| Exhibit 300 FY2009 | | | | | | | PART I: SUMMARY INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION | | In Part I, complete Sections A, B, C, and D for all capital assets (IT and non-IT). Complete Sections E and F for IT capital assets. | | | | | | | Section A: Overview (All Capital Assets) | | The following series of questions are to be completed for all investments. | | | | | | | I. A. 1. Date of Submission: | | 2008-02-11 | | | | |
| I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset: | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | Financial System Integration (FSI) - Phoenix | | | | |
| I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier: | | For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system. | | | 184-15-01-01-01-1000-00 | | | | |
| I. A. 6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009? | | Please NOTE: Investments moving to O&M in FY2009, with Planning/Acquisition activities prior to FY2009 should not select O&M. These investments should indicate their current status. | | | Operations and Maintenance | | | | |
| I. A. 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: | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | USAID initiated the FSI project to acquire and incrementally implement, through successive phases and product releases, a single, Agency-wide integrated core financial system called Phoenix. Phoenix, which is CGI Federal’s Momentum software configured for USAID, replaced the New Management System (NMS) legacy financial management system. Phoenix is compliant with the requirements issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO), which is governed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM). The use of a COTS software package has helped USAID provide standard financial business processes and a single integrated financial management system across the Agency. It has also led to achieving compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA), as well as “Green” for current status on the President's Management Agenda (PMA) for Improved Financial Performance Scorecard in FY 2007.
The FSI project is in "steady state." The Phoenix financial management system has been fully delivered, is now operationalized, and is fulfilling its mission as USAID's core accounting system of record. The FSI steady state program includes new operational improvements, integration activities with other Agency Business System Modernization initiatives, and continued work to demonstrate compliance with Federal accounting standards and regulations. Operational improvements include implementing performance budgeting within Phoenix and building a crosswalk for Phoenix data to the new Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System (FACTS). Integration activities will include designing, implementing, and supporting interfaces to systems such as the E2 Travel system, Consolidated Overseas Accountability Support Toolbox (COAST), and continued interface support to the GLobal Acquisition & Assistance System (GLAAS). Demonstrating compliance with federal regulations will include efforts to align Phoenix and the operations within the office of the Chief Financial Officer to evolving Department of Treasury and FSIO requirements that respond to the “Government-Wide Modernization Act.”
The Agency's goal is to increase Phoenix functionality, automate interfaces with other Agency systems, maintain compliance with federal regulations, and continue to provide superior operational support to Phoenix users worldwide. | | | | |
| I. A. 9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 9. a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval? | | 2007-07-31 | | | | |
|
| I. A. 10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project? | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 12. a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only) | | no | | | | | | | | I. A. 12. b. 1. If "yes," is an ESPC or UESC being used to help fund this investment? | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. 2. If "yes," will this investment meet sustainable design principles? | | | |
| I. A. 12. b. 3. If "yes," is it designed to be 30% more energy efficient than relevant code? | | | |
|
|
| I. A. 13. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 13. a. If "yes," check all that apply: | | Human Capital | | | Budget Performance Integration | | | Financial Performance | | | Expanded E-Government | | | Eliminating Improper Payments | | | Right Sized Overseas Presence | | | | |
| I. A. 13. b. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? (e.g. If E-Gov is selected, is it an approved shared service provider or the managing partner?) | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | HC: Phoenix allows for standardized training and user support. BPI: The Cost Allocation module of Phoenix assigns costs to program areas and elements. FP: Improved use of Phoenix data drove current status from “Yellow” to “Green." E-Gov: Phoenix is web-based and is interfaced with CCR and the procurement, grant, loan systems. EIP: Phoenix controls validate payment versus availability. R-S O P: The operating and security model allow for regionalization and reduction of overseas staff. | | | | |
|
| I. A. 14. 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 | | | | | | | | I. A. 14. a. If "yes," does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 14. b. If "yes," what is the name of the PARTed Program? | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | USAID Operating Expense / Capital Investment Fund (OE/CIF) | | | | |
| I. A. 14. c. If "yes," what PART rating did it receive? | | Moderately Effective | | | | |
|
| I. A. 15. Is this investment for information technology? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 16. What is the level of the IT Project? (per CIO Council PM Guidance) | Level 1 - Projects with low-to-moderate complexity and risk. Example: Bureau-level project such as a stand-alone information system that has low- to-moderate complexity and risk.
