UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

DIRECTIVE 3130.1 6/24/02

________________________________________________________________________

Distribution: AMS Originating Office: S&T/ITG 

CAPITAL PLANNING AND INVESTMENT CONTROL PROCESS

I. PURPOSE 

This Directive provides policy and procedures for ensuring that AMS’ Information 

Technology (IT) investments are cost effective, well planned and effectively 

implemented. 

II. REPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTS 

This Directive replaces AMS Directive 3130.1, Capital Planning Investment Control 

Process, issued on May 9, 2001. 

III. AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND 

Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) is a systematic approach to selecting, 

managing, and evaluating information technology investments. CPIC is mandated by the 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, and requires Federal agencies to focus more on the results 

achieved through IT investments. The CPIC process, prescribed by OMB Circular A130, emphasizes careful analysis and selection of information technology investments 

and seeks to ensure that senior management obtains and reviews timely information 

regarding the progress of an investment in terms of its milestones, cost, and its capability 

to meet specified mission objectives. 

IV. DEFINITIONS 

A. Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board (EITIRB) is a board 

consisting of senior-level managers. They ensure that information technology 

investments are managed as strategic business resources. 

1. The USDA/EITIRB consists of Under Secretaries from each of the mission 

areas, the Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and the Chief Financial 

Officer. Major investments are submitted to the USDA/EITIRB after review 

and approval by the AMS/EITIRB. 

2. The AMS/EITIRB consists of the AMS Administrator, Associate 

Administrator, all Deputy Administrators, the Chief Information Officer 

(CIO), and the Budget Officer. The current charter for the AMS/EITIRB 

Board is available from the CIO. 
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

2 

B. Information technology (IT) investments are the allocations of Government resources 

(e.g., staffing, funds) for electronic automated systems that support the business needs 

of the Agency. 

C. Life cycle costs are the purchase price, time value of money (e.g., inflation, discount 

factors), operating costs (e.g., staff resources) and maintenance costs expended on an 

IT investment during its planning, implementation, operation and retirement. 

V. POLICY 

It is the policy of AMS to use the AMS CPIC process to provide a line-of-business 

strategic review of the Agency’s significant IT investments. The AMS CPIC process 

shall be managed by the Science and Technology Program, Information Technology 

Group (ITG). 

VI. CPIC PHASES 

The AMS CPIC process consists of the following three sequential phases: 

Select phase is the capital planning phase to assess whether new information technology 

projects support the AMS mission needs, comply with the AMS and USDA architecture, 

and are likely to succeed. 

Control phase is the capital planning phase that requires ongoing monitoring of 

information technology investments against schedules, budgets, and performance 

measures during development. 

Evaluation phase is the capital planning phase that requires a monitoring and review of 

information technology operational investments to ensure the cost, delivered value, and 

technology of the investment continue to meet mission needs. 

VII. TYPES OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS 

There are three types of information technology investments: 1) major investments, 2) 

non-major, significant investments and, 3) non-major investments. 

A. Major Investments

In accordance with the OMB and the OCIO’s guidance, investments are considered major 

if any one of the following conditions exists: 

1. Total life cycle costs are greater than $50 million; 

2. There is significant multiple agency impact; 

3. The system is mandated by legislation, Executive order, or identified by 

the Secretary as critical; 

4. The system requires a common infrastructure investment; 
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

3 

5. The system is designated as a Department strategic or mandatory use 

system; or 

6. The system differs significantly from or impacts the Department 

infrastructure, architecture, or standards guidelines. 

It is rare that AMS programs will have a major investment. When they do, the ITG will 

work directly with the program to acquire this type of investment. ITG will provide level 

three support services as stated in the Support Level Service Agreement Table 

(Attachment D). 

B. Non-major, Significant Investments

For AMS, non-major, significant investments are those investments with estimated life 

cycle costs of $100,000 or more. Non-major, significant investments account for the 

majority of AMS’ investments. ITG will provide support services as stated in the 

Support Level Service Agreement Table (Attachment D). 

C. Non-major Investments

For AMS, non-major investments are those investments with estimated life cycle costs 

below $100,000. Non-major investments are not required to be managed by the CPIC 

process, unless otherwise specified by the CIO because of the scope and complexity of 

the requirement. 

