**[APPENDIX E]{.underline}**

**ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS**

**E.1 Introduction**

All of the financial information presented in the main body of the
document, (primarily Sections 4 and 5) were derived from the
supplemental information provided in this appendix. This appendix is
intended to provide supplemental materials only for information used to
complete an Analysis of Benefits and Costs (ABC) on the three
alternative solutions proposed in the CME SIM Project.

The ABC is a systematic discipline for comparing alternative ways to
meet a business need. The primary objectives of the ABC are to:

-   Evaluate and compare alternatives for an information technology (IT)
    investment using financial criteria.

-   Provide justification for funding an IT solution to decision-makers.

-   Establish the reference point from which to measure, monitor, and
    evaluate the investment.

Provided first in the appendix are a list of reference sources,
definitions of financial terms, and descriptions of the assumptions used
in determining costs and benefits. These are included to assist the
reader in understanding approach and terminology used in presenting the
analysis. Cost development methodology and details are then presented
for the alternatives, followed by a parallel discussion of the benefit
development and details.

## E.2 Reference Resources

Listed below are the reference sources utilized in the preparation of
the cost benefit analysis. Whenever possible, existing documentation and
guidance were utilized to strengthen the results of the analysis.

-   *Analysis of Benefits and Costs (ABC's) Guideline*, *Volume 1: A
    Manager's Guide to Analysis of Benefits and Costs*, U.S. Department
    of Energy (DOE), June 1988.

-   *Analysis of Benefits and Costs (ABC's) Guideline,* *Volume 2: An
    Analyst's Handbook for Analysis of Benefits and Costs*, U.S.
    Department of Energy, June 1988.

-   *Business Management Information System - Financial Management
    (BMIS-FM) Business Case*, U.S. Department of Energy, March 1999.

-   *Circular A-76, Revised Supplemental Handbook: Performance of
    Commercial Activities,* Office of Management and Budget (OMB), March
    1996.

-   *Circular A-94,* Office of Management and Budget (OMB), October 29,
    1992.

-   *Corporate Human Resources Information System (CHRIS) Business
    Case*, U.S. Department of Energy, August 1996.

-   *Enterprise Network Infrastructure (ENI) Business Case*, U.S.
    Department of Energy, July 1999.

-   *ROI and the Value Puzzle*, Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO)
    Council, Capital Planning and Investment Committee, April 1999.

-   *Technology-Supported Learning Business Case*, U.S. Department of
    Energy, April 1997.

-   *1999 Information Technology Compensation Survey*, William M. Mercer
    Incorporated, August 1999.

-   *2000 General Salary Schedules,* U.S. Department of Personnel
    Management (OPM), December 1999.

## E.3 Definitions

[Analysis of Benefits and Costs (ABC)]{.underline} - A systematic
discipline for comparing alternative ways to meet a business need. ABCs
provide a structured framework for identifying alternatives, organizing
data, and presenting results. Also known as benefit/cost analysis.

[Base Case]{.underline} - The base case is the minimum practicable
change required to stay in business, meet statutory obligations, and
achieve government programs. The base case serves as a description of
how current and planned business activities would proceed if an
alternative approach (implementation of a new system or change in
business process) is not implemented.

[Baseline]{.underline} - A baseline is a documentation of the
organization's or agency's policies, practices, methods, measures, costs
and their interrelationships at a particular location at a particular
point in time.

[Base Year]{.underline} - Establishes the reference point for the
financial time.

[Benefit]{.underline} - An advantage, profit, or gain attained. Commonly
thought of as an investment's return and should describe what the
investment enables an agency to accomplish and how the mission is
enhanced.

[Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)]{.underline} - Present value of benefits
divided by the present value of costs. The BCR provides a measure of the
benefits obtained per dollar spent and is expressed as a decimal number.
The BCR is a relative measure of an alternative's value.

[Cost]{.underline} - Monetary value of resources used or sacrificed or
liabilities incurred to achieve an objective, such as to acquire or
produce a good or to perform an activity or service. Cost is used
synonymously with expense.

[Cost Avoidance]{.underline} - The reduction or elimination of a future
cost that would have otherwise occurred.

[Discount Factor]{.underline} - The factor that translates expected
benefits or costs in any given future year into present value terms. The
discount factor is equal to 1/(1+i)t where i is the interest rate and t
is the number of years from the date of initiation for the program or
policy until the given future year.

[Discount Rate]{.underline} - The interest rate used in calculating the
present value of expected yearly benefits and costs.

[Economic Life]{.underline} - The period of time over which the savings
or benefits to be gained from a project may be expected to accrue.

[Lifecycle Cost]{.underline} - The overall estimated cost for a
particular program alternative over the time period corresponding to the
life of the program, including direct and indirect initial costs plus
any periodic or continuing costs of operation and maintenance. The
lifecycle represents the time period that includes the time required to
design, acquire, and implement an alternative and its operational life.

[Net Present Value (NPV)]{.underline} - The difference between the
discounted present value of benefits and the discounted present value of
costs.

[Non-recurring Cost]{.underline} - One-time expenses incurred under any
alternative, such as site/facility construction, system design and
programming, system testing, equipment or software purchases, system
documentation, etc.

[Payback Period]{.underline} - The length of time required for project
benefits to equal project costs, e.g., reach the break-even point.

[Recurring Cost]{.underline} - Cost incurred on a regular basis
throughout a project or system lifecycle. Recurring costs are similar to
the annual operating expenses of a business and can include system
operations and maintenance, telecommunications, supplies, equipment
lease and maintenance, salaries for personnel involved in system
activities, etc.

[Sunk Cost]{.underline} - A cost incurred in the past that will not be
affected by any present or future decision. Sunk costs should be ignored
in determining whether a new investment is worthwhile.

## E.4 Assumptions

Assumptions are used in the financial analysis to provide consistency in
the comparison of the alternative solutions.

## *E.4.1 Global Assumptions*

The following global assumptions were based on actual DOE experience
when relevant historical data was available for analysis.

1)  The project starts at the beginning of FY 2001 (October 2000) and is
    expected to extend for a project lifecycle of 5 years. The expected
    roll-out date for the entire system is July 2003. Incremental
    milestones will provide limited capabilities prior to final
    roll-out.

