Exhibit 300 (BY2009) - Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services CMS, Medicare Appeals System (MAS)

1. Date of Submission:

2008-02-04

2. Agency:

009

3. Bureau:

38

4. Name of this Capital Asset:

CMS Medicare Appeals System (MAS)

5. Unique Project Identifier:

009-38-01-02-01-1180-00

6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?

Operations and Maintenance

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

FY2003

8. Provide a brief summary and justification for this investment, including a brief description of how this closes in part or in whole an identified agency performance gap.

The Medicare Appeals and Hearings function ensures that the due process rights of beneficiaries, physicians and other suppliers who are dissatisfied with initial claims and service determinations and subsequent appeal decisions are protected under the Medicare program. In keeping with CMS' Strategic Plan Objectives to provide High Value Health Care as well as Confident and Informed customers, the appeals and hearings function is focused on improving beneficiary satisfaction with programs and services, increasing the usefulness of communications, and maintaining and improving CMS' position as a prudent program administrator and an accountable steward of public funds. In order to achieve a robust and enduring technical solution to all the appeals processing needs, the Medicare Appeals System (MAS) was awarded to a contractor in September 2003. The MAS design supports a unified case tracking system that will facilitate maintenance and transfer of case specific data with regard to fee-for-service and managed care appeals throughout the four levels of the appeals process, i.e., Level 1 appeals: affiliated contractors, Level 2 appeals: QICs, Level 3 appeals: ALJs, and Level 4 appeals: the DAB. In developing the MAS, HHS and SSA worked together to capitalize on SSA's knowledge and experience in developing the case processing management system (CPMS) and avoid unnecessary duplication. In addition to basic case tracking across all levels of Medicare appeals in a unified system, the MAS provides the capability to report on appeals data, enable more accurate and expedient responses to Congressional questions, and provide more precise data for assessment and policy-setting. MAS fulfills these business needs by focusing on data collection, data analysis, and workflow management. The MAS is capable of docketing/calendaring hearings, scheduling expert witnesses for testimony, and providing information on the Medicare appeals workload as it relates to the number of ALJs and support staff required to process appeals. Moreover, the MAS envisions a future environment in which all of the management of the appeal files will be handled electronically. Specifically, the ALJ would have electronic access to all necessary documents, prior decisions, and other relevant information.

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
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?)

This investment introduces e-Government to the Hearing and Appeals process. CMS will ensure appropriate system functionality and availability in a secure, 508-compliant, Web-based interactive fashion. The public will have access to superior services because of the on-line, real-time nature of much of the business. MAS helps medical and legal personnel manage the review process that determines if the provider should be reimbursed for services.

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	9
Software	18
Services	72
Other	0

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

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

Name	Maribel Franey
Phone Number	410-786-0757
Title	Director, Division of 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

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	1.345	0.000	0.000	0.000
Maintenance Budgetary Resources	19.889	4.903	5.574	5.615
Government FTE Cost	0.431	0.000	0.329	0.337
# of FTEs	5	0	3	3

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

yes

2.a. If "yes," how many and in what year?

