Fiscal year 2015 unemployment program integrity grants

CLASSIFICATION
   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION               Unemployment Insurance
               ADVISORY SYSTEM                          CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR                      OUI
             Washington, D.C. 20210                     DATE
                                                        June 15, 2015


ADVISORY:        UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 16-15

TO:              STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES

FROM:            PORTIA WU /s/
                 Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT:         Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
                 Program Integrity and Performance and System Improvements

1. Purpose. To notify State Workforce Agencies of the availability of Fiscal Year (FY) 2015
   funds for activities that support the prevention and detection of UI improper benefit
   payments, improve state performance, and address outdated Information Technology (IT)
   system infrastructures.

2. References.
   • Executive Order (E.O.) 13520, Reducing Improper Payments (November 20, 2009);
   • Improper Payment Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), 31 U.S.C. 3321;
   • Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), 31 U.S.C. 3301;
   • Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA), 31
      U.S.C. 3321;
   • Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 02-09, and Changes 1-3, Recovery
      of Unemployment Compensation Debts Due to Fraud from Federal Income Tax Refunds;
   • UIPL No. 22-10, Selecting and Monitoring At-Risk States for Continuous Improvement
      and Compliance with First Payment Timeliness and First Level Appeals Promptness;
   • UIPL No. 19-11, National Effort to Reduce Improper Payments in the Unemployment
      Insurance (UI) Program;
   • UIPL No. 26-11, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
      Program Integrity and Performance and System Improvements;
   • UIPL No. 33-11, Identification of “Improper Payment High Priority States” for
      Unemployment Insurance (UI);
   • UIPL No. 02-12, Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program Integrity – Amendments
      made by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA);
   • UIPL No. 18-12, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
      Program Integrity and Performance and System Improvements;
   • UIPL No. 24-13, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
      Program Integrity and Performance and System Improvements;
   • UIPL No. 13-14, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
      Program Integrity and Performance and System Improvements;

 RESCISSIONS                                           EXPIRATION DATE
 None                                                  Continuing

   •   Training and Employment Notice (TEN) No. 27-13, Unemployment Compensation for
       Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) Military-State Data Exchange System (MSDES); and
   •   TEN No. 34-13, Publication of the Final Rule for the Federal-State Unemployment
       Insurance (UI) Program - Data Exchange Standardization as Required by Section 2104 of
       the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.

3. Background. On November 20, 2009, President Obama signed E.O. 13520, Reducing
   Improper Payments, which emphasized the need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in
   federally administered programs while protecting access to these programs by their intended
   beneficiaries. Subsequently, the IPIA, as amended by IPERA and IPERIA, requires Federal
   agencies to review their programs and program activities, identify programs and areas that
   may be susceptible to significant overpayments, and develop and implement corrective action
   plans.

   The UI Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program, which provides the basis for
   assessing the accuracy of UI payments, estimated the UI national improper payment rate to
   be 11.57 percent for the 2014 reporting period (11.16 percent overpayment rate plus a 0.41
   percent underpayment rate). This translates to approximately $5.6 billion in improper
   payments nationally.

   The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has been working aggressively to
   reduce UI improper payments by collaborating with states. This federal-state partnership is
   working to implement ETA’s comprehensive strategic plan that targets the largest root causes
   of overpayments. The states are implementing these strategies through the Integrity Action
   Plans that are submitted annually as part of the State Quality Service Plan.

   To support states’ efforts in implementing elements of the strategic plan, ETA announced
   supplemental funding opportunities with incentives to accelerate state actions to reduce
   improper payments and improve performance for FY 2011 (UIPL No. 26-11), FY 2012
   (UIPL No. 18-12), FY 2013 (UIPL No. 24-13), and FY 2014 (UIPL No. 13-14). As a
   condition of eligibility, those funding opportunities required states to implement specific
   strategies in order to qualify for additional funding. The funding range available for states in
   each of these opportunities was based on the estimated availability of above-base funding
   that was not needed to fund workloads experienced by the states. In this announcement we
   make similar funding available for FY 2015.

