PART I: CAPITAL ASSET PLAN AND BUSINESS CASE (All Assets)

Agencies are encouraged to share this business case with staff involved
in preparing the budget exhibits. However, agencies should note that the
business case and all associated materials contain non-public
information and may contain procurement-sensitive information which must
be handled appropriately, in accordance with the government-wide
standards of conduct and, as applicable, Section 3.104 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. 3.104).

+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Agency**                   | De       |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | partment |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | of       |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | Energy   |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Bureau**                   | N/A      |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Location in the budget**   |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Account Title**            |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Account Identification     |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| Code**                       |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Program Activity**         | F        |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | inancial |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | Man      |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | agement  |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Name of Project**          | F        |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | inancial |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | Ma       |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | nagement |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | Line of  |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | Business |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | (FM      |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              | LOB)     |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Unique Project Identifier: |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| (IT only)(See section 53)**  |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Project Initiation Date**  |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Project Planned Completion |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| Date**                       |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **This Project is: Initial   |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| Concept \_\_X\_ Planning     |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| \_\_\_\_ Full Acquisition    |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| \_\_\_\_ Steady State        |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| \_\_\_\_**                   |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| **Mixed Life Cycle \_\_\_**  |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Project/useful segment is  |          | > **  |   | \ | *  | * |   |     |
| funded:**                    |          | Incre |   | _ | *F | * |   |     |
|                              |          | menta |   | \ | ul | \ |   |     |
|                              |          | lly** |   | _ | ly | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   | ** | X |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Was this project approved  |          | >     |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| by OMB for previous Year     |          | **Yes |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| Budget Cycle?**              |          | > \   |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          | _\_** |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | ­­X |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Did the                    |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| Executive/Investment Review  |          | \_    |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| Committee approve funding    |          | X\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| for this project this        |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| year?**                      |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Did the CFO review the     |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| cost goal?**                 |          | \_    |   |   | No | * |   |     |
|                              |          | X\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Did the Procurement        |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| Executive review the         |          | ­\_    |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| acquisition strategy?**      |          | X\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Is this investment         |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| included in your agency's    |          | \_    |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| annual performance plan or   |          | X\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| multiple agency annual       |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| performance plans?**         |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Does the project support   |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| homeland security goals and  |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| objectives, i.e., 1) improve |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| border and transportation    |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| security, 2) combat          |          |       |   |   |    | ­X |   |     |
| bio-terrorism, 3) enhance    |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
| first responder programs; 4) |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| improve information sharing  |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
| to decrease response times   |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
| for actions and improve the  |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| quality of decision          |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| making?**                    |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **Is this project            |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| information technology? (See |          | \_    |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| section 300.4 for            |          | X\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| definition)**                |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **For information technology |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| projects only:**             |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| a.  **Is this Project a      |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
|     Financial Management     |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
|     System? (see section**   |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| > **53.3 for a definition)** |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **If so, does this project |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > address a FFMIA compliance |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > area?**                    |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **If yes, which compliance |          | ####  |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| > area?**                    |          | ####  |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **b. Does this project     |          | **Yes |   |   | *  | * |   |     |
| > implement electronic       |          | \_\   |   |   | *\ | * |   |     |
| > transactions or record     |          | _\_** |   |   | No | \ |   |     |
| > keeping that is covered by |          |       |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > the Government Paperwork   |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| > Elimination Act (GPEA)?**  |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **If so, is it included in |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > your GPEA plan (and does   |          | \_\   |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > not yet provide an         |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > electronic option)?**      |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **Does the project already |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > provide an electronic      |          | \_\   |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > option?**                  |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **c. Was a privacy impact  |          | **Yes |   | # | ** | * |   |     |
| > assessment performed for   |          | \     |   | # | No | * |   |     |
| > this project?**            |          | _\_** |   | # | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   | # |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   | # |    | X |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   | # |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   | # |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **d. Was this project      |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > reviewed as part of the FY |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > 2002 Government            |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > Information Security       |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| > Reform Act review          |          |       |   |   |    | X |   |     |
| > process?**                 |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **d.1 If yes, were any     |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > weaknesses found?**        |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
|                              |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **d.2. Have the weaknesses |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > been incorporated into the |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > agency's corrective action |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > plans?**                   |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **e. Has this project been |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > identified as a national   |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > critical operation or      |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > asset by a Project Matrix  |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| > review or other agency     |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
| > determination?**           |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **e.1 If no, is this an    |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > agency mission critical or |          | \_    |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > essential service, system, |          | \_**  |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > operation, or asset (such  |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| > as those documented in the |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
| > agency\'s COOP Plan),      |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
| > other than those           |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
| > identified above as        |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
| > national critical          |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
| > infrastructures?**         |          |       |   |   |    |   |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **f. Was this investment     |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| included in a Performance    |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| Assessment Rating Tool       |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| (PART) Review?**             |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | X |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| **f.1. Does this investment  |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| address a weakness found     |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| during the PART Review?**    |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | X |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **g. Will you use a        |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > share-in-savings contract  |          | \_    |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > to support this            |          | X\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > investment?**              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **h. Is this investment    |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > for construction or        |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > retrofit of a federal      |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > building or facility?**    |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | X |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **h.1. If yes, are         |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > sustainable design         |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > practices included in the  |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
| > requirement?**             |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+
| > **h.2. If yes, is an ESPC  |          | **Yes |   |   | ** | * |   |     |
| > being used to fund the     |          | \     |   |   | No | * |   |     |
| > requirement?**             |          | _\_** |   |   | ** | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | \ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | _ |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
|                              |          |       |   |   |    | * |   |     |
+------------------------------+----------+-------+---+---+----+---+---+-----+

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 22%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="20"><p>SUMMARY OF SPENDING FOR PROJECT STAGES<br />
(In Millions, figures are non-discounted) (Estimates for BY+1 and beyond
are for planning purposes only<br />
and do not represent budget decisions)</p>
<p>These estimates are a Rough Order of Magnitude analysis of the
projected costs and assumed benefits of the FM LOB. Further data and
information from agencies will be used to confirm the assumptions and
refine the estimates.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">PY-1 and Earlier</td>
<td colspan="2">PY<br />
2004</td>
<td colspan="2">CY<br />
2005</td>
<td colspan="2">BY<br />
2006</td>
<td colspan="2">BY+1<br />
2007</td>
<td colspan="2">BY+2<br />
2008</td>
<td colspan="2">BY+3<br />
2009</td>
<td colspan="2">BY+4&amp;<br />
Beyond</td>
<td colspan="2">Total</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Planning:</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">$2</td>
<td colspan="2">$19</td>
<td colspan="2">$38</td>
<td colspan="2">$6</td>
<td colspan="2">$6</td>
<td colspan="2">$6</td>
<td colspan="2">$77</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Acquisition:</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">$0</td>
<td colspan="2">$295</td>
<td colspan="2">$276</td>
<td colspan="2">$1,061</td>
<td colspan="2">$823</td>
<td colspan="2">$2,745</td>
<td colspan="2">$5,200</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total, sum of stages:</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">$2</td>
<td colspan="2">$314</td>
<td colspan="2">$314</td>
<td colspan="2">$1,067</td>
<td colspan="2">$829</td>
<td colspan="2">$2,751</td>
<td colspan="2">$5,260</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Maintenance:</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">$0</td>
<td colspan="2">$0</td>
<td colspan="2">$1</td>
<td colspan="2">$34</td>
<td colspan="2">$220</td>
<td colspan="2">$2,515</td>
<td colspan="2">$2,770</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total, All Stages:</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">$2</td>
<td colspan="2">$314</td>
<td colspan="2">$315</td>
<td colspan="2">$1,101</td>
<td colspan="2">$ 1,049</td>
<td colspan="2">$5,266</td>
<td colspan="2">$8,047</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

The FM LOB initiative will involve each Federal agency, department, and
bureau.

Agencies are encouraged to share this business case with staff involved
in preparing the budget exhibits. However, agencies should note that the
business case and all associated materials contain non-public
information and may contain procurement-sensitive information which must
be handled appropriately, in accordance with the government-wide
standards of conduct and, as applicable, Section 3.104 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. 3.104).

## I. A. Project Description

1.  **Provide a brief description of this project and its status through
    your capital planning and investment control (CPIC) or capital
    programming \"control\" review for the current cycle.**

> The vision of the Financial Management Line of Business (FM LOB) is to
> establish and operate a Government-wide financial management solution
> that is efficient and improves business performance while ensuring
> integrity in accountability, financial controls and mission
> effectiveness.
>
> The FM LOB is a multi-agency, collaborative effort that has several
> goals:

-   Achieve or enhance process improvements and cost savings in the
    acquisition, development, implementation, and operation of financial
    management systems through shared services, joint procurements,
    consolidation, and other means;

-   Provide for standardization of business processes and data
    definitions;

-   Promote seamless data exchange between and among federal agencies;
    and

-   Strengthen internal controls through interoperability of core
    financial and subsidiary systems.

> **Government-wide Financial Management Solution**
>
> This proposed investment represents a major step in developing a
> Federal Government-wide approach to resource management rather than
> the current department/agency-centered model. The program has
> developed a vision to equip managers with the critical business
> information and management environment necessary to improve decisions
> and service delivery (both operationally and strategically). As such,
> FM LOB will eliminate "stovepipes" between components as well as
> within components and identify opportunities to establish common
> business practices and architecture. Currently, JFMIP-identified core
> financial functions (such as accounts payable, accounts receivable,
> general ledger activities, funds management, cost management, and
> reporting) present an opportunity to consolidate systems and financial
> processes across agencies. Streamlining and standardization will
> enable FM LOB components to automate internal processes to reduce
> costs.
>
> One of the goals of the common solution is to standardize business
> processes and data definitions across the government. This
> standardization should lead to consistent recording of inter-agency
> accounting events and aid in the reconciliation of inter-agency
> transactions. The creation of standard interfaces with other
> e-government and LOB initiatives should also improve the propriety of
> interagency transactions. Further, consolidation of each agency's
> financial systems into centralized Centers of Excellence (COEs) would
> decrease system redundancy while driving cost savings through FTE
> re-deployment, DME and O&M cost reductions, and process
> standardization. A diagram of this concept of operations follows.
>
> ![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.993055555555555in"
> height="4.163194444444445in"}
>
> The FM LOB recommends pursuing a market-driven approach based on a
> shared services model that will maximize economies of scale, scope,
> and skill, while benefiting from the use of both government and
> industry best practices and technologies. The investment utilizes COEs
> to provide information technology (IT) hosting, while leveraging
> Government-wide standardized business processes. Market demand may
> suggest that COEs offer additional value-added services to agencies,
> such as core financial operations support, and/or hosting and
> processing for subsidiary systems such as procurement, fixed asset
> management, real property, fleet management, and investment
> management. Note, however, that the benefits generated from these
> value-added services are not factored into the cost benefit analysis.
>
> COEs will consist of some combination of federal agencies and/or
> private sector contractors supporting a JFMIP-compliant financial
> management solution. The COE will be engaged in tasks such as project
> management, system migration, system implementation, change
> management, training, IV&V, C&A testing, help desk, and other
> functions.

The FM LOB has developed a Concept of Operations document that details
the operating model. At a minimum, the COEs will meet these criteria:

-   Comply with all federal financial management standards, laws, and
    requirements including the Federal Financial Management Improvement
    Act (FFMIA), Chief Financial Officers Act, FISMA, JFMIP, FEA, FFMIA
    and privacy standards.

-   Contain a C&A security system -- Security program will be developed
    and integrated in the common solution to ensure that all systems are
    C&A certified.

-   Operate JFMIP approved financial management software.

-   Support agency reporting activities for pre-audit planning, the
    audit, and post-audit tracking.

-   Align practices with E-Gov initiatives (e.g., Common vendor file
    usage, intra-governmental transaction processing using DUNS numbers,
    etc.).

-   Develop and utilize common data exchange interfaces -- one set of
    interface development and support for all agencies (e.g., one common
    interface to the four E-Gov payroll systems providers).

-   Provide hardware and other IT infrastructure required for
    scalability, portability and interoperability.

-   Utilize application management services to maintain and upgrade
    hardware and software for agencies serviced by the COEs.

-   Use "best practice" approaches and methodologies for standardized
    implementation tasks, (e.g., change management, project management,
    training, data conversion and interface development).

-   Offer data warehousing services for financial management
    information.

-   Adhere to the requirements outlined in ISO 15489 by supporting an
    electronic records management system (ERMS) that has been certified
    under DoD Std. 5015.2.

-   Follow the Financial Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Requirements.

-   Continuity of Operations (COOP) will occur through application
    maintenance including interfaces and any other software hosting that
    may be requested.

-   Significant commitment to Federal agency cross-servicing.

> To successfully implement the Government-wide Financial Management
> Solution and realize its benefits, agencies will need to choose one of
> two financial management alternatives, outline below, in support of
> the FM LOB. (There is no presumption that all of the detailed planning
> has already occurred; specific operational plans have yet to be
> developed and will require input and coordination with agencies as
> this initiative moves forward.)
>
> 1\. Agencies that currently have the technology infrastructure,
> capacity, and expertise may bid to become a COE through a structured
> selection process. These agencies will be provided an opportunity to
> demonstrate capabilities and project the cost for establishing and
> operating a COE. Agencies not currently having hosting capability, but
> proposing to become a COE, will be evaluated on the benefits and costs
> for establishing the necessary technology infrastructure, capacity,
> and expertise and to operate as a COE. The Alternatives section of
> this document provides examples of such costs.
>
> 2\. Alternatively, those agencies that do not become COEs will need to
> develop a plan to migrate to a financial system offered by a COE
> within an agency defined time frame (based on where an agency system
> is in its life cycle), and retire legacy systems as appropriate.
> Agencies should assume that COEs will be functional starting in FY
> 2007. However, some service providers are already in operation and may
> meet the criteria of a COE. Agencies should plan their migrations for
> an appropriate point in their system life cycles. The Alternatives
> section of this document provides examples of migration costs.
>
> The FM LOB will establish a governance structure that will implement
> the FM LOB strategy. As part of the governance structure, a Project
> Management Office (PMO) will develop a project charter and
> implementation plan. Future project management functions will include
> the drafting of COE / Agency service level agreement templates and
> criteria for evaluating COEs. The PMO will complete its functions by
> the end of FY 2007.
>
> The agencies' migration to COEs would occur in a phased approach.
> Phasing is assumed to follow the currently planned DME-funded
> financial modernization initiatives, with those agencies currently
> planning significant financial system initiatives being among the
> first to migrate. Agencies that are planning to purchase a new
> financial management system or planning a significant upgrade to an
> existing system in FY 2005 and beyond would instead be directed to the
> Government-wide financial management solution. For financial model
> cost assumptions, up to two of these agencies will migrate in FY 2007,
> with six agencies migrating each year thereafter. Agencies that are
> currently implementing JFMIP-certified financial management systems
> will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
>
> Development of government-wide standardization of core business
> processes will occur prior to migration. Implementation of the
> standardized processes will proceed concurrently with migration to
> COEs. The standardization of government-wide business processes will
> be ongoing, and will not necessarily be a precedent for agency
> migration. The FM LOB is recommending a collaborative,
> cross-government approach to developing standard business processes.
> Target business processes will be developed as a model for
> standardization and integrated across government. Certain business
> processes, such as payables and receivables, could lend themselves to
> standardization across government agencies due to their inherent
> uniformity. These processes could comprise the initial standardization
> template. The collaborative cross-government approach to standards
> will include:

-   Data definitions (Master data)

-   Interfaces

-   Hardware

-   Software

2.  **What assumptions are made about this project and why?**

> The key assumption for the FM LOB is that federal agencies will adopt
> the Government-wide financial management solution. Future funding will
> be unavailable for agencies to modernize their financial management
> systems on a stand-alone, "stovepipe" basis. This will ensure that all
> federal agencies follow this path and push the entire Federal
> Government toward the common financial management architecture and
> standardized financial management data definitions and processes.
> Additional assumptions include, but are not limited to the following:

-   Standardization of Data definitions and Processes is imperative and
    will receive adequate attention. There are four areas of
    standardization that must be addressed immediately:

    -   Transaction processing standards (JFMIP core financial system
        requirements)

    -   Data exchange standards (interfaces/integration processes)

    -   Data reporting standards (common reporting data -- financial
        statements)

    -   Standard business processes (JFMIP core financial system
        requirements)

-   The solution will comply with all federal financial management
    standards, laws, and requirements including the Chief Financial
    Officers Act, FISMA, JFMIP, FEA, FFMIA and privacy standards.

-   The solution will contain a C&A security system -- Security program
    will be developed and integrated in the common solution to ensure
    that all systems are C&A certified.

-   Federal agencies will adopt standardized aspects of the common
    solution unless there is a mission-specific reason not to do so.

-   The solution will be aligned with the other lines of business (i.e.,
    Grants Management and Human Resources Management).

-   The solution will meet or exceed the current level of service.

Additionally, Exhibit 53 data, submitted in support of the FY2005
budget, on agency specific financial management initiatives were the
foundation for the assumptions regarding the relative levels of core and
feeder financial systems. Exhibit 53 data also formed the basis for
certain cost reductions. Relevant Exhibit 300 business cases were
analyzed to establish system cost assumptions. Request for Information
(RFI) responses, vendor quotes, and subject matter experts in the
implementation of JFMIP-compliant financial systems were all leveraged
to drive the cost benefit analysis.

