POSITION PAPER - Crosscuts

for

*Department of Energy I-MANAGE Program Joint Requirements Conference*

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Deliverable ID:  | Position Paper -- Crosscuts                       |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Version number:  | 2.01                                              |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Draft/Final as   | 07 Apr 2003                                       |
| of:              |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Printed on:      | 13 Nov 2023                                       |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Author:          | Karen Brown                                       |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | karen.brown@hq.doe.gov                            |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | 202-586-6938                                      |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Owner:           | Chris Simpson, I-MANAGE Program Manager           |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

Status of Document

> Draft
>
> Delivered
>
> Accepted

Document information

Document source

This document is maintained as an online document. Contact the author
for the latest version.

Revision history

  --------- --------- ------------------------------------- -----------------
  Version   Date      Summary of changes                    Revised By
  number                                                    

  1.01      18 Mar    Version 1                             Karen Brown
            2003                                            

  1.02      18 Mar    Incorporate Beach/Golden comments     Judith Bernsen
            2003                                            

  1.03      20 Mar    Incorporated comments                 Bill Beach
            2003                                            

  1.04      20 Mar    Added categorization of crosscuts and Judith Bernsen
            2003      segregated crosscuts into the         
                      categories                            

  2.01      07 Apr    Edits, revisions based on new         Don A. Cox, PMP
            2003      information.                          
  --------- --------- ------------------------------------- -----------------

Approvals

The following people have approved this document. (Sign below name)

  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  Name                                   Function

  Chris Simpson                          DOE I-MANAGE Program Manager

  **Signature**                          **Date:**

                                         

                                         

  **Signature:**                         **Date:**
  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------

Distribution

This document has been distributed to:

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  Name                         Function

  Steve Baker                  Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member

  Zach Belcher                 Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member

  Judith Bernsen               Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member

  Karen Brown                  Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member

  Jo Buxton                    Budget and Performance Measures Team Lead

  Ed Golden                    Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member

  John Raisigel                Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member

  Dave Waters                  Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member

  Ken Bergo                    Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member

  Bill Beach                   Budget and Performance Measures Team
                               Member
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

# Position Paper - Crosscuts

1.  Recommendation/Requirement

    The I-MANAGE Budget and Performance Measures Team recommends that to
    the extent possible, commitments, obligations, costs, and outlays
    for crosscuts be identified, recorded, monitored, and reported by
    standard Oracle functionality that will be provided with the
    I-MANAGE Standard Accounting and Reporting System (STARS).

    However, the team has identified specific constraints that restrict
    the ability to systemically identify certain crosscuts, record and
    monitor commitments, obligations, costs, and outlays associated with
    those crosscuts, and therefore provide accurate reporting. These
    constraints are discussed below.

    In the following discussion, the term "crosscuts" includes
    supplementary and crosscut budget exhibits, as well as other
    recurring crosscuts driven by external reporting requirements.

    Additional research on crosscuts will continue prior to inclusion in
    I-MANAGE (see section 6 for explanation).

2.  Issue Description

    1.  DOE provides many crosscuts to Department of Energy (DOE) Senior
        Management, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congress, and
        others at various times during the year. Some crosscuts are ad
        hoc, that is they are requested once or twice and then interest
        wanes. Other crosscuts are requested on a recurring basis, such
        as supplementary and crosscut budget exhibits and external
        reports.

    2.  Management and Operating (M&O) contractors who run the DOE
        National Laboratories spend the majority of appropriated dollars
        for the Department of Energy. Often, data from the contractors'
        systems are needed to prepare crosscut reports. As a result,
        there areThese crosscuts result in multiple data calls to the
        field. A number of automated systems and applications have been
        developed to collect the information for recurring crosscuts,
        such as the Research and Development (R&D) Tracking System, and
        the Facility Information Management System (FIMS). and the
        development of multiple systems to collect the information in an
        automated fashionDifferent DOE offices own most crosscuts; those
        identified in the DOE Budget Call and Handbook those relating to
        the budget are collected by the Office of Budget and then
        forwarded to the crosscut owner..