   One strategy that ETA funded in each of the last four supplemental opportunities was the
   implementation of the State Information Data Exchange System (SIDES) and SIDES
   E-Response. SIDES is a web-based system that allows electronic transmission of UI
   information requests from state workforce agencies to employers and/or Third Party
   Administrators (TPAs), as well as transmission of responses containing the requested
   information back to the agencies. For employers with a limited number of UI claims
   throughout the year, the SIDES E-Response Web site provides an easy and efficient portal
   for electronically posting responses to information requests from state agencies. SIDES
   E-Response is available in participating states to any employer or TPA with Internet access.
   The National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) manages the day-to-day



   operations and maintenance of SIDES. Currently, based on latest data available for the 45
   participating states, 99.8 percent of the cases received timely responses from employers. The
   use of SIDES enables state agencies to make timely eligibility determinations and payments
   to claimants and to prevent improper payments. As we did in FY 2014, we are requiring all
   states to implement both SIDES services as a condition for obtaining supplemental funding,
   and we are making specific funds available to states that have not yet implemented SIDES.

   ETA also continues to be committed to supporting states in improving program performance
   and updating their IT infrastructures. The ITSC reports that the average age of the states’ UI
   IT infrastructures is 23 years, with many systems more than 30 years old. This funding
   opportunity will provide states with resources to improve program performance and support
   modernization of their IT infrastructures, including the incorporation of new technologies
   and tools such as document management systems, forms management, and ad-hoc reporting
   tools. The resulting systems will provide states with the agility to increase capacity to handle
   greater claims loads and enhance staff productivity and services.

4. Structure of Funding Opportunity. For FY 2015, states must agree to implement both
   SIDES web-based systems to receive any funding through this solicitation. Section 5 of this
   UIPL describes the SIDES Implementation Requirement. ETA is reducing the remaining
   number of required strategies for FY 2015 projects with the goal of providing states greater
   flexibility to take advantage of the supplemental funding opportunity. States that have not
   previously received supplemental funding for SIDES implementation may request up to
   $500,000 for this activity.

   States that have implemented, or agree to implement, SIDES are also eligible to request up to
   an additional $500,000 to implement one or more of the strategies described in Section 6 of
   this UIPL:

   •   Benefit Year Earnings (BYE) Improper Payment Strategies
   •   Fraud Prevention Strategies
   •   Treasury Offset Program (TOP) Implementation
   •   Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers (UCX) Automation
   •   Reemployment Connections
   •   UI Accessibility
   •   UI Reporting Improvements, including Data Validation
   •   UI IT Contingency Plan
   •   UI IT Security
   •   Combined Wage Claim (CWC) 02-12 Application
   •   Business Process Analysis (BPA) for At Risk or High Priority States
   •   State Specific Program Integrity or Performance Improvement Strategy

   States must provide a timeline for completion with milestones and goals for each strategy it
   commits to implement. States should propose realistic timelines, milestones, and goals for
   the completion of all strategies. By accepting these funds, a state agrees to meet the
   commitment(s) made in its application.



   Section 7 discusses Consortium funding opportunities for UI IT modernization or integrity
   projects.

   State progress in achieving the timelines and completing the deliverables established in the
   grant’s statement of work will be monitored on a quarterly basis using the reporting format
   discussed in Section 8 of this UIPL.

5. SIDES Implementation Requirement. All states must agree to implement SIDES Web
   Services and SIDES E-Response to receive any funding through this solicitation. States that
   have not previously received supplemental funds to implement SIDES must, for purposes of
   this supplemental budget request (SBR), commit to fully implement both SIDES Web
   Services and SIDES E-Response to improve the timeliness and quality of separation
   information needed to adjudicate non-monetary determinations. States that have not
   previously received supplemental funds for this activity may request up to $500,000,
   and should propose realistic timelines and goals to implement SIDES Web Services and
   SIDES E-Response as soon as feasible, but with implementation no later than March
   31, 2017.

