United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) eGovernment Program

#########  {#section .unnumbered}

#########  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

***Financial Profile -- Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)***

***eDeployment Business Case***

May 2004

#########  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.75in" height="1.2666666666666666in"}

**Table of Contents**

[Revision History iii](#revision-history)

[Previous Change History iii](#previous-change-history)

[Document Sign-off iii](#document-sign-off)

[1 Introduction 1](#introduction)

[1.1 Standards and Policies 1](#standards-and-policies)

[1.2 Establish Measurement Criteria 1](#establish-measurement-criteria)

[1.2.1 Determination of Alternatives 2](#determination-of-alternatives)

[1.2.2 Estimation of Costs 2](#estimation-of-costs)

[1.2.3 Estimation of Benefits 3](#estimation-of-benefits)

[1.2.4 Computation of Cash Flow 3](#computation-of-cash-flow)

[2 Current Situation 5](#current-situation)

[2.1 System Capabilities 6](#system-capabilities)

[2.2 System Architecture 7](#system-architecture)

[2.3 Customers and Stakeholders 7](#customers-and-stakeholders)

[2.3.1 Citizens 8](#citizens)

[2.3.2 Public and Private Organizations
8](#public-and-private-organizations)

[2.3.3 USDA 8](#usda)

[3 Conceptual Overview 10](#conceptual-overview)

[3.1 Lifecycle Time 10](#lifecycle-time)

[3.2 Lifecycle Demands 10](#lifecycle-demands)

[4 Implementation Approach Alternatives
11](#implementation-approach-alternatives)

[4.1 Alternative One: Status Quo 12](#alternative-one-status-quo)

[4.1.1 Market Analysis 12](#market-analysis)

[4.1.2 Functionality of Alternative 12](#functionality-of-alternative)

[4.1.3 Architecture of Alternative 12](#architecture-of-alternative)

[4.1.4 Delivery Timeline 13](#delivery-timeline)

[4.1.5 Impacts on Existing Processes 13](#impacts-on-existing-processes)

[4.1.6 Estimate Lifecycle Costs 13](#estimate-lifecycle-costs)

[4.1.7 Outline Benefits 16](#outline-benefits)

[4.1.8 Evaluate Alternative One 25](#evaluate-alternative-one)

[4.2 Alternative Two: Distributed Components
26](#alternative-two-distributed-components)

[4.2.1 Market Analysis 26](#market-analysis-1)

[4.2.2 Functionality of Alternative 26](#functionality-of-alternative-1)

[4.2.3 Architecture of Alternative 26](#architecture-of-alternative-1)

[4.2.4 Delivery Timeline 27](#delivery-timeline-1)

[4.2.5 Impacts on Existing Processes
27](#impacts-on-existing-processes-1)

[4.2.6 Estimate Lifecycle Costs 28](#estimate-lifecycle-costs-1)

[4.2.7 Outline Benefits 30](#outline-benefits-1)

[4.2.8 Evaluate Alternative Two 43](#evaluate-alternative-two)

[4.3 Alternative Three: Centralized Components
45](#alternative-three-centralized-components)

[4.3.1 Market Analysis 45](#market-analysis-2)

[4.3.2 Functionality of Alternative 45](#functionality-of-alternative-2)

[4.3.3 Architecture of Alternative 45](#architecture-of-alternative-2)

[4.3.4 Delivery Timeline 46](#delivery-timeline-2)

[4.3.5 Impacts on Existing Processes
46](#impacts-on-existing-processes-2)

[4.3.6 Estimate Lifecycle Costs 47](#estimate-lifecycle-costs-2)

[4.3.7 Outline Benefits 49](#outline-benefits-2)

[4.3.8 Evaluate Alternative Three 62](#evaluate-alternative-three)

[5 Alternatives Analysis 63](#alternatives-analysis)

[6 Appendix A - Assumptions 65](#appendix-a---assumptions)

[7 Appendix B: Staggered Realization of Benefits
67](#appendix-b-staggered-realization-of-benefits)

[7.1 Alternative One- Status Quo 68](#alternative-one--status-quo)

[7.2 Alternative 2- Multiple Hosting Locations
69](#alternative-2--multiple-hosting-locations)

[7.3 Alternative 3- Centralized Hosting
70](#alternative-3--centralized-hosting)

# Revision History {#revision-history .unnumbered}

## Previous Change History {#previous-change-history .unnumbered}

Table a -- Previous Change History

  --------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ---------------------------
  **[Version]{.smallcaps}**   **[Date]{.smallcaps}**   **[Author]{.smallcaps}**   **[Comment]{.smallcaps}**

  1.0                         04/24/04                 Tom Taliaferro             Initial draft

  2.0                         04/27/04                 Tom Taliaferro             Incorporated cost
                                                                                  information and updated
                                                                                  investment return based on
                                                                                  discount factgor

  2.1                         05/01/04                 Tom Taliaferro             Updated benefits and NPV
                                                                                  calcualtions

  2.2                         05/02/04                 Tom Taliaferrro            Updated formatting

  2.3                         05/03/04                 Tom Taliaferro             Removed reference to
                                                                                  Digitop

  2.4                         05/07/04                 Tom Taliaferro             Updated costing information
                                                                                  for Alt. 2
  --------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ---------------------------

## Document Sign-off {#document-sign-off .unnumbered}

Table b -- Document Sign-off

  ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------------------
  **[Date]{.smallcaps}**   **[Name]{.smallcaps}**   **[Title]{.smallcaps}**

                                                    
  ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------------------

# Introduction

The eDeployment Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is conducted to determine
which of the solution alternatives are financially feasible. The CBA
enables the estimation of the real costs and benefits for a solution
under consideration. In this CBA, actual costs (where available),
projected costs and estimated benefits are calculated and netted
together to determine the net present value (NPV). A positive result
indicates that the project can pay for its own costs. For the
eDeployment initiative, the discounted cash flow technique is utilized,
which indicates the value of a project or a solution option after
accounting for the opportunity cost of money over time.

The CBA document will perform the following activities to lead towards a
chosen alternative:

-   Outline the standards and policies used in the CBA;

-   Establishment of measurement criteria;

-   Review the current process;

-   Discuss the desired capability;

-   Discuss the costs and benefits of three alternatives;

-   Analyze the net present values and returns on investment; and

-   Present a preferred alternative.

## Standards and Policies 

OMB Circular A-76 requires that "a full description of the standards,
performance measures, costs and adjustments made will be developed by
the Agency and made available upon request." This CBA complies with OMB
Circulars A-76 and A-94 in its measuring of costs and benefits, and
choice of discount rates. Specific assumptions are listed in Appendix A.

## Establish Measurement Criteria

The eDeployment CBA methodology can be broken down into the following
steps:

-   Determination of Alternatives;

-   Estimation of Costs;

-   Estimation of Benefits; and

-   Computation of Cash Flow.

### Determination of Alternatives

When considering a given solution, there are often several technical
architectures that could accomplish the same goals. Variable factors to
consider include cost, realization of benefits, technical performance,
and ease of integration, among others. For this CBA, three alternatives
are compared.

-   **Status Quo**: Maintain the existing environment. Under the
    Alternative One scenario, USDA does not implement an enterprise-wide
    eDeployment solution.

-   **Distributed Components:** The second alternative optimally
    delivers a robust enterprise-wide solution from multiple hosting
    facilities.

-   **Centralized Components**: The third alternative details a
    centralized approach to deploying the eDeployment capabilities. All
    the components will be hosted from one hosting location.

### Estimation of Costs

An Agency survey was commissioned to determine USDA cost baselines.
Respondents submitted a mix of actual and estimated data. Whenever
actual data was provided, it was given greatest emphasis. All other
estimated values were determined using market rates or information
available from public sources or vendors.

All cost factors of system development are included in the analysis of
lifecycle costs. Actual costing information for FY 2003 and current
costs for FY 2004 have been included where available. Personnel,
hardware, software, and other costs for each phase of the project plan
through the rest of FY 2004 and beyond are projected. Full lifecycle
costs for each competing alternative include:

-   Project initiation and planning;

-   Education and project management;

-   Data requirements definition;

-   Data design;

-   Software acquisition;

-   Hardware and infrastructure acquisition;

-   System build, integration, and testing;

-   Rollout;

-   System operations;

-   Corrective and adaptive maintenance;

-   Telecommunications;

-   Security; and

-   Risk costs.

###  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

### Estimation of Benefits

In choosing benefits categories, benefits of comparable systems are
identified. Each benefit is classified as either an internal or external
benefit. Internal benefits are all those benefits to USDA, Agencies, and
government partners such as other Agencies. External benefits are
comprised of benefits to citizens and public and private organizations.
Both internal and external benefits can be further grouped into four
categories: increased productivity, cost savings, cost avoidance, and
quality gains.

The dollar value of benefits can be estimated by determining the fair
market value of the benefits. An important economic principle used in
estimating public benefits is the market value concept. Market value is
the price that a private sector organization would pay to purchase a
product or service.

### Computation of Cash Flow

The computation of Cash Flow consists of the following activities:

-   Discount Lifecycle Costs and Benefits;

-   Calculate Net Present Value;

-   Calculate Return on Investment; and

-   Calculate Internal Rate of Return.

#### Discount Lifecycle Costs and Benefits 

After costs and benefits for each system lifecycle year have been
identified, they are converted into a common measurement unit by
discounting future dollar values and transforming future benefits and
costs to their "present value." Present values are calculated by
multiplying the future value by the discount factors published in the
OMB Circular A-94. Discounting accounts for the time value of money,
since the money used to develop the alternative could be used for
another project.

#### Calculate Net Present Value

The standard criterion for the economic justification of a government
program is the net present value (NPV). Net present value is the
discounted monetized value of expected net benefits. Mathematically, NPV
is equal to the difference between the discounted present value of
benefits and the discounted present value of costs. Computation of NPV
involves the following three steps:

-   Assign monetary values to costs and benefits;

-   Discount costs and benefits using an appropriate discount rate; and

-   Subtract the total sum of discounted costs from discounted benefits.

To measure NPV, the cost-benefit analysis uses the discounted cash flow
(DCF) method to determine a value stream for each technical alternative.
DCF is a method of evaluating an investment by estimating future cash
flows and taking into consideration the opportunity cost, which is
commonly known as the time value of money. Cash flow of an investment is
equal to the receipts minus the costs or payments over a given period of
time. For a technical system investment, cash flow is typically negative
in the first year and gradually increases over the lifecycle of the
investment. This is due to the high initial cost of system development
and hardware and software acquisition, which are generally upfront
costs.

A positive NPV indicates that the investment is justified economically
because its costs outweigh its benefits. As outlined in OMB Circular
A-94, "programs with positive NPV increase social resources and are
generally preferred. Programs with negative NPV should generally be
avoided." Since there are three alternatives analyzed, NPV is used to
determine the ROI, which is more valuable in comparison when funds are
limited.

#### Calculate Return on Investment 

The Return on Investment (ROI) is used when comparing proposed
investments with similar objectives. ROI is calculated by dividing NPV
by the total discounted cost. While NPV is useful in presenting the
total return of an investment, it is less useful for investments with
large differences in costs. ROI measures "bang for the buck"
specifically, it shows the amount each dollar invested will provide in
returns.

Thus if an investment has a 50% return on investment, it will return the
initial amount spent, plus 50% of the initial amount invested (i.e., a
\$100 investment that results in total benefits of \$150 would have a
profit of \$50 and a return on investment of 50%). ROI calculations for
the business cases were modified to consider the time value of money.
Since ROI computes the return above costs relative to costs, it is
useful in comparing alternatives with costs that differ substantially.

#### Calculate Internal Rate of Return

The internal rate of return (IRR) method of analyzing a major purchase
or project allows us to consider the time value of money; essentially,
it produces the interest rate that is equivalent to the dollar returns
we expect from our project. Once this rate is known, it can be compared
to the rates USDA could earn by investing in other projects or
investments.

Occasionally IRR can produce numbers that are quite high. This is due to
an implicit assumption that all returns are reinvested each year at the
rate specified in the IRR. To show a more realistic return, a modified
IRR removing this assumption, and instead assuming that proceeds are not
reinvested, is included next to each IRR calculation.

# Current Situation

Current Web Content Management, Document Management, Portal Services,
and Web Presence capabilities within USDA vary by Agency and often
reflect duplicative and redundant business and technical processes. Most
notably, there is a lack of consistency and information sharing across
the enterprise.

Through current processes, USDA produces hundreds of thousands of
electronic \"assets\" a year. A vast majority of those assets are
created on individual employee personal computers. Once these electronic
assets are produced, they are printed for distribution or preservation,
filed in file cabinets, e-mailed, posted to the Web, or simply stored on
a PC hard drive or file server.

USDA also has over twelve million pages available to the public on the
Internet and its intranets/extranets. Web content ranging from weekly
livestock data to program forms to online applications has been made
available on various Agency Web sites. A large portion of this Web
content is maintained manually through a network of over two hundred
Webmasters and thousands of Web content contributors. The manual effort
to keep USDA's online presence current equates to thousands of hours of
human cost, and detracts from USDA employees' ability to improve program
and service delivery.

The millions of Web pages mentioned above comprise the thousands of USDA
Web sites available online to citizens, public and private
organizations, and employees. Approximately seventy of those sites are
official Web sites that represent the Agencies and staff offices within
USDA; hundreds of other relevant sites exist outside that formal
network. Across the sites, there is a lack of consistency in appearance,
navigation structure, nomenclature, taxonomy, and standards. As
citizens, public and private organizations, or employees navigate from
site to site within USDA, they are forced to learn new rules about how
that site works and looks.

This section addresses the following as they relate to the current
situation at USDA:

-   System Capabilities;

-   System Architecture; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Customer and Stakeholders.

##  {#section-4 .unnumbered}

## System Capabilities

Current Web content management, document management, Web presence, data
management, and portal services capabilities are lacking across USDA.
While the eDeployment initiative has started addressing these concerns
through efforts such as taxonomy the USDA Style Guide, document
management related tasks are still not effectively or efficiently
performed throughout USDA and current system capabilities do not support
the following:

-   Storing electronic assets to be accessible by multiple Agencies;

-   Virtual team workspaces allowing for real-time information and
    document sharing;

-   Sharing electronic assets across the enterprise; and

-   Preserving electronic assets for record keeping purposes.

Web Content Management capabilities are limited by not having a
consistent enterprise-wide Web Content Management solution. Current
processes and solutions do not effectively provide the following:

-   Required and consistent assignment of metadata;

-   Automated and enforced workflow processing;

-   Approved processes to notify Webmasters when content is out of date
    or expires; and

-   Consistent and equal access to external commercial content.

Across USDA Web sites, inconsistency is the most extensive issue in the
area of Web Presence. Although site design standards have been
documented and distributed, most Agency sites have failed to implement
the following:

-   Consistent layout of page elements and navigation guidelines;

-   User-friendly file types;

-   Brand and logo standards;

-   Browser and coding standards;

-   Domain name guidelines; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Enterprise-wide usability testing.

Across the Department, there is redundancy in data and database
development efforts involving employee-related information. This
includes generic personnel information such as e-mail address and
authorization information that is common across all business
applications. This redundancy results in the following inefficiencies:

-   Multiple employee and HR related databases performing common
    functions;

-   Disbursed data administration efforts supporting employee turnover;
    and

-   Duplicate application maintenance efforts required for retrieval,
    creation, modification, and deletion of records.

System capabilities within USDA also lack many of the benefits that
could be realized by an enterprise portal solution. These shortfalls
include the following:

-   Lack of integration among existing Agency and USDA Web sites
    impacting the ability for users to locate and access information;

-   Inability of users to locate relevant information on the Web sites
    due to limited content store aggregation;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Lack of subscription or notification services to customers,
    prohibiting USDA and Agencies from realizing the full potential for
    delivering services to citizens, employees, and public and private
    organizations through Internet-based channels;

-   Inability to personalize content delivered through Web sites; and

-   Limited search capabilities available on both the USDA and Agency
    Web sites.

## System Architecture

Agencies have dissimilar technical architectures, which pose a challenge
to system interoperability. Numerous legacy systems and applications
exist on various operating platforms and databases, therefore resulting
in specific technical requirements for integration with eDeployment
software. Because Agency architectures are different, certain Agencies
are currently evaluating individual eDeployment solutions to meet their
distinct needs. Continuing along this path will eventually result in a
multitude of separate solutions that are not interoperable.

