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

Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)

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: 07
  4. Name of this Capital Asset: Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)
  5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: 018-07-01-02-01-1000-00
  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? FY2005
  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 Department of Education's (ED) mission, through implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Office of Migrant Education (OME) is responsible for administering the Migrant Education Program (MEP). OME is mandated in the No Child Left Behind Act, Section 1308(b) to assist the States in developing effective methods for the electronic transfer of student records and in determining the number of migratory children in each State. OME established the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) project to accomplish this mandate. The MSIX directly supports the OESE/OME goals for the Migrant Education Program (MEP) to ensure that all migrant students reach challenging academic standards and graduate with a high school diploma, or complete a General Education Diploma (GED), that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment. The MSIX Software Development Contract was awarded at the end of FY06. The MSIX Project Team (PT) has successfully completed the two pilots to test the prototype system and deployed the MSIX on schedule at the end of FY07. The MSIX PT provided classroom style training sessions to over 150 State personnel who will be responsible for administering MSIX for their State. Currently, the MSIX PT is working with States to test and load their States legacy data into MSIX and has also been actively coordinating technical activities with its primary stakeholders (states, migrant associations, etc.) and conducting outreach sessions and user group meetings to increase awareness around the new MSIX System. To assure that the project activities are being completed in a timely manner, independent verification and validation activities have commenced in parallel with the software development, deployment and implementation efforts. In discussion with State stakeholders during user group meetings, the MSIX PT recognized that there was a need to support States' technical capabilities and increase the features of the MSIX to better meet the needs of the users as the project moved into the next phase. MSIX was able to secure additional funding to perform these functions and re-baselined the project in April 2008.
  9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request? yes
    1. If "yes," what was the date of this approval? Jun 14, 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? Senior/Expert/DAWIA-Level 3
  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)? The MSIX project supports PMA Goal 4 - Expanded Electronic Government. MSIX is a web-based application and hosted solution readily available to its user population including migrant personnel, educators, guidance counselors and registrars. This investment truly supports the spirit behind the PMA "The E-Government initiative will make it simpler for citizens to receive high-quality services from the federal government."
  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.) yes
    1. If "yes," does this investment address a weakness found during a PART review? yes
    2. If "yes," what is the name of the PARTed program? 10003323 - Migrant State Agency Program
    3. If "yes," what rating did the PART receive? Adequate
  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? no
      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 1
Services 99
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: 0.913 2.193 0.676 0.6          
Acquisition: 0 5.44 1.26 1.15          
Subtotal Planning amp; Acquisition: 0.913 7.633 1.936 1.75          
Operations & Maintenance: 0 0 3.136 1.79          
TOTAL: 0.913 7.633 5.072 3.54          

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

Government FTE Costs 0.107 0.224 0.243 0.45          
Number of FTE represented by Costs: 1 1 1 2          
  1. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's? yes
    1. If "yes", How many and in what year? 1.5 FTEs have been assigned by the Department to support the MSIX System in FY07 and FY08. To meet the oversight and management requirements for MSIX, It is expected that 2 FTEs will be required to oversee MSIX in FY09-FY13.
  2. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2009 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes: With the implementation of the pilots and national rollout during FY07, MSIX is deployed and operational. The MSIX summary of spending has changed due to additional funding provided by ED to the MSIX software development contractor in order for the contractor to assist States develop the technical interfaces that will allow them to seamlessly transmit live data to MSIX, enhance the MSIX user interface and reporting capabilities, and establish a web-based training environment for use by State trainers. Furthermore, state support will be required throughout future years, FY2010-FY2012, given the States MSIX interfaces may require changes and updates to remain compliant with ED requirements. In addition, we anticipate that as States begin to fully use the MSIX to transfer data from one State to another, additional features will be identified to enhance the effectiveness of the system. In regards to 2013-beyond, the project team has determined that funding will be required for maintenance of the system. At that time; however, the project team will assess and reevaluate the current web-based MSIX System (after BY 2012) to determine if the current system is still valid or if new technologies should be leveraged to develop a successor to MSIX. Finally, future costs are included to provide independent verification and validation services as well as project management activities in support of the project activities. These costs are based on preliminary independent government cost estimates as the contracted services are in the pre-award phase and we expect the contract award will be made by the end of FY 2009 at which time actual costs will be available.