2)  A real discount rate of 3.9 percent was used for the investment
    analysis in accordance with OMB Circular A-94, Appendix C, (revised
    January 2000).

3)  Hours included in the base process estimates reflect productive
    hours spent in a single year to perform an activity. Productive
    hours were estimated to be 1,776 hours per year. As defined in OMB
    A-76 productive hours exclude annual leave, sick leave,
    administrative leave, training and other non-productive hours.

4)  Fully-burdened average annual salary costs for FY 2000 were used to
    calculate base process costs and to project savings for process
    improvements. For the research and development (R&D) facilities, an
    average fully-burdened rate for each job category was determined
    using survey results and adjusting responses to reflect FY 2000
    costs. For Federal staff at the operations offices and headquarters
    program offices, an average fully burdened rate was determined using
    selected grade levels from OPM 2000 General Salary Schedules and
    applying a fringe benefit ratio of 32.9 percent as recommended in
    OMB A-76. The average annual salary and the productive hourly cost
    for each job category are reflected in Table E-1.

#### 

+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| * |                                        | **Annual** | **Hourly  |
| * |                                        |            | Cost**    |
| O |                                        | **Cost**   |           |
| r |                                        |            |           |
| g |                                        |            |           |
| a |                                        |            |           |
| n |                                        |            |           |
| i |                                        |            |           |
| z |                                        |            |           |
| a |                                        |            |           |
| t |                                        |            |           |
| i |                                        |            |           |
| o |                                        |            |           |
| n |                                        |            |           |
| a |                                        |            |           |
| l |                                        |            |           |
| P |                                        |            |           |
| e |                                        |            |           |
| r |                                        |            |           |
| s |                                        |            |           |
| p |                                        |            |           |
| e |                                        |            |           |
| c |                                        |            |           |
| t |                                        |            |           |
| i |                                        |            |           |
| v |                                        |            |           |
| e |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| R |                                        |            |           |
| & |                                        |            |           |
| D |                                        |            |           |
| F |                                        |            |           |
| a |                                        |            |           |
| c |                                        |            |           |
| i |                                        |            |           |
| l |                                        |            |           |
| i |                                        |            |           |
| t |                                        |            |           |
| y |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 1 | Program/Division Directors             | 279,274    | 157       |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 2 | Business/Resource Managers             | 117,989    | 66        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 3 | Principal Investigators                | 234,903    | 132       |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 4 | Administrative Support                 | 70,098     | 39        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 5 | System Administration                  | 117,892    | 66        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| O |                                        |            |           |
| p |                                        |            |           |
| e |                                        |            |           |
| r |                                        |            |           |
| a |                                        |            |           |
| t |                                        |            |           |
| i |                                        |            |           |
| o |                                        |            |           |
| n |                                        |            |           |
| s |                                        |            |           |
| O |                                        |            |           |
| f |                                        |            |           |
| f |                                        |            |           |
| i |                                        |            |           |
| c |                                        |            |           |
| e |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 1 | Division Directors                     | 138,677    | 78        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 2 | Sr. Analyst                            | 99,765     | 56        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 3 | Analyst                                | 83,896     | 47        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 4 | Administrative Support                 | 57,852     | 33        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 5 | System Administration                  | 99,765     | 56        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| P |                                        |            |           |
| r |                                        |            |           |
| o |                                        |            |           |
| g |                                        |            |           |
| r |                                        |            |           |
| a |                                        |            |           |
| m |                                        |            |           |
| O |                                        |            |           |
| f |                                        |            |           |
| f |                                        |            |           |
| i |                                        |            |           |
| c |                                        |            |           |
| e |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
| * |                                        |            |           |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 1 | Program/Division Directors             | 172,971    | 97        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 2 | Business/Resource Managers             | 117,892    | 66        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 3 | Program Managers                       | 138,677    | 78        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 4 | Administrative Support                 | 70,003     | 39        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| 5 | System Administration                  | 117,892    | 66        |
+---+----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+

> ***Table E-1***

***Fully-Burdened Average Annual Salary Costs for FY 2000***

5)  IT personnel necessary to design, develop, test, implement, and
    support the new system were included in the analysis. For the
    purposes of estimating personnel costs, the following average
    national salaries were obtained from the 1999 Information Technology
    Compensation Survey prepared by William M. Mercer, Incorporated.
    National salary averages represent the 75^th^ percentile of cash
    compensation reported in the survey. Salary averages were adjusted
    by 85 percent to arrive at a fully-burdened annual cost. (Note: the
    burden rate includes adjustments for converting the estimates to FY
    2000 costs, adding the cost of fringe benefits, and applying
    organizational overhead typically charged by external contractor
    resources.) Table E-2 shows the breakdown by IT personnel.

+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| ####### Technical Staff         | **       | **Fully    | **Hourly  |
|                                 | National | Burdened** | Rate**    |
|                                 | Salary** |            |           |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Systems Analyst                 | 78,900   | 145,918    | 82        |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Software Developers             | 82,100   | 151,836    | 85        |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| System/Network Administrator    | 62,800   | 116,142    | 65        |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Database Administrators         | 102,700  | 189,933    | 107       |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Trainer                         | 65,200   | 120,581    | 68        |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Technical Writer                | 53,000   | 98,018     | 55        |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Data Administrator              | 72,700   | 134,451    | 76        |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Operations Support              | 54,100   | 100,053    | 56        |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Project Manager                 | 85,000   | 157,199    | 89        |
+---------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+

***Table E-2***

***Fully-Burdened IT Salary Costs for FY 2000***

6)  Connectivity between the central system and users or remote systems
    that supply data to the system will be provided by the Internet.
    Communication between the two production sites will be over a
    dedicated leased line, initially T3.

7)  For the purposes of quantifying benefits, it was assumed that
    benefits would be realized beginning in the 9^th^ month after
    scheduled systems delivery date for implementation of the process
    module and phased in over a 12-month period. For further explanation
    of the implementation dates, see the discussion of
    alternative-specific assumptions below.