## Customers and Stakeholders

USDA is an organization comprising twenty-nine Agencies and staff
offices. It employs more than 100,000 individuals. These employees can
be found in every state, often in small rural communities, and in many
nations throughout the world. USDA's customers include Congress, the
media, schools, ranchers, farmers, rural community citizens, land grant
universities, and meat packers, among others. Through USDA's various
programs, every man, woman, and child in the nation is, in effect, a
customer.

This initiative involves key customers and stakeholders who are either
directly served or affected by the implementation of the eDeployment
program. It is important to consider the impact of the initiative on
these groups within a discussion of the current situation at USDA.

These customer groups, along with a description of how the current user
groups would be affected by implementation of the vision, are included
below:

-   Citizens;

-   Public and private organizations; and

-   USDA.

### Citizens

Interactions with the Department will change as the management of
electronic assets improves and business processes are standardized with
the help of workflow tools provided by the eDeployment solution. By
combining information management, content and document management, Web
presence, and portal services capabilities with other enabling
technologies, a vast amount of information can be provided for public
consumption. The quality of information will greatly increase because of
enforced reviews, and greater accountability.

Service to citizens will improve dramatically as information is provided
in a more timely and consistent manner. A single point of access to
information, applications, and systems, from any location, provided
through the portal will assist citizens in finding relevant information
more easily and quickly.

### Public and Private Organizations 

Public and private organizations will gain the appropriate level of
access to information in a timely manner. Business with the USDA will be
comparable to doing business with private industry for both government
and non-government entities. Public and private organizations will not
only have a superior user experience, but will also be able to more
easily contribute content to USDA for publishing.

### USDA

Through the intelligent management of our electronic assets, including
standard workflows, standard organization of the assets in a corporate
taxonomy, consistent access to external content, and powerful search
tools, employees will have improved access to resources across the
enterprise. This equates to a greater ability to share information, and
enables employees to leverage work that others may already have done,
ultimately blurring organizational lines and increasing productivity.
Along with increased access to Web content on the Internet and Intranet,
this Web content will be presented in a consistent manner and easily
found.

Webmasters, who are responsible for designing, developing, and
maintaining Web pages on a daily basis, currently spend the majority of
their time manually maintaining Web pages. Through implementation of
eDeployment capabilities, these employees will have more time to perform
value-added activities such as research and development, investigating
new technology capabilities, and project management.

The Department will see improved productivity time focused on
higher-level analytical work, rather than on low-level information
search, sort, and retrieve activities. The Department will save
administrative costs and will have the ability to deliver on its mission
of a more customer-centric Government.

# Conceptual Overview

The eDeployment solution will allow the combination of existing
methodologies and emerging technologies. eDeployment is positioned to
provide USDA with enterprise-wide services available for use by all
Agencies. Overall, this will provide a more effective user experience at
a significant cost reduction. By sharing information best practices and
common technologies, Agencies will increase their ability to realize
significant benefit without the costs associated with performing
redundant efforts.

## Lifecycle Time

The system lifecycle for the eDeployment solution is expected to span
from FY2003 to FY2007, at a minimum. Throughout this five-year period,
the enterprise solution will gradually roll out in phases to Agencies
across USDA. Lessons learned will be documented and leveraged for future
implementations. This will allow gradual updates and upgrades to the
solution and ensure an extended overall lifecycle. Although the
eDeployment initiative is expected to provide a long-term investment,
the market for new technologies is rapidly advancing and adding new
capabilities. The solution will need to incorporate these new
technologies when appropriate.

Many of the standards and processes that are being developed to support
the eDeployment systems will be designed with the future in mind and
will have lifecycles that will exceed 5 years and outlast the systems
that they support.

## Lifecycle Demands

Currently 93% of USDA employees use the Internet for business searches.
Based on this figure, the number of initial potential users of
eDeployment in the first year of operation is more than 93,000. On an
ongoing basis, the demand for new capabilities will probably be highest
among information and document intensive positions in the USDA. In the
future, citizens and public and private organizations will also be given
the opportunity to utilize the solution to address their needs.

Demands placed on the eDeployment solution are likely to increase over
time as:

-   Standards and processes continue to be defined and improved;

-   Advances in technology and functionality are integrated into the
    solution;

-   Users become more knowledgeable about the system; and

-   Citizens and public and private organizations are added to the
    system.

# Implementation Approach Alternatives 

While any of the implementations will be required to meet the solution
objectives, there are three alternative technology solutions to be
considered:

-   **Status Quo**: Maintain the existing environment. Under the first
    alternative, USDA does not implement an enterprise-wide eDeployment
    solution.

-   **Distributed Components:** The second alternative delivers robust
    enterprise-wide solutions from multiple hosting facilities.

-   **Centralized Components**: The third alternative details a
    centralized approach to deploying the eDeployment capabilities. All
    the components will be hosted from one hosting location.

Each implementation alternative will be analyzed and the following areas
will be addressed:

-   Market Analysis;

-   Functionality of the Alternative;

-   Architecture of the Alternative;

-   Delivery Timeline;

-   Impacts on Existing Processes;

-   Estimation of Lifecycle Costs;

-   Outline Benefits; and

-   Evaluation of the Alternative.

    The following sections provide a more detailed description of each
    alternative and their respective costs and benefits.

## Alternative One: Status Quo

USDA is on a path today to allow each Agency to develop an eDeployment
solution of its choice. Several Agencies and Offices within the
Department have already begun building their own solutions. Prior to the
eDeployment initiative, each Agency and Staff Office has had the option
to create its own solution that is autonomous from the others. Each
Agency would be required to follow the same process of defining
requirements, conducting vendor analysis, procuring software and
hardware for that solution and implementing the selected technologies.
Each Agency would be responsible for its own management of the solution,
its own support staff and its own developers and development contracts.

### Market Analysis

The independent Agency approach, while obviously granting the most
flexibility to Agencies and initiatives to select the technology of
their choice, would not receive the benefits gained from deploying an
enterprise-wide solution. Agencies would not be able to benefit from
economies of scale pricing, such as purchasing benefits for a large
deployment and premier support for a multi-billion dollar organization.

The quantitative benefits of developing an enterprise-wide solution
would be lost, and the Department would spend millions in duplicative
monies to work independently when many software requirements would
likely be very similar, yet disconnected. Such an approach will also be
much more expensive to the Department as a whole and will not possess
the quality of a Department-wide effort.

On the other hand, allowing Agencies to build their own solutions would
alleviate the need to work through culture barriers to build an
enterprise solution. Building their unique systems would also give
Agencies the flexibility to meet the exact needs of their organization.

### Functionality of Alternative

The functionality of the alternative would vary depending upon the needs
and priorities of the individual Agency performing the implementation.
Since each Agency would implement systems independently, no enterprise
functionality would be implemented.

### Architecture of Alternative

The architecture of this alternative would depend upon the needs and
priorities of the individual Agency performing the implementation. No
Department-wide architecture would be created since each Agency would
build independent architectures.

### Delivery Timeline

Agencies would individually determine the design, development, and
implementation timeline for their eDeployment solutions.

### Impacts on Existing Processes

If this option is selected, each Agency will be able to create new
processes and/or maintain existing processes.

### Estimate Lifecycle Costs

Within this alternative, Agencies are permitted to build their own
systems resulting in several disparate systems in various stages of
development and implementation. Since financial analysis of this
alternative assumes that an enterprise-wide eDeployment solution will
not be built, measuring specific costs for each phase of development is
not feasible. Given the uncertainty of future Agency development, only
deployment and operations costs could be estimated. The number of
employees utilizing the system each year was estimated based on
responses to the Agency surveys.

Table 4.1.6 -- Alternative One Estimated Lifecycle Costs (in 2003
dollars)

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Data Warehouse          \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000           \$3,000,000           \$3,000,000           \$3,000,000
  Implementation Costs                                                                                            

  Portal Implementation   \$2,400,000           \$1,600,000           \$800,000             \$800,000             \$800,000
  Costs                                                                                                           

  Content Management      \$6,716,515           \$13,433,030          \$6,716,515           \$6,716,515           \$6,716,515
  Costs                                                                                                           

  Maintenance and         \$1,592,477           \$4,072,432           \$5,649,909           \$7,227,386           \$8,804,864
  Operations Costs                                                                                                

  Risk Cost               \$1,161,993           \$1,161,993           \$1,161,993           \$1,161,993           \$1,161,993

  **Total Costs of        **\$13,370,985**      **\$21,767,455**      **\$17,328,417**      **\$18,905,894**      **\$20,483,372**
  Alternative 1**                                                                                                 
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

#### Implementation Costs

Since the demand for eDeployment solutions exists in the Agencies, it is
reasonable to assume that those Agencies who do not have access to
systems currently will either develop their own systems or join other
systems. Since they are not pursuing an enterprise approach, they will
not be able to realize the significant economy of scale savings realized
with the leveraging power of 100,000 employees.

##### Data Warehouse Implementation Costs

Without Department-wide data architecting, each Agency that would like
to implement a data warehouse would have to acquire and maintain its own
software, resulting in significant costs that would not occur with a
unified solution. The cost of a data warehouse for an individual Agency,
as experienced by ERS, is estimated at \$1,500,000 per system. Assuming
eight Agencies or groups of Agencies develop similar data warehouses in
the next 5 years, the costs of implementation are as follows:

#####  {#section-5 .unnumbered}

Table 4.1.6.1.1 -- Data Warehouse Implementation Costs (in 2003 dollars)

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Cost to Implement Data  \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000
  Warehouse for each                                                                                              
  Mission Area                                                                                                    

  Number Implemented Per  1                     1                     2                     2                     2
  Year                                                                                                            

  Cost to Implement Data  \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000           \$1,500,000
  Warehouse for each                                                                                              
  Mission Area                                                                                                    

  **Total**               **\$1,500,000**       **\$1,500,000**       **\$3,000,000**       **\$3,000,000**       **\$3,000,000**
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Portal Services Implementation

Left to their own progression of offering electronic services, many
Agencies will independently reach a conclusion that portal development
is a prerequisite to providing services that employees expect. Under
current methods of operation each Agency can be expected to deploy a
portal replete with consultants and purchase of hardware and software.

Agencies responding to our survey indicated that they planned to spend a
low-estimate average of \$800,000 in Agency or Mission Area portal
development. The costs of this Agency-by-Agency deployment will be
incurred if an enterprise-wide system is not developed. Assuming at
least 8 Agencies develop a portal in the next 5 years at a cost of
\$800,000 per portal, an enterprise-wide portal development could avoid
up to \$2,400,000 per year, as outlined in the table below.

Table 4.1.6.1.2 -- Portal Services Implementation Costs (in 2003
dollars)

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Cost to Implement a     \$800,000             \$800,000             \$800,000             \$800,000             \$800,000
  Portal                                                                                                          

  Number Implemented Per  3                     2                     1                     1                     1
  Year                                                                                                            

  **Total Portal Services **\$2,400,000**       **\$1,600,000**       **\$800,000**         **\$800,000**         **\$800,000**
  Cost**                                                                                                          
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Web Content Management Implementation

Paralleling the cost of portal implementation, Agencies or Mission Areas
are likely to implement separate Web content management systems. Our
survey indicated that one Agency planned to implement a Web content
management system in the next year while two more Agencies planned Web
content management systems in years two or three.

Documentum Inc. indicates that the cost of the Web content management
software license is \$94,783 for the first 40 users, \$637 for the next
1,960 users, and \$160 for each person beyond 2,000. Hardware and
implementation costs are typically four times software costs. This
results in a software cost of \$1,343,303 per 2,000 user system and
hardware and integration cost of \$5,373,212 per system. Assuming six
Agencies or Mission Areas purchase 2,000-user licenses in the next 5
years, this could cost a total of \$40,299,090 in licensing, hardware,
and integration costs, as outlined below:

Table 4.1.6.1.3 -- Web Content Management Implementation Costs

  ------------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of        **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**    2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  License Cost             \$1,343,303           \$1,343,303           \$1,343,303           \$1,343,303           \$1,343,303

  HW and Integration Costs \$5,373,212           \$5,373,212           \$5,373,212           \$5,373,212           \$5,373,212

  Total Cost Per System    \$6,716,515           \$6,716,515           \$6,716,515           \$6,716,515           \$6,716,515

  Number of Agencies       1                     2                     1                     1                     1
  Implementing Per Year                                                                                            

  **Total Web Content      **\$6,716,515**       **\$13,433,030**      **\$6,716,515**       **\$6,716,515**       **\$6,716,515**
  Management Costs**                                                                                               
  ------------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

#### System Operations and Maintenance Costs

Since analysis of this alternative assumes that an enterprise-wide
eDeployment system will not be built, operational and maintenance costs
will be high. Individual Agencies do not have enough employees to
leverage significant discounts on software maintenance, new equipment,
and support services. Market rates for maintenance range from 10% to 20%
of implementation costs. Maintenance costs are estimated near the middle
of the range, or 15% of cumulative system implementation costs per year.

Table 4.1.6.2 -- System Operations and Maintenance Costs

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Cumulative Cost of      \$10,616,515          \$27,149,545          \$37,666,060          \$48,182,575          \$58,699,090
  Development                                                                                                     

  Maintenance Rate (15%)  15%                   15%                   15%                   15%                   15%

  **Maintenance Costs**   **\$1,592,477**       **\$4,072,432**       **\$5,649,909**       **\$7,227,386**       **\$8,804,864**
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

### Outline Benefits 

Alternative One allows each Agency to pursue eDeployment solutions
independently. If this alternative is pursued, USDA will not develop an
enterprise-wide system, and some Agencies and Mission Areas will pursue
development of disparate systems. A full discussion of the tangible and
intangible benefits of Alternative One is below.

Most benefits of enterprise-wide eDeployment, however, would not occur
if individual Agencies developed their own disparate, stove-piped pieces
of the entire eDeployment package. Employees would only realize
Agency-specific benefits, which eliminates almost all integration,
collaboration and search benefits. To explain this mathematically, if it
is assumed that each Agency develops its own eDeployment capabilities,
Agencies will only integrate information from one of twenty-nine of
those systems, or 3.4%. Even assuming groups of three Agencies partner
together to develop eDeployment capabilities, the information sharing
and collaboration will consist of 10.3% of the enterprise. Therefore,
the amount of content organized would be greatly reduced, and benefits
for Alternative One are likely to be significantly lower than the other
solutions.

#### Estimate Tangible Benefits

Quantitative benefits that USDA will realize for this alternative
include:

-   A productivity increase from reduced time spent searching for
    documents;

-   A productivity increase from automating document routing and
    approval processes;

-   A productivity increase from automated assembly and distribution of
    content;

-   A productivity increase in responding to FOIA compliance requests;
    and

-   Cost savings from reducing materials costs.

The table below outlines the financial benefits over the 5-year
lifecycle of the project; a full description of each is provided below:

Table 4.1.7.1 -- Alternative One Estimate of Tangible Benefits

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Reduced Time Looking    \$144,687             \$1,085,154           \$2,314,996           \$3,689,524           \$5,136,396
  for Documents                                                                                                   

  Reduced Materials Cost  \$15,000              \$112,500             \$240,000             \$382,500             \$532,500
  Savings                                                                                                         

  Reduced Document        \$2,179,259           \$4,358,517           \$6,537,776           \$8,717,034           \$10,896,293
  Routing and Approval                                                                                            
  Time                                                                                                            

  FOIA Productivity       \$6,196               \$46,472              \$99,140              \$158,004             \$219,966
  Increase                                                                                                        

  Assembly and            \$204,482             \$1,533,617           \$3,271,716           \$5,214,297           \$7,259,120
  Distribution of Content                                                                                         

  **Total Tangible        **\$2,549,624**       **\$7,136,260**       **\$12,463,627**      **\$18,161,360**      **\$24,044,276**
  Benefits**                                                                                                      
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Time Looking for Documents

The largest financial benefit of eDeployment is increased productivity.
Ignoring eDeployment's impact on productivity would miss its primary
benefit. Alternative Two envisions many Agencies developing their own
individual modules of eDeployment. Since Agencies would develop their
own stove-piped systems, productivity benefits would be limited.
Employees would only realize Agency-specific benefits, which eliminates
almost all integration, collaboration and search benefits. Additionally,
the implementation schedule will be much slower, since organization will
be decentralized and inconsistent.

