| | Exhibit 300 (BY2010) for Grants.gov - Find and ApplyPART ONE
OVERVIEW
- 1. Date of Submission:
- 2009-04-10
- 2. Agency:
- 009
- 3. Bureau:
- 00
- 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
- Grants.gov - Find and Apply
- 5. Unique Project Identifier:
- 009-00-01-99-01-0160-24
- 6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2010?
- Multi-Agency Collaboration
- 7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?
- FY2002
- 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.
- Grants.gov's mission is to provide a single website for the public to electronically find and apply for federal discretionary grants. Prior to this initiative, grant processes varied widely across agencies and programs. As a result, the process of finding and applying for Federal grant opportunities was complicated, burdensome and costly. Grants.gov, mandated by the 2002 President's Management Agenda (PMA) and Public Law 106-107, has transformed the federal grants environment by streamlining and standardizing public-facing grant processes, thus facilitating an easier grants submission process, simplifying grants management and eliminating redundancies. Grants.gov enables the grant community, which includes over 1 million organizations, to search for grant opportunities and download, complete and electronically submit applications for the over $450 billion worth of grant awards distributed annually by 26 Federal agencies. Grants.gov empowers smaller agencies with limited resources to expand their grant making capabilities and improve their reach, while enhancing larger agencies with process standardization, cost savings and increased visibility. Given the government-wide scope of the initiative, costs are distributed among the 26 federal grant-making agencies, each providing support commensurate with its size. The FY09 funding algorithm was approved by the Grants Executive Board (GEB). Additionally, the GEB is developing a fee for service model, to better reflect each agency's utilization of Grants.gov. Grants.gov is a mixed life cycle program, steadily progressing towards steady-state service. Enhancements to the system through FY 2009 will include the creation of new grants related forms and improvements in system-system functionality for both agencies and applicants. These enhancements, building upon the existing, distinguished service of Grants.gov, will ensure that the program continues to advance the objectives of Public Law 106-107 and the PMA, promote the goals of the agencies and programs, and champion the public as they seek to find and apply for federal discretionary grants.
- 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?
- Waiver Issued
- 11.b. When was the Program/Project Manager Assigned?
- 2009-03-23
- 11.c. What date did the Program/Project Manager receive the FACP/PM certification? If the certification has not been issued, what is the anticipated date for certification?
- 2009-07-31
- 12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project.
- yes
- 12.a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)?
- yes
- 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?)
- Grants.gov advances the Expanded Electronic Government agenda by simplifying the Federal government grant process. Grants.gov is a one-stop site for 26 agencies' discretionary grant opportunities. The site minimizes agency redundancies and maximizes agency interoperability. This investment has made citizen's access to grants simple and more efficient with more than 150,000 grant applications received electronically in 2007.
- 14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)?
- no
- 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)?
- yes
- 19. Is this a financial management system?
- no
- 19.a.2. If no, what does it address?
- Grants.gov's mission is to provide a single website for the public to electronically find and apply for federal discretionary grants, funded by the 26 federal grant-making agencies. Grants.gov enables the grant community, which includes over 1 million organizations, to search for grant opportunities and download, complete and electronically submit applications for the over $450 billion worth of grant awards distributed annually by 26 Federal agencies.
- 20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 100%)
| Area | Percentage |
|---|
| Hardware | 5 | | Software | 31 | | Services | 48 | | Other | 16 |
- 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?
- yes
- 22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions.
| Name | Terry Hurst | | Phone Number | 202-205-3514 | | Title | OS Senior Privacy Official | | Email | Terry.Hurst@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?
- no
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 -2007 | PY 2008 | CY 2009 | BY 2010 |
|---|
| Planning Budgetary Resources | 0.250 | 0.200 | 0.200 | 0.200 | | Acquisition Budgetary Resources | 2.450 | 1.790 | 1.402 | 1.178 | | Maintenance Budgetary Resources | 9.256 | 10.058 | 9.947 | 10.128 | | Government FTE Cost | 1.100 | 1.400 | 1.437 | 1.480 | | # of FTEs | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
- 2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?
- no
- 3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.
- The original budget request was 11.63 million anticipating change to Grants.gov business paradigm, at that time the Grants Executive Board elected to keep the FY2010 budget consistent with the FY2009 budget and thus elected 12.986 million. The FY09 and FY10 budget will support the following work: E-Authentication for Grantees, Development and Clearance of New Forms, Standardization and Conversion of Existing Forms, Community Outreach, and Program/System Operations and Maintenance.
