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

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

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

Section A: Overview

  1. Date of submission: Sep 10, 2007
  2. Agency: 018
  3. Bureau: 50
  4. Name of this Capital Asset: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
  5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: 018-50-01-05-01-1020-00
  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? 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 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the sponsoring entity for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) program, a nationwide assessment effort involving multiple contractors responsible for performing the assessment and executing the vision of the assessment from NCES and the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). The execution of this vision includes: * The creation and coordination of test items and questionnaires to be used in a variety of assessment topics; * The development and production of test instruments and supporting materials for the assessments; * The hiring and management of full-time and part-time staff to coordinate and administer the assessments; * The creation and release of reports detailing the results of the assessments and the methodologies used to administer the assessments; and * The development and deployment of web-based applications to manage and integrate the contractor activities and to report results to the American Public. NCES and the Alliance contractors have established a set of tools to allow for the review and collaboration on project documentation, including project deliverables. These online tools open the communication among the parties involved in performing NAEP-related assessments and make critical documents accessible. The tools created for coordination include two critical systems for management. NAEP Network is a set of applications available to NCES, State NAEP coordinators, and NAEP assessment contractors to receive updated information and guidance regarding the current year's assessments and to collaborate with NAEP personnel. NAEP Network allows NCES, the Alliance contractors, and field staff to communicate and collaborate on status and activities of the current year's assessment. Additionally, the NAEP Integrated Management System (IMS) provides an online intranet for NCES and Alliance contractors, including a critical document repository, contact and calendar information, and other resources for the NAEP program. The IMS provides a central library of NAEP program documentation, including design plans, project deliverables, and schedules for review by NCES and Alliance contractors. The IMS also provides a secure environment for Alliance and NCES personnel to exchange information regarding the assessment efforts, to track document and plan changes, and to collaborate on document development.
  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. yes
    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
    Competitive Sourcing
    1. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? The NAEP Web Technology Operations program provides several management and oversight controls over the activities of the Alliance contractors in their execution of the NAEP program activities. These mechanisms keep NCES and Alliance partners informed of project progress and status as well as maintaining understanding of current issues or concerns. The three key areas of oversight including activity reporting, meeting coordination, and online collaboration.
  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 1
  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)? no
  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 2
Software 3
Services 95
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? yes
  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 0.58 0.35          
Acquisition: 0 1.49 1.73 1.82          
Subtotal Planning amp; Acquisition: 0 1.49 2.31 2.17          
Operations & Maintenance: 10.82 3 2.62 2.43          
TOTAL: 10.82 4.49 4.93 4.6          

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

Government FTE Costs 0.33 0.11 0.12 0.12          
Number of FTE represented by Costs: 0 1 1 1          
  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: The spending has changes from the 2007 President's Budget Request to reflect recent direction from the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) regarding supporting requirements for IT management and for the expansion of the assessment scope and range. The adjustments to the budget reflect increased use of information technology (IT) in the conduct of assessments as well as increased functionality of management and reporting capabilities in current IT assets. These changes have resulted in increased requirements for IT solutions, including introduction of online questionnaires, electronic assessment instruments, and consolidated status reporting.