***E.4.2 Alternative-Specific Assumptions***

*E.4.2.1 Alternative 1 -- Base Case*

1)  For the purposes of estimating process costs for the current
    environment, information was collected through surveying targeted
    key organizations representing over 90 percent of R&D funds. Costs
    for the Collaborative Management Environment (CME) activities were
    compared to the total R&D funds for the key targeted organizations.
    CME activities represented the following percentages of the overall
    R&D tracking funds by perspective as shown in Table E-3.

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > R&D Facilities                 | > 1.9% of R&D funds               |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > Operations Offices             | > 2.0% of R&D funds               |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > Program Offices                | > 1.1% of R&D funds managed       |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

***Table E-3***

***Costs of CME Activities as Percentage of Total R&D Funds***

These percentages were then used to extrapolate for the smaller
organizations in the scope of the analysis, yet not surveyed due to size
and time constraints.

2)  System cost estimates for the current environment reflect the
    systems administration labor and non-labor costs associated with the
    R&D management processes being considered and the costs submitted in
    the systems assessment survey. Costs from the system assessment
    survey were excluded for any systems considered outside the scope of
    the analysis or for systems captured through the process cost
    survey.

*E.4.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Enhanced Base Case*

1)  For the purposes of estimating benefits and costs, the following key
    dates were assumed for the project deliverables:

-   Project execution scanning will be implemented on April 01, 2001.

-   Proposal/plan submission modules will be delivered on February 18,
    2002.

2)  It was assumed that the modules and systems being implemented as
    part of the Enhanced Base Case alternative are mission critical and
    therefore require the same hardware configuration and utility
    software as the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment
    alternative.

3)  It will be a web-based solution, rather than client-server
    implementation.

4)  The proposal/plan submission phase will be supported with a suite of
    modules including an automated receipt module, a grant submission
    module for universities and DOE laboratories, a module for batch
    submission from DOE R&D facilities, and a module for electronic peer
    review.

5)  The project execution phase will be supported through the scanning
    of documents and linking of digital images.

**\
***E.4.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Corporate R&D Portfolio Management
Environment*

1)  For the purposes of estimating benefits and costs, the following key
    milestone dates were assumed for the project deliverables.

-   Milestone 1 -- Proposal Submission modules delivered February 18,
    2002.

-   Milestone II -- Project Tracking and Program Management modules
    delivered October 21, 2002.

-   Milestone III -- Project Execution modules delivered July 3, 2003.

2)  Roll-out of the BMIS-FM implementation for the Core Financial System
    (including Budget Execution/Funds Control, Accounts Payable,
    Accounts Receivable, Cost Accumulation/Distribution, General
    Accounting, Financial Reporting, Project Account and Fixed Asset
    Accounting) is currently planned for July 2002. For the purposes of
    the financial analysis, it is assumed that the BMIS-FM
    implementation will occur as scheduled and will provide both
    obligations and costs at the project/subproject level. Therefore, no
    direct interfaces from field financial systems to CME will be
    required and therefore were not included in the analysis.

3)  There is currently a collaborative initiative in progress to obtain
    centralized funding and management for certificates distribution and
    encryption services at DOE. Estimates for licensing and installation
    of Entrust Corporation's Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) software
    were included as part of the ABC analysis. However, it was assumed
    that the infrastructure necessary to support the certificate
    distribution and encryption is in place and managed centrally.
    Therefore, no costs for the infrastructure were included in the
    analysis.

## E.5 Costs

## *E.5.1 Methodology*

The methodology described in the DOE *Analysis of Benefits and Costs*
was used to perform the analysis of benefits and costs on alternatives 2
and 3. In addition, general guidance prescribed in OMB Circular A-94 for
conducting benefit-cost analyses was used to ensure that all elements
were considered appropriately in the analysis. This methodology is
similar to the discounted cash flow technique widely used in the private
and public sector.

For this project, real dollars and discount rates were used rather than
nominal dollars and rates. Real dollars or constant dollars are dollars
having the same purchasing power based on a time reference period called
the base year (FY 2000). This approach excludes the impact of inflation
on both the dollar values and the discount rate. A real discount rate of
3.9 percent was used for the investment analysis in accordance with OMB
Circular A-94, Appendix C, (revised January 2000).

The costs were divided into two categories: recurring and non-recurring.
The majority of system development costs were categorized as
non-recurring costs. Non-recurring expenses are costs that are not
incurred on an annual basis, whereas recurring costs are incurred
regularly as long as the system exists. These costs are similar to
business annual operating expenses. Cost estimates are rounded to the
nearest \$0.01 million. A description of each category considered for
the ABC follows.

[Recurring Cost Categories:]{.underline}

-   *Hardware Maintenance*: Includes the recurring costs of repair parts
    and onsite labor to fix failed system hardware components and
    telephone support.

-   *Software Maintenance*: Includes the recurring costs to receive
    software upgrades and technical support for all database and
    application software. Also included is the cost of future utility
    software needs.

-   *Communications/Connectivity*: Includes the recurring costs
    associated with service provider costs for leasing circuits
    (bandwidth) to connect system infrastructure.

-   *System Testing and Back-up*: Includes recurring costs to test
    reliability and integrity of system in operation, including costs
    for memory backup. This does not include costs for non-recurring
    start-up and installation testing. Costs associated with disaster
    recovery services are included in this category.

-   *Personnel*: Includes yearly costs for personnel who support the new
    system. Included in this category are ongoing systems administration
    resources required to maintain the system, as well as resources
    required to staff a user helpline for technical support.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Ongoing Training and Travel*: Includes the cost for any refresh
    training or training for new employees, as well as costs for
    updating materials with any system modifications. Also includes the
    cost for any travel associated with ongoing training of new
    employees.

[Non-Recurring Cost Categories:]{.underline}

-   *Hardware Purchases*: Includes the total dollar expenditure, by
    year, of hardware to make the fully-configured and installed system
    operable at its design inception. Server hardware, desktop hardware,
    and other equipment purchased for the alternative is included in
    this category.

-   *Software Purchases*: Includes the total dollar expenditure for
    software to make the fully-configured and installed system operable
    at its inception. Software and licenses including database software,
    web server software, workflow software, security software and
    software tools are included in the category.

-   *Installation and Configuration*: Includes total expenditure
    incurred to install and configure the hardware and software for the
    project.

-   *Central Systems Development*: Includes the total IT resource costs
    associated with the system development including construction,
    design, development, consulting, installation, and system interfaces
    for the alternative.

