | | | | I. A. 1. Date of Submission: | | 2007-09-11 | | | | |
| I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset: | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | Infrastructure Steady State Operations and Modernization | | | | |
| I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: | | For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system. | | | 184-15-02-01-01-2000-00 | | | | |
| I. A. 6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009? | | Please NOTE: Investments moving to O&M in FY2009, with Planning/Acquisition activities prior to FY2009 should not select O&M. These investments should indicate their current status. | | | Mixed Life Cycle | | | | |
| I. A. 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) | | | Funding for this investment is being reduced in FY08 due to Agency budget constraints. This investment provides critical 24X7 worldwide IT infrastructure and support to the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) staff and mission. Included in this support is the local area network (LAN), metropolitan area network (MAN), wide area network (WAN), and satellite communications among approximately 8,000 end users within the Agency, in addition to facilitating their USAID communications with U.S. citizens and other stakeholders. Functionality requirements continue to increase as the Agency must continually tighten IT security, support additional corporate applications, and operate in increasing numbers of locations, including multiple sites in some countries throughout the world. All of these trends lead to increased pressure on the Agency's infrastructure operations while budgets decrease. Regarding the modernization of USAID's infrastructure, the technology modernization program, the DME portion of this investment was originally proposed to be 5 years and $55 million. Costs are now estimated to be $58.2 million, with the increase resulting from refinements to original estimates for the WAN modernization and security upgrade portions of the program. Although FY09 was expected to be the final year of the original 5-year program, funding is expected to be unavailable to complete the program in FY09 based on the current budget projections. The investment for steady-state infrastructure therefore would need to be initiated in FY10 and would have to pick up the remaining technology modernization components from the original program. Given the Agency's current budget environment, it is difficult to envision how USAID would be able to incorporate a regular annual cycle of infrastructure replacement. Finally, the future holds questions for USAID's infrastructure costs and management approach, given ongoing discussions with the Department of State on infrastructure collaboration. A separate investment describes the collaboration project; that project is identifying engineering, cost and governance issues and testing collaboration models. | | | | |
| I. A. 9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 9. a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval? | | 2007-08-22 | | | | |
|
| 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? | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 12. a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only) | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 12. b. 1. If "yes," is an ESPC or UESC being used to help fund this investment? | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. 2. If "yes," will this investment meet sustainable design principles? | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. 3. If "yes," is it designed to be 30% more energy efficient than relevant code? | | | |
|
|
| I. A. 13. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 13. a. If "yes," check all that apply: | | Human Capital | | | Budget Performance Integration | | | Financial Performance | | | Expanded E-Government | | | Competitive Sourcing | | | | |
| I. A. 13. b. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? (e.g. If E-Gov is selected, is it an approved shared service provider or the managing partner?) | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | The infrastructure operations and improvements provided by this investment/asset support the initiatives checked above. The telecommunications, LAN services and IT support staff are all required to ensure that programs/systems developed to support these initiatives are adequate. | | | | |
|
| I. A. 14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)? (For more information about the PART, visit www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part.) | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 14. a. If "yes," does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review? | | no | | | | |
| I. A. 14. b. If "yes," what is the name of the PARTed Program? | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | OE Management | | | | |
| I. A. 14. c. If "yes," what PART rating did it receive? | | Moderately Effective | | | | |
|
| I. A. 15. Is this investment for information technology? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 16. What is the level of the IT Project? (per CIO Council PM Guidance) | Level 1 - Projects with low-to-moderate complexity and risk. Example: Bureau-level project such as a stand-alone information system that has low- to-moderate complexity and risk.
Level 2 - Projects with high complexity and/or risk which are critical to the mission of the organization. Examples: Projects that are part of a portfolio of projects/systems that impact each other and/or impact mission activities. Department-wide projects that impact cross-organizational missions, such as an agency-wide system integration that includes large scale Enterprise Resource Planning (e.g., the DoD Business Mgmt Modernization Program).