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 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Information Management | # of grants announcements posted in Grants.gov (Active Postings) | 1,481 (6/30/04) | Maintain within 5% (1,407 - 1,555 Active Postings) | 2,026 (8/28/05) | | 2 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Information Management | # of grant applications received electronically | 796 (6/30/04) | 15,000 | 15,296 (8/30/05) | | 3 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | New Customers and Market Penetration | # of grant-making agencies publishing grant opportunities on Grants.gov | 26 (6/30/04) | Maintain 100% (26 agencies) | 26 | | 4 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | # of agencies posting Apply packages | 12 (6/30/04) | 26 | 24 (8/30/05) | | 5 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | # of grant programs available for electronic application through Grants.gov | 143 (6/30/04) | 300 grant programs available | 1,456 (8/30/05) | | 6 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | # of visitors to Grants.gov | 1,388,209/mo (6/30/04) | 2,000,000/mo | 11,034,627/mo (7/30/05) | | 7 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | Average # of hits per day | 174,329 (6/30/04) | 250,000 per day | 342,669 /day (7/30/05) | | 8 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | # of Email messages sent per week | 430,158 (6/30/04) | 630,000 per week | 1,187,323 /week (7/30/05) | | 9 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | # of Grants.gov registered users (AOR) | 1,018 (6/30/04) | 2,000 | 14,005 (7/30/05) | | 10 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | % of Grant Community Members that feel Grants.gov makes the grant application process better | 57% (6/30/04) | 70% | 59% (7/30/05) | | 11 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | % of Grantors that feel Grants.gov makes the grant application process better | 31% (6/30/04) | 50% | 44% (7/30/05) | | 12 | 2005 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Technology | External Data Sharing | % of reusable information per grant application | 83% (6/30/04) | Maintain within 10% (73% - 93%) reusable information | 88% (7/30/05) | | 13 | 2006 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Technology | External Data Sharing | # of grants announcements published in Grants.gov per fiscal year (Active and Archived Postings) | 3,300 (EOY FY05 Estimate) | Maintain 100% (3,300) | 2,417 (8/6/06) | | 14 | 2006 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | # of applications received electronically | 15,296 (8/30/05) | 45,000 | 90,045 | | 15 | 2006 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | # of agencies posting Apply packages | 24 (8/30/05) | 26 | 26 | | 16 | 2006 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Frequency and Depth | # of discretionary grant programs available for electronic application through Grants.gov | 1,456 (8/30/05) | 2,400 | 3,098 | | 17 | 2006 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | % of Grant community who are satisfied with Grants.gov | 59% (7/30/05) | 80% | 56% | | 18 | 2006 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | % of Grantors who are satisfied with Grants.gov | 44% (7/30/05) | 65% | 56% | | 19 | 2007 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Technology | External Data Sharing | # of applications received electronically in the Fiscal Year | 75,566 (8/7/06) | 130,000 | 153,930 (7/16/07) | | 20 | 2007 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Information Management | # of agencies posting Apply packages | 26 (8/7/096) Maintain | 26 | 26 (7/16/07) | | 21 | 2007 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Compliance | # of discretionary grant programs available for electronic application through Grants.gov for the Fiscal Year | 1,895 (8/7/06) | 3,200 | 2,604 (7/16/07) | | 22 | 2007 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Customer Services | Overall customer satisfaction with the Grants.gov site. (Foresee Tool) | .57 (7/24/06) | 60 | 61 (7/16/07) | | 23 | 2007 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Participation | Likeliness of the Grants Community to use Grants.gov as their primary resource (Foresee Tool) | .63 (7/27/06) | 70 | 64 (7/16/07) | | 24 | 2007 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | New Customers and Market Penetration | Likeliness of the Grants Community to return to the Grants.gov site (Foresee Tool) | .75 (7/27/06) | 85 | 78 (7/16/07) | | 25 | 2007 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Retention | Users ability to accomplish what they wanted on the Grants.gov site (Foresee Tool) | .60 (7/27/06) | 70 | 63 (7/16/07) | | 26 | 2008 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Information Management | % of discretionary grant opportunities available for electronic application through grants.gov | 83% | 100% | 100% (2nd Qtr.) | | 27 | 2008 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | Score based on 0 to 100 scale using ACSI's scientific methodology- index from multi-item satisfaction questions & weightings to maximize