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 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Mission and Business Results Customer Services Percentage of planning and acquisition activities that can be accomplished on time 0% 100% 100% of all required documentation was submitted and approved in the timeframe as planned.
2005 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Customer Results Delivery Time Percentage of user group involvement in requirements definition 0% 100% 100% of user groups have been established and user group meetings have been conducted.
2006 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Mission and Business Results Customer Services Percentage of Design and development that can be accomplished. 0% 100% System is 100% completely designed and 90% developed. It will be completed at the end of Sept. 2007.
2006 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students.Goal 2 Customer Results Delivery Time Percentage of user group involvement in user interface design issues and other relevant user discussions 0% 50% Users were 100% involved in user interface design during the two pilots and three user group meetings.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students.Goal 2 Mission and Business Results Information Management Percentage of states that can track migrant student data via MSIX 0% 25% Based on the 9 states that participated in the pilots, 100% could track student data during the pilot period. The system will not be fully operational until the end of Sep 2007.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Reduced number of days in response time for States to request and receive migrant student information. 14 days 4 days This measure was achieved during the MSIX Pilots. States could receive migrant student information within 4-days using the test data loaded in the MSIX System.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Percentage of States with improved data reliability, quality and standardization. 25% 50% 50% of states have improved data quality due to the special assistance the MSIX team provides to states to improve their data transmission capabilities.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Processes and Activities Timeliness Average number of days for the SEAs to report migrant student data to MSIX 0 days 7 days This requirement was changed to 10 days based on SEA feedback and program needs.
2008 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average number of days for SEAs to report migrant student data to MSIX 7 days 4 days SEAs could produce migrant student in 4-days based on test data in MSIX. The system does not have operational data so this measure will be reported in FY09.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average number of hours for the Department to produce nationwide migrant child counts 160 hours 2 hours Based on the test data from MSIX, ED was able to produce student counts within the 2 hour target. However, the system does not have operational data to conduct full nationwide migrant student count.
2006 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Percentage of states using the same data standards to achieve improved data reliability, quality and standardization. 0% 50% 50% of states are currently using the same data standards to transmit data to MSIX.
2006 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Processes and Activities Cycle Time Average number of hours per SEA to produce Statewide migrant child counts 30 hours 22.5 hours This has not been demonstrated yet since the system is not operational.
2008 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Customer Results Delivery Time Number of user groups involved in user interface design issues and other relevant user discussions 6 groups 9 groups 10 user groups were held over the course of FY08 surpassing the target of 9 groups.
2008 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Mission and Business Results Customer Services Percentage of MSIX Help Desk Issues that are resolved 0% 100% 95% of help desk calls were resolved by the MSIX Help Desk
2006 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Percentage of States with improved data reliability, quality and standardization. 50% 50% 50% of states have improved data quality due to the special assistance the MSIX team provides to states to improve their data transmission capabilities.
2008 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Percentage of States with improved data reliability, quality and standardization 50% 100% 100% of states have developed interfaces and submitted test data to MSIX.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Percentage of pilot and implementation activities performed within cost and schedule 0% 95% 100% of pilots have been conducted on schedule. One additional user meetings are planned before national rollout.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Customer Results Delivery Time Number of user groups involved in user interface design issues and other relevant user discussions. 0 groups 6 groups 8 users groups were conducted in FY07 surpassing the 6 groups that were planned as the target in FY07.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Mission and Business Results Information Management Percentage of MSIX functional requirements that are traceable per inspection 0% 100% 95%
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Mission and Business Results Customer Services Percentage of MSIX design and development activities that are accomplished (measure was moved from FY06 due to delay in contract award) 0% 100% 95%
2008 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Processes and Activities Timeliness Average number of hours per SEA to produce statewide migrant child counts 30 Hours 22.5 Hours The measure is no longer applicable given that EDFAX is collecting information to produce statewide migrant child counts.
2007 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Number of states using the same data standards to achieve improved data reliability, quality, and standardization 0 States 8 States 25 states have improved data quality due to the special assistance the MSIX team provides to states to improve their data transmission capabilities.
2008 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Number of states using the same data standards to achieve improved data reliability, quality, and standardization 25 states 30 states 30-states have successfully completed MSIX Interface Testing.
2009 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Service Availability System Uptime is 99.5% after deployment of MSIX except for periods of routine maintenance 99.5% Availability 99.5% Availability Actual results will be reported at the end of FY09
2009 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Number of states reporting improved data reliability, quality, and standardization from MSIX 0 States 25 States Actual results will be reported at the end of FY09
2009 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Mission and Business Results Customer Services Percentage of help desk problems that are resolved in one business day 0% 50% Actual results will be reported at the end of FY09
2009 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Processes and Activities Timeliness Average number of hours per SEA to produce statewide migrant child counts 22.5 Hours 19 Hours Actual results will be reported at the end of FY09
2009 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Customer Results Delivery Time Number of user groups involved in user interface design issues after implementation of MSIX 9 Groups 12 Groups Actual results will be reported at the end of FY09
2010 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Service Availability System Uptime is 99.5% after deployment of MSIX except for periods of routine maintenance 99.5% Availability 99.5% Availability Actual results will be reported at the end of FY10
2010 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Number of states reporting improving data reliability, quality, and standardization from MSIX 25 States 35 States Actual results will be reported at the end of FY10
2010 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Mission and Business Results Customer Services Percentage of help desk problems that are resolved in one business day 50% 75% Actual results will be reported at the end of FY10
2010 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Processes and Activities Timeliness Average number of hours per SEA to produce statewide migrant child counts 19 Hours 16 Hours Actual results will be reported at the end of FY10
2010 Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. Customer Results Delivery Time Number of user groups involved in user interface design issues after implementation of MSIX 12 Groups 15 Groups Actual results will be reported at the end of FY10
               

