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

Common Origination and Disbursement (COD)

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

Section A: Overview

  1. Date of submission: Sep 10, 2008
  2. Agency: 018
  3. Bureau: 45
  4. Name of this Capital Asset: Common Origination and Disbursement (COD)
  5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: 018-45-01-06-01-1020-00
  6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2010? Operations and Maintenance
  7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB? FY2001 or earlier
  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: The previous COD system contract ended September 30, 2006, and FSA awarded a sole source Firm-Fixed Price contract, which contains a Base Year and 2 contingency years, for COD on February 22, 2006, and ends September 30, 2009, in order to continue to originate and disburse federal financial aid (Grants and Direct Loans) to students as the future of the Enterprise Solution is determined. COD's current and future operations and maintenance effort include delivery of the annual software releases 7 and 8. Since an Enterprise solution is not scheduled to take over the origination and disbursement processs for the near future, FSA and the current contractor signed a contract on August 28, 2008, to extend the current contract beyond September 30, 2009 to September 30, 2014. Because of the complexity of the COD system, this was another sole source contract. The current Project Manager's was acting lieu of the previous project manager and is scheduled to be replaced soon. Therefore, she is not seeking cerification.
  9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request? yes
    1. If "yes," what was the date of this approval? Aug 30, 2007
  10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit? yes
    1. What is the current FAC-P/PM (for civilian agencies) or DAWIA (for defense agencies) certification level of the program/project manager? Entry/Apprentice/DAWIA-Level 1
  11. 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)? no
    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]
  12. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives? yes
    Financial Performance
    1. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? COD supports the FSA's Financial Management System & the PMA for Financial Performance by the use of financial information to measure, operate and predict the effectiveness and efficiency of COD activities in delivering Direct Loans and Grants to its' customers. COD has in place policies, standards, and a system of controls that reliably capture and report activity in a consistent manner. COD's system of controls include areas as accounting, funds control, payments collections & receiveables.
  13. 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]
  14. 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 2
  2. In addition to the answer in 11(a), what project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council PM Guidance) (1) Project manager has been validated as qualified 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 0
Software 0
Services 100
Other 0
  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:
   
   
   
   
  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          
Planning: 0 0 0 0          
Acquisition: 41.85 0 0 0          
Subtotal Planning amp; Acquisition: 41.85 0 0 0          
Operations & Maintenance: 82.43 66.73 80.66 104.23          
TOTAL: 124.28 66.73 80.66 104.23          

Government FTE Costs should not be included in the amounts provided above.

Government FTE Costs 7.137 2.204 2.31 2.394          
Number of FTE represented by Costs: 67 20 20 20          
  1. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's? no
    1. If "yes", How many and in what year? [Not answered]
  2. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2009 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes: COD was being replaced by the ADvance contract. Because the ADvance contract is no longer active, COD must remain operational until a replacement system is developed and implemented. The current contract ends September 30, 2009. FSA and the current contractor are in negotiations to add another option year that will end on September 30, 2010. This will allow FSA to develop and implement the new enterprise wide solution that will incorporate the COD system.

