DIR IT Leadership Technology Driven Value 

Submission & Approval 


Certain Framework deliverables must be approved by agency-level roles (e.g., Agency Head, Executive Sponsor) as defined in statute. Certain Framework deliverables must be submitted to designated state-level entities (e.g., Quality Assurance Team) as defined in statute. Refer to the QAT website for additional information about QAT processes. For example, refer to the QAT website for information about state-level project approval.

Refer to the Framework Quick Reference as follows to identify required agency-level approval and state-level submission for each deliverable. Refer to Tool Tailoring, Signature Authority and Delegation, Submission Delivery Method, and Submission Requirements as follows for details regarding submission.

Framework Quick Reference

The following tables identify by review gate each Framework tool and its statutory references, agency-level approval authorities, and submission entities.

 

Business Justification Review Gate Quick Reference

Tool Required Statutory Reference Approved By Submit To
Business Case Yes 2054.303 Agency Head
Executive Sponsor
Technology Sponsor
Project Manager
Information Security Officer
QAT
Business Case Checklist Yes
Business Case Workbook Yes 2054.303
Agency Head
Executive Sponsor
Technology Sponsor
Project Manager
Information Security Officer
QAT
Business Case Workbook Checklist Yes
Statewide Impact Analysis Yes 2054.303 Agency Head
Executive Sponsor
Technology Sponsor
Project Manager
Information Security Officer
QAT 
Project Charter Yes 2054.307 Executive Sponsor
Business Justification
Review Gate Approval
Yes     2054.307 Agency Head — 

Project Planning Review Gate Quick Reference

Tool Required  Statutory Reference  Approved By  Submit To
Project Plan Yes 2054.304 / 2054.1181 Agency Head
Executive Sponsor
Technology Sponsor
Project Manager
Information Security Officer
QAT
Supplemental Tools: Project Plan
  • Project Contact Register
  • Work Breakdown Structure
  • Change Control Request
  • Issues Tracking
  • Project Status
  • Quality Register (*)
  • Quality Project Areas, Categories, and Measures
  • Communication Register (*)
  • Configuration Items Register (*)
  • Performance Register (*)
  • Performance Project Areas, Categories, and Measures
  • Risk Assessment Tables 
  • Risk Register (*)
  • Risk Checklists
  • Risk Item
  • Risk Status
Yes, if marked (*) QAT – if marked (*)
Monitoring Report Yes 2054.1181
QAT
Project Planning
Review Gate Approval
Yes 2054.307
Agency Head

 

Solicitation and Contracting Review Gate Quick Reference

Tool Required Statutory Reference Approved By Submit To
Technology Addendum – CPA Contract Management Guide Yes 2262.101
Acquisition Plan
(Identified in 2054.305 as Procurement Plan)
Yes 2054.305 / 2054.1181
Agency Head
Executive Sponsor
Technology Sponsor
Contract Manager
Project Manager
Legal
Information Security Officer
QAT
Contract Advisory Team Review and Delegation (CATRAD) Application – CPA Yes 2262.101
CAT
Contract Amendment and Change Order Approval Yes 2054.307
GAA Art. IX, 9.01(c)
Agency Head approval if contract costs increase above 10% or contract
completion date changes significantly.
QAT – if contract costs increase above 10%
Solicitation and Contracting Review Gate Yes 2054.307
Agency Head

 

Project Implementation Review Gate Quick Reference

Tool Required  Statutory Reference  Approved by  Submit To 
Acceptance to Deploy Yes 2054.307
Project Closeout Report Yes 2054.307
Project Implementation Review Gate Approval Yes 2054.307 Agency Head

 

Benefits Realization Review Gate Quick Reference

Tool  Required  Statutory Reference  Approved By  Submit To 
Post-Implementation Review of Business Outcomes Yes 2054.306 Agency Head
Executive Sponsor
Technology Sponsor
Project Manager
Information Security Officer
QAT
Benefits Realization Review Gate Approval Yes 2054.307 Agency Head

Tool Tailoring

Agencies must use the Framework tools as published to produce required deliverables. Therefore, tool tailoring guidelines for required tools do not exist. Agencies may add signatures in addition to those specifically identified and required as part of the Framework. Although no additions, modifications, or deletions are allowed except for additional signatures, agencies may choose to state “not applicable” in a deliverable section. A justification must be included in the deliverable section if “not applicable” is used. The justification must explain why the section does not apply to the project at all or at that point during project delivery.

