201-30.009-1 Analysis for low value acquisitions.

201-30.009-2 Analysis for obsolescence. 201-30.009-3 Establishing

limited requirements.

compatibility

201-30.010-201-30.011 [Reserved]

201-30.012 Conversion planning and man

agement responsibilities.

201-30.012-1 Software conversion studies. 201-30.012-2 Determination of conversion costs.

201-30.013 Specifications.

201-30.013-1 Use of functional specifications.

201-30.013-2 [Reserved]

201-30.013-3 Capability and performance validation considerations for ADP equipment systems.

201-30.013-4 Capability and performance validation considerations for ADP services.

AUTHORITY: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390; 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and sec. 101(f), 100 Stat. 1783345; 40 U.S.C. 751(f).

SOURCE: FIRMR Amdt. 1, 50 FR 4370, Jan. 30, 1985, unless otherwise noted.

to the nature of the property and services to be acquired. These needs shall be expressed in the form of deficiencies in existing capabilities, new or changed program requirements, or opportunities for increased economy and efficiency. In any event, the needs shall be supported by a requirements analysis that is commensurate with the size and complexity of the need.

(b) Agencies may find it more cost effective to conduct requirements analyses based on aggregated requirements. Requirements may be aggregated on either organizational or functional bases. Aggregated requirements analysis may be used where the applications and work environments of the individual requirements are homogeneous and where adequate workload measures and performance indicators are available. Individual requirements analyses are required when this is not the case.

(c) As a minimum, the agency shall consider the following factors in the requirements analysis:

(1) The information processing functions that must be performed.

(2) The agency applications, information resource systems, and components involved, their physical locations, and operational constraints.

(3) The problem that will be solved by acquiring new or additional equipment, systems and/or software.

(4) The nature of the data or information to be generated, transmitted, or stored on the proposed equipment or system, who will mintain it, and who will require access to it.

(5) Space management considerations; e.g., heat dissipation, air flow, temperature range, relative humidity, energy conservation, power supply, cables, including coordination with building managers and GSA. (See FPMR 101-17.101-5.)

(6) The present and projected workload in terms of:

(i) Systems life;

(ii) Data entry and associated telecommunications support;

(iii) Data base(s) and data base management;

(iv) Data handling or transaction processing by type and volume;

(v) Output needs and associated telecommunications support;

(vi) Expandability requirements; and (vii) Privacy and security safeguards. (7) A performance evaluation of the currently installed ADP system(s) to provide a baseline for evaluation of proposed alternatives for meeting the data processing needs.

(8) The risks over the systems life of adverse impact on agency missions by acquiring insufficient ADPE capacity versus the extra costs of acquiring excessive ADPE capacity.

(9) The appropriate performance and capability validation techniques that should be employed in the acquisition.

[FIRMR Amdt. 4, 50 FR 27157, July 1, 1985; 50 FR 28208, July 11, 1985, as amended by Amdt. 12, 53 FR 24723, June 30, 1988; Amdt. 13, 53 FR 29052, Aug. 2, 1988]

§ 201-30.007-1 Records management factors.

Agencies shall consider the following records management factors when performing a requirements analysis or designing an information system:

(a) Does the system design protect against the accidental destruction of records?

(b) Is there a records disposition schedule for the records being created by the equipment or system?

(c) Does the equipment or system use forms and, if so, have they been produced in accordance with the agency forms management program?

(d) Does the equipment or system produce reports subject to the agency reports control program?

[FIRMR Amdt. 4, 50 FR 27158, July 1, 1985]

§ 201-30.007-2 Requirements for handicapped employees.

(a) Scope. This section establishes policies and procedures for determining the needs of handicapped employees and analyzing requirements for electronic office equipment accessibility in the Federal procurement of automatic data processing equipment (ADPE).

(b) General. Pub. L. 99-506 directs that handicapped individuals be provided with electronic equipment acces

sibility to public information resources through the Federal procurement of electronic office equipment. ADPE, because it overlaps with electronic office equipment, provides that capability.

(c) Policy. (1) Federal agencies shall provide handicapped employees and non-handicapped employees equivalent access to electronic office equipment to the extent such needs are determined by the agency in accordance with 201-30.007 and the required accessibility can be provided by industry. In providing equivalent access to electronic office equipment, agencies shall consider:

(i) Access to and use of the same data bases and application programs by handicapped and non-handicapped employees;

(ii) Utilization of enhancement capabilities for manipulating data (i.e., special peripherals) to attain equivalent end-results by handicapped and nonhandicapped employees; and

(iii) Access to and use of equivalent communications capabilities by handicapped and non-handicapped employ

ees.

(2) Federal agencies shall consider electronic office equipment accessibility for handicapped employees in conducting determinations of need and requirements analyses for automatic data processing equipment.