   States that have been previously funded to implement SIDES may satisfy this requirement by
   attesting that SIDES implementation is complete or underway, providing the completion
   date/target, and committing to meet a minimum threshold of employer participation in
   SIDES E-Response. Specifically, states must commit to using SIDES to transmit requests to
   individual employers not using Third Party Administrators (TPAs) for information on
   separations and receive employer responses for at least 35 percent of all UI initial claims
   (new, initial, and additional claims as reported in the ETA 5159). ETA expects that states
   receiving any FY 2015 supplemental funds will make a substantial effort to achieve the 35
   percent SIDES expansion target, but recognizes that states cannot control employer actions.
   No new funding is available to states that have been previously funded to meet this
   requirement.

            SUMMARY OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ELIGIBLE STATES

                                                                    MAXIMUM FUNDS
               STRATEGY REQUIREMENT
                                                                      AVAILABLE
  SIDES Implementation                                                  $500,000


6. Additional Strategies. Provided that they meet the SIDES implementation requirement, all
   states may request funding to implement any of the additional strategies described in this
   section, if they have not previously done so. States may request funding for more than
   one strategy, up to a total of $500,000 for this section. Please note that funding in this
   section may not be used to supplement or supplant resources for staffing of routine
   program operations. However, funding may be used for staff directly involved in
   activities supporting implementation of an IT project such as development of business
   requirements, project management, coding, testing, and training.




•   BYE Improper Payment Strategies. States may request funds to implement a strategy
    to address BYE improper payments. Key to addressing this root cause of overpayments
    is for states to identify as quickly as possible that a claimant has returned to work. ETA
    encourages states to implement strategies such as:

       Enhanced National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) processes to flag the next
        continued claim when an NDNH cross-match “hit” is detected, and require the
        claimant to speak to a state claims representative when attempting to file his or her
        next continued claim. In addition to programming to identify hits and flag continued
        claims, funding for this strategy may also be used to conduct more frequent State
        Directory of New Hires (SDNH) cross-matches to enable faster detection and
        prevention of future improper payments. Please refer to this summary
        www.dol.gov/dol/maps/pdf/20111212NewJersey.pdf for a description of a similar
        strategy implemented in New Jersey.
       Data analytics and predictive modeling tools for use in the detection and prevention
        of improper payments. Data analytics tools can assist states to identify and/or
        prioritize high risk claims, both before and after payment, and refer those claims for
        review and verification.
       A state-specific strategy, such as a new cross-match, designed to prevent BYE
        overpayments. ETA will prioritize requests to implement the enhanced NDNH and
        data analytics strategies but will consider additional state approaches with the proper
        justification. States that propose these strategies must provide a detailed description
        of the project design, expected outcomes, and the impact of the strategy on the state’s
        improper payment rate.

•   Fraud Prevention Strategies. States may request funds to implement tools that can help
    prevent and detect fraudulent overpayments. ETA encourages states to implement
    strategies such as:

       Internet Protocol (IP) Address blocking software for use in identifying and blocking
        foreign IP addresses during incoming claim or weekly certification requests. Please
        refer to this summary for a description of a similar strategy implemented by the state
        of New York at: http://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/pdf/20120127NewYork.pdf .
       Identity verification systems to authenticate the identity of individuals and prevent the
        use of personal identifying information for willful misrepresentation in establishing
        eligibility to apply for UI benefits.
       Cross-matching with public or private sources of incarceration and mortality data to
        prevent fraudulent UI overpayments.

•   TOP Implementation. States that have not previously done so may request funds to
    implement TOP for the recovery of fraudulent and certain non-fraudulent overpayments.
    States that have implemented, or previously received funding to implement TOP for
    recovering benefit overpayments, may request funds to implement TOP for recovery of
    unpaid employer taxes (see UIPLs No. 02-09, Changes 1-3). We note that recoveries
    nationally using TOP have exceeded $1.3 Billion since it became available to the UI
    system and a significant boon to state UI trust funds.



