Document 3N3bzVYpvqMxG2oVp8gXrggYn

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (GCERC) Grants System Acquisition Analysis o fAlternatives April 20, 2018 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Management of grants is central to the work of the RESTORE Council. The RESTORE Act established a Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund to receive 80 percent of the civil and administrative Clean Water Act penalties resulting from the Deepwater Elorizon oil spill. A portion of those funds will be managed by the Council as federal assistance to support the restoration goals of the Comprehensive Plan. To achieve those goals the Council requires a robust grants management tool to facilitate performance of assistance objectives and to ensure compliance with federal assistance regulations. The Council's current grants management system - the Restoration Application and Award Management System (RAAMS) - is built on a platform that will soon be terminated by the commercial vendor that owns it. The exact timeframe for termination is uncertain, but service would not continue beyond the remaining two option years the Council has on the contract. It is imperative to quickly identify a replacement for the grants management system and to initiate the work of implementing and transitioning to that system. This Analysis of Alternatives, and the recommendation contained herein, is the work of the Council System Acquisition Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force was stood up by the Steering Committee for the purpose of investigating and recommending a replacement grants management system. The Task Force includes staff level representatives from state and federal Council members and members of the Council professional staff. The Task Force utilized publicly available documentation, subject matter experts at other federal agencies, targeted interviews and system demonstrations to gather information and conduct this analysis. After careful consideration of the baseline requirements and desired features of a Council grants management system and evaluating available alternatives for functionality, cost, and comparative risk, the Task Force recommends that the Steering Committee select GrantSolutions. GrantSolutions is a federal shared service owned and operated by the Department of Health and Human Services and is available to the Council by way of an Interagency Agreement. It is the consensus opinion of the Task Force that GrantSolutions offers the best combination of functionality and cost and will mitigate the most risk to this central line of Council business. For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00002 REVISION SUMMARY Version l'printed In: 1.0 Joshua Easton 1.1 Joshua Easton 1.2 Joshua Easton 1.3 Jeremy Roseboom 1.4 Joshua Easton l)nte 15-March-2018 9-April-2018 17-April-2018 18-April-2018 20-April-2018 C'hnnjie.s Marie Initial Draft Revision Revision Revision FINAL For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 2 Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00003 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION................................................................... 4 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND AND RESTORE ACT ALIGNMENT.................................................. 4 SELECTION METHODOLOGY................................................................................... 5 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES...................................................................................... 5 PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE..................................................................................... 5 APPROACH OF THE TASK FORCE............................................................................... 6 SUMMARY OF INITIAL INVESTIGATION.............................................................. 7 FIRST STEPS..................................................................................................................... 7 ELIMINATION OF COTS OPTIONS............................................................................... 8 MOVING FORWARD WITH THE FINAL ANALYSIS................................................. 8 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES................................................................................. 9 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................................. 9 CONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS AND FEATURES......................................10 COMPARISON OF COSTS............................................................................................ 11 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................................13 RECOMMENDATION................................................................................................. 