(d) Procedures. Determinations of need and requirements analyses shall be conducted following the procedures set forth in § 201-30.007 and in consultation with the handicapped employee(s). FIRMR Bulletin 56, Electronic Equipment Accessibility for Employees with Disabilities, provides guidelines for use in developing specifications, in conjunction with requirements determinations, to ensure electronic equipment accessibility for handicapped employees.

[FIRMR Amdt. 14, 53 FR 40067, Oct. 13, 1988]

§ 201-30.008 Determination of system/ item life.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this § 201-30.008, the Government system/item life shall be established by the initial acquiring agency as a part of each determination of

need and requirements analysis. This life shall be used in the evaluation to determine the lowest overall cost offer and whether purchase, lease to ownership, lease with option to purchase, or straight lease is the lowest cost method of acquisition for the Government. The following factors shall be considered in determining the Government system/item life:

(1) The period of time that the system/item, plus any planned augmentation, will satisfy the needs of the initial user;

(2) The rate at which technology is expected to advance;

(3) The probability that support will continue to be available beyond the period of intended use by the initial user. This support includes items such as maintenance, spare parts, software support, etc.; and

(4) The probability that the system/ item in its ultimate planned configuration will be reused by another component within the agency or another Federal agency once the equipment no longer meets the needs of the initial user. The estimated number of months, if any, of contemplated use by a secondary user will be added to the initial user's requirement to determine the Government system/item life.

(b) If the acquiring agency cannot predict reuse, either within that agency or by another Federal agency, the initial user's system/item life shall be the Government system/item life.

(c) The determination of a system/ item life is optional for a system/item with a purchase price of $25,000 or less when there is a reasonable certainty that purchase will be the most advantageous method of acquisition. However, if lease or rental plans are to be solicited, the determination of a system/ item life is necessary to conduct a meaningful lease/purchase evaluation.

(d) Agencies shall consider subsequent procurement when establishing system/item lives. If augmentation other than that provided for in the initial acquisition is necessary, consideration should be given to establishing

[FIRMR Amdt. 1, 50 FR 4370, Jan. 30, 1985, as amended by FIRMR Amdt. 4, 50 FR 27158, July 1, 1985; Amdt. 13, 53 FR 29052, Aug. 2, 1988]

§ 201-30.009 Analysis of alternatives for satisfying a requirement.

(a) A comparative cost analysis shall be performed for each identified requirement or when planning indicates the possible existence of outdated ADPE. The purpose of the analysis is to determine which alternative will meet the user's needs at the lowest overall cost over the system/item life. The alternatives to be considered shall include, but are not limited to the following:

(1) Use of non-ADP resources to satisfy the requirement.

(2) Use of existing ADP facilities (e.g., Federal Data Processing Centers) and resources on a shared basis.

(3) Use of reassigned or excess Government-owned or -leased equipment.

(4) Use of commercial ADP services. (5) Redesign of application programs, using Federal or ANSI standard language to the maximum practicable extent.

(6) Revision of production schedule or job stream and matching work elements to resource systems to improve productivity.

(7) Addition or change in working shifts to increase capacity.

(8) Augmentation of installed ADPE by adding additional components to increase data processing capacity.

(9) Upgrading selected system components, such as adding additional selector channels, memory, faster tape or disk units, etc., in order to improve throughput capability.

(10) Replacing installed ADP system with a compatible system that will handle the workload.

(11) Competitive replacement of the installed ADP system through use of functional specifications.

(b) Where the analysis includes evaluation of the continued use of outdated ADPE, the analysis shall also evaluate the newer functionally-similar ADPE alternatives. Identifiable and quantifiable costs that are directly related to the costs of obsolescence (e.g., maintenance and operation, energy consumption, floor space, personnel,

and other applicable factors) shall be considered.

[FIRMR Amdt. 13, 53 FR 29052, Aug. 2, 1988]

§ 201-30.009-1 Analysis of low value acquisitions.

When the anticipated value of the procurement is $50,000 or less, the comparative cost analysis may be limited to an analysis that demonstrates that the benefits of acquiring the proposed system/item will outweigh the costs. However, requirements shall not be fragmented to circumvent this threshold. (For example, if the total cost of the various components of a system exceed $50,000, they may not be acquired individually to avoid a comprehensive comparative cost anal

ysis.)

[FIRMR Amdt. 4, 50 FR 27158, July 1, 1985] § 201-30.009-2 Analysis for obsolescence.

