U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business

Exhibit 300: Capital Asset Plan and Business Case Summary
Part I: Summary Information And Justification

Section A: Overview

  1. Date of submission: Sep 8, 2008
  2. Agency: 018
  3. Bureau: 18
  4. Name of this Capital Asset: Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business
  5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: 018-18-01-01-01-3200-24
  6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2010? Multi-Agency Collaboration
  7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB? FY2008
  8. Provide a brief summary and justification for this investment, including a brief description of how this closes in part or in whole an identified agency performance gap: Currently, most agencies do not have automated systems to support their budget formulation and execution activities; they depend on basic office software to prepare and justify complex, multi-billion dollar budgets. Hundreds of budget exercises are conducted annually without the benefit of electronic collaborative technologies. Agency budget personnel spend substantial time entering, reconciling, and merging data into textual presentations. Federal budgeting is a policy-driven process. The goal of BFELoB is to enable agency and OMB budget personnel to reduce manual processes, improve efficiency and effectiveness, and redirect limited resources to a backlog of high priority analytical activities without compromising requirements or the flexibility of policy officials. Due to significant variability in agency size, activities, organizational complexity, and congressional constituencies, solutions based on standardizing business processes and workflows are impractical for most budgeting activities. Instead, LoB solutions will enhance Federal budgeting capabilities by: creating a community of practice for the Federal budgeting profession, identifying and hosting training and education, establishing a venue for sharing best practices, assisting agencies in implementing appropriate automation, improving tools for government-wide budget exercises and collaboration, consolidating procurements, integrating budget and finance, and establishing standards for data and data exchange. Only a portion of LoB solutions, approximately one-third, are IT based. The LoB governance is based on a "value proposition" in which a voluntary consortium of agencies under the auspices of the Budget Officers Advisory Council contribute funding to the LoB in order to gain the government-wide benefits the LoB provides. If the funding collected is insufficient and alternate resources are unavailable, the proposed solutions will be deferred or scaled back as determined by the contributing agencies. To date the LoB has: established an online Community page for agency collaboration; made available online meeting capabilities; made available the first 'fee for service' budget formulation and execution (BFE) system from Treasury; developed a Decision Matrix to assist agencies in evaluating the best system for their agencies; hosted budget/finance-related training sessions; and coordinated collaboration and integration between the Budget and Financial Management communities.
  9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request? yes
    1. If "yes," what was the date of this approval? Jun 18, 2008
  10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit? yes
  11. Contact information of Program/Project Manager?
Name  
Phone Number  
E-mail  
    1. What is the current FAC-P/PM (for civilian agencies) or DAWIA (for defense agencies) certification level of the program/project manager? Waiver Issued
  1. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project. no
    1. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)? yes
    2. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only) no
      1. If "yes," is an ESPC or UESC being used to help fund this investment? [Not answered]
      2. If "yes," will this investment meet sustainable design principles? [Not answered]
      3. If "yes," is it designed to be 30% more energy efficient than relevant code? [Not answered]
  2. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives? yes
    Financial Performance
    Budget Performance Integration
    Expanded E-Government
    Human Capital
    1. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? BFELoB supports Expanded E-Govt by working for productivity & performance gains via automation (example, new fee-for-service and information sharing on the Budget Community page). For Human Capital, BFELoB is updating core competencies, developing strategies for recruitment/retention, & providing training. For Financial Performance, BFELoB collaborates with the FMLoB/FSIO to promote data accuracy & consistency. BFELoB coordinates with the PII Council to align automation with goals for BPI.
  3. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)? (For more information about the PART, visit www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part.) no
    1. If "yes," does this investment address a weakness found during a PART review? [Not answered]
    2. If "yes," what is the name of the PARTed program? [Not answered]
    3. If "yes," what rating did the PART receive? [Not answered]
  4. Is this investment for information technology? yes

For information technology investments only:

  1. What is the level of the IT Project? (per CIO Council PM Guidance) Level 3
  2. In addition to the answer in 11(a), what project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council PM Guidance) (2) Project manager qualification is under review for this investment
  3. Is this investment or any project(s) within this investment identified as "high risk" on the Q4-FY 2008 agency high risk report (per OMB Memorandum M-05-23)? yes
  4. Is this a financial management system? no
    1. If "yes," does this investment address a FFMIA compliance area? [Not answered]
      1. If "yes," which compliance area: [Not answered]
      2. If "no," what does it address? [Not answered]
    2. If "yes," please identify the system name(s) and system acronym(s) as reported in the most recent financial systems inventory update required by Circular A-11 section 52 [Not answered]
  5. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2010 funding request for the following?
Hardware 3
Software 5
Services 74
Other 18
  1. If this project produces information dissemination products for the public, are these products published to the Internet in conformance with OMB Memorandum 05-04 and included in your agency inventory, schedules and priorities? n/a
  2. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions:
Name  
Phone Number  
Title  
E-mail  
  1. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval? yes
  2. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas? no

Section B: Summary of Spending

  1.  