One, beginning BY08/

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	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of FFS, Medicare Advantage, and Part D appeal types included in system	TBD	100%	TBD
2	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of end user locations performing electronic document imaging	TBD	60%	TBD
3	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard reconsideration appeals adjudicated within 7 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
4	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard expedited appeals adjudicated within 72 hours	TBD	100%	TBD
5	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of standard FFS appeals adjudicated within 60 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
6	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of FFS expedited appeals adjudicated within 72 hours	TBD	100%	TBD
7	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part C pre-service appeals adjudicated within 30 calendar days	TBD	95%	TBD
8	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part C payment appeals adjudicated within 60 calendar days	TBD	95%	TBD
9	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of high risk security findings	TBD	0	TBD
10	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	Percentage of system availability for end users	TBD	97.3%	TBD
11	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of FFS, Medicare Advantage, and Part D appeal types included in system	TBD	100%	TBD
12	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of end user locations performing electronic document imaging	TBD	60%	TBD
13	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard reconsideration appeals adjudicated within 7 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
14	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard expedited appeals adjudicated within 72 hours	TBD	100%	TBD
15	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of standard FFS appeals adjudicated within 60 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
16	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of FFS expedited appeals adjudicated within 72 hours	TBD	100%	TBD
17	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part C pre-service appeals adjudicated within 30 calendar days	TBD	95%	TBD
18	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part C payment appeals adjudicated within 60 calendar days	TBD	95%	TBD
19	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of high risk security findings	TBD	0	TBD
20	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	Percentage of system availability for end users	TBD	97.3%	TBD
21	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of FFS, Medicare Advantage, and Part D appeal types included in system	TBD	100%	TBD
22	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of end user locations performing electronic document imaging	TBD	80%	TBD
23	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard reconsideration appeals adjudicated within 7 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
24	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard expedited appeals adjudicated within 72 hours	TBD	100%	TBD
25	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of standard FFS appeals adjudicated within 60 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
26	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of FFS expedited appeals adjudicated within 72 hours	TBD	100%	TBD
27	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part C pre-service appeals adjudicated within 30 calendar days	TBD	95%	TBD
28	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part C payment appeals adjudicated within 60 calendar days	TBD	95%	TBD
29	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of high risk security findings	TBD	0	TBD
30	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	Percentage of system availability for end users	TBD	97.3%	TBD
31	2011	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of FFS, Medicare Advantage, and Part D appeal types included in system	TBD	100%	TBD
32	2011	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard reconsideration appeals adjudicated within 7 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
33	2011	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of high risk security findings	TBD	0	TBD
34	2011	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	Percentage of system availability for end users	TBD	97.3%	TBD
35	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of FFS, Medicare Advantage, and Part D appeal types included in system	TBD	100%	TBD
36	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard reconsideration appeals adjudicated within 7 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
37	2012	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of high risk security findings	TBD	0	TBD
38	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	Percentage of system availability for end users	TBD	97.3%	TBD
39	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of FFS, Medicare Advantage, and Part D appeal types included in system	TBD	100%	TBD
40	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard reconsideration appeals adjudicated within 7 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
41	2012	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of high risk security findings	TBD	0	TBD
42	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	Percentage of system availability for end users	TBD	97.3%	TBD
43	2013	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Percent of FFS, Medicare Advantage, and Part D appeal types included in system	TBD	100%	TBD
44	2013	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	Percent of Part D standard reconsideration appeals adjudicated within 7 calendar days	TBD	100%	TBD
45	2013	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of high risk security findings	TBD	0	TBD
46	2013	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	Percentage of system availability for end users	TBD	97.3%	TBD

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 Medicare Appeals System (MAS)

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	Reused Component Name	Reused UPI	Internal or External Reuse?	Funding %
1	Cryptography	Support the use and management of ciphers, including encryption decryption processes, to ensure confidentiality and integrity of data.	Security Management	Cryptography			No Reuse	1
2	Identification and Authentication	Defines the set of capabilities that support obtaining information about those parties attempting to log on to a system or application for security purposes and the validation of those users.	Security Management	Identification and Authentication			No Reuse	1
3	Access Control	Access Control - Support the management of permissions for logging onto a computer, application, service, or network; includes user management and role/privilege management.	Security Management	Access Control			No Reuse	1
4	Outbound Correspondence Management	Defines the set of capabilities that manage internally initiated communication between an organization and its stakeholders.	Routing and Scheduling	Outbound Correspondence Management			No Reuse	11
5	Case Management	Defines the set of capabilities that manage the life cycle of a particular claim or investigation within an organization to include creating, routing, tracing, assignment and closing of a case as well as collaboration among case handlers.	Tracking and Workflow	Case Management			No Reuse	11
6	Process Tracking	Defines the set of capabilities that allow the monitoring of activities within the business cycle.	Tracking and Workflow	Process Tracking			No Reuse	11
7	Document Referencing	Defines the set of capabilities that support the redirection to other documents and information for related content.	Document Management	Document Referencing			No Reuse	6
8	Standardized / Canned	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of pre-conceived or pre-written reports.	Reporting	Standardized / Canned			No Reuse	8
9	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	8
10	Ad Hoc	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of dynamic reports on an as needed basis.	Reporting	Ad Hoc			No Reuse	8
11	Data Warehouse	Defines the set of capabilities that support the archiving and storage of large volumes of data.	Data Management	Data Warehouse			No Reuse	5
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	5
13	Extraction and Transformation	Defines the set of capabilities that support the manipulation and change of data.	Data Management	Extraction and Transformation			No Reuse	3
14	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
15	Data Integration	Defines the set of capabilities that support the organization of data from separate data sources into a single source using middleware or application integration and the modification of system data models to capture new information within a single system.	Development and Integration	Data Integration			No Reuse	3
16	Software Development	Defines the set of capabilities that support the creation of both graphical and process application or system software.	Development and Integration	Software Development			No Reuse	3