VIII. APPROVAL AUTHORITY 

A. Major Investments

Major investments are approved by both the Department and AMS Executive 

Information Technology Investment Review Board. 

B. Non-Major, Significant Investments

1. Investments with Life Cycle Costs from $100,000-$250,000: Non-major, 

significant investments with life cycle costs up to $250,000 are approved by the 

AMS CIO. At the option of the CIO, investment approval may be referred to the 

AMS/EITIRB when the investment includes unusual or precedent-setting 

elements from an Agency perspective. 

2. Investments with Life Cycle Costs of $250,000 or More: Non-major, significant 

investments with life cycle costs of $250,000 or more are approved by the 

AMS/EITIRB. 

C. Non-Major Investments
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

4 

Non-major investments estimated at or above $2,500 and telecommunication and 

processor investments of any dollar amount are approved by the AMS CIO in the 

technical approval process. 

IX. TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT PLAN (TIP) 

A Technology Investment Plan (TIP) is used by AMS to identify, describe, and provide 

justification for information technology investments with life cycle costs at and above 

$100,000. 

A. Submission of TIPs.

ITG will request that AMS programs identify all planned investments and update the 

status of existing investments using the TIP format (see Attachment A) annually. This 

usually occurs June-July; however, it can occur sooner if necessary. On a case-by-case 

basis, new investments will be reviewed and evaluated by the AMS CIO and 

AMS/EITIRB at other times during the year, based on urgent or compelling needs. 

B. Follow-on Investments 

If a significant investment is planned for an existing system, two TIPs can be prepared. 

One Evaluation Phase TIP can present the cost of maintaining that system and a second 

Select Phase TIP can present the cost of the planned revisions. TIPs for retired systems 

shall be updated to show the final system cost and reflect the closed status of the system. 

C. Technology Refreshment Investments 

At a minimum, programs shall include planned investments to maintain their desktop and 

program-specific computing environment under a plan identified as “Technology 

Refreshment.” The Technology Refreshment TIP is used for those investments that are 

not part of a specific system. 

D. Approval Process

ITG shall review and evaluate TIPS for all IT investments. ITG may provide programs 

with comments and allow them to make modifications to the TIP. The AMS CIO shall 

render a decision for investments under $250,000. Properly documented feasible 

investments, at or above $250,000, shall be forwarded to the AMS/EITIRB by the CIO 

for review and evaluation. 

After the AMS/EITIRB members review and evaluate each investment, the 

AMS/EITIRB shall meet to discuss the investments, provide an opportunity for programs 

to explain investments, and either approve, disapprove, or return the investment to the 

program for revision. 

E. Evaluation Criteria 
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

5 

Investments shall be scored according to the appropriate evaluation criteria listed in 

Attachment B. Scores for each investment are recorded on the Score Sheet found in 

Attachment C. 

F. Decision Timeframe 

Decision Timeframe

ITG reviews and 10 business days 

evaluates IT investments 

AMS/EITIRB reviews 30 business days 

and evaluates IT investments 

over $250,000 

G. Investments Received Outside of the Annual Review Cycle 

Investment plans shall be accepted outside of the annual review period by the AMS CIO 

on a case-by-case basis. The acceptance shall be based on urgent and compelling needs. 

Complete feasible plans will be forwarded to the AMS/EITIRB members for review and 

evaluation. 

H. Implementation of Decisions from Approving Official

The program shall follow the recommendation of AMS/EITIRB or CIO and either 

proceed with the investment or adhere to the prescribed alternative solution. 

I. Information Technology Investment Portfolio System (I-TIPS)

Once approved by the EITIRB, the ITG shall enter financial data about the investment 

into the Information Technology Investment Portfolio System (I-TIPS) before any 

equipment is purchased or any contracts for IT services are awarded. Information entered 

into I-TIPS is reviewed and evaluated by USDA and the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

X. USDA REVIEW AND EVALUATION 

A. Waiver

A USDA IT acquisition waiver is necessary for investments with life cycle costs, 

excluding AMS staff resources, estimated at or above $250,000. Waivers are granted by 

USDA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). Waivers are based on the 

technical feasibility of the investment, its measurable return on investment, an impact 

analysis, and its telecommunications, security and accessibility requirements. Once the 

investment is approved by AMS EITIRB, the ITG staff will work with programs to 
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

6 

prepare the waiver request for the OCIO. Typically, waivers require 5-7 weeks from the 

date of submission to approval. 