Level 2 - Projects with high complexity and/or risk which are critical to the mission of the organization. Examples: Projects that are part of a portfolio of projects/systems that impact each other and/or impact mission activities. Department-wide projects that impact cross-organizational missions, such as an agency-wide system integration that includes large scale Enterprise Resource Planning (e.g., the DoD Business Mgmt Modernization Program).
Level 3 - Projects that have high complexity, and/or risk, and have government-wide impact. Examples: Government-wide initiative (E-GOV, President's Management Agenda). High interest projects with Congress, GAO, OMB, or the general public. Cross-cutting initiative (Homeland Security). | | | Level 2 | | | | |
| I. A. 17. What project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council’s PM Guidance): | | (1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment;(2) Project manager qualification is under review for this investment;(3) Project manager assigned to investment, but does not meet requirements;(4) Project manager assigned but qualification status review has not yet started;(5) No Project manager has yet been assigned to this investment | | | (1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment | | | | |
| I. A. 18. Is this investment identified as "high risk" on the Q4-FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB Memorandum M-05-23)? | | no | | | | |
| I. A. 19. Is this a financial management system? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 19. a. If "yes," does this investment address a FFMIA compliance area? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. A. 19. a. 1. If "yes," which compliance area | | (short text - 250 characters) | | | Financial Management (FMS), Accounting Standards, SGL at the Transaction Level | | | | |
| I. A. 19. a. 2. If "no," what does it address? | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. A. 19. b. 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 | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | Phoenix Financial Management System (PHOENIX) | | | | |
|
| I. A. 20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 100%) | | | | | | | I. A. 20. c. Services | | 100 | | | | |
|
| I. A. 21. If this project produces information dissemination products for the public, are these products published to the Internet in conformance with OMB Memorandum 05-04 and included in your agency inventory, schedules and priorities? | | n/a | | | | |
| I. A. 23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval? | | yes | | | | |
| I. A. 24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas? | | Question 24 must be answered by all Investments: | | | yes | | | | |
|
| Section B: Summary of Spending (All Capital Assets) | | | | | | | I. B. 1. Provide the total estimated life-cycle cost for this investment by completing the following table. All amounts represent budget authority in millions, and are rounded to three decimal places. Federal personnel costs should be included only in the row designated "Government FTE Cost," and should be excluded from the amounts shown for "Planning," "Full Acquisition," and "Operation/Maintenance." The "TOTAL" estimated annual cost of the investment is the sum of costs for "Planning," "Full Acquisition," and "Operation/Maintenance." For Federal buildings and facilities, life-cycle costs should include long term energy, environmental, decommissioning, and/or restoration costs. The costs associated with the entire life-cycle of the investment should be included in this report. | Note: For the cross-agency investments, this table should include all funding (both managing and partner agencies).
Government FTE Costs should not be included as part of the TOTAL represented. | | | PY-1 and Spending Prior to 2007 | PY 2007 | CY 2008 | BY 2009 |
|---|
| Planning | $7.220 | $0.000 | $0.000 | $0.000 |
|---|
| Acquisition | $58.880 | $0.000 | $0.000 | $0.000 |
|---|
| Subtotal Planning and Acquisition | $66.100 | $0.000 | $0.000 | $0.000 |
|---|
| Operations and Maintenance | $34.500 | $4.950 | $4.940 | $4.230 |
|---|
| TOTAL | $100.600 | $4.950 | $4.940 | $4.230 |
|---|
| Government FTE Costs | $137.430 | $0.900 | $0.900 | $0.900 |
|---|
| Number of FTE represented by cost | $29.730 | $6.000 | $6.000 | $6.000 |
|---|
| | | | |
| I. B. 2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's? | | no | | | | | | | | I. B. 2. a. If "yes," How many and in what year? | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. B. 3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes. | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | N/A | | | | |
|
| Section D: Performance Information (All Capital Assets) | | In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency’s mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure. | | | | | | | I. D. 1. Table 1. Performance Information Table | In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency’s mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure.