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. MSIX
    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/. 072-000

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
Tracking and Workflow Process tracking has been determined to be a key component of any future MSIX System. However, the software design for the MSIX System will not be complete until after the contract has been awarded, and the contractor has started work on the design. Tracking and Workflow Process Tracking [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 10
Information Retrieval Information retrieval has been determined to be a key component of any future MSIX System. However, the software design for the MSIX System will not be complete until after the contract has been awarded, and the contractor has started work on the design. Knowledge Management Information Retrieval [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 15
Information Sharing Information sharing has been determined to be a key component of any future MSIX System. However, the software design for the MSIX System will not be complete until after the contract has been awarded, and the contractor has started work on the design. Knowledge Management Information Sharing [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 10
Standardized/Canned Reporting Standardized/Canned Reporting has been determined to be a key component of any future MSIX System. However, the software design for the MSIX System will not be complete until after the contract has been awarded, and the contractor has started work on the design. Reporting Standardized / Canned [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 10
Data Management Data exchange has been determined to be a key component of any future MSIX System. However, the software design for the MSIX System will not be complete until after the contract has been awarded, and the contractor has started work on the design. Data Management Data Exchange [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 30
Development and Integration Data integration has been determined to be a key component of any future MSIX System. However, the software design for the MSIX System will not be complete until after the contract has been awarded, and the contractor has started work on the design. Development and Integration Data Integration [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 10
Search Query has been determined to be a key component of any future MSIX System. However, the software design for the MSIX System will not be complete until after the contract has been awarded, and the contractor has started work on the design. Search Query [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 15

 

5. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table:

FEA SRM Component FEA TRM Service Area FEA TRM Service Category FEA TRM Service Standard Service Specification
Information Retrieval Service Access and Delivery Delivery Channels Internet ? https protocol (i.e., https://msix.ed.gov) ? Supported browsers: o Internet Explorer v5.5 or higher o Firefox 1.5 or higher o Netscape v7.0 or higher o Safari v2.0 or higher
Process Tracking Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Legislative / Compliance EDICS and ROCUS
Data Integration Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers ? Software: Oracle Internet Application server 10, WebCache ? Hardware: 4 - Sun Fire X4100 Server with 2 x AMD Opteron Model 2216 2.4 GHz Processors, 4 GB memory (2 for PROD, 1 for TEST, 1 for DEV)
Data Exchange Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database ? Software: Oracle Enterprise 10g ? Hardware: 2 - Sun Fire V490 (4 Processing Cores) and 16 GB memory (1 for PROD, 1 for TEST/DEV) for DB servers; 1 ? Sun StorEdge 3510 Fibre Channel Storage Array with 12 X 73GB 15K Disk Drives, Dual RAID Controller
Query Component Framework Data Interchange Data Exchange ? sFTP protocol ? ProFTP software to support accounts ? Integration with Oracle OID (LDAP)
Standardized / Canned Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis ? Software: Oracle Internet Application server 10, Discoverer; COGNOS 8 BI Suite
Information Sharing Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Transformation ? Software: Custom ETL code using PL/SQL & Java ? Hardware: 2 Sun Fire X4100 Server with 2 x AMD Opteron Model 2216 2.4 GHz Processors, 4 GB memory (1 PROD, 1 TEST/DEV)
  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. MSIX uses school demographic information provided by the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN).

