SS_Part_A_1090-0008 5-31-18 Final

Supporting Statement A

E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Survey (Formerly American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Survey)

OMB Control No.: 1090-0008

Terms of Clearance: None

General Instructions

A completed Supporting Statement A must accompany each request for approval of a collection of information. The Supporting Statement must be prepared in the format described below, and must contain the information specified below. If an item is not applicable, provide a brief explanation. When the question “Does this ICR contain surveys, censuses, or employ statistical methods?” is checked "Yes," then a Supporting Statement B must be completed. OMB reserves the right to require the submission of additional information with respect to any request for approval.

Specific Instructions

Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify

any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection.

We are requesting a three-year extension of the generic clearance to conduct customer satisfaction surveys for federal government websites. This was formerly known as the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Survey. The contractor that has provided the service for over a decade, ForeSee, is now using a derivative of the ACSI methodology called Customer Experience Analytics or CXA [see supplementary documents The ForeSee CXA Methodology: White Paper]. An extension will allow for continued use of a data-driven and statistically valid approach to understanding customer satisfaction with agency websites, which are playing a strategic role of ever-increasing importance. The ultimate objective is to help agencies become more citizen-centric and achieve higher levels of citizen trust and confidence.

The primary law that supports these efforts is the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 31 U.S.C. 1116, which has as one of its purposes “improve Federal programs effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.” Such an initiative is also widely supported by longstanding administrative policy, as expressed in Executive Orders and Laws, described below.

Official policy on customer service standards is contained in Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards, which establishes that Federal Government agencies should survey customers to determine their level of satisfaction with existing services, measure customer service satisfaction results against service standards, benchmark customer service performance against the best in business, provide customers with choices in both the sources of service and the means of delivery, make complaint systems easily accessible, and provide means to address customer complaints. Agencies are to utilize information about their customer satisfaction results in judging the performance of agency management and in making resource allocations.

In 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13450 aimed at improving Government Program Performance. The Order focused on maximizing the effectiveness of programs for citizens through establishing clear annual and long-term goals and having the means to measure progress toward these goals. A Performance Improvement Council was established within the Office of Management and Budget to provide oversight to agencies in implementing the Order.

In January 2009, the Obama Administration released a memorandum to all Executive Departments and Agencies calling for the creation of a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative Government. The memorandum notes that Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public, determine how to best increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government, and assess and improve the level of collaboration and cooperation between Government and nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. The Chief Technology Officer, General Services Administration, and OMB were charged with coordinating efforts to produce an Open Government Directive that would address specific actions for implementing the principles of a transparent and open Government. Use of ForeSee CXA surveys to provide reliable and statistically sound information directly supports improved performance, enhanced citizen involvement, openness and accountability.

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 enhanced the federal government’s performance management by creating two new frameworks: 1) one government-wide performance plan developed by OMB with input from departments and agencies, and 2) agency priority goals that are identified and reported quarterly. GPRA 2010 tasks the agency Chief Operating Officer and Performance Improvement Officer with the overall organization management to improve performance.

On April 27, 2010, President Obama issued an Executive Order Streamlining Customer Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service. This E.O. requires each agency to develop a customer service plan in consultation with OMB that addresses how each agency will provide services in a manner that streamlines service delivery and improves the experience of its customers. The E.O. requires the establishment of mechanisms to solicit customer feedback on Government services and using feedback regularly to make improvements. Furthermore, the E.O. requires improving the customer experience by adopting proven customer service best practices across service channels (including websites) as well as identifying ways to use innovative technologies to accomplish customer service activities, thereby lowering costs, decreasing service delivery times and improving the customer experience (as can be accomplished through agency websites).

The Obama Administration clearly recognizes that while federal resources need to be allocated to programs and managers that deliver results, agencies need to engage and collaborate with the public to ensure that programs are structured in a way that maximizes effectiveness and strives to improve program quality. Therefore, agencies are likely to make more use of information collections involving citizen input and perspectives—like the ForeSee CXA surveys—in order to collaborate effectively with the public and meet Administration mandates. A ForeSee CXA survey is also the perfect tool for agencies to use demonstrating their willingness to be open and collaborative, as they solicit input and feedback on the widest possible array of government activities and information.