B. Investment Proposal for Major Investments Only

Once the AMS/EITIRB has reviewed and given approval, ITG shall assist the program in 

preparing an investment proposal for the USDA/EITIRB review and approval. AMS is 

required to update investment profiles throughout the life cycle of major systems and 

submit these profiles to the USDA/EITIRB once each year. Details regarding the 

description of new major investments are provided by the “USDA Information 

Technology Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide” available from the OCIO’s 

web site. 

XI. TECHNICAL APPROVAL 

Requests for technical approval (TA) of IT investments estimated at or above $100,000 

must be supported by an approved TIP that accurately represents the investment at the 

time of the TA request. Details regarding the TA process are provided in AMS Directive 

3130.3, Technical Approval of Information Technology Investments. 

XII. INVESTMENT CONTROL 

Following contract award, AMS shall engage in contract administration and project 

management to implement the system. Careful attention must be given to the timely 

accomplishment of business objectives. AMS shall continue to monitor the investment 

while in production to ensure that the functionality continues to meet the needs of AMS. 

XIII. SUPPORT LEVEL SERVICE AGREEMENTS 

A. Designation of Support Level

In order to facilitate the successful selection and deployment of AMS information 

technology investments, the ITG will provide programs with the support services stated 

in the Support Level Service Agreement Table (Attachment D). The default support level 

is determined by the estimated system life cost. For high-risk or complex investments, a 

program may request or the AMS/EITIRB may require a higher support level than that 

indicated in the Table. Similarly, a program may request that the AMS/EITIRB waive a 

requirement for a default support level when they can show reason why the support level 

is not appropriate for the investment. 
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

7 

B. Reimbursement of Support Costs

The salary and benefit costs of Level One services shall be provided through overhead 

funds provided by AMS to ITG. The cost of Level Two services shall be budgeted by the 

program as part of the cost of system implementation, except when ITG advises the 

program that part or all of the resource can be provided through overhead funding 

provided by the Agency. The cost of Level Three services, because of the high resource 

commitment that is dedicated to a single program, shall be budgeted by the program as 

part of the cost of system implementation. 

XIV. QUESTIONS 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the ITG, Policy, Planning and 

Analysis Branch Chief, or visit the ITG website, http://insideams/itintranet. 

/s/ 

A. J. Yates 

Administrator 

Attachment A: Agricultural Marketing Service Technology Investment Plan (Format 

Guide) 

Attachment B: Evaluation Criteria for Performance, Schedule, Cost, Security, and 

Enterprise Architecture 

Attachment C: Score Sheets for Proposed Investments, Pre-Implementation Investments, 

Post Implementation Investments 

Attachment D: IT Investment Support Level Service Agreement Table 
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

ATTACHMENT A 

A - 1 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT PLAN 

Date Created MM/DD/YYYY

1. Investment Title: [AMS-PP-FY-NN]: [Description Title of Investment] 

Assign a unique number that will identify a specific investment. The first three letters 

identify the agency (AMS); the next two alphabetic identifiers are used for program 

identity (see list below); the next two digits identify the fiscal year that the investment 

became a part of the IT plan; and the last two digits are sequential number uniquely 

identifying the investment except for the TIP specifically for Technology Refreshment 

which should have TR in lieu of a number. Example: The first investment identified by 

the Livestock and Seed Program in FY 2002 would be AMS-LS-02-01. The investment 

for Technology Refreshment would be AMS-LS-02-TR. 

Use the following alphabetic codes to identify each program: 

CA – Compliance and Analysis 

CN – Cotton 

DA – Dairy 

FV – Fruit and Vegetable 

LS – Livestock and Seed 

PY – Poultry 

ST – Science and Technology 

TB – Tobacco 

TM – Transportation and Marketing 

XX - Agency Infrastructure 

2. Modification of existing TIP if applicable. 

2.1 The date of the last modification to the TIP. 

2.2 Summary reason for the last modification such as: Changes were made as 

requested by the EITIRB; or, Technology Refreshment to upgrade software 

and hardware. 