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? May 4, 2005
    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
Alternative 1: The Selected Alternative for MSIX - Consolidated Replica Database Create the MSIX by requiring states to upload data into a consolidated repository that states would query to retreive informaiton on any migrant student in the U.S. The term ?Consolidated? refers to the fact that the system stores records from multiple component systems in one data repository. The term ?replica? indicates that the system contains non-authoritative versions, or replicas, of migrant student records. 9.711 0.087
Alternative 2 - Transaction Broker A batch process running on an application server or a component system user executing a query in real-time connects to the Transaction Broker. The Transaction Broker then issues multiple queries, one to each component system, in order to locate the appropriate record. Once the appropriate record is located, it is downloaded to the component system. The Transaction Broker issues queries on a user?s behalf. 10.385 0.07
Alternative 3 - Transaction Broker with Directory Service This architecture is similar to that of Alternative 2, except that it implements a directory server that improves system performance by shortening query times. The directory server provides information to the transaction broker, which allows the transaction broker to execute more intelligent queries. The transaction broker, index or directory, allows requests to be directed to the appropriate repository, instead of submitting a query to each component reposition until the query located the data. 10.787 0.072
Alternative 4- Peer-to-Peer This solution differs from the transaction broker and transaction broker alternative with directory service alternatives in that it eliminates the transaction broker. Instead, each requesting component system is responsible for issuing queries directly to other component systems. This is similar to the architecture used by file sharing systems e.g. music sharing applications, except that the systems communicating peer-to-peer are MSIX component systems (sharing migrant student records). 11.725 0.059
  1. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen? Alternative 1 - Consolidated Replica (status quo) was selected because it has major advantages over the remaining alternatives and was determined to best meet the requirements of MSIX. Compared to the other three alternatives, the consolidated replica had the lowest percentage of risks (10%) as compared to the other alternatives (Peer-to-Peer, 50%; Transaction Broker, 33%; and Transaction Broker with Directory Service, 33%). As a web-based system, the selected alternative will allow stakeholders (the states) to access the system via a web browser. Compelling advantages include: ? Provides the least invasive technology of all the alternatives from the perspective of the MEP component systems. ? Provides a high-performance option because end-user searches execute against one data source. ? Provides a consolidated data store, which facilitates the generation of reports based on aggregate statistics. ? Provides a means to identify and merge duplicate records via the consolidated database, which improves the quality of data and provides more accurate information. ? Supports the implementation of robust business rules, such as a notification system. This alternative provides the least amount of risk to the government. OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs states that "Cost-effectiveness analysis?[is] appropriate when the benefits from competing Alternatives are the same or where a policy decision has been made that the benefits must be provided." ED is mandated by NCLB Act Section 1308 (b) to develop a system for the electronic transfer of student records and to assist states in determining the number of migratory students in each State. Circular A-94 further emphasizes "cost-effectiveness analysis is appropriate whenever it is unnecessary or impractical to consider the dollar value of the benefits provided by the possible Alternatives. This is the case whenever (i) each Alternative has the same annual benefits expressed in monetary terms; or (ii) each Alternative has the same annual effects, but dollar values cannot be assigned to their benefits." During the benefits analysis phase, it became evident that differentiating tangible benefits could not be identified or quantified for purposes of the study because tangible benefits were equal across all Alternatives analyzed. Therefore, only intangible benefits were analyzed.
    1. What year will the investment breakeven? (Specifically, when the budgeted costs savings execced the cumulative costs.) 2010
  2. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized? Based on the Alternative Analysis that was conducted for this investment, the consolidated database replica alternative met the requirement of the Department and the stakeholders (the States). MSIX as implemented in the consolidated replica will ensure timely updates between the states without the states having to replace their current migrant student tracking systems. Once implemented the states will have access to migrant student data via a centralized system that will be coordinated at the Federal Level. Furthermore, the consolidated database will allow the states and ED to better manage student records and eliminate duplication of records and merge records as necessary.