-   *Personnel*: Includes one-time costs associated with personnel who
    perform any function associated with project management,
    development, or implementation activities for the project. Business
    resources necessary to complete the systems development lifecycle
    activities are included in this category.

-   *Studies*: Includes the costs for any studies necessary to implement
    the system alternative. Included in this category is the cost
    associated with a Security Architecture Compliance Review.

-   *System Integration (Interface Development):* Includes costs
    associated with giving a new system the ability to transfer data to
    or from another system.

-   *Travel:* Any travel costs associated with requirements definition,
    design, development, testing, implementation, or initial training
    are included in this category.

-   *Initial Training:* Includes one-time training costs associated with
    implementing a new system. Included are any costs associated with
    development of training materials, training seminars, web
    development online training materials, and other miscellaneous costs
    associated with the initial roll-out of the new system.

-   *Technical Refresh:* Hardware is outdated after several years of
    use. Typically an organization can expect to replace or upgrade
    existing hardware after a certain point in time. This category
    includes the cost of such upgrades.

***E.5.2 Cost Estimates by Alternative***

*E.5.2.1 Alternative 1 -- Base Case*

There are no incremental recurring or non-recurring costs associated
with the Base Case alternative.

*E.5.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Enhanced Base Case*

Recurring Costs:

Recurring costs for Alternative 2 are shown in Exhibits F-3 and F-5
found in Appendix F.

## *Hardware Maintenance:* Hardware maintenance is estimated at 15 percent of the initial server hardware costs for an average industry-standard 24-hour, 7-day service agreement with an average response time. Utility software is also included at \$.03 million per year. The total recurring cost for hardware maintenance is \$0.12 million annually for a total 5-year cost of \$0.56 million.

## *Software Maintenance:* Software maintenance is estimated at 15 percent of the initial software purchase price. The total software maintenance cost is \$0.12 million annually for a 5-year total impact of \$0.60 million.

-   *Communications/Connectivity Cost:* The two production sites will be
    linked by a dedicated, leased line (initially T3) at an estimated
    cost of \$0.10 million annually for a total 5-year impact of \$0.47
    million.

-   *System Testing and Backup:* The two separate production sites will
    serve as backup in the event of a disaster with the development/test
    site serving as a second-tier safeguard. The two production sites
    will be in different physical locations (also different geographic
    areas). The development/test site will be at the same location as
    one of the production sites but will provide a fall back in case of
    equipment failure. As a result, no additional costs were included
    for disaster recovery services.

-   *Personnel:* An operations and support team was included to ensure
    that the system is operational and running efficiently as well as
    staffing a help line for 12 hours a day, 5 days a week. A total of
    4.75 full-time equivalents were included for \$0.62 million
    annually. In addition, the cost of personnel to scan documents,
    enter scanned documents into system, and link document images
    electronically is estimated to be \$0.39 million annually. Total
    recurring personnel costs are estimated at \$1.01 million annually
    for a total cost over the 5-year project life of \$3.67 million.

-   *Ongoing Training and Travel:* Ongoing training and travel includes
    a yearly workshop and annual modifications/updates to the web-based
    training for a total of \$0.05 million annually for a total 5-year
    impact of \$0.10 million.

[Non-Recurring Costs:]{.underline}

Non-recurring costs for Alternative 2 are shown in Exhibits F-3 and F-7
found in Appendix F.

## *Hardware Purchases:* Costs include hardware components for two production sites and one development and testing site. Two servers per site were included (one database/ workflow server and one internet portal/certificate server), a Redundant Arrays of Independent Disks (RAID) storage array per site, and routers for a total hardware cost of \$0.78 million.

## *Software Purchases:* Costs associated with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software, database software, web server software, workflow software, and the development/design tools are estimated at \$0.80 million.

## *Installation and Configuration:* Eleven hundred hours would be required by the IT resources to complete the necessary activities at an estimated cost of \$0.09 million. For additional information on the resource requirements see the Installation and Configuration activities on Exhibit F-13 in Appendix F.

## *Central System Development:* To estimate system development costs, a structured application development methodology was utilized. (See Figure G-2 in Appendix G for a diagram of the Structured Application Development Life Cycle). Major tasks and deliverables for each stage were identified and used in determining the level of effort required. 

## Costs for each stage were calculated based on the resources required and the respective hours identified to complete each major task. Estimates of resource requirements are based on prior experiences of business and IT personnel who have participated in or managed similar development activities.

> Non-recurring costs associated with each development stage include
> estimates for both business resources and IT resources. Costs
> associated with IT resources are included under central systems
> development, whereas business resources are included under personnel.
> Total IT resource requirements for definition, design, development,
> and implementation activities are estimated at \$0.58 million. For
> additional details on IT resources for Alternative 2, see Exhibit F-13
> in Appendix F.

## *Personnel:* The Enhanced Base Case alternative will require a mix of existing Federal staff and contractor staff to perform project management, development, and implementation activities for the project. As described above under Central Systems Development, business resource needs were estimated based on hours required to complete each task in the structured application development stages. Total business resource requirements for definition, design, development, and implementation activities are estimated at \$1.25 million. For additional details on business resources for Alternative 2, see Exhibit F-12 in Appendix F.

-   *Studies:* One-time costs associated with a security architecture
    review have been included at a cost of \$0.12 million.

-   *System Integration:* Interfaces to major R&D facilities and program
    office systems will be required in order to implement the modules
    for the Enhanced Base Case alternative. Two types of interfaces will
    be required to populate the database by either 1) site systems
    *pushing* information to the Enhanced Base Case system, or 2) the
    Enhanced Base Case system *pulling* information from the site
    system. There will be 23 R&D facilities (9 multiprogram facilities
    and 14 single-purpose facilities), and 7 DOE program offices
    interfacing with the Enhanced Base Case system. It was assumed that
    information from the program office systems would be *pulled,*
    whereas information from the R&D facilities systems would be
    *pushed* to the Enhanced Base Case system. The effort to develop the
    eXtensible Markup Language (XML) files and implement the interfaces
    is estimated at 5,722 hours or \$0.49 million. For additional
    details on interfaces for Alternative 2, see Exhibit F-13 in
    Appendix F.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Travel:* Travel costs were included for the initial training
    workshop, a requirements workshop, trips for technical resources
    developing system interfaces, and trips for migration and testing of
    the application for a total cost of \$0.20 million.