Section D: Performance Information

Performance Information Table

Fiscal Year Strategic Goal(s) Supported Measurement Area Measurement Grouping Measurement Indicator Baseline Target Actual Results
2006 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Services Average visitors to Integrated Management System per day to be measured by number of unique users (unique IP addresses) to the IMS as measured in user logs. 50 80 100
2006 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Mission and Business Results Frequency and Depth Average number of page requests per month on NAEP web site to be measured as an average of page requests to NAEP public web site and to NAEP 2006 release web site. 40,000 50,000 372,500
2006 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Percentage of NAEP data users who are satisfied or very satisfied with NAEP products. This information will be provided as part of the NAEP Web Contractor's Award Fee Evaluation 75 100 100
2006 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Integrated Management System (IMS) content items increase with additional use. 15 25 54
2006 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Cycle Time Reduction in time required to review the content to be published on the web. 2 3 4
2006 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Technology Availability Percentage of time NAEP web site is available. To be measured using up-time logs and access times recorded at host. 92 95 97
2007 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Services Average visitors to Integrated Management System per day to be measured by number of unique users (unique IP addresses) to the IMS as measured in user logs. 60 85 65
2007 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Mission and Business Results Frequency and Depth Average number of page requests per month on NAEP web site 45,000 55,000 300,000
2007 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Percentage of NAEP data users who are satisfied or very satisfied with NAEP products. This information will be provided as part of the NAEP Web Contractor's Award Fee Evaluation. 75 100 100
2007 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Integrated Management System (IMS) content items increase with additional use to be measured in number of published pages and content items contained within the IMS. 10 20 20
2007 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Cycle Time Reduction in time required to review content to be published on the web to be measured against 2006 review cycles and 2007 review cycles using online review tools. 1 2 2
2007 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Technology Service Availability Percentage of time NAEP web site is available to be measured using up-time logs and access times recorded at host. 94 97 96
2007 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Content Management System (CMS) and ADTracker content items increase with additional use, to be measured in number of published pages and content items contained within the CMS/ADTracker. 10 20 20
2008 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Services Average visitors to Integrated Management System per day to be measured by number of unique users (unique IP addresses) to the IMS as measured in user logs. 75 90 117
2008 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Mission and Business Results Frequency and Depth Average number of page requests per month on NAEP web site as measured by total page requests from the NAEP public web site. 200,000 350,000 339500
2008 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Percentage of NAEP data users who are satisfied or very satisfied with NAEP products. This information will be provided as part of the NAEP Web Contractor's Award Fee Evaluation. 80 100 TBD
2008 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Integrated Management System (IMS) content items increase with additional use to be measured in number of published pages and content items contained within the IMS. 15 25 34
2008 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Cycle Time Reduction in time (days) required to review content to be published on the web to be measured against 2006 review cycles and 2007 review cycles using online review tools. 2 4 4
2008 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Content Management System (CMS) and ADTracker content items increase with additional use, to be measured in number of published pages and content items contained within the CMS/ADTracker. 15 25 25
2008 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Technology Service Availability Percentage of time NAEP web site is available to be measured using up-time logs and access times recorded at host as hours available per month. 95 99 99
2009 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Services Average visitors to Integrated Management System per day to be measured by number of unique users (unique IP addresses) to the IMS as measured in user logs. 80 95 TBD
2009 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Mission and Business Results Frequency and Depth Average number of page requests per month on NAEP web site as measured by total page requests from the NAEP public web site. 250,000 400,000 TBD
2009 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Percentage of NAEP data users who are satisfied or very satisfied with NAEP products. This information will be provided as part of the NAEP Web Contractor's Award Fee Evaluation. 90 100 TBD
2009 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Reduction in time (in days) required to review content to be published on the web to be measured against 2008 review cycles and 2009 review cycles using online review tools. 3 5 TBD
2009 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Cycle Time Reduction in time (in days) required to review content to be published on the web to be measured against 2008 review cycles and 2009 review cycles using online review tools. 3 5 TBD
2009 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Content Management System (CMS) and ADTracker content items increase with additional use, to be measured in number of published pages and content items contained within the CMS/ADTracker. 18 30 TBD
2009 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Technology Service Availability Percentage of time NAEP web site is available to be measured using up-time logs and access times recorded at host as hours available per month. 96 99 TBD
2010 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Services Average visitors to Integrated Management System per day to be measured by number of unique users (unique IP addresses) to the IMS as measured in user logs. 80 95 TBD
2010 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Mission and Business Results Frequency and Depth Average number of page requests per month on NAEP web site as measured by total page requests from the NAEP public web site. 250,000 400,000 TBD
2010 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Customer Results Customer Satisfaction Percentage of NAEP data users who are satisfied or very satisfied with NAEP products. This information will be provided as part of the NAEP Web Contractor's Award Fee Evaluation. 90 100 TBD
2010 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Reduction in time (in days) required to review content to be published on the web to be measured against 2009 review cycles and 2010 review cycles using online review tools. 3 5 TBD
2010 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Cycle Time Reduction in time (in days) required to review content to be published on the web to be measured against 2009 review cycles and 2010 review cycles using online review tools. 3 5 TBD
2010 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Processes and Activities Efficiency Content Management System (CMS) and ADTracker content items increase with additional use, to be measured in number of published pages and content items contained within the CMS/ADTracker. 18 30 TBD
2010 Goal 1: Objective 1: Improve Student Achievement in reading/language artsGoal 1: Objective 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Technology Service Availability Percentage of time NAEP web site is available to be measured using up-time logs and access times recorded at host as hours available per month. 96 99 TBD

