SS for 1090-0007 Part A 8.14.09

Supporting Statement for
Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Submissions
OMB Control No.: 1090-0007 (formerly 1505-0191)
“Customer Satisfaction Surveys”
Terms of Clearance: None
General Instructions
A Supporting Statement, including the text of the notice to the public
required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(i)(iv) and its actual or estimated date of
publication in the Federal Register, 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 in Section A below. If an item is not applicable,
provide a brief explanation. When statistical methods are used, Section B
of the Supporting Statement must be completed. OMB reserves the right
to require the submission of additional information with respect to any
request for approval.
Specific Instructions
A. Justification
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information
necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that
necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of
each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of
information.
We are requesting a three-year extension of the generic clearance to
conduct customer satisfaction measures of Federal Government programs
and services utilizing the methodology of the American Customer
Satisfaction Index (ACSI) [see supplementary documents ACSI
Methodology Paper and CFI ACSI Methodology – Merz Paper]. An
extension will allow for continued use of a data-driven, statistically valid
approach to understanding customer satisfaction with agency interactions
and processes. By using the ACSI methodology, agencies gain
important insights about who their customers are and what specifically
drives their satisfaction. This allows decision-makers to objectively
measure their processes and/or service delivery and use the results to
allocate resources more effectively. The ultimate objective is to help
agencies become more citizen-centric and achieve higher levels of citizen
trust and confidence.

1

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 two Executive Orders,
described below.
In August 2001, the last Administration announced the President’s
Management Agenda as a strategy for improving the performance and
productivity of the federal government. The strategy focused on five key
areas of improvement that cut across all government agencies and
established clear standards for success. Agencies then developed and
began implementing action plans to achieve these goals. In November
2007, the President signed Executive Order 13450 – Improving
Government Program Performance. This Executive Order requires each
agency head to select a Performance Improvement Officer to coordinate
performance. Agencies were charged with developing and improving
agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and program goals and
Agencies have been held accountable for their performance by the
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a standard questionnaire
on a program’s performance and management. While the future direction
of this program is under review, the new Administration is highly likely to
expand and improve emphasis on performance, citizen input, and
transparency. Use of ACSI surveys to provide reliable and statistically
sound information will directly support improved performance, enhanced
citizen involvement, openness and accountability.
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.
The Federal Consulting Group eagerly awaits this directive. The
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

2

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 ACSI
surveys—in order to collaborate effectively with the public and meet
Administration mandates. In addition to its role as the international ―gold‖
standard for assessing and benchmarking customer satisfaction, an ACSI
survey is also the perfect tool for agencies to use in demonstrating their
willingness to be open and collaborative, as they solicit input and feedback
on the widest possible array of government activities and information.
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.
The advantages of ACSI surveys are many and include most notably
achieving statistical significance with minimum cost and burden on
agencies and the public. In recent years, agencies in every department
of the Federal Government have gained valuable insights from citizens
using the ACSI and implemented a wide array of service improvements
that have kept overall satisfaction with the Federal Government moving
up.
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 ACSI measurements have been critical
for agencies’ leaders and manager to:


Better identify who is using their programs or services.



Determine what drives customer satisfaction.



Understand the relationship between customers’ satisfaction
with their experiences and future behaviors.

3



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



Measure customer satisfaction on a continual basis.



Identify areas for improvement.



Quantify the impact of improving citizen satisfaction on future
behaviors to create desired outcomes.



Drill down to evaluate satisfaction of different user groups
and various sections of agency programs or services.



Benchmark performance against the private sector and other
Federal agency programs or services with a similar mission.

