Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: There are currently two AITPS validation errors that are listed Github, which will prevent Agencies from executing the submission scenarios laid out within the three white-boarding sessions and the following deck released to vendors and the community.

One error prevents eliminated investments from having either BY or CY funding. And another error prevent new investments from having a Prior UII. Is OMB planning on updating these errors?

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: eCPIC PMO (BAH)
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: If an Investment has multiple Data Center IDs associated with it, should the Investment submit multiple nodes under a single investment, or should all Data Center IDs be included within the same node?
Associated Links: None

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Low
Description of Issue: Underneath the towerDetails node there is space for an investmentReportID node. What is the purpose of this node? Each investment will only submit one Details section, there will never be a need to submit multiple towerDetails nodes per investment.

There is no OMB ID for the investmentDetails, the Business case equivalent of towerDetails.

Question from John Casteel from DoD:

Want to make sure the level Cost Pool and IT Tower data will be submitted in the XML schema. Will it be at the Investment level or Funding Source?

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: It appears that each Category within the Cost Details table will have an OMB ID associated with it. Is there a reason each Category needs an OMB ID? Presumably no one would submit Transition Services nodes (from the Network Cost Details table) more than once.

The Cost Pools and IT Towers have a similar set up, and they don't have any OMB IDs.

Name: Daniel York
Organization: GSA eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: Will Standard Investments reports require rebaseline change requests to change certain fields, like the the End User Standard Investment Reports Project table or project table.

emailed question from Tom Milligan - Treasury

Which fields align to the Procurement Instrument Identifier (PIID) and Referenced PIID in the BY19 guidance?

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: How should Agencies submit data for optional Cost Pools and IT Towers they wish to omit from their submissions this September?

I have noticed if you drop a CostPool or ITTower parent node (so no Category, PY, CY, and BY nodes) your submission successfully validates. So, presumably you could not report any External Labor or Application if desirable. However, you are unable to report BY values for an individual Cost Pool or IT Tower and omit PY or CY nodes. You are also unable to send blank values within the cost nodes(PY,CY, and BY). Is this by design or should you able to drop any cost node?

Name: Alex Unger
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: Is OMB still planning to post an updated schema this week? On last weeks ITDB Developers call, it was said that there'd be an updated schema posted each Monday evening.

Name: Alex Unger
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: When submitting an AITPS Request, the server error below is returned. Note: The XML validates successfully. An email will be sent to the ITDB group with the XML request.

{
"ok": false,
"error": true,
"metadata": null,
"httpStatusCode": 500,
"httpStatusMessage": "Internal Server Error",
"responseTime": 0.60042214393616,
"result": null,
"errors": [
{
"code": 0,
"message": "Fatal Error: Error inserting into itPortfolioTBMAudit table, Error inserting into itPortfolioAudit table"
}
]
}

As discussed and committed during the meeting, we are providing the tentative dates below:

• Final Draft Guidance and A-11 July 31st (tentative)
• Pre-submission Aug 21 (tentative)
• Budget Submission Sept 11 (tentative)

Thank You.

Name: Test Ticket
Organization: eCPIC
Urgency: Critical
Description of Issue: We found "X" issue and need you to update the End User XSD
Associated Links: www.omb.gov/xsd-fix

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: eCPIC PMO (BAH)
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: Government FTE nodes are still in the Life Cycle Costs table with no indication of switch to the Internal Labor language. Will the nodes continue to reference Government FTEs or will Internal Labor nodes be introduced to the Life Cycle Costs Table and the Internal Labor Cost Pools?
Associated Links: None

Name: Alex Murray
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: The latest guidance version specified that Type 04 investments will not need to submit IT Tower and Cost Pool data. Will this change be implemented by making those nodes optional for Type 04? Or will these nodes not be accepted for Type 04?

The Network Investment Report has these tags:

        <name>Network-101</name>
        <investmentName>Network-101</investmentName>

Are they duplicates?

There isn't a tag to indicate that the submission is validateOnly for the reports like we have for all of the other submission reports. Will we have this option?

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Low
Description of Issue: Should eliminated investments with PY and CY funding break out their total PY and CY costs into IT Towers and Cost Pools aside from Security and Internal Labor?

Name: Alex Unger
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: I wanted to check in to see the timeframe in which the XSD Candidate (v1.9.0) will be committed to Github?