Signature Authority and Delegation

The Framework functions with existing project management practices established within the agency. The processes and strategies defined within agency project management practices should direct internal staff regarding signature authority and delegation (if any) on project deliverables required for submission. 

Delegation of Authority

The delegation of approval and signature authority, as long as such delegation does not conflict with Texas Government Code, 2054.307, is a matter of agency discretion that is beyond the scope of the Framework. Project delivery accountability is not delegable. For example, agency head accountability is not delegable to a Chief Information Officer (CIO) or an Information Resources Manager (IRM).

Approvals

Agencies must adhere to statutory requirements relating to approvals and signatures. For example, each project deliverable required by Texas Government Code, Chapter 2054, Subchapter J, must be approved and signed by the agency head. The Framework Quick Reference identifies by review gate each Framework tool and its statutory references, agency-level approval authorities, and submission entities.

Documenting Approval Signatures

Framework deliverables require one or more signatures of approval. How agencies document an approval depends on whether the agency has captured an approval via email or by wet-ink signature. Any combination of email and/or wet/ink signatures can be used in a single submission.

  • Email Approval – Attach each approval email in its native format (not as a PDF) to the Framework submission transmittal email. The cover page for each deliverable—which shows the names, titles, and contact information for each reviewer—must also be included in the submission.
  • Wet-ink Signature – If one or more approval is indicated via a wet-ink signature on the cover page of a deliverable, scan the cover page and submit it as separate PDF attachment or merge it into the PDF file of the deliverable.
  • Digital Signature – Agencies may choose to use digital signature capabilities. A list of approved digital signature/public key infrastructure providers is located on the DIR website.

The methods described above for documenting approval signatures meet the auditability requirements of Texas Business and Commerce Code Chapter 322.017(b)(3).

Refer to the Sample Transmittal Email for sample language describing approval signatures.

Submitting Framework Deliverables

Submit Framework deliverables—except for the CATRAD Application, which is submitted to Contract Advisory Team—to the Quality Assurance Team. The Framework Quick Reference lists the entity (QAT or CAT) who receives each deliverable. See the Framework Contacts page for current QAT and CAT contact information.

Submission File

A submission file includes the deliverable, a transmittal email, and any attachments. Each deliverable should be submitted as a searchable PDF file, except for the Business Case Workbook, which must be submitted in its native format as an Excel file. The transmittal email should specify how each approval signature is documented—whether by email attachment or by scan of a wet-ink signature on the deliverable’s cover page. Refer to Appendix D – Sample Transmittal Email.

In the transmittal email, specify in the subject line the name of the deliverable(s) and the project name. For example: Business Case and Statewide Impact Analysis – Case Management Modernization Project (CMMP). The project name should be consistent for all deliverable submissions for the project. If the project name is changed, notify the QAT.

Sample Project Plan Deliverable

An example Project Plan (PDF) is provided on the Framework website.

Supplemental deliverables associated with the Project Plan—Quality Register, Communication Register, Configuration Item Register, Performance Register, and Risk Register—must be included as appendices to the Project Plan regardless of how an agency maintains those deliverables internally.

Submission Requirements Timeline

The Submission Requirements Timeline identifies submission requirements for Framework deliverables in relation to reporting requirements of the Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR). Descriptions for each notated action are provided after the graphic. Refer to the LBB website  for additional information about LBB processes identified in the submission timeline.