(a) An obsolescence review is a limited comparative cost analysis performed to determine whether total overall systems life cost savings are obtainable with newer ADPE technology, relative to operation of outdated ADPE (either the CPU or other components of the total mainframe ADP system). The analysis shall include (but not necessarily be limited to) consideration of the following items for both the existing outdated ADPE and the replacement ADPE as appropriate:

(1) System acquisition costs: Purchase price of replacement system or net lease cost of replacement system including emulators and simulators;

(2) System operating costs:

(i) Maintenance and operations costs (preventive maintenance and unscheduled downtime),

(ii) Energy cost (operating and cooling of central processing units (CPUs) and peripherals), and

(iii) Timesharing service to supplement capacity lost due to downtime;

(3) Hidden costs of equipment operation:

(i) Personnel (e.g., operators, programmers, and systems analysts) costs such as unscheduled personnel overtime and manual labor to replace normally automated functions, and

(ii) Floor space costs (CPUs, peripherals, and personnel);

(4) Auxiliary hardware costs:

(i) Uninterruptable power supplies, (ii) Front end data communication processors,

(iii) Peripheral equipment controllers,

(iv) Communication adapters, and (v) Hardware optimizers;

(5) Conversion cost, if applicable; (6) Administrative costs of the acquisition process; and

(7) Present value of money (see § 201-24.208(b)).

(b) Agency ADP managers should give obsolescence reviews priority and should evaluate their ADPE resources for obsolescence regularly to determine whether the cost of operating outdated ADPE is greater than the cost of acquiring and operating technologically newer ADPE. Indicators of obsolescence include:

(1) Maintenance services or parts are becoming unavailable or are no longer provided by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM);

(2) An operating system is not or will no longer be supported by the OEM; (3) Records indicate a degradation in equipment reliability affecting the supported mission;

(4) Maintenance costs are accounting for an increasingly higher portion of overall operating costs;

(5) Energy consumption, including necessary environmental control, is relatively high; and

(6) Non-compatibility with recent and more cost-effective software enhancements, such as automatic documentation, date dictionaries, coding optimizers, and extensive software libraries.

(c) When the cost of operating outdated ADPE is greater than the cost of acquiring and operating technologically newer ADPE, agencies should replace the equipment as expeditiously as possible under the current competitive acquisition process.

[FIRMR Amdt. 7, 51 FR 9959, Mar. 24, 1986]

(a) A statement of requirements to augment or replace existing ADP equipment or services that is limited to ADP equipment or services compatible with the existing operating system or with ADPE shall be

(1) Supported by a software conversion study, if required (see § 20130.012-1);

(2) Justified on the basis of agency mission-essential data processing requirements and economy and efficiency; and

(3) Meet the requirements of this § 201-30.009-3.

(b) The following factors shall be considered in determining whether the incorporation of compatibility limited requirements is justified for the augmentation or replacement acquisition:

(1) The essentiality of existing software, without redesign, to meet agency critical mission needs; e.g., the continuity of operations may be so critical that conversion is not a viable alternative.

(2) The additional risk associated with conversion if compatibility limited requirements are not used and the extent to which the Government would be injured, financially or otherwise, if the conversion to the new ADP system fails.

(3) The additional adverse impact of factors such as delay, lost economic opportunity, and less than optimum utilization of skilled professionals if compatibility limited requirements are not used.

(4) The steps being taken to foster competitive procedures in the augmentation or replacement acquisition (see § 201-30.012).

(5) The off-loading of selected applications programs to commercial data processing service facilities as an alternative to conversion.

(6) The continuation of ADP services for selected application programs with the present commercial ADP services contractor as an alternative to conversion of all programs in the present ADP resource system.

(7) The extent of essential parallel operations; i.e., the need to continue operation of the old system in parallel with the new system until the new

system can fully support the mission needs.

(8) The feasibility of competing conversion requirements to be performed on a guaranteed basis under a solicitation that couples the conversion effort and ADP services in a single contract, including consideration of the basis for a calculation of liquidated-damages provisions for conversion performance failure.

[FIRMR Amdt. 4, 50 FR 27159, July 1, 1985, as amended by Amdt. 12, 53 FR 24723, June 30, 1988]

§§ 201-30.010-201-30.011 [Reserved]

§ 201-30.012 Conversion planning and management responsibilities.

Conversion from one computer architecture and operating system software to another is a recurring and costly activity. Frequently, moving a particular ADP system workload to a noncompatible ADP system is SO costly that it is not a viable alternative. However, proper management of an agency's software inventory and planning for future conversions will reduce the risk and cost of conversion, enhance competition, and improve the efficiency of ADP operations.

(a) Federal ADP managers and contracting officers share the responsibility for ensuring that data processing requirements are met competitively at the lowest overall cost, price and other factors considered. This responsibility extends to those actions necessary to foster competition for subsequent competitive acquisitions. To achieve this objective, ADP managers shall take necessary action to minimize the cost of conversion to future replacement ADP systems. Although the configuration and date of acquisition of the replacement system may not be known, several steps can and should be taken to reduce both the risk and cost of conversion.

(b) The following are examples of management and planning actions that ADP managers should take to facilitate future conversions:

(1) Purge from the active inventory all software and data bases not essential to meet agency needs.