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

Integrated Technical Architecture (ITA/EAI) (Integrated Technical Architecture/Enterprise Application Integration).

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: 45
  4. Name of this Capital Asset: Integrated Technical Architecture (ITA/EAI) (Integrated Technical Architecture/Enterprise Application Integration).
  5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: 018-45-01-06-01-1120-00
  6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2010? Mixed Life Cycle
  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: ITA and EAI/Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) provide an enterprise technical architecture that permits Federal Student Aid (FSA) to manage the development /execution of FSA applications in support of the business strategy. The ITA and EAI project was initiated in 2000 to implement FSA's modernization and integration strategy. Using ITA and EAI technology, FSA successfully migrated numerous legacy systems and applications to a common platform and common standards. The project realizes several benefits, including reductions in application development, maintenance, and hardware/software costs, as well as the establishment of a common set of technical standards and reusable business processes that multiple applications are able to utilize. Since 2001, the ITA and EAI/ESB initiative have provided annual cost savings to the enterprise and delivered an increase in performance for FSA applications. Cost savings are realized through many benefits. The set-up time for applications is minimized because the ITA/EAI/ESB leverages existing subject matter expertise and relationships to expedite building out of new environments. Application teams reduce development time and effort because ITA/EAI/ESB provide common shared services and components, which reduces the amount of custom code application teams need to develop. Lessons learned from each architectural project are applied to related projects, saving Federal Student Aid valuable time, effort, and money. The project further reduces application team development costs through a reduction in hardware requirements. Efficiencies are gained by hosting multiple applications in a clustered environment that is easily scaled to meet capacity and performance requirements. Furthermore, the ITA/EAI project brings additional cost savings with the ability to share highly skilled product specialists among multiple teams, rather than each team providing redundant expertise. On average, four to six new applications migrate to the ITA and EAI environments annually, reducing the number of stove-piped applications and systems. In 2008, the initiative is implementing FSA's ESB, in alignment with the Target State Vision (TSV). The ESB is an integration architecture that leverages EAI technologies and implements industry Web services standards. The ESB will provide foundational services for Service-oriented Architectures (SOAs). The ESB will support communication between systems and will support the use of shared services.
  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
  11. Contact information of Program/Project Manager?
    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
    Expanded E-Government
    1. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? ITA/EAI/ESB supports the expanded E-Government initiative by utilizing technology to streamline Federal Student Aid services for all students and parents. Cost savings are and will be realized as operating costs are reduced and communications between the Federal Student AId and public are more timely. In addition, citizens will enjoy an easy and simple process when accessing Federal Student Aid services.
  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 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 1
Software 1
Services 98
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 BY+1 2011 BY+2 2012 BY+3 2013 BY+4 and beyond Total
Planning: 0 0 0.48 0          
Acquisition: 0 1.6 2 0.35          
Subtotal Planning amp; Acquisition: 0 1.6 2.48 0.35          
Operations & Maintenance: 4.24 3.97 4.02 8.2          
TOTAL: 4.24 5.57 6.5 8.55          

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

Government FTE Costs 0.21 0.27 0.33 0.45          
Number of FTE represented by Costs: 2 3 4 4          
  1. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's? yes
    1. If "yes", How many and in what year? 2 in FY 09 and FY 10
  2. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2009 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes: [Not answered]

