Perspectives on Federal Grants

Management Systems
David G. Cassidy, TCG | 202-742-8471 |
david.cassidy@tcg.com

April 2009 | PRISM Education Conference

306 Florida Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001

www.tcg.com | 202-986-5533
Agenda
 Grants Management Line of Business
 Grants.gov
 Back-end Systems
o Custom Built
o Commercial Off-the-Shelf
o Components
 Questions?

TCG - Yes, it can be done! 05/04/09 2

Major Business Drivers
 Agencies must accommodate a broad
portfolio of grant programs into
consolidated solutions
 Improve transparency to public and
management
 Consolidate grants business processes
o Minimize functional overlap and redundant
data
o Consolidate on one grant application
instrument
 Migrate from legacy systems;
consolidate disparate systems 3
Major Technical Drivers
 Use enterprise class technologies
 Use structured development
methodologies (e.g. Rational Unified
Process)
 Promote sharing of functional
components
o Grants management is an enterprise
activity
o Leverage functionality for other enterprise
activities, e.g. financial management
Service-oriented architecture
 Align with the Federal Enterprise 4
Grants Management Line of
Business
 Recommended segmentation of grants line
of business into cross-agency service
centers (“Centers of Excellence”)
 “No ‘silver bullet’ for an end-to-end business
and/or technical solution for Grants
management emerged”
 Suggested “Operating Model evolves
modularity and commonality”
o “Feasible, valuable, affords quick wins, and
accommodates decentralized and evolving
technological support”
 10 year timeframe for the common solution
 Completely focused on ‘back office’ grants
processing 5
Grants Management Line of
Business
 Three GMLOB COE’s were identified:
o National Science Foundation: Research.gov
Partners: DOD, NASA, USDA CSREES
o HHS / Administration for Children & Families: GATES
Partners: CNCS, DOT, EPA, IMLS, State, Treasury, VA
o Education: G5
Partners: Interior, DOJ/COPS
 Additional COE’s were expected but none announced
 Additional GMLOB groups were defined:
o Strategic Partnership Group: NEH, NARA, NEA
o Alternative Solutions Group: HHS/NIH, DOE, SBA, USAID
All except NIH using Compusearch PRISM-Grants
o Agencies Yet to Align: DHS, DOC, DOJ/OJP & OVW, DOL,
HUD, SSA, USDA
 Future of GMLOB in doubt
o Bush Administration initiative; has not demonstrated
significant cost savings; facing significant antipathy and
skepticism among agencies
6
Grants.gov
 A single portal for grant applications
o ‘Find’ and ‘Apply’ functionality are well-established
o Functionality for grant review, award, reporting, and
closeout was once planned but now seems unlikely in
the short-to-medium term
 ‘Round-robin’ funding model
o Economically advantageous for agencies take advantage
of Grants.gov’s available functionality
o No distinct funding leaves system in financial limbo
o Desire to move to transaction fees / fee for service
 Most agencies are now integrated with
Grants.gov

7
Grants.gov
 Issued RFI for ‘cloud computing’
o Actual objective: Outsource the system
Improve cost accounting and obtain per-transaction pricing
for agencies
Enable government staff to focus on requirements and not
on technology management
 System has suffered poor performance, especially
lately
o Consequence of current system architecture / business
strategy
o OMB directed agencies to use alternatives to Grants.gov
for Recovery Act funding, if possible
Short-term measure to support system stability
Agencies expected to routinely use Grants.gov for non-
Recovery Act funding
o Agencies instructed to provide $12m in immediate
funding to shore up Grants.gov and stabilize for the
future
o Additional pilot projects planned to establish alternative
architectures for “Grants.gov 2.0”
TCG - Yes, it can be done! 05/04/09 8
Back-end Systems: Custom
build
Pros:
o Create your own world, in your own climate
o Translate your business process into electronic
environment
o Opportunity to re-engineer processes with
implementation
o Buyer owns the requirements definition/implementation
process

 Cons:
o Reliance on your domain experts
o Business process may be fundamentally flawed
Re-engineering costs could be higher than expected
o Higher cost of acquisition
o Increased buyer responsibility for project failure
o Ability for change can translate into tendency for
compulsive, repetitive, or self-defeating change
o Difficult to justify in light of OMB’s GMLOB strategy 9
Back-end Systems: Complete
Solutions
 Pros:
o Many COTS and GOTS solutions available
o Theoretically lower maintenance costs
o Theoretically lower implementation costs
o Offloads requirements definition to vendor / buying agency
o Benefit from “best practices”

 Cons:
o Packages have historically been either process definitive or
agnostic
o Proprietary platforms create ties to one vendor for lifetime of
product
o Low acquisition costs offset by high re-engineering costs
All grants systems need customization
o Satisfying requirements becomes vendor or buying agency’s
option, not yours
10
o Other’s “best practices” may not be your own
Back-end Systems:
Components
Pros:
o Addresses OMB’s GMLOB strategy recommendation – create
commonality
o Acquire the best tool for a specific task
o Deployable across the enterprise
o Integrated to your own specifications for each line of business
o Lower acquisition costs; economies of scale over long-term
o Theoretically lower maintenance and implementation costs per
functional area
o Benefit from vendor’s intellectual property for every functional
area

 Cons:
o Packages are process-agnostic
o No immediate solution for any one line of business
o Tied to one vendor for lifetime of product
o Low acquisition costs may be offset by re-engineering costs
o Requires significant due diligence to ensure good fit
o Potentially tied to a vendor or buying agency
11
Questions & Answers

12