The advantages of ForeSee CXA surveys are many and include most notably achieving statistical significance with minimum cost and burden on agencies and the public. Collecting, analyzing, and acting upon customer satisfaction data are vital to the government’s ability to achieve its E-Government strategy, including the consolidation of websites and reduction in the overall number of websites.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a

new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received

from the current collection. Be specific. If this collection is a form or a questionnaire,

every question needs to be justified.

During the past three years, the generic clearance has been critical to the ability of agencies and their web teams to:

• Better identify who is visiting their websites.

• Determine what drives visitor satisfaction.

• Understand the relationship between visitors’ satisfaction with their experience and future behaviors.

• Prioritize resource allocation based on their ability to drive Return on Investment.

• Measure customer satisfaction of visitors continuously, 24-hours a day, seven days a week.

• Benchmark performance against public and private sector websites with a similar mission.

• Identify areas for improvement.

• Quantify the impact of improving visitor satisfaction on future behaviors.

• Drill down to evaluate satisfaction of different user groups and various sections of their websites.

In addition, the generic clearance has enabled the Federal Consulting Group (FCG) of the U.S. Department of the Interior to provide the general public and policymakers in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches with data reporting on trends in overall customer satisfaction with federal government websites, as well as other insights into citizen behaviors and website usage.

Since the generic clearance was issued, more than 375 websites have partnered with FCG and ForeSee to measure website customer satisfaction. Agencies have been able to utilize the data from this research to guide their website redesign and improvement efforts with a greater and entirely appropriate focus on customer needs and desires, and many agencies have reported on their successes and lessons learned.

As previously described, the website customer satisfaction measures or surveys are based on the ForeSee CXA methodology. In a competitive procurement, the FCG selected ForeSee, Inc, which uses a unique website customer satisfaction measurement survey and model that determines both the impact of drivers on satisfaction and also the outcome of satisfaction on trust and confidence in the government. This survey and related analysis and reporting enable agencies to obtain insights that help make valuable resource allocation decisions based on customer feedback. ForeSee now utilizes a derivative of the proprietary methodology behind the ACSI econometric model to link the drivers and consequences of satisfaction. An important advantage, in contrast to methods that rely solely on survey questions, is that it produces results with statistical stability and low chance variation. This helps ensure uniform and consistent results that allow cross-agency comparisons and benchmarking.

The benefits to government agencies in using the ForeSee CXA Methodology for customer satisfaction measures are:

• Reliance on a national uniform and scientifically established measure of E-Government customer satisfaction.

• Confidence in having the most accurate and researched index of customer satisfaction available.

• Capability to benchmark against other agencies as well as private sector companies with an extensive data covering more than a decade.

• Information on how to improve website satisfaction.

• Impartiality, objectivity, and stature of the leading consulting company in website satisfaction.

• High quality of data.

• Ability to measure customer satisfaction continuously.

Since September 2003, ForeSee has published quarterly E-Government scores for websites that participate in studies with FCG and ForeSee. All data for the website surveys is collected on-line, and the agencies receive access to their data and related reports 24/7 via a sophisticated on-line portal. This portal provides accurate and actionable information that enables agency web teams and managers to focus time, energy, and resources on areas that matter most to their web customers.

A brief survey made up of a combination of standard and custom questions is triggered randomly for the smallest possible percentage of site visitors needed to achieve statistically valid information. The survey continuously and unobtrusively gathers information from agency website visitors about their overall satisfaction with the agency’s site, satisfaction with specific site elements, and their likelihood to return to, recommend, or transact with the agency site in the future. All reporting and data storage are done through secure servers that reside at the ForeSee site so that agency site performance is not affected. In addition, aggregate data on government website satisfaction is maintained and available for comparative purposes.

A description of the questionnaire’s key questions and elements is provided below, including the supporting rationale.