Section D: Performance Information

Performance Information Table

Fiscal Year Strategic Goal(s) Supported Measurement Area Measurement Grouping Measurement Indicator Baseline Target Actual Results
2005 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results IT Infrastructure Maintenance IT Infrastructure Maintenance: Percentage of problems related to ITA and EAI product services or adapters that are resolved within one week of notification. 95% 96% 100%
2005 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Service Availability Availability: Percentage of time that architecture is available, excluding scheduled downtime. 98% 98.5% 99.63%
2006 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results System Response Time Response Time: Average initial response time for customer requests for ITA/EAI-related production support requests (in minutes). 240 120 3
2006 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results IT Infrastructure Maintenance IT Infrastructure Maintenance: Percentage of problems related to ITA and EAI product services or adapters that are resolved within one week of notification. 95% 97% 99.99%
2006 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Efficiency Efficiency: Provide development and testing environment build support to application teams (in business days). 10 6 1.5
2006 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Service Availability Availability: Percentage of time that architecture is available, excluding scheduled downtime. 98% 98.7% 99.99%
2007 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results IT Infrastructure Maintenance IT Infrastructure Maintenance: Percentage of problems related to ITA and EAI product services or adapters that are resolved within one week of notification. 95% 98% 100%
2007 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results System Response Time Response Time: Average initial response time for customer requests for ITA/EAI-related production support requests (in minutes). 240 90 4
2007 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Service Availability Availability: Percentage of time that architecture is available, excluding scheduled downtime. 98% 99% 99.98%
2007 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Efficiency Efficiency: Provide development and testing environment build support to application teams (in business days). 10 5 3
2008 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results IT Infrastructure Maintenance IT Infrastructure Maintenance: Percentage of problems related to ITA and EAI product services or adapters that are resolved within one week of notification. 95% 98.7% Information will be gathered end of FY08
2008 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results System Response Time Response Time: Average initial response time for customer requests for ITA/EAI-related production support requests (in minutes). 240 60 Information will be gathered end of FY08
2008 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Service Availability Availability: Percentage of time that architecture is available, excluding scheduled downtime. 98% 99% Information will be gathered end of FY08
2008 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Efficiency Efficiency: Provide development and testing environment build support to application teams (in business days). 10 4 Information will be gathered end of FY08
2009 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results IT Infrastructure Maintenance IT Infrastructure Maintenance: Percentage of problems related to ITA and EAI product services or adapters that are resolved within one week of notification. 95% 98.8% Information will be gathered end of FY09
2009 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results System Response Time Response Time: Average initial response time for customer requests for ITA/EAI-related production support requests (in minutes). 240 55 Information will be gathered end of FY09
2009 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Service Availability Availability: Percentage of time that architecture is available, excluding scheduled downtime. 98% 99% Information will be gathered end of FY09
2009 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Efficiency Efficiency: Provide development and testing environment build support to application teams (in business days). 10 3.5 Information will be gathered end of FY09
2010 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results IT Infrastructure Maintenance IT Infrastructure Maintenance: Percentage of problems related to ITA and EAI product services or adapters that are resolved within one week of notification. 95% 98.9% Information will be gathered end of FY10
2010 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results System Response Time Response Time: Average initial response time for customer requests for ITA/EAI-related production support requests (in minutes). 240 50 Information will be gathered end of FY10
2010 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Service Availability Availability: Percentage of time that architecture is available, excluding scheduled downtime. 98% 99% Information will be gathered end of FY10
2010 Goal 3 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Efficiency Efficiency: Provide development and testing environment build support to application teams (in business days). 10 3.3 Information will be gathered end of FY10
               

Section E: Security and Privacy

  1. Have the IT security costs for the system(s) been identified and integrated into the overall costs of the investment?: yes
    1. If "yes," provide the "Percentage IT Security" for the budget year: 5
  2. Is identifying and assessing security and privacy risks a part of the overall risk management effort for each system supporting or part of this investment?. yes

Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA)

  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 Technical Architecture/ Enterprise Application Integration/Enterprise Service Bus (ITA/EAI/ESB)
    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

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
Enterprise Application Integration/Enterprise Service Bus EAI provides a messaging infrastructure and integration capability that standardizes interfaces to new and legacy systems in support of FSA modernization objectives. Development and Integration Enterprise Application Integration [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 50
FSA Web Applications The FSA Web Applications provide all Federal Student Aid audiences with information relevant to them. Content Management Content Review and Approval [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 0
Security Architecture Security Architecture provides a secure, automated and policy-based user management solution that helps address key business issues across both legacy and new environments. Security Management Identification and Authentication [Not answered] [Not answered] Internal 50

 

5. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table:

FEA SRM Component FEA TRM Service Area FEA TRM Service Category FEA TRM Service Standard Service Specification
Content Review and Approval Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers IBM ,WebSphere V 6.0, Google Search Appliance V 4.4, Interwoven Teamsite and Open Deploy V 6.5, Information, WebFOCUS V 5.3.3, Siebel CRM Service V 7.5, Microstrategy v8, Oracle Corporation, Oracle RDBMS Version 10g, Informatica v7.5
Identification and Authentication Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Authentication / Single Sign-on IBM Corporation, Tivoli Access Manager V 6.0, Tivoli Identity Manager V 4.6
Enterprise Application Integration Service Interface and Integration Integration Middleware IBM, Websphere MQSeries Server V6, WebSphere Business Integration-Message Broker 6.0, MetaStorm, Process Manager for Data (PM4DATA), Version 8.0
  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 II: Planning, Acquisition And Performance Information

Section A: Alternatives Analysis

  1. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this investment? yes
    1. If "yes," provide the date the analysis was completed? Aug 15, 2007
    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]