Level 3 - Projects that have high complexity, and/or risk, and have government-wide impact. Examples: Government-wide initiative (E-GOV, President's Management Agenda). High interest projects with Congress, GAO, OMB, or the general public. Cross-cutting initiative (Homeland Security). | | | Level 2 | | | | |
| I. A. 17. What project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council’s PM Guidance): | | (1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment;(2) Project manager qualification is under review for this investment;(3) Project manager assigned to investment, but does not meet requirements;(4) Project manager assigned but qualification status review has not yet started;(5) No Project manager has yet been assigned to this investment | | | (1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment | | | | |
| I. A. 18. Is this investment identified as "high risk" on the Q4-FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB Memorandum M-05-23)? | | no | | | | |
| I. A. 19. Is this a financial management system? | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 19. a. If "yes," does this investment address a FFMIA compliance area? | | | | | | | I. A. 19. a. 1. If "yes," which compliance area | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | | |
| I. A. 19. a. 2. If "no," what does it address? | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. A. 19. b. If "yes," please identify the system name(s) and system acronym(s) as reported in the most recent financial systems inventory update required by Circular A-11 section 52 | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. A. 20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 100%) | | | | | | |
| I. A. 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? | | no | | | | |
| 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 | | | | |
|
| Section B: Summary of Spending (All Capital Assets) | | | | | | | I. B. 1. Provide the total estimated life-cycle cost for this investment by completing the following table. All amounts represent budget authority in millions, and are rounded to three decimal places. Federal personnel costs should be included only in the row designated "Government FTE Cost," and should be excluded from the amounts shown for "Planning," "Full Acquisition," and "Operation/Maintenance." The "TOTAL" estimated annual cost of the investment is the sum of costs for "Planning," "Full Acquisition," and "Operation/Maintenance." For Federal buildings and facilities, life-cycle costs should include long term energy, environmental, decommissioning, and/or restoration costs. The costs associated with the entire life-cycle of the investment should be included in this report. | Note: For the cross-agency investments, this table should include all funding (both managing and partner agencies).
Government FTE Costs should not be included as part of the TOTAL represented. | | | PY-1 and Spending Prior to 2007 | PY 2007 | CY 2008 | BY 2009 |
|---|
| Planning | $6.100 | $3.000 | $3.000 | $0.000 |
|---|
| Acquisition | $33.500 | $8.000 | $8.000 | $0.000 |
|---|
| Subtotal Planning and Acquisition | $39.600 | $11.000 | $11.000 | $0.000 |
|---|
| Operations and Maintenance | $211.500 | $28.360 | $30.520 | $26.660 |
|---|
| TOTAL | $251.100 | $39.360 | $41.520 | $26.660 |
|---|
| Government FTE Costs | $7.100 | $3.030 | $3.030 | $3.030 |
|---|
| Number of FTE represented by cost | $111.000 | $20.000 | $21.500 | $20.000 |
|---|
| | | | |
| I. B. 2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's? | | no | | | | | | | | I. B. 2. a. If "yes," How many and in what year? | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. B. 3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes. | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | The operations and maintenance budget for FY 2008 is being reduced even further. Due to this reduction, performance measures and service level agreements will need to be reduced over the next several weeks. The funding for the FY08 technology modernization is at risk as of February 2008; planning numbers are shown in this document. Project milestones, scope and schedule will be reduced if planned funding level is not available. | | | | |
|
| Section D: Performance Information (All Capital Assets) | | In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency’s mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure. | | | | | | | I. D. 1. Table 1. Performance Information Table | In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency’s mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure.