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

  PY-1 and earlier PY 2008 CY 2009 BY 2010 BY+1 2011 BY+2 2012 BY+3 2013 BY+4 and beyond Total
Planning: 0.74 0.45 0.52 0.44          
Acquisition: 0.78 0.76 1 1.06          
Subtotal Planning amp; Acquisition: 1.52 1.21 1.52 1.5          
Operations & Maintenance: 0.41 0.62 0.75 0.82          
TOTAL: 1.93 1.83 2.27 2.32          
Government FTE Costs 0.38 0.53 0.44 0.46          
Number of FTE represented by Costs: 2 4 4 4          
  1. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's? yes
    1. If "yes", How many and in what year? ED currently staffs the BFELoB PMO with 4 staff members. OMB/BSB staff also assist with management functions. In addition, many partner agency volunteers assist with workgroup leadership and other activities. Additional FTE may be hired in FY2010 and beyond.
  2. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2009 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes: The BFELoB program is an official e-gov Line of Business initiative for which the Department of Education serves as the Managing Partner. Overall, the SoS (including Govt FTE) increased by $1.95M from last year's submission. This increase includes a slight increase of .1 in 2009 due to additional O&M, The Govt FTE cost increase reflects increase in staffing numbers to reflect consistent staffing at 4 FTE for the program from 2008 forward. The Govt FTE costs also include inflationary increases. Govt FTE are expected at a steady rate of 4 FTE from 2008 forward. In addition, due to the nature of the LoB, the split between Planning and Acquisition versus O&M has been adjusted in 2007-2010. It is anticipated that BFELoB will be strictly O&M in 2011 and beyond. BFELoB accepts "in-kind" donations for completion of BFELoB work products by participating agencies. This type of participation is hard to predict. "In-kind" staff donations are included in the 2007 and 2008 costs, but are not in the Govt FTE costs for 2009 and beyond. It is also important to note that the life-cycle costs depicted in the Summary of Spending DO NOT include $34.75 million in O&M costs shown for the selected alternative in the Analysis of Alternatives section of this Exhibit. These costs are included in each of the alternatives analyzed to estimate the additional costs to agencies from adopting and maintaining BFELoB tools. The BFELoB included these costs in the analysis of alternatives to develop a comprehensive, full-faith estimate of true life-cycle costs across the federal government for the BFELoB initiative. However, these costs are excluded from the Summary of Spending because this table represents the BFELoB program budget, as approved by member agencies, and therefore only represents those life-cycle costs borne by the program. Total life-cycle costs in the Summary of Spending including Government FTEs ($25.295M) less prior year sunk costs of $2.31 million equal $22.98 million in life-cycle costs. This value plus the additional $34.75 million in estimated agency-level O&M costs from future implementation of BFELoB solutions, equals $57.7 million life-cycle costs as shown in the Analysis of Alternatives.