3. Status: Indicate “Select” for new investments, “Control” for systems being 

implemented; “Evaluation” for operational systems, including operational systems that 

are undergoing enhancement and “Retired” for systems that are no longer needed. 

4. Program(s) Supported: Name the AMS program(s) and branch(es) and how these 

AMS mission areas will benefit from this investment.

5. Background: 
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

ATTACHMENT A 

A - 2 

Describe the program’s history and relevant issues that facilitate an understanding of this 

investment.

6. Objective/Benefit Statement: Provide a short statement (1 to 5 sentences) of the 

objective to be achieved and the benefits of this investment. Describe the source and 

quantify the amount of tangible savings, and describe source and value of intangible 

benefits. 

7. Measurable Outcome: 

Describe how you will measure the degree to which system implementation accomplishes 

the program’s business objectives, i.e., how you will know that the system is successfully 

improving program operations (number of assessments performed to increase by 10%; 

service delivery costs reduced by 15%; elapsed time from service request to delivery 

reduced by 20%). For each attribute, describe the program’s intended numeric objective. 

For functional systems, provide current metrics for the performance indicators, and 

describe any plans to attain or improve these performance metrics.

8. Acquisition and Implementation Strategy: 

Describe the plan for procuring equipment and IT services and for implementing the 

system. Describe how principles of rapid application development and prototypes will be 

used to confirm the feasibility of key system concepts. Explain the role of contractor, 

program, and ST Information Technology Group (ITG) staff. 

9. Major Milestones: 

Use the table below to describe the key milestones and show the planned start date, 

planned end date, and actual end date, if known, for each. The delivery of each 

“deliverable” defined in the SOW should typically be included as a milestone event. 

Milestone 

Planned 

Start 

Actual 

Start 

Planned 

End 

Actual 

End 

a. Determine and accept system 

requirements 

5/15/01 5/20/01 6/15/01 6/22/01 

b. Determine and accept system design 6/15/01 6/30/01 

c. Develop and accept client prototype 7/1/01 7/21/01 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 

n. Perform testing and accept functional 

system 

11/1/01 6/15/01 

Copies of project management Gant charts can be attached to provide additional details. 

For systems being implemented, indicate the degree to which the project is on, ahead of, 

or behind schedule.
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

ATTACHMENT A 

A - 3 

10. Resources: 

For each of the resource categories, fill in the fiscal year, show the cost of the resource 

used to date and the cost projected for each fiscal year using the table below. 

All 

Prior 

FYs 

FY_ _ 

(Current) 

FY_ _ 

(Current 

+1)

FY_ _ 

(Current 

+2)

FY_ _ 

(Current

+3)

FY_ _ 

(Current 

+4)

FY_ _ 

(Current 

+5)

Total 

Equipment 

Software 

Contractor Service 

Security 

Telecommunications 

Total Purchase 

($000) 

AMS Staff FTEs 

AMS Salary 

($000) 

Total Cost ($000) 

For functional systems or systems that are being implemented, describe how actual costs 

have varied from original cost estimates and projections, and any management actions 

taken or planned to control costs.

11. Security: 

Provide a description of the types of information handled by the system and an analysis 

of the criticality of the information. Identify the confidential or sensitive nature of the 

data and the risks of inappropriate disclosure. Describe management controls in the 

application software, network infrastructure, and operational procedures designed to 

protect the system and its data from unauthorized access. Identify when and who will 

prepare a Security Plan that conforms to the requirements of CS-002, “Annual Cyber 

Security Plan Call, Attachment A, Security Plan Guidance.” If a security plan has been 

developed, attach a copy to this TIP. Indicate the last date your security plan has been 

review by AMS Information Systems Security Program Manager (ISSPM) and when. 

Indicate the program plans to follow-up on any recommendations made by the ISSPM. 

12. e-Government Determination:

Indicate whether the system is considered an e-Government solution and explain why. EGovernment systems are reflective of the Department’s goal to make government more 

citizen-centered and to respond more directly and effectively to the people USDA serves. 