causation between the drivers of satisfaction and satisfaction outcomes- not a percentage of satisfied visitors | 60 | 65 | 84% (8/2/08) | | 28 | 2008 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Participation | # of Authorized Organization Representatives (AOR) on Grants.gov | 52,106 | 70,147 | 97,522 (11/26/07) | | 29 | 2008 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Compliance | % of agencies posting discretionary grant opportunities of Grants.gov | 100% | 100% | 100% (3/27/08) | | 30 | 2008 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Technology | External Data Sharing | # of grant applications received electronically on grants.gov | 160,000 | 170,000 | 179,677 (8/4/08) | | 31 | 2009 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Information Management | % of discretionary grant opportunities available for electronic application through grants.gov | 100% | 100% | TBD | | 32 | 2009 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | Score based on 0 to 100 scale using ACSI's scientific methodology- index from multi-item satisfaction questions & weightings to maximize causation between the drivers of satisfaction and satisfaction outcomes- not a percentage of satisfied visitors | 65 | 50 | TBD | | 33 | 2009 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Participation | # of Authorized Organization Representatives (AOR) on Grants.gov | 70,147 | 159,180 | TBD | | 34 | 2009 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Compliance | % of agencies posting discretionary grant opportunities of Grants.gov | 100% | 100% | TBD | | 35 | 2009 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Technology | External Data Sharing | # of grant applications received electronically on grants.gov | 170,000 | 125,385 | TBD | | 36 | 2010 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Information Management | % of discretionary grant opportunities available for electronic application through grants.gov | 100% | 100% | TBD | | 37 | 2010 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | Score based on 0 to 100 scale using ACSI's scientific methodology- index from multi-item satisfaction questions & weightings to maximize causation between the drivers of satisfaction and satisfaction outcomes- not a percentage of satisfied visitors | 65 | 67 | TBD | | 38 | 2010 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Participation | # of Authorized Organization Representatives (AOR) on Grants.gov | 73,654 | 77,336 | TBD | | 39 | 2010 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Compliance | % of agencies posting discretionary grant opportunities of Grants.gov | 100% | 100% | TBD | | 40 | 2010 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Technology | External Data Sharing | # of grant applications received electronically on grants.gov | 180,000 | 190,000 | TBD | | 41 | 2011 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Information Management | % of discretionary grant opportunities available for electronic application through grants.gov | 100% | 100% | TBD | | 42 | 2011 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | Score based on 0 to 100 scale using ACSI's scientific methodology- index from multi-item satisfaction questions & weightings to maximize causation between the drivers of satisfaction and satisfaction outcomes- not a percentage of satisfied visitors | 65 | 67 | TBD | | 43 | 2011 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Participation | # of Authorized Organization Representatives (AOR) on Grants.gov | 77,336 | 81,202 | TBD | | 44 | 2011 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Compliance | % of agencies posting discretionary grant opportunities of Grants.gov | 100% | 100% | TBD | | 45 | 2011 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Technology | External Data Sharing | # of grant applications received electronically on grants.gov | 190,000 | 200,000 | TBD | | 46 | 2012 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Mission and Business Results | Information Management | % of discretionary grant opportunities available for electronic application through grants.gov | 100% | 100% | TBD | | 47 | 2012 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Customer Results | Customer Satisfaction | Score based on 0 to 100 scale using ACSI's scientific methodology- index from multi-item satisfaction questions & weightings to maximize causation between the drivers of satisfaction and satisfaction outcomes- not a percentage of satisfied visitors | 65 | 67 | TBD | | 48 | 2012 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Participation | # of Authorized Organization Representatives (AOR) on Grants.gov | 81,202 | 85,262 | TBD | | 49 | 2012 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Processes and Activities | Compliance | % of agencies posting discretionary grant opportunities of Grants.gov | 100% | 100% | TBD | | 50 | 2012 | Effective Management of Human Capital/Information Technology/Resources | Technology | External Data Sharing | # of grant applications received electronically on grants.gov | 200,000 | 210,000 | 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.