Agencies must use the following table to report performance goals and measures for the major investment and use the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM). Map all Measurement Indicators to the corresponding "Measurement Area" and "Measurement Grouping" identified in the PRM. There should be at least one Measurement Indicator for each of the four different Measurement Areas (for each fiscal year). The PRM is available at www.egov.gov. The table can be extended to include performance measures for years beyond FY 2009. | | | Fiscal Year | Strategic Goal(s) Supported | Measurement Area | Measurement Grouping | Measurement Indicator | Baseline | Target | Actual Results |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Financial Management | % of appropriated transactions processed through Phoenix. | 100% | 100% | 100% |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Financial Management | % of appropriated agency funds processed through Phoenix. | 100% | 100% | 100% |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Risk | COOP tests are done on a yearly basis. | COOP Tests were mandated every three years. Starting in FY 2007, the Agency mandated COOP tests to be conducted on and Annual Basis. | Annual COOP Tests | COOP tests were conducted in December 2006 and June 2007. |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Customer Results | Accessibility | Phoenix Availability | 23 x 6 Operations | 24 x 6.5 Operations | 24 x 6.5 Operations |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Customer Results | Response Time | Customer Service Standards Report | Phoenix Help Desk tickets are closed within one month or a corrective action is taken. | 95% | 100% |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Processes and Activities | Productivity | Phoenix transaction data is mapped to agency Strategic Objectives (SO). | 95% of data is mapped to the new State/F Foreign Assistance Framework. | 95% | 99% of data is mapped to the State/F Framework. |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Processes and Activities | Productivity | Percentage of card transactions captures by the Phoenix credit card module. | Credit card module captures 70% of purchase card transactions. | 70% | 85% |
|---|
| 2007 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Technology | Availability | Customer Service Standards Report | Phoenix is available 99% of its planned uptime. | 99% | Phoenix application has been available > 99% of the time for FY07 |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Financial Management | % of appropriated transactions processed through Phoenix. | 100% | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Financial Management | % of appropriated agency funds processed through Phoenix. | 100% | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Risk | COOP tests are done on a yearly basis. | Annual COOP Test | One COOP Test in FY2008 | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Customer Results | Accessibility | Phoenix Availability | 24 x 6.5 Operations | 24 x 6.5 Operations | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Customer Results | Response Time | Customer Service Standards Report | Phoenix Help Desk tickets are closed within one month or a corrective action is taken. | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Processes and Activities | Productivity | Phoenix transaction data is mapped to the State/F Foreign Assistance Framework. | 99% of data is mapped to the new State/F Foreign Assistance Framework. | 99% | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Processes and Activities | Productivity | Percentage of card transactions captures by the Phoenix credit card module. | Credit card module captures 90% of purchase card transactions. | 90% | TBD |
|---|
| 2008 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Technology | Availability | Customer Service Standards Report | Phoenix is available 99% of its planned uptime. | 99% | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Financial Management | % of appropriated transactions processed through Phoenix. | 100% | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Financial Management | % of appropriated agency funds processed through Phoenix. | 100% | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Risk | COOP tests are done on a yearly basis. | Annual COOP Tests | Annual COOP Tests | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Customer Results | Accessibility | Phoenix Availability | 24 x 6.5 Operations | 24 x 6.5 Operations | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Customer Results | Response Time | Customer Service Standards Report | Phoenix Help Desk tickets are closed within one month or a corrective action is taken. | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Processes and Activities | Productivity | Phoenix transaction data is mapped to the State/F Foreign Assistance Framework. | 100% of data is mapped to agency State/F Framework | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Processes and Activities | Productivity | Percentage of card transactions captures by the Phoenix credit card module. | Credit Card module captures 95% of purchase card transactions. | 95% | TBD |
|---|