Calculation of cost savings from reduced searching time utilizes the
following information:

-   The assumption of the number of full time employees (FTE) benefiting
    from Alternative One is detailed in Appendix B.

-   The percentage of employees using the Web for business purposes, as
    determined by the USDA OCIO readiness survey, was used to determine
    document search-intensive positions and less document intensive
    positions. The survey found 52% of employees are frequent Internet
    users, using USDA or Agency sites "always" or "often" for business
    purposes such as research, completing and submitting forms. An
    additional 30% use the sites "sometimes" to search for work-related
    information, while only 7% never use the sites.

-   Time spent searching for documents was determined by Agency surveys
    conducted for this business case. A document intensive position
    required an average of 8 hours per week searching and a less
    document intensive position required an average of 2 hours per week.

-   Potential timesavings factor was determined by rates typical in ROI
    analyses of similar portal, content, document, data, and information
    management investments. A timesavings factor of 10% would reduce the
    time spent by 10%.

-   Given the number of beneficiaries, the GS levels of specific
    beneficiaries were unavailable. This benefit utilizes the average
    government rate.

-   Total time saved is equal to time spent searching for documents
    multiplied by the timesavings factor.

Table 4.1.7.3.1 -- Reduced Time Looking for Documents

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTE Realizing 1,000                 7,500                 16,000                25,500                35,500
  Benefits of eDeployment                                                                                         

  Percent of employees    52%                   52%                   52%                   52%                   52%
  using Web frequently                                                                                            

  Percent of employees    30%                   30%                   30%                   30%                   30%
  using Web occasionally                                                                                          

  Average Number of Hours 355                   355                   355                   355                   355
  Spent Looking for                                                                                               
  Information Each Year:                                                                                          
  Document Intensive                                                                                              
  Position                                                                                                        

  Average Number of Hours 89                    89                    89                    89                    89
  Spent Looking for                                                                                               
  Information Each Year:                                                                                          
  Less Document Intensive                                                                                         
  Position                                                                                                        

  Potential Time Savings  3%                    3%                    3%                    3%                    3%
  Factor                                                                                                          

  Total Time Saved        6,324                 47,433                101,189               161,271               224,514
  (hours)                                                                                                         

  Cost Per Employee Hour  \$23                  \$23                  \$23                  \$23                  \$23

  **Reduced Time Looking  **\$144,687**         **\$1,085,154**       **\$2,314,996**       **\$3,689,524**       **\$5,136,396**
  for Documents**                                                                                                 
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Document Routing and Approval Time Cost Savings

The document routing process is a progression through the following
stages or steps:

1.  An analyst/author develops content

2.  The analyst/author works with reviewers

3.  A report or information item is cleared.

4.  A cleared report or information item is prepared for distribution
    and goes through a series of steps which includes some of the
    following:

    a.  Layout and desktop publishing;

    b.  Filed on a server; and

    c.  Printed and converted to a Web-based format.

5.  The following distribution process is followed:

    a.  Mailed;

    b.  E-mailed manually;

    c.  E-mailed list service; and

    d.  Posted on the Web.

A Web Content Management process would automate several of the above
steps, leading to tangible benefits from saving time. There are also
intangible benefits of better control over review processes and
template-based classifications that support search routines.

The measurement of productivity increase from time spent reviewing
utilizes the following information:

-   The expected number of reviewers using Web content management each
    year is taken from Agency surveys. Approximately 2,000 users per
    year are expected to use WCM.

-   The Agency survey indicated approximately 10% of staff time, or 4
    hours per FTE per week, is spent on the reviewing process.

-   Savings in employee time involved in reviewing for document
    distribution are projected to reach .5 hours per week by the end of
    the project lifecycle. The table below details the cost savings
    achieved through increased ease of the assembly and distribution of
    content.

-   The average reviewer is considered to be a GS 13 step 5.

-   Realization of benefits per year for Alternative One is detailed in
    Appendix B.

Table 4.2.7.1.2 -- Reduced Document Routing and Approval Cost Savings

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  Number of Reviewers     2,000                 4,000                 6,000                 8,000                 10,000
  Using Web Content                                                                                               
  Management                                                                                                      

  Reduction in Time Spent 0.5                   0.5                   0.5                   0.5                   0.5
  Reviewing Potential                                                                                             
  (Hours/Week)                                                                                                    

  Workweeks Per Year      44                    44                    44                    44                    44

  Actual Reduction in     44,400                88,800                133,200               177,600               222,000
  Time (hours/week)                                                                                               

  Average USDA Rate Per   \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08
  Hour GS 13.5                                                                                                    

  **Reduced Document      **\$2,179,259**       **\$4,358,517**       **\$6,537,776**       **\$8,717,034**       **\$10,896,293**
  Routing and Approval                                                                                            
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                  
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##### Reduced Materials Costs Savings

Materials cost has several components: purchasing paper, paper disposal,
buying supplies, and postage. USDA consumes paper at a rate of 9.5
million sheets per year. Costs for disposal and destruction are also
incurred; this includes both the cost of destroying sensitive documents
and disposal of all expired documents. Through increased electronic
collaboration and the ability to self-publish content to the Web,
materials supply costs can be significantly reduced with eDeployment.

The following was used to estimate savings from reducing materials
costs.

-   The number of FTE realizing benefits is detailed in Appendix B.

-   ERS estimates the total annual cost of paper, disposal, supplies,
    and postage is \$500 per employee.

-   Cost savings from reducing materials costs for Alternative One are
    expected to reach 3%.

Table 4.1.7.1.3 -- Reduced Materials Costs Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTE Realizing 1,000                 7,500                 16,000                25,500                35,500
  Benefits of eDeployment                                                                                         

  Cost of Supplies        \$500                 \$500                 \$500                 \$500                 \$500

  Reduction Potential     3%                    3%                    3%                    3%                    3%
  With eDeployment                                                                                                

  **Reduced Materials     **\$15,000**          **\$112,500**         **\$240,000**         **\$382,500**         **\$532,500**
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                  
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

#####   {#section-6 .unnumbered}

##### Assembly and Distribution of Content Cost Savings

The portal makes it possible to access information and data from
different applications and use the data to create new ways of combining
it. Integrations in the portal layer focus on information display and
are therefore normally less complex and less functional than traditional
integrations between applications deeper down in the application
architecture. This makes these integrations easier and less expensive,
and they are also more maintainable than complicated integrations.

Productivity increase from eased assembly and distribution of content
utilizes the following information:

-   Document distribution takes up the time of both Agency information
    officers and other personnel; based on estimates from the ERS
    Information Services Division, FS, and NRCS this is estimated at 5%
    of staff time for Web content management-licensed employees at
    high-content Agencies and 2.5% of staff time for lower-content
    Agencies. Using the employee numbers listed in Appendix C, it is
    estimated that approximately 1600 FTE are spent assembling and
    distributing content (note that this excludes content creation and
    includes only assembly, packaging, and distribution).

-   Cost rate of content distribution and assembly assumes a staff mix
    of 50% IT personnel and 50% average USDA employees.

-   Savings in employee costs for document distribution are projected to
    reach 20% by the end of the project lifecycle. The table below
    details the cost savings achieved through increased ease of the
    assembly and distribution of content.

-   Realization of benefits per year for Alternative Two is detailed in
    Appendix B.

Table 4.1.7.1.4 -- Assembly and Distribution of Content Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Utilization of FTEs     1,600                 1,600                 1,600                 1,600                 1,600

  Cost Per IT FTE         \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901

  Potential Reduction     20%                   20%                   20%                   20%                   20%
  Factor                                                                                                          

  Realization of          1.0%                  7.5%                  16.0%                 25.5%                 35.5%
  Potential Benefits %                                                                                            
  Per Year                                                                                                        

  Actual Reduction Factor 0.2%                  1.5%                  3.2%                  5.1%                  7.1%

  **Assembly and          **\$204,482**         **\$1,533,617**       **\$3,271,716**       **\$5,214,297**       **\$7,259,120**
  Distribution of Content                                                                                         
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                  
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### FOIA Productivity Increase Cost Savings

In addition to searching for general business documents, USDA employees
spend a great deal of time finding information to comply with FOIA
requests. FOIA compliance is a time-intensive process of searching
through files, keeping records, and delivering content. eDeployment
features a Web-enabled portal based on a Web Content Management system
that can reduce the time spent on FOIA requests because access to
Department and Agency holdings will be much more transparent and
information that meets FOIA criteria would be accessible online.

Alternative Two envisions many Agencies developing their own individual
solutions for eDeployment. Most productivity benefits of an
enterprise-wide eDeployment would not occur if individual Agencies
developed their own disparate, stove-piped pieces of the entire
eDeployment package. Additionally, the implementation schedule will be
much slower, since organization will be decentralized and inconsistent.
Because of this, FOIA compliance times would not be as significantly
reduced as with other Alternatives.

Productivity increase from eased FOIA compliance utilizes the following
information:

-   Between 1998 and 2001, USDA spent the equivalent of 305 FTE per year
    complying with FOIA requests.

-   Cost rates of staff are based on the loaded cost rate of an average
    USDA employee.

-   Potential benefits will be approximately 5%.

-   Realization of benefit per year for Alternative One is detailed in
    Appendix B.

-   Actual reduction equals potential reduction multiplied by
    realization of potential benefits per year.

-   Total benefit is computed by multiplying reduction in staff years
    complying with FOIA requests by cost per staff year.

Table 4.1.7.1.3 -- FOIA Productivity Increase Cost Savings

  -------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of          **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**      2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of Staff Years      305                   305                   305                   305                   305
  Spent Filling Information                                                                                          
  Requests                                                                                                           

  Potential Reduction With   5%                    5%                    5%                    5%                    5%
  eDeployment                                                                                                        

  Realization of Potential   1%                    8%                    16%                   26%                   36%
  Benefits % Per Year                                                                                                

  Actual Reduction           0.05%                 0.38%                 0.80%                 1.28%                 1.78%

  Reduction in Staff Years   0.2                   1.1                   2.4                   3.9                   5.4
  Complying with FOIA                                                                                                
  Requests                                                                                                           

  Cost Per Staff Year        \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631

  **FOIA Productivity        **\$6,196**           **\$46,472**          **\$99,140**          **\$158,004**         **\$219,966**
  Increase Cost Savings**                                                                                            
  -------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

#### Identify Intangible Benefits

Alternative One is the status quo. If this alternative is pursued, USDA
will not develop an enterprise-wide system, and some Agencies and
Mission Areas will continue to pursue purchases and development of
eDeployment solutions.

##### Benefits to Citizens

Quality Gains:

-   Facilitates one-time creation and publishing of Web content; and

-   Eases adherence to standards, increased accessibility, and usability
    for all citizens.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Increases the amount of Web content available to citizens by
    enabling aggregation, management, and storing of Web content.

##### Benefits to Public and Private Organizations

**Quality Gains:**

-   Allows public and private organizations to more easily contribute
    Web content to USDA for publishing; and

-   Improves the ability for public and private organizations to obtain
    more consistent USDA compliance with Section 508 standards.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Makes Web content consistently and rapidly accessible to public and
    private organizations via increased reliance on electronic-based
    data and information; and

-   Allows users to locate relevant information more quickly through an
    improved information structure.

##### Benefits to USDA and Employees

**Quality Gains:**

-   Improves accountability with workflow processes;

-   Eases the burden of GPEA and the Quality of Information Act for
    Agencies; and

-   Improves the ability for employees to ensure compliance with Section
    508 requirements by utilization of content templates.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Increase employee ability to quickly and consistently create and
    modify Web content through the use of templates, graphic
    repositories, and automated routing to reviewers;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allows employees the ability to locate internal and external,
    current, and correct information that was not previously accessible;

-   Increase employee ability to focus efforts on value-driven
    activities with reduction in the amount of time devoted to locating
    information.

### Evaluate Alternative One

The Return on Investment, or ROI, is used when comparing proposed
investments with similar objectives. ROI is calculated by dividing NPV
by the total discounted cost. ROI for Alternative One is the NPV
(negative \$27,241,026) divided by total discounted costs and equals
negative 0.31. Since ROI is often cited as a percentage, multiplying by
100 converts the decimal rate to negative 31%.

The ROI is really just another way to express the Benefit Cost Ratio
(BCR). Adding 1 to the ROI computes BCR. In the example above, the BCR
is 0.69. The 0.69 can also be expressed as 69% percent. This means there
are no benefits to Alternative One.

Table 4.1.8 -- Alternative One Cost Analysis Summary

  ------------------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
  **[Cost Type (in         **[FY2002]{.smallcaps}**   **[FY2003]{.smallcaps}**   **[FY2004]{.smallcaps}**   **[FY2005]{.smallcaps}**   **[FY2006]{.smallcaps}**
  \$000s)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                                               

  Total Benefits           \$2,549,624                \$7,136,260                \$12,463,627               \$18,161,360               \$24,044,276

  Total Costs              \$13,370,985               \$21,767,455               \$17,328,417               \$18,905,894               \$20,483,372

  *Discount Factor*        1.00                       0.98                       0.96                       0.94                       0.92

  Discounted Benefit       \$2,549,624                \$6,989,481                \$11,956,194               \$17,063,619               \$22,126,297

  Discounted Cost          \$13,370,985               \$21,319,740               \$16,622,924               \$17,763,150               \$18,849,441

  Discounted Net           (\$10,821,361)             (\$14,330,260)             (\$4,666,729)              (\$699,532)                \$3,276,856

  Discount Rate            2.10%                                                                                                       

  Benefit Cost Ratio       **0.69**                                                                                                    

  Net Present Value        **(\$27,241,026)**                                                                                          

  Payback Period           **5**                                                                                                       

  IRR                      **N/A**                                                                                                     

  Modified IRR             **-42%**                                                                                                    

  ROI                      **-31%**                                                                                                    
  ------------------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------

## Alternative Two: Distributed Components

Distributed application components and data/content repositories enable
organizations to optimally deliver robust enterprise-wide solutions and
provide a high level of customer service. Emergence of Web services
technology as an industry standard and adoption of Content Distribution
Network solutions are market drivers indicating that this alternative is
in line with the market direction. This option would leverage NITC,
Service Centers, and other USDA hosting facilities and potentially
third-party hosting services to distribute eDeployment components to
ensure high performance for the end user. Additionally, this alternative
will promote reuse of existing USDA hardware, network and personnel
resources.

### Market Analysis

The implementation of enterprise-wide capabilities included in the
eDeployment solution requires careful planning and an emphasis not only
on system development, but also on change management and marketing and
communication efforts. It is crucial that Agencies understand the value
proposition so they will contribute and utilize the system. Agency
leadership and users must be involved in the changes necessary to adopt
the eDeployment technologies. Marketing and communications will be
imperative to help Agencies and users understand the capabilities that
will be offered to them upon completion of the program.

### Functionality of Alternative

This alternative will deliver all the technical and functional
requirements as outlined by the user community during the select
business case phase. Additionally, since it has the greatest processing
power, it will ensure the best response time and ease of integration to
Agency applications currently distributed across USDA. Its significant
functionality advantage will allow users and content to be brought onto
the system in the shortest amount of time.

### Architecture of Alternative

This alternative features distributed application components and
data/content repositories that will enable organizations to optimally
deliver robust enterprise-wide solutions in the least amount of time.
Since the components are housed in distributed locations, response time
will be consistent without significant geographical differences in
response time.

### Delivery Timeline

The eDeployment delivery timeline is organized using the following
phased approach:

-   **Phase 1: eDeployment Pre-Implementation Tasks --** Phase 1
    consists of the tasks that must be performed prior to
    implementation. These initial tasks include the vendor analysis and
    selection process as well as creating and configuring the technology
    infrastructure and the physical network required for implementation.