Regarding benchmarking, Federal leaders and managers have long been
frustrated because of the uniqueness of government services and
program, and have struggled to understand how well services are being
delivered to the American public. The ACSI methodology helps alleviate
that frustration because it enables benchmarking, where it is appropriate.
The ACSI methodology enables Federal leaders and managers to have a
consistent basis for benchmarking their performance. Because the
approach uses the same questions about Satisfaction, Expectations and
Comparisons to the Ideal to create the index, agencies can compare their
indexed results to the benchmark and understand how they stack up in the
eyes of their customers compared to other federal agencies. Where it is
relevant, these benchmarking comparisons can also be made with the
private sector. For example, the VHA compares its ACSI results to that of
the Hospital Industry index in the private sector.
This benchmarking capability helps federal leaders and managers
understand how their programs/processes compare on a standardized
measurement to other federal programs/processes and/or to private sector
industries or companies who have similar missions. To accomplish the
benchmarking for the U.S. economy, each private sector company in the
ACSI is weighted within its industry by its most recent year’s revenue for
the products and/or services measured in the US household consumer
market. Customer satisfaction is measured for an aggregate of other
non-measured companies in each industry and revenues obtained for the
total of non-measured companies for weighting each industry by the
measured companies plus all other companies. Until recently, the overall
benchmark for the US Government was calculated by weighting agency
scores by the budget allocated to the measured customer segment. To
achieve a more comprehensive benchmark and include agencies not

4

conducting ACSI surveys among their customers, a panel approach is
now used to determine overall satisfaction with Federal agencies.
For at least the last three years, some agencies have used the ACSI
measurement of customer satisfaction as a key indicator in their Program
Management outcomes. In cases where Program Managers were not
measuring customer satisfaction, OMB has advised/recommended that
customer satisfaction measurement is necessary in managing agency
programs. The ACSI methodology provides a sound framework for
measuring customer satisfaction and has been used by some Program
Managers in their PART submissions. Some agencies have also
included the ACSI scores and/or improvement of their ACSI scores in their
performance measurement systems as key indicators of progress. In
some cases, agencies have also used their scores and/or improvement of
their scores in their performance management systems.
In addition, the surveys approved under the generic clearance has
enabled the Federal Consulting Group to provide the general public and
policymakers in the Executive and Legislative Branches with data
reporting on trends in overall customer satisfaction with Federal
Government programs and services, as well as other insights related to
citizen behaviors and usage. We also created a community of practice,
the Interagency Customer Satisfaction Forum, in which members of all
departments could come together on an annual basis to learn from each
other, hear speakers from the highest levels of the Administration, and
recognize agencies that are doing particularly outstanding work in
providing and citizen services.
Since the generic clearance was issued, a growing number of agencies
and program managers have adopted the ACSI as a research and
feedback tool and customer satisfaction metric. Agencies have been
able to utilize the data and ACSI model results to guide their improvement
efforts with a greater focus on customer identity, inputs and preferences.
Many agencies have reported on and have been recognized for their
successes at the Interagency Customer Satisfaction Forum.

5

Questionnaire (see supplementary document ACSI Sample
Questionnaire)
Question

Supporting Rationale

Q1. Before you used the [AGENCY
/PROGRAM], you probably knew something
about the [AGENCY/PROGRAM]. Now think
back and remember your expectations of the
overall quality of the [AGENCY/ PROGRAM].
Please give me a rating on a 10-point scale
on which ―1‖ means your expectations were
―not very high‖ and ―10‖ means your
expectations were ―very high‖. How would
you rate your expectations of the overall
quality of [AGENCY/ PROGRAM]?
Q2. – Q9. [QUESTION RATING AN
ASPECT OF ACTIVITY]

Q10. Please consider all your experiences in
the past two years with the [AGENCY/
SERVICES/PRODUCTS]. Using a 10-point
scale, on which ―1‖ means ―not very high‖
and ―10‖ means ―very high,‖ how would you
rate the overall quality of the
[AGENCY/SERVICES/PRODUCTS]?
Q11. First, please consider all your
experiences to date with the
[AGENCY/SERVICES/ PRODUCTS]. Using
a 10-point scale on which ―1‖ means ―very
dissatisfied‖ and ―10‖ means ―very satisfied‖,
how satisfied are you with the
[AGENCY/SERVICES/ PRODUCTS]?