| 2009 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Technology | Availability | Customer Service Standards Report | Phoenix is available 99% of its planned uptime. | 99% | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Financial Management | % of appropriated transactions processed through Phoenix. | 100% | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Financial Management | % of appropriated agency funds processed through Phoenix. | 100% | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Mission and Business Results | Risk | COOP tests are done on a yearly basis. | Annual COOP Tests | Annual COOP Tests | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Customer Results | Accessibility | Phoenix Availability | 24 x 6.5 Operations | 24 x 6.5 Operations | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Customer Results | Response Time | Customer Service Standards Report | Phoenix Help Desk tickets are closed within one month or a corrective action is taken. | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Processes and Activities | Productivity | Phoenix transaction data is mapped to the State/F Foreign Assistance Framework. | 100% of data is mapped to agency State/F Framework | 100% | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Processes and Activities | Productivity | Percentage of card transactions captures by the Phoenix credit card module. | Credit Card module captures 95% of purchase card transactions. | 95% | TBD |
|---|
| 2010 | Strengthening Consular and Management Capabilities | Technology | Availability | Customer Service Standards Report | Phoenix is available 99% of its planned uptime. | 99% | TBD |
|---|
| | | | |
|
| Section F: Enterprise Architecture (EA) (IT Capital Assets only) | | In order to successfully address this area of the business case and capital asset plan you must ensure the investment is included in the agency's EA and Capital Planning and Invesment Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and supports the FEA. You must also ensure the business case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the business, performance, data, services, application, and technology layers of the agency's EA. | | | | | | | I. F. 1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture? | | no | | | | | | | | I. F. 1. a. If "no," please explain why? | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | USAID is working with the State Department to develop a Joint Enterprise Architecture (JEA) and Transition Strategy. | | | | |
|
| I. F. 2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy? | | no | | | | | | | | I. F. 2. a. If "yes," provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment. | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | | |
| I. F. 2. b. If "no," please explain why? | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | | USAID is working with the State Department to develop a Joint Enterprise Architecture (JEA) and Transition Strategy. | | | | |
|
| I. F. 3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture? | | no | | | | | | | | I. F. 3. a. If "yes," provide the name of the segment architecture. | | (medium text - 500 characters) | | | | |
|
| I. F. 4. Service Component Reference Model (SRM) Table : | Identify the service components funded by this major IT investment (e.g., knowledge management, content management, customer relationship management, etc.). Provide this information in the format of the following table. For detailed guidance regarding components, please refer to http://www.egov.gov.
a. Use existing SRM Components or identify as “NEW”. A “NEW” component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM.
b. A reused component is one being funded by another investment, but being used by this investment. Rather than answer yes or no, identify the reused service component funded by the other investment and identify the other investment using the Unique Project Identifier (UPI) code from the OMB Ex 300 or Ex 53 submission.
c. ‘Internal’ reuse is within an agency. For example, one agency within a department is reusing a service component provided by another agency within the same department. ‘External’ reuse is one agency within a department reusing a service component provided by another agency in another department. A good example of this is an E-Gov initiative service being reused by multiple organizations across the federal government.
d. Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount transferred to another agency to pay for the service. The percentages in this column can, but are not required to, add up to 100%. | | | Agency Component Name | Agency Component Description | FEA SRM Service Type | FEA SRM Component (a) | Service Component Reused - Component Name (b) | Service Component Reused - UPI (b) | Internal or External Reuse? (c) | BY Funding Percentage (d) |
|---|
| Financial Administration | Defines the set of capabilities that support the charging, collection and reporting of an organization's accounts. | Financial Management | Billing and Accounting | Billing and Accounting | | No Reuse | 30 |
|---|
| Financial Administration | Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of credit cards or electronic funds transfers for payment and collection of products or services. | Financial Management | Credit / Charge | Credit / Charge | | No Reuse | 10 |
|---|
| Financial Administration | Defines the set of capabilities that support the management and reimbursement of costs paid by employees or an organizations. | Financial Management | Expense Management | Expense Management | | No Reuse | 5 |
|---|
| Financial Administration | Defines the set of capabilities that support the process of accounts payable. | Financial Management | Payment / Settlement | Payment / Settlement | | No Reuse | 25 |
|---|
| Financial Administration | Defines the set of capabilities that support the process of accounts receivable. | Financial Management | Debt Collection | Debt Collection | | No Reuse | 25 |
|---|
| Financial Administration | Defines the set of capabilities that support the allocation and re-investment of earned net credit or capital within an organization. | Financial Management | Revenue Management | Revenue Management | | No Reuse | 5 |
|---|
| | | | |
| I. F. 5. Table 1. Technical Reference Model (TRM) Table: | To demonstrate how this major IT investment aligns with the FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM), please list the Service Areas, Categories, Standards, and Service Specifications supporting this IT investment.