Section D: Performance Information

Performance Information Table

Fiscal Year Strategic Goal(s) Supported Measurement Area Measurement Grouping Measurement Indicator Baseline Target Actual Results
2004 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Higher Education: Percentage of funds drawn down for DL and Pell Grant programs substantiated by receipt of records within 30 day requirement 80% 96% 99%
2004 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction: ACSI score representing customers satisfaction with COD on FSA?s Customer Satisfaction survey 66 68 72
2004 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Financial Management Financial Management: Percentage of schools substantiating draw downs with records within 30 day requirements 75% 88% 75%
2004 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Availability Availability: Percentage of COD web availability excluding scheduled outages 99.7% 99.7% 97.3%
2005 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Higher Education: Percentage of funds drawn down for DL and Pell Grant programs substantiated by receipt of records within 30 day requirement 80% 96% 97%
2005 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction: ACSI score representing customers satisfaction with COD on FSA?s Customer Satisfaction survey 66 72 76
2005 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Financial Management Financial Management: Percentage of schools substantiating draw downs with records within 30 day requirements 75% 88% 97%
2005 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Availability Availability: Percentage of COD web availability excluding scheduled outages 99.7% 99.7% 100%
2006 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Higher Education: Percentage of funds drawn down for DL and Pell Grant programs substantiated by receipt of records within 30 day requirement 80% 96% 97%
2006 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction: ACSI score representing customers satisfaction with COD on FSA?s Customer Satisfaction survey 66 76 77
2006 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Financial Management Financial Management: Percentage of schools substantiating draw downs with records within 30 day requirements 75% 88% 91%
2006 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Availability Availability: Percentage of COD web availability excluding scheduled outages 99.7% 99.7% 99.9%
2007 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Higher Education: Percentage of funds drawn down for DL and Pell Grant programs substantiated by receipt of records within 30 day requirement 80% 96% 97.75%
2007 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction: ACSI score representing customers satisfaction with COD on FSA's Customer Satisfaction survey 66 76 81
2007 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Financial Management Financial Management: Percentage of schools substantiating draw downs with records within 30 day requirements 75% 88% 91%
2007 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Availability Availability: Percentage of COD web availability excluding scheduled outages 99.7% 99.7% 99.7%
2008 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Higher Education: Percentage of funds drawn down for DL and Pell Grant programs substantiated by receipt of records within 30 day requirement 80% 96% 96%
2008 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction: ACSI score representing customers satisfaction with COD on FSA's Customer Satisfaction survey 66 76 Measure not scored in FY08 in anticipation of "ADvance" solution subsuming this initiative, but ADvance did not mature as expected.
2008 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Financial Management Financial Management: Percentage of schools substantiating draw downs with records within 30 day requirements 75% 88% 88%
2008 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Availability Availability: Percentage of COD web availability excluding scheduled outages 99.7% 99.7% 99.7%
2009 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Higher Education: Percentage of funds drawn down for DL and Pell Grant programs substantiated by receipt of records within 30 day requirement 80% 96% [Not answered]
2009 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction: ACSI score representing customers satisfaction with COD on FSA's Customer Satisfaction survey 66 76 [Not answered]
2009 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Financial Management Financial Management: Percentage of schools substantiating draw downs with records within 30 day requirements 75% 88% [Not answered]
2009 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Availability Availability: Percentage of COD web availability excluding scheduled outages 99.7% 99.7% [Not answered]
2010 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Higher Education: Percentage of funds drawn down for DL and Pell Grant programs substantiated by receipt of records within 30 day requirement 80% 96% [Not answered]
2010 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction: ACSI score representing customers satisfaction with COD on FSA's Customer Satisfaction survey 66 76 [Not answered]
2010 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Financial Management Financial Management: Percentage of schools substantiating draw downs with records within 30 day requirements 75% 88% [Not answered]
2010 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Availability Availability: Percentage of COD web availability excluding scheduled outages 99.7% 99.7% [Not answered]

Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA)

  1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture? no
    1. If "no," please explain why? The COD investment is expected to be subsumed by the ADvance investment which implements the components of the target EA, that replaces COD.
  2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy? yes
    1. If "yes," provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment. Common Origination and Disbursement (COD)
    2. If "no," please explain why? [Not answered]
  3. Is this investment identified in a completed and approved segment architecture? yes
    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/. 402-000

