Exhibit 300 FY2009

I. A. 1. Date of Submission:
2007-09-10

I. A. 2. Agency:
018

I. A. 3. Bureau:
45

I. A. 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
(short text - 250 characters)
Integrated Partner Management (IPM)

I. A. 5. Unique Project (Investment) Identifier:
For IT investment only, see section 53. For all other, use agency ID system.
018-45-01-06-01-1140-00

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.
Mixed Life Cycle

I. A. 7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?
FY2003

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)
The IPM initiative, through process reengineering and process automation, will provide, in one solution, improved eligibility, enrollment, and oversight processes used to manage partner entities (i.e., schools, school servicers, lenders, lender servicers, guarantee agencies, private collection agencies, state agencies, federal agencies, accrediting agencies, auditors, and owners) as they administer Title IV Financial Aid for Students. Today, many Federal Student Aid applications manage these processes, which result in duplicate and conflicting data storage, complex system architecture, excessive file exchange activities, and the lack of a centralized view of partners. The IPM Solution should reduce these issues, ensuring that all customers and employees have access to the same, current, institutional eligibility and oversight data. Schools, lenders, guarantors and other partners are located throughout the world. Federal Student Aid's monitoring and oversight staff are located at Federal Student Aid headquarters and throughout the U.S. in ten regional offices. The IPM initiative will be implemented in phases, with the current high-level plan as follows: - Pre-development: September 2006 ? October 2007. This phase consists of business process reengineering (BPR), detailed requirements, detailed design, and project planning for IPM. (Budget: $6.3M from FY06 funding) - Phase I: September 2007 ? October 2008. The major components of this phase include the functions currently performed by eAPP, LAP, eZ-Audit, ERM, and PM. Also included is the RID management, integrated participation and enrollment management, integration with the enterprise services (e.g. security architecture, enterprise portal and enterprise service bus), and data mangement. (Budget: $7.9M from FY06 funding) - Independent verification and validation (IV&V) is scheduled to occur throughout the Pre-Dev and Phase 1. (Budget: $2.4M from FY06 funding) - Phase II is targeted to begin May 2008 and conclude April 2009. The major components of this phase include core oversight, case management, the functions currently performed by PEPS, and IPM hosted shared services. The PEPS legacy system will be retired during this phase. (Budget: $7M from FY08 funding) - Operations and Maintenance of Phase I. (Budget: $6.5M from FY08 funding) - Independent verification and validation (IV&V) is targeted to occur throughout Phase II. (Budget: $800K from FY08 funding).

I. A. 9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request?
yes

I. A. 10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?
yes

I. A. 11. Contact information of Project Manager

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. 13. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives?
yes

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.)
no

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)?
yes

I. A. 19. Is this a financial management system?
no

I. A. 20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 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. 22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions:

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:
no

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 BY+1 2010 BY+2 2011 BY+3 2012 BY+4 2013 and Beyond Planning 1.030 0.000 0.000 0.000         Acquisition 15.084 0.000 13.548 0.000         Subtotal Planning & Acquisition                 Operations & Maintenance 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.490         Total                 Government FTE Costs 0.446 0.803 2.790 4.244         Number of FTE represented by cost 4 7 18 37

I. B. 2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?
yes

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)

I. C. 1. Complete the table for all (including all non-Federal) contracts and/or task orders currently in place or planned for this investment. Total Value should include all option years for each contract. Contracts and/or task orders completed do not need to be included.
SIS - Share in Services contract; ESPC - Energy savings performance contract ; UESC - Utility energy efficiency service contract; EUL - Enhanced use lease contract; N/A - no alternative financing used.
(Character Limitations: Contract or Task Order Number - 250 Characters; Type of Contract/Task Order - 250 Characters; Name of CO - 250 Characters; CO Contact Information - 250 Characters)

Type of Contract/Task Order Has the contract been awarded? If so what is the date of the award? If not, what is the planned award date? Start date of Contract/Task Order End date of Contract/Task Order Total Value of Contract/Task Order ($M) Is this an Interagency Acquisition? Is it performance based? Competitively awarded? What, if any, alternative financing option is being used? Is EVM in the contract? Does the contract include the required security & privacy clauses? Name of CO CO Contact Information (phone/email) Contracting officer certification level If N/A, has the agency determined the CO assigned has the competencies and skills necessary to support this aquistion?