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. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
    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/. 069-000

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
NAEP Web Branding Market Branding - Continued work will be made towards the establish of a "NAEP" or "Nation's Report Card" branding, to include common look-and-feel across all NAEP-related products and easier access to NAEP tools. Content Management Content Publishing and Delivery [Not answered] [Not answered] No Reuse 3
NAEP CRM NAEP Customer Relationship Management - The deployment and maintenance of the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) suite of applications will be in place and supported. Additional support for the public's inquiries and the ability to provide self-service to many of the questions facing the public and facing NAEP State Coordinators will be provided with the addition of a communications tracking system, a knowledgebase, and a participation tracking system. Customer Relationship Management Product Management Quality Management [Not answered] No Reuse 6
Enhanced Project Tracking Enhanced Project Tracking - The NAEP project teams have worked to use current intranet systems to exchange project planning and tracking documentation. However, the need remains to provide a single source of project status information. The NAEP contractor will provide a mechanism for providing snapshots of project progress to NCES and other appropriate participants in the NAEP program. The system will provide visibility into the status of the assessments and the tasks awaiting completion. Tracking and Workflow Process Tracking Program / Project Management [Not answered] No Reuse 2
NAEP Content Engineering New interface and content presentation through a redesigned Public Web Site in compliance with new NCES template standards. This redesign will result in streamlined access to content within the system and compliance with both revised NCES style and template guidelines and with Federal goals for metadata format and publication. Knowledge Management Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Customer / Account Management [Not answered] No Reuse 8
NAEP Data Analytics Increased analytics delivered regarding NAEP results through the implementation of an enhanced knowledge query database system. This system will give access to the NAEP data to a secure list of personnel and will provide insights into state performance trends in NAEP. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining Governance / Policy Management [Not answered] No Reuse 4
Task/Budget Tracking Increased program oversight through the implementation of a Program Task/Budget Tracking System to aid in the tracking and forecasting of tasks and expenditures for each NAEP assessment. Financial Management Activity-Based Management Program / Project Management [Not answered] No Reuse 2
Integrated NAEP Item Bank Integrated NAEP Item Bank providing single-view of item development tools provided by NAEP Item Development Contractors Knowledge Management Information Sharing Quality Management [Not answered] No Reuse 13
NIES Web Release National Indian Education Study (NIES) Public Release Site Development and Support Content Management Content Publishing and Delivery Quality Management [Not answered] No Reuse 12
Operations and Maintenance Maintenance and operational support of deployed applications and software for the NAEP program. Includes software updates, additions, and hosting services. Additional technical and functional support provided. Development and Integration Enterprise Application Integration Software Development [Not answered] No Reuse 45
Security and Access Control Security management and access control services to manage access to the NAEP web assets and applications. Security Management Identification and Authentication Internal Controls [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
Enterprise Application Integration Service Access and Delivery Access Channels Other Electronic Channels Network Solutions (URL)
Identification and Authentication Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Legislative / Compliance Accessibility Standards (508); Privacy Act
Information Sharing Service Access and Delivery Service Requirements Hosting Dedicated hosting provided by sub
Product Management Service Access and Delivery Service Transport Supporting Network Services SMTP using Microsoft Internet Information Server; LDAP using Microsoft Windows Server; DNS using Network Solutions
Enterprise Application Integration Service Access and Delivery Service Transport Service Transport HTTP/HTTPS using Microsoft Internet Information Server; FTP using Microsoft Windows Server
Enterprise Application Integration Service Platform and Infrastructure Support Platforms Dependent Platform Microsoft Windows Server; Microsoft Windows ASP.NET
Information Sharing Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Web Servers Microsoft Internet Information Server
Information Sharing Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers Microsoft Internet Information Server
Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Portal Servers Microsoft SharePoint
Content Publishing and Delivery Service Platform and Infrastructure Delivery Servers Application Servers Microsoft Content Management Server
Activity-Based Management Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Integrated Development Environment Microsoft Visual Studio.NET provided by sub
Enterprise Application Integration Service Platform and Infrastructure Software Engineering Software Configuration Management Microsoft Visual SourceSafe provided by sub
Process Tracking Service Interface and Integration Software Engineering Modeling Microsoft Visio
Enterprise Application Integration Service Platform and Infrastructure Database / Storage Database Microsoft SQL Server