Submission Requirements Timeline 

Larger and printer-friendly versions of the Submission Requirements Timeline


Submission Requirements Timeline Descriptions

(Dates are approximations)

Date Item Description
May 2014 1 Legislative Budget Board releases Legislative Appropriations Request Instructions to agencies
August 2014 2 Agencies submit an Information Technology Detail as part of the Legislative Appropriations Request for capital and non-capital projects and other information resource expenditures. All projects that meet the criteria for major information resources projects and certain major contracts (refer to CPA Contract Management Guide), regardless of the funding source based on appropriated funds, must use the Framework. Appropriated funds, as defined in the General Appropriations Act, include general revenue, general revenue dedicated, federal, and other funds.
August 2014 3 Agencies submit a Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis for each major information resources project identified in the Information Technology Detail and certain major contracts (refer to CPA Contract Management Guide). A submitted Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis must map directly to projects identified in the Information Technology Detail. To further clarify, if project “X” is identified in the Information Technology Detail, then a Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis for project “X” must exist. Agencies may cut and paste redundant information between the Information Technology Detail and Business Case.

Note: Projects that span biennia are sometimes identified in the Information Technology Detail each biennium. For example, a project may require additional funding and is identified again in the Information Technology Detail. New projects (i.e., projects not approved in a previous biennium) require a Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis. Projects that have already been approved in a previous biennium and request additional funding that causes the total project costs to change by more than 10% require submission of a revised Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis.

December 2014 4 Legislative Budget Board submits budget recommendations to the Legislature.
January – May 2015   Legislative Session
May 2015 5 When the Legislature passes the appropriations bill, funding is approved.
August 2015 6 Legislative Budget Board approves projects identified in the agency’s Biennial Operating Plan (General Appropriations Act, Article IX, Section 9.02(b)). The Biennial Operating Plan is an approved Information Technology Detail following changes made throughout the appropriations process. The Biennial Operating Plan supports and reflects funding appropriated by the Legislature for information resources projects.
Note: Legislative Budget Board approval of Biennial Operating Plan projects and Quality Assurance Team project approval (next action) are the only instances where prior state-level project approval is required before appropriated funds may be expended. Upon Legislative Budget Board approval of Biennial Operating Plan projects, the Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis must be revised to correspond with the approved project budget and scope.
August 2015 7 Quality Assurance Team may approve projects identified in an agency’s Biennial Operating Plan based on an analysis of responses to the initial risk consideration evaluation factor in the Business Case and Business Case Workbook (General Appropriations Act, Article IX, Section 9.02(b)).
September 2015 8 Quality Assurance Team selects projects for monitoring to ensure those projects have the means to meet stated objectives. Refer to the Monitoring Report Instructions for additional information about project monitoring.
Anytime after items 6 and 7 occur 9a Agencies submit Project Plans anytime after the project has been approved at the state level. Refer to the Project Planning review gate description and associated deliverables instructions within the review gate for additional information regarding Project Plan submission.
Anytime after items 6 and 7 occur 9b Agencies submit Project Plans anytime after the project has been approved at the state level. Refer to the Project Planning review gate description and associated deliverables instructions within the review gate for additional information regarding Project Plan submission.
Anytime after items 6 and 7 occur 9c Agencies submit solicitation information via CATRAD application anytime after the project has been approved at the state level. Refer to the Comptroller of Public Accounts website for process information located in the Contract Management Guide.
Anytime after items 6 and 7 occur 9d Agencies submit Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis for any additional major projects approved after the Legislative Appropriations Request process and certain major contracts (refer to the CPA Contract Management Guide).

Note: Projects that do not initially meet the threshold and have since evolved to a major information resources project over time must use the Framework. These types of projects are considered additional major information resources projects approved after the Legislative Appropriation Request process.

Anytime after items 6 and 7 occur 9e Agencies submit Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis whenever the Biennial Operating Plan is amended.
Submitted only if project is selected by Quality Assurance Team 9f Agencies submit periodic monitoring reports if the project is selected for Quality Assurance Team monitoring. Refer to the Monitoring Report Instructions for additional information about project monitoring.
Submitted only if project is selected by Quality Assurance Team 9g Agencies submit Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and Statewide Impact Analysis for any additional project not previously selected by the Quality Assurance Team.
Note: If the project has not started, a Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and SIA must be submitted. When the QAT selects a project that has already started for monitoring, the QAT will determine on a case-by-case basis whether a Business Case, Business Case Workbook, and SIA should be submitted.

 

For more information about the Texas Project Delivery Framework, contact projectdelivery@dir.texas.gov.