-   **Phase 2: eDeployment Early Adopter Implementation --** Phase 2
    consists of full implementation of eDeployment services for early
    adopter Agencies. This includes project planning, design, build,
    test, conversion, pilot, and workforce transition activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Phase 3: eDeployment Enterprise-wide Implementation --** Phase 3
    consists of a similar set of tasks to those in Phase 2. It is
    important to note that certain Phase 2 tasks do not need to be
    repeated in Phase 3 (such as build/test technology infrastructure).
    In Phase 3, remaining USDA Agencies will conduct full implementation
    of eDeployment services.

###  {#section-7 .unnumbered}

### Impacts on Existing Processes

In line with the intent of the initiative, a distributed eDeployment
capability will change the way Agencies:

-   Manage and deploy Web content;

-   Share and reuse document assets;

-   Deploy services to citizens, employees and partners through portals;

-   Design and deliver Web applications; and

-   Share and design data that supports their services.

Please refer to eDeployment Concept of Operations documentation for
details on the vision and impacts to the Agencies. In addition to
impacts to Agency business processes as they relate to eDeployment
subject areas, the distributed alternative also introduces the need for
use of multiple hosting centers and operations processes within the
distributed sites. Services such as physical security, backup and
recovery, monitoring, Web administration and database administration
will be leveraged from each hosting location.

### Estimate Lifecycle Costs

This alternative seeks to leverage and expand on existing USDA hardware,
network, and personnel resources. Major factors affecting costs include
the following:

-   Solution modification to meet Department-wide eDeployment needs. The
    architecture will be scaled to support the significantly larger,
    enterprise-wide user community; and

-   Content migration from existing systems is a significant cost when
    expanding an Agency-specific solution to address the eDeployment
    needs of the enterprise.

Table 4.2.6 -- Alternative Two Lifecycle Costs

  ------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
  **Description of Factor** **FY 2003**        **FY 2004**        **FY 2005**        **FY 2006**        **FY 2007**

  Project Initiation        \$180,720          \$202,000          \$202,000          \$293,300          \$305,100

  Project Management        \$1,829,507        \$1,648,156        \$1,648,156        \$1,530,936        \$1,292,456

  Data Requirements         \$1,068,259        \$3,128,327        \$873,500          \$29,900           \$31,000
  Definition                                                                                            

  Data Design               \$2,145,099        \$1,646,609        \$1,646,609        \$165,492          \$165,492

  Software Acquisition      \$6,846,665        \$7,024,374        \$7,104,581        \$9,601,976        \$9,178,257

  Hardware/Infrastructure   \$9,879,062        \$10,000           \$977,987          \$3,681,892        \$6,420,272
  Acquisition                                                                                           

  System Build, Integrate & \$5,398,629        \$2,762,974        \$6,107,859        \$2,082,552        \$1,271,892
  Test                                                                                                  

  Rollout                   \$0                \$355,194          \$355,194          \$2,551,581        \$3,326,970

  System Operations         \$246,550          \$246,550          \$246,550          \$274,150          \$325,900

  Adaptive and Corrective   \$0                \$1,031,025.60     \$1,766,354        \$1,738,754        \$1,687,004
  Maintenance                                                                                           

  Telecom Costs             N/A                N/A                N/A                N/A                N/A 

  Security Costs            \$855,471          \$569,293          \$569,293          \$566,274          \$728,088

  Risk Costs                \$921,223          \$921,223          \$921,223          \$921,223          \$921,223

  **Total**                 **\$29,371,185**   **\$19,545,725**   **\$22,419,306**   **\$23,438,030**   **\$25,653,654**
  ------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

#### Personnel Costs 

Personnel costs include all contractors and USDA employees for all
phases of development. Actual personnel costs for FY 2003 and current
costs for FY 2004 are incorporated. For estimation purposes, a blend of
USDA employees and contractor resources will be used in the deployment
of this alternative. With the exception of maintenance, a staff mix of
20% USDA employees and 80% contractors is assumed. For contractors, a
blended cost rate of \$110 per hour was utilized. For USDA, IT executive
personnel fully loaded costs are estimated at \$88.62 per hour and IT
support and programming staff use the fully loaded costs of a GS 13 step
5 with a DC pay adjustment. This equates to \$49.08 per hour. The
following sections discuss planned activities for this alternative and
the associated costs.

#### Telecommunications Costs

The eDeployment initiative will leverage the OCIO's existing UTN
infrastructure. All requirements for eDeployment will be included as
part of this baseline UTN framework. No additional telecommunications
costs will be incurred.

#### Security Costs

This solution will leverage authentication services from the
eAuthentication solution, physical security from the hosting center
(NITC) and user authorization and content security features provided by
the vendor product used. Additional security fees are estimated at 3% of
lifecycle costs.

####  {#section-8 .unnumbered}

### Outline Benefits 

This section identifies the benefits of pursuing Alternative Two, which
includes benefits to citizens, the public and private organizations, and
USDA.

#### Estimate Tangible Benefits

Tangible benefits that USDA will realize for this alternative include:

-   A productivity increase from reduced time spent searching for
    documents;

-   A productivity increase from reduced time spent responding to FOIA
    compliance requests;

-   A productivity increase from automated assembly and distribution of
    content;

-   A productivity increase from automating document routing and
    approval processes;

-   Cost savings from reducing materials costs;

-   Cost savings when developing of Web applications; and

-   Cost savings from development of a USDA style guide.

Because quality gains for this alternative are less concrete, they have
been considered qualitatively rather than quantitatively.

The table below outlines the financial benefits over the 5-year
lifecycle of the project. This alternative develops a system with the
highest technical performance and earliest realization of benefits;
thus, benefits of this alternative are higher than Alternatives One and
Three. A full description of each benefit is provided in the following
sections, and a summary is provided below:

Table 4.2.7.1 -- Alternative Two Estimate of Tangible Benefits

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Reduced Time Looking    \$795,780             \$9,947,247           \$30,637,519          \$63,662,378          \$103,053,475
  for Documents                                                                                                   

  Reduced Materials Cost  \$82,500              \$1,031,250           \$3,176,250           \$6,600,000           \$10,683,750
  Savings                                                                                                         

  Reduced Document        \$1,362,037           \$3,268,888           \$6,537,776           \$13,075,551          \$21,792,586
  Routing and Approval                                                                                            
  Time Cost Savings                                                                                               

  FOIA Request Cost       \$30,981              \$387,265             \$1,192,776           \$2,478,495           \$4,012,064
  Savings                                                                                                         

  Assembly and            \$102,241             \$1,278,014           \$3,936,283           \$8,179,290           \$13,240,226
  Distribution of Content                                                                                         
  Cost Savings                                                                                                    

  Reduced Web Application \$1,571               \$78,532              \$241,878             \$251,302             \$406,795
  Development Cost                                                                                                
  Savings                                                                                                         

  Reduced Database        \$0                   \$375,000             \$825,000             \$600,000             \$300,000
  Development Cost                                                                                                
  Savings                                                                                                         

  Time Saved Developing   \$39,266              \$39,266              \$31,413              \$23,560              \$15,706
  Style Guides Cost                                                                                               
  Savings                                                                                                         

  **Total Tangible        **\$2,414,376**       **\$16,405,462**      **\$46,578,895**      **\$94,870,576**      **\$153,504,602**
  Benefits**                                                                                                      
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Time Looking for Documents

The largest financial benefit of eDeployment is increased productivity.
Because financial benefits of productivity are difficult to trace,
measuring productivity is challenging. Ignoring eDeployment's impact on
productivity, however, would miss its primary benefit. eDeployment
enables employees to find information from external information sources,
different Agencies, and administrative offices and assemble them in in
multiple formats. Portal technology, for example, will provide a USDA
employee who deals with crop disease the capability to customize his
portal to automatically load, update, and organize all internal
information on that subject.

Collaboration tools will also provide increased productivity benefits
and savings in the area of document management. These tools will provide
the capability to create virtual workspaces for teams, allowing
real-time information sharing and centralized storage for shared
documents on the Web. This facilitates faster, collective decision
making by centralizing timely and accurate information, and granting all
team members equal opportunity to post, review and react to information
concurrently. This increased and personalized organization reduces the
time employees spend creating, filing and searching for documents, and
increases the amount of time employees can spend on service delivery.
This benefit does not include time saved responding to FOIA requests.

Calculation of cost savings from reduced searching time utilizes the
following information:

-   The assumption of the number of FTE benefiting from Alternative Two
    is detailed in Appendix B.

-   The percentage of employees using the Web for business purposes, as
    determined by the USDA OCIO readiness survey, was used to determine
    document search-intensive positions and less document intensive
    positions. The survey found 52% of employees are frequent Internet
    users, using USDA or Agency sites "always" or "often" for business
    purposes such as research, completing and submitting forms. An
    additional 30% use the sites "sometimes" to search for work-related
    information, while only 7% never use the sites.

-   Time spent searching for documents was determined by Agency surveys
    conducted for this business case.

-   Potential timesavings factor was determined by rates typical in ROI
    analyses of similar portal, content, document, data, and information
    management investments. A timesavings factor of 10% would reduce the
    time spent for a given task by 10%.

-   Given the number of beneficiaries, the GS levels of specific
    beneficiaries were unavailable. This benefit utilizes the average
    government salary rate, which is detailed in Appendix A.

-   Total time saved is equal to time spent searching for documents
    multiplied by the timesavings factor.

Table 4.2.7.1.1 -- Reduced Time Looking for Documents

  ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of         **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**     2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTEs Realizing  500                   6,250                 19,250                40,000                64,750
  Benefits of eDeployment                                                                                           

  Percent of employees      52%                   52%                   52%                   52%                   52%
  using Web frequently                                                                                              

  Percent of employees      30%                   30%                   30%                   30%                   30%
  using Web occasionally                                                                                            

  Average Number of Hours   355                   355                   355                   355                   355
  Spent Looking for                                                                                                 
  Information Each Year:                                                                                            
  Document Intensive                                                                                                
  Position                                                                                                          

  Average Number of Hours   89                    89                    89                    89                    89
  Spent Looking for                                                                                                 
  Information Each Year:                                                                                            
  Less Document Intensive                                                                                           
  Position                                                                                                          

  Potential Time Savings    33%                   33%                   33%                   33%                   33%
  Factor                                                                                                            

  Total Time Saved (hours)  34,784                434,798               1,339,178             2,782,708             4,504,508

  Cost Per Employee Hour    \$23                  \$23                  \$23                  \$23                  \$23

  **Reduced Time Looking    **\$795,780**         **\$9,947,247**       **\$30,637,519**      **\$63,662,378**      **\$103,053,475**
  for Documents**                                                                                                   
  ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Materials Cost Savings

Materials cost has several components: purchasing paper, paper disposal,
buying supplies, and postage. USDA consumes paper at a rate of 9.5
million sheets per year. Costs for disposal and destruction are also
incurred; this includes both the cost of destroying sensitive documents
and disposal of all expired documents. Through increased electronic
collaboration and the ability to self-publish content to the Web, these
supplies costs can be significantly reduced with eDeployment.

The following was used to estimate savings from reducing materials
costs.

-   The number of FTE realizing benefits is detailed in Appendix B.

-   ERS estimates the total annual cost of paper, disposal, supplies,
    and postage is \$500 per employee.

-   Cost savings from reducing materials costs are expected to reach
    33%.

Table 4.2.7.1.2 -- Reduced Materials Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTEs          500                   6,250                 19,250                40,000                64,750
  Realizing Benefits of                                                                                           
  eDeployment                                                                                                     

  Cost of Supplies Per    \$500                 \$500                 \$500                 \$500                 \$500
  Employee                                                                                                        

  Reduction Potential     33%                   33%                   33%                   33%                   33%
  With eDeployment                                                                                                

  **Reduced Materials     **\$82,500**          **\$1,031,250**       **\$3,176,250**       **\$6,600,000**       **\$10,683,750**
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                  
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Document Routing and Approval Time Cost Savings

The document routing process is a progression through the following
stages or steps:

1.  An analyst/author develops content

2.  The analyst/author works with reviewers

3.  A report or information item is cleared.

4.  A cleared report or information item is prepared for distribution
    and goes through a series of steps which includes some of the
    following:

    a.  Layout and desktop publishing;

    b.  Filed on a server; and

    c.  Printed and converted to a Web-based format.

5.  The following distribution process is followed:

    a.  Mailed;

    b.  E-mailed manually;

    c.  E-mailed list service; and

    d.  Posted on the Web.

A Web Content Management process would automate several of the above
steps, leading to tangible benefits from saving time. There are also
intangible benefits of better control over review processes and
template-based classifications that support search routines.

The measurement of productivity increase from time spent reviewing
utilizes the following information:

-   The assumption of the number of FTE benefiting from Alternative Two
    is detailed in Appendix B.

-   The Agency survey indicated approximately 10% of staff time, or 4
    hours per FTE per week, is spent on the reviewing process.

-   The average reviewer is considered to be a GS 13 step 5.

-   Savings in employee time involved in reviewing for document
    distribution are projected to reach .5 hours per week by the end of
    the project lifecycle. The table below details the cost savings
    achieved through increased ease of the assembly and distribution of
    content.

-   Realization of benefits per year for Alternative Two is detailed in
    Appendix B.

Table 4.2.7.1.3 -- Reduced Document Routing and Approval Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of Reviewers     1,250                 3,000                 6,000                 12,000                20,000
  Using Web Content                                                                                               
  Management                                                                                                      

  Reduction in Time Spent 0.5                   0.5                   0.5                   0.5                   0.5
  Reviewing Potential                                                                                             
  (Hours/Week)                                                                                                    

  Workweeks Per Year      44                    44                    44                    44                    44

  Actual Reduction in     27,750                66,600                133,200               266,400               444,000
  Time (hours/week)                                                                                               

  Average USDA Rate Per   \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08
  Hour GS 13.5                                                                                                    

  **Reduced Document      **\$1,362,037**       **\$3,268,888**       **\$6,537,776**       **\$13,075,551**      **\$21,792,586**
  Routing and Approval                                                                                            
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                  
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### FOIA Request Cost Savings

In addition to searching for general business documents, USDA employees
spend a great deal of time finding information to comply with FOIA
requests. FOIA compliance is a time-intensive process of searching
through files, keeping records, and delivering content. eDeployment
features a Web-enabled portal based on a Web Content Management system
that can reduce the time spent on FOIA requests because access to
Department and Agency holdings will be much more transparent and
information that meets FOIA criteria would be accessible online.

The document/Web Content Management system through its templates should
aid in the classification process and make record keeping much easier.
In addition, the portal and Web Content Management features can organize
that content in a simple and useful manner allowing easy access by time
saved is a tangible benefit; additionally, there are intangible benefits
in that requests would be filled much faster and those making a request
would have more confidence that searches are thorough and systematic.
The table below details the cost savings in reduced time spent on FOIA
requests.

Productivity increase from eased FOIA compliance utilizes the following
information:

-   Over the period from FY1998-FY2001 (for which consistent data is
    available), an average of 305 staff years was spent annually at USDA
    on 98160 FOIA requests (including requests related to litigation).
    As the majority of time spent processing FOIA requests is spent
    locating and retrieving documents, the calculation assumes that
    electronic document storage can reduce time spent processing FOIA
    requests significantly.

-   Cost of staff rates based on the loaded cost rate of an average USDA
    employee.

-   Realization of benefit per year for Alternative Two is detailed in
    Appendix B.

-   Actual reduction equals potential reduction multiplied by
    realization of potential benefits per year.

-   Total benefit is computed by multiplying reduction in staff years
    complying with FOIA requests by cost per staff year.

Table 4.2.7.1.4 -- FOIA Request Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of Staff Years   305                   305                   305                   305                   305
  Spent Filling                                                                                                   
  Information Requests                                                                                            

  Potential Reduction     50%                   50%                   50%                   50%                   50%
  With eDeployment                                                                                                

  Realization of          1%                    6%                    19%                   40%                   65%
  Potential Benefits %                                                                                            
  Per Year                                                                                                        

  Actual Reduction        0.3%                  3.1%                  9.6%                  20.0%                 32.4%

  Reduction in Staff      0.8                   9.5                   29.4                  61.0                  98.7
  Years Complying with                                                                                            
  FOIA Requests                                                                                                   

  Cost Per Staff Year     \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631

  **FOIA Request Cost     **\$30,981**          **\$387,265**         **\$1,192,776**       **\$2,478,495**       **\$4,012,064**
  Savings**                                                                                                       
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Assembly and Distribution of Content Cost Savings

The portal makes it possible to access information and data from
different applications and use the data to create new ways of combining
it. Integrations in the portal layer focus on information display and
are therefore normally less complex and less functional than traditional
integrations between applications deeper down in the application
architecture. This makes these integrations easier and less expensive,
and they are also more maintainable than complicated integrations.