Section D: Performance Information

Performance Information Table

Fiscal Year Strategic Goal(s) Supported Measurement Area Measurement Grouping Measurement Indicator Baseline Target Actual Results
2007 Cross-Goal Strategy on Managment: Objective 3 Mission and Business Results Budget Formulation Number of components using BFE tools No BFE tools established 4 components using BFE tools 6
2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Customer Results Customer Satisfaction # of agencies that contribute funding or services No funding or service contributions 15 agencies contribute funding or services 25
2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Processes and Activities Knowledge Management Number of community site registered users No users registered at inception 3,000 registered community site users 3,600
2007 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Technology External Data Sharing Number of agencies with electronic submission to MAX One agency submits electronically to MAX One agency submits electronically to MAX One agency submits electronically to MAX
2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Mission and Business Results Budget Formulation Number of major agency components using BFE tools 6 components using BFE tools 10 components using BFE tools 12 components using BFE tools
2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Customer Results Frequency and Depth Number of agencies that contribute funding or services 25 agencies contribute funding or services 25 agencies contribute funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services
2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Processes and Activities Knowledge Management number of registered community site users 3,600 registered users 4,500 registered users 7,400 registered users
2008 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Technology External Data Sharing Number of agencies with electronic submission to MAX 1 Agency submits electronically to MAX 1 Agency submits electronically to MAX 1 Agency submits electronically to MAX
2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Mission and Business Results Budget Formulation Number of major agency components using BFE tools 12 components using BFE tools 16 components using BFE tools Available first quarter FY09
2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Customer Results Frequency and Depth Number of agencies contributing funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services Available first quarter FY09
2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Processes and Activities Knowledge Management Number of registered community site users 7,400 registered users 8,500 registered users Available first quarter FY09
2009 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Technology External Data Sharing Number of agencies with electronic submission to MAX 1 agency submits electronically to MAX 1 agency submits electronically to MAX Available first quarter FY09
2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Mission and Business Results Budget Formulation Number of components using BFE tools 16 components using BFE tools 20 components using BFE tools Available first quarter FY10
2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Customer Results Frequency and Depth Number of agencies that contribute funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services Available first quarter FY10
2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Processes and Activities Knowledge Management Number of registered community site users 8,500 registered community site users 9,500 registered community site users Available first quarter FY10
2010 Cross-goal Strategy on Management - Objective 3 Technology External Data Sharing Number of agencies with electronic submission to MAX 1 agency submits electronically 10 agencies submit electronically Available first quarter FY10
2011 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Mission and Business Results Budget Formulation Increase in number of components using BFE tools 20 components using BFE tools 23 components using BFE tools Available first quarter FY11
2011 Cross-goals Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Customer Results Frequency and Depth Number of agencies that contribute funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services Available first quarter FY11
2011 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Processes and Activities Knowledge Management Number of registered community site users 9,500 registered community site users 9,500 registered community site users Available first quarter FY11
2011 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Technology External Data Sharing Increase in number of agencies with electronic submission to MAX 10 agencies submit electronically to MAX 15 agencies submit electronically to MAX Available first quarter FY11
2012 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Mission and Business Results Budget Formulation Increase in number of components using BFE tools 23 components using BFE tools 25 components using BFE tools Available first quarter FY12
2012 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Customer Results Frequency and Depth Number of agencies that contribute funding or services 26 agencies that contribute funding or services 26 agencies that contribute funding or services Available first quarter FY12
2012 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Processes and Activities Knowledge Management Number of registered community site users 9,500 registered community site users 9,500 registered community site users Available first quarter FY12
2012 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Technology External Data Sharing Increase in number of agencies with electronic submission to MAX 15 agencies submit electronically to MAX 20 agencies submit electronically to MAX Available first quarter FY12
2013 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Mission and Business Results Budget Formulation Increase in number of components using BFE approaches, processes and tools 25 components using BFE approaches, processes and tools 28 components using BFE approaches, processes and tools Available first quarter FY13
2013 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Customer Results Frequency and Depth Number of agencies that contribute funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services 26 agencies contribute funding or services Available first quarter FY13
2013 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Processes and Activities Knowledge Management Number of registered community site users 9,500 registered community site users 9,500 registered community site users Available first quarter FY13
2013 Cross-goal Strategy on Management: Objective 3 Technology External Data Sharing Increase in number of agencies with electronic submission to MAX 20 agencies submit electronically to MAX 25 agencies submit electronically to MAX Available first quarter FY13

Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA)

  1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture? no
    1. If "no," please explain why? [Not answered]
  2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy? no
    1. If "yes," provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment. [Not answered]
    2. If "no," please explain why? As the Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business is an eGov initiative, it is incorporated in the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) and covered under the FEA's transition strategy.
  3. Is this investment identified in a completed and approved segment architecture? no
    1. If "yes," provide the six digit code corresponding to the agency segment architecture. The segment architecture codes are maintained by the agency Chief Architect. For detailed guidance regarding segment architecture codes, please refer to http://www.egov.gov/. 304-000

4. Service Component Reference Model (SRM) Table :

Agency Component Name Agency Component Description FEA SRM Service Type FEA SRM Component Service Component Reused Internal or External Reuse? BY Funding Percentage
Component Name UPI
Agency Budgeting Tools Module for enforcing central budgeting business rules in distributed applications Management of Processes Business Rule Management Business Rule Management 100-55-01-01-01-0001-00 External 13
Collaboration A web-based application to foster central information sharing, information distribution, and collaborative work among Federal agencies Knowledge Management Information Sharing Information Sharing 100-55-01-01-01-0001-00 External 10
Collaboration A secure environment for online collaborative meetings that is government certified to meet federal security restrictions and records management requirements Communication Real Time / Chat Real Time / Chat 100-55-01-01-01-0001-00 External 2
Data Collection and Tracking A generalized data collection exercise and tracking module with document and knowledge management capabilities Data Management Data Exchange Data Exchange 100-55-01-01-01-0001-00 External 10
Data Collection and Tracking Facilities and tools that organize, retain, and retrieve information Reporting Ad Hoc Ad Hoc 100-55-01-01-01-0001-00 External 1
Agency Budgeting Tool(s) Automated tools that enable budgeting staff to work more efficiently Data Management Data Warehouse Data Warehouse 015-00-01-01-02-3226-24 External 0