I. C. 2. If earned value is not required or will not be a contract requirement for any of the contracts or task orders above, explain why:
(long text - 2500 characters)

I. C. 3. Do the contracts ensure Section 508 compliance?
yes

I. C. 4. Is there an acquisition plan which has been approved in accordance with agency requirements?
yes

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.

Strategic Goal(s) Supported Measurement Area Measurement Grouping Measurement Indicator Baseline Target Actual Results 2006 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Requests per Month: Reduce data retrieval issues/reporting requests by allowing users to do their own reporting. 20 20 20 - no change from baseline 2006 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered Number of separate systems to see full partner view - have to manually pull data together to report:Real-time updates to database suppling the approriate information without redundancy. Single partner view. 5 5 5 - no change from baseline 2006 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Number of separate stove-piped systems. 6 6 6- no change from baseline 2006 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Innovation and Improvement Number of id's and Passwords: Reduced sign-on points into FSA Systems 6 6 6- no change from baseline 2008 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Number of requests per month: Reduce data retrieval issues/reporting requests by allowing users to do their own reporting. 2008: 30% reduction 20 15 Available 09, 2008 2008 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered Number of separate systems to see full partner view - have to manually pull data together to report: Real-time updates to database suppling the approriate information without redundancy. Single partner view. 2008: 20% improvement. 5 4 Available 09, 2008 2008 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Innovation and Improvement Number of id's and Passwords: Reduced sign-on points into FSA Systems. (2008: 25% reduction). 6 2 Available 10, 2008 2008 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Number of separate stove-piped systems. 6 2 Available 12, 2008 2007 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Number of Requests per month: Reduce data retrieval issues/reporting requests by allowing users to do their own reporting. 20 20 Available 08, 2008 2007 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered Number of separate systems to see full partner view - have to manually pull data together to report:Real-time updates to database suppling the approriate information without redundancy. Single partner view. 5 5 Available 08, 2008 2007 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Innovation and Improvement Number of id's and Passwords: Reduced sign-on points into FSA Systems 12 12 Available 08, 2008 2007 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Number of separate stove-piped systems. 6 6 Available 08, 2008 2009 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Mission and Business Results Higher Education Number requests per month: Reduce data retrieval issues/reporting requests by allowing users to do their own reporting. (2009: 65% reduction) 20 8 Available 05, 2009 2009 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Customer Results Accuracy of Service or Product Delivered Number of separate systems to see full partner view - have to manually pull data together to report: Real-time updates to database suppling the approriate information without redundancy. Single partner view.(2009: 60% improvement). 5 2 Available 04, 2009 2009 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Processes and Activities Innovation and Improvement Number of id's and Passwords: Reduced sign-on points into FSA Systems.(2009: 58% reduction). 6 1 Available 06, 2009 2009 Goal 3:Objective 2: Deliver Federal Student Aid to students and parents effectively and efficiently. Technology Data Reliability and Quality Number of separate stove-piped systems. 6 1 Available 06, 2009

I. E. 1. Have the IT security costs for the system(s) been identified and integrated into the overall costs of the investment?

I. E. 2. Is identifying and assessing security and privacy risks a part of the overall risk management effort for each system supporting or part of this investment?

I. E. 3. Systems in Planning and Undergoing Enhancement(s) – Security Table:
The questions asking whether there is a PIA which covers the system and whether a SORN is required for the system are discrete from the narrative fields. The narrative column provides an opportunity for free text explanation why a working link is not provided. For example, a SORN may be required for the system, but the system is not yet operational. In this circumstance, answer "yes" for column (e) and in the narrative in column (f), explain that because the system is not operational the SORN is not yet required to be published.

Agency/or Contractor Operated System Planned Operational Date Date of Planned C & A update (for existing mixed life cycle systems) or Planned Completion Date (for new systems)

I. E. 4. Operational Systems - Security:

Agency/or contractor Operated System? NIST FIPS 199 Risk Impact level (High, Moderate, Low) Has C & A been Completed, using NIST 800-37? (Y/N) Date Completed: C & A What standards were used for the Security Controls tests? (FIPS 200/NIST 800-53, Other, N/A) Date Completed: Security Control Testing Date the contingency plan tested

I. E. 5. Have any weaknesses related to any of the systems part of or supporting this investment been identified by the agency or IG?