Enterprise Application Integration Service Platform and Infrastructure Hardware / Infrastructure Servers / Computers Dell Poweredge Server provided by sub
Identification and Authentication Component Framework Security Certificates / Digital Signatures Digital Certificate by Thawte provided by sub
Content Publishing and Delivery Component Framework User Presentation / Interface Static Display Microsoft Internet Information Server
Product Management Component Framework User Presentation / Interface Dynamic Server-Side Display Microsoft ASP and Microsoft ASP.NET
Content Publishing and Delivery Component Framework User Presentation / Interface Content Rendering Microsoft Internet Information Server
Enterprise Application Integration Component Framework Business Logic Dependent Platform Microsoft ASP and Microsoft ASP.NET
Enterprise Application Integration Service Platform and Infrastructure Data Management Database Connectivity Microsoft SQL Server
Knowledge Distribution and Delivery Component Framework Data Management Reporting and Analysis Microsoft SQL Server
Information Sharing Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Format / Classification Microsoft Visual Studio for XML creation
Information Sharing Service Interface and Integration Interoperability Data Transformation Microsoft Visual Studio for XML DTDs
Process Tracking Service Platform and Infrastructure Data Management Application Servers Microsoft SharePoint 2003 Portal Server
Process Tracking Service Platform and Infrastructure Data Management Content Rendering Microsoft Content Management Server 2000
  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? Sep 13, 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
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 provides for the use of a performance-based contract for web hosting and development services with oversight from NCES. The performance based contract provides for the contractor to serve as the primary developer of web applications and software solutions to support the NAEP program and its activities, including random sampling, data collection, processing large amounts of information, and publishing printed materials. The NCES commitment in this alternative is to provide manageria 28.97 7.78
Alternative 2 Contractors would continue to perform such duties as described in Alternative 4, with the exception of performing or maintaining web operations. New federal employees would be hired to implement all functions of web operations and maintenance. The contractor will be responsible for all software development and software testing, but all hosting services including hosting management configuration management, and testing services will be provided by the new federal employees under this alternative 34.987 0
Alternative 3 Keep all business functions in-house by hiring more federal workers. New federal employees would be hired to perform all NAEP activities listed in Alternative 1, thereby eliminating all contractor support. 33.26 0
Alternative 4 Status quo whereby current contractor remains performing maintenance and support efforts and no additional costs for increased functionality and increased services 37.22 0
  1. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen? Alternative 1 was selected because it offers the Government the best opportunity for success at the best possible value. The combination of an externally hosted web environment for secure intranet activities and data processing increases the efficiency of the other NAEP support contractors while reducing the overall managerial workload of DoED personnel. The use of contractor support in a performance-based model has provided and will provide the program with the best value for support and services to the NAEP program. Alternatives 2 and 3 limit the capabilities and potential for the project and thus affect the legislative time constraints of the project. By having elements of the system securely hosted outside of the DoED infrastructure, the program is able to perform rapid development of intranet applications, perform technology upgrades faster, and respond to changing requirements for information technology support and services more quickly. Additionally, Alternatives 2 and 3 would require significant investments by DoED in infrastructure and manpower to support the current NAEP web operational environment. Alternative 4 was not chosen for the alternative does not provide for the advancement of new technologies nor for increased streamlining efforts. Efforts performed here will require maintenance and support of existing systems and will result in outdated applications during the current lifecycle. The overall cost of the effort will increase under this scenario as the skills required to maintain and support the existing systems become less available and more expensive to the program
    1. What year will the investment breakeven? (Specifically, when the budgeted costs savings execced the cumulative costs.) 2021
  2. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized? Using the performance-based model will create the incentives to meet the established legislative milestones for reporting of NAEP results as well as ensure high customer satisfaction with project deliverables. Through the alternative selected, additional benefits will be derived and are planned for the effort. These benefits include: •          Increased collaboration through the implementation of new collaboration features and more dynamic intranet activities among the NAEP Alliance contractors, assessment field staff, and DoED personnel. •          Streamlined decision reviews of assessment reports and web content through the implementation of new content systems. •          Reductions in labor efforts and printing costs through the use of online assessment and questionnaire instruments.