6

(See Pages 7 – 17 in the attached ACSI
methodology paper)
This question focuses on what a
respondent’s expectations are at the
outset of the use of or experience with the
Agency or Program and is one of the
three antecedents of customer
satisfaction. (See paragraph 2 on page
12.)

These are the constructs (drivers) of
quality and, by extension, satisfaction as
well.
Examples of aspects of an activity or
experience are:
 Accessibility of Information Provided
by the Agency,
 Clarity of Information Provided by the
Agency
 Ease of Filing (an application, a tax
form)
 Professionalism (of the customer
service people with whom the
respondent may have dealt)
 Responsiveness (of the customer
service people or the process to
obtain service/information/answers)
This question focuses on what a
respondent’s perceived quality of the use
of or experience with the Agency or
Program and is one of the three
antecedents of customer satisfaction.
(See paragraph 2 on page 12.)
This question – satisfaction - is one of the
key manifest variables and is used to
measure satisfaction as a latent variable.
(See paragraph 1 on page 16.)

Question

Supporting Rationale

Q12. Considering all your expectations, to
what extent has the {AGENCY/SERVICES/
PRODUCTS] fallen short of your
expectations or exceeded your expectations?
Using a 10-point scale on which ―1‖ now
means ―falls short of your expectations‖ and
―10‖ means ―exceeds your expectations,‖ to
what extent has the [AGENCY] fallen short of
or exceeded your expectations?
Q13. Forget the [AGENCY] for a moment.
Now, I want you to imagine an ideal
[AGENCY/SERVICE/PRODUCT]. (PAUSE)
How well do you think the [AGENCY]
compares with that ideal
[AGENCY/SERVICE/PRODUCT]? Please
use a 10-point scale on which ―1‖ means ―not
very close to the ideal‖ and ―10‖ means ―very
close to the ideal.‖
Q14. Have you complained to the [AGENCY]
in the past year?

Q14A. (ASKED ONLY IF THE CUSTOMER
INDICATES S/HE HAS COMPLAINED) How
well, or poorly, was your most recent
complaint handled? Using a 10-point scale
on which ―1‖ means ―handled very poorly‖
and ―10‖ means ―handled very well,‖ how
would you rate the handling of your
complaint?
Q14B. (ASKED ONLY IF THE CUSTOMER
INDICATES S/HE HAS COMPLAINED)
Using a 10-point scale on which ―1’ means
―very difficult‖ and ―10‖ means ―very easy,‖
how difficult or easy was it to make a
complaint?

7

(See Pages 7 – 17 in the attached
methodology paper)
This question confirms/disconfirms
customer expectations as a result of their
experiences. (See paragraphs 2 and 3
on page 12.)

This question focuses on the performance
of the agency/service/product observed
by the customer versus his/her ideal
agency/service/product in the category.
(See paragraph 1 on page 16.)
This question is integral to the approach
used in the ACSI methodology and has
been thoroughly tested and peer reviewed
in terms of both the question wording and
the scale anchors employed.
Customer complaints are measured to
confirm the expected consequence of
increasing satisfaction, which is a
decrease in complaints. (See
paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 13.)
This question is a follow-up rating
question.

This question is a follow-up rating
question.