•   UCX Automation. States may request funds to implement the Military-State Data
    Exchange System (MSDES), as described in TEN No. 27-13, to improve, streamline, and
    automate UCX claims filing and billing. The MSDES makes UCX claim filing and
    billing significantly more efficient by allowing the various branches of the military and
    the states to electronically communicate with each other instead of relying on a paper-
    based system. States that have automated their UCX systems have reported significant
    cost and time savings. Funding for this UCX automation strategy may be used for the
    following purposes:

       To cover costs for Interstate Connection (ICON) Network programming necessary to
        implement MSDES;
       Programming to provide additional information in the Type 2 Request Record sent to
        the Federal Claims Control Center (FCCC), which must include: changing the
        Branch of Service field from optional to required, populating the Maximum Benefit
        Amount and Weekly Benefit Amount information in the Type 2 Record, and adding
        dependent allowance;
       Programming to ensure that states can send and receive all six UCX record types via
        ICON;
       Programming to update the UCX message codes to display new message types for
        error handling in the state system;
       Developing the appropriate interfaces with the state benefits systems to generate the
        quarterly billing statement electronically in a standardized (.csv) file format; and
       Testing state systems to verify display and processing functionality.

•   Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Data System
    Integration/Reemployment Connections. WIOA requires states to work toward
    integrated data systems across partner programs, including UI, in support of service
    delivery broadly, including to UI claimants to support their reemployment. WIOA also
    amends the Wagner-Peyser Act to clearly emphasize the need to serve UI claimants.
    States may request funds to establish linkages across state IT systems supporting both UI
    and workforce services (e.g., UI benefits system, state job bank, and/or case management
    system) in order to more effectively link UI claimants to reemployment services –
    delivered either electronically or through American Job Centers. States are also
    encouraged to establish a UI feedback loop when claimants are referred to reemployment
    services to ensure the claimant maintains UI eligibility. States may consider adoption of
    two reemployment information technology tools recently developed collaboratively by
    the NASWA Information Technology Support Center and pilot states that support
    integrated registration for UI and workforce programs and creates a common front door
    for job seekers. The Integrated Workforce Registration (IWR) tool and Workforce
    Integration Profile Page provide an interactive hub for reemployment service delivery
    and a way to push available jobs to claimants throughout the service delivery life cycle.
    States may find more information about these tools at
    http://rc.workforce3one.org/integrated-service-delivery or they may contact Subri Raman
    ([email protected]), Chief, Division of Performance Management, in the National
    Office.




•   UI Accessibility. States may request funds to help comply with statutory and regulatory
    obligations to ensure equal, effective and meaningful access to the UI program and its
    benefits, services, and information. In delivering UI services, states must ensure that
    information about UI initial claims filing, Benefits Rights Information (BRI), UI
    continued weekly/biweekly claims filing, fact-finding and adjudication/determinations,
    appeals hearings/decisions as well as referrals and linkages to reemployment services are
    accessible regardless of age, disability, race, national origin, or English language ability.
    SBR funding is available to make automated system enhancements and/or to provide
    tools and training to staff to accomplish accessibility compliance.

•   UI Reporting Improvements, including Data Validation. States may request funds to
    improve the data quality of UI federal reports submitted to ETA. The proposal must
    clearly explain the deficiencies with the existing required report(s) that will be addressed
    by implementing this project. States may also request funding for IT support of data
    validation efforts to create/revise the data validation population datasets or extract files,
    modify computer systems to add new fields needed for data validation, ensure that state
    computer programs are extracting the correct transactions for data validation population
    datasets, correct errors in data validation extract files, and ensure that the corrections pass
    data validation guidelines.