15 For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 3 Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00004 INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION PURPOSE This document is an analysis and business case for the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council's (the "Council") to select a replacement grants management system. The ultimate purpose is to provide the Council Steering Committee with a recommendation for procurement. BACKGROUND AND RESTORE ACT ALIGNMENT The Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act) established the RESTORE Council.1The RESTORE Act dedicates 80 percent of all administrative and civil penalties related to the Deepwater Horizon spill to a Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund) and outlines a structure by which the funds can be utilized to restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy of the Gulf Coast region.2 The Council has oversight of the expenditure of 60 percent of the funds made available from the Trust Fund.3 Those funds are managed as grants and interagency agreements to eligible recipients. In 2014, the Council selected EasyGrantsTM4 as an electronic grants management system to support the federal assistance objectives of the RESTORE Act. Working with the vendor and other contractual support, the Council developed the Restoration Assistance and Award Management System (RAAMS) on the EasyGrants platform. Applicants to and recipients of Council programs are required to utilize RAAMS for grant and interagency agreement applications, and to perform grant or agreement administrative tasks. Council applicants and recipients use RAAMS to: Submit Proposals5 Submit Applications Accept a Grant or IAA Request Revisions and Amendments Submit Reports Submit Supporting Documentation 1RESTORE Act; Subtitle F of Public Law 112-14133, 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(C)(i). 2 RESTORE Act; Subtitle F of Public Law 112-141, Sec. 1602(b). 3 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)A and (t)(3)(A)(i). 4 Alturn, Inc. 1801 Robert Fulton Drive, Suite 450, Reston, VA 20191. 5 Planned for submission of next round of the Restore Council Comprehensive Plan Component, Funded Priorities List. For Official Use Only 4 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00005  Close-Out Awards On September 25, 2017, the Council received notice from Altum that Altum would be sun-setting the Easygrants platform on which RAAMS is built. The Council must now identify a replacement grants management system that ideally will support all of the general functions identified above in the most efficient manner feasible, while facilitating compliance with applicable law and enabling the Council to carry out its responsibility of oversight for these federal funds. SELECTION METHODOLOGY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES Building on the Council's previous efforts to select, deploy, and configure RAAMS, as well as the analysis and the recommendations of the Council's Grants 360 Working Group, the acquisition effort has focused on reviewing and revising solution requirements, investigating alternative solutions, and developing a recommendation for acquisition to achieve the following objectives: Enhance and simplify the assistance lifecycle experience for all participants, including grant managers, recipients, and sub-recipients. Improve compliance by reducing the burden to implement changing regulations and statutes (e.g., 2 CFR 200, DATA Act, GREAT ACT, etc.), improving the ability to address existing findings and recommendations, and improving financial auditing capabilities. Improve timeliness and accountability of funding to support recipients and the public by providing visibility into authoritative data and integration with enterprise financial systems. Streamline and improve business performance by improving business processes, work flows, analysis, reporting, and performance monitoring, and by providing accurate and timely data to stakeholders to support decision-making. Migration of processes and data from RAAMS to include maintaining current grant files and associated data. PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE The RESTORE Act designates the heads of six federal agencies and the Governors of five Gulf Coast States as Council members and vests the appointment of Council members in the President.6 The Act also provides that the State members of the Council (State members) "select" one of the federal members to serve as Chair and vests 6 33 U.S.C. 132l(t)(2)(C)(ii) For Official Use Only 5 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00006 appointment of the Chair in the President.7The Council has established a Steering Committee, pursuant to the Council's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), with the authority to establish committees or working groups to carry out the work of the Council.8 The Council System Acquisition Task Force (Task Force) is one such working group, established for the purpose of conducting the analysis of alternatives for a replacement grant system. The Task Force provides this report to the Steering Committee, under the advisement of the Council Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The Task Force Members are supported by Task Force Core Staff, who are individuals from the Council Staff. The Task Force consists of representatives from state and federal Council members, and program, grant, and administrative Council Staff. The Task Force is facilitated by Core Council Staff. The Task Force held regular meetings, conducted working sessions, reviewed content, and decided on next steps or recommendations. The Task Force operates on consensus. A scribe kept notes for each meeting. APPROACH OF THE TASKFORCE In order to efficiently and effectively manage federal awards, federal assistance programs must comply with various statutes, regulations and policy, and must