**FAAXX294: ATC Beacon Interrogator Replacement (ATCBI-6)**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Exhibit 300: Part I: Summary Information and Justification (All
  Capital Assets)**

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

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **I.A. Overview**                   

                                      

  **1. Date of Submission:**          9/11/2006

  **2. Agency:**                      Department of Transportation

  **3. Bureau:**                      Federal Aviation Administration

  **4. Name of this Capital Asset:**  FAAXX294: ATC Beacon Interrogator
                                      Replacement (ATCBI-6)

  **5. Unique Project (Investment)    021-12-01-20-01-1020-00
  Identifier: (For IT investment      
  only, see section 53. For all       
  other, use agency ID system.)**     

  **6. What kind of investment will   Mixed Life Cycle
  this be in FY2008? (Please NOTE:    
  Investments moving to O&M ONLY in   
  FY2008, with Planning/Acquisition   
  activities prior to FY2008 should   
  not select O&M. These investments   
  should indicate their current       
  status.)**                          

  **7. What was the first budget year FY2001 or earlier
  this investment was submitted to    
  OMB?**                              

  **8. Provide a brief summary and    
  justification for this investment,  
  including a brief description of    
  how this closes in part or in whole 
  an identified agency performance    
  gap:**                              

  Air Traffic Control Beacon          
  Interrogator Replacement (ATCBI-6)  
  is secondary surveillance radar,    
  or"beacon\" radar, that provides    
  aircraft location data to air       
  traffic controllers for separation  
  assurance, traffic management,      
  navigation and flight information   
  in the en route and oceanic         
  airspace. The Department of Defense 
  (DoD) and the Department of         
  Homeland Security (DHS) also use    
  ATCBI-6 data. DoD and DHS receive   
  data with secure \"Identify Friend  
  or Foe (IFF)\" information,         
  enhancing their ability to meet     
  their air sovereignty and homeland  
  defense missions. This is a DoD     
  requirement. The ATCBI-6            
  replacement of en route radars      
  addresses the FAA performance gap   
  of ATCBI-4/5 radars sustainability, 
  compatibility with new automation   
  systems, and improved system        
  performance due to technology       
  advances. This approach, consistent 
  with the end state architecture     
  outlined in NAS-SS-1000, meets our  
  near-term surveillance needs and    
  ensures service is available        
  through the transition to FAA use   
  of GPS-based technology. The FAA\'s 
  existing ATCBI-4/5 systems have     
  reached the end of their 20-year    
  life cycles. They are not           
  sustainable due to parts            
  obsolescence and other issues       
  (i.e., increased failure rate,      
  higher maintenance cost and longer  
  repair times). Furthermore, the     
  existing beacons are analog and     
  incompatible with new automation    
  systems. The original ATCBI-6       
  procurement was 129 ATCBI-6 systems 
  to replace 124 operational beacons  
  and to provide five systems for     
  prototype evaluation, testing,      
  training, logistics and operational 
  engineering support. The program    
  completed procurements of an        
  additional eight systems for a      
  total of 137 systems. Two of these  
  are support systems, two are new    
  beacon-only radar sites from        
  Congressional earmarks and four are 
  new beacon-only sites from agency   
  cost share agreements and other     
  government projects. Major          
  Milestones completed: Contract      
  Award -8/03/98; In-Service          
  Decision - 6/04/02; First           
  Commissioned Site (Tinker) -        
  07/18/02; Delivered 137 systems     
  from the factory - 07/31/06;        
  Commissioned 71 sites - 07/31/06.   
  Future Milestones: Last system      
  delivery to site - 5/09; Last       
  system operational in NAS 8/09.     

  **9. Did the Agency\'s              Yes
  Executive/Investment Committee      
  approve this request?**             

  **   a. If \"yes,\" what was the    1/22/2002
  date of this approval?**            

  **10. Did the Project Manager       Yes
  review this Exhibit?**              

  **11. Contact information of        
  Project Manager?**                  

  **Name**                            

                                      

  **Phone Number**                    

  **Email**                           

  **12. Has the agency developed      No
  and/or promoted cost effective,     
  energy efficient and                
  environmentally sustainable         
  techniques or practices for this    
  project.**                          

  **   a. Will this investment        Yes
  include electronic assets           
  (including computers)?**            

  **   b. Is this investment for new  No
  construction or major retrofit of a 
  Federal building or facility?       
  (answer applicable to non-IT assets 
  only)**                             

  **      1. If \"yes,\" is an ESPC   
  or UESC being used to help fund     
  this investment?**                  

  **      2. If \"yes,\" will this    
  investment meet sustainable design  
  principles?**                       

  **      3. If \"yes,\" is it         
  designed to be 30% more energy      
  efficient than relevant code?**     

  **13. Does this investment support  No
  one of the PMA initiatives?**       

  **   If \"yes,\" check all that     
  apply:**                            

  **   13a. Briefly describe how this  
  asset directly supports the         
  identified initiative(s)?**         

  **14. Does this investment support  Yes
  a program assessed using the        
  Program Assessment Rating Tool      
  (PART)? (For more information about 
  the PART, visit                     
  www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part.)**     

  **   a. If \"yes,\" does this       Yes
  investment address a weakness found 
  during the PART review?**           

  **   b. If \"yes,\" what is the     FAA Air Traffic Services
  name of the PART program assessed   
  by OMB\'s Program Assessment Rating 
  Tool?**                             

  **   c. If \"yes,\" what PART       Adequate
  rating did it receive?**            

  **15. Is this investment for        Yes
  information technology?**           

  **If the answer to Question: \"Is   
  this investment for information     
  technology?\" was \"Yes,\" complete 
  this sub-section. If the answer is  
  \"No,\" do not answer this          
  sub-section.**                      

  **For information technology        
  investments only:**                 

  **16. What is the level of the IT   Level 3
  Project? (per CIO Council PM        
  Guidance)**                         

  **17. What project management       \(1\) Project manager has been
  qualifications does the Project     validated as qualified for this
  Manager have? (per CIO Council PM   investment
  Guidance):**                        

  **18. Is this investment identified No
  as \"high risk\" on the Q4 - FY     
  2006 agency high risk report (per   
  OMB\'s \"high risk\" memo)?**       

  **19. Is this a financial           No
  management system?**                

  **   a. If \"yes,\" does this       No
  investment address a FFMIA          
  compliance area?**                  

  **      1. If \"yes,\" which         
  compliance area:**                  

  **      2. If \"no,\" what does it   
  address?**                          

  **   b. If \"yes,\" please identify 
  the system name(s) and system       
  acronym(s) as reported in the most  
  recent financial systems inventory  
  update required by Circular A-11    
  section 52**                        

                                      

  **20. What is the percentage        
  breakout for the total FY2008       
  funding request for the following?  
  (This should total 100%)**          

  **Hardware**                        1.000000

  **Software**                        2.000000

  **Services**                        94.000000

  **Other**                           3.000000

  **21. If this project produces      N/A
  information dissemination products  
  for the public, are these products  
  published to the Internet in        
  conformance with OMB Memorandum     
  05-04 and included in your agency   
  inventory, schedules and            
  priorities?**                       

  **22. Contact information of        
  individual responsible for privacy  
  related questions:**                

  **Name**                            

                                      