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 0 170 Cost avoidance savings are based on Budget Year (BY) 2010. MSIX has calculated the costs of a centralized migrant student information system to be $3.54 Million. If each of the 48-states were required to implement a migrant student education system based on BY-2010 dollars the overall costs would be $170 Million. Cost avoidance is based on the develop of a federal migrant student information system as oppossed to developing a migrant student system at the state level. In order to achieve the goal related to migrant student record exchange as documented in the "No Child Left Behind Act," the centralized system eliminates for multiple migrant student record systems at the state level.
BY+1  
BY+2  
BY+3  
BY+4 and Beyond  
Total LCC Benefit 0 170 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? Jul 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: In order to launch and deploy MSIX in a timely manner, an aggressive development schedule (one year in length) was adopted by the project team. The assessment of risks had to be reevaluated to account for the aggressive development schedule. New risks were identified and many of the known risks had to be raised to higher priority and a great likelihood of occurrence. Furthermore in order to align its stakeholders with the MSIX Investment, the project team identified an elevated risk in terms of getting data from the stakeholders. To reduce and mitigate this risk, additional funds were dedicated to support the states to assist them with preparing their technical interfaces for MSIX. In order to mitigate this risk in the future, MSIX will continue to support the states and help them with their technical and data needs specifically dedicating funds for future state support from FY09-FY11. Security for MSIX was also identified as potential high risk to the project given the project's aggressive implementation schedule. In order to mitigate this security risk, the lifecycle costs have been adjusted for security activities, and additional funding has been dedicated to reduce the risks associated with IT security, contingency planning, and disaster recovery.

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? yes
    1. If "yes," when was it approved by the agency head? Mar 26, 2008

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
DME Milestone 1: System Planning and Design Jan 31, 2007 2.17 Jan 31, 2007 Feb 15, 2007 2.17 -0.0136 0 -0.63 100
DME Milestone 2: Pilot 1 Mar 30, 2007 1.11 Mar 30, 2007 Mar 30, 2007 1.11 1.06 0 0.506 100
DME Milestone 3: Pilot 2 Jun 29, 2007 1.894 Jun 29, 2007 Jun 29, 2007 1.894 1.771 0 0.123 100
DME Milestone 4: Nationwide Deployment (Incl State Support) Sep 28, 2007 2.68 Sep 28, 2007 Nov 30, 2007 2.68 3.457 0 -0.773 100
FY 07 Maintenance Sep 28, 2007 0.126 Sep 28, 2007 [Not answered] 0.126 [Not answered] 0 0 100
FY08 MSIX Help Desk Sep 30, 2008 0.478 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.478 0 0 0 0
FY08 MSIX Enhancements - System Improvements Sep 30, 2008 0.34 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.34 0 0 0 0
FY08 MSIX Enhancements - Training Environment Sep 30, 2008 0.185 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.185 0 0 0 0
MSIX State Support and Data Loading - FY 08 Sep 30, 2008 0.537 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.537 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
Development Overhead and ODC Sep 30, 2008 0.202 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.202 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
EVM, Financials and Award Fee Sep 30, 2008 0.133 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.133 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY08 MSIX Maintenance Sep 30, 2008 2.03 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 2.03 0 0 0 55
FY 09 MSIX Development Sep 30, 2009 1.15 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 1.15 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
MSIX State Support - FY 09 Sep 30, 2009 0.1 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.1 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY 09 MSIX Maintenance Sep 30, 2009 1.79 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 1.79 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY10 MSIX Sep 30, 2010 2.73 Sep 30, 2010 [Not answered] 2.73 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY10 MSIX Development Sep 30, 2010 1.15 Sep 30, 2010 [Not answered] 1.15 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
MSIX State Support - FY 10 Sep 30, 2010 0.1 Sep 30, 2010 [Not answered] 0.1 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY 10 MSIX Maintenance Sep 30, 2010 1.599 Sep 30, 2010 [Not answered] 1.599 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
                   
Independent Validation and Verification Sep 29, 2008 3.033 Sep 29, 2008 [Not answered] 3.033 2.677 [Not answered] [Not answered] 75
Independent Validation and Verification Sep 29, 2009 1 Sep 29, 2009 [Not answered] 1 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
Independent Validation and Verification Sep 29, 2010 1 Sep 29, 2010 [Not answered] 1 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
                   

Return to OMB Exhibit 300 page