interface with a variety of financial management systems. The Task Force developed a prioritized list of functional requirements and features, conducted an analysis of alternatives for fulfilling those requirements, and now recommends a preferred alternative on the basis of costs, benefits, and risk. When considering alternative solutions, the Task Force has taken into account recent changes to the federal assistance domain, such as the focus on improved financial and performance management, emphasized in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Grants Guidance9, and the requirements to make information on federal expenditures more easily accessible and transparent found in the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).10The Task Force has also considered the findings of the 360 Working Group, which was stood up by the Steering Committee in 2017 to review the Council's grant systems, procedures and policies. The Task Force utilized a number of techniques and resources to carry out the search. 7 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(C)(iv) 8RESTORE Council Standard Operating Procedures 2.4.2 (l)(a). 9 2 C.F.R. 200 10 The DATA Act, Pub.L. 113-101. For Official Use Only 6 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00007 These included: A review of prior acquisition history for similar or identical requirements. Utilizing knowledgeable individuals in other federal agencies and industry. A review of recent market research to meet similar or identical requirements. Participation in interactive, on-line communications with federal shared service owners. On-site visits with federal shared service providers and clients of those providers. SUMMARY OF INITIAL INVESTIGATION FIRST STEPS The Task Force initially focused on understanding the original baseline requirements that informed the decision to acquire RAAMS and updating those requirements from the experience of Council grant operations. The Task Force then utilized a publicly available industry report11that provided an overview and comparison of a large number of commercial off the shelf (COTS) grants systems. The analysis in that report compared with the baseline requirements provided an efficient means for the Task Force to narrow its consideration to a small number of systems for further consideration. The Task Force also reached out to three other federal agencies that had in the recent past transitioned to or were currently in transition to a federal shared service, to learn from their experiences.12 In January 2018, a subset of the Task Force then arranged for in person meetings in DC with the representatives of two federal shared services and one COTS system. However, the short lapse in federal funding required that the team reschedule the meetings, and in the attempt to reschedule, the COTS system owners were non-responsive and the Task Force did not continue to gather information for COTS systems. In February 2018, the Task Force subgroup traveled to DC and had in-depth meetings with the owners of the shared services and a federal agency client of each service.13 11 A Consumers Guide to Grants Management Systems, Andrei, K., Bernard, C. et al, May 2017. 12 Conference calls with EDA (October 24, 2017), EPA (February 5, 2018) and Denali Commission (March 1, 2018). 13 The Task Force met with representatives o f USDA OCFO (owners of ezFedGrants), USDA Specialty Crop Block Grant Program - Agricultural Marketing Serv ice (client of ezFedGrants), HHS (owner of GrantSolutions), and Treasury' OGCR (client of GrantSolutions) February 20-22, 2018. For Official Use Only 7 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00008 ELIMINATION OF COTS OPTIONS After the meetings in Washington, D C., the Task Force considered a number of factors, including elements of risk that would be associated with a COTS option. Those considerations included: The potential risk that another commercial vendor could make a business decision that it would no longer support the system. A COTS system, as opposed to a federal shared service, would shift the cost of compliance with future grant regulations solely to the Council. A federal shared service would provide shared resources such as help desk and training that would be the sole responsibility of the Council with a COTS system. Ultimately the Council will itself sunset. This is a somewhat unique scenario, but it is assumed that handing off the Council's grants data to a Department level agency will be better facilitated if it ultimately resides on a federal shared service. Additionally, the OMB Memorandum M-13-08, Improving Financial Systems through Shared Services, which directs federal agencies to move from agency-specific financial systems to federal shared service providers (FSSPs), consolidate financial management systems, and use existing FSSP operations and maintenance teams to support systems and infrastructures.14Pursuant to this directive, and for the reasons identified above regarding the potential risks and the measures the Council can take to mitigate those risks, the Task Force has opted to only continue consideration of federal shared services for the RAAMS replacement. MO VING FORWARD WITH THE FINAL ANALYSIS On March 22 and April 5, 2018, the Task Force arranged for webinar demonstrations of the two federal shared services. The Task Force also requested that each system owner provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate of the implementation and operating costs. At the conclusion of the respective demonstrations, the Task Force reached consensus that there was sufficient information to provide the Steering Committee with analysis and a recommendation. 