  **Phone Number**                    

  **Title**                           

  **E-mail**                          

  **23. Are the records produced by   Yes
  this investment appropriately       
  scheduled with the National         
  Archives and Records                
  Administration\'s approval?**       
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- --
  **I.B. Summary of Funding**                                           

                                                                        

  **Provide the total estimated life-cycle cost for this investment by  
  completing the following table. All amounts represent budget          
  authority in millions, and are rounded to three decimal places.       
  Federal personnel costs should be included only in the row designated 
  \"Government FTE Cost,\" and should be excluded from the amounts      
  shown for \"Planning,\" \"Full Acquisition,\" and                     
  \"Operation/Maintenance.\" The total estimated annual cost of the     
  investment is the sum of costs for \"Planning,\" \"Full               
  Acquisition,\" and \"Operation/Maintenance.\" For Federal buildings   
  and facilities, life-cycle costs should include long term energy,     
  environmental, decommissioning, and/or restoration costs. The costs   
  associated with the entire life-cycle of the investment should be     
  included in this report.**                                            

  **Table 1: SUMMARY OF SPENDING FOR PROJECT PHASES\                    
  (REPORTED IN MILLIONS)\                                               
  (Estimates for BY+1 and beyond are for planning purposes only and do  
  not represent budget decisions)**                                     
  --------------------------------------------------------------------- --

  ---------------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -----------
                   **PY - 1\   **PY     **CY     **BY     **BY + 1 **BY + 2 **BY + 3 **BY + 4\  **Total**
                   and\        2006**   2007**   2008**   2009**   2010**   2011**   and\       
                   Earlier**                                                         Beyond**   

  Planning                                                                                      

      Budgetary    1           0        0        0        0        0        0        0          0
  Resources                                                                                     

  Acquisition                                                                                   

      Budgetary    218.05      13.266   13.4     16       0        0        0        0          0
  Resources                                                                                     

  Subtotal                                                                                      
  Planning &                                                                                    
  Acquisition                                                                                   

      Budgetary    219.05      13.266   13.4     16       0        0        0        0          0
  Resources                                                                                     

  Operations &                                                                                  
  Maintenance                                                                                   

      Budgetary    10.849      5.814    7.176    7.327    0        0        0        0          0
  Resources                                                                                     

  TOTAL                                                                                         

      Budgetary    229.899     19.08    20.576   23.327   0        0        0        0          0
  Resources                                                                                     

  Government FTE                                                                                
  Costs                                                                                         

    Budgetary      11.475      3.619    3.713    3.811    0        0        0        0          0
  Resources                                                                                     

  Number of FTE    110.0       34.4     34.4     34.4     0        0        0        0          0
  represented by                                                                                
  Costs:                                                                                        
  ---------------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -----------

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Note: For the cross-agency        
  investments, this table should      
  include all funding (both managing  
  partner and partner agencies).      
  Government FTE Costs should not be  
  included as part of the TOTAL       
  represented.**                      

                                      

  **2. Will this project require the  No
  agency to hire additional FTE\'s?** 

  **   a. If \"yes,\" How many and in  
  what year?**                        

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

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **I.C. Acquisition/Contract         
  Strategy**                          

                                      

  **2. If earned value is not         
  required or will not be a contract  
  requirement for any of the          
  contracts or task orders above,     
  explain why:**                      

  Raytheon Contract - The first       
  article program of the basic        
  contract was subject to earned      
  value. Follow-on production options 
  for prime mission equipment were    
  subject to limited earned value     
  reporting by the contractor due to  
  the nature of the contract line     
  items, i.e., the prime mission      
  equipment was competitively awarded 
  and firm fixed prices for the       
  associated line items were          
  incorporated into the contract with 
  firm delivery requirements. Large   
  scope developmental task orders     
  were subject to earned value. Other 
  task orders for services were       
  contracted for on a level of effort 
  basis and therefore not subject to  
  earned value reporting.             
  Notwithstanding, all items/task     
  orders of the contract are subject  
  to program management review        
  reporting, inclusive of cost and    
  schedule updates. In August 2005,   
  the FAA conducted an EVM assessment 
  based on the FAA EVM compliance     
  criteria aligned with the ANSI      
  EIA-748 Standard for EVM and the    
  NDIA ANSI EIA 748 Intent Guide,     
  January 2005 edition. As a result,  
  ATCBI-6 will implement a            
  Mid-Program EVM approach that does  
  not require added EVM information   
  from the contractors beyond what is 
  currently available. The intent of  
  this approach is to provide useful  
  EVM performance data to the program 
  and executive management in the     
  near term without significant       
  program cost investment. This       
  approach was recommended for        
  programs with remaining effort that 
  is mostly deployment with a         
  consistent site deployment schedule 
  template. ATCBI-6 EVM reporting     
  will be structured around remaining 
  work and will commence with the     
  approval of FY06 funding. ATCBI-6   
  will implement EVM using a schedule 
  management tool, an EVM tool, and   
  an EVM analysis application. The    
  ATCBI-6 EVM implementation will     
  include costs for contractors and   
  FAA FTEs. ATCBI-6 will be reviewed  
  for ANSI/EIA compliance after       
  implementation using the FAA        
  approved R/Y/G criteria. Due to     
  rebaselining efforts, the program   
  office will update the POA&M to     
  reflect implementation of ANSI      
  Compliant of EVM after JRC baseline 
  approval. This update will be       
  available by the final submission   
  of the Exhibit 300 to OMB.          

  **3. Do the contracts ensure        N/A
  Section 508 compliance?**           

  **   a. Explain why:**              In accordance with FAA\'s Section
                                      508 Procurement Standard Operating
                                      Procedures, the ATCBI-6 program has
                                      determined that none of the Section
                                      508 standards apply to the program.
                                      Section 508 didn\'t become
                                      enforceable until June 21, 2001,
                                      the FAA is not required to retrofit
                                      its electronic information
                                      technology, and as the ATCBI-6
                                      system procurement occurred in
                                      1998, it is therefore exempt from
                                      Section 508 requirements.

  **4. Is there an acquisition plan   Yes
  which has been approved in          
  accordance with agency              
  requirements?**                     

  **   a. If \"yes,\" what is the     4/29/1998
  date?**                             

  **   b. If \"no,\" will an           
  acquisition plan be developed?**    

  **      1. If \"no,\" briefly        
  explain why:**                      
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- --
  **I.D. Performance Information**                                      

                                                                        

  **In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300,      
  performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to    
  the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the          
  agency\'s mission and strategic goals, and performance measures must  
  be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency\'s      
  strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill.   
  They are the internal and external performance benefits this          
  investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve        
  efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300       
  percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 
  percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable       
  investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do   
  not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or         
  investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved  
  that do not have a quantitative or qualitative measure.**             

  **Agencies must use Table 1 below for reporting performance goals and 
  measures for all non-IT investments and for existing IT investments   
  that were initiated prior to FY 2005. The table can be extended to    
  include measures for years beyond FY 2006.**                          

                                                                        

  **Performance Information Table 1:**                                  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------- --

  ---------- ------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------- ---------------
  **Fiscal   **Strategic   **Performance       **Actual/baseline   **Planned     **Performance
  Year**     Goal(s)       Measure**           (from Previous      Performance   Metric Results
             Supported**                       Year)**             Metric        (Actual)**
                                                                   (Target)**    

  2003       DOT Goal:     Reduce unscheduled  ATCBI-4/5           Unscheduled   No unscheduled
             Mobility /    equipment-related   unscheduled         ATCBI-6       outages
             Increased     outage delays by    equipment outage    equipment     reported at
             reliability   25% at ATCBI-6      delays = 204 across outages       initial ATCBI-6
             throughout    sites.              230 sites                         sites in 2003.
             the system:                                                         Existing
             By 2008,                                                            baseline is 204
             increase the                                                        unscheduled
             percent of                                                          outages across
             flights                                                             230 sites,
             arriving on                                                         which is
             time to 83.64                                                       approximately
             percent                                                             88.7%; measured
                                                                                 performance is
                                                                                 0 unscheduled
                                                                                 outages. Goal
                                                                                 reported twice
                                                                                 plan to delete
                                                                                 next BY.