3.  **Provide any other supporting information derived from research,
    interviews, and other documentation.**

> In order to gain further insight into the lines of business, the FM
> LOB task force in collaboration with the Office of Management and
> Budget (OMB) prepared an RFI. Industry and government service
> providers responded to the RFI with best practice information that was
> reviewed by the FM LOB in order to develop the common solution.
>
> There were 34 responses to the FM LOB section of the RFI. While every
> response varied in its approach, the end-state was always similar.
> This end-state represented a model of shared services and cross
> servicing that would be the result of any major initiative that
> addresses the FM LOB objectives.

## I.B. Justification (All Assets)

1.  **How does this investment support your agency\'s mission and
    strategic goals and objectives?**

> The goals and objectives of the FM LOB are aligned with Federal
> Government initiatives including:

-   President's Management Agenda

-   Federal Enterprise Architecture

-   E-Government Act of 2002

-   Office of the President E-Government Initiatives

-   Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990

-   Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

-   Government Management Reform Act of 1994

-   Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982

-   Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996

-   Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996

-   Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990

-   Prompt Payment Act of 1982, amended in 1988

-   Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996

-   Inspector General Act of 1978

-   Government Information Security Reform Act of 2000

-   JFMIP

> The proposed investment also addresses specific FM LOB goals:

-   **Goal** - Achieve or enhance process improvements and cost savings
    in the acquisition, development, implementation, and operation of
    financial management systems through shared services, joint
    procurements, and consolidation. The common solution:

    -   Serves as the centerpiece to permit Federal agencies to improve
        financial management in the core areas. Improving financial
        management in the core areas and providing standardized core
        elements enables the FM LOB to be both collaborative and
        cross-government enabled.

    -   Addresses specific core elements in financial management
        systems, consistent with the JFMIP including General Ledger
        Management, Funds Management, Payment Management, Receivables
        Management, Cost Management, and Reporting.

    -   Facilitates public/private partnerships to leverage the
        efficiencies of commercial IT service providers and reduce
        deployment costs by centrally maintaining solution assets and
        reusing Federal and commercial subject matter expertise, thus
        creating economies of skill.

    -   Reduces costs in IT infrastructure, application acquisition,
        interface development, and application management.

    -   Leverages economies of scale in hardware, software, and business
        process management.

    -   Simplifies management of licensing fees.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Goal** - Provide for standardization of business processes and
    data definitions. The common solution:

    -   Standardizes processes and data definitions incrementally and
        establishes additional enabling standards.

    -   Drives Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) vendors, through
        competition to reach the federal market, to modify software to
        support the standard processes, data requirements and common
        interoperability standards within and across LOBs, thereby
        improving the integrity of financial data at both the individual
        agency and government-wide levels.

    -   Standardizes financial management data which will lead to
        improved program performance information, which in turn could
        yield better financial management and decision-making

-   **Goal** - Promote seamless data exchange between and among Federal
    agencies. The common solution:

    -   Eliminates the need to retrain employees when they change jobs
        as financial management personnel across the government begin to
        speak the same language.

    -   Supports financial information structures to create an audit
        trail that links financial reporting and information with
        supporting financial transactions, events, standards, and laws.

    -   Reuses proven "best practices" for transforming financial
        management business processes.

    -   Standardizes interfaces to other systems.

-   **Goal** - Strengthen internal controls through integration of core
    financial and subsidiary systems. The common solution:

    -   Establishes internal control "best practices" by organizing
        government business function expertise in COEs where subject
        matter experts share lessons learned and establish best practice
        processes.

    -   Facilitates the standardized exchange of data between agencies.

In addition, the proposed investment meets FM LOB Objectives:

-   Improves the quality of financial information, thus supporting
    better decision-making for improved program management at the
    Government-wide level.

-   Enhances the government's ability to meet its fiduciary
    responsibilities and ensures compliance with legislative and
    regulatory mandates as they pertain to financial management.

-   Improves the integrity of financial management at both the
    individual agency and Government-wide levels and ensures compliance
    with financial management laws and regulations such as the Federal
    Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA).

2.  **How does it support the strategic goals from the President\'s
    Management Agenda?**

> The President's Management Agenda (PMA) addresses the need for
> citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based federal
> government initiatives The proposed market-based initiative will
> provide an opportunity for agencies to collectively identify and adopt
> market best practices to standardize and eliminate redundant
> "stovepipe" systems. This benefits citizens by redirecting savings
> toward mission critical programs.

-   ***"Citizen-centered, not bureaucracy-centered."*** The proposed
    investment, leveraging as it does the benefits of competition,
    improvements in technology, and the economies of scale and skill,
    will achieve cost savings and cost avoidances that will allow
    Federal agencies to re-deploy resources away from in-house
    administration to those efforts and activities with greater
    importance to citizens.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *"Results-oriented."* The proposed investment enhances the
    timeliness, reliability, and accuracy of financial information, and
    achieves a measure of standardization and consistency in financial
    processes and terminology that will permit managers to use financial
    information more effectively and efficiently in achieving program
    results.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *"Market-based."* The proposed investment is the product of
    competition among public and private providers. The shared-services
    approach recommended takes continuing advantage of competition among
    providers under this solution to the degree Federal agencies can
    shop from among the providers under the shared-services approach for
    the best services to suit their needs.

The proposed investment *directly* addresses three elements of the
President's Management Agenda:

[Initiative 3 \-- Improved Financial Performance]{.underline}

*Timeliness* -- The proposed investment will:

-   Incorporate re-engineered financial management processes.

-   Facilitate the timely availability of integrated financial and
    performance information.

-   Make use of technology and process improvements to ensure timely
    completion of financial statements and period-end reporting

-   Enable users to comply with central agency (e.g., OMB and Treasury)
    requirements for timeliness.

*Reliability* -- The proposed investment will:

-   Serve as the foundation for preparation of statements of financial
    results that will achieve and sustain clean audit opinions at the
    component level, agency level, and the Government-wide level.

-   Make available financial and performance information that provides
    managers more accurate and reliable measures of cost and
    performance.

> **[Initiative 4 \-- Electronic government]{.underline}**
>
> **\
> **The proposed investment uses web-based, intranet and/or internet
> applications combined with standardized processes to implement the
> common solution. The proposed investment aligns with initiatives under
> the E-Government umbrella (Ex. E-Payroll, E-Travel, etc). This is
> achieved primarily through improved standardization of financial
> information and processes, and through improvements in the reliability
> and accuracy of financial information upon which E-Government
> initiatives depend.

**[Initiative 5 \-- Budget and performance integration]{.underline}**

The proposed investment aims specifically at integrating financial and
performance information, a result that will contribute to this
initiative. The ability to integrate this information at the appropriate
level for managerial control will contribute to more efficient resource
utilization, and improved accountability. Standardized integrated
budget/performance and accounting information systems at the program
level will:

-   Allow agencies to accommodate comparative financial reporting on
    specific financial performance measurements.

-   Facilitate the integration of financial information with performance
    information.

-   Ensure that performance and resource level information provides
    managers with feedback for future planning and performance/budgeting
    improvements.

> **The proposed investment *indirectly* supports two other initiatives
> in the President's Management Agenda.**
>
> **[PMA Initiative 1 \-- Strategic management of human
> capital]{.underline}**
>
> Achievement of an outcome that maximizes the utilization of human
> resource assets needed to process financial transactions.
>
> Economies of scale through government-wide standardization of business
> processes and IT hosting will allow for a reduction in the number of
> personnel, relative to performance in the current disaggregated
> financial management systems environment. Economies of skill stemming
> from common approaches, common language, and common requirements (to
> the extent made possible by the proposed investment) will permit the
> redeployment of human resources from financial management support
> functions into other critical functions. Employment of enhanced
> technologies and more efficient business processes, reflected in the
> solution, will allow for a shift in emphasis from low-value-added
> activities such as transaction processing and error correction, to
> high-value-added activities such as management analysis and
> decision-making support.\
> \
> **[PMA Initiative 2 \-- Competitive sourcing]{.underline}**
>
> The proposed investment addresses this initiative on two levels.
> First, there is the matter of costs to perform work. The solution will
> improve the quality of financial information with respect to in-house
> performance and contract performance of work. More informed decisions
> could thus be made with regard to the most effective means to have
> services provided. Second, the proposed investment, providing as it
> does for a "shared-services" means of operation, offers an opportunity
> to those who would be providers under this solution opportunities for
> imaginative and creative means to deliver services effectively and
> efficiently. The provider market will drive the identification of best
> applications available in implementing the solution.

3.  **Are there any alternative sources in the public or private sectors
    that could perform this function?**

> Yes, the FM LOB proposed investment includes and encourages the use of
> private sector solutions and services. The FM LOB will also use
> private and public industry to provide the integration and interfaces.
> In addition, most of these existing services are commercially or
> publicly available, and are not unique to government. The proposed
> investment takes advantage of public-private partnerships to ensure
> that the most effective/efficient means to achieve results is
> obtained. The shared-services model allows for
> participation/competition among public and private providers and
> integrators of financial management services. The RFI responses
> referenced specific examples of this model in both private industry
> and the Federal government.

4.  **If so, explain why your agency did not select one of these
    alternatives.**

> We have selected all known sources as described above. This initiative
> will enable agencies to make a clear choice for their financial
> management solutions within the service options available from the
> COEs.

5.  **Who are the customers for this project?**

> The customer population includes, but is not necessarily restricted to
> the following:

-   Chief Financial Officers (Departmental and those within departments)

-   Chief Information Officers

-   Chief Acquisition Officers

-   Financial Management Personnel

-   Procurement Officers

-   Resource Managers

-   Program Managers

-   Administrative Officers

-   Vendors

6.  **Who are the stakeholders of this project?**

Stakeholders in the recommended solution include, but are not
necessarily restricted to the following:

-   E-Government program/project managers

-   Chief Financial Officers

-   Chief Information Officers

-   CFO Council

-   CIO Council

-   Small Agency Council

-   JFMIP

-   FASAB

-   AIC Committee

-   Citizens

-   Congress

-   Federal Real Property Council

-   Citizens

-   Treasury FMS

-   Chief Human Capital Council

-   BOAC

-   OIG

-   AICPA

-   AGA

-   Acquisition Committee for e-Gov (ACE)

-   Unions

7.  **If this is a multi-agency initiative, identify the agencies and
    organizations affected by this initiative.**

> This is a multi-agency initiative and every Federal department and
> agency is or will be affected by this initiative.

7.a. If this is a multi-agency initiative, discuss the partnering
strategies you are implementing with the participating agencies and
organizations.

> OMB serves as the executive sponsor of the FM LOB. A partnership of
> nine agencies with additional agencies serving as ex officio
> participated in the initiative. The Department of Labor and the
> Department of Energy are the managing partners of the FM LOB. Other
> partner agencies currently include HUD, HHS, EPA, USDA, DHS, DOI, and
> DOJ, and Ex officio members include NASA, NSF, DoD, Treasury, and GSA.
> Ex officio agencies and other agencies not presently participating in
> the FM LOB initiative will be encouraged to increase their support by
> making substantive contributions (FTEs and/or financial resources)
> over time.

8.  **How will this investment reduce costs or improve efficiencies?**

> Initial benefits will be realized through standardization and
> consolidation of financial management systems and unification under
> the FM LOB common solution. In addition the proposed investment will:

-   Improve use of Federal government buying power for leverage in
    negotiations with suppliers

-   Provide reliable and accurate financial information in a common
    format across the government

-   Provide for efficient use of IT investments across the government

-   Reduce future agency Development, Modernization, and Enhancement
    (DME) expenditures and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) expenditures
    for financial systems

-   Retire agency stovepipe core financial systems

-   Re-deploy current agency FTEs focusing on core financial tasks into
    higher-level financial analysis or other agency mission-critical
    functions

-   Provide optional enhanced financial management functionality, in a
    cost effective environment that leverages best practices, for
    critical tasks such as investment management, procurement, fleet
    operations and maintenance, budgeting, and real estate management

-   Allow improved agency program decision-making, based on improved
    financial reporting

9.  **List all other assets that interface with this asset FSA assets:**

Systems that are defined as non-core financial systems or those that
provide data to, or from core financial systems would be interfaced with
the common solution.

**Have these assets been reengineered as part of this project? Yes\_\_\_
No_X\_**

Not at this time, although each agency should take this opportunity to
re-engineer non-core systems. COEs may provide financial management
services in addition to the JFMIP-identified core financial services.
Examples of such services include investment management, fixed asset
management, fleet maintenance, real property management and maintenance,
and other financial functions.

## I.C. Performance Goals and Measures (All Assets)

In order to successfully address this area of the business case,
performance goals must be provided for the agency and linked to the
annual performance plan.  The investment must discuss the agency 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 that 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%, increase
citizen participation by 300% a year to achieve an overall citizen
participation rate of 75% by FY 2XXX, etc.). The goals must be clearly
measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs.
They do not include completion date of the module 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 existing investments that were initiated prior to FY 2005.
The table can be extended to include measures for years beyond FY
2004.**

Not Applicable, since the initiative was not initiated prior to FY 2005.

All new IT investments that are development, modernization or
enhancement (DME) for 2005 and beyond must use Table 2 and are required
to use the FEA Performance Reference Model. PRM Version 1.0, available
at www.feapmo.gov, includes detailed guidance about how to incorporate
PRM Indicators into the performance goals and measures table below.
Please use the Table 2 and the PRM to identify the performance
information that pertains to the major IT Investment. Ensure there is a
complete tie-in to the strategic goals and objectives described in
I.B.1.

+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| **Fi | *      | **M   | **Measurement  | ** | **Planned     | **Ac |
| scal | *Measu | easur | Indicator**    | Ba | Improvements  | tual |
| Ye   | rement | ement |                | se | to the        | R    |
| ar** | Area** | Categ |                | li | Baseline**    | esul |
|      |        | ory** |                | ne |               | ts** |
|      |        |       |                | ** |               |      |
+======+========+=======+================+====+===============+======+
| 2004 | Res    | I     | Submission of  |    |               | C    |
|      | ources | nform | an acceptable  |    |               | ompl |
|      | (Techn | ation | Enterprise     |    |               | eted |
|      | ology) | &     | Architecture   |    |               | July |
|      |        | Data  | by July 30,    |    |               | 30,  |
|      |        |       | 2004.          |    |               | 2004 |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2004 | Res    | Fina  | Submission of  |    | Business case |      |
|      | ources | ncial | acceptable     |    | is approved   |      |
|      | (Techn | (T    | FY06 business  |    | and FM LOB    |      |
|      | ology) | echno | case in        |    | becomes an    |      |
|      |        | logy) | September,     |    | E-Government  |      |
|      |        |       | 2004           |    | initiative    |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2005 | Res    | Effic | Manage project |    | Compare       |      |
|      | ources | iency | risk achieve   |    | achievement   |      |
|      | (Techn |       | at least 90    |    | against       |      |
|      | ology) |       | percent of the |    | baseline.     |      |
|      |        |       | cost schedule  |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | and            |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | performance    |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | goals          |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | established in |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | the Planning   |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | Phase          |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2005 | Res    | Effic | Selection of   |    |               |      |
|      | ources | iency | COEs           |    |               |      |
|      | (Techn |       |                |    |               |      |
|      | ology) |       |                |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2005 | Res    | Effic | Percent        |    | A percent     |      |
|      | ources | iency | processes and  |    | (TBD) of      |      |
|      | (Techn |       | data           |    | business      |      |
|      | ology) |       | definitions    |    | processes and |      |
|      |        |       | standardized.  |    | data          |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | definitions   |      |
|      |        |       | Provide for    |    | ready for     |      |
|      |        |       | s              |    | agencies to   |      |
|      |        |       | tandardization |    | implement.    |      |
|      |        |       | of business    |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | processes and  |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | data           |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | definitions    |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | for core       |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | financials.    |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2006 | Res    | Effic | Manage project |    | Compare       |      |
|      | ources | iency | risk achieve   |    | achievement   |      |
|      | (Techn |       | at least 90    |    | against       |      |
|      | ology) |       | percent of the |    | baseline.     |      |
|      |        |       | cost schedule  |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | and            |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | performance    |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | goals          |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | established in |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | the Planning   |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | Phase          |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2006 | Res    | Effic | Percent        |    | A percent     |      |
|      | ources | iency | processes and  |    | (TBD) of      |      |
|      | (Techn |       | data           |    | business      |      |
|      | ology) |       | definitions    |    | processes and |      |
|      |        |       | standardized   |    | data          |      |
|      |        |       | Provide for    |    | definitions   |      |
|      |        |       | s              |    | ready for     |      |
|      |        |       | tandardization |    | agencies to   |      |
|      |        |       | of business    |    | implement.    |      |
|      |        |       | processes and  |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | data           |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | definitions    |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | for core       |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | financials.    |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2006 | Pro    | Fina  | COEs selected  |    | Number of     |      |
|      | cesses | ncial | and evaluation |    | COEs ready to |      |
|      | and    | (Proc | completed to   |    | begin agency  |      |
|      | Acti   | esses | begin          |    | migrations.   |      |
|      | vities | and   | migrations in  |    |               |      |
|      |        | A     | FY2007         |    |               |      |
|      |        | ctivi |                |    |               |      |
|      |        | ties) |                |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2007 | Pro    | Pr    | Number of      |    | Reduction in  |      |
|      | cesses | oduct | Redundant or   |    | Legacy        |      |
|      | and    | ivity | Legacy Systems |    | Systems per   |      |
|      | Acti   | and   | Retired        |    | Agency        |      |
|      | vities | Effic |                |    | \--Achieve or |      |
|      |        | iency |                |    | enhance       |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | process       |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | improvement   |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | and cost      |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | savings       |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2007 | Pro    | Fina  | Agencies       |    | Number of     |      |
|      | cesses | ncial | migrating to   |    | migrations in |      |
|      | and    | (Proc | COEs           |    | FY 2007.      |      |
|      | Acti   | esses |                |    |               |      |
|      | vities | and   |                |    |               |      |
|      |        | A     |                |    |               |      |
|      |        | ctivi |                |    |               |      |
|      |        | ties) |                |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2008 | Cu     | Se    | Major Process  |    | Reduction of  |      |
|      | stomer | rvice | Cycle Time     |    | Cycle Time    |      |
|      | R      | Be    | Index[^1]      |    | for Key       |      |
|      | esults | nefit |                |    | financial     |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | management    |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Processes     |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2008 | Cu     | Se    | Percentage of  |    | Improvement   |      |
|      | stomer | rvice | Executives and |    | or Steady     |      |
|      | R      | Be    | Managers       |    | Level of      |      |
|      | esults | nefit | Reporting That |    | Customer      |      |
|      |        |       | the Common     |    | Satisfaction  |      |
|      |        |       | Solution Meets |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | or Exceeds     |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | Requirements   |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | for Financial  |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | Information    |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | and Processing |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2008 | Pro    | Pr    | Annual IT      |    | Reduction of  |      |
|      | cesses | oduct | Maintenance    |    | IT Costs for  |      |
|      | and    | ivity | costs for      |    | Systems       |      |
|      | Acti   | &     | Business       |    | Supporting    |      |
|      | vities | Effic | Functions      |    | financial     |      |
|      |        | iency | Covered by FM  |    | management    |      |
|      |        |       | LOB Common     |    |               |      |
|      |        |       | Solution       |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2008 | Res    | Fina  | Aggregate Cost |    | Reduction In  |      |
|      | ources | ncial | Avoidance Due  |    | Development,  |      |
|      | (Techn | (T    | to Reduction   |    | M             |      |
|      | ology) | echno | of IT Systems  |    | odernization, |      |
|      |        | logy) | Duplication    |    | Enhancement,  |      |
|      |        |       | (by Agency)    |    | And Steady    |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | State Costs   |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Due Through   |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Sharing of    |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Costs for     |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Common        |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Solution      |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Functions     |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2008 | Res    | Fina  | Aggregate      |    | Reduction in  |      |
|      | ources | ncial | Costs          |    | Operations    |      |
|      | (Techn | (T    | Reduction      |    | and           |      |
|      | ology) | echno | Attributable   |    | Maintenance   |      |
|      |        | logy) | to Economies   |    | Costs of      |      |
|      |        |       | of Scale       |    | Financial     |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Management    |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Systems       |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | through       |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Improved      |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Purchasing    |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Power and     |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Volume        |      |
|      |        |       |                |    | Discounts     |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+
| 2008 | M      | Manag | Total          |    | Reduction of  |      |
|      | ission | ement | Financial      |    | total cost of |      |
|      | and    | of    | Management     |    | FM to         |      |
|      | Bu     | Gover | Systems Cost   |    | Agencies      |      |
|      | siness | nment |                |    |               |      |
|      | R      | Reso  |                |    |               |      |
|      | esults | urces |                |    |               |      |
+------+--------+-------+----------------+----+---------------+------+

