Financial Services Assessment Guide

(SAG)

Phase I

March 30, 2007

Version 1.0
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 i

Table of Contents

Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1

Implementation................................................................................................................ 2

Phase I ........................................................................................................................ 2

Phase II ....................................................................................................................... 3

APPENDICES

Appendix A. FMLoB Financial Performance Measures................................................... 4

Appendix B. FMLoB Financial Performance Measure Definitions ................................... 5

Appendix C. FMLoB Performance Metric Reporting Procedures .................................. 15

Appendix D. Current Performance Measures Working Group....................................... 17
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 1

Overview

The Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB), in collaboration with the federal 

financial management community, is establishing a set of Financial Services Metrics 

that will facilitate an assessment of financial services government-wide. These metrics 

are designed to help identify opportunities to improve the performance and affordability 

of the financial services provided by Shared Service Providers (SSPs) and Federal 

agencies.

The Financial Services Metrics will be used for the following purposes:

• Enable SSPs to make more informed judgments regarding the performance and 

affordability of the financial services they provide, and how they compare to their 

competitors.

• Enable agencies to make more informed judgments regarding the performance

and affordability of the financial services they provide in-house, how they 

compare to other agencies, and which SSP might best serve their needs as they 

look at potential migration of services under the FMLOB framework.

• Enable key stakeholders, including the Chief Financial Officers’ Council (CFOC), 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and FMLOB, to make more 

informed judgments regarding the financial performance of SSPs and agencies, 

and work with SSPs and agencies on strategies to continually improve both 

performance and affordability.

Performance reports will be provided to various audiences as appropriate, including the 

CFOC, SSPs, agencies and OMB, and may be made available to the public.

Performance will be evaluated against established baselines and applicable 

performance benchmarks. As this effort progresses, reports will provide performance 

trends, distinguish top performers from poor performers, identify improvement 

opportunities, and identify the need for corrective actions as warranted.

By making SSP and Agency performance more transparent, establishing accountability 

for improved results, and increasing competition among SSPs, both SSPs and Federal 

agencies will be encouraged to continually improve both the performance and 

affordability of the financial services they provide.

Performance metrics will be implemented using a phased approach. Phase I will focus 

on defining and collecting an initial set of high value, low burden metrics. Phase II will 

focus on refining these metrics, collecting an expanded set of metrics, adding cost 

metrics, improving reporting capabilities and accountability mechanisms, and 

streamlining the collection effort.

All agencies will be required to report performance data through a single system 

managed by the Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO). All data submitted to FSIO 

will be considered public information unless specifically identified as confidential and 

approved as such by FSIO.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 2

IMPLEMENTATION

The overall performance metrics will be implemented using a phased approach. Each 

phase will build upon the previous phase’s accomplishments and will emphasize 

communication and coordination with the financial management community.

Phase I

Phase I will be critical to building a baseline of performance and learning lessons for 

subsequent phases. The Phase I measures have been selected from the two 

mandatory service categories: IT Infrastructure Hosting and Administration and 

Application Management.

The initial set of seven metrics was developed based on SSP and agency responses to 

the Value and Burden Survey conducted by the FMLoB during November and 

December 2006, and refined by an interagency working group. Specific attention was 

paid to ensuring the metrics selected offered both a high value for potential users and a 

low burden of collection. The survey results and working group discussions indicated 

that the collection of cost measures would pose a significant burden, and therefore no 

cost metrics were selected for Phase I.

The Phase I metrics to be reported can be found in Appendix A. Detailed descriptions of 

each metric are included in Appendix B.

Performance measures will be collected and reported at the system level or by Service 

Level Agreement (SLA). This will avoid differences in aggregation methodology and 

improve data accuracy. For reporting done at the system level, performance measures 

must be entered for each system listed as a Core Financial Management System in the 

Financial Management System Inventory (See Appendix C for more detail). For SSPs 

that host multiple agencies on a single system with different SLAs, or agencies that offer 

different service levels on a single system, performance measures should be reported 

for each Service Level offered.

By June 15, 2007, SSPs and CFO Act Agencies will report data for April 2007 for

the metrics included in Appendix A. Data for subsequent months must be reported 

by the last business day of the month following the reporting period (according to the 

schedule included in Appendix C).