I. E. 6. Indicate whether an increase in IT security funding is requested to remediate IT security weaknesses?

I. E. 7. How are contractor security procedures monitored, verified, and validated by the agency for the contractor systems above?
(long text - 2500 characters)

I. E. 8. Planning & Operational Systems - Privacy Table:
Details for Text Options:
Column (d): If yes to (c), provide the link(s) to the publicly posted PIA(s) with which this system is associated. If no to (c), provide an explanation why the PIA has not been publicly posted or why the PIA has not been conducted.

Column (f): If yes to (e), provide the link(s) to where the current and up to date SORN(s) is published in the federal register. If no to (e), provide an explanation why the SORN has not been published or why there isn't a current and up to date SORN.

Note: Links must be provided to specific documents not general privacy websites.

(b) Is this a new system? (Y/N) (c) Is there a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) that covers this system? (Y/N) (d) Internet Link or Explanation (e) Is a System of Records Notice (SORN) required for this system? (Y/N) (f) Internet Link or Explanation

I. F. 1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture?
yes

I. F. 2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy?
yes

I. F. 3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture?
yes

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 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) IPM Partner Oversight Provides risk and issue identification, assessment, mitigation and resolution capabilities to support the partner oversight lifecycle Customer Relationship Management Customer Analytics     No Reuse 7 IPM Partner Eligibility and Enrollment Establishes and maintains up-to-date partner records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Customer Relationship Management Customer / Account Management     No Reuse 5 IPM Partner Eligibility and Enrollment Establishes and maintains up-to-date partner records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Customer Relationship Management Contact and Profile Management     No Reuse 2 IPM Partner Eligibility and Enrollment Establishes and maintains up-to-date partner records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Customer Relationship Management Partner Relationship Management     No Reuse 2 IPM Partner Eligibility and Enrollment Establishes and maintains up-to-date partner records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Customer Relationship Management Customer Feedback     No Reuse 5 IPM Partner Eligibility and Enrollment Provides partners with interface capabilities to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Customer Initiated Assistance Self-Service     No Reuse 2 IPM Partner Eligibility and Enrollment Provides partners with interface capabilities to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Customer Initiated Assistance Assistance Request     No Reuse 5 IPM Workflow Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Tracking and Workflow Process Tracking     No Reuse 2 IPM Workflow Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Tracking and Workflow Case Management     No Reuse 2 IPM Workflow Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Routing and Scheduling Inbound Correspondence Management     No Reuse 2 IPM Workflow Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Routing and Scheduling Outbound Correspondence Management     No Reuse 2 IPM Partner Oversight Provides risk and issue identification, assessment, mitigation and resolution capabilities to support the partner oversight lifecycle Knowledge Discovery Modeling     No Reuse 7 IPM Partner Oversight Provides risk and issue identification, assessment, mitigation and resolution capabilities to support the partner oversight lifecycle Business Intelligence Demand Forecasting / Mgmt     No Reuse 7 IPM Program Management Provides continued support of IPM business outcomes, operational metrics and quality management for the IPM Target State Business Intelligence Balanced Scorecard     No Reuse 5 IPM Partner Oversight Provides risk and issue identification, assessment, mitigation and resolution capabilities to support the partner oversight lifecycle Knowledge Discovery Data Mining     No Reuse 7 IPM Partner Oversight Provides risk and issue identification, assessment, mitigation and resolution capabilities to support the partner oversight lifecycle Business Intelligence Decision Support and Planning     No Reuse 7 IPM Reporting Provides real-time query based reporting (Ad-Hoc Query) to authorized users needed to assess performance related to performance, eligibility and oversight business functions Reporting Ad Hoc     No Reuse 3 IPM Reporting Provides pre-defined reporting (Custom Reporting) for authorized users needed to assess performance related to performance, eligibility and oversight business functions Reporting Standardized / Canned     No Reuse 3 Security Architecture Provides management capabilities which conform to all Federal Security requirements and FSA security guidelines Security Management Access Control Access Control 018-45-03-00-02-2050-00 Internal 4 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Document Management Document Imaging and OCR     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Document Management Classification     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Knowledge Management Information Retrieval     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Records Management Record Linking / Association     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Document Management Document Conversion     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Document Management Document Referencing     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Document Management Document Review and Approval     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Document Management Document Revisions     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Document Management Indexing     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Document Management Library / Storage     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Knowledge Management Information Mapping / Taxonomy     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Knowledge Management Information Sharing     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Knowledge Management Knowledge Distribution and Delivery     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Records Management Document Classification     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Records Management Document Retirement     No Reuse 1 IPM Document Management Provides a suite of tools dedicated to receipt, storage, conversion and distribution of records to support the Enroll Partner, Individual Enrollment and the Maintain Partner Eligibility business functions Knowledge Management Knowledge Capture     No Reuse 1 IPM Reporting Provides IPM data extraction, organization and formatting capabilities (Managed Reports) needed to assess performance related to performance, eligibility and oversight business functions Reporting Standardized / Canned     No Reuse 3