**I.D. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT \[ALL ASSETS\]**

+-----------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1.  **Is there a project (investment) manager       | * |   | # | * | \ |
|     assigned to the project? If so, what is his/her | * |   | # | * | _ |
|     name?**                                         | Y |   | # | N | \ |
|                                                     | e |   | # | o | _ |
| This project is currently in the conceptual phase.  | s |   | # | * |   |
| The Department of Labor and Department of Energy    | * |   | # | * |   |
| are the FMLOB Managing Partners with the Office of  | * |   | # |   |   |
| Management and Budget serving as the Executive      |   |   | # |   |   |
| Sponsor. Long term management strategies are under  |   |   |   |   |   |
| development for future activities.                  |   |   | \ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | _ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | X |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | \ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | _ |   |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1.A. Identify the members, roles, qualifications    |   |   |   |   |   |
| and contact information of the in-house and         |   |   |   |   |   |
| contract project (investment) managers for this     |   |   |   |   |   |
| project (investment).                               |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| The FM LOB will establish a governance structure    |   |   |   |   |   |
| that will implement the FM LOB strategy. As part of |   |   |   |   |   |
| the governance structure, a Project Management      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Office (PMO) will develop a project charter and     |   |   |   |   |   |
| implementation plan. Future project management      |   |   |   |   |   |
| functions will include the drafting of COE/Agency   |   |   |   |   |   |
| service level agreement templates and criteria for  |   |   |   |   |   |
| evaluating COEs. The PMO will complete its          |   |   |   |   |   |
| functions by the end of FY2007.                     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| This initiative will be led by a project manager    |   |   |   |   |   |
| with the following qualifications:                  |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Strong track record of realigning and           |   |   |   |   |   |
|     streamlining business processes with an         |   |   |   |   |   |
|     emphasis on financial processes for the Federal |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Government                                      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Proven Track record for managing and directing  |   |   |   |   |   |
|     large scale, cross agency eGovernment           |   |   |   |   |   |
|     initiatives                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Proven Track record for managing and directing  |   |   |   |   |   |
|     integrated cross agency teams                   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Proven Project/Program Management experience    |   |   |   |   |   |
|     with E-Government initiatives including but not |   |   |   |   |   |
|     limited to E-Payroll, IAE                       |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| Vast knowledge of the overall Lines of Business     |   |   |   |   |   |
| Initiatives (including HR and Grants), and / or     |   |   |   |   |   |
| cross-industry or cross-organizational experience   |   |   |   |   |   |
| in implementing financial management systems        |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| Others members may include Deputy Project Managers, |   |   |   |   |   |
| Project Support Members**,** System Architects,     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| Information Systems Security Officer/Privacy        |   |   |   |   |   |
| Manager(s), Quality Assurance Analyst(s), Senior    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Business Analyst(s), Budget/Financial Analyst(s),   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Change Management Specialist(s)                     |   |   |   |   |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| **2. Is there a contracting officer assigned to the | * |   | # | * | * |
| project? If so, what is his/her name?**             | * |   | # | * | * |
|                                                     | Y |   | # | N | \ |
| Not at this time                                    | e |   | # | o | _ |
|                                                     | s |   | # | \ | X |
|                                                     | * |   | # | * | \ |
|                                                     | * |   | # | * | _ |
|                                                     |   |   | # |   | * |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   | * |
|                                                     |   |   | \ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | _ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | \ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | _ |   |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| **3. Is there an Integrated Project Team?**         | * |   | * | * | \ |
|                                                     | * |   | * | * | _ |
|                                                     | Y |   | \ | N | \ |
|                                                     | e |   | _ | o | _ |
|                                                     | s |   | X | * |   |
|                                                     | * |   | \ | * |   |
|                                                     | * |   | _ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | * |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | * |   |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 3.A. If so, list the skill set represented.         |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| Currently, the Integrated Project Team is comprised |   |   |   |   |   |
| of the FM LOB task force members, organized into a  |   |   |   |   |   |
| PMO and several working groups. The FM LOB has a    |   |   |   |   |   |
| diverse group of agency participants (approx. 60)   |   |   |   |   |   |
| including OMB representation from OFPP and the      |   |   |   |   |   |
| E-Gov office. The team is a mix of finance, IT,     |   |   |   |   |   |
| acquisition policy, and contracting operations      |   |   |   |   |   |
| professionals.                                      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| Once this effort is underway, the established PMO   |   |   |   |   |   |
| will have responsibility to support the development |   |   |   |   |   |
| of business process and data definitions, and to    |   |   |   |   |   |
| provide tools and analysis to assist agencies with  |   |   |   |   |   |
| the rollout and implementation of the FM LOB        |   |   |   |   |   |
| effort.                                             |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| The activities of the Integrated Project Team will  |   |   |   |   |   |
| be impacted by the input of an Executive Steering   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Committee, likely to be comprised of Federal        |   |   |   |   |   |
| executives involved in the FM LOB working groups. A |   |   |   |   |   |
| governance strategy will determine the              |   |   |   |   |   |
| responsibilities, reporting structure, conflict     |   |   |   |   |   |
| resolution, and interaction among these groups.     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| The PMO Team may include the following roles and    |   |   |   |   |   |
| skill sets:                                         |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **Project Manager**                             |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Strong track record of realigning and           |   |   |   |   |   |
|     streamlining business processes with an         |   |   |   |   |   |
|     emphasis on financial processes for the Federal |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Government                                      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Proven Track record for managing and directing  |   |   |   |   |   |
|     large scale, cross agency eGovernment           |   |   |   |   |   |
|     initiatives                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Proven Track record for managing and directing  |   |   |   |   |   |
|     integrated cross agency teams                   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Proven Project/Program Management experience    |   |   |   |   |   |
|     with E-Government initiatives including but not |   |   |   |   |   |
|     limited to E-Payroll, IAE                       |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Vast knowledge of the overall Lines of Business |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Initiatives (including HR and Grants), and / or |   |   |   |   |   |
|     cross-industry or cross-organizational          |   |   |   |   |   |
|     experience in implementing financial management |   |   |   |   |   |
|     systems                                         |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **Deputy Project Manager(s)**                   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Extensive E-Government/E-Business and financial |   |   |   |   |   |
|     management experience (including business       |   |   |   |   |   |
|     processes, change management, and business      |   |   |   |   |   |
|     process reengineering )                         |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Knowledge of systems integration, test and      |   |   |   |   |   |
|     design                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Thorough knowledge of the Federal financial     |   |   |   |   |   |
|     management IT Systems and the Federal           |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Enterprise Architecture                         |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Trained in Project Management and Earned Value  |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Management                                      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Knowledge of JFMIP requirements                 |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **Project Support Members**                     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Certified Project Management Professionals      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Experience in information technology, project   |   |   |   |   |   |
|     management, systems development, client         |   |   |   |   |   |
|     relations, team leadership and operations       |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Thorough knowledge of JFMIP requirements        |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Acquisition executive                           |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Experience with Program Management Office       |   |   |   |   |   |
|     processes and Earned Value Management.          |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **System Architect(s)**                         |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Certified Project Management Professional       |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Experience with Federal Government financial    |   |   |   |   |   |
|     management systems and information technology   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Thorough knowledge of the FEA                   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **Information Systems Security Officer/Privacy  |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Manager(s)**                                    |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Certified Information Systems Security          |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Professional (CISSP)                            |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Experience with various financial management IT |   |   |   |   |   |
|     systems                                         |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **Quality Assurance Analyst(s)**                |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Systems/software quality assurance              |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Project implementation Q/A                      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **Senior Business Analyst(s)**                  |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Proven Information Resources Management         |   |   |   |   |   |
|     experience                                      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Experience in Federal Government Budget,        |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Financial, & Assistance Processes               |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Experience in Business / Systems Analysis,      |   |   |   |   |   |
|     Project Planning and Coordination               |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Complete life cycle support including           |   |   |   |   |   |
|     government-wide analysis, requirements, design, |   |   |   |   |   |
|     testing and implementation                      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Thorough knowledge of JFMIP standards           |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **Budget/Financial Analyst(s)**                 |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM)   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   **Change Management Specialist(s)**             |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```{=html}                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| <!-- -->                                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| ```                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Workforce/Human Development experience          |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Experience in organization design and team      |   |   |   |   |   |
|     development                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 4\. Is there a sponsor/owner?                       |   | * | # | * | \ |
|                                                     |   | * | # | * | _ |
|                                                     |   | Y | # | N | \ |
|                                                     |   | e | # | o | _ |
|                                                     |   | s | # | \ |   |
|                                                     |   | * | # | * |   |
|                                                     |   | * | # | * |   |
|                                                     |   |   | # |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | \ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | _ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | X |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | \ |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | _ |   |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| Sponsors                                            |   |   | # |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | # |   |   |
| -   Chief Financial Officer, Department of Labor -- |   |   | # |   |   |
|     Sam Mok                                         |   |   | # |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | # |   |   |
| -   Chief Information Officer, Department of Energy |   |   | # |   |   |
|     -- Rose Parkes                                  |   |   | # |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | # |   |   |
| > Executive Sponsor                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
| -   Office of Management and Budget                 |   |   | { |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | # |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | s |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | e |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | c |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | t |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | i |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | o |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | n |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | - |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | 3 |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | . |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | u |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | n |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | n |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | u |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | m |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | b |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | e |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | r |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | e |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | d |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   | } |   |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+

**I.E. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS \[ALL ASSETS\]**

In order to successfully address this area of the business case, you
must include three viable alternatives that were compared consistently,
identify the alternative chosen, and provide benefits and reasons for
your choice. Agency must identify all viable alternatives and then
select and report details on the top three viable alternatives. Use OMB
Circular A-94 for all investments and the Clinger Cohen Act for IT
investments for the criteria to be used for Benefit/Cost Analysis.
Agency must include the minimum criteria to be applied in considering
whether to undertake a particular investment, including criteria related
to the quantitatively expressed projected net, risk-adjusted return on
investment, and specific quantitative and qualitative criteria for
comparing and prioritizing alternative investments.

**For IT investments, agencies should use the Federal Enterprise
Architecture (FEA) to identify potential alternatives for partnering or
joint solutions that may be used to close the identified performance
gap.**

1.  **Describe the alternative solutions you considered for
    accomplishing the agency strategic goals that this project was
    expected to address. Describe the results of the
    feasibility/performance/benefits analysis. Provide comparisons of
    the returns (financial and other) for each alternative.**

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Alternative   | Description                                          |
+===============+======================================================+
| 1 - Hosted IT | COEs will offer IT hosting services including        |
| Environment   | hardware, software and infrastructure support.       |
| with Business | Business process standardization will enable         |
| Process       | consolidation of systems. Agencies will work         |
| St            | together to agree on Government-wide standards for   |
| andardization | business processes and data definitions that will    |
|               | drive upgrades to the system via the existing JFMIP  |
| (Preferred    | procedures. This alternative may serve as the        |
| Alternative)  | foundation for a transformation that could include   |
|               | additional value-added services including            |
|               | transaction processing and subsidiary systems        |
|               | hosting.                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 -           | The end-to-end alternative will be a multi-year      |
| End-to-end    | financial management transformation, consolidate     |
| Financial     | financial management systems, and facilitate         |
| Management    | shared-services for core financial management        |
|               | systems across the Federal Government. This          |
|               | alternative Builds upon Alternative #1. COEs         |
|               | established to provide IT Hosting and additional     |
|               | support for business processes for core financial    |
|               | services. Transaction processing (i.e. A/P, A/R),    |
|               | reporting and operations will be handled at (or      |
|               | processed through) COEs (private, Federal or         |
|               | combined). This alternative also includes            |
|               | standardization of government-wide business          |
|               | processes as described in Alternative #1. Ultimately |
|               | end-to-end financial services can be supported       |
|               | through COEs or could also be provided by other      |
|               | third party entities (government or private) using   |
|               | COE software. Financial analysis, management, and    |
|               | inherently governmental functions will remain        |
|               | agency-specific.                                     |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| 3 -- Hosted   | COEs will only offer IT hosting services including   |
| IT            | hardware, software and infrastructure support. No    |
| Environment   | standardization of configurations or consolidation   |
|               | of systems. The host will handle configuration       |
|               | management. Under this alternative, agencies will    |
|               | perform transactions processing in-house. Benefits   |
|               | will be generated for agencies through efficient     |
|               | purchasing, more effective license management, and   |
|               | decreased infrastructure costs.                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| 4 - Leverage  | Agencies will work together to achieve cost savings  |
| through       | through bulk purchases.                              |
| Volume Buying |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| 5 - Homegrown | This alternative will focus on one agency that has   |
| Approach      | built its own JFMIP compliant environment to supply  |
|               | services to agencies, i.e., a single GOTS package    |
|               | for agencies. This alternative was not viewed as     |
|               | feasible, and was not included in the cost benefit   |
|               | analysis.                                            |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| 6 -           | This alternative will charter a single organization  |
| Centralized   | to be a COE for the Federal government, i.e., a      |
| Delivery      | single COTS package for agencies to utilize. This    |
|               | alternative was not viewed as feasible, and was not  |
|               | included in the cost benefit analysis.               |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

> At this stage Alternative 1, 2, and 3 are considered to be the most
> viable and were evaluated for the purposes of the FM LOB initiative.

2.  **Summarize the results of your life cycle cost analysis performed
    for each investment and the underlying assumptions.**

> NOTE:
>
> *These estimates are a Rough Order of Magnitude analysis of the
> projected costs and assumed benefits of the FM LOB. Further data and
> information from agencies will be used to confirm our assumptions and
> refine the estimates. These figures are preliminary, pre-decisional,
> and should not be relied upon for any specific procurement
> activities.*

+---------------+--------------------+----------------+--------------+
| **Cost**      | **IT hosting with  | **End to End** | **IT         |
|               | standardization**  |                | hosting**    |
| **Elements**  |                    | **(NPV)**      |              |
|               | **(NPV)**          |                | **(NPV)**    |
+---------------+--------------------+----------------+--------------+
| **Planning    | \$445M             | \$445M         | \$453M       |
| Costs**       |                    |                |              |
+---------------+--------------------+----------------+--------------+
| **Acquisition | \$4,666M           | \$4,642M       | \$2,704M     |
| Costs**       |                    |                |              |
+---------------+--------------------+----------------+--------------+
| **Maintenance | \$1,943M           | \$8,031M       | \$2,388M     |
| Costs**       |                    |                |              |
+---------------+--------------------+----------------+--------------+
| **Total Life  | \$7,054M           | \$13,118M      | \$5,545M     |
| Cycle**       |                    |                |              |
|               |                    |                |              |
| **Costs**     |                    |                |              |
+---------------+--------------------+----------------+--------------+

M = millions of dollars

In order to develop a cost estimate using limited data an in an
abbreviated timeframe, the following high-level assumptions related to
costs as presented were made:

-   Costs and benefits were based on FY2004 and FY2005 Exhibit 53 data

-   Costs savings are primarily due to:

    -   Reduction in DME and O&M spending through cost avoidance of
        modernizing core financial systems.