  2004       DOT Goal:     Reduce unscheduled  ATCBI-4/5           Reduction in  1 unscheduled
             Mobility /    equipment-related   unscheduled         unscheduled   outage for
             Increased     outages by 25% at   equipment-related   ATCBI-6       ATCBI-6 systems
             reliability   ATCBI-6 sites.      outages in FY03 =   equipment     through 9/04.
             throughout                        221 across 224      outages       (17 sites)
             the system:                       sites                             Baseline is 221
             By 2008,                                                            unscheduled
             increase the                                                        outages across
             percent of                                                          224 sites
             flights                                                             (98.7%).
             arriving on                                                         Performance for
             time to 83.64                                                       ATCBI-6 is 1
             percent                                                             unscheduled
                                                                                 outage across
                                                                                 17 sites
                                                                                 (5.9%). Goal
                                                                                 reported twice,
                                                                                 plan to delete
                                                                                 next BY.
  ---------- ------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------- ---------------

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

  **All new IT investments initiated for FY 2005 and beyond must use    
  Table 2 and are required to use the Federal Enterprise Architecture   
  (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM). Please use Table 2 and the   
  PRM to identify the performance information pertaining to this major  
  IT investment. Map all Measurement Indicators to the corresponding    
  \"Measurement Area\" and \"Measurement Grouping\" identified in the   
  PRM. There should be at least one Measurement Indicator for at least  
  four different Measurement Areas (for each fiscal year). The PRM is   
  available at www.egov.gov.**                                          

  **Performance Information Table 2:**                                  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------- --

  ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  **Fiscal   **Measurement   **Measurement    **Measurement    **Measurement     **Baseline**    **Planned       **Actual
  Year**     Area**          Category**       Grouping**       Indicator**                       Improvement to  Results**
                                                                                                 the Baseline**  

  2005       Customer        Customer Benefit Customer Impact  Reduce aircraft   4.7 delayed     3.8 delayed     Aircraft delays
             Results                          or Burden        delays due to     aircraft per    aircraft per    caused by
                                                               unscheduled       year due to     year due to     unscheduled
                                                               equipment outage  unscheduled     unscheduled     outages:
                                                                                 en-route        ATCBI-4/5/6     ATCBI-6 = 0,
                                                                                 ATCBI-4/5       outages         ATCBI-5 = 5
                                                                                 outages                         

  2005       Customer        Customer Benefit Customer Impact  Reduce cost of    \$13.2K delay   Removed in 2008 Removed in 2008
             Results                          or Burden        unscheduled       cost associated Exhibit as a    Exhibit as a
                                                               systems outages   with            performance     performance
                                                               total restore     unscheduled     measure because measure because
                                                               time              outages         it is redundant it is redundant
                                                                                                 since it is the since it is the
                                                                                                 \"reduce        \"reduce
                                                                                                 aircraft delays aircraft delays
                                                                                                 due to          due to
                                                                                                 unscheduled     unscheduled
                                                                                                 equipment       equipment
                                                                                                 outage\"        outage\"
                                                                                                 performance     performance
                                                                                                 measure         measure
                                                                                                 converted to    converted to
                                                                                                 dollars.        dollars.

  2005       Mission and     Transportation   Air              Increase en route En route        En route        Average per
             Business                         Transportation   beacon Mean Time  ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     site MTBO
             Results                                           Between Outage    average per     average per     (unscheduled) =
                                                               (MTBO)            site MTBO       site MTBO       8,655 hrs for
                                                                                 (unscheduled) = (unscheduled) = en route
                                                                                 6,479 hrs (from 7,775 hrs       ATCBI-4/5/6.
                                                                                 FY03 en route                   
                                                                                 ATCBI-4/5                       
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2005       Mission and     Transportation   Air              Reduced/avoided   ATCBI-4/5 total Removed in 2008 Removed in 2008
             Business                         Transportation   operation and     yearly exchange Exhibit as a    Exhibit as a
             Results                                           maintenance costs & repair (E&R)  performance     performance
                                                               available to be   costs           measure because measure because
                                                               applied toward                    it is redundant it is redundant
                                                               Flight Plan                       since it is     since it is
                                                                                                 included in the included in the
                                                                                                 performance     performance
                                                                                                 measure to      measure to
                                                                                                 reduce en route reduce en route
                                                                                                 beacon repair   beacon repair
                                                                                                 costs           costs

  2005       Processes and   Productivity and Efficiency       Reduce en route   Mean time to    6.54 hours mean ATCBI-6 MTTR in
             Activities      Efficiency                        beacon Mean Time  restore = 6.62  time to restore FY05 = 5.16
                                                               to Restore (MTTR) hours           (15 minute      hours
                                                                                                 prorated        
                                                                                                 improvement)    

  2005       Processes and   Productivity and Efficiency       Reduce hours of   5.74 hours per  Removed in 2008 Removed in 2008
             Activities      Efficiency                        unscheduled       system per year Exhibit as a    Exhibit as a
                                                               equipment outage  of unscheduled  performance     performance
                                                                                 outages for     measure because measure because
                                                                                 legacy 4/5      it is redundant it is redundant
                                                                                 systems         since it is     since it is
                                                                                                 included in the included in the
                                                                                                 performance     performance
                                                                                                 measure to      measure to
                                                                                                 reduce en route reduce en route
                                                                                                 beacon Mean     beacon Mean
                                                                                                 Time to Restore Time to Restore
                                                                                                 (MTTR)          (MTTR)

  2005       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduce en route   En route        En route        En route
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      beacon repair     ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     ATCBI-4/5
                                              Costs            costs             average per     average per     average per
                                                                                 site repair     site repair     site repair
                                                                                 costs (total    costs (total    costs (total
                                                                                 requisition     requisition     requisition
                                                                                 costs) =        costs) =        costs) in FY05
                                                                                 \$7,345 (from   \$5,510         = \$6,285.
                                                                                 FY03 ATCBI-4/5                  ATCBI-6 average
                                                                                 baseline data)                  per site repair
                                                                                                                 costs (total
                                                                                                                 requisition
                                                                                                                 costs) in FY05
                                                                                                                 = \$2,244.