14 OMB, M-13-08, "Improving Financial Systems Through Shared Services," March 25, 2013. For Official Use Only 8 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00009 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES No-Action alternative If the Council does not select a replacement system, Council Members and Staff will be required to submit and review grant applications and reports transmitted by email or post. Procedures would have to be developed for maintaining records and transmitting information, and these procedures would consume many more staff hours than are currently available for managing the grants, by both recipients and the Council. Non-Viable Alternatives -Mitigating Risk One of the key issues in the selection of a grant system replacement is the long-term viability of the system. As the Council's own experience demonstrates, there is significant risk that a COTS vendor could make a business decision to end support for a grants management software solution. It is possible that a federal shared service would terminate a federal shared grant management service for political or budgetary reasons, however that risk would be significantly mitigated by the diversity and volume of federal agency clients that would advocate their interest in preserving it. For that reason, the Task Force chose to not expend continued effort exploring COTS options beyond the initial investigation. This decision is reinforced by the aforementioned OMB guidance to federal agencies to select federal shared services when feasible and requirements can be met. Federal Shared Services ezFedGrants ezFedGrants is an online USDA grants and agreements management system that facilitates management of USDA grants and agreements, including creating applications, digitally signing agreement documents, submitting claims, preparing progress reports, and reviewing historical grant/agreement information. ezFedGrants is part of the USDA's Financial Shared Service offering. It is integrated with the USDA's core accounting system, and, for certain Agencies/Offices, interacts with other financial systems, such as ASAP. ezFedGrants is the USDA's OMB Circular A-123 system of record for processing Federal financial assistance transactions, supports the USDA's mission, and helps to ensure compliance with Federal requirements for grants and accounting. For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 9 Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00010 GrantSolutions The GrantSolutions Grants Management Module (GMM) is a web-based comprehensive grants management system provided by the Grants Center of Excellence (COE). The system is available to all Federal grant-making agencies as part of the Grants Management Line of Business (GMLoB) initiative. It services all types of grants (service, training, demonstration, social research, and cooperative agreements) across all grant categories (discretionary, formula, block, and entitlement). GrantSolutions products and services provide comprehensive, flexible, cost-effective solutions for both Grantors and Recipients. These solutions support the sharing of common grant and program management processes over a broad range of programs while incorporating the unique needs of each grant program. CONSIDERA TION OF REQUIREMENTS AND FEA TURES The Task Force identified 38 baseline requirements and features that it would use in evaluating the various systems under consideration. These elements were grouped into four categories depending on their necessity and impact: Baseline, Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Category Baseline Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Description Requirements to facilitate current business processes and meet Federal System requirements. Requirements needed to collect grant process metrics and grant data for Federal Reporting. Requirements to connect with external systems and reporting capabilities. Requirements that further enable efficient processing of grants applications. Weighting 5 3 2 1 In addition, a weighting factor was added to each category based on the Council's current business process and how critical the requirements are to ensure grants can be issued and managed. For Official Use Only 10 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00011 For each element, the systems were given a status ofMeets, Somewhat Meets, or Does Not Meet. Meets was assigned a point value of 10, Somewhat meets was assigned a point Value of 5 and Does not Meet was assigned point value of 0. The weighting factor was then multiplied by the score in each category for an overall score. Both ezFedGrants and GrantSolutions were then assessed using this tool following the conclusion of on-site visits and subsequent web demos and scored. System Baseline (5) GrantSolutions 525 ezFedGrants 500 Tier 1 (3) 75 30 Tier 2(2) 100 120 Tier 3(1) 50 40 Total 760 690 Using this scoring model, GrantSolutions earned a score of 760; ezFedGrants earned a score of 690. It should be noted that in addition to the scoring other factors were also considered as detailed in subsequent sections. COMPARISON OF COSTS Cost ofRAAMS For the purpose of comparing the