Question

Supporting Rationale

Q15. If asked, how willing would you be to
say positive or good things about the job the
[AGENCY] is doing in [SPECIFIC
SERVICE]? Using a 10-point scale on
which ―1‖ means ―not at all willing‖ and ―10‖
means ―very willing,‖ how willing would you
be to say good things about the agency’s
handling of [SPECIFIC SERVICE]?
Q16. How confident are you that [AGENCY]
will do a good job in the future of providing
[SPECIFIC SERVICE]? Using a 10-point
scale on which ―1‖ means ―not at all
confident‖ and ―10‖ means ―very confident,‖
how confident are you that [AGENCY] will do
a good job in the future providing [SPECIFIC
SERVICE]?
QD1. – QD6. [AGE, EDUCATION,
ETHNICITY, HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL,
AND GENDER DEMOGRAPHIC
QUESTIONS]

(See Pages 7 – 17 in the attached
methodology paper)
This question focuses on a desired
outcome/future behavior and functions as
an indicator of the consequence of
satisfaction. (See paragraph 4 on pages
16-17.)

This question focuses on a desired
outcome/future behavior and functions as
an indicator of the consequence of
satisfaction. (See paragraph 4 on pages
16-17.)

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 primary methods for data collection are telephone interviews and
email invitations to take web-based surveys, as these methods generally
result in maximum response rates. However, on occasion we will use
mail surveys. Increased use of automated technology is reducing the
paperwork and burden related to ACSI surveys. For a number of
reasons, including lower cost and improved timeliness, more of the data
collection supporting these surveys is being accomplished through the
internet. The approach generally involves sending electronic email
invitations to customers based on information provided by agencies. To
participate in the survey, customers activate the provided URL, which
takes them to a website where the survey is presented and the data is
collected. This technique streamlines the process of data collection,
reduces paperwork, and cuts costs very significantly. In addition, it
emphasizes the voluntary nature of participating in a survey.

8

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.
Every effort is made to avoid duplicating similar surveys and survey
questions. Generally, ACSI surveys are either new efforts or replace
existing surveys in their entirety. Further, respondents for the survey are
selected at random after having had a unique experience with an agency.
For agencies with large numbers of customers, it is unlikely that individual
respondents will be selected to complete more than one survey over an
annual reporting cycle. What’s more, the ACSI model is specifically
constructed to minimize the number of respondents required to provide a
statistically significant result. There are no "special circumstances" as
contemplated within item 7 of the "Certification Requirements for
Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions." There are no situations where
respondents would be required to: prepare a written response to the
survey; submit more than an original and two copies of any document; or
retain records for more than three years.
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small
entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83-I), 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 programs
or services on a regular basis are at risk:


They might focus on the wrong measures of success – the
agency’s needs instead of the citizens’ needs.



They will fail to be truly citizen-centric and provide the best
possible citizen services as required by Executive Branch
policy and directives.



They will not see productivity gains and sufficient returns on
their budgets to justify continuation of their programs to
Congress, the Administration or the American people.

9



Their cost of doing business will increase; resources will be
less than optimally allocated.



Citizen satisfaction will decline, which will lead to an overall
decline in citizen trust in the Federal 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 ensures that all parties involved with
conducting ACSI surveys collect information under this clearance in a
manner that complies with 5 CFR 1320.5(d) (2). There are no special
circumstances of the above categories.

10

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.
The Federal Consulting Group published a notice in the Federal Register
[see attached Federal Register Notice document] on May 15, 2009,
Volume 74, Number 93, Pages 22954 – 22955, 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 an ACSI survey, FCG and the client agency
review the specific information need and determine whether the
information is already available or can be collected efficiently by means
other than a customer survey. If a survey is the only way to obtain
current data efficiently, FCG collaborates with agency leaders to model
those activities of most importance and develop a questionnaire that is
concise and easy to complete. These questionnaires are prepared by
survey experts and are thoroughly vetted by the agency conducting the
survey to make sure that the instructions and questions are clear. ACSI
surveys vary significantly in length and complexity, but each is tailored to a
specific group of customers and designed to fill a specific information
requirement with minimum burden to all concerned. Any feedback
received from respondents about a particular survey is incorporated in
future surveys. Refining a previously used survey is an essential step in
conducting surveys undertaken on a periodic basis. Importantly, we
ensure that collections occur at appropriate intervals. Seldom would
FCG recommend that a survey be conducted more frequently than
annually. Typically, one year is the amount of time that an agency needs
to understand the results from a completed ACSI survey, develop