  2005       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduced CD-2      CD-2 average    CD-2 average    CD-2 average
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      repair costs      per site repair per site repair per site repair
                                              Costs                              costs (total    costs (total    costs (total
                                                                                 requisition     requisition     requisition
                                                                                 costs) =        costs) =        costs) in FY05
                                                                                 \$5,678 (from   \$5,110         = \$4,360
                                                                                 FY03 CD-2                       
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2006       Customer        Customer Benefit Customer Impact  Reduce aircraft   4.7 delayed     3.5 delayed     Data for actual
             Results                          or Burden        delays due to     aircraft per    aircraft per    FY06 results
                                                               unscheduled       year due to     year due to     will be
                                                               equipment outage  unscheduled     unscheduled     available in
                                                                                 en-route        outages         2nd qtr of FY07
                                                                                 ATCBI-4/5                       and reported in
                                                                                 outages                         the FY09
                                                                                                                 Exhibit

  2006       Mission and     Transportation   Air              Increase en route En route        En route        Data for actual
             Business                         Transportation   beacon Mean Time  ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     FY06 results
             Results                                           Between Outage    average per     average per     will be
                                                               (MTBO)            site MTBO       site MTBO       available in
                                                                                 (unscheduled) = (unscheduled) = 2nd qtr of FY07
                                                                                 6,479 hrs (from 8,095 hrs       and reported in
                                                                                 FY03 en route                   the FY09
                                                                                 ATCBI-4/5                       Exhibit
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2006       Processes and   Productivity and Efficiency       Reduce en route   Mean time to    6.49 hours mean Data for actual
             Activities      Efficiency                        beacon Mean Time  restore = 6.62  time to restore FY06 results
                                                               to Restore (MTTR) hours           (15 minute      will be
                                                                                                 prorated        available in
                                                                                                 improvement)    2nd qtr of FY07
                                                                                                                 and reported in
                                                                                                                 the FY09
                                                                                                                 Exhibit

  2006       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduce en route   En route        En route        Data for actual
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      beacon repair     ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     FY06 results
                                              Costs            costs             average per     average per     will be
                                                                                 site repair     site repair     available in
                                                                                 costs (total    costs (total    2nd qtr of FY07
                                                                                 requisition     requisition     and reported in
                                                                                 costs) =        costs) =        the FY09
                                                                                 \$7,345 (from   \$5,140         Exhibit
                                                                                 FY03 ATCBI-4/5                  
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2006       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduced CD-2      CD-2 average    CD-2 average    Data for actual
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      repair costs      per site repair per site repair FY06 results
                                              Costs                              costs (total    costs (total    will be
                                                                                 requisition     requisition     available in
                                                                                 costs) =        costs) =        2nd qtr of FY07
                                                                                 \$5,678 (from   \$4,825         and reported in
                                                                                 FY03 CD-2                       the FY09
                                                                                 baseline data)                  Exhibit

  2007       Customer        Customer Benefit Customer Impact  Reduce aircraft   4.7 delayed     3.3 delayed     Data for actual
             Results                          or Burden        delays due to     aircraft per    aircraft per    FY07 results
                                                               unscheduled       year due to     year due to     will be
                                                               equipment outage  unscheduled     unscheduled     available in
                                                                                 outages         outages         2nd qtr of FY08
                                                                                                                 and reported in
                                                                                                                 the FY10
                                                                                                                 Exhibit

  2007       Mission and     Transportation   Air              Increase en route En route        En route        Data for actual
             Business                         Transportation   beacon Mean Time  ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     FY07 results
             Results                                           Between Outage    average per     average per     will be
                                                               (MTBO)            site MTBO       site MTBO       available in
                                                                                 (unscheduled) = (unscheduled) = 2nd qtr of FY08
                                                                                 6,479 hrs (from 8,420 hrs       and reported in
                                                                                 FY03 en route                   the FY10
                                                                                 ATCBI-4/5                       Exhibit
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2007       Processes and   Productivity and Efficiency       Reduce en route   Mean time to    6.44 hours mean Data for actual
             Activities      Efficiency                        beacon Mean Time  restore = 6.62  time to restore FY07 results
                                                               to Restore (MTTR) hours           (15 minute      will be
                                                                                                 prorated        available in
                                                                                                 improvement)    2nd qtr of FY08
                                                                                                 (101 systems    and reported in
                                                                                                 fielded)        the FY10
                                                                                                                 Exhibit

  2007       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduce en route   En route        En route        Data for actual
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      beacon repair     ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     FY07 results
                                              Costs            costs             average per     average per     will be
                                                                                 site repair     site repair     available in
                                                                                 costs (total    costs (total    2nd qtr of FY08
                                                                                 requisition     requisition     and reported in
                                                                                 costs) =        costs) =        the FY10
                                                                                 \$7,345 (from   \$4,775         Exhibit
                                                                                 FY03 ATCBI-4/5                  
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2007       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduced CD-2      CD-2 average    Maintain CD-2   Data for actual
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      repair costs      per site repair average per     FY07 results
                                              Costs                              costs (total    site repair     will be
                                                                                 requisition     costs achieved  available in
                                                                                 costs) =        in 2006         2nd qtr of FY08
                                                                                 \$5,678 (from                   and reported in
                                                                                 FY03 CD-2                       the FY10
                                                                                 baseline data)                  Exhibit

  2008       Customer        Customer Benefit Customer Impact  Reduce aircraft   4.7 delayed     3.1 delayed     Data for actual
             Results                          or Burden        delays due to     aircraft per    aircraft per    FY08 results
                                                               unscheduled       year due to     year due to     will be
                                                               equipment outage  unscheduled     unscheduled     available in
                                                                                 outages         ATCBI-4/5/6     2nd qtr of FY09
                                                                                                 outages         and reported in
                                                                                                                 the FY11
                                                                                                                 Exhibit

  2008       Mission and     Transportation   Air              Increase en route En route        En route        Data for actual
             Business                         Transportation   beacon Mean Time  ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     FY08 results
             Results                                           Between Outage    average per     average per     will be
                                                               (MTBO)            site MTBO       site MTBO       available in
                                                                                 (unscheduled) = (unscheduled) = 2nd qtr of FY09
                                                                                 6,479 hrs (from 8,620 hrs       and reported in
                                                                                 FY03 en route                   the FY11
                                                                                 ATCBI-4/5                       Exhibit
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2008       Processes and   Productivity and Efficiency       Reduce en route   Mean time to    6.44 hours mean Data for actual
             Activities      Efficiency                        beacon Mean Time  restore = 6.62  time to restore FY08 results
                                                               to Restore (MTTR) hrs             (15 minute      will be
                                                                                                 prorated        available in
                                                                                                 improvement)    2nd qtr of FY09
                                                                                                                 and reported in
                                                                                                                 the FY11
                                                                                                                 Exhibit