•   UI IT Contingency Plan. States may request funding to develop or update their UI IT
    Contingency Plan using the guidelines provided in National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-34. Upon completion of the plan, State
    Workforce Agencies (SWAs) must have an Independent Verification &Validation (IV &
    V) conducted of their UI IT Contingency Plan based on guidelines provided in the NIST
    SP 800-34. States must submit a copy of the IV&V certification report on their
    contingency plan to their respective Regional Office.

•   UI IT Security. States may request funds to address the UI IT security weaknesses that
    have been identified by recent IT security audits (performed within the last three years
    from the date of this UIPL) or by a SWA’s UI IT security self-assessment that complies
    with the NIST IT security guidelines found in NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security
    Controls for Federal Information Systems and NIST SP 800-53A, Guide for Assessing
    the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems.

•   CWC 02-12 Application. States may request funding to implement the guidance
    contained in UIPL No. 02-12 and UIPL No. 02-12, Change 1. The Trade Adjustment
    Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) of 2011 and implementing guidance contained in
    UIPL No. 02-12 and UIPL No. 02-12, Change 1, necessitated a new communication
    process between the paying state and the transferring state involved in a CWC to ensure
    the paying state’s determination of non-charging is promptly communicated to the
    transferring state and the employer’s account is appropriately charged. The effective date
    of this requirement was October 21, 2013. In a collaborative effort involving ETA,
    NASWA, and states, an application (CWC 02-12) was implemented on the ICON
    network to address the TAAEA provision on non-charging. States are required to meet




     the provisions of TAAEA and use the CWC 02-12 application to communicate with each
     other.

 •   BPA for At Risk or High Priority States. States formally designated as “At Risk” for
     performance, as defined in UIPL No. 22-10, or “High Priority” for improper payments, as
     defined in UIPL No. 33-11, may request funds to conduct an administrative and/or
     business process review to:

        Identify bottlenecks and the causes of poor performance in first payment timeliness
         and/or appeals timeliness, or
        Identify areas where changes in business processes could lead to a reduction in the
         improper payment rate and overall improvement in program integrity.

     Only those states that have not received supplemental funding for a program performance
     BPA in the last two fiscal years may request funding for this purpose. This review
     should be rigorous and thorough and the outcome should be clear recommendations that
     may inform additional corrective action steps. Examples of the use of funds may include:
     (a) Purchase, installation, or training on a software package that supports the
     administrative and/or business process review; and (b) Engaging a contractor for expert
     assistance or a subject matter expert to support business process analysis and re-
     engineering, and develop recommendations for use in an action plan.

 •   State-Specific Program Integrity or Performance Improvement Strategy. States may
     elect to propose a strategy designed to prevent improper payments or improve state
     performance. States that propose these strategies must provide a detailed description of
     the project design, expected outcomes, and the impact of the strategy on the state’s
     improper payment rate or performance. States may only submit one state-specific
     strategy as part of the SBR request.

              SUMMARY OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR EACH STATE


              ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES
BYE Improper Payment Strategies
Fraud Prevention Strategies
TOP Implementation
UCX Automation                                                  MAXIMUM FUNDS
Reemployment Connections                                       AVAILABLE: $500,000
UI Accessibility
UI Reporting Improvements, including Data Validation
UI IT Contingency Plan
UI IT Security
CWC 02-12 Application



  BPA for At Risk or High Priority States
  State Specific Program Integrity or Performance
  Improvement Strategy


7. Consortium Projects. Due to the fact that the available funding for these SBR requests is
   more limited in FY 2015 overall, funding for consortium activities is also very limited.
   States that meet the requirement established in Section 5 of this UIPL may submit proposals
   for UI IT modernization projects as part of a consortium of states in only limited
   circumstances. We do not intend to fund any new consortia. A consortium planning to
   submit a proposal must comply with the requirements provided below and in Section 9 of
   this UIPL. The consortium system that is developed should use open source components to
   the extent feasible, be transferable, and be available to be shared by multiple state workforce
   agencies without the need to significantly customize the system, and/or be hosted in one
   state, which will provide automated services to other states. The purposes for which a
   consortium of states may submit a proposal are outlined below:

   •   An existing consortium with completed business requirements for a UI Benefits and/or
       Tax system may submit a proposal for the design, development and implementation of a
       UI Benefits and/or Tax system;

   •   An existing consortium that has substantially completed development of its system may
       submit a proposal to conduct a fit-gap analysis to enable on-boarding a new state. The
       proposal must demonstrate a commitment by the consortium and the state to be on-
       boarded to integrate the new state into the consortium and reflect an agreement to revise
       the existing consortium agreement, governance structure, and operating model to
       accommodate the inclusion of the new state agency.

   •   In very limited circumstances, such as unanticipated costs for additional subject matter
       experts to assist with the project, ETA may provide additional funding to an existing
       consortium that received IT modernization funding under an earlier SBR. The rationale
       for a request must be compelling and demonstrate that changes in circumstances or
       situations that were unforeseeable are the cause for the need for additional funding.

   Consortia are reminded that the project planned by a state consortium must specifically
   address the following requirements:

   •   Data outputs that meet UI Required Reporting requirements in ETA Handbook No. 401;
   •   UI Data Validation requirements as referenced in ETA Handbook No. 361;
   •   System interfaces with the ICON network applications;
   •   System interfaces with SIDES;
   •   Compliance with appropriate assurances as referenced in ETA Handbook No. 336,
       Chapter VII, including the requirements for Contingency Planning and Automated
       Information Systems Security;




   •   Compliance with the final rule for Data Exchange Standardization published in TEN
       No. 34-13, to designate data exchange standards for UI administration; and
   •   If the project includes an integrated UI Tax system, it must provide for the continued
       reporting of wage records, monthly employment, and any other factors required under the
       Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program.

   All consortium proposals must identify a lead state agency, identify the states participating in
   the consortium, and explain the projected allocation of and fiscal responsibility for
   expenditures. Additionally, the proposals must include a copy of the signed agreement(s) by
   all participating states. A cover letter must be included and signed by the Administrator of
   the lead state agency and it must explain the roles of the participating state(s) in the project as
   described in the consortium agreement.

8. SBR Reporting Requirements. Each state recipient of SBR funds must submit a narrative
   Quarterly Progress Report (ETA 9165) and Quarterly Financial Report (ETA 9130)
   containing updates on the progress and implementation of each grant project as listed in the
   award letter. For SBRs provided to state consortia for IT modernization projects, the lead
   state is expected to provide the status report on behalf of the partner states. ETA will issue
   additional guidance on the submission of quarterly progress reports to meet the reporting and
   record keeping requirements of these grants.

9. Application and Award of Supplemental Funds. To apply for supplemental funds, a state
   must submit an SBR package (see attachment) consisting of an individual application for the
   SIDES Implementation Requirement and/or any optional Additional Strategies for which the
   state seeks funding. Each project application will be evaluated separately. When the same
   expenditures are requested in two different individual applications and would be duplicated if
   both were funded, the state must provide a brief explanation in both applications where the
   costs are duplicated to ensure that the same costs are not funded twice. States are encouraged
   to use the application document provided in the attachment to prepare an SBR package.
   States must also submit both the form SF-424 (OMB No. 4040-0004)
   http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/SF424_2_1-V2.1.pdf and SF-424A (OMB No.
   4040-0006) http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/SF424A-V1.0.pdf covering all
   projects in the SBR. Applications that do not follow this prescribed format will be returned
   to the states for correction without review. The U.S. Department of Labor reserves the right
   to negotiate grant amounts with each applicant. States will be required to submit revised
   forms SF-424 and SF-424A if the final award amount is different from the initial request.
   New grant agreements will be executed for supplemental funds awarded under this UIPL.