 

5. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table:

FEA SRM Component FEA TRM Service Area FEA TRM Service Category FEA TRM Service Standard Service Specification
Business Rule Management Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification XML
Information Sharing Component Framework User Presentation / Interface Static Display HTML
Information Sharing Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification XML
Information Sharing Component Framework Data Management Database Connectivity Object Linking and Embedding/Database (Delimited files)
Real Time / Chat Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers TBD - anticipate use of open source
Real Time / Chat Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Media Servers TBD - anticipate use of open source
Data Exchange Component Framework Data Management Database Connectivity Object Linking and Embedding/Database (Delimited files)
Data Exchange Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification XML
Ad Hoc Component Framework User Presentation / Interface Dynamic Server-Side Display Java Server Pages
Data Warehouse Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Authentication / Single Sign-on Authentication / Single Sign-on
  1. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., USA.Gov, Pay.Gov, etc)? yes
    1. If "yes," please describe. The BFELoB Target Technology Architecture and identification of eGovernment shared services will be developed as the business functions, capabilities, and service components of the LoB are further defined. The LoB will utilize the Federal Transition Framework as a tool for identifying cross-government components.

Part IV: Planning For "Multi-Agency Collaboration" ONLY

Section A: Multi-Agency Collaboration Oversight (All Capital Assets)

 

1. Stakeholder Table:
Partner Agency Joint exhibit approval date
005 - Department of Agriculture Jun 18, 2008
514 - Broadcasting Board of Governor Jun 18, 2008
006 - Department of Commerce Jun 18, 2008
202 - Corps of Engineers-Civil Works Jun 18, 2008
007 - Dept of Defense--Military Jun 18, 2008
018 - Department of Education Jun 18, 2008
019 - Department of Energy Jun 18, 2008
020 - Environmental Protection Agy Jun 18, 2008
100 - Exec Office of the President Jun 18, 2008
023 - General Services Admin Jun 18, 2008
009 - Dept of Health & Human Service Jun 18, 2008
024 - Dept of Homeland Security Jun 18, 2008
025 - Dept of Housing & Urban Develp Jun 18, 2008
010 - Department of the Interior Jun 18, 2008
011 - Department of Justice Jun 18, 2008
012 - Department of Labor Jun 18, 2008
026 - Natl Aeronautics & Space Admin Jun 18, 2008
422 - National Science Foundation Jun 18, 2008
429 - Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jun 18, 2008
027 - Office of Personnel Management Jun 18, 2008
449 - Securities & Exchange Comm Jun 18, 2008
028 - Small Business Administration Jun 18, 2008
452 - Smithsonian Institution Jun 18, 2008
016 - Social Security Administration Jun 18, 2008
014 - Department of State Jun 18, 2008
021 - Department of Transportation Jun 18, 2008
015 - Department of the Treasury Jun 18, 2008
029 - Department of Veterans Affairs Jun 18, 2008
467 - Intelligence Community Mgmt Ac Jun 18, 2008
184 - Intl Assistance Programs Jun 18, 2008

 

2. Partner Capital Assets within this Investment:

Partner Agency Partner Agency Asset Title Partner Agency Exhibit 53 UPI (BY2010)
015 - Department of the Treasury Budget Formulation and Execution Manager (BFEM -- budget SSP owned by Treasury) 015-00-01-01-02-3226-24

 