Non-CFO Act agencies are not required to report but are encouraged to participate to 

determine their relative level of performance.

If the data for a specific measure is not available, an explanation and estimated date for 

initial entry must be entered into the system. All data that is available must be reported.

FSIO and OMB will work with agencies to develop collection plans for all data currently 

not available.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 3

Data will be submitted to FSIO according to the preliminary instructions for data entry 

included in Appendix C. More detailed instructions and a User’s Guide will be provided 

prior to data entry.

Initial reports will be generated and circulated by FSIO, though targets and goals for the 

measures will not be set until a baseline can be established.

Phase II

Phase II will focus on expanding and refining the measures for IT Infrastructure Hosting 

& Administration and Application Management Services, and add a limited set of 

measures for the Systems Implementation and Business Process categories. Additional 

metrics beyond these categories may also be considered. A key goal of Phase II will be 

to add cost measures. Emphasis will also be placed on lowering the collection burden.

During Phase II, lessons learned from Phase I will be incorporated and result in an 

update to this guide.

Planning for Phase II will begin immediately after the Phase I Service Assessment 

Guide (SAG) is released. Details for the Phase II Kickoff will be sent to the Financial 

Management Line of Business Transformation Team and the current working group.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 4

Appendix A. FMLoB Financial Performance Measures

Performance Measure Measurement Description

Service Category: IT Infrastructure Hosting and Administration (Measurements 1-3)

1 IT Hosting Infrastructure 

Availability

Hours IT hosting infrastructure is available, expressed as a proportion of the 

agreed upon hours of availability.

2 Help Desk Response Time Average time to close all help desk trouble tickets in the calendar month.

3a System Security Scans The number of scans of servers, on which the core financial management 

applications are hosted, conducted during the reporting month.

3b System Security Remedial 

Actions

The average time to successfully remediate detected moderate and high security 

incidents or vulnerabilities detected from security scans.

Service Category: Application Management (Measurements 4-6)

4 Core Financial System 

Application Availability

Amount of time the core financial system application is available on line, 

expressed as a proportion of the agreed upon hours of availability. 

5 Report Production Time Total elapsed time to produce two standard reports. The total number of general 

ledger transactions since the beginning of the fiscal year will also be reported for 

contextual information.

6 Average Response Time for 

User Access Requests

Time required for administrator to grant appropriate access, once all necessary 

approvals received to notification of end users of the core financial application 

system. 
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 5

Appendix B. FMLoB Financial Performance Measure Definitions

Service Category: IT Infrastructure Hosting and Administration

FMLoB Metric 1: IT Hosting Infrastructure Availability

What does it measure? The metric measures the hours the IT hosting infrastructure is 

available, expressed as a proportion of the agreed upon hours 

of availability.

Why is it important? IT hosting infrastructure availability is essential to accomplish 

the customer mission/functions and meet internal and external 

financial management and reporting requirements.

Definition: IT hosting infrastructure is available for use during 

scheduled/agreed upon hours and days. Scheduled time 

excludes pre-approved downtime and scheduled downtime.

Notes: Measurement is specifically for the IT hosting 

infrastructure as it relates to core financial management 

systems.

IT hosting infrastructure includes mainframes, servers, 

network routers and switches, operating system software and 

associated communications equipment and facilities.

Computation of this metric includes network outages that 

occur beyond your control. When these occur include an 

explanation in the text field when reporting.

No differentiation between batch and online processing.

In the absence of set service levels (which are often included 

in an SLA), select an industry standard that meets your 

business needs. Industry standards are 95%, 98%, or 99.6%, 

each providing greater uptime reliability and higher costs. 

Metric Methodology: Available hours / agreed upon hours (results expressed as a 

percentage).

Reporting Frequency: Monthly
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 6

Calculation Steps:

1. Determine the actual number of hours the IT hosting infrastructure was agreed 

upon to be available for the month (per service level agreement, contract, 

memorandum of agreement, baseline performance measure etc.). Enter agreed 

upon hours to 2 decimal places.

2. Determine the number of hours the IT hosting infrastructure was actually 

available for the month. Input actual hours available to 2 decimal places.

3. The reporting system will divide the actual hours available during the month by 

the obligated hours for the month and express the result as a percentage of 

obligated hours.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 7

FMLoB Metric 2: Help Desk Response Time

What does it measure? The metric measures responsiveness of the help desk to the 

resolution of trouble ticket.