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 TRM Service Area FEA TRM Service Category FEA TRM Service Standard Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name)

I. F. 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?
no

II. A. 1. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this project?
yes

II. A. 2. Use the results of your alternatives analysis to complete the following table:
(Character Limitations: Alternative Analyzed - 250 characters; Description of Alternative - 500 Characters)

Description of Alternative Risk Lifecycle Cost Estimate Risk Lifecycle Benefits Estimate Legacy Systems with Enhancements Enhancements to the Legacy systems (PEPs, eZ-Audit, eAPP and ERM). Enhancements would include an implementation of RID (Routing ID) in addition to the legacy identifiers, and enhancements necessary to support minimal business operations for audits, and imaging.     IPM Integrated Partner Management Solution     ADvance implementation of RID ADvance implementation of RID and a separate case management system. Believe to increase the cost of ADVance by about 20%.     Status Quo Legacy systems, not integrated, with minimal changes to keep steady state. Does not satisfy business need.

II. A. 3. Which alternative was selected by the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee and why was it chosen?
(long text - 2500 characters)
The IPM (Integrated Partner Management) solutions was chosen because it meets Federal Student Aid's system modernization goals such as solving entity relationship identification problems, facilitates reusable data, and strengthens internal controls. Through the selection of this alternative, we expect to achieve tighter integration of partner-level data and enhance its utility for monitoring, service, technical assistance, and risk management purposes. In addition, we will improve controls through a single point of enrollment and access for partners to our systems. The reason why the Legacy Systems with Enhancements alternative was not chosen was because it does not solve entity relationship identification problems, facilitate reusable data or implement single sign-on that reduces burden on partners, nor does it strengthen security and internal controls to an extent that supports Federal Student Aid's removal from GAO's High Risk List (technical advantages outweigh the cost savings). Further, it does not allow for the presentation of integrated institutional views that are needed for the enhancement of monitoring activities. Such views are increasingly important because of the increasing structural complexity in the postsecondary sector, which is fueled by business consolidation in mature markets, growth in distance learning solutions, state budget shortages, and so on. The reason why the ADvance-based implementation is not the chosen alternative, is that the implementation of the RID infrastructure in ADvance is feasible as an initial phase, but ADvance is not the first system in the processing life cycle, nor the system of record for partner (particularly school partner) eligibility. ADvance does not contain initiation of certain business relationships among entities that trigger eligibility review by Federal Student Aid case management. ADvance processing of Pell Grant and Direct Loan records presupposes school eligibility, utilizing a feed from PEPS (the eligibility system of record that the IPM Solution will replace). Further, ADvance does not maintain records for guaranty agency or lender servicer partners. For these reasons, along with the exorbitant cost of ADvance, cannot provide the ultimate vehicle for tracking entity relationships although it could help provide a workable interim solution (since all Federal Student Aid systems will eventually be modified to handle the RID).