2. Alternatives Analysis Results:

Alternative Analyzed Description of Alternative Risk Adjusted Lifecycle Costs estimate Risk Adjusted Lifecycle Benefits estimate
Baseline. Fixed-Price Single Contract ( Status Quo ) Currently ITA/EAI is awarded to a small business contractor providing a robust infrastructure with 24/7 availabililty. 46.368 22.0251
Multiple Contracts This alternative will distribute the work among several contracts where each contract will provide different sets of support services, e.g., for different applications or different technologies. 106.6987 -106.6987
Hybrid Support This alternative separates and divides responsibilities between different groups of government and contractor personnel. 681.238 -60.8638
Time and Material Single Contract This alternative is to provide all inclusive ITA/EAI support services under a single time and material contract performed by a single contractor. 94.6486 -75.1986
  1. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen? The first alternative (Single Contract- Status Quo) was selected because it represents the greatest value to the government as described in the later question (Exhibit 300 II.A.4). The second alternative (Multiple Contracts) was not selected because it will cost $107 million over six years overall, whereas the selected alternative will cost $46 million over the same time period. The third alternative (Hybrid Support) was not selected it is estimated to cost a total of $68 million over six years, whereas the selected alternative costs approximately $46 million over the same time period. Using the selected alternative will save approximately $22 million over six years. The fourth alternative (T&M Single Contract) was not selected because it estimated to cost a total of $95 million over six years, whereas the selected alternative costs approximately $46 million over the same period of time. Using the selected alternative will save approximately $49 million over six years. Explanations abbreviated due to character/field limitations in the text box.
    1. What year will the investment breakeven? (Specifically, when the budgeted costs savings execced the cumulative costs.) 2014
  2. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized? The following qualitative benefits will be realized: 1. The Single Contract alternative significantly reduces the number of people who must master and maintain highly specialized skills. The ITA/EAI team provides subject matter experts for over 15 products and technologies, and services are shared among application teams. A Single Contract model requires only 15 resources, compared to a maximum of 165 resources that would be required to support ITA and EAI products using a decentralized approach. 2. Aligning services and support under a Fixed-price Single Contract alternative reduces the time and effort by at least 20% to coordinate product upgrades in a centralized support structure, compared to the time and effort required to coordinate upgrades in multiple ITA and EAI environments, supported by multiple contractors. Using the first alternative, the amount of time and effort spent on product upgrade coordination is less than a day, whereas in the past, under the decentralized model, product upgrades took over a week to communicate, coordinate, and schedule. 3. In a Fixed-price Single Contract alternative, major responsibilities are assigned to a single EAI/ITA support contractor and not to multiple teams or contractors, resulting in streamlined problem resolution processes, accounting for a 25% reduction in the time and effort to resolve problems. The average production issue under the first alternative takes less than one week to resolve. In the past using the decentralized approach, problems took over a month to resolve. This alternative also results in a 25% reduction in risk to the government because responsibility and accountability are clearly assigned to one party, and problem resolution is more easily tracked and reported. 4. This alternative requires only 3.50 FTEs compared to 20.50 for other alternatives. This alternative provides the government with the easiest contract structure to administer and manage. In addition, aligning services and support under one contract enables the government to document, monitor, and provide consistent performance measurements/metrics using a single data repository. 5. This approach is currently being used and continues to be successful with respect to providing services, lowering the overall project costs by at least 50% compared to other possible alternatives.

5. Federal Quantitative Benefits ($millions):

  Budgeted Cost Savings Cost Avoidance Justification for Budgeted Cost Savings Justification for Budgeted Cost Avoidance
PY-1 and Prior  
PY  
CY  
BY  
BY+1  
BY+2  
BY+3  
BY+4 and Beyond 0 0 TBD TBD
Total LCC Benefit 0 0 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 15, 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]
  3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule: A thorough risk inventory and assessment has been completed for the ITA/EAI/ESB project. All potential risks have been identified and the probability of the occurrence of the risk has been determined. The impact of each occurrence, combined with the probability of the occurrence and the mitigation strategy for each risk has been incorporated into the cost and schedule of this initiative. Risk is monitored on regular basis and mitigation strategies are planned and implemented as needed.

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

  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) no
    1. If "yes," was it the? [Not answered]
    2. If "yes," explain the causes of the variance: [Not answered]
    3. If "yes," describe the corrective actions [Not answered]
  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]

4. Comparison of Initial Baseline and Current Approved Baseline:

Description of Milestone Initial Baseline Current Baseline Current Baseline Variance  
Planned Completion Date Total Cost ($M) Estimated Completion Date
Planned:Actual
Total Cost ($M)
Planned:Actual
Schedule:Cost
(# days:$M)
Percent Complete
FY 2002 Devel Cost Sep 30, 2002 1.4 Sep 30, 2002 Sep 30, 2002 1.4 1.4 0 0 100
FY 2002 Maintenance Sep 30, 2002 5.6 Sep 30, 2002 Sep 30, 2002 5.6 5.6 0 0 100
FY 2003 Devel Cost Sep 30, 2003 0.525 Sep 30, 2003 Sep 30, 2003 0.525 0.525 0 0 100
FY 2003 Maintenance Sep 30, 2003 5.725 Sep 30, 2003 Sep 30, 2003 5.725 5.725 0 0 100
FY 2004 Maintenance Sep 30, 2004 5.301 Sep 30, 2004 Sep 30, 2004 5.301 5.301 0 0 100
FY 2005 Maintenance Sep 30, 2005 3.814 Sep 30, 2005 Sep 30, 2005 3.814 3.814 0 0 100
FY 2006 Maintenance Sep 30, 2006 4.241 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 4.241 4.241 0 0 100
FY 06 Technology Contingencies Sep 30, 2006 0.5 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.5 0.5 0 0 100
FY 2007 Maintenance Sep 30, 2007 4.572 Sep 30, 2007 [Not answered] 4.572 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY 2008 Maintenance Sep 30, 2008 5.621 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 5.621 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY 2009 Maintenance Sep 30, 2009 8.753 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 8.753 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY 2010 Maintenance Sep 30, 2010 9.468 Sep 30, 2010 [Not answered] 9.468 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
                   

Return to OMB Exhibit 300 page