- Grants.gov - Find and Apply
- 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 | HHS Grants.gov - Find and Apply | The Grants.gov system (www.grants.gov) is the Federal government's single site for the public to Find and Apply for Federal discretionary grants. | Development and Integration | Enterprise Application Integration | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 2 | Customer Surveys | Implemented real-time, on-line user surveys to collect user opinions using American Customer Satisfaction Index | Customer Relationship Management | Surveys | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 3 | Call Center Management | Contact center is available weekdays from 7am - 9pm EST | Customer Relationship Management | Call Center Management | | | No Reuse | 12 | | 4 | System Alerts and Email Notifications | Users establish profiles to receive updates via email (Find and Apply) | Customer Preferences | Alerts and Notifications | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 5 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Development and Integration | Enterprise Application Integration | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 6 | Content Review and Approval | E-Forms (IMB Workplace Forms) provide real-time edits on the data that is entered | Content Management | Content Review and Approval | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 7 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Forms Management | Forms Modification | | | No Reuse | 2 | | 8 | Application Registration | Grants.gov uses CCR to determine a users organizational affiliation | Customer Initiated Assistance | Reservations / Registration | | | No Reuse | 6 | | 9 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Document Management | Library / Storage | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 10 | Inbound Correspondence Management | Agencies can post application packages and potential applicants can download, fill out, and submit the packages back to agencies | Routing and Scheduling | Inbound Correspondence Management | | | No Reuse | 5 | | 11 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Agencies can post application packages and potential applicants can download, fill out, and submit the packages back to agencies | Routing and Scheduling | Outbound Correspondence Management | | | No Reuse | 5 | | 12 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Knowledge Management | Information Sharing | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 13 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Security Management | Identification and Authentication | | | No Reuse | 6 | | 14 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Knowledge Management | Information Retrieval | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 15 | Customer Feedback | Focus groups and phone calls and email through contact center are used to elicit stakeholder and customer feedback | Customer Relationship Management | Customer Feedback | | | No Reuse | 5 | | 16 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Security Management | Cryptography | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 17 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Forms Management | Forms Creation | | | No Reuse | 2 | | 18 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Development and Integration | Data Integration | | | No Reuse | 17 | | 19 | Self-Service | Automated federal grant application process | Customer Initiated Assistance | Self-Service | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 20 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Security Management | Access Control | | | No Reuse | 6 | | 21 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Data Management | Meta Data Management | | | No Reuse | 6 | | 22 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Search | Query | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 23 | Content Publishing and Delivery | Agencies can control the publication of opportunities and grant applications on Grants.gov | Content Management | Content Publishing and Delivery | | | No Reuse | 17 | | 24 | OS ASRT Grants.gov | | Management of Processes | Quality Management | | | No Reuse | 5 | | 25 | Grants.gov website Personalization | Profile is maintained with stored preferences | Customer Preferences | Personalization | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 26 | Grants.gov WEbsite Navigation Help | Grants.gov website includes a help function with links, faqs, and automated flash tutorial sessions to assist customers. | Customer Initiated Assistance | Online Help | | | No Reuse | 0 | | 27 | Content Authoring | Agencies can create customized application packages using a variety of existing forms and also create customized opportunity postings | Content Management | Content Authoring | | | No Reuse | 5 | | 28 | Grants.gov Content Publishing and Management | Strict configuration management processes in place to manage content | Content Management | Content Publishing and Delivery | | | No Reuse | 0 |
- 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 | Enterprise Application Integration | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Windows Internet Explorer by: Microsoft Corporation | | 2 | Enterprise Application Integration | Component Framework | Security | Supporting Security Services | Standard Security Label for Information Transfer by: National Institute of Standards and Technology | | 3 | Enterprise Application Integration | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Structured Query Language by: International Organization for Standardization | | 4 | Enterprise Application Integration | Component Framework | User Presentation / Interface | Content Rendering | Hyper Text Markup Language by: International Organization for Standardization | | 5 | Enterprise Application Integration | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Test Management | Microsoft Sharepoint by: Microsoft Corporation | | 6 | Enterprise Application Integration | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Apache by: Apache Software Foundation | | 7 | Enterprise Application Integration | Component Framework | User Presentation / Interface | Dynamic Server-Side Display | Java Server Pages by: Sun Microsystems, Inc. | | 8 | Enterprise Application Integration | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 by: The Internet Engineering Task Force | | 9 | Enterprise Application