Agencies must use the following table to report performance goals and measures for the major investment and use the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM). Map all Measurement Indicators to the corresponding "Measurement Area" and "Measurement Grouping" identified in the PRM. There should be at least one Measurement Indicator for each of the four different Measurement Areas (for each fiscal year). The PRM is available at www.egov.gov. The table can be extended to include performance measures for years beyond FY 2009. | | | Fiscal Year | Strategic Goal(s) Supported | Measurement Area | Measurement Grouping | Measurement Indicator | Baseline | Target | Actual Results |
|---|
| 2006 | Management and Organizational Excellence | Customer Results | Availability | Percentage of time that servers are available for use by USAID staff. | 98% | 99% following replacement of obsolete equipment | 98%; minimal server replacements during 2006 (only overseas UNIX boxes) |
|---|
| 2006 | Management and Organizational Excellence | Customer Results | Response Time | Total customer response and resolution time to user complaints, and percentage of time first call resolves problem. | Response within 2 hours, resolution within 6 hrs for high priority problems; 80% first call resolution | Resolution within 4 hours for high priority problems; 85% first call resolution | No change from baseline |
|---|
| 2006 | Management and Organizational Excellence | Technology | IT Infrastructure Maintenance | Infrastructure higher capacity based on desktop standard configurations and software versions | 25% of AID/W desktops have less than 512MB RAM, less than 40MB disk drive; 95% of all USAID desktops have Windows 2000 operating system and Microsoft Office 2000 | By FY2009, all AID/W desktops have adequate RAM and disk drives and have upgraded (not end of support) office automation software | By February 2007, 50% of AID/W desktop hardware replaced; by February 2007, all USAID desktops worldwide have current office automation software |
|---|
| 2006 | Management and Organizational Excellence | Technology | Functionality | Number of months for which steady state has missed performance based SLAs | Twice in 2004, and once in 2005 | Zero times SLAs missed | No SLAs missed from December 2005 ? May 2006; vulnerability scan SLA waived for May ? August |
|---|
| 2006 | Management and Organizational Excellence | Technology | Operations and Maintenance Costs | Total cost of ownership for steady-state remains low to medium among comparable organizations based on industry TCO models | 2006 AID/W cost recovery charge: $11,262 | USAID TCO assessed by external source | Using 2004 data, in a 2006 validation of TCO, Gartner assessed USAID direct costs per user as $4,656 in AID/W and $3,698 in missions; Gartner tools used were Gartner TCO Manager and Decision Engine for Cost Management |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Customer Results | Availability | Percentage of time that servers are available for use by USAID staff. | 98% | 99% following replacement of obsolete equipment | SLAs for server availability at 98% were met throughout FY2007 |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Customer Results | Response Time | Total customer response and resolution time to user complaints, and percentage of time first call resolves problem. | Response within 2 hours, resolution within 6 hours for high priority problems; 80% first call resolution | Resolution within 4 hours for high priority problems; 85% first call resolution | This SLA was met throughout FY2007, except for December 2007 |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | IT Infrastructure Maintenance | Infrastructure higher capacity based on desktop standard configurations and software versions | 25% of AID/W desktops have less than 512MB RAM, less than 40MB disk drive; 95% of all USAID desktops have Windows 2000 operating system and Microsoft Office 2000 | By FY2009, all AID/W desktops have adequate RAM and disk drives and have upgraded (not end of support) office automation software | A/O May 2007, all AID/W desktops have upgraded hardware and software |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | Functionality | Number of months for which steady state has missed performance based SLAs | Zero missed SLAs in 2006 | Zero times SLAs missed | Due to new contract and transition, SLAs were missed 11 of 165 possible measures. |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | Operations and Maintenance Costs | Total cost of ownership for steady-state remains low to medium among comparable organizations based on industry TCO models | For FY2004 budget, Gartner assessed USAID direct costs per user as $4,656 in AID/W and $3,698 in missions | TCO assessed for FY2006 and compared to similar organizations | New TCO assessment planned for FY2008 |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Customer Results | Availability | Percentage of time that servers are available for use by USAID staff. | 98% | 99% following replacement of obsolete equipment | |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Customer Results | Response Time | Total customer response and resolution time to user complaints, and percentage of time first call resolves problem. | Response within 2 hours, resolution within 4 hours for high priority problems; 85% first call resolution | Resolution within 4 hours for high priority problems; 85% first call resolution | |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | IT Infrastructure Maintenance | Infrastructure higher capacity based on desktop standard configurations and software versions | in 2007, all headquarters and 95% of overseas desktops confirmed at standard minimum hardware configuration and at standard Windows XP and office suite versions | By FY2009, all AID/W desktops have adequate RAM and disk drives and have upgraded (not end of support) office automation software | |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | Functionality | Number of months for which steady state has missed performance based SLAs | Zero missed SLAs in 2006 | Zero times SLAs missed | |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | Operations and Maintenance Costs | Total cost of ownership for steady-state remains low to medium among comparable organizations based on industry TCO models | For FY2004 budget, Gartner assessed USAID direct costs per user as $4,656 in AID/W and $3,698 in missions | TCO remains within 10% of 2007 level assuming required services remain static | S |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Customer Results | Availability | Percentage of time that servers are available for use by USAID staff. | 98% | 99% following replacement of obsolete equipment | |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Customer Results | Response Time | Total customer response and resolution time to user complaints, and percentage of time first call resolves problem. | Response within 2 hours, resolution within 4 hours for high priority problems; 85% first call resolution | Resolution within 4 hours for high priority problems; 85% first call resolution | |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | IT Infrastructure Maintenance | Infrastructure higher capacity based on desktop standard configurations and software versions | in 2007, all headquarters and 95% of overseas desktops confirmed at standard minimum hardware configuration and at standard Windows XP and office suite versions | By FY2009, all AID/W desktops have adequate RAM and disk drives and have upgraded (not end of support) office automation software | |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | Functionality | Number of months for which steady state has missed performance based SLAs | zero missed SLAs | Zero times SLAs missed | |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Technology | Operations and Maintenance Costs | Total cost of ownership for steady-state remains low to medium among comparable organizations based on industry TCO models | For FY2004 budget, Gartner assessed USAID direct costs per user as $4,656 in AID/W and $3,698 in missions | TCO remains within 10% of 2007 level assuming required services remain static | |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Mission and Business Results | IT Infrastructure Maintenance | Percentage of IT infrastructure updated within past three years. | 40% replaced by end of FY2007 | In accordance with technical modernization program schedule, resulting in 90% of core infrastructure updated by FY2009; by 2008, cumulatively, 85% of USAID IT infrastructure will be replaced | None |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Processes and Activities | Security | "A" grade on USAID ISSO security | "A" grade required on USAID ISSO vulnerability scanning | Scans will tighten to increase the security required to achieve an A grade | None |
|---|
| 2006 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Mission and Business Results | IT Infrastructure Maintenance | Percentage of IT infrastructure updated within past three years. | less than 10% | In accordance with technology modernization program schedule, resulting in 90% of core infrastructure updated by FY2009 | 37% of infrastructure equipment will be replaced in FY06 |
|---|
| 2006 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Processes and Activities | Security | "A" grade on USAID ISSO security vulnerability scanning | "A" grade required on USAID ISSO security vulnerability scanning | Scans will tighten to increase the difficulty in achieving an "A" grade | SLA for A grade met from December 2006 - May 2006, at which point vulnerability scans tightened |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Mission and Business Results | IT Infrastructure Maintenance | Percentage of IT infrastructure updated within past three years. | 37% replaced in 2006 | 90% of core infrastructure updated by FY2009; cumulatively, 65% of USAID IT infrastructure will be replaced by end of FY2007 | 40% of core infrastructure replaced by end of FY2007 |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Processes and Activities | Security | "A" grade on USAID ISSO security vulnerability scanning | "A" grade required on USAID ISSO security vulnerability scanning | Scans will tighten to increase the security required to achieve an A grade | SLA was not met for the first 6 months of the year but was met after that. |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Mission and Business Results | IT Infrastructure Maintenance | Percentage of IT infrastructure updated within past three years. | 40% replaced by end of FY2007 | In accordance with technical modernization program schedule, resulting in 90% of core infrastructure updated by FY2009; by 2008, cumulatively, 85% of USAID IT infrastructure will be replaced | |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening consular/management capabilities | Processes and Activities | Security | "A" grade on USAID ISSO security scanning | "A grade required on USAID ISSO security vulnerability scanning | Scans will tighten to increase the security required to achieve an A grade | |
|---|
| | | | |
|
| Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA) (IT Capital Assets only) | | In order to successfully address this area of the business case and capital asset plan you must ensure the investment is included in the agency's EA and Capital Planning and Invesment Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and supports the FEA. You must also ensure the business case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the business, performance, data, services, application, and technology layers of the agency's EA. | | | | | | | I. F. 1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture? | | no | | | | | | | | I. F. 1. a. If "no," please explain why? | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | USAID enterprise architecture is being developed jointly with the Dept. of State and is in the process of being developed. | | | | |
|
| I. F. 2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy? | | no | | | | | | | | I. F. 2. a. If "yes," provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment. | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | Infrastructure Steady State Operations and Modernization | | | | |
| I. F. 2. b. If "no," please explain why? | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | USAID enterprise architecture is being developed jointly with the Dept. of State and is in the process of being developed. | | | | |
|
| I. F. 3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture? | | no | | | | | | | | I. F. 3. a. If "yes," provide the name of the segment architecture. | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. F. 4. Service Component Reference Model (SRM) Table : | Identify the service components funded by this major IT investment (e.g., knowledge management, content management, customer relationship management, etc.). Provide this information in the format of the following table. For detailed guidance regarding components, please refer to http://www.egov.gov.
a. Use existing SRM Components or identify as “NEW”. A “NEW” component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM.