  2008       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduce en route   En route        En route        Data for actual
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      beacon repair     ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     FY08 results
                                              Costs            costs             average per     average per     will be
                                                                                 site repair     site repair     available in
                                                                                 costs (total    costs (total    2nd qtr of FY09
                                                                                 requisition     requisition     and reported in
                                                                                 costs) =        costs) =        the FY11
                                                                                 \$7,345 (from   \$4,410         Exhibit
                                                                                 FY03 ATCBI-4/5                  
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2008       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduced CD-2      CD-2 average    Maintain CD-2   Data for actual
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      repair costs      per site repair average per     FY08 results
                                              Costs                              costs (total    site repair     will be
                                                                                 requisition     costs achieved  available in
                                                                                 costs) =        in 2006         2nd qtr of FY09
                                                                                 \$5,678 (from                   and reported in
                                                                                 FY03 CD-2                       the FY11
                                                                                 baseline data)                  Exhibit

  2009       Customer        Customer Benefit Customer Impact  Reduce aircraft   4.7 delayed     2.8 delayed     Data for actual
             Results                          or Burden        delays due to     aircraft per    aircraft per    FY09 results
                                                               unscheduled       year due to     year due to     will be
                                                               equipment outage  unscheduled     unscheduled     available in
                                                                                 outages         ATCBI-4/5/6     2nd qtr of FY10
                                                                                                 outages         and reported in
                                                                                                                 the FY12
                                                                                                                 Exhibit

  2009       Mission and     Transportation   Air              Increase en route En route        En route        Data for actual
             Business                         Transportation   beacon Mean Time  ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     FY09 results
             Results                                           Between Outage    average per     average per     will be
                                                               (MTBO)            site MTBO       site MTBO       available in
                                                                                 (unscheduled) = (unscheduled) = 2nd qtr of FY10
                                                                                 6,479 hrs (from 8,745 hrs       and reported in
                                                                                 FY03 en route                   the FY12
                                                                                 ATCBI-4/5                       Exhibit
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2009       Processes and   Productivity and Efficiency       Reduce en route   Mean time to    6.44 hours mean Data for actual
             Activities      Efficiency                        beacon Mean Time  restore = 6.62  time to restore FY09 results
                                                               to Restore (MTTR) hrs             (15 minute      will be
                                                                                                 prorated        available in
                                                                                                 improvement)    2nd qtr of FY10
                                                                                                                 and reported in
                                                                                                                 the FY12
                                                                                                                 Exhibit

  2009       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduce en route   En route        En route        Data for actual
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      beacon repair     ATCBI-4/5       ATCBI-4/5/6     FY09 results
                                              Costs            costs             average per     average per     will be
                                                                                 site repair     site repair     available in
                                                                                 costs (total    costs (total    2nd qtr of FY10
                                                                                 requisition     requisition     and reported in
                                                                                 costs) =        costs) =        the FY12
                                                                                 \$7,345 (from   \$4,040         Exhibit
                                                                                 FY03 ATCBI-4/5                  
                                                                                 baseline data)                  

  2009       Technology      Financial        Operations and   Reduce CD-2       CD-2 average    Maintain CD-2   Data for actual
                             (Technology)     Maintenance      repair costs      per site repair average per     FY09 results
                                              Costs                              costs (total    site repair     will be
                                                                                 requisition     costs achieved  available in
                                                                                 costs) =        in 2006         2nd qtr of FY10
                                                                                 \$5,678 (from                   and reported in
                                                                                 FY03 CD-2                       the FY12
                                                                                 baseline data)                  Exhibit
  ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

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

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

  --------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
  **I.E. Security and Privacy**                                   

                                                                  

  **In order to successfully address this area of the business    
  case, each question below must be answered at the               
  system/application level, not at a program or agency level.     
  Systems supporting this investment on the planning and          
  operational systems security tables should match the systems on 
  the privacy table below. Systems on the Operational Security    
  Table must be included on your agency FISMA system inventory    
  and should be easily referenced in the inventory (i.e., should  
  use the same name or identifier).**                             

  **All systems supporting and/or part of this investment should  
  be included in the tables below, inclusive of both agency owned 
  systems and contractor systems. For IT investments under        
  development, security and privacy planning must proceed in      
  parallel with the development of the system/s to ensure IT      
  security and privacy requirements and costs are identified and  
  incorporated into the overall lifecycle of the system/s.**      

  **Please respond to the questions below and verify the system   
  owner took the following actions:**                             

  **1. Have the IT security costs for the system(s) been          Yes
  identified and integrated into the overall costs of the         
  investment:**                                                   

  **   a. If \"yes,\" provide the \"Percentage IT Security\" for  2.500000
  the budget year:**                                              

  **2. Is identifying and assessing security and privacy risks a  Yes
  part of the overall risk management effort for each system      
  supporting or part of this investment.**                        

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

  ------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
  **5. Have any weaknesses, not yet remediated, related to any of the Yes
  systems part of or supporting this investment been identified by    
  the agency or IG?**                                                 

  **   a. If \"yes,\" have those weaknesses been incorporated         Yes
  agency\'s plan of action and milestone process?**                   

  **6. Indicate whether an increase in IT security funding is         Yes
  requested to remediate IT security weaknesses?**                    

  **   a. If \"yes,\" specify the amount, provide a general           
  description of the weakness, and explain how the funding request    
  will remediate the weakness.**                                      

  The ATCBI-6 BY 08 budget includes \$395K to complete the annual     
  800-26 ISS Report and start FY 09 SCAP re-certification. As a       
  result of the FY 06 SCAP re-certification, the ATCBI-6 program      
  estimates \$3.2M to mitigate access controls, audit trails, and     
  intrusion detection system weaknesses. The \$3.2M is not in program 
  budget. However, a request was submitted to AIO this increase in    
  funding.                                                            

                                                                      

  **8. Planning & Operational Systems - Privacy Table:**              
  ------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

  -------------- ----------- ---------------- ------------ ----------- -----------
  **Name of      **Is this a **Is there a     **Is the PIA **Is a      **Was a new
  System**       new         Privacy Impact   available to System of   or amended
                 system?**   Assessment (PIA) the          Records     SORN
                             that covers this public?**    Notice      published
                             system?**                     (SORN)      in FY 06?**
                                                           required    
                                                           for this    
                                                           system?**   

  Air Traffic    No          No, because the  No, because  No          No, because
  Control Beacon             system does not  a PIA is not             the system
  Interrogator               contain,         yet required             is not a
  (ATCBI-6)                  process, or      to be                    Privacy Act
                             transmit         completed at             system of
                             personal         this time.               records.
                             identifying                               
                             information.                              
  -------------- ----------- ---------------- ------------ ----------- -----------

