fy 2015 nsgp scoring tool final.xls

XLS spreadsheet 76 KB Posted Apr 2, 2015

Attached to: Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP)
Opportunity number: DHS-15-GPD-008-000-01
Issued by: Department of Homeland Security

About this file

From the source

Scoring Tool

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
fy 2015 nsgp prioritization of investment justifications final.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Apr 2, 2015
sf424c-2-0-v2.0.pdf	PDF	Apr 2, 2015
fy-2015-nsgp-investment-justification-template-final.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Apr 2, 2015
fy 2015 nsgp nofo final.pdf	PDF	Apr 2, 2015
fy 2015 nsgp scoring tool final.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Apr 2, 2015
sf424c-2-0-v2.0.pdf	PDF	Apr 2, 2015
fy 2015 nsgp prioritization of investment justifications final.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Apr 2, 2015
fy 2015 nsgp nofo final.pdf	PDF	Apr 2, 2015
fy-2015-nsgp-investment-justification-template-final.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Apr 2, 2015

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Scoring Worksheet

FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2015 NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (NSGP)

INVESTMENT JUSTIFICATION SCORING WORKSHEET

				State
Urban Area
Name of the Nonprofit Organization
FY 2015 NSGP Federal Funding Request
Scoring Legend
		Did Not		The applicant provided no response
		Poor		The applicant's response is incomplete and does not address all of the required information
		Partial		The applicant's response is complete but minimally addresses all of the required information
		Adequate		The applicant's response is complete and moderately addresses all of the required information
		Thorough		The applicant's response is complete and fully addresses all of the required information
I. Applicant Information (Unscored)
	1. Did the applicant provide all of the required information?
		No	The applicant did not provide all of the required information
		Yes	The applicant did provide all of the required information
			0
II. Background (Total of 2 possible points)
	2. Did the applicant provide a description of their nonprofit organization to include:

▪ Membership and community served

▪ Symbolic value of the site as a highly recognized national or historical institution that renders the site as a possible target of terrorism

▪ Any role in responding to or recovering from terrorist attacks

		0	= The applicant did not provided any of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization
		1	= The applicant provided some of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization
		2	= The applicant provided all of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization
		Score
			0
III. Risk (Total of 12 possible points)
	3. In considering threat, how well did the applicant address findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims?
		0	= The applicant did not address findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims
		1	= The applicant poorly addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims
		2	= The applicant partially addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims
		3	= The applicant adequately addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims
		4	= The applicant thoroughly addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims
		Score
			0
	4. In considering vulnerabilities, how well did the applicant address the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack?
		0	= The applicant did not address the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack
		1	= The applicant poorly addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack
		2	= The applicant partially addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack
		3	= The applicant adequately addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack
		4	= The applicant thoroughly addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack
		Score
			0
		5. In considering potential consequences, how well did the applicant address potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack?
		0	= The applicant did not address potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack
		1	= The applicant poorly addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack
		2	= The applicant partially addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack
		3	= The applicant adequately addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack
		4	= The applicant thoroughly addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack
		Score
			0
IV. Target Hardening (Total of 8 possible points)
	6. Did the applicant describe how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)?
		0	= The applicant did not provide a description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)
		1	= The applicant provided a poor description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)
		2	= The applicant provided a partial description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)
		3	= The applicant provided an adequate description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)
		4	= The applicant provided a thorough description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)
		Score
			0
	7. Did the applicant's proposed target hardening activity focus on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack?
		0	= The applicant's target hardening activity did not focus on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack
		1	= The applicant's target hardening activity poorly focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack
		2	= The applicant's target hardening activity partially focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack
		3	= The applicant's target hardening activity adequately focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack
		4	= The applicant's target hardening activity thoroughly focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack
		Score
			0
V. Milestones (Total of 9 possible points)
	8. Did the applicant provide specific milestones that present a clear sequence of events that will allow the Investment to reach its objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance?
		0	= No, the applicant did not provide specific milestones that present a clear sequence of events that will allow the Investment to reach its objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance (please proceed to question 11)
		1	= Yes, the applicant did provide specific milestones that present a clear sequence of events that will allow the Investment to reach its objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance (please proceed to question 9)
			0
	9. How well do the milestones collectively present a clear sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicants to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance?
		0	= The milestones identified do not present a clear sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		1	= The milestones present a poorly defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		2	= The milestones present a partially defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		3	= The milestones present an adequately defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		4	= The milestones present a thoroughly defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		Score
			0
	10. How well did the applicant describe the milestones as well as associated key activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance?
		0	= The applicant did not provide a description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		1	= The applicant provided a poor description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		2	= The applicant provided a partial description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		3	= The applicant provided an adequate description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		4	= The applicant provided a thorough description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2015 NSGP period of performance
		Score
			0
VI. Project Management (Total of 5 possible points)
	11. Has the applicant described, at high-level, the roles and responsibilities of the management team, governance structures, and subject matter expertise required in managing the Investment?
		0	= No, the applicant did not describe the management team's roles and responsibilities, governance structure, or subject matter expertise required to manage the Investment
		1	= Yes, the applicant did describe the management team's roles and responsibilities, governance structure, and subject matter expertise required to manage the Investment
		Score
			0
	12. How well did the applicant justify the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment?
		0	= The applicant did not justify the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment
		1	= The applicant poorly justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment
		2	= The applicant partially justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment
		3	= The applicant adequately justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment
		4	= The applicant thoroughly justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment
		Score
			0
VII. Impact (Total of 4 possible points)
	13. Did the applicant provide a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities?
		0	= The applicant did not provide a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities
		1	= The applicant poorly provided a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities
		2	= The applicant partially provided a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities
		3	= The applicant adequately provided a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities
		4	= The applicant thoroughly provided a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities\
		Score
			0
Total Score
	Total Investment Justification Score:
	Based on a possible score of 40, this Investment Justification scored a:				0
		Arizona		Anaheim/Santa Ana Area
		California		Atlanta Area
		Colorado		Baltimore Area
		District of Columbia		Bay Area
		Florida		Boston Area
		Georgia		Charlotte Area
		Illinois		Chicago Area
		Maryland		Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington Area
		Massachusetts		Denver Area
		Michigan		Detroit Area
		Minnesota		Houston Area
		Missouri		Jersey City/Newark Area
		New Jersey		Los Angeles/Long Beach Area
		New York		Miami/Ft.Lauderdale Area
		North Carolina		National Capital Region
		Pennsylvania		New York City Area
		Texas		Philadelphia Area
		Washington		Phoenix Area
				Pittsburgh Area
				Sacramento Area
				San Diego Area
				Seattle Area
				St. Louis Area
				Tampa Area
				Twin Cities Area
						Arizona	Anaheim/Santa Ana Area
						California	Atlanta Area
						Colorado	Baltimore Area
						District of Columbia	Bay Area
						Florida	Boston Area
						Georgia	Charlotte Area
						Hawaii	Chicago Area
						Illinois	Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington Area
						Maryland	Denver Area
						Massachusetts	Detroit Area
						Michigan	Honolulu Area
						Minnesota	Houston Area
						Missouri	Jersey City/Newark Area
						Nevada	Las Vegas Area
						New Jersey	Los Angeles/Long Beach Area
						New York	Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area
						North Carolina	National Capital Region
						Oregon	New York City Area
						Pennsylvania	Philadelphia Area
						Texas	Phoenix Area
						Washington	Pittsburgh Area
							Portland Area
							Riverside Area
							San Diego Area
							Seattle Area
							St. Louis Area
							Tampa Area
							Twin Cities Area

Sheet1

File details come from the government source that posted it.