§ 307.15Approval of advance planning documents for computerized support enforcement systems.
(a)Approval of an APD. The Office shall not approve the APD and annually updated APD unless the document, when implemented, will carry out the requirements of § 307.10, or § 307.11 of this part. Conditions for APD approval are specified in this section.
(b)Conditions for initial approval. In order to be approvable, an APD for a statewide computerized support enforcement system described under § 307.10, or § 307.11 must meet the following requirements:
(1) The APD must represent the sole systems effort being undertaken by the State in accordance with § 307.10, or § 307.11. If the State is requesting a waiver under § 302.85 of this chapter, the APD must specify the conditions for which waiver is requested;
(2) The APD must specify how the objectives of the computerized support enforcement system in § 307.10, or § 307.11 will be carried out throughout the State; this includes a projection of how the proposed system will meet the functional requirements of § 307.10, or § 307.11 and how the single State system will encompass all political subdivisions in the State by October 1, 1997, or October 1, 2000 respectively.
(3) The APD must assure the feasibility of the proposed effort and provide for the conduct of a requirements analysis study which address all system components within the State and includes consideration of the program mission, functions, organization, services and constraints related to the computerized support enforcement system;
(4) The APD must indicate how the results of the requirements analysis study will be incorporated into the proposed system design, development, installation or enhancement;
(5) The APD must contain a description of each component within the proposed computerized support enforcement system as required by § 307.10, or § 307.11 and must describe information flows, input data, and output reports and uses;
(6) The APD must describe the security requirements to be employed in the proposed computerized support enforcement system;
(7) The APD must describe the intrastate and interstate interfaces set forth in § 307.10, or § 307.11 to be employed in the proposed computerized support enforcement system;
(8) The APD must describe the projected resource requirements for staff, hardware, and other needs and the resources available or expected to be available to meet the requirements;
(9) The APD must contain a proposed budget and schedule of life-cycle milestones relative to the size, complexity and cost of the project which at a minimum address requirements analysis, program design, procurement and project management; and, a description of estimated expenditures by category and amount for:
(i) Items that are eligible for funding at the enhanced matching rate, and
(ii) Items related to developing and operating the system that are eligible for Federal funding at the applicable matching rate;
(10) The APD must contain an implementation plan and backup procedures to handle possible failures in system planning, design, development, installation or enhancement.
(i) These backup procedures must include provision for independent validation and verification (IV&V) analysis of a State's system development effort in the case of States:
(A) That do not have in place a statewide automated child support enforcement system that meets the requirements of the FSA of 1988;
(B) States which fail to meet a critical milestone, as identified in their APDs;
(C) States which fail to timely and completely submit APD updates;
(D) States whose APD indicates the need for a total system redesign;
(E) States developing systems under waivers pursuant to section 452(d)(3) of the Social Security Act; or,
(F) States whose system development efforts we determine are at risk of failure, significant delay, or significant cost overrun.
(ii) Independent validation and verification efforts must be conducted by an entity that is independent from the State (unless the State receives an exception from OCSE) and the entity selected must:
(A) Develop a project workplan. The plan must be provided directly to OCSE at the same time it is given to the State.
(B) Review and make recommendations on both the management of the project, both State and vendor, and the technical aspects of the project. The IV&V provider must provide the results of its analysis directly to OCSE at the same time it reports to the State.
(C) Consult with all stakeholders and assess the user involvement and buy-in regarding system functionality and the system's ability to meet program needs.
(D) Conduct an analysis of past project performance sufficient to identify and make recommendations for improvement.
(E) Provide risk management assessment and capacity planning services.
(F) Develop performance metrics which allow tracking project completion against milestones set by the State.
(iii) The RFP and contract for selecting the IV&V provider (or similar documents if IV&V services are provided by other State agencies) must include the experience and skills of the key personnel proposed for the IV&V analysis and specify by name the key personnel who actually will work on the project and must be submitted to OCSE for prior approval.
(11) The APD must describe each system considered during planning including the advantages of selecting the proposed solution. If a transfer system is not selected as the proposed solution, a transfer system must be among those systems considered. If a system that is already in place in the State could be enhanced to meet the requirements for a computerized support enforcement system, that system must be among the solutions considered;
(12) The APD must contain a cost benefit analysis of the proposed computerized support enforcement system and all alternatives considered that describes the proposed improvements to the IV-D program in both qualitative and quantitative terms;
(13) The APD must specify the basis for determining direct and indirect costs of the computerized support enforcement system during development and operation, including the methodology for determining costs of planning, design, development, installation or enhancement that are eligible for 90 percent Federal funding versus costs of development and operations that are eligible for Federal funding at the applicable matching rate;
(14) The APD must contain a statement indicating the period of time the State expects to use the proposed computerized support enforcement system; and
(15) The APD must include any waiver requested in accordance with § 307.5 of this chapter.
(c)Conditions for approval of annual update. The APD for a computerized support enforcement system described under § 307.10, or § 307.11 must be updated annually. In order to be approvable, the annual update of an APD for a computerized support enforcement system described under § 307.10 must meet only those requirements of paragraph (b) of this section that are prescribed by instructions issued by the Office.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0960-0343)
[49 FR 33260, Aug. 22, 1984, as amended at 51 FR 37732, Oct. 24, 1986; 55 FR 4379, Feb. 7, 1990; 57 FR 47004, Oct. 14, 1992; 61 FR 67241, Dec. 20, 1996; 63 FR 44816, Aug. 21, 1998]
Title 45 published on 2012-10-01
no entries appear in the Federal Register after this date.
This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.