Questionnaire

Questions	Supporting Rationale
WEBSITE ELEMENTS THAT DRIVE SATISFACTION [QUESTIONNAIRE TYPICALLY CONTAINS 4-7 ELEMENTS] Content (1=Poor, 10=Excellent, Don’t Know) Please rate the accuracy of the information on this site Please rate the quality of information on this site Please rate the freshness of content on this site Functionality (1=Poor, 10=Excellent, Don’t Know) Please rate the usefulness of the features provided on this site Please rate the convenience of the features on this site Please rate the variety of the features on this site Look and Feel (1=Poor, 10=Excellent, Don’t Know) Please rate the visual aspect of this site Please rate the balance of graphics and text on this site Please rate the readability of pages on this site Navigation (1=Poor, 10=Excellent, Don’t Know) Please rate how well the site is organized Please rate how well the site layout helps you find what you are looking for Please rate the number of clicks to get where you want on this site Online Transparency (1=Poor, 10=Excellent, Don’t Know) Please rate how thoroughly this website discloses information about what the organization is doing Please rate how quickly organizational information is made available on this site Please rate how well information about this organization’s actions can be accessed by the public on this site Search (1=Poor, 10=Excellent, Don’t Know) Please rate the relevance of search results Please rate the organization of search results Please rate how well the search results help you decide what to select Please rate how well the search feature helps you narrow the results to find what you want	These questions focus on the key elements that determine the user experience when they visit the website and are the drivers of customer satisfaction. Note: Search is not measured if Functionality element is measured and vice versa
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX QUESTIONS [ALL THREE ARE ASKED] What is your overall satisfaction with this site? (1=Very Dissatisfied, 10=Very Satisfied)	These are the core questions of the ForeSee CXA methodology. The overall satisfaction question is one of the key manifest variables

Questions	Supporting Rationale
How well does this site meet your expectations? (1=Very Dissatisfied, 10=Very Satisfied) How does this site compare to your idea of an ideal website? (1=Not Very Close, 10=Very Close)	and is used to measure satisfaction as a latent variable. The second question in the index focuses on confirming/disconfirming customer expectations as a result of their experiences with other websites. This question focuses on the performance of the website observed by the customer versus his/her ideal website. This question is integral to the approach used in the ForeSee CXA methodology and has been thoroughly tested and peer reviewed in terms of both the question wording and the scale anchors employed.
FUTURE BEHAVIOR QUESTIONS [MOST QUESTIONNAIRES HAVE 3-5 OF THESE QUESTIONS] Likelihood to return (1=Very Unlikely, 10=Very Likely) How likely are you to return to this site? Recommend Site (1=Very Unlikely, 10=Very Likely) How likely are you to recommend this site to someone else? Recommend Organization (1=Very Unlikely, 10=Very Likely) How likely are you to recommend this organization to someone else? Confidence (1=Not At All Confident, 10=Very Confident) Please rate your confidence in this organization	These questions focus on a desired outcome/future behavior and function as indicators of the consequence of satisfaction.
Questions	Supporting Rationale
FUTURE BEHAVIOR QUESTIONS (CONTINUED) Trust(1=Not at all Trustworthy, 10=Very Trustworthy) Please rate you level of trust in this organization Share Content (1=Very Unlikely, 10=Very Likely) How likely are you to share content (like a video or article) from this website by linking it to a social network site (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.)
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS [AGE, EDUCATION, ETHNICITY, HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL, AND GENDER DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS] QUESTIONNAIRES TYPICALLY HAVE 3-5 OF THESE QUESTIONS	Demographic questions are often useful to further analyze the responses of various subgroups within the population.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden and specifically how this collection meets GPEA requirements.

The ForeSee CXA methodology is an online survey tool that is fully automated for data collection and reporting. Most other tools available to agencies measure activities such as numbers of page views, amount of time per visit to a website, percentage of website reliability, etc., but do not capture data on customer satisfaction. Moreover, most other customer satisfaction survey tools are not able to capture data on the customer experience both randomly and after the customer has visited sufficient web pages to render a reasonable evaluation of their experience. Data is collected with state-of-the art technology and requires only an average of 2.5 minutes of the participant’s time.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information

already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2

above.

Respondents for the website survey are selected at random and, typically, only after the website visitor has had a unique experience with the agency’s website. For agencies with large numbers of visitors, it is unlikely that individual respondents will be selected to complete more than one random survey. For example, many websites have at least one million annual visitors per year and some websites have more than 50 million visitors per year. The probability of any one visitor being selected even once within that range is 1 in 200 to 1 in 10,000.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe

any methods used to minimize burden.