    3.  Types of Crosscuts

        1.  Crosscuts can be classified into three types according to
            data availability.

        2.  The first type of crosscut uses accounting data
            (commitments, obligations, costs and outlays) that would be
            available in the I-MANAGE STARS System. For example,
            financial crosscut data for Historically Black Colleges and
            Universities (HBCU) would be available for reporting
            purposes through proper setup in the I-MANAGE STARS System.
            By associating a specific HBCU with one or more contract IDs
            (CID) or tasks within CIDs in the STARS Purchasing module,
            commitments, obligations, costs, and outlays would be
            available for aggregation, summarization, and reporting..
            Type 1 crosscuts can be set up immediately in STARS through
            the use of descriptive flexfields within the Purchasing
            module.

        3.  The second type of crosscut uses accounting data that cannot
            be extracted from the DOE financial systems because this
            data is not provided through the standard monthly contractor
            data feed. However, in most cases, this detailed data is
            available in the contractors' systems. For example, the
            detailed transactions associated with Lab Directed Research
            and Development (LDRD) data is captured in the contractors'
            systems but is at a much lower level than what is submitted
            as part of the standard monthly contractor data feed to DOE.

            1.  Type 2 crosscuts could be captured in the STARS System
                if the contractors submit more detailed accounting data
                monthly.

            2.  Alternatively, data feeds relating to the crosscuts
                could be sent to the I-MANAGE Data Warehouse on a
                periodic basis.

        4.  The third type of crosscut uses accounting information that
            is contained within the contractor's overhead (or is not
            currently collected) in the contractors' systems. For
            example, support costs by functional activity are primarily
            in contractor overhead. Type 3 crosscuts cannot be achieved
            using STARS. See section 6 for further discussion relating
            particularly to Type 3 crosscuts.

    4.  Financial Information Required for Crosscuts

        1.  Crosscuts use a variety of financial facts. Some crosscuts
            require historical data, most often obligations and/or
            costs. Other crosscuts, such as the budget crosscuts,
            require future estimates, budget requests, appropriations,
            and historical data.

    5.  Examples of Budgetary Crosscuts[^1] and Supplementary Exhibits
        and their Classification

-   Proprietary Receipts (Supplementary Exhibit) --Type 1

-   Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Supplementary Exhibit)
    --Type 1

-   Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (Exhibit 300s) --Type 1

-   Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)(Supplementary Exhibit) --
    Type 1

-   Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) (Supplementary
    Exhibit) - Type 1

-   Minority Educational Institutions -- Type 1

-   Integrated Facilities and Infrastructure Crosscut -- Type 3

-   

-   

-   

-   

-   

-   

-   

-   Safeguards and Security Crosscut (Note: direct and overhead) -- Type
    3

-   Alternative Vehicles -- Type TBD

-   Federal Relocation Expenses -- Type TBD

-   

-   Program Activity by Location System -- Budget Request by Laboratory;
    Budget Request by State -- Type TBD

-   Information Technology Crosscut -- Type TBD

> Note: Budgetary crosscuts and supplementary exhibits require future
> estimates, budget requests, and appropriations as well as historical
> obligations and costs.

1.  Examples of Other Recurring Crosscuts

-   Supplementary Stewardship Reporting on Research and Development
    Costs (R&D Tracking System) -- Type TBD

-   Support Cost by Functional Activity -- Type 3

-   Lab/Plant Directed Research and Development (L/PDR&D) -- Type 2

-   Contracts with Small Disadvantaged Businesses -- Type 1

-   Contracts using e-Commerce -- Type TBD

-   Other

    1.  Crosscuts impact the following systems:

        1.  I-MANAGE Standard Budget System

        2.  PADS/I-MANAGE Procurement Module

        3.  Program Activity by Location System (PALS)

        4.  Support Cost by Functional Activity

        5.  R&D Tracking System

        6.  Facilities Information Management System (FIMS)

        7.  Multiple Excel spreadsheets

3.  Proposed Solution

    1.  For Type 1 crosscuts (and Type 2 if data is sent at the required
        level of detail by the contractors) I-MANAGE STARS functionality
        will be used to collect commitments, obligations, costs, and
        outlays for supplementary and budgetary crosscut exhibits and
        other recurring crosscuts required by the Secretary of Energy,
        OMB, and Congress. The Oracle Descriptive Flexfield
        functionality and the 'category' and 'location' fields in the
        Oracle Purchasing module are the major mechanisms for capturing
        information needed for the crosscuts.

    2.  The I-MANAGE Data Warehouse will be used to aggregate and
        summarize crosscut reporting data, and could be populated with
        historical data for comparative purposes through automated data
        loads or manual data entry.