    -   Increased efficiencies of performing standardized business
        process activities.

-   For cost/benefit analysis purposes, six (6) COEs were assumed -- the
    actual number of COEs will be determined through a competitive
    process.

-   Cost elements include hardware, software, infrastructure/facilities,
    maintenance, training, and contracting/government FTE costs. The
    cost/benefit analysis assumes that all COEs will be started from the
    ground up, and do not utilize current infrastructure.

-   An average \$5 million in migration costs per migrating agency were
    assumed (recognizing that the actual number per agency will vary
    depending upon size/complexity of migration)

    -   Note that the appendix to this document includes more details on
        agency migration costs.

-   COEs will be selected based on a competitive process. The PMO will
    develop COE/Service Level Agreements and criteria for evaluating
    COEs. These efforts will ramp down after the first two years.

> Agencies can choose either to compete to become a COE, or they can
> plan to migrate their financial management systems to a COE. In order
> to assist agencies in making that determination, the cost benefit
> analysis indicates that estimated migration cost for an average agency
> is \$5 million. This amount will vary by agency as noted above,
> depending on its size and complexity.
>
> While the cost benefit analysis assumes that all COEs will be built
> from scratch, certain agencies currently conduct financial management
> tasks in a shared services environment on behalf of other agencies.
> Such agencies may have the technical infrastructure in place to become
> a COE. If they are selected to become a COE, their costs may be up to
> 50 percent less than the estimates in the appendix to this document,
> due to possible savings in hardware and software purchasing, potential
> standardization efficiencies, and other savings.

3.  **Which alternative was chosen and why?**

> Alternative 1, the IT Hosting and Business Process Standardization, is
> the preferred alternative. Reasons for this include:

-   Fully meets the FM LOB Goals, including

    -   Achieve or enhance process improvements and cost savings in the
        acquisition, development, implementation, and operation of
        financial management systems through shared services, joint
        procurements, consolidation, and other means;

    -   Provide for standardization of business processes and data
        definitions;

    -   Promote seamless data exchange between and among federal
        agencies; and

    -   Strengthen internal controls through interoperability of core
        financial and subsidiary systems

-   Substantial cost savings and benefits over the ten year life cycle

-   This alternative may serve as the foundation for a transformation
    that could include additional value-added services including
    transaction processing and subsidiary systems hosting. (Recognition
    of immaturity of market to provide seamless end-to-end financial
    management processing and support)

This alternative also supports a number of important government
initiatives, such as a shared services environment, performance-based
contracting with the share-in-savings concept that aligns the incentives
of government and the contractor, the consolidation and standardization
of similar business processes, and the retirement of redundant systems.

**3.A. Are there any quantitative benefits that will be achieved through
this investment (e.g., system savings, cost avoidance, stakeholder
benefits, etc.)? Define the Return on Investment (ROI).**

> There will be several quantitative benefits that will result from the
> chosen alternative. Among these benefits will be:

-   A reduction in the number of redundant financial systems
    government-wide

-   Lower licensing costs

-   Reduced operations and maintenance costs through combined services

-   Reduced integration costs

-   An increased focus on analytics and management instead of
    transactional system coordination

-   Better/Faster decision-making

-   Reduced audit costs

-   Reuse of hardware, software and infrastructure

-   Economies of scale

-   Economies of skill

3.B. For the alternative selected, provide a financial summary,
including Net Present Value by Year and Payback Period Calculations.

The rough order of magnitude net present value for Alternative 1 is
depicted below. Note that the project initially achieves break-even in
FY 2011. The aggregate cash flow savings / cost avoidance estimate over
the 10-year period is \$4.0 billion on a net present value basis.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Net Present</p>
<p>Value</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>FY06</td>
<td>FY07</td>
<td>FY08</td>
<td>FY09</td>
<td>FY10</td>
<td>FY11</td>
<td>FY12</td>
<td>FY13</td>
<td>FY14</td>
<td>FY15</td>
<td>TOTAL NPV</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Hosting + Standardization</td>
<td>$ (286.18)</td>
<td>$ (37.02)</td>
<td>$ (452.12)</td>
<td>$ (37.47)</td>
<td>$ (80.73)</td>
<td>$ 491.41</td>
<td>$ 759.37</td>
<td>$ 1,121.64</td>
<td>$ 1,270.98</td>
<td>$1,284.87</td>
<td>$ 4,034.75</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

4.  **What is the date of your cost benefit analysis?**

> The rough order of magnitude cost benefit analysis was completed on
> July 28, 2004.

## I. F. Risk Inventory and Assessment (All Assets)

> **In this section, describe the results of your risk assessment for
> this project and discuss your plans to eliminate, mitigate, or manage
> identified risks. Risk assessments should be performed at the initial
> concept stage and then monitored and controlled throughout the life
> cycle of the project, and should include risk information from all
> stakeholders. Risk assessments for all projects must include schedule,
> costs (both initial and life cycle), technical obsolescence,
> feasibility, reliability of systems, dependencies and interoperability
> between this project and others, surety (asset protection)
> considerations, risk of creating a monopoly for future procurements,
> capability of agency to manage the project, and overall risk of
> project failure.**

**In addition, for IT projects risk must be discussed in the following
categories 1) Organizational and Change Management, 2) Business, 3)
Data/Info, 4) Technology, 5) Strategic, 6) Security, 7) Privacy, and 8)
Project Resources. (Agencies may include others for IT, and may define
the core set for other assets). For security risks, identify under the
description column the level of risk as high, medium, or basic. What
aspect of security determines the level of risk, i.e., the need for
confidentiality of information, availability of information or the
system, reliability of the information or system?**

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date         Area of Risk       Description        Probability   Strategy for         Current
  Identified                                         of Occurrence Mitigation           Status as of
                                                                                        the date of
                                                                                        this exhibit
  ------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------- -------------------- ------------
  June-04      Business           Agencies have      High          Include as many      A Risk
                                  unique                           agencies as possible Management
                                  requirements for                 during the business  Plan will be
                                  financial                        case and             developed by
                                  management                       requirements         agencies at
                                                                   definition phases.   a later
                                                                   Ensure effective     date.
                                                                   communication        \[Comment \#
                                                                   throughout           82\]
                                                                   requirements         
                                                                   definition,          
                                                                   acquisition, and     
                                                                   implementation       
                                                                   phases.              

  July-04      Business           The need for       High          Develop a governance A Risk
                                  agencies to have                 structure that       Management
                                  internal                         promotes             Plan will be
                                  leadership                       collaboration in     developed by
                                  committed to the                 strategic            agencies at
                                  solution                         development and      a later
                                                                   implementation, so   date.
                                                                   that high-level      
                                                                   agency buy-in is     
                                                                   fostered.            

  July-04      Business           Conflicts between  High          The governance       A Risk
                                  agencies and COEs                structure will       Management
                                  will hamper the                  include issue        Plan will be
                                  acceptance and                   resolution as one of developed by
                                  timing of the COE                its core functions.  agencies at
                                  solution                                              a later
                                                                                        date.

  July-04      Business           The ability of     High          Change management    A Risk
                                  agencies to                      and instructor-led   Management
                                  re-deploy human                  training are crucial Plan will be
                                  resources,                       components of the    developed by
                                  particularly in a                implementation.      agencies at
                                  unionized                        Strong sponsorship   a later
                                  environment.                     at the agency and    date.
                                                                   COE levels will      
                                                                   assist in overcoming 
                                                                   this risk.           

  June-04      Business           Noncompliance with High          Through              A Risk
                                  government-wide                  government-wide      Management
                                  financial                        efforts, business    Plan will be
                                  management                       process standards    developed by
                                  standardization                  will be developed to agencies at
                                  efforts (i.e.                    facilitate the move  a later
                                  standard general                 towards a shared     date.
                                  ledger deviations                services model.      
                                  are persistent                                        
                                  across the                                            
                                  government)                                           

  June-04      Business           Readiness of       Medium        Gartner Group study  A Risk
                                  private sector                   will cite potential  Management
                                                                   cross-servicing      Plan will be
                                                                   providers            developed by
                                                                                        agencies at
                                                                                        a later
                                                                                        date.

  June-04      Capability to      Adequate           High          A governance process A Risk
               manage the         governance process               including OMB as the Management
               investment         is in place to                   executive sponsor    Plan will be
                                  manage the FM LOB                will be established. developed by
                                                                                        agencies at
                                                                                        a later
                                                                                        date.

  June-04      Capability to      Protection of      Medium        Depending on the mix A Risk
               manage the         vital agency                     of services in the   Management
               investment         resources, risks,                common solution,     Plan will be
                                  & interests                      agencies would       developed by
                                  post-migration                   maintain a federal   agencies at
                                                                   presence at the COEs a later
                                                                   where appropriate.   date.
                                                                   The governance       
                                                                   structure will       
                                                                   ensure that the      
                                                                   agencies will have a 
                                                                   managerial role in   
                                                                   the centers of       
                                                                   excellence.          
                                                                   Additionally,        
                                                                   service level        
                                                                   agreements will be   
                                                                   developed that will  
                                                                   allow agencies to    
                                                                   oversee their        
                                                                   financial activities 
                                                                   at the COEs.         

                                                                                        

  June-04      Data/Info          Agency financial   High          Common business      A Risk
                                  information is in                processes and data   Management
                                  multiple formats                 definitions will be  Plan will be
                                                                   defined by the       developed by
                                                                   cross-government     agencies at
                                                                   working groups.      a later
                                                                   Solution will be     date.
                                                                   compliant with all   
                                                                   Federal Enterprise   
                                                                   Architecture         
                                                                   standards.           

  June-04      Dependencies &     Missed             Medium        Most of the RFI      A Risk
               Interoperability   opportunities to                 responses did not    Management
                                  include                          address e-government Plan will be
                                  e-government                     (E-Gov)              developed by
                                  initiatives                      interoperability.    agencies at
                                                                   This initiative must a later
                                                                   take advantage of    date.
                                                                   efforts in the E-Gov 
                                                                   arena where          
                                                                   initiatives are      
                                                                   already underway to  
                                                                   provide common       
                                                                   solutions to         
                                                                   government needs. In 
                                                                   fact, there will be  
                                                                   requirements to      
                                                                   integrate with       
                                                                   E-Gov, e.g., a       
                                                                   common vendor file   
                                                                   for purchases and    
                                                                   payments,            
                                                                   intra-governmental   
                                                                   transactions         
                                                                   processing, etc.     

  June-04      Feasibility        The likelihood     Low           Engage all agencies  A Risk
                                  that this project                during the planning  Management
                                  can not be                       and implementation   Plan will be
                                  accomplished                     of the program to    developed by
                                  technically                      ensure agency        agencies at
                                                                   requirements are     a later
                                                                   met. Engage both     date.
                                                                   private and public   
                                                                   industry in the      
                                                                   technical solution.  
                                                                   . Develop and apply  
                                                                   extensive testing    
                                                                   requirements and     
                                                                   verification         
                                                                   procedures.          

  June-04      Feasibility        The likelihood     Medium        Engage all agencies  A Risk
                                  that this project                during the planning  Management
                                  can not be                       and implementation   Plan will be
                                  accomplished                     of the program.      developed by
                                  politically                      Executive support    agencies at
                                                                   from OMB and other   a later
                                                                   executive-level      date.
                                                                   leaders will help    
                                                                   solve the political  
                                                                   issues. Develop and  
                                                                   apply extensive      
                                                                   cultural change      
                                                                   strategies.          

  June-04      Initial costs      Funding of         High          OMB is solidly       A Risk
                                  Competing Agency                 behind this effort   Management
                                  Priorities                       and agencies will    Plan will be
                                                                   identify and         developed by
                                                                   allocate the         agencies at
                                                                   necessary funds to   a later
                                                                   ensure its success   date.

  June-04      Life-cycle costs   Lack of full       High          OMB is solidly       A Risk
                                  funding for each                 behind this effort   Management
                                  project segment                  and agencies will    Plan will be
                                                                   identify and         developed by
                                                                   allocate the         agencies at
                                                                   necessary funds to   a later
                                                                   ensure its success   date.

  August -- 04 Requirements       "Scope Creep,"     High          Governance strategy  Governance
                                  based on                         and process should   strategy is
                                  concurrent process               limit and manage     currently in
                                  reengineering,                   scope of the project the
                                  implementation,                                       formative
                                  and migration                                         stage

  June-04      Organizational and Resistance to      High          The biggest single   A Risk
               Change Management  change                           obstacle to the      Management
                                                                   successful           Plan will be
                                                                   completion of the    developed by
                                                                   project is           agencies at
                                                                   resistance to        a later
                                                                   change. A detailed,  date.
                                                                   structured approach  
                                                                   to change management 
                                                                   must be developed.   
                                                                   Contractors and      
                                                                   Federal agencies     
                                                                   currently in the     
                                                                   process of           
                                                                   modernizing their    
                                                                   financial management 
                                                                   systems should be    
                                                                   utilized as they are 
                                                                   familiar with        
                                                                   large-scale change   
                                                                   management practices 
                                                                   and can provide      
                                                                   valuable "lessons    
                                                                   learned".            

  June-04      Organizational and Inability to       Medium        Maintain interaction A Risk
               Change Management  address Union                    and involvement with Management
                                  concerns                         key union groups.    Plan will be
                                                                                        developed by
                                                                                        agencies at
                                                                                        a later
                                                                                        date.

  June-04      Organizational and Agencies may be    High          Agencies that        A Risk
               Change Management  unwilling to                     migrate early in the Management
                                  migrate to the                   process will be      Plan will be
                                  common solution                  given the necessary  developed by
                                                                   resources to ramp up agencies at
                                                                   quickly and will be  a later
                                                                   given early adopter  date.
                                                                   incentives. Develop  
                                                                   a migration strategy 
                                                                   that is validated    
                                                                   through the FM LOB   
                                                                   governance process   
                                                                   and approved by      
                                                                   other agencies and   
                                                                   OMB. Ensure active   
                                                                   OMB participation    
                                                                   throughout the       
                                                                   process.             

  June-04      Organizational and Non-FM LOB agency  High          All agencies are     A Risk
               Change Management  members may be                   being encouraged to  Management
                                  adversely affected               participate in the   Plan will be
                                  because they were                FM LOB process as    developed by
                                  not part of the                  either partners or   agencies at
                                  definition                       ex-officio members.  a later
                                  process.                         Communicate results  date.
                                                                   with                 
                                                                   cross-government     
                                                                   councils such as the 
                                                                   President\'s         
                                                                   Management Council,  
                                                                   Chief Financial      
                                                                   Officers Council,    
                                                                   Chief Information    
                                                                   Officers Council,    
                                                                   etc.                 

  June-04      Overall risk of    Odds that the      Low           Maintain strong      A Risk
               investment failure project will not                 cross-government     Management
                                  meet success                     working groups       Plan will be
                                  criteria                         throughout the       developed by
                                                                   process and ensure   agencies at
                                                                   timely and           a later
                                                                   consistent           date.
                                                                   communication to all 
                                                                   federal agencies.    
                                                                   Leverage best        
                                                                   practices from       
                                                                   current E-Gov        
                                                                   initiatives.         

  June-04      Privacy            System information High          Apply strong design  A Risk
                                  that is                          and testing          Management
                                  unprotected                      procedures. Complete Plan will be
                                                                   a Privacy Impact     developed by
                                                                   Assessment (PIA).    agencies at
                                                                                        a later
                                                                                        date.

  June-04      Project Resources  Insufficient       High          This is a very large A Risk
                                  government human                 transformational     Management
                                  capital                          effort and will      Plan will be
                                                                   require government   developed by
                                                                   resources.           agencies at
                                                                   Contractors can be   a later
                                                                   hired to provide     date.
                                                                   support such as      
                                                                   system integrators,  
                                                                   but each agency must 
                                                                   provide some         
                                                                   dedicated resources  
                                                                   to manage the        
                                                                   project.             

  June-04      Project Resources  The aging federal  High          The common solution  A Risk
                                  government                       itself minimizes     Management
                                  workforce and                    this risk. The       Plan will be
                                  attrition within                 \'economies of       developed by
                                  the federal                      skill\' that the     agencies at
                                  government causes                common solution      a later
                                  loss of                          creates minimizes    date.
                                  institutional                    this risk as it      
                                  knowledge within                 allows for           
                                  agencies                         portability of       
                                                                   financial management 
                                                                   resources across the 
                                                                   federal government.  

  June-04      Reliability of     Insufficient       Medium        Reliability of the   A Risk
               system             System Performance               service-center       Management
                                                                   providers must not   Plan will be
                                                                   be in question. As   developed by
                                                                   new agencies are     agencies at
                                                                   migrated to existing a later
                                                                   centers, hardware    date.
                                                                   and software must be 
                                                                   upgraded to handle   
                                                                   the added volume.    
                                                                   Response time issues 
                                                                   must be alleviated.  