The collection of information will have no significant impact on small businesses or other small entities. If asked to participate in a survey, a small business could opt out very easily without penalty or pressure.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not

conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to

reducing burden.

Agencies that do not evaluate the customer satisfaction of their websites are at risk:

• They might focus on the wrong measure of success – how well the website serves the agency’s needs instead of citizens’ needs.

• They will fail to be a truly citizen-centric electronic government that provides the best possible service and information to citizens as required by Executive Branch policy and directives.

• Citizens will benchmark agency website performance against the “best in business” and will not return to or recommend government websites that do not meet their expectations.

• They will not see productivity gains, necessary improvements and sufficient returns on their information technology budgets.

• Potential savings of doing government business via websites will not be realized, thus missing an important opportunity to reduce costs.

• Citizen satisfaction will decline which will lead to an overall reduction in citizen trust and confidence in government.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be

conducted in a manner:

• requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

• requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

• requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

• requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;

• in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;

• requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

• that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use;

• requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

The Federal Consulting Group (FCG) ensures that all parties involved with conducting the website surveys collect information under this clearance in a manner that complies with 5 CFR 1320.5(d) (2). There are no special circumstances applicable to the above categories.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice [and in response to the PRA statement associated with the collection over the past three years] and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

This survey employs a methodology that was previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. It does not require respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information, and does not include a pledge of confidentiality.

FCG published a notice in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018, Volume 83, FR 9023, as required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d) soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. No public comments were received.

Before beginning work on a website survey, FCG and the client agency review the specific information need. Based on an understanding of the agency’s needs for the website, the questionnaire is prepared by survey experts and specific questions have been vetted with millions of websites visitors across many government and private sector websites. ForeSee CXA website surveys typically contain a total of about 25 questions and can be completed online in about 2.5 minutes. Visitors are randomly selected and asked to participate through a pop-up dialog box. Participation is entirely voluntary and only a small sample of visitors is even invited to participate.

Currently there are 245 ForeSee CXA website surveys being conducted by government agencies and more than 2 million citizens have completed a website survey over the last 13 years. The public knows and trusts the ForeSee CXA surveys and is generally enthusiastic about providing assessments and feedback on government services. The American people appreciate the fact these surveys are conducted by an independent third party, have statistical validity and are proactively used to improve services. Every website survey represents an opportunity for consultation with citizens. We use this opportunity to gather important information about their experience in taking a website survey.

Between April 5, 2018 and May 8, 2018, the following individuals were contacted:

Staff Member - U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Staff Member – U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Staff Member – U.S. Forest Services

Staff Member – U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Staff Member – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Staff Member – U.S. Department of State

Staff Member – U.S. Department of Education

These users of the survey tools did not question the necessity of the collection or the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. Additionally there were no concerns expressed regarding the accuracy of the burden estimates.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

No payments or gifts will be made to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the

assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

Individuals and organizations given the opportunity to take a survey will be assured of the anonymity of their replies under 5 U.S.C. 552 (Freedom of Information Act), 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974) and OMB Circular No. A-130. Survey respondents will be advised on the survey form or in a privacy statement that participation is voluntary.

No personally identifiable information is collected. No system of records is created.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual

behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered

private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the

questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be

given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to

obtain their consent.

This website survey will not ask questions or collect data of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. However, on occasion, some respondents may consider some of the standard demographic questions as sensitive in nature (e.g., questions that request the respondent’s age, gender, education, or household income). Demographic questions are useful in segmenting the responses of different user groups or visitor profiles and are helpful in evaluating the results; therefore, respondents will be encouraged to answer these questions but assured that their participation is completely voluntary.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:

• Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an

explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should

not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden

estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is

desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of

differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and

explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden

hours for customary and usual business practices.

The actual number of surveys is unknown at this time and will vary based on participation by federal agencies and as new websites are added or deleted. However, based on our experience from the previous three-year approval period, the number of surveys has been very consistent with little change over the period and a current year total of 245.