-   *Initial Training:* Initial training costs were assumed to be 50
    percent of the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment
    alternative for a total cost of \$0.05 million. Travel costs for
    training are included in the travel cost category.

-   *Technical Refresh:* Key hardware and software would need to be
    replaced after 5 years. No costs were included for technical refresh
    since the project lifecycle for the Enhanced Base Case alternative
    does not extend beyond the useful life of the equipment purchased.

*E.5.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Corporate R&D Portfolio Management
Environment*

[Recurring Costs:]{.underline}

Recurring costs for Alternative 3 are shown in Exhibits F-4 and F-6 of
Appendix F.

-   *Hardware Maintenance:* Annual hardware maintenance is estimated at
    15 percent of the initial server hardware costs. This estimate is
    for an average industry-standard 24-hour, 7-day service agreement
    with an average response time. In addition utility software costs
    are included. The total recurring cost for hardware maintenance is
    \$0.28 million annually for a total 5-year impact of \$1.04 million.

-   *Software Maintenance:* Annual software maintenance is estimated at
    15 percent of the total software purchase price. The total software
    maintenance cost is \$\$0.19 million annually for a total 5-year
    impact of \$0.95 million.

-   *Communications/Connectivity Cost:* The two production sites will be
    linked by a dedicated, leased line (initially T3) at an estimated
    cost of \$0.10 million annually for a total 5-year impact of \$0.47
    million.

## *System Testing and Backup:* The two separate production sites will serve as a backup in the event of a disaster with the development/test site serving as a second-tier safeguard. The two production sites will be in different physical locations (also different geographic areas). The development/test site will be at the same location as one of the production sites but will provide a fall-back in case of equipment failure. As a result, no additional costs were included for disaster recovery services.

## *Personnel:* An operations and support team was included to ensure that the system is operational and running efficiently as well as staffing a help line for 12 hours a day, 5 days a week. In addition, resources necessary to administer PKI permissions have been included. A total of 5 full-time equivalents were included for an estimated cost of \$0.63 million annually for a 5-year impact of \$1.49 million

## *Ongoing Training and Travel:* Includes a yearly workshop and annual modifications and updates to the web-based training. Also includes minimal travel at five trips per year for training and other miscellaneous needs. Total estimated costs are \$0.10 million annually for a total 5-year impact of \$0.20 million.

[Non-Recurring Costs:]{.underline}

Non-recurring costs for Alternative 3 are shown in Exhibits F-4 and F-8
in Appendix F.

## *Hardware Purchases:* Total cost is estimated at \$1.73 million and includes server hardware, communications hardware, and security hardware described below.

## *[Server Hardware:]{.underline}* Costs include hardware components for two production sites and one development and testing site. Each site will have a database/workflow server, an Internet portal/certificate server, and a RAID storage array for per site cost estimated at \$0.56 million. Three-site total server hardware costs are \$1.68 million. See Figure G-1 in Appendix G for a detailed explanation of the hardware configuration.

## *[Communications Hardware:]{.underline}* The cost of purchasing routers to connect the production sites is included in hardware at a cost of \$0.01 million.

### *[Desktop Hardware:]{.underline}* No individual desktop computers will be purchased for the central production sites or for user sites, including R&D facilities, operations offices, and program offices. Existing infrastructure will be sufficient to meet access requirements. Therefore, no desktop hardware costs were included in the ABC. In order to utilize the system, the minimum and preferred requirements for desktop hardware and software have been identified:

-   Required: Java-enabled browser.

-   Preferred: Pentium 233 MHz or more powerful processor; direct
    Internet connection (56K modem connection acceptable -- faster
    connections support more sophisticated graphical user interfaces
    (GUIs) for future growth).

### *[Security Hardware]{.underline}:* Included in the costs for hardware is the infrastructure necessary to administer certificates and permissions and integrate PKI software into systems interfacing with the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment. A PKI server and Virtual Private Network (VPN) is included for a total cost is estimated at \$0.04 million.

## *Software Purchases:* Total cost is estimated at \$1.31 million and includes database software/licenses, web server software, workflow software, development and design tools, and security software/licenses described below.

> *[Software and License(s):]{.underline}* The Corporate R&D Portfolio
> Management Environment will be built using COTS software wherever
> possible. All modules required to meet the requirements will be
> acquired. For cost estimation purposes, it was determined that
> software and licenses in the following categories are needed to
> fulfill the proposed improvements:

-   Database software (e.g., Oracle, Sybase, Informix).

-   Web server software (e.g., Apache, JServer, Tomcat).

-   Workflow software (e.g., MQSeries, Work Expeditor).

-   Design and development tools (e.g., Rational Rose, AxiomSys).

> The software and licenses required for each of the three sites is
> itemized below.
>
> *[Database Software and License(s):]{.underline}* The database system
> used by the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment will be a
> Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) and will include the
> necessary middleware in its database license price. Estimated cost for
> the development and test environment is \$0.12 million and \$0.54
> million for the two production environments, for a total of \$0.66
> million. These software and license costs are based on product quotes
> from major RDBMS vendors.
>
> *[Web Server Software:]{.underline}* Robust, secure, encrypted web
> server software is required for delivery of CME information to desktop
> user interfaces. These desktop interfaces will include such
> functionality as determining proposal status, inputting workflow
> process steps, and tracking project results. The no-cost options
> include open source software (e.g., Apache, JServ, Tomcat). Commercial
> web server software packages are also available and vary in price
> depending on features implemented. An average cost of \$0.20 million
> was used for purposes of the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management
> Environment alternative.
>
> *[Workflow Software:]{.underline}* Workflow software will be required
> to control the process flow for the entire lifecycle, from research
> proposal preparation to project close-out. There are two types of
> workflow products, those based on process flows and those based on
> state transitions. The process flow packages are faster, but less
> flexible than the state-based systems. Some representative systems are
> IBM's MQSeries Workflow product that works with XML and Standard Query
> Language (SQL). There are a number of workflow software products
> available from a variety of small software companies, including CSE
> Systems: CSE/WorkFlow, JetForm Corporation: JetForm Workflow, and
> Eastman Software: Workflow WFX. An estimated cost of \$0.80 million
> was used for purposes of the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management
> Environment alternative.
>
> *[Development/Design Tools:]{.underline}* Structured commercial tools
> provide a structured approach to object-oriented analysis and design
> and facilitate the management and coordination of development.
> Components of these tools are focused on visualizing the objects
> within a system, the flow of messages within the system, and the state
> of information within the system. The cost of licenses for eight
> developers and three designers for a total cost of \$0.04 million was
> included in the ABC.
>
> *[Security Software:]{.underline}* For the purposes of ensuring both
> authenticity and privacy, it is recommended that each user of the
> Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment have a security
> software license. Entrust Corporation PKI user licenses, server
> licenses, software to manage certificates and consulting costs are
> included for a total of \$0.51 million.