These systems should focus on improving USDA’s working relationship with public and 
 AMS Directive 3130.1 

 6/24/02 

ATTACHMENT A 

A - 4 

private sector organizations or empower employees to work more collaboratively with 

one another.

13. Accessibility Determination:

Indicate whether the system will conform to published accessibility standards required by 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, and as described in 39 CFR 

Part 1194. Indicate whether the set of potential system users is limited to AMS and its 

service partners or if potential users may be from the public (e.g., industry, universities, 

or citizens). Also indicate if the identity of system users can be determined in advance 

and if accommodations can be effectively made on a case-by-case basis. If the system 

will not conform to published accessibility requirements, describe why conformance 

would present an undue burden to the program and what alternative methods the program 

can use to deliver the same information.

14. Compatibility with Recommended Standards: 

Indicate whether the investment conforms to the Agency’s current recommended 

standards for desktop computer hardware, network infrastructure, and application 

software. Describe the investment’s use of non-standard hardware or software and the 

business reasons that require the variation. Describe the use of commercial-off-the-shelf 

(COTS) products, the extent to which custom code is required, and what language (e.g., 

Visual Basic, Visual Basic.net) is used to create the code. Explain what steps were taken 

to share code, data, and technology infrastructure to reduce duplication of effort among 

AMS programs, which operate systems with similar functionality. 

15. Contact Name, Organization, E-mail, and Phone Number: Enter the first and last 

name of the contact person, the organization name, e-mail address, and phone number. 

16. Program Approval (mandatory): 

 _______________________________ ______________ 

 Deputy Administrator Date 

 Signature 

 

 
 

 

B - 1 

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE

Factors Select Phase (New) Control Phase (PreImplementation) Ev

• How well has the program 

done in identifying original baseline goals? 

• How well has the program 

done in identifying performance measures and indicators? 

• How well has the program 

done in reporting progress in attaining their baseline goals or attaining their targets for performance measures and indicators? 

• How meaningful are the 

identified baseline performance goals and the performance measures and indicators in measuring the “value” of the investment to the support program? 

1. Award this rating if the program has 

done a superior job of identifying original baseline performance goals, performance measures and indicators. 

2. Award this rating if the program has 

clearly identified original baseline performance goals, performance measures and indicators. 

3. Award this rating if the program has 

clearly identified baseline performance goals but not performance measures or indicators. 

4. Award this rating if the program has 

done a poor job of identifying baseline performance goals, performance measures and indicators.

5. Award this rating if the program has 

not identified baseline performance goals, performance measures, or indicators. 

1. Award this rating if the program is 

exceeded the original baseline performance goals and performance measures using planned indicators. 

2. Award this rating if the program is 

meeting all baseline performance goals and performance measures using planned indicators. 

3. Award this rating if the program is 

meeting the critical-path baseline performance goals and performance measures using planned indicators. 

4. Award this rating if the program is not 

meeting its critical-path baseline performance goals and performance measures using planned indicators. 

5. Award this rating if the program’s 

original baseline performance goals were not provided. 

1. Awa

exceperfperfplan

2. Awa

met and plan

3. Awa

met perfperfplan

4. Awa

not perfperfplan

5. Awa

origor pprov
 

 

B - 2 

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SCHEDULE

 Factors Select Phase (New) Control Phase (PreImplementation) Ev

Imple

a

• How realistic is the 

schedule for deployment, implementation, and operations? 

• How realistic is the plan 

for managing slippages on a percent, time and cost basis? 

1. Award the rating if a detailed, 

realistic schedule is provided.

2. Do not assign this score. 3. Award this rating if a complete, 

realistic schedule is provided. 

4. Do not assign this score. 5. Award this rating if the schedule 

is unrealistic or not reasonably complete. 

1. Award this rating if the project is 

proceeding ahead of schedule. 

2. Award this rating if the critical path is 

being met according to the original schedule slippages are within 20% of original baseline. 

3. Award this rating if the critical path is 

being met according to the original schedule slippages are within 30% of original baseline. 

4. Award this rating if the critical path is 

being met according to the original schedule slippages are within 40% of original baseline. 

5. Award this rating if the project is 

delayed beyond 50% of the original schedule or if schedule slippages 

have not been properly managed or the plan is not reasonably complete. 