3. Partner Funding Strategies ($millions):

Partner Agency Partner Agency Exhibit 53 UPI (BY2010) CY Contribution CY Fee-for-Service BY Contribution BY Fee-for-Service
184 - Intl Assistance Programs 184-15-01-02-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
023 - General Services Admin 023-30-01-11-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
467 - Intelligence Community Mgmt Ac 467-00-01-00-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
505 - Other Commissions and Boards 018-18-01-01-01-0000-00 0.383 0 0.398 0
018 - Department of Education 018-18-01-01-01-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
011 - Department of Justice 011-03-01-10-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
005 - Department of Agriculture 005-03-01-81-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
449 - Securities & Exchange Comm 449-00-01-05-04-3200-24 0.045 0 0.05 0
028 - Small Business Administration 028-00-01-01-04-3200-24 0.045 0 0.05 0
027 - Office of Personnel Management 027-00-01-99-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
422 - National Science Foundation 422-00-01-04-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
026 - Natl Aeronautics & Space Admin 026-00-01-99-04-3200-24 0.085 0 0.095 0
015 - Department of the Treasury 015-00-01-13-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
014 - Department of State 014-00-01-08-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
006 - Department of Commerce 006-03-01-50-04-3200-24 0.085 0 0.095 0
012 - Department of Labor 012-25-01-00-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
009 - Dept of Health & Human Service 009-00-01-99-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
024 - Dept of Homeland Security 024-00-01-01-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
010 - Department of the Interior 010-00-01-07-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
007 - Dept of Defense--Military 007-97-01-01-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
019 - Department of Energy 019-99-01-99-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
025 - Dept of Housing & Urban Develp 025-00-01-09-04-3200-24 0.085 0 0.095 0
021 - Department of Transportation 021-04-01-01-04-3200-24 0.085 0 0.095 0
029 - Department of Veterans Affairs 029-00-01-21-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
100 - Exec Office of the President 100-00-01-01-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
514 - Broadcasting Board of Governor 514-00-01-00-04-3200-24 0 0 0 0
020 - Environmental Protection Agy 020-00-01-01-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
202 - Corps of Engineers-Civil Works 202-00-01-01-04-3200-24 0.095 0 0.095 0
016 - Social Security Administration 018-18-01-01-01-3200-24 0 0 0 0
  1. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this investment? yes
    1. If "yes," what is the date of the analysis? Jul 21, 2008
    2. If "no," what is the anticipated date this analysis will be completed? [Not answered]
    3. If no analysis is planned, please briefly explain why: [Not answered]

5. Alternatives Analysis Results:

Alternative Analyzed Description of Alternative Risk Adjusted Lifecycle Costs estimate Risk Adjusted Lifecycle Benefits estimate
Status quo (Alternative 1) This alternative assumes substantial status quo manual processing at each agency for all BFE functions. It assumes only a few agencies having automated ability to incorporate numbers from their budget processes into budget submissions. Otherwise, it assumes no investments for automation, at agencies or govt-wide, related to analytical tools, collaboration, data collection and tracking, and document production, as well as no guidance on best practices. 638.117 0
Ad-Hoc Expansion (Alternative 2) This alternative increases use of automation at agencies but in non-reusable customizations for which each agency pays separately. This alternative requires no investments in leveraging best practices, establishing standards, or in automated tools for government-wide and data collection and tracking. It consists of non-standard systems yielding limited data sharing and collaboration and agencies operating with limited common guidance. 70.65 102.4
Common Solutions Capabilities Suite - Phased Implementation (Alternative 3) This alternative delivers BFELoB guidance, standards, and the experiences of other agencies. Best practices are coordinated and information is shared. Tools are available for data collection. Acquisitions are consolidated and re-usable GOTS capabilities are shared. LoB coordinates with the FMLoB to define budget execution processes. LoB provides tools and services to improve information sharing, communication, and collaborative work across the government. 57.7 217.7
Common Solutions Capabilities Suite - Accelerated Implementation (Alternative 4) This alternative is similar to phased implementation, but delivers analytical tools, the A-11 rule validation service and fee-for-service options one year earlier. Additional technology options are developed. Document production is accelerated. 68.5 227.2
  1. Which alternative was selected by the Initiative Governance process and why was it chosen? The Task Force chose alternative 3 (Phased Implementation) because it shows the greatest rate of return and least risk to implement. Each alternative to the status quo recognizes cost avoidances to participating agencies as the only tangible benefits from the BFELoB initiative. Cost avoidances are realized due to activities individual agencies would no longer need to undertake due to the support tools and services the BFELoB program develops, delivers and maintains. Alternative 2 (Ad-Hoc Expansion) only delivers support tools and services in a limited number of areas including: agency specific collaboration tools, budget tools, analysis tools and document production. Alternative 3 expands these areas to include data tracking and analysis tools and human resources and electronic data transfer to the OMB MAX website. Alternative 4 (Accelerated Implementation) accelerates the delivery of the benefits realized in Alternative 3 such that 100% benefits are realized a full year earlier. Alternative 3 delivers cost avoidance benefits nearly equivalent to those of Alternative 4, but relies on a more gradual and realistic funding strategy which ultimately results in lower life-cycle costs. In comparison, Alternative 2 is more costly, by roughly $12.9 Million, because federal agencies incur individual and duplicate acquisition and implementation costs to implement the needed tools and services. As the approach is ad-hoc, this alternative does not yield standard approaches and tools for the BFE community and duplicates resources. It has the lowest rate of return of all the alternatives. In comparison to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 realizes more benefits because they are realized a full year earlier. However, the funding required to support this benefit stream is not realistic and exceeds the ability of participating agencies to support it. The Task Force chose alternative 3 because it delivers a high benefit stream at initial costs that better reflect agency budget realities; it represents lower risk since a more gradual implementation schedule keeps activities at a manageable size for staff. This analysis captures an additional $34.75 million in O&M costs than represented in the Summary of Spending to incorporate implementation costs of participating agencies from BFELoB solutions. Though an economic cost, they are not BFELoB program costs and not shown in the Summary of Spending or Partner Agency funding value. Life-cycle costs equal $22.98M without these costs.
  2. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized? Improved efficiency and effectiveness of agency and central processes for formulating and executing the Federal Budget, including reduced errors, increased responsiveness to policy needs, and the ability to address a broader range of issues during peak work periods. Enhanced effectiveness and productivity of the Federal budgeting workforce, including reduced turnover and raised morale. Improved effectiveness and accuracy of agency budget data collection processes (e.g. the validation of data using up to date A-11 Business rules and electronic submission to OMB's MAX system). Improved capabilities for analyzing formulation, execution, planning, performance, and financial information in support of decision making. A governance process that establishes standards and guidelines essential for interoperability. Improved integration and standardized exchange of budget formulation, execution, planning, performance measurement, and financial management information and activities across government. Enhanced capabilities for aligning programs and their outputs and outcomes with budget levels and actual costs to institutionalize Budget and Performance Integration.