11

strategies for improvement, and then implement specific changes that
impact its interactions with the public as well as citizen perspectives about
how the agency provides service.
Hundreds of ACSI surveys have been conducted by government agencies
over the last ten years. The public knows and trusts ACSI 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 ACSI
survey represents an opportunity for consultation with citizens. We use
this opportunity to gather important information about their experience in
taking an ACSI survey.
The typical ACSI project involves a client agency providing a random
sample of customers. As described elsewhere in this submission, data is
often collected by telephone interviews with the interviewer entering the
answers into an automated system. During the interview, the automated
system captures a variety of helpful statistics, including the amount of time
it takes each respondent to complete the survey. Examples of this
completion information follow. From May 19 – 21, 2009, we conducted a
survey of retirees for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
The average length of time to complete the survey was 8.11 minutes on
the 19th, 8.14 minutes on the 20th and 8.09 minutes on the 21st. A
survey of Premium Filers for PBGC conducted from July 15 – July 22,
2009, reflects completion times of between 10.23 minutes and 14.56
minutes. A survey conducted for the Department of Agriculture's National
Resources Conservation Service from July 29, 2009, to August 5, 2009,
indicates completion times ranging from 13.96 minutes to 14.86 minutes.
Finally, completion times ranging between 6.10 and 6.25 minutes were
recorded for a survey conducted from August 7 – August 11, 2009, for the
Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
In preparing this submission, we reviewed completion data from many
recent surveys to determine an approximate amount of time that it takes
for a respondent to answer all of the questions. Surveys do vary, but
overall we estimate that an average ACSI survey takes 12 minutes to
complete. "
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.

12

FCG will make no promise of confidentiality; however, individuals and
organizations contacted in the course of conducting these surveys will be
assured of their anonymity. Once data is collected from an individual or
an organization, any personally identifiable information needed to contact
customers is severed from the respondent record and is destroyed. No
system of records is created.
All personnel involved in data collection who have access to individually
identifiable information to conduct the survey are required to sign an oath
swearing to maintain the anonymity of all survey respondents, under
penalty of law and subject to possible termination, or criminal remedies for
disclosure or allowance of disclosure.
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.
These customer satisfaction surveys 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
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 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

13

burden hours for customary and usual business practices. If
this request for approval covers more than one form, provide
separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate
the hour burdens in Item 13 of OMB Form 83-I.
Aggregating and average the three years, it is reasonable to estimate an
expected 150 Customer Satisfaction Surveys per year, yielding an
estimated 37,500 responses. Since we have determined that each takes
12.0 minutes per response, the expected annual burden rate is 7,500
hours per year.
We derived this average annual total as follows: The actual number of
surveys is unknown at this time and will vary based on participation by
federal agencies and as customer segments measured are added or
deleted. This estimate is based on our experience from the previous
three-year approval period, as further explained in item 15. The
projected estimates for fiscal years 2009-2011 are as follows:
Fiscal Year 2009. 100 Customer Satisfaction Surveys:
The estimated burden for 100 customer satisfaction measurements
is estimated at 25,000 interviews, consuming 5,000 hours per year.
This was calculated as follows: 25,000 respondents surveyed for
each of 100 customer satisfaction measurements with a total of
12.0 minutes for each survey.
Fiscal Year 2010. 150 Customer Satisfaction Surveys:
The estimated burden for 150 customer satisfaction measurements
is estimated at 37,500 interviews, consuming 7,500 hours per year.
This was calculated as follows: 37,500 respondents surveyed for
each of 150 customer satisfaction measurements with a total of
12.0 minutes for each survey.
Fiscal Year 2011. 200 Customer Satisfaction Surveys:
The estimated burden for 200 customer satisfaction measurements
is estimated at 50,000 interviews, consuming 10,000 hours per
year. This was calculated as follows: 50,000 respondents
surveyed for each of 200 customer satisfaction measurements with
a total of 12.0 minutes for each survey.