II. A. 4. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long text - 2500 characters)
The IPM project was initiated to address some of the deficiencies in Federal Student Aid's current stove-piped system architecture, characterized by multiple partner entry points to Federal Student Aid's services, redundant data edits, redundant data storage, excessive file exchange activities, and the inability to view data about a partner's activities and needs. These deficiencies result in barriers to performing adequate monitoring and oversight, limit Federal Student Aid's ability to provide customer service to partners, and create frustration among Federal Student Aid's customers who must deal with multiple Federal Student Aid systems to perform a single business function.IPM will significantly improve Federal Student Aid's business operations, including the critical monitoring and oversight functions, by creating the ability to track customer activities through the full life-cycle of a partner's functions within Federal Student Aid's systems. IPM will also increase customer satisfaction by leveraging single (reduced) sign-on for partners.IPM supports Federal Student Aid's modernization efforts to integrate and streamline core systems. The primary systems to be consolidated are: Application for Approval to Participate in Federal Student Financial Aid Programs (eAPP), eZ-Audit, Electronic Records Management (ERM) and the Postsecondary Education Participants System (PEPS). Additionally, the Participation Management (PM) functionality of the Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) will be incorporated into this effort. Federal Student Aid intends to use a combination of commercial off the shelf (COTS) and custom software for this solution. Functionality: Integrated data view services; Enrollment management; School on-going oversight; Financial partner on-going oversight; Enterprise RID services; Profile and demographics management; Access management; Analytical reporting; Risk analysis; Workflow and document management Some of the benefits IPM will achieve are: Improved decision-making; Increased data availability to school and financial partner oversight staff; A single identifier (RID) at the enterprise level to manage partner activities; Improved customer service; Reduced Case Management business process cycle times through the implementation of work-flow technology; Reduced manual data entry; Automated risk triggers.

II. A. 5. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole?
yes

UPI if available Date of the System Retirement eAPP (electronic App;lication) 018-45-01-06-02-2260-00 2008-08-31 ERM (electronic records management)   2008-08-31 eZ-Audit 018-45-01-06-02-2110-00 2008-08-31 PEPs 018-45-01-06-02-2260-00 2009-03-01 LAP (Lender Application)   2008-08-31 PM (Participation Management )   2008-08-31

II. B. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?
yes

II. B. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?

II. B. 3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:
(long text - 2500 characters)
As part of the IBR (Integrated Baseline Review) process for pre-development, a thorough risk inventory of the whole project was completed. The probability, impact and mitigation strategy for each risk occurrence was documented in the IPM Risk Repository, reviewed by the Joint Risk Review Board (JRRB) and incorporated into the IPM baseline. This JRRB meets monthly to review new risks and to monitor all risks until they are resolved, mitigated or retired and the risk no longer presents a challenge to the IPM project. The risk repository will then be used in the future IBRs for Phase I and Phase II to be incorporated into the cost and schedule and to be used as lessons learned.

II. C. 1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard - 748?
yes

II. C. 2. Is the CV or SV greater than 10%?
yes

II. C. 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
no

II. C. 4. Comparison of Initial Baseline and Current Approved Baseline
Complete the following table to compare actual performance against the current performance baseline and to the initial performance baseline. In the Current Baseline section, for all milestones listed, you should provide both the baseline and actual completion dates (e.g., "03/23/2003"/ "04/28/2004") and the baseline and actual total costs (in $ Millions). In the event that a milestone is not found in both the initial and current baseline, leave the associated cells blank. Note that the 'Description of Milestone' and 'Percent Complete' fields are required. Indicate '0' for any milestone no longer active. (Character Limitations: Description of Milestone - 500 characters)

Initial Baseline - Planned Completion Date Initial Baseline - Total Cost Current Baseline - Planned Completion Date Current Baseline - Actual Completion Date Current Baseline - Planned Total Cost Current Baseline - Actual Total Cost Current Baseline Variance - Schedule Current Baseline Variance - Cost Percent Complete FY 03 Complete requirements                   FY 04 Develop and Award SOO for High Level Conceptual Design and Sequencing Plan                   FY 04 High Level Conceptual Design and Sequencing Plan                   FY 05 Complete the acquisition/procurement process.                   FY 05 Gather business requirements and develop procedure standards with the Eligiblity and Oversight area.                   FY06 Pre-Development                   FY06 Phase I                   FY08 O&M Phase I                   FY08 Phase II                   FY09 O&M Phase I & II

III. A. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

III. A. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?

III. B. 1. Was operational analysis conducted?

III. B. 2. Complete the following table to compare actual cost performance against the planned cost performance baseline. Milestones reported may include specific individual scheduled preventative and predictable corrective maintenance activities, or may be the total of planned annual operation and maintenance efforts).