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: eCPIC PMO (BAH)
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: Paperwork Reduction Act OMB Control Number is not included in the Draft Schema. Will this eventually get added to the Investment Details Section? If so, can the Data Type and Text Length also be provided?
Associated Links: None

We hope you all have found much value out of the previous session, and we are continuing to provide the support needed to get the environments ready for FY19.

Any questions or concerns to be discussed during the 2nd whiteboard session please post here.

Thank You.

Good Afternoon,

As discussed, on the importance of having a warning message for the CIO Evaluation piece of the submissions.
Please provide ideas on what the "Warning" Message should appear as.

We have also opened up a jira ticket as soon as the error message is finalized we will work towards implementing it.

Thank You.

Tag v1.9.4 created.

Changes since v1.9.3:

IT Budget

• Made “DataCenterInventory" optional in schema (only required for certain types of investments)

Business Case

• Added “records management” option to “eliminationReductionType" list

Investment Report

• Added “contractID" to “contracts" definition
• Added “investmentReportID" to “towerDetails" definition
• Added “metricID" to “metrics" definition
• Added “metricActualID" to “metricActuals" definition
• Removed “agencyId" from “metrics" definition
• Removed “agencyId" from “metricActuals" definition
• Changed “investmentCostDetail” definition from a type reference to a local definition
• Moved “projectName" in “projects” definition
• Updated sample files

Data Dictionary

• Added BRM codes

It's my understanding that on the Investment Reports, investments can have one to may Projects, Contracts, and Performance Metrics (where applicable...not all investment reports call for these). This is similar to how the Major IT Business Case Details accepts submission. However, there doesn't seem to be a way for us to do that with these reports.

If we're only expected to send/update one record of each type per report - please let me know. Otherwise, we need a method to identify which records we are adding and which we are updating (in the Details report, we use agencyIds (or OMBIds depending on the vendor) and statuses.

Please let me know which direction you will be going in so we can prepare properly. Thanks!

My understanding is that the Performance Metrics included in some of the investments reports can have one to many Performance Metric Actuals (similar to the rule in the Major IT Business Case Details report). However, based on the schema you've posted, Metric Actuals are separate from Performance Metrics.

At the session today I would like to spend some time on talking through 'transition' issues from the previous investments submitted to the new submissions.
Can old infrastructure investments be categorized as standard infrastructure? Are standard infrastructure investments expected to get new UIIs? What is the status change from an existing investment broken into standard infrastructure investments? What happens to their 'old' projects and performance measures?

On projects, 'old' closed projects that are closed, will they need to update their SDLC to the new values? Will old values be grandfathered/retained? What if I need to submit a correction later for a project for an actual cost or actual date? Will the SDLC validation flag?

These are the type of questions that can come up after basic new/update investment testing.

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: eCPIC PMO (BAH)
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: The Mission Delivery and Management Support Area Field in the Guidance states:

"Mission Delivery and Management Support Area [2-digit code] (variable element)
These two digits indicate the mission delivery and management support areas. Agencies should assign a unique code for each mission delivery and management support area reported. Agencies shall provide a reference table for mission areas to the ITDB to include:
o Agency Code [3-digits]
o Mission Delivery and Management Support Area [2-digit code]
o Description [500 characters]"

The guidance doesn't indicate how this will be provided to OMB this year. Will Agencies email it to their desk officers like they did last year? The reference table requirements make it appear as though it will be submitted electronically, but it does not appear in the draft schema.
Associated Links: None

Please review the changes Below for V1.9.2:

"Tag v1.9.2"

Renamed "updateCIORating" operation as "setCIORating" to distinguish between actual update operations (the former adds to the historical record, while the latter alters an existing record)

Business Case:

• Added ombControlNumbers to investmentDetails
• Added solicitationId to plannedAcquisitions
• Added analysisConclusion to operationalAnalysis
• Modified SDLCmethodology in projectDetail to use new BY19 options
• Removed several deprecated fields from lifeCycleCosts
• Removed EVMRequired from existingContracts
• Removed securityCostsAndCapabilities section
• Removed otherSDLC from projectDetail
• Removed projectedStartDate, projectedCompletedDate and projectedTotalCost from agileProjectActivity

Removed outdated header comments from several files
Updated sample XML, making sure it conforms to current schema
Added sample XML for Standard Investment Reports

For any further questions or clarification please comment back within this thread.

Thank You.

