HHS Home > OCIO Home > Capital Planning & Budget > Exhibit 300

Exhibit 300 (BY2009) - Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services CMS, Integrated Data Repository (IDR)

PART ONE

OVERVIEW

1. Date of Submission:: 2008-02-04

2. Agency:: 009

3. Bureau:: 38

4. Name of this Capital Asset:: CMS Integrated Data Repository (IDR)

5. Unique Project Identifier:: 009-38-01-06-01-1120-00

6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?: Mixed Life Cycle

7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?: FY2005

8. Provide a brief summary and justification for this investment, including a brief description of how this closes in part or in whole an identified agency performance gap.: CMS is implementing the Integrated Data Repository (IDR), an enterprise data warehouse, to integrate Medicare & Medicaid data so CMS and its partners may access the data from a single source. The IDR is intended to provide a multi-centric view of the data encompassing claims, beneficiary, plan and clinical perspectives. The IDR implementation strategy is phased, incrementally incorporating CMS data to provide better data to a broader user community. The IDR will allow CMS to enter a world of proactive use of information to: identify best practices; reward providers for use of those practices; achieve better health outcomes for its patients; and use information technology to inform providers & patients of those practices. In addition, it will allow CMS to use scarce resources more effectively by eliminating the duplication of effort. The IDR will lead to more consistent, accurate, reliable, and timely data to serve CMS' needs. It will also provide a more rigorous source of data to support the elimination of improper payments, a key component of the President's Management Agenda. The IDR directly supports Secretary Michael Leavitt's 500-Day Plan for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Components of the Secretary's plan place demands on CMS for the delivery of quality data to authorized recipients for purposes that enhance national healthcare. The IDR will support a number of these components including: monitoring new drugs & innovations; surveillance of data in electronic health records for early warning of dangerous viruses or bio-terrorism activities; and creating an integrated electronic network of privacy-protected population data, genetic information & medical records. All of which are currently constrained by a fragmented and redundant infrastructure. Further, the IDR is being driven by mandates from the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) with respect to prescription drug data requirements as well the HHS Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) with respect to establishing an interoperable health IT infrastructure. Not funding this investment will prohibit CMS from meeting the mandates associated with the Secretary's Plan, the MMA & the ONC. To date, the IDR has successfully secured a contractor for assisting with this initiative. Further, a major accomplishment has been the successful implementation of one system to support the drug program with 100% of Part D drug data available for drug data processing.

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

9.a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval?: 2007-06-26

10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?: yes

11.a. What is the current FAC-P/PM certification level of the project/program manager?: TBD

12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project.: no

12.a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)?: yes

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

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

If yes, select the initiatives that apply:

Initiative Name
Eliminating Improper Payments
Expanded E-Government

13.a. 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?): IDR will support Fraud & Abuse detection via the use of enabling COTS technologies. In support of the E-Gov Act of 2002, IDR will reduce redundancy and facilitate horizontal (cross-federal) & vertical (federal, state & local) information sharing. This aligns directly with the FEA and to that end; enabling expanded e-Gov. IDR is also aware of OMB M-062-02 and is leveraging meta data management & modeling capabilities to improve access to, & dissemination of Medicare/Medicaid data.

14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)?: yes

14.a. If yes, does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review?: yes

14.b. If yes, what is the name of the PARTed program?: 2003: CMS - Medicare Program

14.c. If yes, what rating did the PART receive?: Moderately Effective

15. Is this investment for information technology?: yes

16. What is the level of the IT Project (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)?: Level 3

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

18. Is this investment identified as high risk on the Q4 - FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB memorandum M-05-23)?: no

19. Is this a financial management system?: no

20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 100%)

Area	Percentage
Hardware	45
Software	34
Services	12
Other	10

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?: no

22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions.

Name	Maribel Franey
Phone Number	410-786-0757
Title	Director, Privacy Compliance
Email	Maribel.Franey@cms.hhs.gov

23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval?: yes

24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas?: yes

SUMMARY OF SPEND

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. All amounts represent Budget Authority Note: For the cross-agency investments, this table should include all funding (both managing partner and partner agencies). Government FTE Costs should not be included as part of the TOTAL represented.