a. Service Components identified in the previous question should be entered in this column. Please enter multiple rows for FEA SRM Components supported by multiple TRM Service Specifications
b. In the Service Specification field, agencies should provide information on the specified technical standard or vendor product mapped to the FEA TRM Service Standard, including model or version numbers, as appropriate. | | | FEA SRM Component | FEA TRM Service Area | FEA TRM Service Category | FEA TRM Service Standard | Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name) |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Hosting | Internal (within Agency) |
|---|
| Expense Management | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Internet Explorer |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Section 508 |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Legislative / Compliance | Security |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Service Transport | Transport Control Protocol (TCP) |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Service Transport | Internet Protocol (IP) |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Supporting Network Services | Directory Services (X.500) |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Oracle |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Web Servers | Internet Information Server |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Local Area Network (LAN) | |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Network Devices / Standards | Switch |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Software Configuration Management | Defect Tracking |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Test Management | Load/Stress/Volume Testing |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Test Management | Functional Testing |
|---|
| Billing and Accounting | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Support Platforms | Platform Dependent | Windows 2000 |
|---|
| NEW | Component Framework | Presentation / Interface | Static Display | Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Component Framework | Security | Certificates / Digital Signatures | Digital Certificate Authentication |
|---|
| Decision Support and Planning | Component Framework | Business Logic | Platform Independent | C, C |
|---|
| Billing and Accounting | Service Interface and Integration | Integration | Middleware | Transaction Processing Monitor |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Interface and Integration | Interface | Service Description / Interface | Application Program Interface (API) / Protocol |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Interface and Integration | Interoperability | Data Format / Classification | |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Component Framework | Data Management | Database Connectivity | Open Database Connectivity |
|---|
| Internal Controls | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Hosting | Internal (within Agency) |
|---|
| | | | |
| I. F. 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)? | | yes | | | | | | | | I. F. 6. a. If "yes," please describe. | | (long text - 2500 characters) | | - Vendor Self Service (VSS): VSS is critical to meeting the Presidents Management Agenda (PMA) mandates for e-Gov and also key to successfully implementing the newly selected grants and acquisitions systems. VSS is a web-based application separate from Phoenix that allows an agency and its vendors to complete their procurement and invoicing activities electronically. It provides a method for vendors to view and respond to various business opportunities with real-time interaction. Deploying VSS for electronic submission of invoices and enabling vendors to research the status of their payments on-line will allow USAID to move one step closer towards PMA mandates for e-Gov.
- C-W e-Travel system, E2.: The Phoenix Travel Accounting subsystem facilitates and tracks financial activity associated with the travel management process. The Phoenix travel system is intended for use with a third party e-Travel system, E2. The travel accounting module will allow for the following benefits: -Bridge Phoenix with the C-W Travel Manager system. - Third Party Payment Vouchers - Withholding Tax allowance - System Determined Advanced Liquidations - Automatically Generate Obligation Documents
- The Federal Agencies' Centralized Trial-Balance System (FACTS II): The Department of Treasury is creating this system that will allow agencies to submit one set of accounting data. This data includes budgetary information that is required for the Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources (SF 133), the Year-End Closing Statement (FMS 2108), and much of the initial data that will appear in the prior year column of the Program and Financing (P&F) Schedule of the President's Budget. Building an automated interface with this system into Phoenix will facilitate real-time reporting with the DoT.
- Contractor Central Registry Connector (CCRC): CCRC is critical to meeting the PMA mandates for e-Gov and is key to successfully implementing the newly selected grants and acquisitions systems. CCRC captures CCR information from the GSA web-site for updating or adding vendor records in the Phoenix vendor table. CCR includes vendor business details, mailing address details, proprietary information, and sensitive information. It is the designated site for vendors to have a single point of contact for updating their information for all Federal agencies. USAID implemented CCRC as an interface with CCR in November 2006.
| | | | |
|
|
|
| PART IV: Planning For "Multi-Agency Collaboration" ONLY | | Part IV should be completed only for investments identified as an E-Gov initiative, an Line of Business (LOB) Initiative, or a Multi-Agency Collaboration effort., selected the “Multi-Agency Collaboration” choice in response to Question 6 in Part I, Section A above. Investments identified as “Multi-Agency Collaboration” will complete only Parts I and IV of the exhibit 300. | | | | | | | Section A: Multi-Agency Collaboration Oversight (All Capital Assets) | | Multi-agency Collaborations, such as E-Gov and LOB initiatives, should develop a joint exhibit 300. | | | | | | | IV. A. 1. Stakeholder Table | | As a joint exhibit 300, please identify the agency stakeholders. Provide the partner agency and partner agency approval date for this joint exhibit 300. | | | | | | |
| IV. A. 9. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole? | | | | | | | IV. A. 9. a. 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? | | | |
| IV. A. 9. b. Table 1. If "yes," please provide the following information: | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