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

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

+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **I.F. Enterprise Architecture (EA)**            |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
|                                                  |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **In order to successfully address this area of  |                   |
| the business case and capital asset plan you     |                   |
| must ensure the investment is included in the    |                   |
| agency\'s EA and Capital Planning and Investment |                   |
| Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and     |                   |
| supports the FEA. You must also ensure the       |                   |
| business case demonstrates the relationship      |                   |
| between the investment and the business,         |                   |
| performance, data, services, application, and    |                   |
| technology layers of the agency\'s EA.**         |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **1. Is this investment included in your         | Yes               |
| agency\'s target enterprise architecture?**      |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **   a. If \"no,\" please explain why?**         |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
|                                                  |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **2. Is this investment included in the          | No                |
| agency\'s EA Transition Strategy?**              |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **   a. If \"yes,\" provide the investment name  |                   |
| as identified in the Transition Strategy         |                   |
| provided in the agency\'s most recent annual EA  |                   |
| Assessment.**                                    |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **   b. If \"no,\" please explain why?**         |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| To effectively balance the development and       |                   |
| management of the DOT Transition Strategy, the   |                   |
| first version was scoped to include those        |                   |
| investments with development activities (non     |                   |
| O&M). Additionally, as the NAS Architecture was  |                   |
| publicly available, it was also not fully        |                   |
| integrated with the materials forwarded to OMB   |                   |
| in February 2006. However, the NAS is considered |                   |
| part of the DOT Transition Strategy and will be  |                   |
| more fully integrated within the next revision.  |                   |
| Future revisions are set to expand upon that     |                   |
| scope and include both steady state (O&M)        |                   |
| investments and expanded linkages to the NAS     |                   |
| Architecture. NAS websites document the plan for |                   |
| the FAA\'s target architecture where the         |                   |
| investment can be found and a sequencing plan    |                   |
| showing the dependencies. See the following link |                   |
| and search for \"ATCBI-6\".                      |                   |
| http://www.nas-architectur                       |                   |
| e.faa.gov/nas5/downloads/full_oi_long_report.pdf |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
|                                                  |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **3. Service Reference Model (SRM) Table:**      |                   |
|                                                  |                   |
| **Identify the service components funded by this |                   |
| major IT investment (e.g., knowledge management, |                   |
| content management, customer relationship        |                   |
| management, etc.). Provide this information in   |                   |
| the format of the following table. For detailed  |                   |
| guidance regarding components, please refer to   |                   |
| http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/.**           |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+

  ----------------- ------------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ --------------
  **Agency          **Agency Component  **Service    **FEA SRM    **FEA SRM      **FEA       **FEA       **Internal   **BY Funding
  Component Name**  Description**       Domain**     Service      Component**    Service     Service     or External  Percentage**
                                                     Type**                      Component   Component   Reuse?**     
                                                                                 Reused      Reused                   
                                                                                 Name**      UPI**                    

  Airborne          Airborne            Digital      Content      Tagging and                            No Reuse     5
                    synchronization, or Asset        Management   Aggregation                                         
                    spacing and         Services                                                                      
                    sequencing of air                                                                                 
                    traffic, safely                                                                                   
                    maximizes National                                                                                
                    Airspace System                                                                                   
                    efficiency and                                                                                    
                    capacity throughout                                                                               
                    the cruise,                                                                                       
                    arrival, and                                                                                      
                    departure phases of                                                                               
                    flight. Traffic                                                                                   
                    synchronization is                                                                                
                    provided to                                                                                       
                    aircraft during                                                                                   
                    cruise, through                                                                                   
                    metering at                                                                                       
                    fixes/waypoints and                                                                               
                    modifying traffic                                                                                 
                    flow patterns to                                                                                  
                    meet operational                                                                                  
                    objectives and                                                                                    
                    accommodate user                                                                                  
                    preferences. (NAS                                                                                 
                    Traffic Management                                                                                
                    Synchronization)                                                                                  

  Aircraft to       Aircraft are        Digital      Knowledge    Knowledge                              No Reuse     45
  Aircraft          separated from      Asset        Management   Distribution                                        
  Separation        other known         Services                  and Delivery                                        
  Capability        aircraft in the                                                                                   
                    terminal, en route,                                                                               
                    and oceanic                                                                                       
                    environments.                                                                                     
                    Separation                                                                                        
                    assurance involves                                                                                
                    the application of                                                                                
                    separation                                                                                        
                    standards to ensure                                                                               
                    aircraft remain an                                                                                
                    appropriate minimum                                                                               
                    distance or                                                                                       
                    altitude from other                                                                               
                    known aircraft.                                                                                   
                    Standards are                                                                                     
                    defined for                                                                                       
                    aircraft based on                                                                                 
                    aircraft type,                                                                                    
                    size, equipment,                                                                                  
                    and for operating                                                                                 
                    in different                                                                                      
                    environments. (NAS                                                                                
                    ATC-Separation                                                                                    
                    Assurance)                                                                                        

  Airborne          Airborne            Process      Tracking and Process                                No Reuse     45
                    synchronization, or Automation   Workflow     Tracking                                            
                    spacing and         Services                                                                      
                    sequencing of air                                                                                 
                    traffic, safely                                                                                   
                    maximizes National                                                                                
                    Airspace System                                                                                   
                    efficiency and                                                                                    
                    capacity throughout                                                                               
                    the cruise,                                                                                       
                    arrival, and                                                                                      
                    departure phases of                                                                               
                    flight. Traffic                                                                                   
                    synchronization is                                                                                
                    provided to                                                                                       
                    aircraft during                                                                                   
                    cruise, through                                                                                   
                    metering at                                                                                       
                    fixes/waypoints and                                                                               
                    modifying traffic                                                                                 
                    flow patterns to                                                                                  
                    meet operational                                                                                  
                    objectives and                                                                                    
                    accommodate user                                                                                  
                    preferences. (NAS                                                                                 
                    Traffic Management                                                                                
                    Synchronization).                                                                                 

  Aircraft to       Aircraft are        Support      Security     Access Control                         No Reuse     5
  Aircraft          separated from      Services     Management                                                       
  Separation        other known                                                                                       
  Capability        aircraft in the                                                                                   
  (ATC-Separation   terminal, en route,                                                                               
  Assurance)        and oceanic                                                                                       
                    environments.                                                                                     
                    Separation                                                                                        
                    assurance involves                                                                                
                    the application of                                                                                
                    separation                                                                                        
                    standards to ensure                                                                               
                    aircraft remain an                                                                                
                    appropriate minimum                                                                               
                    distance or                                                                                       
                    altitude from other                                                                               
                    known aircraft.                                                                                   
                    Standards are                                                                                     
                    defined for                                                                                       
                    aircraft based on                                                                                 
                    aircraft type,                                                                                    
                    size, equipment,                                                                                  
                    and for operating                                                                                 
                    in different                                                                                      
                    environments.                                                                                     
  ----------------- ------------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ --------------

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
|                                                                     |   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
| **Use existing SRM Components or identify as \"NEW\". A \"NEW\"     |   |
| component is one not already identified as a service component in   |   |
| the FEA SRM.**                                                      |   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
| **A reused component is one being funded by another investment, but |   |
| being used by this investment. Rather than answer yes or no,        |   |
| identify the reused service component funded by the other           |   |
| investment and identify the other investment using the Unique       |   |
| Project Identifier (UPI) code from the OMB Ex 300 or Ex 53          |   |
| submission.**                                                       |   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
| **\'Internal\' reuse is within an agency. For example, one agency   |   |
| within a department is reusing a service component provided by      |   |
| another agency within the same department. \'External\' reuse is    |   |
| one agency within a department reusing a service component provided |   |
| by another agency in another department. A good example of this is  |   |
| an E-Gov initiative service being reused by multiple organizations  |   |
| across the federal government.**                                    |   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
| **Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount  |   |
| used for each service component listed in the table. If external,   |   |
| provide the funding level transferred to another agency to pay for  |   |
| the service.**                                                      |   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
|                                                                     |   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
| **4. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table:**                       |   |
|                                                                     |   |
| **To demonstrate how this major IT investment aligns with the FEA   |   |
| Technical Reference Model (TRM), please list the Service Areas,     |   |
| Categories, Standards, and Service Specifications supporting this   |   |
| IT investment.**                                                    |   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---+