Cost Type	Py-1 & Earlier -2006	PY 2007	CY 2008	BY 2009
Planning Budgetary Resources	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Acquisition Budgetary Resources	27.819	6.618	4.040	1.744
Maintenance Budgetary Resources	0.000	2.713	2.760	4.571
Government FTE Cost	0.750	0.000	0.900	1.170
# of FTEs	5	0	9	11

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

2.a. If "yes," how many and in what year?: 4 FTE's for 2007, 6 FTE's for 2008, and 8 FTE's for 2009

3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.: There were no changes to the President's budget.

PERFORMANCE

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.

Row	Fiscal Year	Strategic Goal Supported	Measurement Area	Measurement Grouping	Measurement Indicator	Baseline	Planned Improvement to the Baseline	Actual Results
1	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Number of contractors to assist with IDR implementation	0	1	1
2	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Response Time	Number of contractors to assist with IDR implementation	0	1	1
3	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Efficiency	Number of contractors to assist with IDR implementation	0	1	1
4	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Internal Data Sharing	Number of contractors to assist with IDR implementation	0	1	1
5	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	System Development	Number of systems to support drug data program in the IDR	0	1	1
6	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Customer Impact or Burden	Percentage of Part D drug data available for payment reconciliation	0%	100%	100%
7	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Productivity	Percentage of Part D drug data available for Part D management	0%	100%	100%
8	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Compliance and Deviations	Number of the 32 ANSI 748 EVM criteria met	0	18	18
9	2007	S.O. 2.3 - Promote and encourage preventive health care, including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors, and recovery	Customer Results	Customer Satisfaction	Number of researchers who are able to analyze Medicare Part D data in place.	0	50	20
10	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of available PartA, Part B, & Part D Data loaded into the IDR.	100%	100%	100%
11	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Efficiency	Reduce the amount of data that's moved off-site thus reducing the number of data stores that CMS must support	0%	20%	5%
12	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	Percentage of time warehouse is up and operational for users while providing for timely loading of data.	50%	75%	50%
13	2008	S.O. 2.3 - Promote and encourage preventive health care, including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors, and recovery	Customer Results	Customer Satisfaction	Number of researchers who are able to analyze Medicare Part A, Part B, and Part D data in place.	50	150	TBD
14	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Operations and Maintenance	50%	100%	TBD
15	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Efficiency	Reduce the amount of data that's moved off-site thus reducing the number of data stores that CMS must support	20%	40%	TBD
16	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	Percentage of time warehouse is up and operational for users while providing for timely loading of data.	60%	80%	TBD
17	2009	S.O. 2.3 - Promote and encourage preventive health care, including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors, and recovery	Customer Results	Customer Satisfaction	Number of researchers who are able to analyze Medicare Part A, Part B, Part D and 5 medicaid states data in place.	50	250	TBD
18	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Operations and Maintenance	60%	100%	TBD
19	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Efficiency	Reduce the amount of data that's moved off-site thus reducing the number of data stores that CMS must support	40%	60%	TBD
20	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	Percentage of time warehouse is up and operational for users while providing for timely loading of data.	70%	90%	TBD
21	2010	S.O. 2.3 - Promote and encourage preventive health care, including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors, and recovery	Customer Results	Customer Satisfaction	Number of researchers who are able to analyze Medicare Part A, Part B, Part D and 20 Medicaid states data in place.	50	300	TBD
22	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Operations and Maintenance	70%	100%	TBD
23	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Efficiency	Reduce the amount of data that's moved off-site thus reducing the number of data stores that CMS must support	60%	80%	TBD
24	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	Percentage of time warehouse is up and operational for users while providing for timely loading of data.	80%	100%	TBD
25	2011	S.O. 2.3 - Promote and encourage preventive health care, including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors, and recovery	Customer Results	Customer Satisfaction	Number of researchers who are able to analyze Medicare Part A, Part B, Part D and 35 Medicaid states data in place.	50	400	TBD
26	2011	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Operations and Maintenance	85%	100%	TBD
27	2011	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Efficiency	Reduce the amount of data that's moved off-site thus reducing the number of data stores that CMS must support	80%	90%	TBD
28	2011	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	Percentage of time warehouse is up and operational for users while providing for timely loading of data.	90%	100%	TBD
29	2012	S.O. 2.3 - Promote and encourage preventive health care, including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors, and recovery	Customer Results	Customer Satisfaction	Number of researchers who are able to analyze Medicare Part A, Part B, Part D and all Medicaid states data in place.	50	500	TBD
30	2012	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Operations and Maintenance	100%	100%	TBD
31	2012	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Efficiency	Reduce the amount of data that's moved off-site thus reducing the number of data stores that CMS must support	90%	100%	TBD
32	2012	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	Percentage of time warehouse is up and operational for users while providing for timely loading of data.	100%	100%	TBD
33	2013	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Customer Satisfaction	Number of researchers who are able to analyze Medicare Part A, Part B, Part D and all Medicaid states data in place.	TBD	TBD	TBD
34	2013	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Operations and Maintenance	100%	100	TBD
35	2013	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Efficiency	Reduce the amount of data that's moved off-site thus reducing the number of data stores that CMS must support	100%	100%	TBD
36	2013	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Availability	Percentage of time warehouse is up and operational for users while providing for timely loading of data.	100%	100%	TBD