Name: Daniel York
Organization: GSA, eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: The 95% FY19 IT Budget Guidance states that Network and End User Standard Investment Reports must provide a minimum of five performance metrics. In a Q&Z session with agencies, members of OMB OFCIO have said that it was OMB's intent not to set a required number of performance metrics for the Network and End User Standard Investment Reports. Will the v.1.9 xsd release candidate (set to be released on July 5th) include any requirements for the Network and End User Standard Investment Reports to have any number of performance metrics aligned to of of the Performance Measurement Categories?

Name: Tom Milligan
Organization: Treasury
Urgency: High
Description of Issue:
Treasury will not implement the optional Standard reports for Network, Data Center, and End User for the BY19 submission.

In this case are the following combinations valid?

Standard Investment

(ITP 6) Part of Agency IT Portfolio Summary

(ITP 7) Standard IT Infrastructure and Management Category

(ITP 9) Type of Investment

N/A

Part 1

01: Not Applicable

01: Major IT Investments
02: Non-major IT Investments
03: IT Migration Investment
04: Funding Transfer Investments

N/A

Part 2:

01: Not Applicable

01: Major IT Investments
02: Non-major IT Investments
03: IT Migration Investment
04: Funding Transfer Investments

IT Security and Compliance

Part 3

02: IT Security and Compliance

05: Standard IT Infrastructure Investment

IT Management

Part 3

03: IT Management

05: Standard IT Infrastructure Investment

Network

Part 3

01: Not Applicable

06: Non-Standard Infrastructure Investment

Data Center and Cloud

Part 3

01: Not Applicable

06: Non-Standard Infrastructure Investment

End User

Part 3

01: Not Applicable

06: Non-Standard Infrastructure Investment

Output

Part 3

01: Not Applicable

06: Non-Standard Infrastructure Investment

Application

Part 3

01: Not Applicable

06: Non-Standard Infrastructure Investment

Delivery

Part 3

01: Not Applicable

06: Non-Standard Infrastructure Investment

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: eCPIC PMO (BAH)
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: Costs and Capabilities Table is still in the Schema for the Major IT Business Case, albeit as an optional set of nodes. Will the Costs and Capabilities nodes be removed from the Major IT Business Case?
Associated Links: None

Name: Daniel York
Organization: GSA eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: When should vendors expect to see the weekly update XSD Candidate (v1.9.0) (https://github.com/ombegov/ITDB-schema/tree/master/src)? It does not appear the weekly Monday evening update has been posted.

We are looking into this and will respond to you shortly.

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: eCPIC PMO (BAH)
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: When performing AITPS Validations (validateOnlyIndicator=”true”) if there are no errors returned in the response file, then, regardless of whether warnings should get returned, no warnings will be returned in the response file. If there are errors returned or if you are submitting (validateOnlyIndicator=”false”), warnings will get correctly returned where applicable. In other words, if I am validating the AITPS and I address all the issues that are triggering errors, I will no longer be able to see what warnings are getting triggered until after I have submitted.
Associated Links: None

Name: Alex Murray
Organization: eCPIC
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: The current schema does not outline the enumerations for the new capabilities within the Costs and Capabilities table. In order to update our template for this table, we need the codes that will be associated with each new capability. Is there a timeline for publishing these codes?

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: Was there a final decision regarding whether or not the CIO Rating will be submitted separately from other files? For example, will the CIO Rating still be submitted as part of the the Business Case in the Annual?

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: After successfully submitting an IT Budget to the myuat-2019 Dashboard, I am unable validate or submit any investments through the Annual Operation. I was able to submit a sample IT Budget and verify a successful save through the GetITBudgetReport operation. However, when attempting to perform a annual update for one of the investments in my portfolio, I receive the following error:

<sr:message level="error" xpath="/tns:operations[1]/tns:investmentInformation[1]/tns:annualSubmission[1]/tns:updateInvestment[1]">IT Budget does not have a record for unique investment identifier 011-000002502</sr:message>

This is just a test to see if I can enter an issue and see it's status.

