AGA Annual Conference, Atlanta GA Implementing a Full- Featured Federal Spending Management and Reporting System Presented by: Paul Murphy, President,

AGA Annual Conference, Atlanta GA

Implementing a Full-Featured Federal Spending Management and Reporting System

Presented by: Paul Murphy, President, Eagle Eye Publishers

July 27, 2008

2© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Brief Eagle Eye Project History

Provide all contract data for USAspending.gov 2007 – present (18 million contract records / month, 35GB)

23 years of FPDC/FPDS-NG electronic data processing

10 years of CFDA Data Processing

Created first comprehensive FPDC database for desktop computers in 1988

Created commercial online contract and grant transaction reporting system in 1997

Created contract and grant reporting system for the US House of Representatives in 1998

Upgraded to processing FPDS-NG data for commercial clients in 2004

Extensive data analysis for SBA, commercial clients


How Far We’ve Come: FPDC (FY02) vs. FFATA Contracts (FY07)

Number of transaction records up from 500,000 in FY 2002 to 3.9 million in FY 2007. Last update contained 18 million contract records FY00 - FY08.

Total number of contracts up from 229,298 in FY 2002 to 1.5 million in FY 2007

Rapid transaction count growth primarily a result of large increases in reported small purchases

Total dollar value of contracts up from $262 billion in FY 2002 to $436 billion in FY 2007

Total number of active vendors up from 86,038 in FY 2002 to 201,642 in FY 2007

Improved currency: quarterly updates then, now monthly updates


Ongoing Contract Data issues Obligation records only, no expenditure data

Prime contracts only, no sub-contracts

Data consistency (obligations vs. expenditures . . . vs. budget?). Leads to discussion of data collection process, managing multiple, large data streams.

Certain key fields called for explicitly in FFATA not yet widely available (program source – 250K so far)

Unique parent company identification, “roll-ups”

Overall data cleanliness much better, but certain data fields still problematic (Place of Performance geographic fields, Agency/Purchase Office Codes with no references, inconsistently formatted Funding Agency codes)

Many fields incompletely or inconsistently reported (NAICS)


FFATA Calls For Expenditure Data


Ongoing Grant Data issues

Switch to FAADS+ improving grant data quality

Obligations only, no sub- and sub-sub-grant expenditure data

Need to work with agencies to generate more FAADS+ data

Need standard market descriptors

Need parent organization references like in contracts

Type of Grant/Assistance FFADS FY07 FAADS+ FY07 Diff $ Diff %Direct Payment $615,172,711,903 $64,047,000,000 -$551,125,711,903 -89.6%Grants & Coop $341,508,035,942 $511,930,000,000 $170,421,964,058 49.9%Insurance $570,464,505,901 $1,787,000,000 -$568,677,505,901 -99.7%Loan $71,296,513,318 $15,132,000,000 -$56,164,513,318 -78.8%Other $75,045,240 $35,488,000,000 $35,412,954,760 47188.8%Total $1,598,516,812,304 $628,384,000,000 -$970,132,812,304 -60.7%

Source: Eagle Eye Publishers & usaspending.gov


Software Issues

“Need for speed” in the update process

Need a robust software & data platform to fulfill terms of FFATA

Need robust analytics to fulfill management & public accountability requirements


FFATA Calls For A “Searchable” Web Site


USASpending.gov Advanced Search


Priorities for Transitioning To FFATA 2.0

What is the meaning of “Transparency?” What do we mean by “accountability?” Whom do we want to enable with our information and what do we want to enable them to do?

Need to define data collection access procedures and processes that fulfill requirements of FFATA (expenditures, sub-awards)

Need to access, integrate multiple data streams that are fundamentally different in nature (Obligation, expenditure, appropriations, commitments, etc.)

Robust, expandable data platform that fulfills all search and analytical requirements (dynamic rankings based on result sets, searching across dimensions)

Fulfill initial promise of program source code, make FFATA a true management tool as well as a full-featured taxpayer resource

Required fields need greater accuracy, fuller reporting

Redacted contracts???


Envisioning The Integration of Multiple Data Streams Contract Expenditure & Sub-Contract Reporting - 1

Source: http://beta.eagleeyeinc.com


Envisioning The Integration of Multiple Data Streams Contract Expenditure & Sub-Contract Reporting - 1



Envisioning The Integration of Multiple Data Streams Grant Expenditure & Sub-Grant Reporting - 1



Envisioning The Integration of Multiple Data Streams Grant Expenditure & Sub-Grant Reporting - 2



Eagle Eye Prime Award / Sub-Award Test Site

http://beta.eagleeyeinc.com

Thank You.For more information please visit

www.eagleeyeinc.com or call 800-875-4201 .

http://www.eagleeyeinc.com/

AGA Annual Conference, Atlanta GA Implementing a Full- Featured Federal Spending Management and Reporting System Presented by: Paul Murphy, President,

Documents

expenditure data slide

large data streams

certain data fields

rights reserved priorities

rights reserved ffata

fpdsng data

expandable data platform

grant data quality obligations