Enterprise Architecture

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 Investment 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.

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

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

2.a. If yes, provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment.: CMS Integrated Data Repository (IDR)

3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture?: no

4. 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.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/. Component: Use existing SRM Components or identify as NEW. A NEW component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM. Reused Name and UPI: 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. Internal or External Reuse?: 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. Funding Percentage: Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the funding level transferred to another agency to pay for the service.

Row	Agency Component Name	Agency Component Description	Service Type	Component	Internal or External Reuse?	Funding %
1	Query	Defines the set of capabilities that support retrieval of records that satisfy specific query selection criteria.	Search	Query	No Reuse	3
2	Content Publishing and Delivery	Defines the set of capabilities that allow for the propagation of interactive programs.	Content Management	Content Publishing and Delivery	No Reuse	4
3	Tagging and Aggregation	Defines the set of capabilities that support the identification of specific content within a larger set of content for collection and summarization.	Content Management	Tagging and Aggregation	No Reuse	4
4	OLAP	Defines the set of capabilities that support the analysis of information that has been summarized into multidimensional views and hierarchies.	Reporting	OLAP	No Reuse	4
5	Ad Hoc	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of dynamic reports on an as needed basis.	Reporting	Ad Hoc	No Reuse	4
6	Balanced Scorecard	Defines the set of capabilities that support the listing and analyzing of both positive and negative impacts associated with a decision.	Business Intelligence	Balanced Scorecard	No Reuse	4
7	Demand Forecasting / Mgmt	Defines the set of capabilities that facilitate the prediction of sufficient production to meet an organization's sales of a product or service.	Business Intelligence	Demand Forecasting / Mgmt	No Reuse	4
8	Decision Support and Planning	Defines the set of capabilities that support the analyze information and predict the impact of decisions before they are made.	Business Intelligence	Decision Support and Planning	No Reuse	4
9	Data Warehouse	Defines the set of capabilities that support the archiving and storage of large volumes of data.	Data Management	Data Warehouse	No Reuse	20
10	Data Recovery	Defines the set of capabilities that support the restoration and stabilization of data sets to a consistent, desired state.	Data Management	Data Recovery	No Reuse	3
11	Data Classification	Defines the set of capabilities that allow the classification of data.	Data Management	Data Classification	No Reuse	2
12	Data Mart	Defines the set of capabilities that support a subset of a data warehouse for a single department or function within an organization.	Data Management	Data Mart	No Reuse	20
13	Data Cleansing	Defines the set of capabilities that support the removal of incorrect or unnecessary characters and data from a data source.	Data Management	Data Cleansing	No Reuse	3
14	Meta Data Management	Defines the set of capabilities that support the maintenance and administration of data that describes data.	Data Management	Meta Data Management	No Reuse	4
15	Extraction and Transformation	Defines the set of capabilities that support the manipulation and change of data.	Data Management	Extraction and Transformation	No Reuse	3
16	Loading and Archiving	Defines the set of capabilities that support the population of a data source with external data.	Data Management	Loading and Archiving	No Reuse	3
17	Data Exchange	Defines the set of capabilities that support the interchange of information between multiple systems or applications; includes verification that transmitted data was received unaltered.	Data Management	Data Exchange	No Reuse	3
18	Program / Project Management	Defines the set of capabilities that manage and control a particular effort of an organization.	Management of Processes	Program / Project Management	No Reuse	8