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 1.17 0 Cost savings resulting from improvements in program processes, resulting in reduced labor requirements for performing NAEP-related activities. [Not answered]
BY+1 1.19 0 Increased use of new technologies resulting in reductions in labor efforts required to perform NAEP-related activities. [Not answered]
BY+2 1.09 0 Increased use of new technologies resulting in reductions in labor efforts required to perform NAEP-related activities. [Not answered]
BY+3  
BY+4 and Beyond  
Total LCC Benefit 3.45 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 29, 2008
    2. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB? yes
    3. If "yes," describe any significant changes: Updated risk management plan for 2009 program year to reflect identified risks. Risks identified for 2009 include: * Loss of partial or total budget funding (Low probability/High impact) with mitigation towards creating management reserve. * Changes in technology standards (mid probability/mid impact) with mitigation in monitoring new technologies and adopting open standards in development. * Changes in customer requirements (low probability/mid impact) with mitigation in early sign off on requirements and early involvement of users in development. * Increased security threats (mid probability/ mid impact) with mitigation to improving intrusion detection and surveillance of systems. * Changes in policies result in changed develpment direction (low probability/mid impact) with mitigation towards monitoring policy discussions. * Government staff changes (mid probability/low impact) with mitigation of education and documentation for project assets and activities.
  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: Investment risks are reflected in the life cycle through the development of phase deployments and specific targets for deliverables to minimize risks of cost overruns and delivery issues.