(Character Limitations: Description of Milestone - 250 Characters)

Planned Completion Date Planned Total Cost Actual Completion Date Actual Total Cost Variance - Schedule Variance - Cost     NaN

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.

Joint exhibit approval date

IV. A. 2. Partner Capital Assets within this Investment
Provide the partnering strategies you are implementing with the participating agencies and organizations. Identify all partner agency capital assets supporting the common solution (section 300.7); Managing Partner capital assets should also be included in this joint exhibit 300. These capital assets should be included in the Summary of Spending table of Part I, Section B. All partner agency migration investments (section 53.4) should also be included in this table. Funding contributions/fee-for-service transfers should not be included in this table. (Partner Agency Asset UPIs should also appear on the Partner Agency's exhibit 53)

Partner Agency Asset Title Partner Agency Exhibit 53 UPI

IV. A. 3. Partner Funding Strategies ($millions)
For jointly funded initiative activities, provide in the "Partner Funding Strategies Table": the name(s) of partner agencies; the UPI of the partner agency investments; and the partner agency contributions for CY and BY. Please indicate partner contribution amounts (in-kind contributions should also be included in this amount) and fee-for-service amounts. (Partner Agency Asset UPIs should also appear on the Partner Agency's exhibit 53. For non-IT fee-for-service amounts the Partner exhibit 53 UPI can be left blank) (IT migration investments should not be included in this table)

Partner Exhibit 53 UPI CY Contribution CY Fee-for-Service BY Contribution BY Fee-for-Service     NaN NaN NaN NaN

IV. A. 4. Did you conduct an alternatives analysis for this project?

IV. A. 5. Use the results of your alternatives analysis to complete the following table:

Description of Alternative Risk Adjusted Lifecycle Costs estimate Risk Adjusted Lifecycle Benefits estimate     NaN NaN

IV. A. 6. Which alternative was selected by the Initiative Governance process and why was it chosen?
(long text - 2500 characters)

IV. A. 7. What specific qualitative benefits will be realized?
(long text - 2500 characters)

IV. A. 8. Table 1. Federal Quantitative Benefits ($millions):
What specific quantitative benefits will be realized (using current dollars)
Use the results of your alternatives analysis to complete the following table:

Budgeted Cost Savings Cost Avoidance Justification for Budgeted Cost Savings Justification for Cost Avoidance   NaN NaN

IV. A. 9. Will the selected alternative replace a legacy system in-part or in-whole?

UPI if available Date of the System Retirement

IV. B. 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

IV. B. 2. If there currently is no plan, will a plan be developed?

IV. C. 1. Are you using EVM to manage this investment?

IV. C. 2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%? (CV% = CV/EV x 100; SV% = SV/PV x 100)
NOT applicable for capital assets with ONLY O&M.

IV. C. 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
Applicable to ALL capital assets

IV. C. 4. Comparison of Initial Baseline and Current Approved Baseline
Complete the following table to compare actual performance against the current performance baseline and to the initial performance baseline. In the Current Baseline section, for all milestones listed, you should provide both the baseline and actual completion dates (e.g., "03/23/2003"/ "04/28/2004") and the baseline and actual total costs (in $ Millions). In the event that a milestone is not found in both the initial and current baseline, leave the associated cells blank. Note that the 'Description of Milestone' and 'Percent Complete' fields are required. Indicate '0' for any milestone no longer active.

Initial Baseline - Planned Completion Date Initial Baseline - Total Cost Current Baseline - Planned Completion Date Current Baseline - Actual Completion Date Current Baseline - Planned Total Cost Current Baseline - Actual Total Cost Current Baseline Variance - Schedule Current Baseline Variance - Cost Percent Complete Agency responsible for activity                   NaN