1. Awa

com

2. Awa

was sche20% 

3. Awa

was scheof th

4. Awa

was scheof th

5. Awa

comschewere plan 
 

 

B - 3 

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR COST

 Factors Select Phase (New) Control Phase (PreImplementation) Ev

• How realistic are the cost 

estimates? 

• How well are budgeted 

and actual costs accounted for, controlled, and managed? 

• Are cost variances 

computed? Are they used to monitor how well the investment is proceeding relative to its cost estimates? Are they used as a management tool? 

1. Award this rating if detailed cost 

estimates are provided and are realistic. 

2. Do not assign this score. 3. Award this score if general cost 

estimates are provided and appear realistic.

4. Do not assign this score. 5. Award this rating if cost estimates 

are not provided or are not realistic. 

1. Award this rating if costs are 

appropriately accounted for, controlled, and managed, and if the original cost estimate has been met. 

2. Award this rating if costs are 

appropriately accounted for, controlled, and managed, and if the cost variance is within 20% over the original estimates. 

3. Award this rating if costs are 

appropriately accounted for, controlled, and managed, and if the cost variance is within 30% over the original estimates. 

4. Award this rating if costs are 

appropriately accounted for, controlled, and managed, and if the cost variance is within 40% over the original estimates. 

5. Award this rating if cost is not 

appropriately accounted for ,controlled, and managed, or if cost variance exceeds 50% of the original estimates. 

1. Awa

appcontorigmet

2. Awa

appcontcost the 

3. Awa

appcontcost the 

4. Awa

appcontcost the 

5. Awa

appcontvariaorig
 

 

B - 4 

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SECURITY

Factors Select Phase (New) Control Phase (Pre-Implementation) Eva

• Has a comprehensive 

security analysis been conducted? 

• Are security risks 

identified and mitigation strategies proposed? 

• Have security goals and 

measures been established and met? 

• Is the system security 

functioning as anticipated? 

1. A security analysis has been 

completed, identifying risks and comparable mitigation strategies and contingency planning. 

2. Do not assign this score. 

3. A security analysis has been 

completed, however, the mitigation strategies and contingency planning are not commensurate with the risks. 

4. Do not assign this score. 5. A security analysis has not 

been completed. 

1. The security plan is being implemented 

according to the initial analysis, including additional factors identified during the requirements analysis and/or design of the system. Contingency plans and risk mitigating factors, including disaster recovery plans have been written and tested. 

2. The security plan is being implemented 

according to the initial analysis, including additional factors identified during the requirements analysis and/or design of the system. Contingency plans and risk mitigating factors, including disaster recovery plans have been written. 

3. The security plan is being implemented 

according to the initial analysis, including additional factors identified during the requirements analysis and/or design of the system. 

4. Implementation of the security plan is 

behind schedule and the program is exposed to risks identified in the analysis. 

5. The security plan is not being 

implemented. 

1. The sec

implemeanalysisidentifieanalysis Contingfactors, plans ha

2. The sec

accordinincluding during thdesign oplans anincluding been wr

3. The sec

accordinincluding during thdesign o

4. Implem

was neprogram in the a

5. The sec

implem
 

 

B - 5 

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE (EA)

Factors Select Phase (New) Control Phase (PreImplementation) Ev

• Does this investment 

conform to the EA goals and objectives (e.g., interoperability, resource sharing, potential for reduced costs, sharing processes, information timeliness and comprehensiveness)? 

• Is a credible migration 

plan (for data, applications, and legacy system phase-out) from the existing to the proposed environment presented? 

• Are detailed management 

plans in place that describe how this investment will be supported, maintained, and refreshed to ensure its currency and continued effectiveness, including a training and awareness plan for users and technical staff? 

1. Award this score if the EA objectives 

for standards compatibility, security, and accessibility are clearly identified. 

2. Do not assign this score. 

3. Award this score if one or more of 

the EA objectives for standards compatibility, security, and accessibility are not clearly identified. 

4. Do not assign this score. 5. Award this score if none of the EA 

objectives for standards compatibility, security, and accessibility are identified. 

1. Award this score if all of the EA 

objectives for standards compatibility, security, and accessibility are being implemented. 