## *Installation and Configuration:* Eleven hundred hours would be required by the IT resources to complete the necessary activities at an estimated cost of \$0.09 million. For additional information on the resource requirements see the Installation and Configuration activities on Exhibit F-15 in Appendix F.

## *Central System Development:* To estimate system development costs, a structured application development methodology was utilized. (See Figure G-2 in Appendix G for a diagram of the Structured Application Development Life Cycle). Major tasks and deliverables for each stage were identified and used in determining the level of effort required. Costs for each stage were calculated based on the resources required and the respective hours identified to complete each major task. Estimates of resource requirements are based on prior experiences of business and IT personnel who have participated in or managed similar development activities. 

## Non-recurring costs associated with each development phase include estimates for both business resources and IT resources. Costs associated with IT resources are included under central systems development, whereas business resources are included under personnel. Total IT resource requirements for definition, design, development, and implementation activities are estimated at \$4.36 million. For additional details on IT resources for Alternative 3, see Exhibit F-15 in Appendix F.

-   *Personnel:* The Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment
    alternative will require a mix of existing Federal staff and
    contractor staff to perform project management, development, and
    implementation activities for the project. A project manager to
    oversee all activities is included from inception to implementation
    at a cost of \$0.41 million. In addition, business resources
    required for definition, design, development, and implementation
    activities are estimated at a cost of \$2.74 million. For additional
    details on business resources for Alternative 3, see Exhibit F-14 in
    Appendix F. Minimal resources will be required to initially set up
    PKI permissions at a cost of \$0.01 million. Total non-recurring
    personnel costs are estimated at \$3.16 million.

## *Studies:* One-time costs associated with a security architecture review and compliance audit are included at \$0.25 million.

## *System Integration:* Interfaces to major applications such as BMIS-FM and other organizational systems will be required. Two types of interfaces will be required to populate the database by either 1) site systems *pushing* information to the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment, or 2) the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment *pulling* information from the site systems. 

> There will be 23 R&D facilities (9 multiprogram facilities and 14
> single-purpose facilities), 11 operations offices, 7 program offices,
> and 6 other DOE organizations interfacing with the Corporate R&D
> Portfolio Management Environment. All multiprogram facilities,
> one-third of the single purpose facilities, and all program
> secretarial offices have organizational systems where information
> related to R&D is maintained, and the system will *pull* data from
> these systems. In addition, two-thirds of the single-purpose
> facilities and all operations/field offices will *push* data to the
> system. One additional push interface is added to account for the cost
> of interfacing the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment with
> BMIS-FM. The total estimated cost for interfaces to site systems is
> approximately \$1.57 million. For additional details on IT resources
> for Alternative 3, see Exhibit F-15 in Appendix F.

-   *Travel:* One-time travel costs included trips to training
    workshops, requirements workshops, interface development meetings,
    and migration/testing activities for a total cost of \$0.53 million.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Initial Training:* Initial training costs were included for
    developing materials, developing web-based training, and a 30-person
    train-the-trainer workshop. Selected key individuals would attend
    the training and provide training for additional coworkers directly.
    The total cost of initial training was estimated at \$0.10 million.

## *Technical Refresh:* Any hardware replacement or technical refresh will occur 5 years after the initial hardware purchase. A 100 percent upgrade would be required at that time. Since the initial hardware purchases are scheduled to begin in FY 2001, the hardware replacement would not be required until FY 2006, which is beyond the timeframe of the analysis. Therefore, no costs for technical refresh were included in the Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment alternative.

E.6 Benefits

# 

# *E.6.1 Methodology*

Findings from surveys, interviews, and other CME SIM Project Team
activities that were related to the current environment were used to
identify benefits expected as a result of process or system
enhancements. Initially, identified needs were converted to benefits
where appropriate. Then a complete list of expected benefits that would
result from implementing alternatives was compiled and other potential
benefits enumerated. The process inefficiencies were revisited to assess
and properly state where specific benefits would occur and to use in
validating the quantification process.

After a comprehensive list of benefits was compiled, they were
categorized by major R&D process phase (e.g., proposal/plan submission,
project execution, project tracking and reporting, and program
management). They were then linked to the appropriate process/system
enhancements or determined to be standalone. It was then determined if
the benefit was measurable and to whom the benefit would fall (e.g., DOE
headquarters, operations offices, or R&D facilities).

The measurable benefits were quantified using the following steps:

1)  Crosswalked to relevant activities, inefficiencies, and potential
    improvement areas in the surveys.

2)  Stated unit to be used for measuring (e.g., dollars and hours),
    based upon the type of activity, inefficiency, or improvement area
    being impacted.

3)  Described the basis/approach (rationale) behind the unit of measure
    by explaining the impact of the enhancement in general terms (e.g.,
    reduces printing).

4)  Described the impact on the survey activities, inefficiencies, or
    improvement areas in specific terms (e.g., 25 percent reduction in
    processing hours and 80 percent reduction in copying costs) relative
    to groups expecting do derive benefit.

5)  Defined quantification methods (e.g., multiple formulas if several
    activities, inefficiencies, or improvement areas are impacted).

6)  Validated quantification methods with process knowledge experts.

7)  Quantified in terms of cost avoidance by applying formulas to the
    compiled survey results.

Benefits that were non-quantifiable are discussed in Section 4 of
business case.