  -------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- --------------------
  **FEA SRM      **FEA TRM        **FEA TRM        **FEA TRM     **Service
  Component**    Service Area**   Service          Service       Specification (i.e.
                                  Category**       Standard**    vendor or product
                                                                 name)**

  Process        Component        Data Interchange Data Exchange Raytheon -
  Tracking       Framework                                       Communications
                                                                 Cabinet

  Tagging and    Component        Presentation /   Content       Gateway Laptop -
  Aggregation    Framework        Interface        Rendering     ACB-530 FAA RTADS
                                                                 Software

  Knowledge      Service Access   Access Channels  Other         ATO-W(2nd Level
  Distribution   and Delivery                      Electronic    Engineering) -
  and Delivery                                     Channels      Remote Monitor &
                                                                 Control (RMC)

  Knowledge      Service Platform Database /       Storage       Raytheon - Data
  Distribution   and              Storage                        Storage
  and Delivery   Infrastructure                                  

  Knowledge      Service Platform Hardware /       Embedded      Raytheon - plot
  Distribution   and              Infrastructure   Technology    extractor Card
  and Delivery   Infrastructure                    Devices       

  Access Control Service Platform Hardware /       Network       Sensis - Nunio &
                 and              Infrastructure   Devices /     System Interfacr
                 Infrastructure                    Standards     Unit (SIU)

  Knowledge      Service Platform Hardware /       Peripherals   Freestate -
  Distribution   and              Infrastructure                 Monopulse Beacon
  and Delivery   Infrastructure                                  Test Set (MBTS)

  Knowledge      Service Platform Hardware /       Peripherals   Panasonic - 3.5
  Distribution   and              Infrastructure                 Floppy disk
  and Delivery   Infrastructure                                  

  Knowledge      Service Platform Hardware /       Servers /     Raytheon - Local
  Distribution   and              Infrastructure   Computers     Maintenance Terminal
  and Delivery   Infrastructure                                  (LMT)
  -------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- --------------------

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Service Components identified in  
  the previous question should be     
  entered in this column. Please      
  enter multiple rows for FEA SRM     
  Components supported by multiple    
  TRM Service Specifications**        

  **In the Service Specification      
  field, Agencies should provide      
  information on the specified        
  technical standard or vendor        
  product mapped to the FEA TRM       
  Service Standard, including model   
  or version numbers, as              
  appropriate.**                      

                                      

  **5. Will the application leverage  No
  existing components and/or          
  applications across the Government  
  (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?**   

  **   a. If \"yes,\" please          
  describe.**                         

                                      

  **6. Does this investment provide   No
  the public with access to a         
  government automated information    
  system?**                           

  **   a. If \"yes,\" does customer    
  access require specific software    
  (e.g., a specific web browser       
  version)?**                         

  **      1. If \"yes,\" provide the   
  specific product name(s) and        
  version number(s) of the required   
  software and the date when the      
  public will be able to access this  
  investment by any software (i.e. to 
  ensure equitable and timely access  
  of government information and       
  services).**                        

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Exhibit 300: Part II: Planning, Acquisition and Performance
  Information**

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

  --------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
  **II.A. Alternatives Analysis**                                 

                                                                  

  **Part II should be completed only for investments identified   
  as \"Planning\" or \"Full Acquisition,\" or \"Mixed             
  Life-Cycle\" investments in response to Question 6 in Part I,   
  Section A above.**                                              

  **In selecting the best capital asset, you should identify and  
  consider at least three viable alternatives, in addition to the 
  current baseline, i.e., the status quo. Use OMB Circular A- 94  
  for all investments, and the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 for IT   
  investments, to determine the criteria you should use in your   
  Benefit/Cost Analysis.**                                        

  **1. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this          Yes
  project?**                                                      

  **   a. If \"yes,\" provide the date the analysis was           7/30/2004
  completed?**                                                    

  **   b. If \"no,\" what is the anticipated date this analysis    
  will be completed?**                                            

  **   c. If no analysis is planned, please briefly explain       
  why:**                                                          

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

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **II.B. Risk Management**           

                                      

  **You should have performed a risk  
  assessment during the early         
  planning and initial concept phase  
  of this investment\'s life-cycle,   
  developed a risk-adjusted           
  life-cycle cost estimate and a plan 
  to eliminate, mitigate or manage    
  risk, and be actively managing risk 
  throughout the investment\'s        
  life-cycle.**                       

  **1. Does the investment have a     Yes
  Risk Management Plan?**             

  **   a. If \"yes,\" what is the     5/31/2005
  date of the plan?**                 

  **   b. Has the Risk Management     No
  Plan been significantly changed     
  since last year\'s submission to    
  OMB?**                              

  **c. If \"yes,\" describe any       
  significant changes:**              

  The team has made no signification  
  changes to the risk process to      
  identify and mitigate risks as      
  described in the Risk Management    
  Plan. The team updates the plan for 
  administrative items, such as       
  changes in organizational codes,    
  titles, and personnel as a result   
  of the change from ATB to ATO. The  
  ATCBI-6 team meets on a monthly     
  basis to identify critical areas,   
  analyze, mitigate & track risks     
  affecting the cost, schedule &      
  technical aspects of the            
  procurement in accordance with the  
  ATO-T, Program Operations Risk      
  Management Plan dated 05/31/05. The 
  team uses the Sector\'s automated   
  tracking system to insert and       
  update data, schedules, mitigation  
  & estimates pertaining to           
  identified risks. The ATCBI-6\'s    
  tracking system contains            
  information on OMB\'s current risk  
  guidance that our team considers    
  each time we address individual     
  risks to facilitate focus on        
  specific areas of risk. The team    
  assigns to each risk a Point of     
  Contact (POC) to lead the           
  mitigation process and discussion   
  for consideration. The team agrees  
  on acceptance & level of each risk  
  before it is approved, reduced,     
  increased & or retired. The team    
  conducts meetings by telecom to     
  encourage full participation across 
  the service areas. The program      
  conducts monthly Program Management 
  Reviews with the contractor &       
  monthly Internal Program Reviews    
  with FAA management team. Risks     
  discussions & mitigations are an    
  integral part of both reviews. The  
  team has a fully functional risk    
  management program that is user     
  friendly, active & effective in     
  meeting the ATCBI-6 cost, schedule  
  and technical goals before they     
  become serious, expensive problems  
  to the program. The identification  
  of any and all risks are openly     
  encouraged & considered from all    
  team members.                       