  June-04      Risk of monopoly   Potential limits   Medium        Following JFMIP      A Risk
                                  on future                        requirements         Management
                                  procurements of                  currently limits     Plan will be
                                  software or                      procurement to six   developed by
                                  hardware                         JFMIP compliant      agencies at
                                                                   systems for core     a later
                                                                   functionality. The   date.
                                                                   team plans to allow  
                                                                   multiple solutions   
                                                                   to be a part of the  
                                                                   common solution      
                                                                   based on their       
                                                                   compliance with the  
                                                                   target business      
                                                                   processes. Ensure    
                                                                   that niche companies 
                                                                   where feasible and   
                                                                   practical have a     
                                                                   chance to compete    
                                                                   for parts of the     
                                                                   common solution      
                                                                   (i.e. technical      
                                                                   components and/or    
                                                                   implementation       
                                                                   components). The     
                                                                   common solution is   
                                                                   providing an a la    
                                                                   carte solution for   
                                                                   selecting financial  
                                                                   services (i.e.       
                                                                   reporting, etc).     

  June-04      Risk of monopoly   Private Sector     Medium        Work with JFMIP and  A Risk
                                  mergers and                      other standards      Management
                                  increasing federal               boards to ensure     Plan will be
                                  standards may                    vendors are able to  developed by
                                  create a monopoly                meet standardization agencies at
                                  or oligopoly                     requirements and the a later
                                  situation                        shared services      date.
                                                                   operating model.\    
                                                                   \                    
                                                                   Through financial    
                                                                   services COE         
                                                                   selection, make sure 
                                                                   that several         
                                                                   providers are able   
                                                                   to compete both from 
                                                                   an IT hosting and a  
                                                                   financial services   
                                                                   perspective.         

  June-04      Schedule           Schedule slippage  High          Apply a phased       A Risk
                                                                   implementation       Management
                                                                   approach; maintain   Plan will be
                                                                   effective project    developed by
                                                                   management           agencies at
                                                                   practices. Finish a  a later
                                                                   realistic transition date.
                                                                   plan including       
                                                                   training and         
                                                                   testing. Work        
                                                                   closely with OMB     
                                                                   during the           
                                                                   implementation and   
                                                                   migration phases to  
                                                                   manage the agency    
                                                                   migration process.   
                                                                   Escalate issues to   
                                                                   the FM LOB PMO       
                                                                   and/or OMB in a      
                                                                   timely manner.       

  June-04      Security           Safeguarding and   High          Implement            A Risk
                                  securing core                    multi-layered        Management
                                  financial                        security strategy    Plan will be
                                  management                       and audit its        developed by
                                  information.                     effectiveness, and   agencies at
                                  Protect against                  obtain certification a later
                                  inappropriate use                before operation     date.
                                  of or access to                  commences.           
                                  the system. The                                       
                                  following aspects                                     
                                  of security are                                       
                                  critical for this                                     
                                  area of risk:                                         
                                  reliability of                                        
                                  system,                                               
                                  confidentiality,                                      
                                  and reliability.                                      

  June-04      Strategic          Alignment with     Low           Ensure alignment     A Risk
                                  Administration                   with LOB goals       Management
                                  policy                           throughout the FM    Plan will be
                                                                   LOB process          developed by
                                                                                        agencies at
                                                                                        a later
                                                                                        date.

  June-04      Surety             Inability of COE   Medium        Ensure that backup   A Risk
                                  to develop and                   and recovery plans   Management
                                  execute the coop                 are developed and    Plan will be
                                  plan (i.e.                       approved by the      developed by
                                  recovery)                        agencies prior to    agencies at
                                                                   migration to the     a later
                                                                   COEs. Provide        date.
                                                                   contractual measures 
                                                                   to ensure the COE    
                                                                   can perform these    
                                                                   duties. Complete a   
                                                                   full backup and      
                                                                   recovery test prior  
                                                                   to COE               
                                                                   certification.       

  June-04      Technology         Service providers  Medium        Ensure that the      A Risk
                                  merge or are                     contracts protect    Management
                                  acquired by                      the investment in    Plan will be
                                  another company                  the case of a merger developed by
                                                                   or acquisition.      agencies at
                                                                                        a later
                                                                                        date.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**What is the date of your risk management plan?**

A Risk Management Plan will be developed by agencies at a later date

## I.G. Acquisition Strategy

1.  **Will you use a single contract or several contracts to accomplish
    this project?**

> The FM LOB proposes to acquire demand-driven, market-provided
> financial management systems through a formal evaluation and selection
> process. Multiple solutions will be required to fulfill a Federal
> Government-wide application need, which will require multiple
> contracts.

**1.A. What is the type of contract/task order if a single contract is
used?**

It is not anticipated that a single contract will be used.

**1.B. If multiple contract/task orders will be used discuss the type,
how they relate to each other to reach the investment outcomes, and how
much each contributes to the achievement of the investment cost,
schedule and performance goals. Also discuss the contract/task order
solicitation or contract provisions that allow the contractor to provide
innovative, transformational solutions.**

> The resulting contracts are expected to be Performance-Based with
> fixed prices. The FM LOB may emphasize shared services,
> share-in-savings, and SmartBuy approaches as well.
>
> One acquisition strategy could include a JFMIP-compliant financial
> solution at each of six COEs, supplemented by private sector support,
> Federal personnel, and financial professionals. A market-driven model
> of shared services and cross servicing using several private and
> public sector COEs is recommended. The common solution will be
> compliant with all federal financial management laws, regulations, and
> requirements and must align with the vision, goals, and objectives of
> the FM LOB.

2.  **For other than firm-fixed price, performance-based contracts,
    define the risk not sufficiently mitigated in the risk mitigation
    plan, for that contract/task order, that requires the Government to
    assume the risk of contract achievement cost, schedule and
    performance goals. Explain the amount of risk the Government will
    assume at type(s) of contract(s) will you use (e.g. cost
    reimbursement, fixed-price, etc.)?**

> Firm-fixed price, performance-based contracts are expected to be used.
> Penalty clauses will be incorporated into the firm-fixed price,
> performance-based contracts, to mitigate the level of risk that must
> be assumed by the government. The level of risk will be determined
> during development of the Risk Management Plan.

3.  **Will you use financial incentives to motivate contractor
    performance (e.g. incentive fee, award fee, etc.)?**

> There will be performance incentives built into the pricing structure
> to reward the contractor(s) for exceptional performance as well as
> disincentives in the form of liquidated damages for late and/or
> substandard performance. Chief among these performance incentives is
> the concept of Share-in-Savings, if applicable, where the interests of
> the government and any contractor are aligned to provide incentives
> for budget savings. A portion of a contractor's compensation will be
> based on quantified and verifiable savings, and as the amount of
> savings increases, the contractor's compensation grows as well.

4.  **Discuss the competition process used for each contract/task order,
    including the use of RFP's, schedules or other multiple agency
    contracts, etc?**

> The acquisition will be managed through a formal evaluation and
> selection process with appropriate notification to potential bidders.

5.  **Will you use commercially available or COTS products, or
    custom-designed products?**

COTS, GOTS and or a combination of products will be considered.

5.A. To what extent will these items be modified to meet the unique
requirements of this investment?

We expect that COTS products will satisfy the overwhelming majority of
the FM LOB requirements and/or unique agency needs will be addressed
through configuration. However, some small degree of customization will
likely be required to meet the requirements of select communities of
interest within the federal government.

5.B. What prevented the use of COTS without modification?

> Agencies have different financial system requirements based on
> mission, e.g., intelligence and anti-terrorism, and the financial
> services required may dictate some varying degree of COTS
> modification. However this will be a minor aspect of the investment.

6.  **What is the date of your acquisition plan?**

> A comprehensive acquisition plan will be developed as project
> requirements are further defined and the selection process for the
> LOBs is clarified. This is anticipated to take place in FY 2005.

7.  **How will you ensure Section 508 compliance?**

The Contracting Officer (CO) and the Contracting Officer\'s Technical
Representative (COTR), share responsibilities for ensuring the procured
Information Technology best meets the Section 508 standard while
satisfying the technical and functional requirements. The CO and COTRs
ensure that statements of work include Section 508 technical standards
and ensure that all information technology acquisitions provide the
greatest possible degree of Section 508 compliance while satisfying
other functional requirements. The Project Manager ensures that procured
information systems comply with Section 508 technical standards (36 CFR
1194.21 - 1194.26) and is ultimately responsible for Section 508
compliance of the total information technology solution.

> The FM LOB is committed to delivering software solutions that are
> accessible to individuals with disabilities. This includes meeting
> requirements mandated by Section 508 of the U.S. federal government's
> Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. The FM LOB will also follow the
> guidelines of the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility
> Initiative (WAJ).

8.  **Acquisition Costs**

Rough Order of Magnitude Estimated Acquisition costs over 10 years:

  ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
  Cost of implementation; Standardization, standup,            \$8.0B
  configuration, testing, training, change management,         
  certification and operations and maintenance                 

  Of which about 80% is considered contract cost               \$6.4 B

  The remaining costs are government personnel costs           \$1.6 B
  ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

Note that the \$ 8.0B cost of implementation figure is consistent with
the Summary of Spending table on page 3. This figure is not discounted,
which is why it is different from the acquisition figure in the
Alternatives section of this document.

These estimates are a Rough Order of Magnitude analysis of the projected
costs and assumed benefits of the FM LOB. Further data and information
from agencies will be used to confirm our assumptions and refine the
estimates.

8.A. For budget year, what percentage of the total investment is for
hardware acquisition?

8.B. For budget year, what percentage of the total investment is for
software acquisition?

8.C. For budget year, what percentage of the total investment is for
services acquisition?

I.H. PROJECT AND FUNDING PLAN

In order to successfully address this section of the business case, you
must demonstrate use of an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) that
meets ANSI/EIA Standard 748, for both government and contractor costs,
for those parts of the investment that require development efforts
(e.g., prototypes and testing in the planning phase and development
efforts in the acquisition phase) and show how close the investment is
to meeting the approved cost, schedule and performance goals.
Information on EVMS is available at http://www.acq.osd.m­il/pm. For those
investments in the operations/steady state phase, you must perform an
operational analysis as defined in the Capital Programming Guide to
demonstrate how close the investment is to achieving the expected cost,
schedule and performance goals for this phase.

Program status information in this section must include the both the
contractor's part of the investments overall costs and milestone
requirements as well as the government's costs and milestone
requirements to successfully complete the investment phase, segment or
module being reported.

I.H.1. Description of performance-based management system (PBMS):

Explain the methodology used by the agency to analyze and use the earned
value performance data to manage performance. Describe the process you
used to verify that the contractor\'s project management system follows
the ANSI/EIA Standard 748-A. If the investment is operational (steady
state), define the operational analysis system that will be used. If
this is a mixed life-cycle investment with both operational and
development/moderniz­ation/enhancement (DME) system improvement aspects,
EVMS must be used on the system improvement aspects of the contract and
operational analysis on the operations aspects. Using information
consistent with the work breakdown structure (WBS), provide the
information requested in all parts of this section.

The OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition, and
Management of Capital Assets, published in June 2002 specifies that
business case information be provided, which is generated by an earned
value management system and EVMS software program that meets the
ANSI/EIA Standard 748 *Earned Value Management Systems*.

The FM LOB initiative will employ EVM methods in the management of their
investments. COEs will be required to demonstrate the capability to meet
the ANSI/EIA Standard 748 and compliance to this standard will be
incorporated into all contractual documents as a performance standard
and a deliverable (i.e., report out of EVMS metrics). In addition, the
COE, whether private, public or a hybrid of the two, will provide a
standard software program that would principally enhance organizational
investment management practices, integrating project management schedule
and activity planning, execution, and control support functionality,
while satisfying the EVM reporting requirements. Further, project
management skills and experience will demonstrate the sound application
of EVM in the day to day evaluation of project status and
decision-making.

**I.H.2. Original baseline (OMB-approved at project outset):**

What are the cost and schedule goals for this phase or segment/module of
the project (e.g., what are the major project milestones or events; when
will each occur; and what is the estimated cost to accomplish each one)?
Also identify the funding agency for each milestone or event if this is
a multi-agency project. If this is a multi-agency project or one of the
President\'s E-Gov initiatives, use the detailed project plan with
milestones on the critical path, to identify agency funding for each
module or milestone. (This baseline must be included in all subsequent
reports, even when there are OMB‑approved baseline changes shown in
I.H.3):

This baseline is expected to change as cost and agencies' plans become
better defined.

+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| Cost and        |         |         |      |            |           |
| Schedule Goals: |         |         |      |            |           |
| Original        |         |         |      |            |           |
| Baseline for a  |         |         |      |            |           |
| Phase           |         |         |      |            |           |
| /Segment/Module |         |         |      |            |           |
| of Project      |         |         |      |            |           |
+=================+=========+=========+======+============+===========+
| Description of  | S       |         |      | Planned    | Funding   |
| Milestone       | chedule |         |      | Cost       | Agency    |
|                 |         |         |      |            |           |
|                 |         |         |      | (In        |           |
|                 |         |         |      | Thousands) |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
|                 | Start   | End     | Dura |            |           |
|                 | Date    | Date    | tion |            |           |
|                 |         |         | (in  |            |           |
|                 |         |         | d    |            |           |
|                 |         |         | ays) |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
|                 |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| Establish       | 10      | 10      | 0    | \$0        | Project   |
| PMO/Governing   | /1/2004 | /1/2004 |      |            | sponsor   |
| Bodies          |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| > Develop       | \<10    | 1/      | \>90 | \$300      | TBD       |
| >               | /1/2004 | 31/2005 |      |            |           |
| Standardization |         |         |      |            |           |
| > Plan          |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| Conduct         | 10      | 12/     | 90   | \$300      | TBD       |
| Competitive     | /1/2004 | 31/2004 |      |            |           |
| Process to      |         |         |      |            |           |
| Determine       |         |         |      |            |           |
| Integrator      |         |         |      |            |           |
| Support for     |         |         |      |            |           |
| Standardization |         |         |      |            |           |
| Workshops       |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| Selection       | 11      | 9/      | 335  | \$1,500    | TBD       |
| process defined | /1/2004 | 30/2005 |      |            |           |
| and initiated   |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 06:          | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \$314,000  | TBD       |
| Establish COEs  | /1/2005 | 30/2006 |      |            |           |
| (               |         |         |      |            |           |
| Standardization |         |         |      |            |           |
| continues, use  |         |         |      |            |           |
| standard master |         |         |      |            |           |
| data            |         |         |      |            |           |
| definitions and |         |         |      |            |           |
| processes to    |         |         |      |            |           |
| build COTS      |         |         |      |            |           |
| templates)      |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 07 Migration | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \$314,000  | TBD       |
| of first 2      | /1/2006 | 30/2007 |      |            |           |
| agencies.       |         |         |      |            |           |
| Continue to     |         |         |      |            |           |
| establish COEs. |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 08 Continue  | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \          | TBD       |
| to establish    | /1/2007 | 30/2008 |      | $1,101,000 |           |
| COEs. Continue  |         |         |      |            |           |
| Agency          |         |         |      |            |           |
| Migrations.     |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 09 Agency    | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \          | TBD       |
| Migrations &    | /1/2008 | 30/2009 |      | $1,049,000 |           |
| COE Operations  |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 10 Agency    | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \          | TBD       |
| Migrations &    | /1/2009 | 30/2010 |      | $1,493,000 |           |
| COE Operations  |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 11 Agency    | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \          | TBD       |
| Migrations &    | /1/2010 | 30/2011 |      | $1,101,000 |           |
| COE Operations  |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 12 Agency    | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \          | TBD       |
| Migrations &    | /1/2011 | 30/2012 |      | $1,038,000 |           |
| COE Operations  |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 13 COE       | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \$710,000  | TBD       |
| Operations      | /1/2012 | 30/2013 |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY 14 COE       | 10      | 9/      | 365  | \$490,000  | TBD       |
| Operations      | /1/2013 | 30/2014 |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| FY15 COE        | 10/1/14 | 9/30/15 | 365  | \$434,000  | TBD       |
| Operations      |         |         |      |            |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+
| TOTAL           |         |         |      | \*\        |           |
|                 |         |         |      | $8,047,100 |           |
+-----------------+---------+---------+------+------------+-----------+

\* Also note that the total of \~\$8 billion planned cost is expressed
in current year dollars, as compared to the \~\$5.5 billion discounted
net present value figure in the Alternatives Analysis section, question
#2.

Migration costs per agency depend on COTS package selected, size of
agency, number of locations, functionality used, number of transactions
and order of implementation (first agencies will be involved in
additional efforts for developing processes, procedures and common
interfaces). Estimated migration cost for average agency is \~\$5M.

These estimates are a Rough Order of Magnitude analysis of the projected
costs and assumed benefits of the FM LOB. Further data and information
from agencies will be used to confirm our assumptions and refine the
estimates.

**I.H.3. Proposed baseline/current baseline (applicable *only* if
OMB-approved the changes):**

Identify in this section a proposed change to the original or current
baseline or an OMB-approved baseline change. What are the new cost and
schedule goals for the project (e.g., what are the major project
milestones or events; when will each occur; and what is the estimated
cost to accomplish each one)? Also identify the funding agency for each
milestone or event if this is a multi-agency project. If this is a new
project in the FY 2004 budget year, this section will be blank for your
initial submission.