   For consortium projects, the lead state will be responsible for submitting a joint application
   (see discussion in Section 7) on behalf of the participating states. The proposal must clearly
   indicate total project costs including a breakdown of individual state costs. States must
   indicate the minimum funds necessary to complete the proposed project(s). Depending on
   the availability of funding and number of proposals deemed eligible for funding, it may be
   necessary to negotiate project funding.





   The one-time funds available for automation acquisitions and competitive grants for
   improved operations and improper payment activities must be obligated by states by
   September 30, 2017, and liquidated within 90 days of that date. Upon written request, the
   Grant Officer may extend the liquidation period. Funds obligated by a state by September
   30, 2017, to an outside entity allows for work supported by these funds to continue for 90
   days beyond that date. Any work beyond that date would require an approved liquidation
   extension beyond the 90-day period. Funds obligated for state staff and services related to
   automation acquisitions/projects such as subject matter experts, application developers, or
   project management oversight must be obligated by September 30, 2017, and liquidated
   within 90 days thereafter.

   By applying for any of these funds for individual state projects, the state agrees that the
   proposed projects will be completed with no additional federal funding. For consortium
   projects, ETA may allocate additional funding to ensure successful completion of projects,
   on a case-by-case basis if funding is available. When projects have been approved, a Letter
   of Award will be issued to the state(s) listing the proposals that are being funded by the SBR.
   It will include the funding level for each proposal, the total funding level for the state’s SBR,
   and the allocation among states for any consortium projects. Additionally, the state will also
   receive a grant award package that includes a Notice of Obligation.

10. Project Modifications. If, during the performance period, a state wishes to reallocate funds
    among categories/projects within its SBR, it must submit a new SF-424A (OMB No. 4040-
    0006) to the appropriate Regional Office for approval, with a copy to the National Office if
    the amount to be moved is equal to or exceeds 20 percent of any category of the initially
    awarded amount for the project. The state must also submit a request for modification of the
    grant signed by the state’s signatory authority. This information will be submitted to the
    Grant Officer with a request for modification of the SBR grant to reflect the requested
    changes. For consortium grants, this request must be provided to the National Office by the
    lead state. Also, all future modification requests to the grant should be sent by email to
    [email protected] with a copy to the appropriate Regional Office.

   By accepting these funds, each state agrees to meet the commitment(s) made in its
   application. States may not elect to abandon an approved (single) project and move funds to
   a different project. State progress in achieving the timelines and completing the deliverables
   established in the grant’s statement of work will be monitored on a quarterly basis using the
   reporting format discussed in Section 8 of this UIPL. A state’s failure to meet these
   performance requirements could result in questioned costs that would need to be repaid.

11. Action Requested. We request State Administrators to:

   a) Review the funding opportunities and determine whether the state will apply for any
      funds under this solicitation;
   b) Coordinate with UI program and IT staff to develop a proposal(s) under this solicitation;
   c) Work with the appropriate Regional Office to develop an SBR that will best serve the
      needs of the state; and




   d) Submit the SBR application by e-mail to [email protected] by the close of
      business on 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION DATE, 2015, with an electronic copy
      provided to the appropriate Regional Office. The subject line of the e-mail should
      include the name of the state and the title “Integrity-Related SBR 2015.”

12. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office.

13. Attachment.

   Attachment: 2015 Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) Application

14. OMB Information Collection. OMB Information Collection No 1225-0086, Expires
    January 31, 2016. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are
    required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid
    OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated
    to average 20 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
    existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
    reviewing the collection of information. Send comments about the burden estimated or any
    other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden,
    to the U.S. Department of Labor, to the attention of the Departmental Clearance Officer, 200
    Constitution Avenue NW, Room N1301, Washington, DC 20210. Comments may also be
    emailed to: [email protected]. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THE
    COMPLETED APPLICATION TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND IT TO THE SPONSORING
    AGENCY AS SPECIFIED IN THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.