alternatives, it is useful to first consider the baseline costs ofRAAMS. The EasyGrants platform (which was configured as RAAMS for the Council) was procured March 3, 2015. RAAMS was first online and available for use in its initial configuration in December 2015. C apitalized C osts (A cquisition and Initial Im plem entation) NTIS/Altum Contracts (Initial Configuration and all Enhancements) VMSI Implementation support Startup Total A nnual O perating C osts (beginning D ecem ber 2015) Altum licensing and basic service VMSI support - help desk, administration, configuration, maintenance, testing15 USGS hosting A nnual O perating Costs $789,867.86 $297,000.00 $ 1 ,0 8 6 ,8 6 7 .8 6 $56,276.20 $307,019.92 $209,150.00 $ 5 7 2 ,4 4 6 .1 2 15 As RAAMS has matured, VMSI support has evolved to address additional Restore Council needs not directly related to RAAMS including providing reporting, managing the Council's responsibilities for USAspending, developing SOPs and other necessary documentation, etc. For Official Use Only 11 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00012 Cost of GrantSolutions GrantSolutions provided a ROM Estimate of Costs for preparation of this analysis. The costs may increase/decrease based upon requirements during implementation. C ap italized C osts (A cq u isitio n and Initial Im plem entation) Fit-Gap analysis Initial Implementation Expected O perating Costs Operations and Maintenance Startup Total $89,575 $253,000 - $320,000 $ 4 0 9 ,5 7 5 $ 3 6 5 ,7 2 5 Cost of eZFedGrants USDA OCFO also provided a ROM Estimate of Costs for ezFedGrants, for purposes of this analysis. The costs may increase/decrease based upon requirements during implementation. C ap italized C osts (A cq u isitio n and Initial Im plem entation) Pre-Discovery/Fit-Gap analysis Initial Implementation Startup Total Expected O perating Costs Operations and Maintenance $48,000 $498,355 $ 4 9 8 ,3 5 5 $ 2 8 ,5 0 0 For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 12 Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00013 Summary Comparison of Costs Costs Total Implementation Annual Operating Costs RAAMS $1,086,867.86 $572,446.12 ezFedGrants $546,395 $28,500 GrantSolutions $409,575 $365,725 While both federal shared services appear to offer savings over RAAMS, there are a number of unknowns in these cost estimates. For example, the ROM estimates are for basic services and do not include Council program configurations or enhancements. Any enhancements would add to the implementation and potentially the annual operating costs. Unfortunately, the Council cannot determine those specific costs until after the conclusion of the fit gap analysis. While cost is an important consideration, it is the consensus of the Task Force that other issues bear even greater weight. OTHER CONSIDERA TIONS Implementation Schedule The Council has three more option years on its agreement to continue servicing RAAMS. Flowever, the Task Force does not have significant confidence that vendor will continue the level of service the Council expects and needs as time goes on. The vendor is sun setting the entire system, not just the contract with the Council, so there is no long-term value proposition for Altum to invest funds in servicing the system and their clients. The Task Force advises a rapid transition to a new service. Timelines for implementation are dependent on the fit gap analysis process for each service. During this fit gap process a program manager will be assigned to the Council to build out a comprehensive timeline. Additionally, for either fit gap analysis, Council Staff will need to be available for a series of comprehensive meetings over a number of weeks so that the system owners can learn the Council's workflows, processes, and data configurations in RAAMS. The ezFedGrants service would first involve a 2-3 month timeframe for procurement. This would be followed by a one-month engagement for the fit gap analysis and then 4-6 months for implementation. However, the ezFedGrants team has informed the Task Force that the USDA budget for new releases in ezFedGrants has been set for FY18 and FY19. This means that USDA could not initiate implementation of an ezFedGrants service for the Council until FY20 without the approval of the USDA Deputy Secretary. To facilitate For Official Use Only 13 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00014 implementation in FY19, the Council leadership would have to engage USDA at the highest levels to request the budget plan be altered to include a release of the Restore ezFedGrants service. The GrantSolutions fit gap analysis would take approximately 2.5 months and could commence shortly after May 15, 2018. Additionally, the GrantSolutions team has built their ROM for implementation based on an aggressive "go live" date of January 2019. This would require that all implementation activities would be completed in approximately 5 months from August through December 2018. System Ecology GrantSolutions has a much wider group of diverse federal agencies as clients. As such GrantSolutions has developed solutions for numerous and varied programmatic requirements. GrantSolutions is receptive to customizations within the grants process and appear able to accommodate a wide range of requests. ezFedGrants currently has only USDA customers and is focused on how USDA performs the grants management processes. These processes may not include agency