2. Do not assign this score. 3. Award this score if one or more of the 

EA objectives for standards compatibility, security, and accessibility are not being addressed or satisfied by the implementation. 

4. Do not assign this score. 5. Award this score if none of the EA 

objectives are being implemented. 

1. Awa

objecomacceimp

2. Do n3. Do n4. Do n5. Awa

the succ
 

 

C - 1 

SCORE SHEET FOR PROPOSED INVESTMENTS 

Instructions: Record the name of each proposed investment. Then record the evaluation score for each erecommendation. Use as many pages as necessary to list and score all investments in the Select Phase 

Select Phase 

Name of Investment 

Performance Schedule Cost Security Enterprise 

Architecture 

R

1. Insert Name of 

Investment

2. Insert Name of 

Investment

3. Insert Name of 

Investment

4. Insert Name of 

Investment

 1. Sco

AppDis

2. Sco

AppDis

3. Sco

AppDis

4. Sco

AppDis
 

C - 2 

SCORE SHEET FOR PRE-IMPLEMENTION INVESTMENTS 

Instructions: Record the name of each investment in the implementation process. Then record the eva

element and a summary recommendation. Use as many pages as necessary to list and score all investments 

Control Phase 

Name of Investment 

Performance Schedule Cost Security Enterprise 

Architecture 

R

1. Insert Name of 

Investment

2. Insert Name of 

Investment

3. Insert Name of 

Investment

4. Insert Name of 

Investment

 1. Sco

ConConmodAbo

2. Sco

ConConmodAbo

3. Sco

ConConmodAbo

4. Sco

ConConmodAbo
 

 

C - 3 

SCORE SHEET FOR POST-IMPLEMENTATION INVESTMENTS 

Instructions: Record the name of each functional investment. Then record the evaluation score for each e

recommendation. Use as many pages as necessary to list and score all investments in the Evaluat

Evaluation Phase 

Name of Investment 

Performance Schedule Cost Security Enterprise 

Architecture 

R

1. Insert Name of 

Investment

2. Insert Name of 

Investment

3. Insert Name of

Investment

4. Insert Name of 

Investment

 1. Sco

ConConmodAbo

2. Sco

ConConmodAbo

3. Sco

ConConmodAbo

4. Sco

ConConmodAbo
AMS Directive 3130.1 

6/24/02 

ATTACHMENT D 

D - 1 

 

IT INVESTMENT SUPPORT LEVEL SERVICE AGREEMENT TABLE 

SUPPORT 

LEVEL 

Outsourcing 

Stage 

Description of Services System 

Life Cost 

Pre-award Program develops requirements and Statement Of Work 

(SOW) which ITG reviews. ITG works with program to 

arrive at a complete, unambiguous, and technically 

accurate SOW. Standards of acceptability are set in 

proportion to the amount of the investment and the impact 

of an implementation failure. 

ONE 

Post-award Program tests deliverables and determines acceptance. 

ITG is available as a reference to supplement program 

knowledge of technical issues. 

Responsibility of meeting business goals is almost entirely 

that of the program. 

$0 - 

$249,999 

Pre-award ITG assists the program in identifying requirements and 

developing a complete, unambiguous, and technically 

accurate SOW. Standards of acceptability set in proportion 

to the amount of the investment and the impact of an 

implementation failure. 

ITG partners with program in identifying and evaluating 

vendors. 

TWO 

Post-award ITG assists program in testing and reviewing deliverables 

to meet business needs. ITG assists program in managing 

performance, scheduling, and cost of the system as well as 

acceptance testing. 

Responsibility of meeting business goals is primarily that of 

program with assistance from the ITG staff. 

$250,000-

$999,999 

THREE Pre-award With program’s active involvement, ITG assigns full-time 

Project Manager to develop SOW, propose acquisition 

strategy, establish evaluation criteria, and evaluate 

vendors. 

$1,000,000 

or more 

 Post-award ITG assigns full-time Project Manager who, together with 

Program Project Leader, manages the performance, 

scheduling and cost of the system as well as acceptance 

testing. 

Responsibility of meeting business goals is shared equally 

by program and ITG. This provides the highest level of 

assurance of meeting business objectives.