Attachment

                  2015 Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) Application

Instructions: States should complete a separate document using the suggested format
above and instructions below for each activity for which the state is seeking funding. These
documents are to be combined in a single SBR with a SF-424 and an SF-424A covering all
projects. The lead state in a consortium must submit a separate application for a
Consortium Project. Applications that do not follow this prescribed format will be
returned to states for correction without review.

                                Unemployment Insurance
                          Supplemental Budget Request Abstract

State Name:

Total Funds Requested for All Projects:

Name, Title, and Address of Grant Notification Contact (Typically the State Workforce
Agency Administrator)
Name:
Title:
Address:

Name, E-Mail Address, and Phone Number of SBR Project or Fiscal Manager
Name:
E-Mail Address:
Telephone Number:

Name, E-Mail Address, and Phone Number of Benefit Payment Control Supervisor
Name:
E-Mail Address:
Telephone Number:

Provide the following information for each project (add additional rows as needed):

Individual Project Name        Total Cost of Project          Proposed Completion Date





                               Unemployment Insurance
                         Supplemental Budget Request Abstract




SBR Project Application
Complete a separate document for each activity for which the state seeks funding

Name of Project



Amount of Funding Request for this Project



State Contact

Name:
E-Mail Address:
Telephone Number:



Project Description




Project Timeline




Description of Costs

State Agency Staff Costs:

Type of Position        Total Hours              Cost Per Hour     Total



Contract Staff Costs:

Type of Position        Total Hours              Cost Per Hour     Total


 Hardware, Software and Telecommunications Equipment:

 Item Description         Cost Per Item              Quantity               Total




 Other Costs:

 Item                             Cost                             Explanation




 Strategic Design:




 Measurable Improvements Expected in UI Operations:




Name of Project:

Amount of Funding Request for this Project: Provide the total amount of funds requested in
this individual project.

State Contact: Provide name, telephone number, and e-mail address of the individual who can
answer any questions relating to the proposal.

Project Description: Provide a brief description of the activity/project for which the state is
seeking funding and explain how the project will improve prevention, detection, or collection of
overpayments; or improve performance in other UI activities.

Project Timeline (20 percent of total score): Provide a list of the dates and the milestones for
this project. The timeline should include the completion of the work, the designation of specific
tasks to appropriate parties, the issuance of a request for proposal, if appropriate, the projected
start date, the proposed dates to begin and complete testing (if necessary), and the proposed date



for full implementation of the project. These milestones and dates will be used to monitor the
implementation of the project.

Description of Costs (20 percent of total score): Provide an explanation of all costs included
in the project.

•   State Agency Staff Costs: Use the table format above to request state staff to support
    project implementation.

•   Contract Staff Costs: Use the table format above to request contract staff to support project
    implementation.

•   Hardware, Software, and Telecommunications Equipment: Provide an itemized list of
    hardware, software, and telecommunications equipment including the cost per item and the
    number of each item requested. A description of each item must provide any information
    needed to identify the specific item and a description of the size and capacity of each item if
    applicable.

•   Other: Identify each item of cost not covered elsewhere and provide the expected cost per
    item. The need for each item must be explained.

Strategic Design (30 percent of total score): The strategic design should provide evidence of a
thorough analysis of current operations and show that the design will meet the needs of the state.
For example, a proposed improper payment strategy could include an explanation of
overpayments that are currently not being prevented, detected or recovered because the proposed
automated system is not operational. The state must explain how it has determined that the
proposed system would be the most beneficial to its operation and accomplish the goals.

Measurable Improvements Expected in UI Operations (30 percent of total score): Identify
the areas which will be improved or on-going costs reduced through implementation of the
proposed project. All improvements and cost reductions must be quantified rather than
generalized. For example, if it is anticipated that overpayments will be collected more quickly
with the new system, the measurable improvements must identify the anticipated time savings
per overpayment and the percentage of overpayments that will be affected by the project(s).