 

8. Federal Quantitative Benefits ($millions):

  Budgeted Cost Savings Cost Avoidance Justification for Budgeted Cost Savings Justification for Budgeted Cost Avoidance
PY-1 and Prior 0 0 PY-1 and prior represent sunk costs therefore no benefits are included. PY-1 and prior represent sunk costs therefore no benefits are included.
PY 0 8.31 Not applicable. Includes 50% of realized benefits for: 1.35 FTE at 26 agencies for data collection and tracking tools, 1.28 FTEs at 6 agencies for budgeting tools and 1 FTE at 26 agencies for collaboration tools. Includes 100% of realized benefit from 6 agencies saving 1.5 FTEs each for document production and 3 agencies avoiding 1 FTE each to support analytical tools. Above assumed at GS14 Step 1 rate. Includes 50% of benefit from avoiding 6.59 non-DoD FTEs (GS12, Step 1) for human capital best practices.
CY 0 13.4 Not applicable. Includes 75% of realized benefits for: 1.35 FTE at 26 agencies for data collection and tracking tools, 1.28 FTEs at 10 agencies for budgeting tools and 1 FTE at 26 agencies for collaboration tools. Includes 100% of realized benefit from: 10 agencies saving 1.5 FTEs each for document production and 5 agencies avoiding 1 FTE each to support analytical tools. Above assumed at GS14 Step 1 rate. Includes 75% of benefit from avoiding 6.59 non-DoD FTEs (GS12, Step 1) for human capital best practices.
BY 0 20.58 Not applicable. Includes full benefits of: 1.35 FTE at 26 agencies for data collection and tracking tools, 1.28 FTEs at 14 agencies for budgeting tools and 1 FTE at 26 agencies for collaboration tools. Includes full benefit of: 14 agencies saving 1.5 FTEs each for document production and 7 agencies avoiding 1 FTE each for analytical tools. Includes benefit of 25 agencies avoiding .43 FTEs each for electronic data transfer tool. Includes 100% of cost avoidance benefits from human capital best practices.
BY+1 0 23.05 Not applicable. Includes full BY benefits for data collection and tracking tools, budgeting tools, and collaboration tools. Includes full benefit of: 18 agencies saving 1.5 FTEs each for document production and 9 agencies avoiding 1 FTE each for analytical tools. Includes full benefit of 29 agencies avoiding .43 FTEs each (at a rate of GS14, Step 1) for electronic data transfer tool. Includes 100% of cost avoidance benefits from human capital best practices and standards.
BY+2 0 25.53 Not applicable. Full benefits of BY+1 plus benefits from 4 more agencies avoiding: 1.28 FTEs from adopting common budgeting tools; avoiding 1.5 FTE each from adopting document production tools, and avoiding an additional .43 FTE each from implementing the MAX electronic data transfer tool. It adds benefits for 2 additional agencies that adopt common analytical tools which avoid 1 FTE each. Each of these FTEs is avoided at the same real rate of a 2008 GS14, Step 1.
BY+3 0 28 Not applicable. Full benefits of BY+2 plus benefits from 4 more agencies avoiding: 1.28 FTEs from adopting common budgeting tools; avoiding 1.5 FTE each from adopting document production tools, and avoiding an additional .43 FTE each from implementing the MAX electronic data transfer tool. It adds benefits for 2 additional agencies that adopt common analytical tools thereby avoiding 1 FTE each. Each of these FTEs is avoided at the same real rate of a 2008 GS14, Step 1.
BY+4 and Beyond 0 98.85 Not applicable. Full benefits of BY+3 plus add the following benefits to each fiscal year: 4 more agencies avoid: 1.28 FTEs from adopting common budgeting tools; 1.5 FTE each from adopting document production tools, and an additional .43 FTE each from implementing the MAX electronic data transfer tool. Each fiscal year also adds benefits for 2 additional agencies that adopt common analytical tools which thereby avoid 1 FTE each. Each of these FTEs is avoided at the same real rate of a 2008 GS14, Step 1.
Total LCC Benefit 0 217.72 LCC = Life-cycle cost
  1. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole? no
    1. If "yes," are the migration costs associated with the migration to the selected alternative included in this investment, the legacy investment, or in a separate migration investment? [Not answered]
    2. If "yes," please provide the following information:

List of Legacy Investment or Systems

Name of the Legacy Investment or Systems UPI if available Date of the System Retirement
There are no Legacy Investment or Systems.

Section B: Risk Management (All Capital Assets)

  1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan? yes
    1. If "yes," what is the date of the plan? Aug 25, 2008
    2. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB? yes
    3. If "yes," describe any significant changes: The main change as been with respect to availability of resources and funding. Some of the resources are "in-kind" federal government resources and the availabilty of these resources depend on other priorities within their home agency. Funding is dependent on agency contributions which may change as well based on competing internal priorites that agencies may have.
  2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed? [Not answered]
    1. If "yes," what is the planned completion date? [Not answered]
    2. If "no," what is the strategy for managing the risks? [Not answered]

Section C: Cost and Schedule Performance (All Capital Assets)

  1. Are you using EVM to manage this investment? yes
    1. If "yes," does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard - 748? yes
    2. If "no," explain plans to implement EVM: [Not answered]
    3. If "N/A," please provide date operational analysis was conducted and a brief summary of the results: [Not answered]
  2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%? (CV%= CV/EV x 100; SV%= SV/PV x 100) yes
    1. If "yes," was it the? SV
    2. If "yes," explain the causes of the variance: Schedule variance was caused by the late receipt of funds from partner agencies. This resulted in a late start on most projects.
    3. If "yes," describe the corrective actions BFELoB rebaselined to reflect the receipt of funds later in the FY (generally in April or May, rather than October). This is also reflected in the outyear information.
  3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year? yes
    1. If "yes," when was it approved by the agency head? May 22, 2008