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	Software Development	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	ActiveX
2	Software Development	Service Interface and Integration	Interface	Service Description / Interface	Application Program Interface (API) / Protocol
3	Extraction and Transformation	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Dependent	Ascent Capture
4	OLAP	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Cognos
5	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Cognos
6	Data Warehouse	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Cognos
7	OLAP	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
8	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
9	Data Warehouse	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos
10	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Integrated Development Environment	Cognos Development Tools
11	OLAP	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos PowerPlay
12	Data Integration	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos PowerPlay
13	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos ReportNet
14	Standardized / Canned	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Cognos ReportNet, OLAP
15	Case Management	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Static Display	HTML
16	Document Referencing	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	IBM Content Manager
17	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Delivery Servers	Application Servers	IBM WebSphere
18	Data Exchange	Component Framework	Data Interchange	Data Exchange	IBM Websphere Business Integrator for Medicare Beneficiary Database; Batch text files for Next Generation Desktop and Health Plan Management System
19	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Integrated Development Environment	IBM WebSphere Studio
20	Case Management	Service Access and Delivery	Access Channels	Web Browser	Internet Explorer
21	Software Development	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java
22	Software Development	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Java Server Pages
23	Case Management	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Java Server Pages (JSP), Microsoft ActiveX
24	Case Management	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Java Server Pages (JSP), Microsoft ActiveX
25	Identification and Authentication	Component Framework	Security	Supporting Security Services	Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
26	Access Control	Component Framework	Security	Supporting Security Services	Lightweight Directory Access Protocol and Siebel
27	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Test Management	LoadRunner
28	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Test Management	Mercury Interactive Test Director
29	Software Development	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Microsoft Visual SourceSafe
30	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Software Configuration Management	MKS Toolkit
31	Data Mart	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Oracle 10g RDBMS
32	Cryptography	Component Framework	Security	Certificates / Digital Signatures	Secure Sockets Layer
33	Cryptography	Component Framework	Security	Supporting Security Services	Secure Sockets Layer
34	Outbound Correspondence Management	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Dependent	Siebel (Document Manager)
35	Process Tracking	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Dependent	Siebel (Workflow Manager)
36	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Integrated Development Environment	Siebel Development Tools
37	Case Management	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Dependent	Siebel e-Healthcare (Application Object Manager)
38	Case Management	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	Sun Solaris 9
39	Case Management	Service Access and Delivery	Delivery Channels	Intranet	Via internal CMS network
40	Case Management	Service Access and Delivery	Delivery Channels	Extranet	Via Medicare Data Center Network (MDCN)
41	Case Management	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	Windows 2000

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

no

1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

yes

1.a. If yes, what is the date of the plan?

2007-01-14

1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?

no

1. Was operational analysis conducted?

yes

1.a. If yes, provide the date the analysis was completed.

2007-07-31

What were the results of your operational analysis?

The maintenance contractor submits weekly status reports and monthly EVM reports. Each of these reports provides an opportunity for the project team to analyze contractor performance on cost and schedule. Additionally, the team meets with the business owners twice per month. These meetings allow the business owners to provide feedback on the system performance and whether or not MAS is helping them fulfill their appeals processing capability. These reviews have indicated that contractor performance is acceptable and that MAS is succeeding in helping users execute the appeals process. In addition, this project is being monitored bi-weekly by executive management.