***E.6.2 Benefit Estimates by Alternative***

Following are descriptions of the benefits identified for the
alternatives and the quantification applied to each.

######### E.6.2.1 Alternative 1 -- Base Case 

Given the details of the Base Case alternative, no existing systems
development or maintenance efforts will be avoided in the future. There
are no systems-related cost savings or process-related savings
associated with this alternative.

*E.6.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Enhanced Base Case*

Described below are the system/process enhancements and associated
quantifiable benefits, summarized by major process area, for the
Enhanced Base Case alternative. Benefits outlined below are shown in the
financial Exhibits F-9 and F-11 in Appendix F.

# Proposal/Plan Submission Phase

#  *Enhancement 1:* Proposal submission timing would be made consistent with appropriations by instituting changes to the Unified Field Budget Call (UNICALL) process. Requirements associated with R&D facility submission of R&D proposals as part of the UNICALL process would be reduced. Headquarters program mangers will determine proposal submission frequencies and allow incremental funding for multi-year projects without the need for resubmitting annual proposals.

> *Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor and materials cost associated with annual proposal
    submittals to a less frequent program manager needs basis

-   Labor hours spent reworking proposals for multi-year projects would
    be reduced to only the time needed for annual financial validation

-   Submittal frequency will be reduced based on funding type. One-year
    appropriation would submit annually, two-year appropriations would
    submit every other year and, 3-year and no-year appropriations would
    submit once every 3 years.

*Enhancement 2:* Expand the use of the electronic grant submission
(e.g., NSF FastLane) to the DOE R&D facilities and expand the CME pilot
capabilities for bulk electronic submission of R&D facility proposals.\
\
*Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor and material costs by eliminating paper copies
    generated for DOE, operations and field offices, and R&D facilities

-   Labor spent on duplicating, collating and binding associated with
    paper copies of the proposal would be eliminated.

-   Material expenses would be eliminated related to the number of paper
    copies and delivery expenses to DOE

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reduced labor effort from the duplication resulting from
    operations/field offices and R&D facilities creating/updating
    proposal databases.

-   Printing would be at user discretion.

*Enhancement 3:* Implementation of an electronic proposal peer review
system.

> *Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor and travel costs associated with peer review/approval
    process

-   Reduced distribution effort and cycle time

-   Reduced labor effort to capture and categorize peer/relevancy review
    comments.

The total 5-year benefits associated with Alternative 2 for the
Proposal/Plan Submission Phase is depicted in Table E-4.

+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Enhancement \#          | R&D     | O         | Program  | Total    |
|                         | Fac     | perations | Offices  |          |
|                         | ilities |           |          | 5-Year   |
|                         |         | Offices   |          | Benefits |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Enhancement 1           | 22.74   | 0.90      | 1.55     | 25.19    |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Enhancement 2           | 3.39    | 1.25      | 1.33     | 5.97     |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Enhancement 3           | 2.16    | 0.81      | 0.89     | 3.86     |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+----------+
| ***Total Benefits***    | **\$    | *         | **       | **\      |
|                         | 28.29** | *\$2.96** | \$3.77** | $35.02** |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+----------+

#### 

#### Table E-4

***Alternative 2 Total 5-Year Benefits for Proposal/Plan Submission
Phase (\$ millions)***

#### 

# Project Execution Phase

*Enhancement 1:* Develop appropriate distribution list for funding
guidance to the field and contractors. Initiate electronic
funding/guidance communications by all headquarters program managers
utilizing scanning and web-based technologies.

> *Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor and materials cost associated with hardcopy
    distribution of work authorization and program guidance to field

-   Reduced operations office, field office, and contractor labor effort
    related to the matching of funding with program guidance/work
    authorization.

The total 5-year benefits associated with Alternative 2 for the Project
Execution Phase is depicted in Table E-5.

+-----------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| Enhancement \#        | R&D     | Operations/ | Program   | Total   |
|                       | Fac     |             | Offices   |         |
|                       | ilities | Offices     |           | 5-Year  |
|                       |         |             |           | B       |
|                       |         |             |           | enefits |
+-----------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| Enhancement 1         | 2.69    | 0.51        | 0.00      | 3.20    |
+-----------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| ***Total Savings***   | **\     | **\$0.51**  | *         | **\     |
|                       | $2.69** |             | *\$0.00** | $3.20** |
+-----------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+

#### 

#### Table E-5

***Alternative 2 Total 5-Year Benefits for Project Execution Phase (\$
millions)***

*E.6.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Corporate R&D Portfolio Management
Environment*

Described below are the system/process enhancements and associated
quantifiable benefits, summarized by major process area, for the
Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment alternative. Benefits
outlined below are shown in Exhibits F-10 and F-11 in Appendix F.

# Proposal/Plan Submission Phase

*Enhancement 1*: Proposal submission timing would be made consistent
with appropriations by instituting changes to the UNICALL process. It
would reduce requirements associated with R&D facility submission of R&D
proposals as part of the UNICALL process. Headquarters program mangers
will determine proposal submission frequencies and allow incremental
funding for multi-year projects without the need for resubmitting annual
proposals.

> *Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor and materials cost associated with annual proposal
    submittals to a less frequent program manager needs basis.

-   Labor hours spent reworking proposals for multi-year projects would
    be reduced to only the time needed for annual financial validation.

-   Submittal frequency will be reduced based on funding type. One-year
    appropriation would submit annually, 2-year appropriations would
    submit every other year and, 3-year and no-year appropriations would
    submit once every 3 years.

*Enhancement 2:* An electronic vehicle would be used to automate the
processing of proposal submissions through all stages of the proposal
submission process from initial submission through final approval.
Conversion to an electronic format is consistent with the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) goals. The system will be web-based to
accommodate all platform users. Software and interfaces would provide
capability for single data entry that would address all proposal types
and be consistent with the National Science Foundation (NSF) grants
process. A "single" system will:

-   Track submissions via an identification number

-   Support electronic signature and provide electronic notifications
    for signature action

-   Allow users to view consistent data, including historical data.

*Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor and materials cost from eliminating paper copies
    generated for DOE, operations and field offices, and contractors.
    Labor spent on duplicating, collating and binding associated with
    paper copies of the proposals would be eliminated. Material expenses
    would be eliminated related to the number of paper copies and
    delivery expenses to DOE.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reduced labor and materials cost from eliminating multiple format
    submissions of the same proposal.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reduced labor effort and increase data integrity from the
    elimination of data entry currently performed by operations offices
    and R&D facilities creating duplicative databases.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Printing would be at user discretion.

*Enhancement 3:* Enable automation for peer/relevancy review and
approval process. The proposals would be submitted into a central
database, where it could be electronically distributed to reviewers for
approval. The database information will be available at all levels
throughout the submission phases. Review comments will be archived and
readily accessible.

> *Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor and travel associated with peer review/approval
    activities

-   Reduced distribution effort and cycle time as a result of electronic
    tracking and notification capability

-   Reduced labor effort to capture and categorize peer/relevancy review
    comments.

The total 5-year benefits associated with Alternative 3 for the
Proposal/Plan Submission Phase is depicted in Table E-6.

+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+
| Enhancement \#          | R&D     | O         | Program  | Total   |
|                         | Fac     | perations | Offices  |         |
|                         | ilities |           |          | 5-Year  |
|                         |         | Offices   |          | B       |
|                         |         |           |          | enefits |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+
| Enhancement 1           | 22.74   | 0.90      | 1.55     | 25.19   |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+
| Enhancement 2           | 14.19   | 1.25      | 1.33     | 16.77   |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+
| Enhancement 3           | 4.32    | 1.60      | 1.75     | 7.67    |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+
| ***Total Benefits***    | **\$    | *         | **       | **\$    |
|                         | 41.25** | *\$3.75** | \$4.63** | 49.63** |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+

***Table E-6***

***Alternative 3 Total 5-Year Benefits for Proposal/Plan Submission
Phase (\$ millions)***

# Project Execution Phase

*Enhancement 1:* Automate the work authorization system and provide a
linkage to the funding (Approved Funding Program Plan) system. Funding
and guidance systems will be linked to ensure funding is not released
without guidance. Funding system will include work authorization/program
guidance number for cross-reference.\
\
Both the work authorization/program guidance system and funding system
will eliminate most of the paper flow currently required in the
processes and have the capability to track authorizations via an
identification number. In addition, the system will provide electronic
notifications for signature action, and support electronic signature for
contractor start work authorization. This "single" repository system
will eliminate duplication of efforts and minimize the reconciliation
associated with funds distribution.

> *Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor and materials costs associated with work authorization
    approval activities (hardcopy forms and routing)

-   Reduced approval cycle time through electronic notifications and
    electronic routing, due to implementation of electronic signatures

-   Reduced/eliminated status requests from operations offices and
    contractors due to tracking ability

-   Reduced labor and materials associated with hardcopy distribution of
    work authorization and program guidance to field

-   Funding will not be released without guidance

-   Eliminated redundant effort with funds distribution

-   Minimized reconciliation efforts at the field office and contractor
    level by reducing human error from re-keying data and utilizing
    automated reconciliation capabilities.

The total 5-year benefits associated with Alternative 3 for the Project
Execution Phase is depicted in Table E-7.

+---------------------------+--------+------------+-----------+-------+
| Enhancement \#            | R&D    | Operations | Program   | Total |
|                           | Faci   |            | Offices   |       |
|                           | lities | Offices    |           | 5     |
|                           |        |            |           | -Year |
|                           |        |            |           | Ben   |
|                           |        |            |           | efits |
+---------------------------+--------+------------+-----------+-------+
| Enhancement 1             | 2.71   | 1.96       | 2.97      | 7.64  |
+---------------------------+--------+------------+-----------+-------+
| ***Total Benefits***      | **\$   | **\$1.96** | *         | **\$7 |
|                           | 2.71** |            | *\$2.97** | .64** |
+---------------------------+--------+------------+-----------+-------+

***Table E-7***

***Alternative 3 Total 5-Year Benefits for Project Execution Phase (\$
millions)***

## [Project Tracking/Reporting and Program Management Phases]{.underline}

*Enhancement 1*: Enable immediate user access to update data and obtain
project information through search and query tools, provide electronic
distribution of R&D accomplishments to the private sector and, enhance
responsiveness to public information needs. The database will support
both technical and financial information.

*Benefits:*

-   Reduced manual data collection effort in developing quick and timely
    responses to Congressional and public inquiries

-   Reduced labor effort when linking results and outcome with R&D
    projects.

*Enhancement 2:* Enable portfolio management reporting and tracking
across DOE for effective planning and elimination of duplicative project
funding.

*Benefits:*

-   Reduced labor effort and enhanced R&D planning

-   Reduced multi-submission requests for the same information

-   Reduced ad hoc requests from the program offices

-   Eliminated manual effort when identifying cross-program coordination
    of research activities

-   Eliminated manual effort to link proposals with existing work.

*Enhancement 3:* Provide informational data to the current Office of
Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) R&D Tracking System,
allowing consistent and current data.

*Benefits:*

-   Eliminated annual R&D Tracking System data call

-   Eliminated requirement for annual laboratory reporting to OSTI.

The total 5-year benefits associated with Alternative 3 for the Project
Tracking/Reporting and Program Management phases are depicted in Table
E-8.

+------------------------------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Enhancement \#               | R&D    | Ope      | Program | Total |
|                              | Faci   | rations/ | Offices |       |
|                              | lities |          |         | 5     |
|                              |        | Offices  |         | -Year |
|                              |        |          |         | Ben   |
|                              |        |          |         | efits |
+------------------------------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Enhancement 1                | 5.84   | 0.91     | 3.05    | 9.80  |
+------------------------------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Enhancement 2                | 9.07   | 0.91     | 6.31    | 16.29 |
+------------------------------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Enhancement 3                | 1.22   | 0.61     | 0.54    | 2.37  |
+------------------------------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| ***Total Benefits***         | **\$1  | **       | **\     | *     |
|                              | 6.13** | \$2.43** | $9.90** | *\$28 |
|                              |        |          |         | .46** |
+------------------------------+--------+----------+---------+-------+

***Table E-8***

***Alternative 3 Total 5-Year Benefits for Project Tracking/Reporting***

***and Program Management Phases (\$ millions)***