specific requirements that are necessary for Council business processes. The Task Force noted that customizations to the software to facilitate agency grant requirements have to be approved through a ezFedGrants configuration control board and are only implemented if the customization benefits all customers of the system. Both services actively work to ensure all general Federal grant regulations and requirements, such as USAspending or the GREAT Act addressed within the service. Affinities and Efficiencies and Discussion of Risk GrantSolutions is the service that the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Gulf Coast Restoration (OGCR) uses to administer the RESTORE Act Direct Component grants. Several of the recipient staff and offices that are involved in the administration of the Direct Component grants will also be managing awards from the Council under the Comprehensive Plan Program and Spill Impact Component Program. The familiarity of staff with the user interface and functions of Grant Solutions will provide efficiencies for the Council grant managers to transition to a GrantSolutions based system. With regard to the relative overall risk of each service, the Task Force has several concerns that weigh heavily in its recommendation: The relative "newness" of ezFedGrants creates unknowns and uncertainties. The Council would be the first non-USDA client on the ezFedGrants platform. EzFedGrants is a new system that only recently gained the capability for applicant/recipient access. Grant Solutions is a much more mature platform with a proven track record of serving agencies outside HHS. For Official Use Only 14 Version 1.4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00015  The robustness of the GrantSolutions system ecology is a strength that mitigates risk. The Council's experience of being "stranded" on a platform that is sun setting significantly influences the Task Force's consideration of this risk. It is the Task Force's credible consumption the expansive client base and related interests of GrantSolutions will ensure that GrantSolutions is less likely to sunset, or if it does, there will be strength in numbers for implementing a transition. The limitation that the FY18 and FY19 USDA budget for new releases in ezFedGrants does not, and will not, include the Council without intervention from leadership is another serious risk consideration. Should the Task Force select ezFedGrants, the Council must be willing to accept the risk that leadership advocacy could be unsuccessful, in which case the Council would bear the additional risk of not transitioning to a new grant system until 4-6 months into FY20. That is a significant risk given the uncertainty surrounding A1turn's continued effective support of RAAMS. RECOMMENDATION This recommendation is based upon the best information currently available to the Task Force. The recommendation takes into consideration the high-level requirements of the Council's grant management business, it compares the capabilities of the two federal shared services, considers the cost of each service, and evaluates the overall risk. Based on all of these considerations the Task Force recommends the Council procure GrantSolutions. For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 15 Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00016 ^'ON& Appendix A: Requirements and Features Scoring Sheet Req u:n- ms;fit s/F-s;;iturs-s EZFesiGt .mts jiiiiiliii Meets Meets Meets Meets :pPPHHH|^i Meets Meets Meets Wftlfciiints . have rfiminis h(ng prop 01rUortaiweights(e,g.Tetr i Does 25, Somewhat fcieetssiS, Meet-fl;ety.>) Notes GS Score IEZFG Score SO 50 501 50 501 50 Somewhat iiAdditional info is needed on this subject Meets Meets Somewhat j All custom elements must be routed Meets Through the Grants Solutions team (and !at additional cost) Meets Meets Somewhat ; More info is needed; multiple review Meets |ifunctionality is available, but may have limited structural options 50 50 iThe system owners plan on meeting this \ ^requirement during 2018 25 0 ILimited customization is available to the iiclient agency. Other elements must be i routed through the EZFedGrants Team 50 50 25 25 50 50 i More info is needed; multiple review ^functionality is available, but may have lim ite d structural options 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00174973-00017 Solutions Notes GREAT Act StMtecjyfimjifc'mentation Testing Environment Milestones Capahiiity Som ewhat GREAT Act Data standards have not yet Me ets been determined. However, as a shared service provider, the system owners will ibe required to adhere to those standards, land have demonstrated past ability to imeet similar requirements (e.g., DATA lAct) Som ewhat The Testing Evironment is currently only Me ets available to organizations with active development and testing >mewhat iOGCR is using a custom form to capture Me ets structured milestone and metrics data. However, this data is not currentrly being reported on, and does not carry forward through the life of the award. Metrics Capability Payment Reciue >mewhat | Me ets iOGCR is using a custom form to capture structured milestone and metrics data. However, this data is not currentrly being reported on, and does not carry forward Through the life of the award. Hnjb-Rt >k Grantee > Som ewhat At-will tasks for various actions can be Me ets configured within the system. EZFedGtants 11SomewhatMeets m Featurestewefiroiilili ns propenfprtati iih i<a& Tail sil 25, seraewfatftteet$15. 