Why is it important? The metric provides a means for determining the level of 

customer service provided. 

Definition: Average time to close all help desk trouble tickets closed in 

the calendar month.

Time is based on your help desk agreed upon hours of 

operation. Time recorded to resolve a trouble ticket will only 

include hours of operation. A trouble ticket opened one day 

and closed the next would only show time when the help 

desk was available for operation.

Metric Methodology: Calculates the average elapsed time to address and close all 

help desk trouble tickets.

Reporting Frequency: Monthly

Calculation Steps:

1. Determine the total number of trouble tickets closed for the calendar month 

period. Enter the total number.

2. Based on your help desk agreed upon hours of operation, compute the total 

amount of time elapsed in hours for all closed tickets between opening and 

closure of the ticket. Enter agreed upon hours to 2 decimal places.

3. The reporting system will divide the total elapsed time to close all closed tickets 

by the total number of closed tickets for the month.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 8

FMLoB Metric 3a: System Security Scans

What does it measure? The metric measures the frequency of security scans on 

core financial systems. 

Why is it important? Regular scans to detect security vulnerabilities and ensure 

the availability, integrity, and confidentiality of federal 

information are an important component of effective 

management and oversight of information security programs. 

Definition: The number of security scans of servers on which the core 

financial management applications are hosted. Scans refer 

to use of tools and processes for detecting information 

system vulnerabilities and incidents; such as, network and 

host-based intrusion detection systems, antivirus software, 

and file integrity checking software.

The following publications are applicable to this metric:

FIPS 200, March 2006, Minimum Security Requirements for 

Federal Information and Information Systems

FIPS 199, February 2004, Standards for Security 

Classification of Federal Information and Information 

Systems

Special Publication 800-53, December 2006, Recommended 

Security Controls for Federal Information Systems

Special Publication 800-61, January 2004, Computer 

Security Incident Handling Guide

United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team 

Federal Agency Incident Reporting Guidelines and 

Categories 

Metric Methodology: The number of scans conducted during the reporting month.

Reporting Frequency: Monthly

Calculation Steps:

1. Determine the total number of scans conducted during 

the calendar month. Enter the number of scans.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 9

FMLoB Metric 3b: System Security Remedial Actions

What does it measure? The metric measures the time to successfully resolve 

moderate and high risk security incidents and identified 

vulnerabilities from security scans.

Why is it important? Expedient analysis, resolution, and recovery from security 

incidents and vulnerabilities impact an organization’s ability 

to accomplish its assigned mission, protect its assets, fulfill 

its legal responsibilities, maintain its day-to-day functions, 

and protect individuals. 

Definition: The average time to successfully resolve moderate and high 

risk information security incidents and vulnerabilities 

detected from security scans.

Levels of potential impact (low, moderate, high) for 

assessing risk associated with vulnerabilities and threats are 

outlined in FIPS 199, February 2004, Standards for Security 

Classification of Federal Information and Information 

Systems

Additional reference material for this metric are:

FIPS 200, March 2006, Minimum Security Requirements for 

Federal Information and Information Systems

Special Publication 800-53, December 2006, Recommended 

Security Controls for Federal Information Systems

Special Publication 800-61, January 2004, Computer 

Security Incident Handling Guide

United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team 

Federal Agency Incident Reporting Guidelines and 

Categories 

Metric Methodology: Total time to successfully resolve moderate and high 

security incidents and identified moderate and high 

vulnerabilities / total number of moderate and high security 

incidents and identified moderate and high vulnerabilities.

Reporting Frequency: Monthly
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 10

Calculation Steps:

1. Determine and enter the total number of moderate and high security incidents 

that were resolved during the calendar month.

2. Determine and enter the total number of moderate and high security 

vulnerabilities that were resolved during the calendar month.

3. Determine and enter the total elapsed time in hours for resolution of all moderate 

and high incidents that were resolved during the month. Elapsed time starts with 

the identification of a security incident and ends with successful resolution of the 

incident.

4. Determine and enter the total elapsed time in hours for resolution of all identified 

moderate and high vulnerabilities from security scans successfully resolved 

during the month. Elapsed time starts with the identification of a security 

vulnerability from a security scan and ends with successful resolution of the 

vulnerability.