Name: Daniel W. York
Organization: GSA, eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: The 95% FY 19 IT Budget Guidance says "Details and instructions for submitting the verification of eGov/LoB contributions and the Draft Agency IT Investment Portfolio Summary will be forthcoming." Can OMB OFCIO expand on how it will be expecting to collect the Draft FY19 AITPS submission from Agencies? In the past OMB has asked for this data in a number of ways from posting them to an OMB MAX page, to emailing them to their OFCIO Desk Officer, to submitting them via API to the ITDB. The answer to this question may impact the prioritization of work items for CPIC Vendors, especially if OMB OFCIO is planning to ask for Agency Draft FY19 AITPS submission via API.

asdlfhjafs

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: The Input Controls (Character Count Restrictions) are still undefined for several of the new fields associated with the Standard Investment Reports. The three Acquisition Strategy fields within the Future Contracts Tables, and the two Brief Description fields located in Projects Tables are defined as only "Text" fields.

Please review the changes Below for V1.9.3:

Tag v1.9.3 created.

Changes since v1.9.2:

No code changes (all commits changed comments and whitespace only)

We have been working hard to QA Validations.

Name: Sriram Avasarala
Organization: Treasury
Urgency: High
Description of Issue:
Hi,

We have following questions regarding draftBY19 schema. Can you please review them and provide the response?

A. IT Towers: Fields 56 to 85 (part 1 and part 2 investments) These fields are optional and required based on various validations. Our question is whether we need to include them in XML with zeros or not when they are optional.

1. Does OMB expect us to submit XML with all IT tower categories? For example : If I have an investment that has only Data Center Cost, how do we submit the data Option A or Option B
   A) Total Data Center Cost PY, Total Data Center CY and Total Data Center BY with values and rest of the IT Towers with zero values.
   B) Total Data Center Cost PY, Total Data Center CY and Total Data Center BY with values and no need to submit the rest of the IT Towers with zero values

2. How do we submit the updates to IT towers? Does it work similar to Funding Source Line Items? For example : If we submit with Data Center Cost IT Tower in September 2017 and if we want to replace Data Center Cost with Compute Cost IT Tower, how do we submit the data in Jan 2018
   A) Total Data Center Cost PY, Total Data Center CY and Total Data Center BY with zero values and Total Compute Cost PY, CY and BY values
   B) Total Compute Cost PY, CY and BY values and no need to include Data Center Cost with Zero values

B. Valid submission : Can you please validate the following Part , Type and Standard Investment combination and let us if this combination (IT Portfolio) is allowed to be submitted or not? Can we submit the optional business case for this IT Portfolio combination?

C. As per the baseline validations (BY19 CPIC Validations List.xlsx.pdf) released last week, the following combination is invalid and not allowed to submit the Business Case, Investment Report and CIO Rating. If we have a Part 3 security investment with projects and metrics, what options should we choose on IT Portfolio so that the Business Case and CIO Rating report submission are allowed.

Thanks,

Sriram Avasarala
IT Specialist
Digital Services
Enterprise Business Solutions
Office of the Chief Information Officer
U.S. Department of Treasury
Customer Support: 202-622-5555
Office: 202-622-6643
Mobile: 202-486-2610
Submit a WebTrack Ticket

Name: Alex Unger
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: High
Description of Issue: Currently the MyUAT-2019.itdashboard.gov tokens have a 12 hour expiration. Could the ITDB group extend the expiration of these UAT tokens to at least a week?

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: In the updated Example files for the Investment Reports posted yesterday it insinuates that the Category field within the Cost Details tables will submit a code value to the IT Dashboard, instead of the the category name. Is this by design? If so, is OMB planning on releasing an updated enumerations document listing the Category to Code conversions?

In testing and reviewing the MITBC, it seems that the planningBudgetaryResource and dmeBudgetaryResources tags are no longer allowed. Will this be fixed?

This is only a TEST.

Based on the documentation I've reviewed, replacedContracts should be optional, but in testing MITBC validations, I'm getting errors indicating those tags are expected and required.

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Low
Description of Issue: Within both the Network and End User Projects Tables, there is a Project ID field. It is therefore unclear whether or not the projectID field in the xsd represents the Project ID field in the guidance or the OMB ID for that row item.

The business case solves a similar dilemma by having both a projectID field (OMB ID) and a uniqueProjectID field (field listed in Guidance).

Name: Ryan Dougherty
Organization: Booz Allen, supporting eCPIC PMO
Urgency: Medium
Description of Issue: The 95% XSD for the Investment Report shows Security investments will submit values for both the NISTFrameworkCategory and the capability, for each item in the Cost and Capabilities table. Last year, only the capability codes where submitted for each item within the Cost and Capabilities table. Each capability code acts as a unique identifier on its own. Is OMB planning on requiring the NISTFrameworkCategory submissions?