Integration | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Oracle Database 10g Release 2 Enterprise Edition by: Oracle Corporation | | 10 | Enterprise Application Integration | Component Framework | Security | Supporting Security Services | Java 2 Enterprise Edition by: Sun Microsystems, Inc. | | 11 | Call Center Management | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Other Electronic Channels | Siebel Development Tools by: Oracle Corporation | | 12 | Alerts and Notifications | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Collaboration / Communications | Unix System Services by: International Business Machines Corp. | | 13 | Forms Modification | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Storage | EMC Captiva by: EMC Corporation | | 14 | Reservations / Registration | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | Security Assertion Markup Language by: OASIS Security Services Technical Committee | | 15 | Reservations / Registration | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | VeriSign SSL Certificates by: Verisign | | 16 | Library / Storage | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Oracle by: Oracle Corporation | | 17 | Library / Storage | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | EMC Documentum Webtop 5.3 sp2 by: EMC Corporation | | 18 | Inbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Test Management | Java Server Pages by: Sun Microsystems, Inc. | | 19 | Inbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | Sun Server by: TBD | | 20 | Inbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | Apache by: Apache Software Foundation | | 21 | Inbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | EMC SAN Products by: EMC Corporation | | 22 | Inbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | Oracle by: Oracle Corporation | | 23 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Test Management | Nessus by: Tenable Network Security | | 24 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | Apache by: Apache Software Foundation | | 25 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | EMC SAN Products by: EMC Corporation | | 26 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | Oracle by: Oracle Corporation | | 27 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | Sun Server by: TBD | | 28 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Test Management | Apache by: Apache Software Foundation | | 29 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Test Management | PVCS Tracker by: Synergex | | 30 | Outbound Correspondence Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Software Engineering | Test Management | Microsoft Sharepoint by: Microsoft Corporation | | 31 | Information Sharing | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Windows Internet Explorer by: Microsoft Corporation | | 32 | Information Sharing | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 by: World Wide Web Consortium | | 33 | Identification and Authentication | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | Security Assertion Markup Language by: OASIS Security Services Technical Committee | | 34 | Identification and Authentication | Service Access and Delivery | Service Requirements | Authentication / Single Sign-on | VeriSign SSL Certificates by: Verisign | | 35 | Information Retrieval | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | Sun Server by: TBD | | 36 | Information Retrieval | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Servers / Computers | EMC SAN Products by: EMC Corporation | | 37 | Cryptography | Component Framework | Security | Supporting Security Services | Secure Sockets Layer by: Netscape Communications Corporation | | 38 | Forms Creation | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Storage | EMC Captiva by: EMC Corporation | | 39 | Data Integration | Component Framework | Data Interchange | Data Exchange | Oracle by: Oracle Corporation | | 40 | Data Integration | Component Framework | Data Interchange | Data Exchange | EMC Documentum Webtop 5.3 sp2 by: EMC Corporation | | 41 | Data Integration | Component Framework | Data Interchange | Data Exchange | Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 by: World Wide Web Consortium | | 42 | Self-Service | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Collaboration / Communications | Unix System Services by: International Business Machines Corp. | | 43 | Access Control | Component Framework | Security | Supporting Security Services | Java 2 Enterprise Edition by: Sun Microsystems, Inc. | | 44 | Meta Data Management | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Storage | Oracle by: Oracle Corporation | | 45 | Query | Component Framework | Data Management | Database Connectivity | Oracle by: Oracle Corporation | | 46 | Content Publishing and Delivery | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Apache by: Apache Software Foundation | | 47 | Quality Management | Service Interface and Integration | Interoperability | Data Transformation | EMC Symmetrix by: EMC Corporation | | 48 | Personalization | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Collaboration / Communications | Unix System Services by: International Business Machines Corp. | | 49 | Online Help | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 by: The Internet Engineering Task Force | | 50 | Online Help | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Windows Internet Explorer by: Microsoft Corporation | | 51 | Content Publishing and Delivery | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Embedded Technology Devices | Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 by: The Internet Engineering Task Force | | 52 | Content Publishing and Delivery | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Hardware / Infrastructure | Embedded Technology Devices | Java Server Pages by: Sun Microsystems, Inc. | | 53 | Surveys | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | TBD | | 54 | Enterprise Application Integration | Service Interface and Integration | Integration | Enterprise Application Integration | TBD | | 55 | Content Review and Approval | Service Interface and Integration | Interoperability | Data Format / Classification | TBD | | 56 | Customer Feedback | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | TBD | | 57 | Content Authoring | Service Interface and Integration | Interoperability | Data Format / Classification | TBD |
- 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.