5. The reporting system will compute the average time to remediate detected 

moderate and high security incidents and identified vulnerabilities from security 

scans.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 11

Service Category: Application Management

FMLoB Metric 4: Core Financial System Application Availability

What does it measure? The metric measures the amount of time the core financial 

system application(s) is available on-line, expressed as a 

proportion of the agreed upon hours of availability.

Why is it important? Core financial system application(s) on-line availability is 

essential to accomplish the customer mission/functions and 

meet internal and external financial management and 

reporting requirements.

Definition: The amount of time the core financial system application(s) is

available for use during scheduled/agreed upon hours.

Scheduled time excludes pre-approved downtime and 

scheduled downtime and downtime requested by the 

customer.

Notes: Measurement is specifically for core financial 

management systems only.

Metric Methodology: Available hours / agreed upon hours (results expressed as a 

percentage)

Reporting Frequency: Monthly

Calculation Steps:

1. Determine the number of hours the core financial system application(s) is agreed 

upon to be available during the month (per service level agreement, contract, 

memorandum of agreement, baseline performance measure etc.). Enter the 

number of hours to 2 decimal places.

2. Determine the number of hours the core financial system application(s) was 

actually available for the month. Enter the number of hours to 2 decimal places.

3. The reporting system will divide the actual hours available during the month by 

the agreed upon hours for the month and express ratio as a percentage of 

agreed upon hours.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 12

FMLoB Metric 5: Report Production Time

What does it measure? The metric measures the total elapsed time to produce an 

FMS 224 report and a related selected report from ‘click to 

run’ to ‘ready to print’.

Why is it important? To determine software and configuration efficiency as it 

applies to report generation time.

Definition: The amount of time it takes to produce two selected reports.

This measure also captures the number of general ledger 

transactions since the beginning of the fiscal year, as 

contextual information. 

For the purposes of this report, general ledger transactions 

will be defined as the total number of debits and credits 

down to the detail level used to support the trial balance.

This metric is intended to capture application time only.

Elapsed time should be reported as calculated by the system

– from ‘click to run’ to ‘ready to print’.

The amount of time it takes to produce an FMS 224 –

Statement of Transactions (or Partial FMS 224) and one of 

the following reports as applicable to your agency:

• SF 1218 – Statement of Accountability (Foreign 

Service Account)

• FMS 1219 – Statement of Accountability

• FMS 1220 - Statement of Transactions According to 

Appropriation, Funds, and Receipt Accounts

• SF 1221 – Statement of Transactions According to 

Appropriation, Funds, and Receipt Accounts (Foreign 

Service)

If your agency does not produce any of these reports, please 

report the nearest substitute. For guidance, please contact 

FSIO.

The calculation should not include “no transaction” reports, 

i.e., reports for accounting periods in which no transactions 

occurred.

This reporting requirement may change as standard FMS 

reporting requirements change.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 13

Metric Methodology: This metric collects two data points:

1) Total elapsed time to produce two standard reports from 

‘click to run’ to ‘ready for print’, and 

2) The total number of general ledger transactions since the 

beginning of the fiscal year.

Reporting Frequency: Monthly

Calculation Steps

1. Determine the total number of cumulative general ledger transactions for the 

fiscal year, as of the end of the reporting month. Enter the total number of 

general ledger transactions.

2. Identify FMS 224 report in drop down menu box and select.

3. Determine and enter the elapsed time in hours to tow decimal place that it takes 

to run the FMS 224 (if applicable).

4. Choose a second report in the drop down menu box and select, or select not 

applicable (NA) if you only run one report.

5. Determine and enter the elapsed time in hours and minutes that it takes the 

system to run the selected report from ‘click to run’ to ‘ready to print’.

NOTE: The FMLOB Performance Measurement Team understands that the data for this metric will be 

difficult to compare across agencies, and may not be reliable. This data is being captured in order to learn 

lessons for Phase II. Agencies expressed a strong desire to see a measure of reporting timeliness, and 

the working group determined that it was necessary to begin collecting a baseline of data to build an 

understanding of the issues involved. Number of transactions is captured as a proxy for agency size and 

financial complexity, and in the future may be used for peer groupings and as a factor that can be 

controlled for.

