Advanced Search

Integrated Partner Management (IPM)

• Part I: Summary Information and Justification
  • Section A: Overview
  • Section B: Summary of Spending
  • Section D: Performance Information
  • Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA)
• Part II: Planning, Acquisition And Performance Information
  • Section A: Alternatives Analysis
  • Section B: Risk Management
  • Section C: Cost and Schedule Performance

1. Date of submission: Sep 10, 2007
2. Agency: 018
3. Bureau: 45
4. Name of this Capital Asset: Integrated Partner Management (IPM)
5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: 018-45-01-06-01-1140-00
6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2010? Full-Acquisition
7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB? FY2003
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 IPM initiative, through process reengineering and process automation, will provide, in one solution, improved eligibility, enrollment, and oversight processes used to manage partner entities (i.e., schools, school servicers, lenders, lender servicers, guarantee agencies, private collection agencies, state agencies, federal agencies, accrediting agencies, auditors, and owners) as they administer Title IV Financial Aid for Students. Today, many Federal Student Aid applications manage these processes, which result in duplicate and conflicting data storage, complex system architecture, excessive file exchange activities, and the lack of a centralized view of partners. The IPM Solution should reduce these issues, ensuring that all customers and employees have access to the same, current, institutional eligibility and oversight data. Schools, lenders, guarantors and other partners are located throughout the world. Federal Student Aid's monitoring and oversight staff are located at Federal Student Aid headquarters and throughout the U.S. in ten regional offices. The IPM initiative will be implemented in phases, with the current high-level plan as follows: - Pre-development: September 2006 ? October 2007. This phase consists of business process reengineering (BPR), detailed requirements, detailed design, and project planning for IPM. (Budget: $6.3M from FY06 funding) - Phase I: September 2007 ? October 2008. The major components of this phase include the functions currently performed by eAPP, LAP, eZ-Audit, ERM, and PM. Also included is the RID management, integrated participation and enrollment management, integration with the enterprise services (e.g. security architecture, enterprise portal and enterprise service bus), and data mangement. (Budget: $7.9M from FY06 funding) - Independent verification and validation (IV&V) is scheduled to occur throughout the Pre-Dev and Phase 1. (Budget: $2.4M from FY06 funding) - Phase II is targeted to begin May 2008 and conclude April 2009. The major components of this phase include core oversight, case management, the functions currently performed by PEPS, and IPM hosted shared services. The PEPS legacy system will be retired during this phase. (Budget: $7M from FY08 funding) - Operations and Maintenance of Phase I. (Budget: $6.5M from FY08 funding) - Independent verification and validation (IV&V) is targeted to occur throughout Phase II. (Budget: $800K from FY08 funding).
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? Waiver Issued
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
    Expanded E-Government
    1. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? Expanded Electronic Government - This is a primary factor driving the IPM solution's support of the PMA. The IPM Solution contributes to the fulfillment of Expanded Electronic Government by "reducing the reporting burden on businesses". IPM is not a shared service provider.
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:

16. What is the level of the IT Project? (per CIO Council PM Guidance) Level 2
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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]
20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2010 funding request for the following?

21. 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
22. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval? yes
23. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas? no

2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's? yes
   1. If "yes", How many and in what year? In 2009, IPM will require 1 additional FTE in a COR position, 1 additional FTE in an SSO position and 2 additional FTEs in IT Specialists positions.
3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2009 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes: Difference in FY09 President's budget request was approx. $5 million and is due to additional needs of the Helpdesk development and suppot, O&M support for Audit resolution expanded requirements and enterprise integration with portal and security architecture.

1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture? yes
   1. If "no," please explain why? [Not answered]
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. Integrated Partner Management
   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/. 206-000

6. 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]

1. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this investment? yes
   1. If "yes," provide the date the analysis was completed? Apr 14, 2006
   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]

3. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen? The IPM (Integrated Partner Management) solutions was chosen because it meets Federal Student Aid's system modernization goals such as solving entity relationship identification problems, facilitates reusable data, and strengthens internal controls. Through the selection of this alternative, we expect to achieve tighter integration of partner-level data and enhance its utility for monitoring, service, technical assistance, and risk management purposes. In addition, we will improve controls through a single point of enrollment and access for partners to our systems.The reason why the Legacy Systems with Enhancements alternative was not chosen was because it does not solve entity relationship identification problems, facilitate reusable data or implement single sign-on that reduces burden on partners, nor does it strengthen security and internal controls to an extent that supports Federal Student Aid's removal from GAO's High Risk List (technical advantages outweigh the cost savings). Further, it does not allow for the presentation of integrated institutional views that are needed for the enhancement of monitoring activities. Such views are increasingly important because of the increasing structural complexity in the postsecondary sector, which is fueled by business consolidation in mature markets, growth in distance learning solutions, state budget shortages, and so on. The reason why the ADvance-based implementation is not the chosen alternative, is that the implementation of the RID infrastructure in ADvance is feasible as an initial phase, but ADvance is not the first system in the processing life cycle, nor the system of record for partner (particularly school partner) eligibility. ADvance does not contain initiation of certain business relationships among entities that trigger eligibility review by Federal Student Aid case management. ADvance processing of Pell Grant and Direct Loan records presupposes school eligibility, utilizing a feed from PEPS (the eligibility system of record that the IPM Solution will replace). Further, ADvance does not maintain records for guaranty agency or lender servicer partners. For these reasons, along with the exorbitant cost of ADvance, cannot provide the ultimate vehicle for tracking entity relationships although it could help provide a workable interim solution (since all Federal Student Aid systems will eventually be modified to handle the RID).
   1. What year will the investment breakeven? (Specifically, when the budgeted costs savings execced the cumulative costs.) 2015
4. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized? The IPM project was initiated to address some of the deficiencies in Federal Student Aid's current stove-piped system architecture, characterized by multiple partner entry points to Federal Student Aid's services, redundant data edits, redundant data storage, excessive file exchange activities, and the inability to view data about a partner's activities and needs. These deficiencies result in barriers to performing adequate monitoring and oversight, limit Federal Student Aid's ability to provide customer service to partners, and create frustration among Federal Student Aid's customers who must deal with multiple Federal Student Aid systems to perform a single business function.IPM will significantly improve Federal Student Aid's business operations, including the critical monitoring and oversight functions, by creating the ability to track customer activities through the full life-cycle of a partner's functions within Federal Student Aid's systems. IPM will also increase customer satisfaction by leveraging single (reduced) sign-on for partners.IPM supports Federal Student Aid's modernization efforts to integrate and streamline core systems. The primary systems to be consolidated are: Application for Approval to Participate in Federal Student Financial Aid Programs (eAPP), eZ-Audit, Electronic Records Management (ERM) and the Postsecondary Education Participants System (PEPS). Additionally, the Participation Management (PM) functionality of the Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) will be incorporated into this effort. Federal Student Aid intends to use a combination of commercial off the shelf (COTS) and custom software for this solution. Functionality: Integrated data view services; Enrollment management; School on-going oversight; Financial partner on-going oversight; Enterprise RID services; Profile and demographics management; Access management; Analytical reporting; Risk analysis; Workflow and document management Some of the benefits IPM will achieve are: Improved decision-making; Increased data availability to school and financial partner oversight staff; A single identifier (RID) at the enterprise level to manage partner activities; Improved customer service; Reduced Case Management business process cycle times through the implementation of work-flow technology; Reduced manual data entry; Automated risk triggers.

6. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole? yes
   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? This Investment
   2. If "yes," please provide the following information:

1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan? yes
   1. If "yes," what is the date of the plan? Oct 31, 2006
   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]
3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule: As part of the IBR (Integrated Baseline Review) process for pre-development, a thorough risk inventory of the whole project was completed. The probability, impact and mitigation strategy for each risk occurrence was documented in the IPM Risk Repository, reviewed by the Joint Risk Management Board (JRMB) and incorporated into the IPM baseline. This JRMB meets monthly to review new risks and to monitor all risks until they are resolved, mitigated or retired and the risk no longer presents a challenge to the IPM project. The risk repository will then be used in the future IBRs for Phase I and Phase II to be incorporated into the cost and schedule and to be used as lessons learned.

1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard - 748? yes
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? Both
   2. If "yes," explain the causes of the variance: The tasks in pre-development were measured based on 0 - 100% value. Time frames extended, in almost all incidences, beyond the earned value timing estimation there by preventing milestones to be completed on time. More up-front time was necessary to gather and analyze requirements before requirement writing could begin. The volume of requirements to be documented was also more than originally anticipated. Additional JAD (joint application development) time was required to elicit requirements from the SMEs (subject matter experts). JADs involving multiple SMEs were also needed to effectively get the right and complete requirements. It was unknown that interface legacy contracts would need to be established to gather data requirements, which took extended time to execute. It is not believed, at this time, that the variances will ever reduce to an acceptable level for pre-development. A new IBR (integrated baseline review) is being conducted for Phase 1 to align the dates and costs going forward based on the completed requirements and design, a more accurate needs assessment can be developed to inform the schedule and cost.
   3. If "yes," describe the corrective actions Perot changed their approach to accommodate a more iterative requirements development and delivery process. Perot also proposed combining the originally scheduled Release 1 with Release 2 in Phase 1, combining the releases of eligibility, enrollment with financial statements and compliance audits. This will save time and resources that would have been required on some duplicate efforts for 2 releases, such as training, testing, outreach and synchronization processes that will no longer be required between ez-audit and IPM. This will inform and support Phase 1, but will not correct pre-development that was already baselined. See II.C.2 for a further description of the IBR process.
3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year? no
   1. If "yes," when was it approved by the agency head? [Not answered]

Return to OMB Exhibit 300 page