Productivity increase from eased assembly and distribution of content
utilizes the following information:

-   Document distribution takes up the time of both Agency information
    officers and other personnel; based on estimates from the ERS
    Information Services Division, FS, and NRCS this is estimated at 5%
    of staff time for Web content management-licensed employees at
    high-content Agencies and 2.5% of staff time for lower-content
    Agencies. Using the employee numbers listed in Appendix C, it is
    estimated that approximately 1600 FTE are spent assembling and
    distributing content (note that this excludes content creation and
    includes only assembly, packaging, and distribution).

-   Cost rate of content distribution and assembly assumes a staff mix
    of 50% IT personnel and 50% average USDA employees.

-   Savings in employee costs for document distribution are projected to
    reach 20% by the end of the project lifecycle. The table below
    details the cost savings achieved through increased ease of the
    assembly and distribution of content.

-   Realization of benefits per year for Alternative Two is detailed in
    Appendix B.

Table 4.2.7.1.5 -- Assembly and Distribution of Content Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Utilization of FTEs     1,600                 1,600                 1,600                 1,600                 1,600

  Cost Per IT FTE         \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901

  Potential Reduction     20%                   20%                   20%                   20%                   20%
  Factor                                                                                                          

  Realization of          1%                    6%                    19%                   40%                   65%
  Potential Benefits %                                                                                            
  Per Year                                                                                                        

  Actual Reduction Factor 0.1%                  1.3%                  3.9%                  8.0%                  13.0%

  **Assembly and          **\$102,241**         **\$1,278,014**       **\$3,936,283**       **\$8,179,290**       **\$13,240,226**
  Distribution of Content                                                                                         
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                  
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Web Application Development Cost Savings

The portal is a well-defined interface. Therefore, all other systems
could communicate with the portal through this interface. This gives
clear deliverables for system developers doing future integrations and
new applications for the portal, as well as changes in existing ones.
Clear deliverables vouch for a higher quality in development and thereby
reduce the time for correction of errors or misperceptions in the
expected delivery. The following was used to estimate savings from
reducing development costs.

-   Cost savings from reducing Web application development are expected
    to reach 50%.

-   Realization of benefits is expected to follow the schedule outlined
    in Appendix B.

-   Analysis assumes 130 applications are developed over the next 5
    years, and uses a conservative estimate of 640 hours (16 weeks) of
    development time per application.

Table 4.2.7.1.6 -- Reduced Web Application Development Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Hours Spent Developing  640                   640                   640                   640                   640
  Applications                                                                                                    

  Cost Per Hour of        \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08
  Programmer Time                                                                                                 

  Applications Developed  10                    40                    40                    20                    20
  Per Year Using Portal                                                                                           

  Actual Reduction in     0%                    3%                    10%                   20%                   32%
  Development Time                                                                                                

  **Reduced Web           **\$1,571**           **\$78,532**          **\$241,878**         **\$251,302**         **\$406,795**
  Application Development                                                                                         
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                  
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Database Development Cost Savings

A single, centralized repository does not currently exist to house
employee data such as personal information, e-mail address, and
application authorization information. To support future cross-agency
applications and eliminate inaccuracy of employee data, a single "Common
Employee Database" will be created. A single repository of employee
information will support role-based applications such as internal
portals, shared HR applications, and other business applications across
Agencies. Services will be created to allow agency applications to
easily integrate with the common employee directory, decreasing the need
for application specific directories for user administration. This leads
to decreased database development time and a substantial savings
associated with on-going maintenance. The following assumptions were
used to estimate savings from reducing database development costs.

-   There are 4 initiatives planned in the next 3 years that will
    require Department-wide employee databases: eAuthentication,
    ePayroll, eHR Services, and Collaboration. This analysis assumes an
    average cost of \$500,000 per database to support the necessary
    design, development, and implementation costs for the individual
    solutions.

-   It is estimated that a centralized employee database, when made
    available to all Department initiatives, will decrease individual
    database development costs by a minimum of 60%.

-   This analysis assumes a rate of 15% to support annual maintenance of
    an employee database.

Table 4.2.7.1.7 -- Reduced Database Development Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Planned Employee        \$0.00                \$500,000.00          \$1,000,000.00        \$500,000.00          \$0.00
  Database Development                                                                                            
  Costs                                                                                                           

  Reduction Potential     N/A                   60%                   60%                   60%                   60%
  with Centralized                                                                                                
  Employee Database                                                                                               

  **Database Development  **\$0.00**            **\$300,000.00**      **\$600,000.00**      **\$300,000.00**      **\$0.00**
  Cost Savings (DCS)**                                                                                            

  Cumulative Employee     \$0.00                \$500,000.00          \$1,500,000.00        \$2,000,000.00        \$2,000,000.00
  Database Development                                                                                            
  Costs                                                                                                           

  Maintenance Rate (15%)  N/A                   15%                   15%                   15%                   15%

  **Database Maintenance  \$0.00                \$75,000.00           \$225,000.00          \$300,000.00          \$300,000.00
  Cost Savings (MCS)**                                                                                            

  **Database Development  **\$0.00**            **\$375,000.00**      **\$825,000.00**      **\$600,000.00**      **\$300,000.00**
  and Maintenance Cost                                                                                            
  Savings (DCS+MCS)**                                                                                             
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

#####   {#section-9 .unnumbered}

##### Time Saved Developing a USDA Style Guide Cost Savings

#####  {#section-10 .unnumbered}

Once a user interface (UI) style guide is outlined for the Department,
templates are used for the graphical user interface in the portal. This
reduces time spent developing UI guides for every new feature in the
portal. In our survey four Agencies reported having existing style
guides, while five others would like to develop UI guidelines within the
next year. Having an enterprise-wide style guideline will drastically
reduce the amount of time spent developing Agency guidelines by 50%.

The following information was utilized in creating this table:

-   Discussion with private sector IT developers indicated that
    development of UI guidelines will take at least 320 hours (8 weeks)
    of IT staff time. The analysis assumes no additional style guideline
    development costs beyond initial labor to create one.

-   Realization of benefits occurs as soon as the template is designed
    and benefits are nonrecurring.

-   The number of Agencies developing UI guidelines each year was
    determined by the Agency surveys. Agencies that did not identify a
    year for development are assumed to develop last and 10 Agencies are
    expected to either partner with another Agency in developing a
    single guide or to develop guides after the period of analysis.

Table 4.2.7.1.8 -- Time Saved Developing a USDA Style Guide Cost Savings

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Description of       **[Year            **[Year            **[Year            **[Year            **[Year
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   1]{.smallcaps}**   2]{.smallcaps}**   3]{.smallcaps}**   4]{.smallcaps}**   5]{.smallcaps}**
  ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
  Number of FTE Realizing 1,000              15,000             41,000             68,500             90,500
  Benefits of eDeployment                                                                             

  Hours Spent Developing  320                320                320                320                320
  Style Guide                                                                                         

  Cost Per IT Hour        \$49.08            \$49.08            \$49.08            \$49.08            \$49.08

  Cost Per Style Guide    \$15,706.37        \$15,706.37        \$15,706.37        \$15,706.37        \$15,706.37

  Number of Style Guides  5                  5                  4                  3                  2
  Developed Per Year                                                                                  

  Potential Reduction in  0.5                0.5                0.5                0.5                0.5
  Development of a Style                                                                              
  Guide                                                                                               

  **Time Saved Developing **\$39,266**       **\$39,266**       **\$31,413**       **\$23,560**       **\$15,706**
  a USDA Style Guide Cost                                                                             
  Savings**                                                                                           
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Identify Intangible Benefits

Intangible benefits are those that cannot be measured quantitatively.
Because this alternative involves a technology and process change, there
are many intangible benefits. Intangible benefits of Alternative Two are
as follows:

##### Benefits to Citizens

Quality Gains:

-   Improves access to more current, accurate, relevant, and organized
    products, services, information, and data, through standardized
    business and workflow processes and greater accountability;

-   Increases the amount of Web content available to citizens by
    enterprise-wide aggregation, management, and storing;

-   Increases one-time creation and publishing of Web content, according
    to standards, accessibility, and usability for all citizens,
    especially those with disabilities;

-   Web standards ensure a consistent user experience through the
    enterprise online environment; and

-   Shapes public opinions about USDA's championing of eGovernment
    through an integrated online presence.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Enables citizens to easily search for and quickly find relevant and
    timely content via integration with a robust USDA taxonomy;

-   Makes Web content more efficiently available to citizens by
    increased reliance on electronic-based data and information;

-   Productivity through a centralized information structure allows
    citizens to locate relevant information more quickly; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Eliminates redundant data entry across multiple applications through
    enterprise-wide data sharing.

##### Benefits to Public and Private Organizations

**Quality Gains:**

-   Improves access to more current, accurate, relevant, and organized
    products, services, information, and data via standardized business
    and workflow processes and greater accountability;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allows public and private organizations to more easily contribute
    Web content to USDA for publishing;

-   Increases the amount of Web content available to public and private
    organizations by enterprise-wide aggregation, management, and
    storing of content;

-   Web standards ensure public and private organizations a simple and
    consistent user experience through the enterprise online
    environment;

-   Shapes public and private organization opinions about USDA's
    championing of eGovernment through an integrated online presence;
    and

-   Improves the ability for public and private organizations to obtain
    more consistent USDA compliance with Section 508 standards.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Enables public and private organizations to easily search for and
    quickly find relevant and timely Web content through integration
    with a robust USDA taxonomy;

-   Makes Web content consistently and rapidly accessible to public and
    private organizations via increased reliance on electronic-based
    data and information;

-   Allows users to locate relevant information more quickly through a
    centralized information structure; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Eliminates redundant data entry across multiple applications through
    enterprise-wide data sharing.

##### Benefits to USDA

**Quality Gains:**

-   Eliminates redundant efforts and eases the burden of GPEA and the
    Quality of Information Act for Agencies via a standardized
    enterprise document management solution;

-   Improves the ability for employees to ensure compliance with Section
    508 requirements by utilization of content templates;

-   Promotes team cohesiveness and increases collective decision-making
    when working in geographically disbursed locations;

-   Ensures a consistent user experience through the enterprise online
    environment;

-   Increases the quality of data distributed across eGovernment
    initiatives, legacy systems, and other systems with mission critical
    functionality by enterprise-wide external information access,
    purchasing, data sharing, documented data standards, and consistent
    data access methods.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Increase citizen self-service to information and employee access to
    indexed FOIA-governed documents through information centralization
    efforts;

-   Decrease redundant processes through the identification and reuse of
    existing information and a centralized structure;

-   Increase employee ability to quickly and consistently create and
    modify Web content through the use of templates, graphic
    repositories, and automated routing to reviewers;

-   Provides access to information more quickly through different search
    engines, a simple user interface, and leveraged skills from
    different Agencies;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increases team productivity and efficiency by virtualizing
    asynchronous collaboration processes;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allows employees to more efficiently utilize USDA and Agency Web
    sites and applications;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allows employees the ability to locate internal and external,
    current, and correct information that was not previously accessible;

-   Forges new working relationships through an increased knowledge of
    efforts throughout USDA; and

-   Increase employee ability to focus efforts on value-driven
    activities with reduction in the amount of time devoted to locating
    information.

**Cost Avoidance:**

-   Avoids costs that would occur through individual Agencies or Mission
    Areas deploying their own solutions;

-   Eliminates costs related to effort and resources required to
    maintain duplicate data stores; and

-   Increases the ability to effectively and efficiently fulfill
    information requests and avoid legal costs.

**Cost Savings:**

-   Leveraged services provided by enterprise-wide solution reduce
    integration costs and facilitate sharing of information across
    subject matter experts, best practices, lesson learned, and
    technical expertise;

-   Reduces maintenance costs of new and existing applications by
    leveraging existing quality data and best practices;

-   Automates processes for managing content and documents throughout
    their lifecycle and, in effect, reduces employee time otherwise
    dedicated to such tasks;

-   Reduces paper costs related to the purchasing, printing, storing,
    and disposal of paper assets by accessing, storing and managing
    content and documents electronically; and

-   Decreases the number of redundant purchases across USDA and saves on
    economies of scale through the acquisition of highly extensible and
    scalable enterprise-wide solutions.

### Evaluate Alternative Two

The eDeployment cost benefit analysis process leveraged functional and
technical requirements collected from users as the primary inputs. In
addition to the major components of eDeployment (Portal Services,
Document Management, Data Management and Web Content Management), there
are supplementary pieces that are part of the larger solution
(reporting, content aggregation/EAI, load testing tools, load balancing,
SAN storage etc) which impact the cost. These components represent
supporting functionality that is necessary to deliver the Portal
Services, Document Management and Web Content Management capabilities.

The total cost numbers reflect actual labor, hardware and software
costs, where available, for FY 2003 and FY 2004. All estimated hardware
and software costs were collected by polling vendors within the
different areas of the eDeployment solution. Costs to execute the
different implementation and operations tasks of eDeployment represent
the labor portion of the cost figures.

The total cost of eDeployment is comprised of two logical break points.
The first break point is the \"base cost\" or the cost that is necessary
to setup the technology capabilities and define supporting business
processes. The second price break point reflects the \"variable cost\"
or the cost incurred for agencies to use the infrastructure. Some of the
components of the \"base cost\" are minimal hardware, baseline software
(no user licenses), and labor to install, configure and test the
solutions. Actual costs for the creation of corporate taxonomy and
estimated purchases supporting eContent are also included in the base
cost.

The variable cost is comprised of software license fees for early
adopter users, additional hardware, technical support for agencies to
use the eDeployment solutions, and integration with legacy systems. The
base and variable cost values reflect implementation of eDeployment at a
level of functionality as defined by the user community. Some
sensitivity analysis was performed to determine measures that would
lower the base cost of eDeployment if faced with lower funding levels.
Measures identified would reduce the cost of implementation and support
but will make sacrifices in the flexibility and/or quality of the
solution. If funding is allocated for eDeployment that is lower than the
cost of the recommended approach, then input from the user community
will be used to determine what compromises will be made to deliver the
optimal solution for the available dollars. This optimized solution for
a price point less than base will be reviewed and approved by the
eGovernment Executive Council and Executive Working Group of the EITIRB.

For Alternative Two, the NPV is equal to \$177,910,840. This value
indicates that investing in Alternative Two returns \$177,910,840. more
in benefits than costs, after adjusting for the time value of money.

In the figure, ROI is the NPV divided by total discounted costs and
equals 1.54. Since ROI is often cited as a percentage, multiplying by
100 converts the decimal rate to 154%, meaning each dollar invested in
the system recovers the initial investment and earns an additional
\$1.54 in return.

The ROI is really just another way to express the Benefit Cost Ratio
(BCR). In the example above, the BCR is the Total Discounted Benefit
divided by the Total Discounted Costs and equals 2.54. Adding 1 to the
ROI before converting to a percentage can also compute BCR.