+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+
| Cost and Schedule |    |    |      |             |                |
| Goals:            |    |    |      |             |                |
|                   |    |    |      |             |                |
| P                 |    |    |      |             |                |
| roposed\_\_\_\_\_ |    |    |      |             |                |
| or Current        |    |    |      |             |                |
| (OMB-Ap           |    |    |      |             |                |
| proved)\_\_\_\_\_ |    |    |      |             |                |
| Baseline for a    |    |    |      |             |                |
| Pha               |    |    |      |             |                |
| se/Segment/Module |    |    |      |             |                |
| of Project        |    |    |      |             |                |
+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+
| Description of    | Sc |    |      | Planned     | Funding Agency |
| Milestone         | he |    |      | Cost        |                |
|                   | du |    |      |             |                |
|                   | le |    |      |             |                |
+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+
|                   | S  | E  | Dura |             |                |
|                   | ta | nd | tion |             |                |
|                   | rt | Da | (in  |             |                |
|                   | Da | te | d    |             |                |
|                   | te |    | ays) |             |                |
+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+
|                   |    |    |      |             |                |
+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+
| 1\.               |    |    |      |             |                |
+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+
| 2\.               |    |    |      |             |                |
+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+
| 3\.               |    |    |      |             |                |
+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+
| Completion date:  |    |    |      | Total cost  |                |
|                   |    |    |      | estimate at |                |
|                   |    |    |      | completion: |                |
+-------------------+----+----+------+-------------+----------------+

## I.H.4 Actual performance and variance from OMB-approved baseline (original or current):

A. This section is always filled in to reflect current status of the
investment. It compares the OMB approved baseline and actual results for
this phase, segment, or module of the investment. Show for each major
investment milestones or events you planned (scheduled) to accomplish
and the cost and what work was actually done and the cost. If the
project is in the operational or steady state phase complete one line on
the chart for each year. For these projects complete paragraphs C, D, F
and G as appropriate. If this is a new investment in the FY 2005 budget
year, this will be blank for your initial submission. OMB may ask for
latest information during the budget review process.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Comparison of                                                                                                
  OMB-Approved Baseline                                                                                        
  and Actual Outcome for                                                                                       
  Phase/Segment/Module                                                                                         
  of a Project                                                                                                 
  ---------------------- -------------- ------ ----------- --------- --------- ------------- ------ ---------- --------
                         OMB-Approved                                          Actual                          
                         Baseline                                              Outcome                         

  Description of         Schedule                          Planned   Funding   Schedule             Percent    Actual
  Milestone                                                Cost      Agency                         Complete   Cost

                         Start Date     End    Duration\                       Start Date    End               
                                        Date   (in days)                                     Date              

  1\.                                                                                                          

  2\.                                                                                                          

  3\.                                                                                                          

  Completion date:                                                             Estimated                       
  OMB-approved baseline:                                                       completion                      
                                                                               date:                           

  Total cost:                                                                  Estimate at                     
  OMB-approved baseline:                                                       completion:                     
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.  **Provide the following project summary information from your EVMS
    software: As of : [(date)]{.underline}**

**B.1. Show the budgeted (planned) cost of work scheduled (BCWS): \$
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**B.2. Show budgeted (planned) cost of work performed (BCWP): \$
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**B.3. Show the actual cost of work performed (ACWP): \$
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

## B.4. Provide a cost curve graph plotting BCWS, BCWP and ACWP on a monthly basis from inception of this phase or segment/module through the latest report. In addition, plot the ACWP curve to the estimated cost at completion (EAC) value, and provide the following EVMS variance analysis.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  PROJECT SUMMARY (CUMULATIVE)                                  
  ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
                                                                Value

                                                                

  Cost Variance = (BCWP-ACWP) =                                 

  Cost Variance % = (CV/BCWP) x 100% =                          

  Cost Performance Index (CPI) = (BCWP/ACWP) =                  

  Schedule Variance = (BCWP-BCWS) =                             

  Schedule Variance % = (SV/BCWS) x 100% =                      

  Schedule Performance Index (SPI) = (BCWP/BCWS) =              

  Two independent Estimates at Completion (EAC) = (ACWPcum +    
  Performance Factor (PF) X(BAC B BCWPcum) where PF~1~ = 1/CPI, 
  and PF~2~ = 1/CPI x SPI =                                     

  Variance at Completion (VAC) = (BAC B EAC) for both EACs      
  above =                                                       

  Variance at Completion % = (VAC/BAC) x 100% for both EACs     
  above =                                                       

  Expected Funds to Completion (ETC) =                          

  Expected Completion Date =                                    
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Definitions for Earned Value Management System:**

ACWP -- Actual Cost for Work Performed -- What you paid.

BAC -- Budget At Completion -- The baseline (planned) budget for the
project.

BCWP -- Budgeted Cost for Work Performed -- The earned value.

BCWS -- Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled -- The planned costs.

CPI -- Cost Performance Index -- The ratio of the budgeted to actual
cost of work performed.

CV -- Cost Variance -- The difference between planned and actual cost of
work performed.

EAC -- Estimate At Completion -- The latest estimated cost at
completion.

ETC -- Estimate to Completion -- Funds needed to complete the project.

PF -- Performance Factor -- The cost to earn a dollar of value, or
ACWP/BCWP, or 1/CPI.

SPI -- Schedule Performance Index -- The percent of the project that has
been completed.

SV -- Schedule Variance -- The variance between the actual and planned
schedules.

VAC -- Variance at Completion -- The variance between the baseline and
actual budget at completion.

C. If cost and/or schedule variance are a negative 10 percent or more at
the time of this report or EAC is projected to be 10 percent or more,
explain the reason(s) for the variance(s).

**D. Provide performance variance. Explain based on work accomplished to
date, whether or not you still expect to achieve your performance goals.
If not, explain the reasons for the variance. For steady state projects,
in addition to a discussion on whether or not the system is meeting the
program objectives, discuss whether the needs of the owners and users
are still being met.**

E.  **For investments using EVMS, discuss the contractor, government,
    and at least the two EAC index formulas in I.H.4.B, current
    estimates at completion. Explain the differences and the IPT's
    selected EAC for budgeting purposes. This paragraph is not
    applicable to operations/steady state investments.**

F.  **Discuss the corrective actions that will be taken to correct the
    variances, the risk associated with the actions, and how close the
    planned actions will bring the project to the original baseline.
    Define proposed baseline changes, if necessary.**

G.  **If the investment cost, schedule or performance variances are 10%
    or greater, has the Agency Head concurred in the need to continue
    the program at the new baseline?**

**Part II: Additional Business Case Criteria for Information
Technology**

**II. A. ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE**

**In order to successfully address this area of the business case and
capital asset plan you must ensure that the investment is included in
the agency's EA and CPIC process, and is mapped to and supports the
Federal Enterprise Architecture. You must also ensure that the business
case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the
business, data, application, and technology layers of the EA.**

**II.A.1 Business**

A.  **Is this project identified in your agency\'s enterprise
    architecture? If not, why?**

The Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) is a business and
performance-based framework to support cross-agency collaboration,
transformation, and government-wide improvement (Figure 1). It provides
Federal agencies with a new way of describing, analyzing, and improving
the Federal Government and its ability to serve the citizen. The
underpinnings for accomplishing the FM LOB goals is the development of
an enterprise architecture that will use the FEA taxonomy to describe
the financial management target architecture in a consistent manner and
provide sufficient detail within the architectural deliverables so that
agencies can begin transition planning and analysis in support of the
common solution.

> The FM LOB developed a target enterprise architecture to serve as the
> integrated framework for aligning core financial business processes,
> data, applications, and technology. At the highest level, the business
> architecture establishes a relationship between the FEA reference
> models and the core financial management functions as defined by the
> JFMIP. In order to support the common solution, a government-wide set
> of common target business processes for each core financial
> sub-function has been identified. These business processes are mapped
> to the FEA Performance Reference Model and Service Component Reference
> Model to ensure alignment.
>
> There are six high-level sub-functions and corresponding business
> processes that support the FM LOB. These sub-functions represent the
> general activities that will be standardized and consolidated to
> support the common solution. The sub-functions will be further
> decomposed into generic work activities that are commonly applicable
> to all agencies, and those activities will be the focus of the service
> and technology component consolidation and cross servicing operations.
> The six sub-functions are: general ledger management, funds
> management, payment management, receipt management, cost management,
> and reporting.

A.1. Will this investment be consistent with your agency's "to be"
modernization blueprint?

> The FM LOB is the "to be" modernization blueprint not just for the
> nine partnering agencies but for the financial management applications
> of all agencies.

B.  **Was this project approved through the EA Review committee at your
    agency?**

> The components of the FM LOB will be reviewed by the appropriate EA
> committees at all agencies.  Individual agencies will not approve the
> components of the FM LOB but a cross-agency change
> control/configuration management board will be established to receive
> input from the partnering agencies and to make recommendations to OMB.

C.  **What are the major process simplification/reeng­ineering/design
    projects that are required as part of this initiative?**

> Standardization of data definitions across agency financial management
> and interfaces is necessary to facilitate data sharing, retrieval, and
> analyses. The FM LOB, together with the other E-Gov and LOB
> initiatives, will be a major driver of process and data definition
> standardization within and across agencies.

D.  **What are the major organization restructuring, training, and
    change management projects that are required?**

> Substantial reorganization of business and technology functions is
> implicit.  In order for the project to succeed, it will be necessary
> to implement substantial change management and configuration control
> procedures that cut across all agencies as well as all of the LOB and
> E-Gov projects.

 

> Training/retraining will be necessary.  A possible training solution
> is to provide each user with a full day of Security Awareness training
> as well as one to nine days of role-specific training, depending upon
> role assignments.

E. Please list all the Lines of Business and Sub-Functions from the FEA
Business Reference Model that this IT investment supports. (Note: the
primary BRM mapping for this initiative should be identified with the
last six digits of the Unique Project (investment) Identifier in Section
53.8). For a list of the BRM Lines of Business and Sub-Functions, as
well as guidance on mapping to the BRM, please see www.feapmo.gov.
 (Note: The Services for Citizens area and the Mode of Delivery area
should be thought of collectively. If you identified your primary line
of business/sub-functio­n in section 53.8 as a Service for Citizen or a
Mode of Delivery, at a minimum you should identify the corresponding
Mode of Delivery/Service for Citizen that applies in this section).

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  **Line of Business**              **Sub-function**

  Financial Management              General Ledger Management

                                    Funds Management

                                    Payment Management

                                    Receivables Management

                                    Cost Management

                                    Reporting
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

**II.A.2 Data**

> **A. What types of data will be used in this project? Examples of data
> types are health data, geospatial data, natural resources data, etc.**
>
> While the focus is on financial management data, it will be necessary
> to bi-directionally share core financial data with systems containing
> data for procurement, travel, personal property and fleet management,
> real property, budget formulation, financial assistance, enterprise
> management information, and many other purposes.  Thus, the key is
> that all such data should be shareable in nonproprietary format, e.g.,
> Extensible Markup Language (XML).  In addition, the vocabularies by
> which the data is defined and described should be standardized not
> only within the FM LOB but across all LOBs, so that the meaning of
> each element of data is clear, both in human as well as machine
> readable terms.

B. Does the data needed for this project already exist at the Federal,
State, or Local level? If so, what are your plans to gain access to that
data?

> FM LOB data relates to financial and management information. The
> majority of the data is generated within the agencies themselves.
> Existing central data, such as the Central Contractor Registry (CCR),
> will be interfaced. CCR interfaces exist for various COTS providers,
> they would be reused. The FM LOB will have other import and export
> capabilities to receive data from and provide data to other systems,
> both real-time and via batch mode. The system will have the Web as its
> common user interface, and this Internet connectivity can be used for
> data exchange using XML or other data exchange mechanisms.

The FM LOB will work with other Lines of Business initiatives as well as
the managers of the e-Gov projects to ensure that the COEs make
available a set of data and information integration components that can
be leveraged and reused across the LOBs and e-Gov projects.C. Are there
legal reasons why this data cannot be transferred? If so, what are they
and did you address them in the barriers and risk sections above?

> For the most part, data to be used by the FM LOB are transferable
> between old systems and new systems as well as among agencies. Most
> but not all of the data is available to the public. The FM LOB
> information will be considered a system of records, just as current
> information in current modules is considered to be in a collection of
> systems of records.  The appropriate steps will be taken to ensure
> that the FM LOB system of records is published in the Federal
> Register.
>
> Some data are either employee-sensitive or vendor-sensitive. There are
> some privacy rules that would not allow certain data (personal and
> banking, as examples) from one system of records to another system of
> records.
>
> Risks associated with data contained in the FM LOB have been addressed
> in the barriers and risk sections of this capital planning document.

D.  **If this initiative processes spatial data, identify planned
    investments for spatial data and demonstrate how the agency ensures
    compliance with the Federal Geographic Data Committee standards
    required by OMB Circular A--16.**

> The FM LOB core financial data generally is not associated with
> specific locations but the incorporation of spatial data will be
> considered as needs and opportunities arise.

E.  **If this activity involves the acquisition, handling or storage of
    information that will be disseminated to the public or used to
    support information that will be disseminated to the public, explain
    how it will comply with your agency's Information Quality guidelines
    (Section 515 requirements)?**

> Information quality is of the essence in gathering, processing, and
> sharing financial management data.  While the FM LOB will not directly
> disseminate information to the public, each agency will need to
> develop and implement procedures and systems to ensure the financial
> information they disseminate is consistent with that maintained in the
> FM LOB.

F.  **Managing business information means maintaining its authenticity,
    reliability, integrity, and usability and providing for its
    appropriate disposition. Address how the system will manage the
    business information (records) that it will contain throughout the
    information life cycle.**

> The FM LOB will comply with requirements outlined in ISO 15489 and
> will implement as one or more of its components a records management
> application or applications certified under DOD Std. 5015.2.  Records
> will be maintained in inviolate, nonproprietary format in a
> DOD-certified electronic records management system (ERMS) throughout
> their full life-cycles, to facilitate auditing of the data maintained
> in the FM LOB database(s).  All records will be scheduled for
> disposition in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Records
> Act, and no record will be destroyed except on a schedule approved by
> the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  For
> continuity of operations, vital records will be securely stored in at
> least two geographically dispersed locations.

**II.A.3 Applications, Components, and Technology**

## Discuss this major investment in relationship to the Service Component Reference Model Section of the FEA. Include a discussion of the components included in this major IT investment (e.g., Knowledge Management, Content Management, Customer Relationship Management, etc). For detailed guidance regarding components, please refer to http://www.feapmo.go­v and the SRM Release Document. 

> The following table is based on architecture documents prepared by the
> FM LOB Enterprise Architecture Working Group (EAWG) and reviewed by
> OMB.

+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
| Sub       | Target       | SRM Service  | SRM        | SRM Component |
| -Function | Business     | Domain       | Service    |               |
|           | Process      |              | Type       |               |
+===========+==============+==============+============+===============+
| General   | Manage GL    | Business     | Management | Gove          |
| Ledger    | Structure    | Management   | of         | rnance/Policy |
| M         |              | Service      | Processes  | Management    |
| anagement |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Change        |
|           |              |              |            | Management    |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Configuration |
|           |              |              |            | Management    |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Manage GL    | Back Office  | Financial  | Billing and   |
|           | Transaction  | Service      | Management | Accounting    |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
| Funds     | Construct    | Business     | Investment | Strategic     |
| M         | Plan         | Management   | Management | Planning &    |
| anagement |              | Services     |            | Mgmt          |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Requirements  |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Process      | Routing    | Inbound       |
|           |              | Automation   | and        | C             |
|           |              | Services     | Scheduling | orrespondence |
|           |              | Domain       |            | Management    |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Develop      | Business     | Management | Requirements  |
|           | Program      | Management   | of Process | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Program /     |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Project       |
|           |              | Services     |            | Management    |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Governance /  |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Policy        |
|           |              | Services     |            | Management    |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Quality       |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Investment | Strategic     |
|           |              | Management   | Management | Planning &    |
|           |              | Services     |            | Mgmt          |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Formulate    | Business     | Analysis & | Predictive    |
|           | Budget       | Analytical   | Statistics |               |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Analysis & | Mathematical  |
|           |              | Analytical   | Statistics |               |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Business   | Decision      |
|           |              | Analytical   | In         | Sup           |
|           |              | Services     | telligence | port/Planning |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Support      | Business     | Management | Program /     |
|           | Budget       | Management   | of Process | Project       |
|           | Execution    | Services     |            | Management    |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Quality       |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Investment | Portfolio     |
|           |              | Management   | Management | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Investment | Performance   |
|           |              | Management   | Management | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Evaluate     | Business     | Management | Program /     |
|           | Budget       | Management   | of Process | Project       |
|           |              | Services     |            | Management    |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Governance /  |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Policy        |
|           |              | Services     |            | Management    |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Quality       |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Business Rule |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Risk          |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Investment | Strategic     |
|           |              | Management   | Management | Planning &    |
|           |              | Services     |            | Mgmt          |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Investment | Portfolio     |
|           |              | Management   | Management | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Management | Change        |
|           |              | Management   | of Process | Management    |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
|           |              | Domain       |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
|           |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
| Cost      | Define Model | Business     | Analysis & | Modeling      |
| M         |              | Analytical   | Statistics |               |
| anagement |              | Services     |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Simulation    |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Struc         |
|           |              |              |            | tural/Thermal |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Populate     | Business     | Analysis & | Mathematical  |
|           | Model        | Analytical   | Statistics |               |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Business   | Decision      |
|           |              | Analytical   | In         | Support and   |
|           |              | Services     | telligence | Planning      |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Data Mining   |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Perform      | Business     | Business   | Demand        |
|           | Analysis     | Analytical   | In         | For           |
|           |              | Services     | telligence | ecasting/Mgmt |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Decision      |
|           |              |              |            | Support and   |
|           |              |              |            | Planning      |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Balanced      |
|           |              |              |            | Scorecard     |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Business     | Analysis & | Predictive    |
|           |              | Analytical   | Statistics |               |
|           |              | Services     |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Mathematical  |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
| Payments  | Manage       | Back Office  | Financial  | Payment/      |
| M         | Payment      | Service      | Management | Settlement    |
| anagement |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Credit &      |
|           |              |              |            | Charge        |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Manage       | Back Office  | Financial  | Payment/      |
|           | Payable &    | Service      | Management | Settlement    |
|           | Accrual      |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
| Receipts  | Manage       | Back Office  | Financial  | Billing &     |
| M         | Receivable   | Service      | Management | Accounting    |
| anagement |              |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              | Back Office  | Financial  | Debt          |
|           |              | Service      | Management | Collection    |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Manage       | Back Office  | Financial  | Debt          |
|           | Collection   | Service      | Management | Collection    |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Credit &      |
|           |              |              |            | Charge        |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           | Manage       | Back Office  | Financial  | Payment/      |
|           | Treasury     | Service      | Management | Settlement    |
|           | Execution    |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Debt          |
|           |              |              |            | Collection    |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
| Reporting | Generate     | Back Office  | Financial  | Financial     |
|           | Financial    | Service      | Management | Reporting     |
|           | Statement    |              |            |               |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+
|           |              |              |            | Auditing      |
+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+---------------+

 

> The solution architecture documentation is currently being developed.
> When finalized, the components will comply with FEA guidelines.