'N o te s GS Score EZFG Score Somew/hat |GREAT Act Data standards have not yet Mee s iibeen determined. However, as a shared service provider, the system owners will i be required to adhere to those standards, and have demonstrated past ability to iimeet similar requirements (e.g., DATA Act) 15 15 Does Mot |A testing environment is planned with a Mee t ;iprojected 2018 rollout 15 0 Does Mot Any milestones are collected via upload Mee t Does Mot iiAny metrics are collected via upload Mee t 15 0 15 0 Bomev/hat Some ability exists for payments, Mee s However, it is unknown if that functionality lean co-exist with our usage of ASAP as a !Payment tool. 15 15 For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 1 Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00018 Requirem ents/Features O tant Tier 2 ASAP integration ARC and Oracle integration Document Creation (Awards, Amendments, etc.) Accepts Pre-Applications and Proposais Advanced Reporting (via integrated C apabiiitiesor Extensions) Upfront Cost Operating Cost Multi-Term Budget Capability Automated Reminders Multi-Project Program Grant Tracking Versioned Data j Somewhat No Payment data is being pulled into the j Meets system from ASAP; but Denali Commission with GrantSolutiuons is working to create this functionality; Restore staff are participating Does Not Plans to meet; this item is in progress Meet and being funded by the Denali Commission. Meets Automated; awards and amendments a re ! not customizable without additional build-;1 out Does Not Does not have the ability to accept Meet proposals that might dramatically change! as part of Council decisions Meets Moderately advanced reporting capability j is bundled with the system j Unknown j j Unknown j Meets Meets jjBoth have configurable email reminders jbased on actions j Somewhat jiProject documentation can be uploaded Meets jand attached j Somewhat jjMore info is needed on this attribute Meets Post-Award Monitoring Data (Site Visit Results, etc.) Does Not All site visit results are handled via Meet uploads Meets ScoringmWeighting- fits8e&elhieftequiremits,r&w&igted tilgtet * 50* samswte 25, Net The Tier lj 4 t e t t e * have chulnlshi hg p ro p o n ete wights {e.g, Tetr i Meets* j ______ swhat dees Not etc,) 'N o te s G5 Score EZFG Score jPayment data is pulled into the system jfrom ASAP 10 20 Does Not jNo planned functionality at present. Meet 0 0 Meets jAutomated; awards and amendments are jnot customizable without additional bulld- jout 20 20 Does Not jDoes not have the ability to accept Meet Iproposals that might dramatically change ias part of Council decisions 0 0 Meets j Moderately advanced reporting capability j is bundled with the system 20 20 Unknowr j 0 Unknown 0 0 Meets 20 20 Meets jBoth have configurable email reminders j based on actions 20 20 Somewhc t j Project documentation can be uploaded Meets land attached 10 10 Somewhc t j More info is needed on this attribute; does Meets jappear to havs some functionality on this ;attribute 10 10 Does Not jAll site visit results are handled via Meet j uploads 0 0 For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 2 Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00019 Requirem enn/Features Leveraged Fending Data Collection and m GIS Capability Does Not :Can upload attachments as an Meet alternative Does Not iSystem does not allow zip files Meet Land Acquisition Da*a Types and Tracking Somewhat iLimited previews ofthis functionality w e r e i i i i i i i i i i i i i Meets ^shown. The full features ofthis capability iare unknown. electronic Signature's Meets 11 Eniupment Tiacfclng Somewhat iLimited previews ofthis functionality w e r e | || Meets ishown. The full features ofthis capability .............. .................................................................................................... iare unknown. Special Aw.nti Condition Manageurem Meets ISACs can be managed in the system I B I B I B l t and Ti asking ;and appended to an award as need? Environmental Compliance Tiackmy Somewhat iOGCR is using a custom, structured Meets iform to capture this data. BAS Science Review Process Somewhat Potential for multiple reviewer set-up - illlllllH ! Meets |how this would integrate with internal review process is unclear 1B1B1B1B TABS Re|iou Generation lAutoniaterl Post- Meets |The system is able to generate FAE Processing o f FABS-Compiianf Reports) compliant reports I B iiiiiiil Does Not Meet Somewhat Meets Does Not Meet Meets Does Not Meet Meets Does Not Meet $Somewhat Meets Meets Scoring ami Weighting - The Based R*qu!rr< fghtad highest fMei 50, Somewhat Meets- 25, Do Hot MeeHfc It* Tfr 1: 4 Patures have <ii niiio ishi rtg propo fti ona vm ghts Telr 1 fleers* : ,' r- . i! I *. : * i ?.. ?.'*.. ! . Notes GS Score EZFG Score |Can upload attachments as an alternative 0 0 IZip files can be uploaded 0 5 iNo tracking mechanism exists iNo tracking mechanism exists 5 0 10 10 5 0 ISACs can be managed in the system and jappended to an award as needed 10 10 iCan upload attachments 5 0 1Potential for multiple reviewer set-up - how Ithis would integrate with internal review jprocess is unclear 5 5 |The system is able to generate FABSIcompliant reports 10 10 TOTALSCORES 760.00 690.00 For Official Use Only Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 3 Tier 3/4 Version 1.4 ED 002061 00174973-00020