4. Comparison of Initial Baseline and Current Approved Baseline:

Description of Milestone Initial Baseline Current Baseline Current Baseline Variance   Agency Responsible for Activity
Planned Completion Date Total Cost ($M) Estimated Completion Date
Planned:Actual
Total Cost ($M)
Planned:Actual
Schedule:Cost
(# days:$M)
Percent Complete
Facilitate Agency use of Budgeting Tools: "Productize" existing tools, Establish fee-based services Sep 30, 2007 0.468 Sep 30, 2007 Mar 31, 2008 0.486 0.444 183 0.042 100 015 - Department of the Treasury
Collaboration: Government-wide collaboration site, Secure online meetings, Data ownership guidelines Sep 30, 2007 0.494 Jan 31, 2008 Mar 31, 2008 0.491 0.491 183 0 100 100 - Exec Office of the President
Optimize Data Collection/Tracking: Define data exchange methodologies & tools, Optimize recurring exercises Sep 30, 2007 0.274 Apr 30, 2008 Apr 30, 2008 0.275 0.33 0 0.055 100 100 - Exec Office of the President
Establish the PMO: Plans & acquisition, Product management, Coordination & liaison, Resource management Sep 30, 2007 0.487 Feb 29, 2008 Mar 31, 2008 0.47 0.673 31 0.203 100 018 - Department of Education
Continue Architecture: Service module standards, Federated architecture, Extend agency surveys Sep 30, 2007 0.208 Jan 31, 2008 Mar 31, 2008 0.21 0.187 60 0.023 100 018 - Department of Education
Data Standards: Government-wide BFE data system to system exchange, budget and capital plans, business best practices Sep 30, 2007 0.206 Jan 31, 2008 Mar 31, 2008 0.205 0.182 60 0.023 100 018 - Department of Education
Optimize Data Collection/Tracking: generalized central data collection module Sep 30, 2008 0.57 Mar 31, 2009 [Not answered] 0.371 0.106 182 0 25 100 - Exec Office of the President
Agency Budgeting Tools: Continue facilitating agency use of tools Sep 30, 2008 0.312 Mar 31, 2009 [Not answered] 0.43 0.082 182 0 20 018 - Department of Education
PMO Operations Sep 30, 2008 0.731 Mar 31, 2009 [Not answered] 0.601 0.117 182 0 25 018 - Department of Education
Refine Architecture Sep 30, 2008 0.312 Mar 31, 2009 [Not answered] 0.26 0.06 182 0 25 018 - Department of Education
Data Standards: Budget Execution and Financial Management Schema: DB, XML Refine previous standards Sep 30, 2008 0.234 Mar 31, 2009 [Not answered] 0.104 0.042 182 0 40 018 - Department of Education
Enhance Collaboration Sep 30, 2008 0.075 Mar 31, 2009 [Not answered] 0.2 0.025 182 0 15 100 - Exec Office of the President
O&M Sep 30, 2008 0.27 Mar 31, 2009 [Not answered] 0.395 0.075 182 0 25 100 - Exec Office of the President
PMO Operations Sep 30, 2009 0.731 Mar 31, 2010 [Not answered] 0.636 [Not answered] 182 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Refine Architecture Sep 30, 2009 0.312 Mar 31, 2010 [Not answered] 0.34 [Not answered] 182 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Agency Budgeting Tools: Establish business rule service module Sep 30, 2009 0.624 Mar 31, 2010 [Not answered] 0.58 [Not answered] 182 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Data Collection/Tracking: Continue to develop, conduct, and analyze prototypes and pilots Sep 30, 2009 0.312 Mar 31, 2010 [Not answered] 0.312 [Not answered] 182 0 0 100 - Exec Office of the President
Enhance Data Standards: Evaluate use of EAI Sep 30, 2009 0.195 Mar 31, 2010 [Not answered] 0.16 [Not answered] 182 0 0 018 - Department of Education
O&M Sep 30, 2009 0.32 Mar 31, 2010 [Not answered] 0.41 [Not answered] 182 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Agency Budgeting Tools Sep 30, 2010 0 Mar 31, 2011 [Not answered] 0.58 [Not answered] 0 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Budget Execution and Financial Mgt Integration Sep 30, 2010 0 Mar 31, 2011 [Not answered] 0.175 [Not answered] 0 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Data Collection and Tracking Sep 30, 2010 0 Mar 31, 2011 [Not answered] 0.312 [Not answered] 0 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Knowledge Management and Collaboration: Facilities and tools Sep 30, 2010 0.312 Mar 31, 2011 [Not answered] 0.125 [Not answered] 182 0 0 018 - Department of Education
PMO Operations Sep 30, 2010 0.731 Mar 31, 2011 [Not answered] 0.686 [Not answered] 182 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Refine Architecture Sep 30, 2010 0.312 Mar 31, 2011 [Not answered] 0.3 [Not answered] 182 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Data Standards Sep 30, 2010 0 Mar 31, 2011 [Not answered] 0.16 [Not answered] 0 0 0 018 - Department of Education
O&M Sep 30, 2010 1.556 Mar 31, 2011 [Not answered] 0.44 [Not answered] 182 0 0 100 - Exec Office of the President
O&M Sep 30, 2011 2.237 Mar 31, 2012 [Not answered] 2.237 [Not answered] 182 0 0 100 - Exec Office of the President
O&M Sep 30, 2012 2.237 Mar 31, 2013 [Not answered] 2.349 [Not answered] 182 0 0 100 - Exec Office of the President
O&M Sep 30, 2013 2.237 Mar 31, 2014 [Not answered] 2.466 [Not answered] 182 0 0 100 - Exec Office of the President
O&M Sep 30, 2014 2.237 Mar 31, 2015 [Not answered] 2.59 [Not answered] 182 0 0 100 - Exec Office of the President
O&M Sep 30, 2015 2.237 Mar 31, 2016 [Not answered] 2.237 [Not answered] 182 0 0 100 - Exec Office of the President
O&M Sep 30, 2016 2.237 Mar 31, 2017 [Not answered] 2.237 [Not answered] 182 0 0 100 - Exec Office of the President
Budget Execution & Financial Mgt Integration Sep 30, 2009 0 Mar 31, 2010 [Not answered] 0.175 [Not answered] 0 0 0 018 - Department of Education
Knowledge Mgt and Collaboration Sep 30, 2009 0 Mar 31, 2010 [Not answered] 0.1 [Not answered] 0 0 0 018 - Department of Education

Return to OMB Exhibit 300 page