    3.  The planned I-MANAGE Standard Budget System will be used to
        collect future estimates for supplementary and budgetary
        crosscut exhibits.

    4.  This proposed solution assumes that the level of detail
        currently provided through the monthly contractor data feed will
        continue for a period of time before and after implementing the
        new I-MANAGE STARS System, and the I-MANAGE Data Warehouse.
        However, these systems as designed will be fully capable of
        capturing a much lower level of detail within the proposed
        design at some future point. The decision to require more detail
        from the contractor community and the associated implications is
        discussed in detail in the position paper on managerial cost
        accounting. We will continue to research and propose
        alternatives to handle Type 2 and Type 3 crosscuts s for future
        estimates.within the proposed I-MANAGE STARS and I-MANAGE Data
        Warehouse design.

    5.  Attachment B provides specific information on the requirement
        and proposed solution for some of the crosscuts identified in
        section 2.2.

4.  Benefits

    1.  Reduces or eliminates manual data collection

    2.  Reduces the number of separate data calls to the Field

    3.  Eliminates data duplication by pulling data from a single system

    4.  Reduces data entry errors

    5.  Saves manpower resources

5.  Tradeoffs

    1.  

    2.  Data is mutually exclusive but can be overlapping (e.g.,
        painting the guard tower supports both Safeguards and Security
        and infrastructure maintenance). This means that the crosscut
        cannot be verified from accounting records and may require
        separate columns for identifiers.

    3.  Given the number of different information technology systems,
        the level of detail may vary widely among contractors, with
        resulting data being inconsistent (i.e., comparing "apples to
        oranges").

    4.  Data may not be readily identifiable in the contractor's
        accounting system.

    5.  The cost to obtain detailed data from contractor's accounting
        system may be prohibitive. For example, if the Department were
        to require a much greater level of detail from the contractor
        community, it would be necessary for individual contractors
        to (1) modify extract programs to create a feed to STARS that
        includes more detailed data available but not previously
        submitted; (2) modify systems to collect crosscut data that is
        not currently collected but is required by DOE to report under
        STARS; (3) analyze the ability of the I-MANAGE STARS System to
        handle the order of magnitude growth in transaction volumes as a
        result of this approach.

    6.  This may require more keystrokes at "point of entry" into
        accounting systems (thereby increasing costs and amount of data
        processed by both the contractors' and DOE's financial systems).

    7.  It is not possible to forecast and therefore plan for ad hoc
        crosscut data requests. Thus, it may not be possible to easily
        satisfy ad hoc requests in time to meet crosscut suspense dates.

6.  Open Issues/Comments

    1.  Additional research needed to determine the following:

        1.  

        2.  Identify other (i.e., non-budget) recurring crosscuts
            required by Secretary of Energy and other senior DOE
            management, OMB, and Congress.

        3.  Identify who is actually preparing crosscuts: Contractors
            (i.e., labs), Field Offices, or DOE Headquarters personnel.

    2.  "80% solution":

        1.  Estimate the amount of a crosscut and calculate the percent
            of the B&R(s).

        2.  Result may be sufficient and outweigh the cost of obtaining
            actual, more precise costs and obligations.

    3.  Potential source of data: M&O organizational elements

        1.  Mid-1990's DOE CFO budget crosscut review conducted to
            simplify crosscuts.

        2.  Result: 70-80% of many crosscuts may be readily and easily
            available using costs of specific M&O organizations.

        3.  Examples:

            1.  80%-90% of the Safeguards and Security costs available
                via M&O costs for the "Security Force" organization for
                physical security plus other organization(s) responsible
                for classified materials and security clearances if the
                security forces did not perform those functions.

            2.  ES&H functions primarily conducted by an ES&H
                organization, sometimes named "quality assurance
                office".

            3.  Maintenance costs predominantly incurred by the
                "maintenance organization" on site.

            4.  Organizational costs not 100% of the crosscut but costs
                were sufficiently significant that they should be
                considered.

        4.  The majority (i.e., 90%) of the effort would be spent
            obtaining the remaining 20%-30%.

        5.  Is the extra 20%-30% accuracy worth the effort to obtain it?

[^1]: Based on research and interviews with program and staff office
    personnel by the Budget and Performance Measurement Team.