b. A reused component is one being funded by another investment, but being used by this investment. Rather than answer yes or no, identify the reused service component funded by the other investment and identify the other investment using the Unique Project Identifier (UPI) code from the OMB Ex 300 or Ex 53 submission.
c. ‘Internal’ reuse is within an agency. For example, one agency within a department is reusing a service component provided by another agency within the same department. ‘External’ reuse is one agency within a department reusing a service component provided by another agency in another department. A good example of this is an E-Gov initiative service being reused by multiple organizations across the federal government.
d. Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount transferred to another agency to pay for the service. The percentages in this column can, but are not required to, add up to 100%. | | | Agency Component Name | 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) |
|---|
| Back Office Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the identification, planning and allocation of an organization's physical capital and resources. | Asset / Materials Management | Property / Asset Management | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Back Office Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the identification, upgrade, allocation and replacement of physical devices, including servers and desktops, used to facilitate production and process-driven activities. | Asset / Materials Management | Computers / Automation Management | | | No Reuse | 22 |
|---|
| Back Office Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the listing and specification of available assets. | Asset / Materials Management | Asset Cataloging / Identification | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Back Office Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the movement, assignment, and replacement of assets. | Asset / Materials Management | Asset Transfer, Allocation, and Maintenance | | | No Reuse | 4 |
|---|
| Customer Services | Defines the set of capabilities that handle telephone sales and/or service to the end customer. | Customer Relationship Management | Call Center Management | | | No Reuse | 9 |
|---|
| Customer Services | Defines the set of capabilities that are used to collect useful information from an organization's customers. | Customer Relationship Management | Surveys | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Business Management Services | Defines the set of capabilities that allow the placement of request for a product. | Supply Chain Management | Ordering / Purchasing | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Business Management Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the identification of where a shipment or delivery is within the business cycle. | Supply Chain Management | Invoice / Requisition Tracking and Approval | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Business Management Services | Defines the set of capabilities that control the hardware and software environments, as well as documents of an organization. | Management of Processes | Configuration Management | | | No Reuse | 2 |
|---|
| Business Management Services | Defines the set of capabilities for gathering, analyzing and fulfilling the needs and prerequisites of an organization's efforts. | Management of Processes | Requirements Management | | | No Reuse | 2 |
|---|
| Business Management Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the administration of a group of investments held by an organization. | Investment Management | Portfolio Management | | | No Reuse | 4 |
|---|
| Business Management Services | Defines the set of capabilities involved in monitoring and maintaining a communications network in order to diagnose problems, gather statistics and provide general usage. | Organizational Management | Network Management | | | No Reuse | 16 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support audio communications sessions among people who are geographically dispersed. | Communication | Audio Conferencing | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support video communications sessions among people who are geographically dispersed. | Communication | Video Conferencing | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the purchase, upgrade and tracking of legal usage contracts for system software and applications. | Systems Management | License Management | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the monitoring, administration and usage of applications and enterprise systems from locations outside of the immediate system environment. | Systems Management | Remote Systems Control | | | No Reuse | 2 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the balance and allocation of memory, usage, disk space and performance on computers and their applications. | Systems Management | System Resource Monitoring | | | No Reuse | 16 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the propagation, installation and upgrade of written computer programs, applications and components. | Systems Management | Software Distribution | | | No Reuse | 2 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support obtaining information about those parties attempting to log on to a system or application for security purposes and the validation of those users. | Security Management | Identification and Authentication | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the management of permissions for logging onto a computer or network. | Security Management | Access Control | | | No Reuse | 1 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the confirmation of authority to enter a computer system, application or network. | Security Management | NEW | | | No Reuse | 1 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the administration of computer, application and network accounts within an organization. | Security Management | NEW | | | No Reuse | 9 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the granting of abilities to users or groups of users of a computer, application or network. | Security Management | NEW | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Support Services | Defines the set of capabilities that support the identification and monitoring of activities within an application or system. | Security Management | Audit Trail Capture and Analysis | | | No Reuse | 0 |
|---|