  **2. If there currently is no plan,  
  will a plan be developed?**         

  **   a. If \"yes,\" what is the      
  planned completion date?**          

  **   b. If \"no,\" what is the      
  strategy for managing the risks?**  

                                      

  **3. Briefly describe how           
  investment risks are reflected in   
  the life cycle cost estimate and    
  investment schedule:**              

  The ATCBI-6 program\'s approved JRC 
  investment baseline, is             
  risk-adjusted. The program          
  estimates the total risk-adjusted   
  F&E cost at \$282M (not including   
  FTEs) and O&M at \$230M (including  
  FTEs). The ATCBI-6 program\'s F&E   
  appropriation ends in FY09. The     
  ATCBI-6 program applies the         
  principles of EVM to the entire     
  investment. Upon agreement of       
  mitigation plans, the team adjusts  
  the schedules and cost estimates    
  appropriately. The ATCBI-6 team     
  meets on a monthly basis to         
  identify critical areas, analyze,   
  mitigate and track risks affecting  
  the cost, schedule and technical    
  aspects of the procurement in       
  accordance with the ATO-T, Program  
  Operations Risk Management Plan     
  dated 05/31/05. The team identifies 
  and incorporates in to the program  
  baseline, risk that requires        
  funding for specific mitigation     
  strategies. The current OMB         
  segments are based on the program   
  planning numbers, which included    
  management reserve \"risk           
  dollars\". The ATCBI-6 Program is   
  preparing to rebaseline the program 
  using the established JRC process.  
  The program will include cost and   
  schedule reserve. As part of this   
  process, a cost estimate using the  
  latest official FAA Work Breakdown  
  Structure (WBS) will be conducted   
  to identify the                     
  estimated-to-complete F&E and O&M   
  costs. The team will calculate a    
  point estimate for the remaining    
  costs based on historical data,     
  engineering assessments, level of   
  effort, and other standard FAA      
  estimating methodologies. This      
  estimate will be conducted using    
  the ACE-IT cost estimating model.   
  The team will identify risk ranges  
  for all cost drivers based on prior 
  experience and subject matter       
  expert opinions. These risk ranges  
  will be used to generate a          
  \"risk-adjusted\" high-confidence   
  cost estimate using Monte Carlo     
  analysis within the Crystal Ball    
  application. The delta between the  
  high-confidence and point estimates 
  will be the Program\'s cost         
  reserve. This reserve will be       
  allocated back to the individual    
  WBS elements and integrated within  
  the Program Plan. The team will map 
  all WBS elements into the           
  applicable milestones to perform    
  EVM analysis. In addition, reserve  
  will be included in the schedule to 
  mitigate schedule risks.            
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **II.C. Cost and Schedule           
  Performance**                       

                                      

  **1. Does the earned value          No
  management system meet the criteria 
  in ANSI/EIA Standard-748?**         

                                      

  **2. Answer the following questions 
  about current cumulative cost and   
  schedule performance. The numbers   
  reported below should reflect       
  current actual information. (Per    
  OMB requirements Cost/Schedule      
  Performance information should      
  include both Government and         
  Contractor Costs):**                

  **   a. What is the Planned Value   114535371\.000000
  (PV)?**                             

  **   b. What is the Earned Value    121079728\.000000
  (EV)?**                             

  **   c. What is the actual cost of  120862768\.000
  work performed (AC)?**              

  **   d. What costs are included in  Contractor and Government
  the reported Cost/Schedule          
  Performance information (Government 
  Only/Contractor Only/Both)?**       

  **   e. \"As of\" date:**           10/31/2006

  **3. What is the calculated         1.050000
  Schedule Performance Index (SPI=    
  EV/PV)?**                           

  **4. What is the schedule variance  6433034.000000
  (SV = EV-PV)?**                     

  **5. What is the calculated Cost    1.100000
  Performance Index (CPI = EV/AC)?**  

  **6. What is the cost variance      12016626.000000
  (CV=EV-AC)?**                       

  **7. Is the CV% or SV% greater than Yes
  +/- 10%? (CV%= CV/EV x 100; SV%=    
  SV/PV x 100)**                      

  **   a. If \"yes,\" was it the?**   SV

  **   b. If \"yes,\" explain the     
  variance:**                         

  The EVM data above uses the CIP     
  funding profile, not the approved   
  2002 JRC baseline, and therefore    
  reflects a positive cost and        
  schedule variance. When measured    
  against the approved JRC baseline,  
  the projected schedule variance is  
  -43 months (47.78%) and the cost    
  variance is projected to be less    
  than 10%. The Program Office        
  submitted a Baseline Management     
  Notification (BMN) for the schedule 
  variance from the JRC approved      
  schedule baseline. The JRC approved 
  the original ATCBI-6 baseline in    
  8/97. This baseline had the last    
  site commissioning in 12/04,        
  duration of 77 months from CA in    
  8/98. The program experienced       
  delays in contractor developmental  
  testing, production and system      
  deliveries, due to Congressional    
  and internal FAA funding reductions 
  of (\$22.6M in FY99 and \$31.4M in  
  FY00). As a result, the JRC         
  approved to extend the last site    
  ORD to 1/06, adding 13 months to    
  the program for a 90 month          
  duration. Since this JRC approval,  
  the following have occurred to slip 
  the last ORD further: 1) FAA        
  funding cut in FY03 of \$20M. The   
  original plan called for Raytheon   
  to install 4 systems per month, but 
  based on this budget cut and        
  longer-than-expected Remote         
  Monitoring Capabilities (RMC)       
  development, the program office     
  scaled back to 2 system installs    
  per month. This resulted in a 28    
  month slip in the schedule from the 
  latest JRC approved baseline,       
  causing the last site ORD to slip   
  to 5/08; 2) In FY04, the Program    
  office expected funding for the     
  three Beacon Only Site (BOS) new    
  establishments (Georgetown, BH;     
  Freeport, BH; and Yakutat, AK) on   
  the ATCBI-6 waterfall schedule but  
  funding was not appropriated until  
  FY06; 3) In November 2004, the FAA  
  signed a cost sharing agreement     
  with Eagle County, CO and Gallatin  
  Field, MT to establish two \"beacon 
  only\" facilities; 4) In the FY06   
  appropriation, Congress added two   
  additional \"beacon only\" sites    
  (Redmond, OR and Jackson Hole, WY); 
  and 5) In FY05, funding was         
  received from the HAATS program to  
  implement ATCBI-6 at Lufkin to meet 
  their congressional mandate. The    
  equipment delivery, installation    
  and checkout activities for these   
  five additional sites were inserted 
  into the ATCBI-6 waterfall schedule 
  to meet the commitments associated  
  with these agreements. These        
  program changes result in a last    
  ORD milestone of 8/09. The program  
  is in the process of rebaselining   
  the schedule to account for the     
  abovementioned changes; JRC         
  approval is expected by November    
  2006.                               

  **   c. If \"yes,\" what corrective 
  actions are being taken?**          

  The program office is preparing to  
  submit a paper JRC to rebaseline    
  the program in Nov 2006. The JRC    
  will review the 3 alternatives      
  identified in the alternatives      
  analysis section above, updated to  
  include the additional 8 systems.   
  Program office is in process of     
  implementing EVM in accordance with 
  the standard. An updated POA&M      
  reflecting implementation of EVM in 
  accordance with ANSI/EIA Standard   
  after JRC approval in FY07 will be  
  provided with the BY08 Exhibit 300  
  submission.                         

  **   d. What is most current        185335080\.000000
  \"Estimate at Completion\"?**       

  **8. Have any significant changes   No
  been made to the baseline during    
  the past fiscal year?**             

  **8. If \"yes,\" when was it        No
  approved by OMB?**                  

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