Table 4.2.8 -- Alternative Two Cost Analysis Summary

+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **[Cost Type (in  | **[     | **[     | **[     | **[     | **[     |
| \$000             | FY2003] | FY2004] | FY2005] | FY2006] | FY2007] |
| s)]{.smallcaps}** | {.small | {.small | {.small | {.small | {.small |
|                   | caps}** | caps}** | caps}** | caps}** | caps}** |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Annual Benefits   | \$2,    | \$16,   | \$46,   | \$94,   | \$153,  |
| (AB)              | 414,376 | 405,462 | 578,895 | 870,576 | 504,602 |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Annual Costs (AC) | **      | **      | **      | **      | **      |
|                   | \$29,37 | \$19,54 | \$22,41 | \$23,43 | \$25,65 |
|                   | 1,185** | 5,725** | 9,306** | 8,030** | 3,654** |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Discount Factor   | 1.00    | 0.98    | 0.96    | 0.94    | 0.92    |
| (DF)              |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Discounted        | \$2,    | \$16,   | \$44,   | \$89,   | \$141,  |
| Benefit (DB)      | 414,376 | 068,033 | 682,524 | 136,240 | 259,749 |
|                   |         |         |         |         |         |
| ABxDF             |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Discounted Cost   | \$29,   | \$19,   | \$21,   | \$22,   | \$23,   |
| (DC)              | 371,185 | 143,707 | 506,547 | 021,347 | 607,297 |
|                   |         |         |         |         |         |
| ACxDF             |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Discounted Net    | (\$26,9 | (\$3,0  | \$23,   | \$67,   | \$117,  |
| (DN)              | 56,809) | 75,674) | 175,977 | 114,893 | 652,452 |
|                   |         |         |         |         |         |
| DB-DC             |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Benefit Cost      | *       |         |         |         |         |
| Ratio (BCR) DB/DC | *2.54** |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Net Present Value | **\     |         |         |         |         |
|                   | $177,91 |         |         |         |         |
|                   | 0,840** |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Payback Period    | **3**   |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| IRR               | **86%** |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Modified IRR      | **65%** |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ROI               | *       |         |         |         |         |
|                   | *154%** |         |         |         |         |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

##  Alternative Three: Centralized Components 

Alternative Three would take a centralized approach to deploying the
eDeployment capabilities. This option is prevalent in Information
Technology deployment projects due to ease of and lower cost of
deployment. Depending on the targeted use of a solution, integration
points, volume and distribution of the user community this option may be
adequate for what a business need. If the audience of an application
that needs to be integrated is concentrated in a small set of geographic
regions, and external systems are few and centrally located, this option
is effective.

### Market Analysis

The implementation of enterprise-wide capabilities included in the
eDeployment solution requires careful planning and an emphasis not only
on system development, but also on change management and marketing and
communication efforts. It is crucial that Agencies understand the value
proposition so they will contribute and utilize the system. Agency
leadership and users must be involved in the changes necessary to adopt
the eDeployment technologies. Marketing and communications will be
imperative to help Agencies and users understand the capabilities that
will be offered to them upon completion of the program.

### Functionality of Alternative

This alternative will deliver all the technical and functional
requirements as outlined by the user community during the control
business case phase. All the components will be hosted from one hosting
location.

### Architecture of Alternative

This Alternative features centralized application components and
data/content repositories that will enable organizations to optimally
deliver robust enterprise-wide solutions. Since the components are
housed in a central location, response time will vary geographically and
in some areas may hinder use.

### Delivery Timeline

The eDeployment delivery timeline is organized using the following
phased approach:

-   **Phase 1: eDeployment Pre-Implementation Tasks --** Phase 1
    consists of the tasks that must be performed prior to
    implementation. These initial tasks include the vendor analysis and
    selection process as well as creating and configuring the technology
    infrastructure and the physical network required for implementation.

-   **Phase 2: eDeployment Early Adopter Implementation --** Phase 2
    consists of full implementation of eDeployment services for early
    adopter Agencies. This includes project planning, design, build,
    test, conversion, pilot, and workforce transition activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Phase 3: eDeployment Enterprise-wide Implementation --** Phase 3
    consists of a similar set of tasks to those in Phase 2. It is
    important to note that certain Phase 2 tasks do not need to be
    repeated in Phase 3 (such as build/test technology infrastructure).
    In Phase 3, remaining USDA Agencies will conduct full implementation
    of eDeployment services.

### Impacts on Existing Processes

In line with the intent of the initiative, a centralized eDeployment
capability will change the way Agencies:

-   Manage and deploy Web content;

-   Share and reuse document assets;

-   Deploy services to citizens, employees and partners through portals;

-   Design and deliver Web applications; and

-   Share and design data that supports their services.

Please refer to eDeployment Concept of Operations documentation for
details on the vision and impacts to the Agencies. In addition to
impacts to Agency business processes as they relate to eDeployment
subject areas, the operations processes within the central hosting
center will also be impacted. Services such as physical security, backup
& recovery, application monitoring, Web administration and database
administration will be leveraged from the central hosting facility.

### Estimate Lifecycle Costs

This alternative seeks to leverage and expand on existing USDA hardware,
network, and personnel resources. Major factors affecting costs include
the following:

-   Solution modification to meet Department-wide eDeployment needs. The
    architecture will be scaled to support the significantly larger,
    enterprise-wide user community; and

-   Content migration from existing systems is a significant cost when
    expanding an Agency-specific solution to address the eDeployment
    needs of the enterprise.

-   Software license costs are higher than Alternative Two from FY 2005
    to FY 2007 because there are fewer new licenses purchased at one
    time. Therefore, bulk discounts are smaller than Alternative Two.

Table 4.3.6 -- Alternative Three Lifecycle Costs (in 2003 dollars)

  ------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
  **Description of Factor** **FY 2003**        **FY 2004**        **FY 2005**        **FY 2006**        **FY 2007**

  Project Initiation        \$180,720          \$202,000          \$293,300          \$305,100          \$317,300

  Project Management        \$1,829,507        \$1,648,156        \$1,530,936        \$1,292,456        \$1,297,056

  Data Requirements         \$1,068,259        \$3,128,327        \$29,900           \$31,000           \$32,240
  Definition                                                                                            

  Data Design               \$1,923,301        \$1,646,609        \$165,492          \$165,492          \$165,492

  Software Acquisition      \$6,409,264        \$2,828,791        \$9,793,740        \$11,111,813       \$11,793,123

  Hardware/Infrastructure   \$9,867,606        \$10,000           \$3,670,436        \$6,408,816        \$10,000
  Acquisition                                                                                           

  System Build, Integrate & \$4,881,101        \$2,578,142        \$1,897,721        \$1,271,892        \$1,271,892
  Test                                                                                                  

  Rollout                   \$0                \$300,347          \$2,041,265        \$2,661,576        \$2,661,576

  System Operations         \$170,650          \$170,650          \$198,250          \$250,000          \$250,000

  Adaptive and Corrective   \$0                \$1,031,026        \$1,031,026        \$1,031,026        \$1,031,026
  Maintenance                                                                                           

  Telecom Costs             TBD                TBD                TBD                TBD                TBD

  Security Costs            \$827,769          \$444,178          \$657,419          \$773,732          \$602,748

  Risk Costs                \$1,261,891        \$1,261,891        \$1,261,891        \$1,261,891        \$1,261,891

  **Total**                 **\$28,420,068**   **\$15,250,118**   **\$22,571,375**   **\$26,564,794**   **\$20,694,344**
  ------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

#### Personnel Costs 

Personnel costs include all contractor and government labor for all
phases of development. A blend of contractor and USDA employees will be
used in the deployment of this alternative. With the exception of
maintenance, a staff mix of 20% USDA resources and 80% vendor resources
is assumed. For contractors, a blended cost rate of \$110 per hour was
utilized; this reflects a staffing breakdown of managers, consultants,
and analysts typical for a development effort. For USDA, IT executive
personnel fully loaded costs are estimated at \$88.62 per hour and IT
support and programming staff use the fully loaded costs of a GS 13 step
5 with a DC pay adjustment. This equates to \$49.08 per hour.

#### Telecommunications Costs

This section is incomplete, pending input from the USDA
Telecommunications Group thus the telecommunications specific costs have
not been included at this time.

#### Security Costs

This solution will leverage authentication services from the proposed
eAuthentication solution, physical security from the hosting center and
user authorization and content security features provided by the vendor
product used. Additional security fees are estimated at 3% of lifecycle
costs.

### Outline Benefits 

This section identifies the benefits of pursuing Alternative Three,
which include benefits to citizens, the public and private
organizations, and USDA, its Agencies, and employees. A full discussion
of the tangible and intangible benefits of Alternative Three is made
below.

#### Estimate Tangible Benefits

Tangible benefits to the government for this alternative include:

-   A productivity increase from reduced time spent searching for
    documents;

-   A productivity increase in responding to FOIA compliance requests;

-   A productivity increase from automated assembly and distribution of
    content;

-   A productivity increase from automating document routing and
    approval processes;

-   Cost savings from reduced materials costs;

-   Cost savings in development of Web applications; and

-   Cost savings in development of a USDA style guide.

Because quality gains for this alternative are less concrete, they have
been considered qualitatively rather than quantitatively.

The table below outlines the financial benefits over the five-year
lifecycle of the project; a full description of each is provided below:

Table 4.3.7.1 -- Alternative Three Estimate of Tangible Benefits

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Reduced Time Looking    \$289,374             \$5,064,053           \$16,204,969          \$38,920,863          \$74,947,982
  for Documents                                                                                                   

  Reduced Materials Cost  \$30,000              \$525,000             \$1,680,000           \$4,035,000           \$7,770,000
  Savings                                                                                                         

  Reduced Document        \$980,666             \$1,961,333           \$3,922,665           \$8,825,997           \$19,613,327
  Routing and Approval                                                                                            
  Time Cost Savings                                                                                               

  FOIA Request Cost       \$11,153              \$195,181             \$624,581             \$1,500,109           \$2,888,686
  Savings                                                                                                         

  Assembly and            \$40,896              \$715,688             \$2,290,201           \$5,500,573           \$10,592,181
  Distribution of Content                                                                                         
  Cost Savings                                                                                                    

  Reduced Web Application \$628                 \$43,978              \$140,729             \$169,001             \$325,436
  Development Cost                                                                                                
  Savings                                                                                                         

  Developing a USDA Style \$39,266              \$39,266              \$31,413              \$23,560              \$15,706
  Guide Cost Savings                                                                                              

  **Total Tangible        **\$1,391,985**       **\$8,544,499**       **\$24,894,558**      **\$58,975,102**      **\$116,153,317**
  Benefits**                                                                                                      
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Time Looking for Documents 

The largest financial benefit of eDeployment is increased productivity.
Because financial benefits of productivity are difficult to trace,
measuring productivity is challenging. Ignoring eDeployment's impact on
productivity, however, would miss its primary benefit. eDeployment
enables employees to find information from external sources of content,
different Agencies, and administrative offices and assemble them in a
simple, personalized desktop. For example, a USDA employee who deals
with crop disease could customize his portal to automatically load,
update, and organize all internal information on that subject. This
increased and personalized organization reduces the time employees spend
searching for documents and information, and increases the amount of
time employees can spend on service delivery. This benefit does not
include time saved responding to FOIA requests.

Due to the increased difficulty of systems integration, decreased
performance time, and increased search time, the calculated productivity
for this benefit is lower than that of Alternative Two. However, as this
alternative incorporates an enterprise-wide solution, the productivity
realized is significantly higher than that of Alternative One.

Calculation of cost savings from reduced searching time utilizes the
following information:

-   The assumption of the number of FTE benefiting from Alternative
    Three is detailed in Appendix B.

-   The percentage of employees using the Web for business purposes, as
    determined by the USDA OCIO readiness survey, was used to determine
    document search-intensive positions and less document intensive
    positions. The survey found 52% of employees are frequent Internet
    users, using USDA or Agency sites "always" or "often" for business
    purposes such as research, completing and submitting forms. An
    additional 30% use the sites "sometimes" to search for work-related
    information, while only 7% never use the sites.

-   Time spent searching for documents was determined by Agency surveys
    conducted for this business case.

-   Potential timesavings factor was determined by rates typical in ROI
    analyses of similar portal, content, document, data, and information
    management investments.

-   Given the number of beneficiaries, the GS levels of specific
    beneficiaries were unavailable. This benefit utilizes the average
    government rate.

-   Total time saved is equal to time spent searching for documents
    multiplied by the timesavings factor.

Table 4.3.7.1.1 -- Reduced Time Spent Looking for Documents Cost Savings

  ------------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of        **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**    2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTEs Realizing 200                   3,500                 11,200                26,900                51,800
  Benefits of eDeployment                                                                                          

  Percent of employees     52%                   52%                   52%                   52%                   52%
  using Web frequently                                                                                             

  Percent of employees     30%                   30%                   30%                   30%                   30%
  using Web occasionally                                                                                           

  Average Number of Hours  355                   355                   355                   355                   355
  Spent Looking for                                                                                                
  Information Each Year:                                                                                           
  Document Intensive                                                                                               
  Position                                                                                                         

  Average Number of Hours  89                    89                    89                    89                    89
  Spent Looking for                                                                                                
  Information Each Year:                                                                                           
  Less Document Intensive                                                                                          
  Position                                                                                                         

  Potential Time Savings   30%                   30%                   30%                   30%                   30%
  Factor                                                                                                           

  Total Time Saved (hours) 12,649                221,352               708,326               1,701,246             3,276,006

  Cost Per Employee Hour   \$23                  \$23                  \$23                  \$23                  \$23

  **Reduced Time Looking   **\$289,374**         **\$5,064,053**       **\$16,204,969**      **\$38,920,863**      **\$74,947,982**
  for Documents**                                                                                                  
  ------------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Materials Cost Savings

Materials cost has several components: purchasing paper, paper disposal,
buying supplies, and postage. USDA consumes paper at a rate of 9.5
million sheets per year. Costs for disposal and destruction are also
incurred; this includes both the cost of destroying sensitive documents
and disposal of all expired documents. Through increased electronic
collaboration and the ability to self-publish content to the Web, these
supplies costs can be significantly reduced with eDeployment.

Due to the increased difficulty of systems integration, decreased
performance time, and increased search time, the calculated productivity
for this benefit is lower than that of Alternative Two. However, as this
alternative incorporates an enterprise-wide solution, the productivity
realized is significantly higher than that of Alternative One.

The following was used to estimate savings from reducing materials
costs.

-   The number of FTE realizing benefits is detailed in Appendix B.

-   ERS estimates the total annual cost of paper, disposal, supplies,
    and postage is \$500 per employee.

-   Cost savings from reducing materials costs are expected to reach 30%
    for this Alternative.

Table 4.3.7.1.2 -- Reduced Materials Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTEs          200                   3,500                 11,200                26,900                51,800
  Realizing Benefits of                                                                                           
  eDeployment                                                                                                     

  Cost of Supplies        \$500                 \$500                 \$500                 \$500                 \$500

  Reduction Potential     30%                   30%                   30%                   30%                   30%
  With eDeployment                                                                                                

  **Reduced Materials     **\$30,000**          **\$525,000**         **\$1,680,000**       **\$4,035,000**       **\$7,770,000**
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                  
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Document Routing and Approval Cost Savings

The document routing process is a progression through the following
stages or steps:

1.  An analyst/author develops content

2.  The analyst/author works with reviewers

3.  A report or information item is cleared.

4.  A cleared report or information item is prepared for distribution
    and goes through a series of steps which includes some of the
    following:

    a.  Layout and desktop publishing;

    b.  Filed on a server; and

    c.  Printed and converted to a Web-based format.

5.  The following distribution process is followed:

    a.  Mailed;

    b.  E-mailed manually;

    c.  E-mailed list service; and

    d.  Posted on the Web.

A Web Content Management process would automate several of the above
steps, leading to tangible benefits from saving time. There are also
intangible benefits of better control over review processes and
template-based classifications that support search routines.

Due to the increased difficulty of systems integration, decreased
performance time, and increased search time, the calculated productivity
for this benefit is lower than that of Alternative Two. However, as this
alternative incorporates an enterprise-wide solution, the productivity
realized is significantly higher than that of Alternative One.

Productivity increase from time spent reviewing utilizes the following
information:

-   The assumption of the number of FTE benefiting from Alternative
    Three is detailed in Appendix B.

-   The Agency survey indicated approximately 10% of staff time, or 4
    hours per FTE per week, is spent on the reviewing process.

-   The average reviewer is considered to be a GS 13 step 5.

-   Savings in employee time involved in reviewing for document
    distribution will be .45 hours per week by the end of the project
    lifecycle. The table below details the cost savings achieved through
    increased ease of the assembly and distribution of content.

-   Realization of benefits per year for Alternative Three is detailed
    in Appendix B.