| Support Services | Provide telephony or other voice communications | Communication | Voice Communications | | | No Reuse | 9 |
|---|
| Support Services | Receive and track user-reported issues and problems in using IT systems, including help desk calls. | Systems Management | Issue Tracking | | | No Reuse | 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 SRM Component | FEA TRM Service Area | FEA TRM Service Category | FEA TRM Service Standard | Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name) |
|---|
| Access Control | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Internet Explorer |
|---|
| Access Control | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Other Electronic Channels | Electronic Mail |
|---|
| Computers / Automation Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | Enterprise Server |
|---|
| Identification and Authentication | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | Digital Certificate Authentication |
|---|
| Invoice / Requisition Tracking and Approval | Component Framework | Service Requirements | Hosting | Internal |
|---|
| Invoice / Requisition Tracking and Approval | Component Framework | Data Interchange | Data Exchange | File Transfer Protocol |
|---|
| Network Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Supporting Network Services | IP Security (IPSEC) |
|---|
| Network Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Support Platforms | Platform Independent | Transport Control Protocol |
|---|
| Network Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Support Platforms | Platform Dependent | Transport Control Protocol |
|---|
| Network Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Wide Area Network (WAN) | T1/T3 |
|---|
| Network Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Local Area Network (LAN) | Ethernet |
|---|
| Network Management | Service Interface and Integration | Integration | Middleware | Database Access ISQL/w |
|---|
| Portfolio Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | Enterprise Server |
|---|
| Remote Systems Control | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Service Transport | IP Security (IPSEC) |
|---|
| Remote Systems Control | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Delivery Servers | Web Servers | Internet Information Servers |
|---|
| Remote Systems Control | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Delivery Servers | Media Servers | Enterprise Server |
|---|
| Remote Systems Control | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Delivery Servers | Application Servers | Enterprise Server |
|---|
| Remote Systems Control | Component Framework | Data Management | Database Connectivity | Object Linking and Embedding/Database |
|---|
| Requirements Management | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Section 508 |
|---|
| System Resource Monitoring | Service Interface and Integration | Interface | Service Description / Interface | Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) |
|---|
| Asset Transfer, Allocation, and Maintenance | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | Remedy |
|---|
| Call Center Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | Remedy |
|---|
| Surveys | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | Remedy |
|---|
| Ordering / Purchasing | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Other Electronic Channels | Ariba |
|---|
| Ordering / Purchasing | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Other Electronic Channels | Momentum |
|---|
| Configuration Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Software Configuration Management | Documentum |
|---|
| Configuration Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Software Configuration Management | eRooms |
|---|
| Video Conferencing | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Video Conferencing | Polycom |
|---|
| License Management | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | Remedy |
|---|
| Software Distribution | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Software Configuration Management | MS SMS |
|---|
| Software Distribution | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Software Configuration Management | Marimba |
|---|
| NEW | Component Framework | Security | Certificates / Digital Signatures | RSA |
|---|
| NEW | Component Framework | Security | Supporting Security Services | MS Windows Operating System |
|---|
| NEW | Component Framework | Security | Supporting Security Services | MS Windows Operating System |
|---|
| Audit Trail Capture and Analysis | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | MS Windows Operating System |
|---|
| Voice Communications | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Collaboration / Communications | Cisco VoIP |
|---|
| Voice Communications | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Collaboration / Communications | Avaya PBX |
|---|
| | | | |
| I. F. 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. F. 6. a. If "yes," please describe. | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | It will incorporate information from OMB standard desktop security templates, Dept of State infrastructure standards, and Federal IT infrastructure line of business information. | | | | |
|
|
|
| PART IV: Planning For "Multi-Agency Collaboration" ONLY | | Part IV should be completed only for investments identified as an E-Gov initiative, an Line of Business (LOB) Initiative, or a Multi-Agency Collaboration effort., selected the “Multi-Agency Collaboration” choice in response to Question 6 in Part I, Section A above. Investments identified as “Multi-Agency Collaboration” will complete only Parts I and IV of the exhibit 300. | | | | | | | Section A: Multi-Agency Collaboration Oversight (All Capital Assets) | | Multi-agency Collaborations, such as E-Gov and LOB initiatives, should develop a joint exhibit 300. | | | | | | | IV. A. 1. Stakeholder Table | | As a joint exhibit 300, please identify the agency stakeholders. Provide the partner agency and partner agency approval date for this joint exhibit 300. | | | | | | |
| IV. A. 9. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole? | | | | | | | IV. A. 9. a. If "yes," are the migration costs associated with the migration to the selected alternative included in this investment, the legacy investment, or in a separate migration investment? | | | |
| IV. A. 9. b. Table 1. If "yes," please provide the following information: | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