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
36 FY2006 Project Coordination Activities Sep 30, 2006 0.19 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.19 0.19 0 [Not answered] 100
37 FY2006 NAEP Network Redesign Sep 30, 2006 0.15 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.15 0.15 0 [Not answered] 100
38 FY2006 NAEP Public Website Activities Sep 30, 2006 0.96 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.96 0.96 0 [Not answered] 100
39 FY2006 Quality Control/Quality Assurrance Activities Sep 30, 2006 0.47 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.47 0.47 0 [Not answered] 100
40 FY2006 Web Development Activities Sep 30, 2006 0.47 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.47 0.47 0 [Not answered] 100
41 FY2006 Documentation and Training Activities Sep 30, 2006 0.47 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.47 0.47 0 [Not answered] 100
42 FY2006 Additional Maintenance Sep 30, 2006 0.38 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.38 0.38 0 [Not answered] 100
43 FY006 Training Support for NAEP Sep 30, 2006 0.6 Sep 30, 2006 Sep 30, 2006 0.6 0.6 0 [Not answered] 100
44 FY07 NAEP Maintenance Sep 30, 2007 1.39 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 1.39 1.385 0 [Not answered] 100
45 FY07 Project Coordination Activities Sep 30, 2007 0.2 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.2 0.197 0 [Not answered] 100
47 FY07 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Activities Sep 30, 2007 0.24 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.24 0.424 0 [Not answered] 100
50 FY07 Application Maintenance Sep 30, 2007 0.36 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.36 0.665 0 [Not answered] 100
51 FY07 Training Support for NAEP Sep 30, 2007 0.3 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.3 0.098 0 [Not answered] 100
52 FY07 NIES Maintenance Sep 30, 2007 0.29 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.29 0.007 0 [Not answered] 100
46 FY07 NAEP Security Sep 30, 2007 0.37 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.37 0.05 0 [Not answered] 100
48 FY07 NAEP DME Activities Sep 30, 2007 1.74 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 1.74 1.571 0 [Not answered] 100
49 FY07 NAEP Branding/Design Sep 30, 2007 0.29 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.29 0.025 0 [Not answered] 100
53 FY07 NAEP CRM Development Sep 30, 2007 0.23 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.23 0.371 0 [Not answered] 100
54 FY07 NAEP Project Tracking Sep 30, 2007 0.18 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.18 0.26 0 [Not answered] 100
55 FY07 NAEP Public Site Redesign Sep 30, 2007 0.43 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.43 0.781 0 [Not answered] 100
56 FY07 NAEP Knowedge Query System Sep 30, 2007 0.35 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.35 0.032 0 [Not answered] 100
57 FY07 NAEP Program/Budget Tracking Sep 30, 2007 0.18 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.18 0.101 0 [Not answered] 100
58 FY07 NAEP Item Bank Sep 30, 2007 0.1 Sep 30, 2007 Sep 30, 2007 0.1 0.001 0 [Not answered] 100
60 FY08 NAEP Maintenance Sep 30, 2008 2.558 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 2.558 1.106 0 [Not answered] 76
61 FY08 Task 7.1 - Support Ongoing Services Sep 30, 2008 2.052 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 2.052 0.754 0 [Not answered] 75
62 FY08 NAEP Task 7.3 - Training and Demonstrations Sep 30, 2008 0.111 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.111 0.03 0 [Not answered] 65
63 NAEP FY08 Task 7.5 - Project Management Sep 30, 2008 0.341 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.341 0.232 0 [Not answered] 80
64 NAEP FY08 Task 7.6 - Alliance Coordination Sep 30, 2008 0.054 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.054 0.09 0 [Not answered] 80
65 FY08 NAEP Security Sep 30, 2008 0.14 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.14 0.0885 0 78 0
65a NAEP FY08 NAEP Task 7.1.2.3 - Technical Assistance Sep 30, 2008 0.05 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.05 0.046 0 [Not answered] 80
65b NAEP FY08 Task 7.1.2.4 - Monitor Web Security Sep 30, 2008 0.01 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.01 0 0 [Not answered] 80
65c NAEP FY08 Task 7.4 - Web Hosting Sep 30, 2008 0.08 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 0.08 0 0 [Not answered] 75
66 NAEP FY08 Task 7.2 - DME Activities Sep 30, 2008 1.38 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 1.38 1.309 0 [Not answered] 80
67 NAEP FY08 Task 7.2 - Enhance and Expand NAEP Programs Sep 30, 2008 1.38 Sep 30, 2008 [Not answered] 1.38 1.309 0 [Not answered] 80
71 FY09 NAEP Maintenance Sep 30, 2009 2.29 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 2.29 0 0 [Not answered] 0
72 FY09 Project Coordination Activities Sep 30, 2009 0.21 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.21 0 0 [Not answered] 0
73 FY09 NAEP Quality Control/Quality Assurance Activities Sep 30, 2009 0.26 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.26 0 0 [Not answered] 0
74 FY09 NAEP Application Maintenance Sep 30, 2009 1.51 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 1.51 0 0 [Not answered] 0
75 FY09 NAEP Training Support Sep 30, 2009 0.31 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.31 0 0 [Not answered] 0
76 FY09 NAEP Security Sep 30, 2009 0.42 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.42 0 0 [Not answered] 0
77 FY09 NAEP DME Activities Sep 30, 2009 1.73 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 1.73 0 0 [Not answered] 0
78 FY09 NAEP Public Site Redesign Sep 30, 2009 0.26 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.26 0 0 [Not answered] 0
79 FY09 NAEP Science ICT Sep 30, 2009 0.86 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.86 0 0 [Not answered] 0
80 FY09 NAEP IMS Upgrades Sep 30, 2009 0.46 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.46 0 0 [Not answered] 0
81 FY09 NAEP Online Questionnaires Sep 30, 2009 0.2 Sep 30, 2009 [Not answered] 0.2 0 0 [Not answered] 0
FY10 NAEP Maintenance Sep 30, 2010 2.35 Sep 30, 2010 [Not answered] 2.35 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY10 NAEP Security Sep 30, 2010 0.44 Sep 30, 2010 [Not answered] 0.44 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
FY10 NAEP DME Sep 30, 2010 1.78 Sep 30, 2010 [Not answered] 1.78 [Not answered] [Not answered] [Not answered] 0
                   

Return to OMB Exhibit 300 page