Please report all available data, and participate in future working group sessions to contribute toward 

further refinements of this metric.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 14

FMLoB Metric 6: Average Response Time for User Access 

Requests

What does it measure? The metric measures the efficiency of the process for 

granting system access to new users.

Why is it important? (1) Evaluates provider response time;

(2) Measures potential loss of user productivity while 

awaiting access.

Definition: Time required for administrator to grant appropriate access, 

once all necessary approvals are received (final approval), to 

time of notification to end users of the core financial 

application system.

Measures from the time/date stamp of final approval to the 

time the user is notified that access was granted.

Includes new users to the system during ongoing operations 

but not batch processing of users during transition to a new 

system.

Metric Methodology: Total elapsed time between approved new user requests 

granting appropriate user access, divided by the number of 

user access requests granted during the period.

Reporting Frequency: Monthly

Calculation Steps:

1. Measure elapsed time of each new user request from the time/date stamp of 

final approval to time the user is notified that access was granted.

2. Sum the elapsed time for each user notified that access was granted, and enter 

the total elapsed time in minutes.

3. Enter the total number of user requests granted during the period.

4. The reporting system will divide total elapsed time by the number of user 

requests during the period.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 15

Appendix C. FMLoB Performance Metric Reporting Procedures

What follows is preliminary guidance on the reporting procedures, to assist agencies 

and SSPs when preparing to collect and report these measures. Detailed procedures 

and a User’s Guide will be issued prior to data entry, after the system is fully developed.

Preliminary Guidance

The FMLOB Performance Metrics will be collected in a web based environment at the

Federal Interagency Databases Online (www.FIDO.gov). The metrics will be reported as 

part of the Chief Financial Officers’ Metric Tracking System (MTS).

Instructions for gaining access to this system will be distributed along with the User’s 

Guide. Within the MTS system you will have two options:

o Financial Management Health Metrics (FMHM; the current MTS metrics)

o Financial Management Services Metrics (FMSM) 

The FMLOB performance metrics will be reported under the Financial Management

Services Metrics (FMSM) option. 

Within FMSM you will be able to select your agency. Within your agency you will see a 

list of the core financial management systems entered into the Financial Management 

Systems Inventory (FMSI).

Metrics will be reported for each core financial management system. Core financial 

systems are fully described in the Core Financial System Requirements Document, 

which can be accessed at www.fsio.gov. If your agency or SSP has multiple core 

systems, measures must be reported for each one. You are only required to report 

measures for your core financial system and not all of its components or feeder 

systems. We will be making changes to FMSI to distinguish between the core system 

and its components. More details on these changes will be included in the User’s Guide.

In addition, you will be able to add reporting lines for Service Level Agreement (SLA) 

reporting or to report for a system not entered into FMSI.

It will be possible for multiple users to enter data, and the agency administrator will be 

able to determine access rights to individual systems. Information will be able to be 

saved and reviewed prior to final submission.

If the data for a specific measure is not available, an explanation and estimated date for 

initial entry must be entered into the system, into the appropriate field. All data that is 

available must be reported, for each metric field. FSIO and OMB will work with agencies 

to develop collection plans for all data currently not available.
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 16

Reporting deadlines

Reporting Month Deadline (COB)

April 2007 June 15, 2007

May 2007 June 29, 2007

June 2007 July 31, 2007

July 2007 August 31, 2007

August 2007 October 5, 2007 *

September 2007 October 31, 2007

October 2007 November 30, 2007

November 2007 January 4, 2008*

December 2007 January 31, 2008

* these dates were adjusted for the end of the fiscal year from September 28, 2007 to 

October 5, 2007, and the end of the calendar year from December 31, 2007 to January 

4, 2008
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 17

Appendix D. Current Performance Measures Working Group

(all CFO Act agencies and SSPs are invited to participate)

Name Agency Email

Mark Bussow OMB Mark_Bussow@omb.eop.gov

Keith Thurston General 

Services 

Administration

Keith.thurston@gsa.gov

Jacqueline Zeiher General 

Services 

Administration

Jacke.Zeiher@gsa.gov

Tom Leech SiloSmashers tleech@silosmashers.com

Bill Wernick SiloSmashers bwernick@silosmashers.com

Clarence Smith Department of 

Interior

Clarence_Smith@ios.doi.gov

Kay Levy United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Kay.levy@usda.gov