5. 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. FEA SRM Component: 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. Service Specification: 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.

Row	SRM Component	>Service Area	Service Category	Service Standard	Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name)
1	OLAP	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
2	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
3	Balanced Scorecard	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
4	Query	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
5	Demand Forecasting / Mgmt	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
6	Extraction and Transformation	Component Framework	Data Management	Database Connectivity	Enterprise ETL Servers
7	Data Mart	Service Interface and Integration	Integration	Enterprise Application Integration	Enterprise ETL Servers
8	Data Classification	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Modeling	Erwin
9	Meta Data Management	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Modeling	Erwin
10	Program / Project Management	Service Access and Delivery	Service Requirements	Legislative / Compliance	Microsoft Project
11	Data Exchange	Component Framework	Data Interchange	Data Exchange	Sterling Direct Connect
12	Data Exchange	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Sterling Direct Connect
13	Content Publishing and Delivery	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Content Rendering	tbd
14	Data Mart	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Teradata
15	Data Warehouse	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Teradata
16	Tagging and Aggregation	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Teradata
17	Data Cleansing	Component Framework	Data Management	Database Connectivity	Teradata
18	Data Warehouse	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Storage	Teradata
19	Loading and Archiving	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Storage	Teradata
20	Data Recovery	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Storage	Teradata
21	Decision Support and Planning	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Teradata Performance Monitoring

6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?: yes

6.a. If yes, please describe.: This investment leverages: IT Infrastructure Optimization Line of Business.

PART TWO

RISK

You should perform a risk assessment during the early planning and initial concept phase of the investment's life-cycle, develop a risk-adjusted life-cycle cost estimate and a plan to eliminate, mitigate or manage risk, and be actively managing risk throughout the investment's life-cycle.

Answer the following questions to describe how you are managing investment risks.

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

1.a. If yes, what is the date of the plan?: 2007-06-01

1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?: no

3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:: IDR engages in continuous risk management within the program. IDR Program management works to identify, evaluate, and monitor project risks from both internal and external sources. Through IDR Program management, and via working with CMS investment management, governance structures and processes have been put in place for determining mitigating strategies. One of these strategies is the implementation of ANSI Compliant EVMS for the project. Having an ANSI compliant earned value management system in place will serve as a risk mitigating factor as well as support compliance with expanded e-Gov. The IDR performance measurement baseline for FY07 is being established and will be utilized for reporting in the first period of the next fiscal year. The performance measurement baseline is being established to address both cost and schedule risk as part of the process. IDR will address schedule risk by determining the projects critical path, establishing float, and risk adjusting the schedule based upon most likely, worst case, and best scenarios. A performance measurement baseline governance process will also be put in place to ensure that any changes are understood and controlled at the program level. Initial costs for the IDR investment were analyzed as part of the project business case. These costs are reviewed yearly and any necessary adjustments are made to account for funding discrepancies. Funding is also aligned and updated as appropriate based upon operational budgets as established by the department. Additionally, life-cycle cost risk will be mitigated by establishing management reserve. Management reserve will help to address any unknowns that may occur with respect to budget. Further, IDR is in the process of developing an Earned Value Management Plan (EVMP) as part of the process of complying with ANSI/EIA 748. This EVMP will address all control associated with project budgets including work packages, planning packages, control accounts and the integrated project. Any risks associated with the project will be incorporated at these varying levels. Also, any risk identified in the IDR Risk Management plan will be mapped back to the performance measurement baseline to ensure they have been sufficiently addressed.

COST & SCHEDULE

1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard 748?: no

2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%?: no

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