- The Grants.gov system provides a component that is leveraged across the federal government. The Grants.gov program maintains a global XML schema (data dictionary) that enables: *Applicant System to System support. 151 distinct organizations have submitted applications using XML and Web Services. *Agency System to System support. 37 federal agencies system are integrated with Grants.gov for pulling application to their agency systems *Grants.gov to receive more than 150,000 grant applications electronically The Grants.gov program reuses existing components provided by other Agencies: *E-Authentication E-Gov - Grants.gov works with the E-Authentication E-Gov initiative to implement SAML technology to fulfill organization/agency authentication requirements. Grants.gov is the first E-Gov client for another E-Gov initiative. *Central Contractor Registration (CCR) - Grants.gov utilizes CCR for credentialing services - the primary vendor database for the U.S. Federal Government. *Contact Center Services - Grants.gov utilizes FirstGov.gov's USA Services for Tier 1 support by leveraging an existing HHS contract. *American Customer Satisfaction Survey - Grants.gov utilizes Department of Treasury's American Customer Satisfaction Index tool (ForeSee), which is used by other initiatives such as FirstGov.gov, GovBenefits.gov and USAJobs.gov. The ForeSee tool allows Grants.gov to survey the Grants.gov users to better understand usage of the website by the grantee community.
PART FOUR
MULTI-AGENCY COLLABORATION
- 1. As a joint exhibit 300, please identify the agency stakeholders. Provide the partner agency and partner agency approval date for this joint exhibit 300.
| Row | Partner Agency | Joint exhibit approval date |
|---|
| 1 | 009 | 2008-09-05 | | 2 | 021 | 2008-09-05 | | 3 | 018 | 2008-09-05 | | 4 | 025 | 2008-09-05 | | 5 | 005 | 2008-09-05 | | 6 | 012 | 2008-09-05 | | 7 | 184 | 2008-09-05 | | 8 | 024 | 2008-09-05 | | 9 | 422 | 2008-09-05 | | 10 | 020 | 2008-09-05 | | 11 | 007 | 2008-09-04 | | 12 | 011 | 2008-09-05 | | 13 | 019 | 2008-09-05 | | 14 | 006 | 2008-09-05 | | 15 | 026 | 2008-09-05 | | 16 | 010 | 2008-09-05 | | 17 | 485 | 2008-09-05 | | 18 | 029 | 2008-09-05 | | 19 | 474 | 2008-09-03 | | 20 | 014 | 2008-09-05 | | 21 | 028 | 2008-09-05 | | 22 | 418 | 2008-09-05 | | 23 | 417 | 2008-09-05 | | 24 | 016 | 2008-09-05 | | 25 | 015 | 2008-09-02 | | 26 | 393 | 2008-09-02 |
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?
- 2007-07-01
- 1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?
- yes
- 1.c. If yes, describe any significant changes:
- The risk register has been updated to reflect the identification and mitigation of new risks, including those arising out of technical issues with Adobe Reader, dependencies on CCR, and increase in utilization of the system due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The list has also been updated to close some risks from the program such as dependencies on eAuthentication, which Grants.gov no longer uses, and to reclassify other risks as mechanisms have been put in place to manage them. Grants.gov depends on Central Contractor Registration (CCR), an external system, for successful operations. All applicant organizations that wish to submit grant applications through Grants.gov must be registered with CCR, which is managed by DoD. Grants.gov PMO identified that an outage in the CCR system would adversely affect a dependent component in Grants.gov. The PMO now receives immediate incident reports from the Systems Integrator of any outages so external systems, if responsible, can be notified for corrective action. Grants.gov applicants rely on Adobe Reader to prepare and submit grant applications. Grants.gov mitigated the risk of problems attributed to Adobe Reader version incompatibility by fostering greater communications with Adobe and participating in Adobe's beta program to allow forms to be tested with new versions of Reader before it is released to the public. The Recovery Act promises to increase usage of Grants.gov to unspecified levels, which could possibly be above the intended design of the system. Grants.gov is actively mitigating this risk by conducting performance testing, performing system upgrades, and implementing or revising functionality and procedures.
COST & SCHEDULE
You should also periodically be measuring the performance of operational assets against the baseline established during the planning or full acquisition phase (i.e., operational analysis), and be properly operating and maintaining the asset to maximize its useful life. Operational analysis may identify the need to redesign or modify an asset by identifying previously undetected faults in design, construction, or installation/integration, highlighting whether actual operation and maintenance costs vary significantly from budgeted costs, or documenting that the asset is failing to meet program requirements.
Answer the following questions about the status of this investment. Include information on all appropriate capital assets supporting this investment except for assets in which the performance information is reported in a separate exhibit 300. - 1. Are you using EVM to manage this investment?
- yes
- 1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard 748?
- yes
- 1.c. If N/A, please provide date operational analysis was conducted and a brief summary of the results?
Question #2 is NOT applicable for capital assets with ONLY O&M - 2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%?
- no
- 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
- no
|
|
|