Table 4.3.7.1.3 -- Reduced Document Routing and Approval Cost Savings

  ------------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of        **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**    2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of Reviewers      1,000                 2,000                 4,000                 9,000                 20,000
  Using Content Management                                                                                         

  Reduction in Time Spent  0.45                  0.45                  0.45                  0.45                  0.45
  Reviewing (Hours/Week)                                                                                           

  Actual Reduction in Time 19,980                39,960                79,920                179,820               399,600
  (hours/year)                                                                                                     

  Average USDA Rate Per    \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08
  Hour GS 13.5                                                                                                     

  **Reduced Document       **\$980,666**         **\$1,961,333**       **\$3,922,665**       **\$8,825,997**       **\$19,613,327**
  Routing and Approval                                                                                             
  Time Cost Savings**                                                                                              
  ------------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### FOIA Request Cost Savings

In addition to searching for general business documents, USDA employees
spend a great deal of time finding information to comply with FOIA
requests. FOIA compliance is a time-intensive process of searching
through files, keeping records, and delivering content. Between 1998 and
2001, USDA spent the equivalent of 305 FTE complying with FOIA requests.
eDeployment features a Web-enabled portal based on a Web Content
Management system that can reduce the time spent on FOIA requests
because access to Department and Agency holdings will be much more
transparent and information that meets FOIA criteria would be accessible
online.

The document/Web Content Management system through its templates should
aid in the classification process and make record keeping much easier.
In addition, the portal and Web Content Management features can organize
that content in a simple and useful manner allowing easy access by time
saved is a tangible benefit; additionally, there are intangible benefits
in that requests would be filled much faster and those making a request
would have more confidence that searches are thorough and systematic.
The table below details the cost savings in reduced time spent on FOIA
requests.

Due to geographic effects, system performance of a centralized
architecture is slightly inferior to a distributed architecture. Due to
the increased difficulty of systems integration, decreased performance
time, and increased search time, the calculated productivity for this
benefit is lower than that of Alternative Two. However, as this
alternative incorporates an enterprise-wide solution, the productivity
realized is significantly higher than that of Alternative One.

Productivity increase from eased FOIA compliance utilizes the following
information:

-   Over the period from FY1998-FY2001 (for which consistent data is
    available), an average of 305 staff years was spent annually at USDA
    on 98,160 FOIA requests (including requests related to litigation).
    As the majority of time spent processing FOIA requests is spent
    locating and retrieving documents, the calculation assumes that
    electronic document storage can reduce time spent processing FOIA
    requests significantly.

-   Cost of staff rates based on the loaded cost rate of an average USDA
    employee.

-   Realization of benefit per year for Alternative Three is detailed in
    Appendix B.

-   Actual reduction equals potential reduction multiplied by
    realization of potential benefits per year.

-   Total benefit is computed by multiplying reduction in staff years
    complying with FOIA requests by cost per staff year.

Table 4.3.7.1.4 -- FOIA Request Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTEs          200                   3,500                 11,200                26,900                51,800
  Realizing Benefits of                                                                                           
  eDeployment                                                                                                     

  Number of Staff Years   305                   305                   305                   305                   305
  Spent Filling                                                                                                   
  Information Requests                                                                                            

  Potential Reduction     45%                   45%                   45%                   45%                   45%
  With eDeployment                                                                                                

  Realization of          0.2%                  3.5%                  11.2%                 26.9%                 51.8%
  Potential Benefits %                                                                                            
  Per Year                                                                                                        

  Actual Reduction        0.1%                  1.6%                  5.0%                  12.1%                 23.3%

  Reduction in Staff      0.3                   4.8                   15.4                  36.9                  71.1
  Years Complying with                                                                                            
  FOIA Requests                                                                                                   

  Cost Per Staff Year     \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631              \$40,631

  **FOIA Request Cost     **\$11,153**          **\$195,181**         **\$624,581**         **\$1,500,109**       **\$2,888,686**
  Savings**                                                                                                       
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

#####   {#section-11 .unnumbered}

##### Assembly and Distribution of Content Cost Savings

The portal makes it possible to access information and data from
different applications and use the data to create new ways of combining
it. Integrations in the portal layer focus on information display and
are therefore normally less complex and less functional than traditional
integrations between applications deeper down in the application
architecture. This makes these integrations easier and less expensive,
and they are also more maintainable than complicated integrations.

Productivity increase from eased assembly and distribution of content
utilizes the following information:

-   Document distribution takes up the time of both Agency information
    officers and other personnel; based on estimates from the ERS
    Information Services Division, FS, and NRCS this is estimated at 5%
    of staff time for Web content management-licensed employees at
    high-content Agencies and 2.5% of staff time for lower-content
    Agencies. Using the employee numbers listed in Appendix C, it is
    estimated that approximately 1600 FTE are spent assembling and
    distributing content (note that this excludes content creation and
    includes only assembly, packaging, and distribution).

-   Cost rate of content distribution and assembly assumes a staff mix
    of 50% IT personnel and 50% average USDA employees.

-   Savings in employee costs for document distribution are projected to
    reach 20% by the end of the project lifecycle. The table below
    details the cost savings achieved through increased ease of the
    assembly and distribution of content.

-   Realization of benefits per year for Alternative Three is detailed
    in Appendix B.

Table 4.3.7.1.5 -- Assembly and Distribution of Content Cost Savings

  ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of         **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**     2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Utilization of FTE        1,600                 1,600                 1,600                 1,600                 1,600

  Cost Per IT FTE           \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901              \$63,901

  Potential Reduction       20%                   20%                   20%                   20%                   20%
  Factor                                                                                                            

  Realization of Potential  0.2%                  3.5%                  11.2%                 26.9%                 51.8%
  Benefits % Per Year                                                                                               

  Actual Reduction Factor   0.04%                 0.7%                  2.2%                  5.4%                  10.4%

  **Assembly and            **\$40,896**          **\$715,688**         **\$2,290,201**       **\$5,500,573**       **\$10,592,181**
  Distribution of Content                                                                                           
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                    
  ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Reduced Web Application Development Cost Savings

The portal is a well-defined interface. Therefore, all other systems
could communicate with the portal through this interface. This gives
clear deliverables for system developers doing future integrations and
new applications for the portal, as well as changes in existing ones.
Clear deliverables vouch for a higher quality in development and thereby
reduce the time for correction of errors or misperceptions in the
expected delivery. The following was used to estimate savings from
reducing development costs.

-   Cost savings from reducing Web application development are expected
    to reach 50%.

-   Realization of benefits is expected to follow the schedule outlined
    in Appendix B.

-   Analysis assumes 130 applications are developed over the next 5
    years, and uses a conservative estimate of 640 hours (16 weeks) of
    development time per application.

Table 4.3.7.1.6 -- Reduced Web Application Development Cost Savings

  ------------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of        **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**    2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTEs Realizing 200                   3,500                 11,200                26,900                51,800
  Benefits of eDeployment                                                                                          

  Hours Spent Developing   640                   640                   640                   640                   640
  Applications                                                                                                     

  Cost Per Hour of         \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08
  Programmer Time                                                                                                  

  Applications Developed   10                    40                    40                    20                    20
  Per Year Using Portal                                                                                            

  Potential Reduction      50%                   50%                   50%                   50%                   50%
  Factor                                                                                                           

  Realization of Potential 0.2%                  3.5%                  11.2%                 26.9%                 51.8%
  Benefits % Per Year                                                                                              

  Actual Reduction in      0.1%                  1.8%                  5.6%                  13.5%                 25.9%
  Development Time                                                                                                 

  **Reduced Web            **\$628**             **\$43,978**          **\$140,729**         **\$169,001**         **\$325,436**
  Application Development                                                                                          
  Cost Savings**                                                                                                   
  ------------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

##### Developing a USDA Style Guide Cost Savings

Once a user interface (UI) style guide is outlined for the Department,
templates are used for the graphical user interface in the portal. This
reduces time spent developing UI guides for online applications. In our
survey four Agencies reported having existing style guidelines, while
five others would like to develop UI guidelines within the next year.
Having an enterprise-wide style guideline will drastically reduce the
amount of time spent developing Agency guidelines by 50%.

The following information was utilized in creating this table:

-   Discussion with private sector IT developers indicated that
    development of UI guidelines will take at least 320 hours (8 weeks)
    of IT staff time. The analysis assumes no additional style guideline
    development costs beyond initial labor to create one.

-   Realization of benefits occurs as soon as the template is designed
    and benefits are nonrecurring.

-   The number of Agencies developing UI guidelines each year was
    determined by the Agency surveys. Agencies that did not identify a
    year for development are assumed to develop in later years and 10
    Agencies are assumed to develop guides after the five-year period of
    analysis.

Table 4.3.7.1.7 -- Developing a USDA Style Guide Cost Savings

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Description of       **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
  Factor]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  Number of FTE Realizing 1,000                 15,000                37,750                64,250                84,950
  Benefits of eDeployment                                                                                         

  Hours Spent Developing  320                   320                   320                   320                   320
  Style Guide                                                                                                     

  Cost Per IT Hour        \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08               \$49.08

  Cost Per Style Guide    \$15,706.37           \$15,706.37           \$15,706.37           \$15,706.37           \$15,706.37

  Number of Style Guides  5                     5                     4                     3                     2
  Developed Per Year                                                                                              

  Potential Reduction in  0.5                   0.5                   0.5                   0.5                   0.5
  Development of a Style                                                                                          
  Guide                                                                                                           

  **Developing a USDA     **\$39,266**          **\$39,266**          **\$31,413**          **\$23,560**          **\$15,706**
  Style Guide Cost                                                                                                
  Savings**                                                                                                       
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

#### Identify Intangible Benefits

Intangible benefits are those that cannot be measured quantitatively.
Because this alternative involves a technology and process change, there
are many intangible benefits. Intangible benefits of Alternative Three
are as follows:

##### Benefits to Citizens

Quality Gains:

-   Improves access to more current, accurate, relevant, and organized
    products, services, information, and data, through standardized
    business and workflow processes and greater accountability;

-   Increases one-time creation and publishing of Web content, according
    to standards, accessibility, and usability for all citizens,
    especially those with disabilities;

-   Increases the amount of Web content available to citizens by
    enterprise-wide aggregation, management, and storing;

-   Web standards ensure a consistent user experience through the
    enterprise online environment; and

-   Shapes public opinions about USDA's championing of eGovernment
    through an integrated online presence.

-   All customer groups benefit from 508 compliance.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Enables citizens to easily search for and quickly find relevant and
    timely content via integration with a robust USDA taxonomy;

-   Makes Web content more efficiently available to citizens by
    increased reliance on electronic-based data and information;

-   Productivity through a centralized information structure allows
    citizens to locate relevant information more quickly; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Eliminates redundant data entry across multiple applications through
    enterprise-wide data sharing.

##### Benefits to Public and Private Organizations

**Quality Gains:**

-   Improves access to more current, accurate, relevant, and organized
    products, services, information, and data via standardized business
    and workflow processes and greater accountability;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allows public and private organizations to more easily contribute
    Web content to USDA for publishing;

-   Increases the amount of Web content available to public and private
    organizations by enterprise-wide aggregation, management, and
    storing of content;

-   Web standards ensure public and private organizations a simple and
    consistent user experience through the enterprise online
    environment;

-   Shapes public and private organization opinions about USDA's
    championing of eGovernment through an integrated online presence;
    and

-   Improves the ability for public and private organizations to obtain
    more consistent USDA compliance with Section 508 standards.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Enables public and private organizations to easily search for and
    quickly find relevant and timely Web content through integration
    with a robust USDA taxonomy;

-   Makes Web content consistently and rapidly accessible to public and
    private organizations via increased reliance on electronic-based
    data and information;

-   Allows users to locate relevant information more quickly through a
    centralized information structure; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Eliminates redundant data entry across multiple applications through
    enterprise-wide data sharing.

##### Benefits to USDA

**Quality Gains:**

-   Eliminates redundant efforts and eases the burden of GPEA and the
    Quality of Information Act for Agencies via a standardized
    enterprise document management solution;

-   Improves the ability for employees to ensure compliance with Section
    508 requirements by utilization of content templates;

-   Ensures a consistent user experience through the enterprise online
    environment; and

-   Increases the quality of data distributed across eGovernment
    initiatives, legacy systems, and other systems with mission critical
    functionality by enterprise-wide external information access,
    purchasing, data sharing, documented data standards, and consistent
    data access methods.

**Productivity Gains:**

-   Increases citizen self-service to information and employee access to
    indexed FOIA-governed documents through information centralization
    efforts;

-   Decreases redundant processes through the identification and reuse
    of existing information and a centralized structure;

-   Increases employee ability to quickly and consistently create and
    modify Web content through the use of templates, graphic
    repositories, and automated routing to reviewers;

-   Provides access to information more quickly through different search
    engines, a simple user interface, and leveraged skills from
    different Agencies;

-   Allows employees to more efficiently utilize USDA and Agency Web
    sites and applications;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allows employees the ability to locate internal and external,
    current, and correct information that was not previously accessible;

-   Forges new working relationships through an increased knowledge of
    efforts throughout USDA; and

-   Increases employee ability to focus efforts on value-driven
    activities with reduction in the amount of time devoted to locating
    information.

**Cost Avoidance:**

-   Increases the ability to effectively and efficiently fulfill
    information requests and avoid legal costs Avoidance of legal costs
    through increased ability to effectively and efficiently fullfills
    information requests.

**Cost Savings:**

-   Reduces integration costs and supports information sharing across
    subject matter experts, best practices, lesson learned, and
    technical expertise;

-   Reduces maintenance costs of new and existing applications by
    leveraging existing quality data and best practices;

-   Automates processes for managing content and documents throughout
    their lifecycle and, in effect, reduces employee time otherwise
    dedicated to such tasks;

-   Reduces paper costs related to the purchasing, printing, storing,
    and disposal of paper assets by accessing, storing and managing
    content and documents electronically; and

-   Decreases the number of redundant purchases across USDA and saves on
    economies of scale through the acquisition of highly extensible and
    scalable enterprise-wide solutions.

### Evaluate Alternative Three

For Alternative Three, the NPV is equal to \$86,928,466. This value
indicates that investing in Alternative Three returns \$86,928,466 more
in benefits than costs, after adjusting for the time value of money.

In the figure, ROI is the NPV divided by total discounted costs and
equals 0.80. Since ROI is often cited as a percentage, multiplying by
100 converts the decimal rate to 80%, meaning each dollar invested in
the system recovers the initial investment and earns an additional
\$0.80 in return.

The ROI is really just another way to express the Benefit Cost Ratio
(BCR). In the example above, the BCR is the Total Discounted Benefit
divided by the Total Discounted Costs and equals 1.80. Adding 1 to the
ROI before converting ROI to a percentage can also compute BCR.

Table 4.3.8 -- Alternative Three Cost Analysis Summary

  ------------------ ------------------ --------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------
  **Cost Type (in    **FY 2003**        **FY 2004**     **FY 2005**    **FY 2006**    **FY 2007**
  \$000s)**                                                                           

  Annual Benefit     \$1,391,985        \$8,544,499     \$24,894,558   \$58,975,102   \$116,153,317
  (AB)                                                                                

  Annual Costs (AC)  \$28,420,068       \$15,250,118    \$22,571,375   \$26,564,794   \$20,694,344

  Discount Factor    1.00               0.98            0.96           0.94           0.92
  (DF)                                                                                

  Discounted Benefit \$1,391,985        \$8,368,755     \$23,881,023   \$55,410,424   \$106,887,925
  (DB) ABxDF                                                                          

  Discounted Cost    \$28,420,068       \$14,936,452    \$21,652,424   \$24,959,118   \$19,043,584
  (DC) ACxDF                                                                          

  Discounted Net     (\$27,028,083)     (\$6,567,697)   \$2,228,599    \$30,451,307   \$87,844,341
  (DN) DB-DC                                                                          

  Benefit Cost Ratio **1.80**                                                         
  (BCR) DB/DC                                                                         

  Net Present Value  **\$86,928,466**                                                 

  Payback Period     **4**                                                            

  IRR                **47%**                                                          

  Modified IRR       **40%**                                                          

  **ROI**            **80%**                                                          
  ------------------ ------------------ --------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------

####  {#section-12 .unnumbered}

#  Alternatives Analysis

When selecting an alternative with variable costs and benefits from year
to year, the best comparison measures are net present value (NPV) and
return on investment (ROI). NPV indicates the total net benefit of an
investment after adjusting for the time value of money. Any investment
with a positive NPV is economically justified. ROI is calculated by
dividing the NPV by the total discounted costs. An ROI of zero indicates
that the returns from an investment are equal to its costs. A positive
ROI indicates a positive return. ROI is especially useful when resources
are limited, since ROI indicates the total return for each dollar
invested. As a result of the above NPV analysis, we recommend
Alternative Two, since it realizes the highest ROI.