Wellington Burton Department of 

Commerce

wburton@doc.gov

Edward Golden Department of 

Energy

ed.golden@hq.doc.gov

John Sholhead Environmental 

Protection 

Agency

Sholhead.John@epa.gov

Art Saenz National 

Science 

Foundation

ASaenz@nsf.gov

Rhea l. Riso Housing and 

Urban 

Development

Rhea.L.Riso@hud.gov

Sally Zottnick Department of 

State

Zottnickrm@state.gov

Gloria Moore Department of 

State

mooregj@state.gov

Vicki Fleming Department of 

Treasury FMS

Vicki.Fleming@fms.treasury.gov

Jay Seering General 

Services 

Administration

Jay.Seering@gsa.gov

Wynne Davis Department of 

Transportation

Wynne.Davis@dot.gov
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 18

Name Agency Email

Pushparapan 

Arokiaswamy

Veterans 

Administration

Swamy@mail.va.gov

Tricia Broadbelt Department of 

Interior

tbroadbelt@nbc.gov

Chuck Graves Department of 

Interior

Cgraves@nbc.gov

Doug Anderson BPD/Department 

of the Treasury. 

Doug.Anderson@bpd.treas.gov

Sabrina Nolasco Office of 

Personnel 

Management

sabrina.nolasco@opm.gov

Dorran Thompson Office of 

Personnel 

Management

dorran.thompson@opm.gov

Margaret McElrath Office of 

Personnel 

Management

margaret.mcelrath@opm.gov

Diane Marston Department of 

Commerce

DMarston@doc.gov

Randy Van Pelt Department of 

Interior

Randy_Van_Pelt@ios.doi.gov

Steven Sembach General Services 

Administration

steven.sembach@gsa.gov

Kevin T. Ruffley Department of 

Veterans Affairs

Kevin.Ruffley@va.gov

William Maglin Department of 

Treasury/IRS

William.H.Maglin@irs.gov

Patrick Mazzetta Department of the 

Treaasury/

DO

patrick.mezzetta@do.treas.gov

Susan Chew Department of 

Treasury/OCC

susan.chew@occ.treas.gov

Kim McCoy BPD/Department

of Treasury

Kim.mccoy@bpd.treasa.gov

Rachel Mullane Health and 

Human Services

Rachel.mullane@hhs.gov

Michelle Curtis Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission

Mxc6@nrc.gov

Steven Sirk Department of 

Education

Steven.Sirk@ED.gov

Wende Wiles Department of 

Commerce

WWiles@doc.gov

Warren Huffer Department of 

Energy

Warren.huffer@hq.doe.gov

Gayle Sienicki Department of 

Transportation

Gayle.sienicki@dot.gov

Ronald Hallameyer Social Security ronald.hallameyer@ssa.gov
Financial Services Assessment Guide (SAG)

March 30, 2007 Version 1.0 19

Name Agency Email

Administration

Daniel Katcher Department of the 

Treasury/IRS

Daniel.J.Katcher@irs.gov

Shreya Patel Department 

of the 

Treasury/IRS

Shreya.j.patel@irs.gov

Margaret 

Yanchuck

National Science 

Foundation

myanchuck@nsf.gov

Rosemary Zottnick Department of 

State

Zottnickrm@state.gov

Thomas Bianco Social Security 

Administration

Thomas.j.bianco@ssa.gov

Herb Keys Social Security 

Administration

Herb.keys@ssa,gov

Marial Grant Department 

of the 

Treasury/IRS

marial.grant@irs.gov

Mark Bolyard Environmental 

Protection 

Agency

Bolyard.Mark@epa.gov

Patricia Clark Department of 

Labor

clark.patricia@dol.gov

Cass Glenn Social Security 

Administration

Cass.glenn@ssa.gov

Sylvester Osineme Department of 

Education

Syslvester.osineme@ed.gov

Luciana Mashore Booz Allen 

Hamilton 

Mashore_Luciana@bah.com

Mathew Miller BPD/ Department 

of the Treasury

Matthew.Miller@bpd.treas.gov

Luciana Mashore Booz Allen 

Hamilton 

Mashore_Luciana@bah.com