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
FSA COD Routing and Scheduling Provide routing and scheduling capabilities to support COD inbound correspondence management business functions. Routing and Scheduling Inbound Correspondence Management [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 1
FSA COD Routing and Scheduling Provide routing and scheduling capabilities to support COD outbound correspondence management business functions. Routing and Scheduling Outbound Correspondence Management [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 2
FSA COD Document Management Provide document management capabilities to support the indexing of DL's and Pell Grants for the COD business functions. Document Management Library / Storage [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 3
FSA COD Document Management Provide document management capabilities to the library or storage in support of the COD business functions. Document Management Indexing [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 2
FSA COD Knowledge Management Provide data management capabilities to support COD information retrieval business functions. Knowledge Management Information Retrieval [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 3
FSA COD Knowledge Management Provide data management capabilities to support COD Information Sharing business functions. Knowledge Management Information Sharing [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 2
FSA COD Knowledge Management Provide knowledge management capabilities to support the categorization of data for the COD business functions. Knowledge Management Categorization [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 2
FSA COD Records Management Provide records management capabilities to support COD record linking and association business functions. Records Management Record Linking / Association [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 1
FSA COD Records Management Provide records management capabilities to support COD Document Retirement business functions. Records Management Document Retirement [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 2
FSA COD Data Mangement Provide data management capabilities to support the extraction and transformation for the COD business function. Data Management Extraction and Transformation [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 30
FSA COD Reporting Provide reporting capabilities to support the COD Ad-Hoc reports functions. Reporting Ad Hoc [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 5
FSA COD Reporting Provide reporting capabilities to support COD business functions on standardized and canned reports. Reporting Standardized / Canned [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 5
FSA COD Security Management Provide security management audit trail capture and analysis support for the COD business functions. Security Management Audit Trail Capture and Analysis Audit Trail Capture and Analysis [Not answered] No Reuse 1
FSA COD Security Management Provide verification capabilities to support the COD security management business functions. Security Management Access Control [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 1
FSA COD Document Management Provide document management capabilities to support the document imaging and OCR functions for the COD Business operations. Document Management Document Imaging and OCR [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 5
FSA COD Data Mangement Provide data management capabilities to support COD DL and Pell Grant business functions. Data Management Data Classification [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 30
FSA Customer Relationship Management Defines the set of capabilities that support the retention and delivery of the Direct Loan and Pell Grant services for institutions and borrowers for these programs. Customer Relationship Management Customer / Account Management [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 5

 

5. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table:

FEA SRM Component FEA TRM Service Area FEA TRM Service Category FEA TRM Service Standard Service Specification
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database IBM Corporation, DB2 v6.1
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers Sun Microsystems Incorporated, Solaris 8 iPlanet Enterprise Server
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database Sun Microsystems Incorporated, Solaris 8
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Dependent Platform Sun Microsystems Inc. Veritas v5.1
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database Oracle Corporation, Oracle 8i HA
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers BEA Systems Incorporated, Weblogic Application Server Version 8.1
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database IBM Corporation, IMS v6.1
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Dependent Platform IBM Corporation, z/OS 1.4
Standardized / Canned Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis Cognos Incorporated, Cognos Application Version 7.3 and PowerPlay Enterprise V7.1.341
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers Netscape Communications Corporation, Netscape Browser Ver. 5.1
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Dependent Platform Microsoft Corporation, Windows NT 4.0
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Dependent Platform IBM Corporation, MQ Series v5.3.1
Customer / Account Management Service Interface and Integration Integration Enterprise Application Integration MetaStorm, Data Integrator V 4.0.5.0
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers Sun Microsystems Incorporated, Netra T1
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers Sun Microsystems Incorporated, E420
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Servers / Computers Sun Microsystems Incorporated, E420
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Servers / Computers IBM Corporation, G6 Processor
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers Hewlett-Packard Company, Compaq Dual P III 667
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers Hewlett-Packard Company, Compaq Quad PX550
Customer / Account Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers IBM Corporation, RS 9672 R56
Inbound Correspondence Management Component Framework User Presentation / Interface Dynamic Server-Side Display Siebel Partner Relationship Management
Outbound Correspondence Management Component Framework User Presentation / Interface Dynamic Server-Side Display Siebel Partner Relationship Management
Library / Storage Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Storage Oracle Corporation, Oracle RDBMS 9i, Enterprise 9.2.05
Indexing Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification eXtensible Markup Language (XML)
Categorization Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification eXtensible Markup Language (XML)
Record Linking / Association Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification eXtensible Markup Language (XML)
Document Retirement Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Storage Oracle Corporation, Oracle RDBMS9i, Enterprise 9.2.05
Extraction and Transformation Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Transformation eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transform (XSlt)
Ad Hoc Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis SQL Server
Audit Trail Capture and Analysis Service Access and Delivery Service Transport Service Transport Hyper Text Transfer Protocal (HTTP)1.1
Access Control Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Authentication / Single Sign-on IBM Tivoli Identity and Access Manager
Document Imaging and OCR Component Framework User Presentation / Interface Dynamic Server-Side Display IBM FileNetP8
Information Retrieval Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Storage Oracle Corporation Oracle RDBMS 9i, Enterprise 9.2.05
Information Sharing Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Dependent Platform Microsoft Corporation, Windows 2000 Server
Data Classification Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification XML Registry for the Eduction Community
  1. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., USA.Gov, Pay.Gov, etc)? no
    1. If "yes," please describe. [Not answered]