Alternative Two, Distributed Components, meets all functional
requirements, is the most flexible, and has the highest NPV and ROI.
Alternative Two has an NPV of \$177,910,840, which is significantly
higher than Alternative One and somewhat higher than Alternative Three.
In addition, its ROI is 154%. This is significantly higher than
Alternative One's ROI of negative 31% and higher than Alternative
Three's ROI of 80%. Returns for the distributed components alternative
are higher because this system realizes benefits in the shortest amount
of time and has the best overall system performance, but is only
marginally more costly than Alternative Three.

Alternative One, to build individual solutions, does not fulfill most of
the functional requirements and realizes the lowest total benefits and
ROI. Its primary advantage is that it costs less than Alternatives Two
or Three.

Alternative Three, to build a centralized system, fulfills the
functional requirements of the system and has a positive NPV of and a
positive ROI of 80%. Although this alternative is justified on economic
grounds, its ROI and NPV are both lower than Alternative Two, and it has
a similar lifecycle cost.

Table 5a -- Alternatives Quantitative Analysis

  ------------------------------ -------------------- -------------------- ----------------------
  **[Assessment]{.smallcaps}**   **[Alternative       **[Alternative       **[Alternative
                                 One]{.smallcaps}**   Two]{.smallcaps}**   Three]{.smallcaps}**

  **Net Present Value**          (\$27,241,026)       \$177,910,840        \$86,928,466

  **Payback Period**             5                    3                    4

  **IRR**                        N/A                  89%                  47%

  **Modified IRR**               -42%                 66%                  40%

  **ROI**                        -31%                 154%                 80%
  ------------------------------ -------------------- -------------------- ----------------------

# Appendix A - Assumptions

Table 6a - Cost Benefit Assumptions

+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| **Alternative** | **Assumption**                                      |
+=================+=====================================================+
| All             | Benefits and costs are valid only if one            |
|                 | alternative is developed.                           |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | The real discount, drawn from OMB Circular A-94, is |
|                 | used for discounting of costs and benefits. A       |
|                 | 5-year rate of 2.10% is used in analyzing this      |
|                 | investment.                                         |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | OMB Circular A-76 outlines guidelines for           |
|                 | determining the costs of in-house and contractor    |
|                 | personnel. Key assumptions derived from this        |
|                 | circular:                                           |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   All staffing is expressed as personnel hours.   |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   A full time government employee works 1,776     |
|                 |     total hours per year.                           |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Total loaded fringe benefits and overhead for   |
|                 |     government personnel totals 36.3% of salary.    |
|                 |     This figure is added to the wage rate to        |
|                 |     determine loaded cost rate. Fringe benefits are |
|                 |     included using the following guidelines:        |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 |     -   Fringe benefits, which include social       |
|                 |         security, health benefit accrual, and TSP   |
|                 |         contributions, total 23.7% of salary.       |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 |     -   Insurance and health benefits total 5.60%   |
|                 |         of salary.                                  |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 |     -   Medicare totals 1.45% of salary.            |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 |     -   Miscellaneous fringe benefits total 1.70%   |
|                 |         of salary.                                  |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 |     -   Overhead equals 12% of total fringe         |
|                 |         benefits.                                   |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   A 0.8% reduction to contractor cost is used for |
|                 |     the tax revenue generated by General Business   |
|                 |     Services.                                       |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | The average wage of government administration       |
|                 | personnel is \$16.78 per hour. This yields a loaded |
|                 | cost rate of \$22.87/hour. (Source: Bureau of Labor |
|                 | Statistics).                                        |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | Existing personnel will perform in-house work. No   |
|                 | additional temporary government personnel will be   |
|                 | required.                                           |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | All costs and benefits are measured in FY2004       |
|                 | Dollars.                                            |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | Sunk Costs are not included.                        |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | Based on the readiness assessment, 93% of USDA      |
|                 | employees utilize the Internet and could thus       |
|                 | utilize a Web-based application in Year 1.          |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | According to 2003 USDA budget, USDA has             |
|                 | approximately 98,955 federal FTE and 11,251         |
|                 | non-federal FTE. This CBA assumes 100,000 potential |
|                 | FTE, with this number remaining constant over the   |
|                 | lifecycle of the investment.                        |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | A data center, operations infrastructure, and       |
|                 | bandwidth available to support the desired level of |
|                 | performance form eDeployment solution               |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | Technology of existing systems, such as the human   |
|                 | resources system, will not impede integration with  |
|                 | eDeployment solution                                |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | There will be working space, network connectivity,  |
|                 | telephone and other facilities available for use    |
|                 | during development                                  |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| All             | Hardware prices have been estimated at market value |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Alternative Two | Employees using the Internet but not already using  |
|                 | the leveraged system will adopt the system          |
|                 | according to the following schedule. This is        |
|                 | further detailed in Appendix B.                     |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 1: 5%                                      |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 2: 20%                                     |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 3: 50%                                     |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 4: 80%                                     |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 5: 100%                                    |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Alternative Two | Content currently in Agency solutions will be able  |
|                 | to migrate into the new eDeployment system          |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Alternative Two | All Phases of the implementation with the exception |
|                 | of ongoing maintenance (Phase V) assume that the    |
|                 | team would be comprised of 20% USDA resources and   |
|                 | 80% contractor support.                             |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Alternative Two | Location of implementation assumed to be Washington |
|                 | DC                                                  |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Alternative     | Employees using the Internet will adopt the system  |
| Three           | according to the following schedule. This is        |
|                 | further detailed in Appendix B.                     |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 1: 2%                                      |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 2: 10%                                     |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 3: 30%                                     |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 4: 60%                                     |
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | -   Year 5: 100%                                    |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

#  Appendix B: Staggered Realization of Benefits

For all measures in productivity and certain measures of cost savings,
cost avoidance, and quality, a user's realization depends on when the
user was brought onto the system. All things being equal, a user
beginning use in FY2003 will experience more benefits in FY2004 than a
user who joins the system in FY2004 because the system takes time to
learn and incorporate into daily work. The user with an extra year of
experience using the system is more familiar with the system and is
better able to use the system to its fullest potential. Therefore, it is
necessary to stagger benefits. The table below outlines this staggering
of benefits.

The first section of the table below shows the number of users coming
online each year. The second table (Lines 5-10) breaks users into
categories based on the year they adopted the system. Lines 11-15 are
projections of the realization of potential benefits for users based on
the year in which the user adopts the system. For example, the 10,000
year one adopters from Line 6 realize 10% of potential benefits in year
one 50% of potential benefits in year two, and are realizing the full
potential of benefits by FY2007. FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007
realize benefits on the same staggered schedule, with the exception of
year one where they realize higher benefits because the system is at or
near full functionality in those years.

The final table shows the result of computing the number of Full Time
Employees (FTE) realizing the full potential of benefits in each year.
This calculation is made because ten FTE realizing 50% benefits is
mathematically equal to five FTE realizing full benefit. For example, in
FY 2004 10,000 FY 2003 adopters are realizing 50% benefit and 10,000 FY
2004 adopters are realizing 25% of potential benefits. This equates to
5,000 year one FTE and 2,500 year two FTE realizing full benefits.
Therefore, FY 2004 sees the equivalent of 7,500 full time employees
realizing benefits. The total number of FTE realizing benefits each year
is listed on line 20 of each table.

## Alternative One- Status Quo

  ------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Calculation of New        **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Users]{.smallcaps}**         2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **1**                    Number of Potential Users    100,000               100,000               100,000               100,000               100,000

  **2**                    \% Online                    10%                   20%                   30%                   40%                   50%

  **3**                    Number of Users Online       10,000                20,000                30,000                40,000                50,000

  **4**                    New Users                    10,000                10,000                10,000                10,000                10,000

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Number of Total Users     **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Online]{.smallcaps}**        2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **5**                    **Number of Total Users      **10,000**            **20,000**            **30,000**            **40,000**            **50,000**
                           Online**                                                                                                             

  **6**                    Year 1 Adopters              10,000                10,000                10,000                10,000                10,000

  **7**                    Year 2 Adopters                                    10,000                10,000                10,000                10,000

  **8**                    Year 3 Adopters                                                          10,000                10,000                10,000

  **9**                    Year 4 Adopters                                                                                10,000                10,000

  **10**                   Year 5 Adopters                                                                                                      10,000

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Realization of            **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Benefits]{.smallcaps}**      2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **11**                   Year 1 Adopters              10%                   50%                   85%                   95%                   100%

  **12**                   Year 2 Adopters                                    25%                   50%                   85%                   95%

  **13**                   Year 3 Adopters                                                          25%                   50%                   85%

  **14**                   Year 4 Adopters                                                                                25%                   50%

  **15**                   Year 5 Adopters                                                                                                      25%

  **[ ]{.smallcaps}**      **[Benefits                  **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Realization]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  ** **                    Potential Benefit            1                     1                     1                     1                     1

  ** **                    Year 1 Adopters Benefit      10%                   50%                   85%                   95%                   100%

  ** **                    Year 2 Adopters Benefit      0%                    13%                   43%                   81%                   95%

  ** **                    Year 3 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    11%                   40%                   81%

  ** **                    Year 4 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    0%                    10%                   40%

  ** **                    Year 5 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    0%                    0%                    10%

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Effective FTE\'s          **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Realizing                    2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**
                           Benefits]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                              

  **16**                   Year 1                       1,000                 5,000                 8,500                 9,500                 10,000

  **17**                   Year 2                       \-                    2,500                 5,000                 8,500                 9,500

  **18**                   Year 3                       \-                    \-                    2,500                 5,000                 8,500

  **19**                   Year 4                       \-                    \-                    \-                    2,500                 5,000

  **20**                   Year 5                       \-                    \-                    \-                    \-                    2,500

  **21**                   **Sum**                      **1,000**             **7,500**             **16,000**            **25,500**            **35,500**

  ** **                    **USDA Employees**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**

  **22**                   **% of USDA Employees        **1%**                **8%**                **16%**               **26%**               **36%**
                           Realizing Benefits**                                                                                                 
  ------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

## Alternative 2- Multiple Hosting Locations

  ------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Calculation of New        **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Users]{.smallcaps}**         2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **1**                    Number of Potential Users    100,000               100,000               100,000               100,000               100,000

  **2**                    \% Online                    5%                    20%                   50%                   80%                   100%

  **3**                    Number of Users Online       5,000                 20,000                50,000                80,000                100,000

  **4**                    New Users                    5,000                 15,000                30,000                30,000                20,000

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Number of Total Users     **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Online]{.smallcaps}**        2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **5**                    **Number of Total Users      **5,000**             **20,000**            **50,000**            **80,000**            **100,000**
                           Online**                                                                                                             

  **6**                    Year 1 Adopters              5,000                 5,000                 5,000                 5,000                 5,000

  **7**                    Year 2 Adopters                                    15,000                15,000                15,000                15,000

  **8**                    Year 3 Adopters                                                          30,000                30,000                30,000

  **9**                    Year 4 Adopters                                                                                30,000                30,000

  **10**                   Year 5 Adopters                                                                                                      20,000

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Realization of            **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Benefits]{.smallcaps}**      2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **11**                   Year 1 Adopters              10%                   50%                   85%                   95%                   100%

  **12**                   Year 2 Adopters                                    25%                   50%                   85%                   95%

  **13**                   Year 3 Adopters                                                          25%                   50%                   85%

  **14**                   Year 4 Adopters                                                                                25%                   50%

  **15**                   Year 5 Adopters                                                                                                      25%

  **[ ]{.smallcaps}**      **[Benefits                  **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Realization]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  ** **                    Potential Benefit            1                     1                     1                     1                     1

  ** **                    Year 1 Adopters Benefit      10%                   50%                   85%                   95%                   100%

  ** **                    Year 2 Adopters Benefit      0%                    13%                   43%                   81%                   95%

  ** **                    Year 3 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    11%                   40%                   81%

  ** **                    Year 4 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    0%                    10%                   40%

  ** **                    Year 5 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    0%                    0%                    10%

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Effective FTE\'s          **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Realizing                    2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**
                           Benefits]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                              

  **16**                   Year 1                       500                   2,500                 4,250                 4,750                 5,000

  **17**                   Year 2                       \-                    3,750                 7,500                 12,750                14,250

  **18**                   Year 3                       \-                    \-                    7,500                 15,000                25,500

  **19**                   Year 4                       \-                    \-                    \-                    7,500                 15,000

  **20**                   Year 5                       \-                    \-                    \-                    \-                    5,000

  **21**                   **Sum**                      **500**               **6,250**             **19,250**            **40,000**            **64,750**

  ** **                    **USDA Employees**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**

  **22**                   **% of USDA Employees        **1%**                **6%**                **19%**               **40%**               **65%**
                           Realizing Benefits**                                                                                                 
  ------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

## Alternative 3- Centralized Hosting 

  ------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Calculation of New        **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Users]{.smallcaps}**         2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **1**                    Number of Potential Users    100,000               100,000               100,000               100,000               100,000

  **2**                    \% Online                    2%                    12%                   30%                   60%                   100%

  **3**                    Number of Users Online       2,000                 12,000                30,000                60,000                100,000

  **4**                    New Users                    2,000                 10,000                18,000                30,000                40,000

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Number of Total Users     **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Online]{.smallcaps}**        2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **5**                    **Number of Total Users      **2,000**             **12,000**            **30,000**            **60,000**            **100,000**
                           Online**                                                                                                             

  **6**                    Year 1 Adopters              2,000                 2,000                 2,000                 2,000                 2,000

  **7**                    Year 2 Adopters                                    10,000                10,000                10,000                10,000

  **8**                    Year 3 Adopters                                                          18,000                18,000                18,000

  **9**                    Year 4 Adopters                                                                                30,000                30,000

  **10**                   Year 5 Adopters                                                                                                      40,000

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Realization of            **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Benefits]{.smallcaps}**      2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  **11**                   Year 1 Adopters              10%                   50%                   85%                   95%                   100%

  **12**                   Year 2 Adopters                                    25%                   50%                   85%                   95%

  **13**                   Year 3 Adopters                                                          25%                   50%                   85%

  **14**                   Year 4 Adopters                                                                                25%                   50%

  **15**                   Year 5 Adopters                                                                                                      25%

  **[ ]{.smallcaps}**      **[Benefits                  **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Realization]{.smallcaps}**   2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**

  ** **                    Potential Benefit            1                     1                     1                     1                     1

  ** **                    Year 1 Adopters Benefit      10%                   50%                   85%                   95%                   100%

  ** **                    Year 2 Adopters Benefit      0%                    13%                   43%                   81%                   95%

  ** **                    Year 3 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    11%                   40%                   81%

  ** **                    Year 4 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    0%                    10%                   40%

  ** **                    Year 5 Adopters Benefit      0%                    0%                    0%                    0%                    10%

  **[Line]{.smallcaps}**   **[Effective FTE\'s          **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY                 **[FY
                           Realizing                    2003]{.smallcaps}**   2004]{.smallcaps}**   2005]{.smallcaps}**   2006]{.smallcaps}**   2007]{.smallcaps}**
                           Benefits]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                              

  **16**                   Year 1                       200                   1,000                 1,700                 1,900                 2,000

  **17**                   Year 2                       \-                    2,500                 5,000                 8,500                 9,500

  **18**                   Year 3                       \-                    \-                    4,500                 9,000                 15,300

  **19**                   Year 4                       \-                    \-                    \-                    7,500                 15,000

  **20**                   Year 5                       \-                    \-                    \-                    \-                    10,000

  **21**                   **Sum**                      **200**               **3,500**             **11,200**            **26,900**            **51,800**

  ** **                    **USDA Employees**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**           **100,000**

  **22**                   **% of USDA Employees        **0%**                **4%**                **11%**               **27%**               **52%**
                           Realizing Benefits**                                                                                                 
  ------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------