Therefore, it is estimated that 250 Website Satisfaction Surveys will be completed per year, yielding an estimated 1,250,000 responses per year (or 5000 per survey). Since we have determined that each takes 2.5 minutes per response, the expected annual burden rate is 52,083 hours per year (or 1,250,000 responses X 2.5 minutes per response = 3,125,000 minutes/60 minutes per hour) .

• If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens

• Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item 14.

It is the general public that has used government services that will be responding to these surveys. Therefore, we have taken as the hourly rate for total compensation of all civilian workers as $35.87 per hour ($24.49 in salaries and wages and $11.38 in benefits), in accordance with Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) News Release USDL-17-1646, December 15, 2017, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—September 2017. The total compensation ($35.87) multiplied by the estimated 52,083 hours per year, yields a cost burden to the public of $1,868,217.20.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual [non-hour] cost burden to respondents or

recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any

hour burden shown in Item 12).

• The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information [including filing fees paid]. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.

We have identified no expected non-hour cost burden to respondents.

• If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

We have identified no reporting or recordkeeping “non-hour” cost burdens for this collection of information.

• Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description

of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours,

operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any

other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The estimate of the total annual cost burden to the Federal Government is expected to vary based on participation by federal agencies as new website measurement service is added or existing service is not renewed. However, the number of total websites measured is expected to remain the same each year. Also, no assumptions have been made about cost increases over the three-year period. The total annual estimated cost to the government resulting from the collection of information is estimated to be $8,268,915, as explained below.

Please note that the majority of the costs are fees that Federal Agencies pay to the Department for assistance with Survey development and implementation: -- $31,000 per survey X 250 annual surveys = $7,750,000. This cost covers what is paid to ForeSee to build and conduct the surveys as well as associated costs with administering the Foresee contract. There also is an additional $518,915 related to Federal staff time for survey implementation and analysis.

Here is a breakdown of the estimates for the average annual cost of implementation and analysis for the 250 surveys for fiscal years 2015 – 2017:

I. For Development of the Average Expected 225 Repeat Annual Surveys

0.01 FTE for Federal Agencies for estimated 225 Repeat Surveys at average GS-13, Step 3 rate for Washington, D.C. area, $96,970 per year X 1.59 multiplier for benefits – .01 X $96,970 X 1.59 = $1,542 per survey X 225 = $346,950.

II. For Development of the Average Expected 25 New Surveys

.035 FTE for Federal Agencies for the estimate 25 New Surveys at Average GS-13, Step 3 rate for Washington, D.C. area, is $96,970 per year. This amount X 1.59 multiplier for benefits, or .035 X $96,970 X 1.59 = $5,396 per survey X 25= $134,900.

III. For Analysis of Survey Results per 250 Expected Total Surveys

It is estimated that each agency spends approximately 2 hours analyzing the results received at the GS-13, Step 3 hourly rate for the Washington, D.C. area. Using current Office of Personnel Management information, this is $46.62 per hour. Including the 1.59 multiplier to account for benefits yields an hourly rate of $74.13. This rate of $74.13 X 2 hours X the 250 surveys yields a total of $37,065.

We used Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2018-DCB to determine the annual

wages and multiplied the hourly wage by 1.59 to account for benefits in accordance with News

Release USDL-17-1646, December 15, 2017, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—

September 2017.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments in hour or cost burden.

There are no program changes. There is an adjustment based on slightly fewer surveys based on the experience during the last three-year period.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation

and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the

time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection

of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Each agency that participates in the E-Government website survey has access to its scores and detailed statistical and analytical data through an on-line reporting portal maintained by ForeSee. While all agencies being supported receive monthly on-line reports, they also generally select a level of service involving a satisfaction research analyst provided by the contractor. This analyst prepares a detailed satisfaction insight review each quarter for review with the agency. This review of an agency website provides much greater statistical data, analysis, and trends about the satisfaction results. Recommendations for improvement are also an important part of each deliverable. If approved by the agency for release, website scores may be announced to the public in quarterly E-Government webinars.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information

collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

To potentially increase the response rate by reducing the amount of introductory information, we request that we not be required to state the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection in these survey instruments.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in "Certification for

Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions"

No exception to the certification statement is being requested.

13