## Are all of the hardware, applications, components, and web technology requirements for this investment included in the Agency EA Technical Reference Model?

> Not applicable. Mappings to an agency EA are not provided as this
> business case is a conceptual framework for a government-wide
> initiative. Mappings will be determined as COEs and migrating agencies
> are identified.

## Discuss this major IT investment in relationship to the Technical Reference Model Section of the FEA. Identify each Service Area, Service Category, Service Standard, and Service Specification that collectively describes the technology supporting the major IT investment. For detailed guidance regarding the FEA TRM, please refer to http://www.feapmo.go­v.

> The following table is based on architecture documents prepared by the
> FM LOB Enterprise Architecture Working Group (EAWG) and reviewed by
> OMB.

+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
| Se    | S      | Service | Service | Rationale                     |
| rvice | ervice | S       | Specif  |                               |
| Area  | Ca     | tandard | ication |                               |
|       | tegory |         |         |                               |
+=======+========+=========+=========+===============================+
| Se    | Access | Web     | N       | Netscape is the second most   |
| rvice | ch     | browser | etscape | widely used World Wide Web    |
| a     | annels |         | Na      | browser.                      |
| ccess |        |         | vigator |                               |
| and   |        |         |         |                               |
| del   |        |         |         |                               |
| ivery |        |         |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | I       | IE is the most widely used    |
|       |        |         | nternet | World Wide Web browser.       |
|       |        |         | E       |                               |
|       |        |         | xplorer |                               |
|       |        |         | (IE)    |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Others  | Any XML-enabled browser       |
|       |        |         |         | should be supported.          |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Other   | System  | Provides exchange of data or  |
|       |        | ele     | to      | interaction without human     |
|       |        | ctronic | System  | interaction.                  |
|       |        | c       |         |                               |
|       |        | hannels |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Uniform | Provides the global address   |
|       |        |         | R       | of documents and other        |
|       |        |         | esource | resources on the Web.         |
|       |        |         | Locator |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Collab  | Fa      | Many financial documents are  |
|       |        | oration | csimile | still paper-based.            |
|       |        | Communi | (Fax)   |                               |
|       |        | cations |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | De     | D       | I       | The ability to provide        |
|       | livery | elivery | nternet | information on the internet.  |
|       | ch     | c       |         |                               |
|       | annels | hannels |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | I       | The ability to provide        |
|       |        |         | ntranet | information on a private      |
|       |        |         |         | network within an enterprise. |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | E       | The ability to provide        |
|       |        |         | xtranet | information to the public.    |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | S      | Legi    | Section | Required to meet the          |
|       | ervice | slative | 508     | government 508 requirements.  |
|       | requir | /       |         |                               |
|       | ements | com     |         |                               |
|       |        | pliance |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | S       | Security is of the essence    |
|       |        |         | ecurity | for many financial records.   |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | P       | Privacy is important for some |
|       |        |         | rivacy: | financial data.               |
|       |        |         | Liberty |                               |
|       |        |         | A       |                               |
|       |        |         | lliance |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Hosting | I       | The ability to host the       |
|       |        |         | nternal | application within the        |
|       |        |         | (Within | enterprise.                   |
|       |        |         | agency) |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | S      | Sup     | I       | IMAP allows remote            |
|       | ervice | porting | nternet | client/server capabilities    |
|       | tra    | network | message | between the client and the    |
|       | nsport | s       | access  | mail server and provides      |
|       |        | ervices | p       | greater capability than Post  |
|       |        |         | rotocol | Office Protocol (POP) 3.      |
|       |        |         | / Post  |                               |
|       |        |         | office  |                               |
|       |        |         | p       |                               |
|       |        |         | rotocol |                               |
|       |        |         | (IMAP / |                               |
|       |        |         | POP3)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Multi   | IMAP allows remote            |
|       |        |         | purpose | client/server capabilities    |
|       |        |         | I       | between the mail client and   |
|       |        |         | nternet | mail server, and provides     |
|       |        |         | mail    | greater capability than Post  |
|       |        |         | ext     | Office Protocol (POP) 3. The  |
|       |        |         | ensions | major Email server vendors    |
|       |        |         | (MIME)  | support IMAP.                 |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Secure  | Increase security for         |
|       |        |         | multi   | messages sent into domain     |
|       |        |         | purpose | that MIME doesn't support.    |
|       |        |         | I       |                               |
|       |        |         | nternet |                               |
|       |        |         | mail    |                               |
|       |        |         | ext     |                               |
|       |        |         | ensions |                               |
|       |        |         | (S /    |                               |
|       |        |         | MIME)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Simple  | Almost all communications     |
|       |        |         | mail    | product suppliers support     |
|       |        |         | t       | SMTP. It is necessary for     |
|       |        |         | ransfer | Internet email.               |
|       |        |         | p       |                               |
|       |        |         | rotocol |                               |
|       |        |         | (SMTP)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Ligh    | LDAP is vendor-independent    |
|       |        |         | tweight | and supports multi vendor     |
|       |        |         | di      | interoperability in the same  |
|       |        |         | rectory | fashion as TCP/IP, SMTP,      |
|       |        |         | access  | Domain Name Space (DNS), and  |
|       |        |         | p       | others.                       |
|       |        |         | rotocol |                               |
|       |        |         | (LDAP)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Sup     | Di      | The ability to discover and   |
|       |        | porting | rectory | identify resources on a       |
|       |        | network | S       | network and make them         |
|       |        | s       | ervices | accessible to users and       |
|       |        | ervices | (X.500) | applications.                 |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Service | W       | WAP enables web content to be |
|       |        | tr      | ireless | presented on wireless         |
|       |        | ansport | appl    | devices.                      |
|       |        |         | ication |                               |
|       |        |         | p       |                               |
|       |        |         | rotocol |                               |
|       |        |         | (WAP)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Tr      | Provides transport functions, |
|       |        |         | ansport | which ensures that the total  |
|       |        |         | control | amount of bytes sent is       |
|       |        |         | p       | received correctly at the     |
|       |        |         | rotocol | destination.                  |
|       |        |         | (TCP)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | I       | The global standard for       |
|       |        |         | nternet | communications.               |
|       |        |         | p       |                               |
|       |        |         | rotocol |                               |
|       |        |         | (IP)    |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | IP      | Provides secure IP packet     |
|       |        |         | s       | exchange.                     |
|       |        |         | ecurity |                               |
|       |        |         | (IPSEC) |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Hyper   | The protocol of the Web.      |
|       |        |         | Text    |                               |
|       |        |         | T       |                               |
|       |        |         | ransfer |                               |
|       |        |         | P       |                               |
|       |        |         | rotocol |                               |
|       |        |         | (HTTP)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
| Se    | Supp   | P       | Java 2  | J2EE and .Net are the two     |
| rvice | orting | latform | Ent     | dominant distributed          |
| pla   | pla    | inde    | erprise | computing architecture        |
| tform | tforms | pendent | Edition | frameworks.                   |
| and   |        |         | (J2EE)  |                               |
| infr  |        |         |         |                               |
| astru |        |         |         |                               |
| cture |        |         |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | P       | Windows | Various versions of Windows   |
|       |        | latform |         | should be supported.          |
|       |        | de      |         |                               |
|       |        | pendent |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | P       | Windows | .Net supports a wide range of |
|       |        | latform | .NET    | languages.                    |
|       |        | de      |         |                               |
|       |        | pendent |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | Da     | D       | SQL     | All of the SQL compliant      |
|       | tabase | atabase |         | relational databases should   |
|       | /      |         |         | be supported.                 |
|       | s      |         |         |                               |
|       | torage |         |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | XQuery  | The emerging class of native  |
|       |        |         |         | XML databases should also be  |
|       |        |         |         | supported.                    |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Storage | Ne      | Provides extended storage     |
|       |        |         | twork-a | capabilities for file         |
|       |        |         | ttached | sharing.                      |
|       |        |         | storage |                               |
|       |        |         | (NAS)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Storage | High-speed subnet of shared   |
|       |        |         | Area    | storage devices.              |
|       |        |         | Network |                               |
|       |        |         | (SAN)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | Ha     | Servers | Ma      | Large-scale hosted            |
|       | rdware | /       | inframe | applications will require     |
|       |        | Co      |         | mainframe computing power.    |
|       |        | mputers |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | E       | Hard    | Magnetic storage will be      |
|       |        | mbedded | Disk    | required both on the hosts as |
|       |        | Tec     | Drive   | well as the clients.          |
|       |        | hnology |         |                               |
|       |        | Devices |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Peri    | Printer | Many financial documents will |
|       |        | pherals |         | need to be printed.           |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Wide    | Async   | Widely used protocol for      |
|       |        | Area    | hronous | WANs.                         |
|       |        | Network | T       |                               |
|       |        | (WAN)   | ransfer |                               |
|       |        |         | Mode    |                               |
|       |        |         | (ATM)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Local   | E       | Widely used protocol for      |
|       |        | Area    | thernet | LANs.                         |
|       |        | Network |         |                               |
|       |        | (LAN)   |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Network | Digital | Widely used standard for      |
|       |        | Devices | Sub     | relatively high-speed access  |
|       |        | /       | scriber | via the Web.                  |
|       |        | St      | Line    |                               |
|       |        | andards | (DSL)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
| Comp  | Se     | Certi   | Secure  | SSL is an integral part of    |
| onent | curity | ficates | Sockets | each Netscape browser. If a   |
| fram  |        | /       | Layer   | Website is on a Netscape      |
| ework |        | Digital | (SSL)   | server, SSL can be enabled    |
|       |        | si      |         | and specific Web pages can be |
|       |        | gnature |         | identified as requiring SSL   |
|       |        |         |         | access.                       |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Digital | Digital certificates are      |
|       |        |         | Cert    | required to provide for       |
|       |        |         | ificate | authentication and            |
|       |        |         | Authent | non-repudiation.              |
|       |        |         | ication |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Sup     | Tr      | TLS is an integral part of    |
|       |        | porting | ansport | each Netscape browser. If a   |
|       |        | s       | layer   | Website is on a Netscape      |
|       |        | ecurity | s       | server, SSL can be enabled    |
|       |        | s       | ecurity | and specific Web pages can be |
|       |        | ervices | (TLS)   | identified as requiring TLS   |
|       |        |         |         | access.                       |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | WS-S    | Describes enhancements to     |
|       |        |         | ecurity | SOAP messaging to provide     |
|       |        |         |         | message integrity, message    |
|       |        |         |         | confidentiality and single    |
|       |        |         |         | message authentication.       |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | S       | XML framework for exchanging  |
|       |        |         | ecurity | authentication and            |
|       |        |         | As      | authorization information.    |
|       |        |         | surance |                               |
|       |        |         | Markup  |                               |
|       |        |         | L       |                               |
|       |        |         | anguage |                               |
|       |        |         | (SAML)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | Presen | D       | Java    | JSP is part of Sun's J2EE     |
|       | tation | ynamic/ | Server  | architecture and provide      |
|       | /      | Serv    | Pages   | template capabilities.        |
|       | Int    | er-Side | (JSP)   |                               |
|       | erface | Display |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Active  | A web server technology from  |
|       |        |         | Server  | Microsoft that allows for the |
|       |        |         | Pa      | creation of dynamic,          |
|       |        |         | ges.Net | interactive sessions with the |
|       |        |         |         | user.                         |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Content | Ca      | CCS is the emergent standard  |
|       |        | re      | scading | for web browsers.             |
|       |        | ndering | style   |                               |
|       |        |         | sheets  |                               |
|       |        |         | (CSS)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Dynamic | DHTML is used to render       |
|       |        |         | HTML    | dynamic pages on the Web.     |
|       |        |         | (DHTML) |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | W       | WML is used to enable         |
|       |        |         | ireless | transmission of XML formatted |
|       |        |         | Markup  | data to wireless devices.     |
|       |        |         | L       |                               |
|       |        |         | anguage |                               |
|       |        |         | (WML)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | Bu     | P       | Java 2  | J2EE and .Net are the two     |
|       | siness | latform | p       | dominant distributed          |
|       | logic  | inde    | latform | computing architecture        |
|       |        | pendent | ent     | frameworks.                   |
|       |        |         | erprise |                               |
|       |        |         | edition |                               |
|       |        |         | (J2EE)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | P       | Jav     | Many Web pages employ         |
|       |        | latform | aScript | JavaScript for easy script    |
|       |        | inde    |         | use.                          |
|       |        | pendent |         |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | Data   | Data    | Ent     | Allows the movement and       |
|       | inter  | e       | erprise | exchange of information       |
|       | change | xchange | Appl    | between different             |
|       |        |         | ication | applications and business     |
|       |        |         | Inte    | processes within and between  |
|       |        |         | gration | organizations.                |
|       |        |         | (EAI)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Ele     | Emerging XML-based standard   |
|       |        |         | ctronic | for business.                 |
|       |        |         | B       |                               |
|       |        |         | usiness |                               |
|       |        |         | using   |                               |
|       |        |         | XML     |                               |
|       |        |         | (ebXML) |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Simple  | SOAP is a lightweight         |
|       |        |         | Object  | protocol intended for         |
|       |        |         | Access  | exchanging structured         |
|       |        |         | P       | information in a              |
|       |        |         | rotocol | decentralized, distributed    |
|       |        |         | (SOAP)  | environment.                  |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Open    | OFX is a specification for    |
|       |        |         | Fi      | the electronic exchange of    |
|       |        |         | nancial | financial data between        |
|       |        |         | Inte    | financial institutions,       |
|       |        |         | rchange | business and consumers via    |
|       |        |         | (OFX)   | the Internet.                 |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Inte    | IFX is an XML-based,          |
|       |        |         | ractive | financial messaging protocol. |
|       |        |         | Fi      |                               |
|       |        |         | nancial |                               |
|       |        |         | Inte    |                               |
|       |        |         | rchange |                               |
|       |        |         | (IFX)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Un      | UBL is an emerging standard   |
|       |        |         | iversal | library of XML business       |
|       |        |         | B       | documents.                    |
|       |        |         | usiness |                               |
|       |        |         | L       |                               |
|       |        |         | anguage |                               |
|       |        |         | (UBL)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Ros     | RosettaNet is a set of        |
|       |        |         | ettaNet | industry-wide, open           |
|       |        |         |         | e-business process standards  |
|       |        |         |         | forming a common e-business   |
|       |        |         |         | language, aligning processes  |
|       |        |         |         | between supply chain partners |
|       |        |         |         | on a global basis.            |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | Data   | D       | Java    | Java itself runs on most      |
|       | mana   | atabase | d       | platforms. JDBC makes it      |
|       | gement | conne   | atabase | possible to write a single    |
|       |        | ctivity | conne   | database application that can |
|       |        |         | ctivity | run on different platforms    |
|       |        |         | (JDBC)  | and interact with different   |
|       |        |         |         | DBMSs.                        |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | D       | Connectors should be provided |
|       |        |         | atabase | for all major databases, on   |
|       |        |         | Con     | an as-needed basis.           |
|       |        |         | nectors |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Java    | Provides a unified, standard  |
|       |        |         | data    | persistence interface         |
|       |        |         | object  | supported by multiple vendors |
|       |        |         | (JDO)   | delivering competing          |
|       |        |         |         | implementations.              |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Open    | Provides desktop application  |
|       |        |         | d       | access to multi-tier RDBMS    |
|       |        |         | atabase | engines with reduced API      |
|       |        |         | conne   | coding.                       |
|       |        |         | ctivity |                               |
|       |        |         | (ODBC)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Active  | Makes it possible to write a  |
|       |        |         | Data    | single query that can be run  |
|       |        |         | Obje    | by different programs and     |
|       |        |         | cts.net | interact with different       |
|       |        |         | (A      | DBMSs.                        |
|       |        |         | DO.NET) |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Re      | Online  | Provide a common language for |
|       |        | porting | Ana     | Windows applications to       |
|       |        | and     | lytical | access databases on a         |
|       |        | a       | Pro     | network.                      |
|       |        | nalysis | cessing |                               |
|       |        |         | (OLAP)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Java    | Provide a common,             |
|       |        |         | Online  | nonproprietary language for   |
|       |        |         | Ana     | access to databases on a      |
|       |        |         | lytical | network.                      |
|       |        |         | Pro     |                               |
|       |        |         | cessing |                               |
|       |        |         | (JOLAP) |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | XML for | Provide a nonproprietary      |
|       |        |         | A       | vocabulary for data analyses. |
|       |        |         | nalysis |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | eXt     | Nonproprietary, XML-based     |
|       |        |         | ensible | vocabulary for financial      |
|       |        |         | B       | business reporting.           |
|       |        |         | usiness |                               |
|       |        |         | Re      |                               |
|       |        |         | porting |                               |
|       |        |         | L       |                               |
|       |        |         | anguage |                               |
|       |        |         | (XBRL)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
| Se    | Inte   | Mid     | Message | Provides a client/server      |
| rvice | ropera | dleware | O       | <                             |
| inte  | bility |         | riented | http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/de |
| rface |        |         | Mid     | scriptions/clientserver.html> |
| and   |        |         | dleware | infrastructure that increases |
| i     |        |         | (MOM)   | the interoperability,         |
| ntegr |        |         |         | portability, and flexibility  |
| ation |        |         |         | of an application by allowing |
|       |        |         |         | the application to be         |
|       |        |         |         | distributed over multiple     |
|       |        |         |         | heterogeneous platforms.      |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Data    | XML     | Is the standard format for    |
|       |        | format  | schema  | web data, and is beginning to |
|       |        | /       |         | be used as a common data      |
|       |        | classif |         | format at all levels of the   |
|       |        | ication |         | architecture.                 |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Nam     | Required in some form to      |
|       |        |         | espaces | avoid "collisions" when the   |
|       |        |         |         | same terms are used with      |
|       |        |         |         | different meanings in         |
|       |        |         |         | different data domains.       |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Ele     | EDI will continue to be used  |
|       |        |         | ctronic | in some sectors for the       |
|       |        |         | Data    | foreseeable future and must   |
|       |        |         | Inte    | be supported.                 |
|       |        |         | rchange |                               |
|       |        |         | (EDI)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Data    | D       | DTDs are suitable for         |
|       |        | Types / | ocument | documents that are not highly |
|       |        | Val     | Type    | structured in the sense of    |
|       |        | idation | Def     | using strong data typing.     |
|       |        |         | inition |                               |
|       |        |         | (DTD)   |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Data    | eXt     | XSLT is a W3C standard for    |
|       |        | Transfo | ensible | transformation of data.       |
|       |        | rmation | Sy      |                               |
|       |        |         | lesheet |                               |
|       |        |         | L       |                               |
|       |        |         | anguage |                               |
|       |        |         | Transfo |                               |
|       |        |         | rmation |                               |
|       |        |         | (XSLT)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       | Int    | Service | Un      | Provides a searchable         |
|       | erface | di      | iversal | registry of XML web services  |
|       |        | scovery | desc    | and their associated URLs and |
|       |        |         | ription | WSDL pages.                   |
|       |        |         | di      |                               |
|       |        |         | scovery |                               |
|       |        |         | and     |                               |
|       |        |         | inte    |                               |
|       |        |         | gration |                               |
|       |        |         | (UDDI)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Service | Web     | Is an XML based interface     |
|       |        | Descr   | S       | description language for      |
|       |        | iption/ | ervices | describing XML Web Services   |
|       |        |         | Desc    | and how to use them.          |
|       |        | In      | ription |                               |
|       |        | terface | L       |                               |
|       |        |         | anguage |                               |
|       |        |         | (WSDL)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Mid     | D       | iSQL-Viewer is an open-source |
|       |        | dleware | atabase | JDBC 2.x compliant database   |
|       |        |         | Access: | front end written in Java.    |
|       |        |         | ISQL    |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | B       | Enables federation of         |
|       |        |         | usiness | business processes across     |
|       |        |         | Process | distributed platforms.        |
|       |        |         | Ex      |                               |
|       |        |         | ecution |                               |
|       |        |         | L       |                               |
|       |        |         | anguage |                               |
|       |        |         | (BPEL)  |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Web     | An extensible framework for   |
|       |        |         | S       | providing protocols that      |
|       |        |         | ervices | coordinate the actions of     |
|       |        |         | Coord   | distributed applications.     |
|       |        |         | ination |                               |
|       |        |         | (WS     |                               |
|       |        |         | -Coordi |                               |
|       |        |         | nation) |                               |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        |         | Web     | Describes two coordination    |
|       |        |         | S       | types \-- Atomic Transaction  |
|       |        |         | ervices | (AT) and Business Activity    |
|       |        |         | Trans   | (BA) \-- that are used with   |
|       |        |         | actions | the extensible coordination   |
|       |        |         | (WS     | framework described in the    |
|       |        |         | -Transa | WS-Coordination               |
|       |        |         | ctions) | specification.                |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+
|       |        | Ent     | Appl    | EAI components will be        |
|       |        | erprise | ication | required to share data        |
|       |        | Appl    | Conne   | between the "as is" and "to   |
|       |        | ication | ctivity | be" components, both as a     |
|       |        | Inte    |         | migration/conversion strategy |
|       |        | gration |         | as well as on a longer-term   |
|       |        |         |         | basis, when the FM LOB        |
|       |        |         |         | solution itself becomes a     |
|       |        |         |         | "legacy" application.         |
+-------+--------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+

## Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc). If so, please describe.

> The FM LOB will enable agencies to interface with and leverage
> government-wide components and applications such as eAuthentication,
> Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI), Integrated Acquisition
> Environment (IAE), Central Contractor Registry, E-Travel, Grants
> Management LOB and grants.gov, Business Gateway and its eForms
> service, Govbenefits.gov, and the records management E-Gov initiative.
>
> The FM LOB will work with other Lines of Business initiatives as well
> as the managers of the e-Gov projects to ensure that the COEs make
> available standardized application integration components (e.g., Web
> services) that can be leveraged and reused across the LOBs and e-Gov
> projects.
>
> To the degree the XML registry/repository may become the embodiment of
> the FEA Data and Information Reference Model (DRM), the FM LOB will
> leverage it to enable seamless, automated sharing of data not only
> among components within the FM LOB but also across all of government,
> with any and all other XML-enabled E-Gov applications and LOBs -- via
> a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA).

## Financial Management Systems and Projects, as indicated in Part One, must be mapped to the agency's financial management system inventory provided annually to OMB. Please identify the system name(s) and system acronym(s) as reported in the most recent systems inventory update required by Circular A-11 Section 52.4.

> The nine partnering agencies and, eventually, all agencies will need
> to map their financial management systems and projects to the
> components of the FM LOB.  Those systems and projects will number in
> the thousands. 
>
>  
>
> OMB will drive this "mapping" process by directing agencies to the FM
> LOB when they request financial management system development,
> modernization, or enhancement funding.

## II. B. Security and Privacy 

**In order to successfully address this area of the business case, each
question below must be answered at the investment (system/application)­
level, not at a program or agency level. Simply referring to security
plans or other documents is not an acceptable response. For IT
investments under development, security planning must proceed in
parallel with the development of the system to ensure that IT security
requirements and costs for the lifecycle of the investment are
identified and validated. All IT investments must have up-to-date
security plans and be fully certified and accredited prior to becoming
operational. Anything short of a full certification and accreditation
indicates that identified IT security weaknesses remain which need to be
remediated and is therefore not adequate to ensure funding for the
investment.**

**Additionally, to ensure that requests for increased IT security
funding are appropriately addressed and prioritized, the agency must
identify: 1) current costs; 2) current IT security performance gaps; and
3) how the funding request will close the performance gaps. This
information must be provided to OMB through the agencies' plan of action
and milestone developed for the system and tied to the IT business case
through the unique project (investment) identifier.**

**In addition, agencies must demonstrate that they have fully considered
privacy in the context of this investment. Agencies must comply with
Section 208 of the E-government Act and forthcoming OMB implementing
guidance and, in appropriate circumstances, conduct a privacy impact
assessment that evaluates the privacy risks, alternatives and protective
measures implemented at each stage of the information life cycle.
Agencies should utilize the guidance provided in OMB Memoranda in
conducting the PIA and submit a copy, using the unique project
(investment) identifier, to OMB at <PIA@omb.eop.gov>.**

**II.B.1. How is security provided and funded for this investment (e.g.,
by program office or by the CIO through the general support
system/network)?**

> Security cost will be absorbed by the agencies and shall be included
> as a line item in the usage/ fees charged by the COE's. Each COE shall
> provide security in conformance with applicable Federal standards.
> Additionally, COE's shall be provisioned to meet and comply with
> emergency security requirements promulgated through legislative and or
> regulatory authorities. Agency Chief Information Officers (CIOC) and
> each agency's IT Security Manager shall ensure agency compliance at
> the local level with the development and promulgation of applicable
> security policies, conduct and formulate security plans, conduct
> security awareness training, in response to SLA's between the agency
> and the COE.

**A. What is the total dollar amount allocated to security for this
project in FY 2006? Please indicate whether an increase in IT security
funding is requested to remediate IT security weaknesses, specifying the
amount and a general description of the weakness.**

This is a new initiative in the conceptual phase. Each agency, given the
opportunity for Hosting and or end-to-end FM services, shall have
varying cost associated with compliance with security requirements.

Total cost to be determined.

**II.B.2 Please describe how the investment (system/application) meets
the following security requirements of the Federal Information Security
Management Act, OMB policy, and NIST guidelines:**

The need for confidentiality of information, integrity of information,
accountability for the information, non-repudiation of the information,
availability of information or the system, and/or reliability of the
information or the system will all be factors applicable to the risk
determination for the FM preferred solution. Conformance to A-130 and
other appropriate security regulations and guidance will be used to
ensure that the FM Preferred Solution is not only initially secure but
is flexible enough to incorporate additional security if/when new
requirements arise.

The preferred alternative solution is an initial concept phase.

A.  **Does the investment (system/application) have an up-to-date
    security plan that meets the requirements of OMB policy and NIST
    guidance? What is the date of the plan?**

> No.
>
> A complete security plan will be completed once the contracts are
> awarded. COEs are responsible for developing security plans, in
> conjunction with their client agencies.

B.  **Has the investment been certified and accredited (C&A)?**

> The preferred solution is in the initial concept phase. The vendors
> have not been chosen and none of the prospective components have been
> specifically identified yet.  Thus, certification and accreditation of
> those components is not yet possible. 

C.  **Have the management, operational, and technical security controls
    been tested for effectiveness? When were most recent tests
    performed?**

> No. This initiative is in the initial concept phase.

D.  **Have all system users been appropriately trained in the past year,
    including rules of behavior and consequences for violating the
    rules?**

> No. The preferred alternative "Common Solution" will identify change
> management and training requirements.

E.  **How has incident handling capability been incorporated into the
    system, including intrusion detection monitoring and audit log
    reviews? Are incidents reported to GSA's FedCIRC?**

> COE's shall be required to report security incidents in accordance
> with Federal security incident reporting policy.

F.  **Is the system operated by contractors either on-site or at a
    contractor facility? If yes, does any such contract include specific
    security requirements required by law and policy? How are contractor
    security procedures monitored, verified, and validated by the
    agency?**

> Although hosting arrangements remain to be determined, in all
> likelihood contractors will be involved in helping to operate and
> maintain the COE's. Accordingly, policy for the COE's will include
> specific security requirements for personnel that have access to data
> residing at the COE's.  Appropriate language shall be included in
> agency SLA's to ensure appropriate clearances and access authority for
> all personnel.

**II.B.3 How does the agency ensure the effective use of security
controls and authentication tools to protect privacy for those systems
that promote or permit public access?**

> The COE's will establish security as a very high priority and will
> conform to all applicable security requirements.  The COE's shall be
> subjected to extensive audits and examinations to ensure that
> sensitive data is protected from access by unauthorized users.  Such
> protections will include, where appropriate, firewalls, intrusion
> detection systems, mainframe RACF security, user names and strong
> passwords, encryption, and dedicated circuits as appropriate.
>
> Mandatory security requirements will provide a general guideline
> regarding the security that will be imposed on all COE's.  COEs will
> be required to provide their own security plans to comply with all
> appropriate security requirements.
>
>  The following controls, technologies, and requirements are examples
> of what will be necessary to include in system security and in the
> system's security plan. Specific requirements for system security and
> the security plan will be established at a later date. These
> requirements may include:
>
> 1\. A mock-up Security Plan that works uniformly across each agency
> where SLA's exist.
>
>  
>
> 2\. Best practices in developing its security modules and
> implementation. See http://csrc.nist.gov/cos-memo.html and
> http://csrc.nist.gov
>
>  
>
> 3\. Adherence to the control requirements put forth in public laws,
> federal regulations, and Executive Branch directions. Computer
> Security Act of 1987 (P. L. 100-235) (see
> http://csrc.nist.gov/secplcy/csa_87.txt) and Office of Management and
> Budget Circular A-130 (OMB A-130) (see
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/a130/a130.html>)
>
>  
>
> 4\. A centralized point of security administration.
>
>  
>
> 5\. A central security administrator to delegate selected security
> authorities to lower-level agency administrators. 
>
> 6\. Demonstrated past performance in and have successfully implemented
> secure systems for very large and complex organizations.
>
>  
>
> 7\. Successfully passed a Type 2 Statement on Auditing Standards No.
> 70 (S.A.S. 70) review of the system (see
> http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/cpaltr/pracalrt.htm).
>
>  
>
> 8\. COE's providing web-enabled applications should possess secure
> socket layer (SSL). (See
> <http://home.netscape.com/eng/ssl3/draft302.txt>)
>
>  
>
> 9\. COE's web-based system components should possess at least 128-bit
> encryption. (See <http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fips46-3.pdf>)
>
>  
>
> 10\. COE's offering web-based system components should possess digital
> certificates. (See <http://www.diffuse.org/secure.html#PKCS>)
>
>  
>
> 11\. COE's providing web-based system components should possess
> digital signature. (See <http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fips186-2.pdf>)
>
>  
>
> 12\. A capability for working within and through a firewall
> environment. For example, one class of users is "outside" of the
> firewall while the core system is "inside" the firewall.
>
>  
>
> 13\. Embedded firewall as part of the system.
>
>  
>
> 14\. COE's should use, at least, the TCP/IP Wide Area Network
> protocol.
>
>  
>
> 15\. COE's should support secure exchange of data using EDI and XML
> transaction sets.
>
>  
>
> 16\. A clearly defined data dictionary that is supplied in a common
> format as part of the base system.
>
>  
>
> 17\. COE's should support industry-accepted types of secure batch
> interface.
>
>  
>
> 18\. COE's should support industry-accepted types of secure
> interactive interface.
>
>  
>
> 19\. Support secure standard data exchange imports and exports.
>
>  
>
> 20\. Should allow for secure, editable real-time or near-time query.
>
>  
>
> 21\. Should allow for secure, real-time or near-time query from
> external applications.
>
>  
>
> 22\. Should have a secure WEB browser client that provides full
> functionality.
>
>  
>
> 23\. A WEB Browser interface should be a direct part of the system,
> fully and closely coupled to the system.
>
>  
>
> 24\. COE's offering the WEB Browser client, including all necessary
> plug-ins, should be secure.
>
>  
>
> 25\. Offer support for SSL or other type of encryption between server
> and web client.
>
>  
>
> 26\. Support for industry-accepted types of LDAP or external directory
> for user authentication.
>
>  
>
> 27\. COE's should support digital signatures based on X.509
> certificates.

**II.B.4 How does the agency ensure that the handling of personal
information is consistent with relevant government-wide and agency
policies?**

> The COE's shall hold security as a very high priority and will conform
> to applicable security requirements.  See comments in II.B.3, above,
> for some of the solutions that protect privacy of information.

**II.B.5 If this is a new or significantly altered investment involving
information in identifiable form collected from or about members of the
public, has a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for this investment been
provided to OMB at PIA@omb.eop.gov with the investment's unique project
(investment) identifier?**

> This is a new investment in the initial concept phase. As a part of
> the security C&A process, a PIA will be conducted.

## II. C. Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) 

II.C.1 If this project supports electronic transactions or record
keeping that is covered by GPEA, briefly describe the transaction or
record-keeping functions and how this investment relates to your
agency\'s GPEA plan.

> The COE's are not covered by GPEA because the transactions involved
> use government-wide standard forms that are being converted by the
> originating agencies, e.g., GSA and Treasury, etc.  However, the very
> same eForms components used for GPEA purposes (e.g., in the Business
> Gateway and grants.gov) can and should also be used to enable the
> intelligent and automated completion and submission of FM LOB forms. 
> Likewise, the very same DOD Std. 5015.2-certified electronic records
> management systems used for financial management records can and
> should also be used to securely store and manage electronic records of
> all kinds.

II.C.2 What is the date of electronic conversion from your GPEA plan?

> TBD

**II.C.3 Identify any OMB Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) control numbers
from information collections that are tied to this investment.**

> Not applicable. The transactions involved use government-wide standard
> forms that are being converted by the originating agencies, e.g., GSA
> and Treasury, etc.

Financial Management LoB

This addendum is provided to assist in the allocation of costs between
COE implementation and agency migration costs. As FM LoB business case
assumes COE's solutions are not pre-existing but rather will be created,
there are a number expenses which can be assigned to either the creation
of the solution or agency migration.

Two cost checklists are provided for your assistance. A number of
implementation options are still open; checklists are not intended to
identify COE solution(s), sub functions offered, or solution integration
of LoBs

Agency is defined as an entire Department, regardless of whether that
Department is a Cabinet-level agency. As used in this context, "agency"
is the aggregation of all bureaus, offices, or programs within a
department.

[^1]: This would be a selection of key cycle times across each of the
    key activities identified in the process mapping. A score of 100 on
    the index would equal the weighted average cycle time for all
    agencies at the start of the LoB Common Solution implementation.