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

14

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 generally used Government services that
will, in the main be responding to these surveys. Therefore, we have
taken as the hourly rate for June, 2009 for all workers as $18.53 per hour,
as shown by Bureau of Labor Statistics data at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm. We have multiplied this
hourly wage by a factor of 1.4 to include benefits, yielding an hourly rate of
$25.94. This figure, multiplied by the estimated 7,500 hours per year,
yields a cost burden to the public of $194,550.00. (The benefits multiplier
is derived from BLS news release USDL: 08-1802, December 10, 2008, at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf). .
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
Items 12 and 14).


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.
There is 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. Generally,
estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or
portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve

15

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.
We have identified no reporting or recordkeeping ―non-hour‖ cost burdens
for this collection of information.
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. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items
12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
The total annual estimated cost to the Government to develop the 150
surveys and analyze their results is $562,427, as explained below.
The estimate of the total annual cost burden to the Federal Government
resulting from the collection of information is expected to vary based on
participation by federal agencies as customer segments are added or
deleted, as customer measures are repeated, as volume discounts are
negotiated, and as the ACSI is used to replace survey work that was
previously done with other contractors or utilizing internal staff resources.
Also, no assumptions have been made about cost increases over the
three-year period.
Here is a breakdown of the estimates for the average annual cost of these
150 surveys for fiscal years 2009:
I. For Development of the Average Expected 90 Repeat Annual Surveys
0.02 FTE for Federal Agencies for estimated 90 Repeat Surveys at
average GS-13, Step 3 rate for Washington, D.C. area, $92,723 per year
X 1.5 multiplier for benefits – .02. X $92,723 X 1.5 = $2,781 per survey X
90 = $250,352.
II. For Development of the Average Expected 60 New Surveys
.035 FTE for Federal Agencies for the estimate 60 New Surveys at
Average GS-13, Step 3 rate for Washington, D.C. area, based on current
Office of Personnel Management information from
http://www.opm.gov/flsa/oca/09tables/html/dcb.asp, is $92,723 per year.
This sum X 1.5 multiplier for benefits, or .035 X $92,723 X 1.5 = $4,868
per survey X 60 = $292,080

16

(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf is the source of the benefits
multiplier)
III. For Analysis of Survey Results per 150 Expected Total Surveys
It is estimated that each agency spends approximately 2 hours analyzing
the results received, at approximately the GS-13, Step 3 hourly rate for the
Washington, D.C. area. Using current Office of Personnel Management
information at http://www.opm.gov/flsa/oca/09tables/pdf/dcb_h.pdf, this is
$44.43 per hour. Including the 1.5 multiplier to account for benefits yields
an hourly rate of $66.65. This sum X 2 X the 150 surveys yields $19,995.
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf is the source of the benefits
multiplier)
[Please note that there are also Fees that Federal Agencies pay to the
Department for assistance with the Survey Development: -- $37,500 per
survey X 150 annual = $5,626,000. However, this sum is not being
counted in the cost to the Government, because this sum represents a
transfer of funds from one Federal Government agency to another, and
thus is not a net Federal cost.]
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
There are no program changes. There is an adjustment based on the
increased number of expected surveys going forward, partially offset
because now the number of survey participants required to complete a
given survey has decreased from 260 to 250.
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.
The results obtained from each survey, including an analysis and report of
findings and key recommendations, will be released to each agency. If
approved by the agency for release, ACSI scores for each customer
project are announced to the public by the National Quality Research
Center, University of Michigan Business School, Ann Arbor, MI 481091234 on a rolling schedule.
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.

17

To 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 the telephone interviews,
on the websites involved, or in the written questionnaires.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item
19, "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions," of OMB
Form 83-I.
No exception to the certification statement is being requested.

18