Part III: For "Operation and Maintenance" investments ONLY (Steady State)

Section A: 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? Sep 26, 2007
    2. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB? no
    3. If "yes," describe any significant changes: [Not answered]
  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 B: Cost and Schedule Performance (All Capital Assets)

  1. Was operational analysis conducted? yes
    1. If "yes," provide the date the analysis was completed. Jun 10, 2008
    2. If "yes," what were the results? All work is being performed within budget due to additional funding that COD received at the end of FY05, and all work is on schedule with the exception of recent work associated with HERA. However, it is anticipated that those releases will be delivered on time as well dispite a slight schedule slippage.
    3. If "no," please explain why it was not conducted and if there are any plans to conduct operational analysis in the future: [Not answered]
  2.  
    1. What costs are included in the reported Cost/Schedule Performance information (Government Only/Contractor Only/Both)? Government Only

2. b Comparison of Plan vs. Actual Performance Table:

Description of Milestone Planned Actual Variance
Completion Date Total Cost ($M) Completion Date Total Cost ($M) Schedule:Cost
(# days/$M)
FY 2001 Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2001 0.7 Sep 30, 2001 0.7 0 0
FY 2002 Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2002 0.875 Sep 30, 2002 0.875 0 0
1st Share-in-Results Payment Sep 30, 2002 12 Sep 30, 2002 12 0 0
FY 2003 Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2003 2 Sep 30, 2003 2 0 0
2nd Share-in-Results Payment Sep 30, 2003 12 Sep 30, 2003 12 0 0
FY 2004 Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2004 3.38 Sep 30, 2004 3.38 0 0
1st Year Share-in-Savings Payment Sep 30, 2004 16.9 Sep 30, 2004 12.213 0 4.687
FY 2005 Maintenance Costs Feb 1, 2006 11.879 Jul 31, 2006 10.832 180 1.047
3rd Year Share-in-Savings Payments Sep 30, 2006 5.636 Sep 30, 2006 5.636 0 0
FY 2006 Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2007 13.04 Jun 15, 2007 3.453 107 9.587
FY 2007 Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2007 55.099 Sep 30, 2007 61.18732 0 6.08832
FY 2008 Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2008 55.325 Sep 30, 2008 64.729726 0 9.404726
FY2008 Discretionary Funds Sep 30, 2008 2 Sep 30, 2008 2 0 0
FY 2009 Operations and Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2010 68.758258 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2009 Other Direct Costs Sep 30, 2009 9.849 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY 2009 Maintenance Release 9.0 Common Origination and Disbursement (Option) May 31, 2010 2.051445 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY 2010 Operations and Maintenance Costs Sep 30, 2010 61.590065 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2010 Other Direct Costs Sep 30, 2010 4.901399 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2010 Maintenance Release 9.0 Common Origination and Disbursement (Option) May 31, 2010 3.712895 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2010 Maintenance Release 10.0 Common Origination and Disbursement (Option) Sep 30, 2010 2.133133 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY 2010 Discretionary Funds Sep 30, 2010 2.7 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2010 Operations and Maintenance Tier 1 Pricing (Option) Sep 30, 2010 5.865527 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2010 Operations and Maintenance Tier 2 Pricing (Option) Sep 30, 2010 6.479093 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2010 Operations and Maintenance Tier 3 Pricing (Option) Sep 30, 2010 5.913491 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2010 Operations and Maintenance Tier 4 Pricing (Option) Sep 30, 2010 6.098194 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
FY2010 Operations and Maintenance Tier 5 Pricing (Option) Sep 30, 2010 4.84396 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered]
             

Return to OMB Exhibit 300 page