fy12-nsgp-scoring.pdf

State

No Yes

Score

Score

= The applicant poorly addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims

= The applicant thoroughly addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims

= The applicant provided all of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization

III. Risk (Total of 12 possible points)

= The applicant did not address findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims

FY 2012 NSGP Federal Funding Request

The applicant did not provide all of the required information

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

II. Background (Total of 2 possible points)

Scoring Legend Did Not Poor

The applicant provided no response The applicant's response is incomplete and does not address all of the required information

Partial Adequate Thorough

The applicant's response is complete but minimally addresses all of the required information

1. Did the applicant provide all of the required information?

FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2012 NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (NSGP)

INVESTMENT JUSTIFICATION SCORING WORKSHEET

Urban Area

Name of the Nonprofit Organization

= The applicant partially addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims = The applicant adequately addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims

3. In considering threat, how well did the applicant address findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims?

The applicant's response is complete and moderately addresses all of the required information The applicant's response is complete and fully addresses all of the required information

= The applicant did not provided any of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization = The applicant provided some of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization

The applicant did provide all of the required information

I. Applicant Information (Unscored)

FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2012 NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (NSGP)

INVESTMENT JUSTIFICATION SCORING WORKSHEET

Score

Score

Score

Score

= The applicant's target hardening activity partially focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack

= The applicant's target hardening activity thoroughly focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack

= The applicant's target hardening activity adequately focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack

= The applicant's target hardening activity did not focus on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack

= 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 = 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

6. Did the applicant describe how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)?

= The applicant provided a thorough description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)

= The applicant provided an adequate description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)

= 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 = 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

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?

= 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

= The applicant did not address the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack

= The applicant adequately addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack = The applicant thoroughly addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack

= The applicant partially addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack

= The applicant poorly addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack

= The applicant's target hardening activity poorly focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack

= The applicant did not provide a description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)

IV. Target Hardening (Total of 8 possible points)

7. Did the applicant's proposed target hardening activity focus on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack?

= The applicant provided a poor description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)

= The applicant provided a partial description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)

4. In considering vulnerabilities, how well did the applicant address the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack?

Score

Score

= The applicant provided an adequate description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance = The applicant provided a thorough description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance

10. How well did the applicant describe the milestones as well as associated key activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance?

= The applicant provided a partial description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance

= The applicant provided a poor description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance

V. Milestones (Total of 9 possible points)

= 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 2012 NSGP period of performance

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 2012 NSGP period of performance?

= 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 2012 NSGP period of performance (please proceed to question 9)

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 2012 NSGP period of performance?

= The milestones present a adequately defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance

= 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 2012 NSGP period of performance = 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 2012 NSGP period of performance

= The applicant did not provide a description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance

= 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 2012 NSGP period of performance

= 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 2012 NSGP period of performance (please proceed to question 11)

Score

Score

Score

VI. Project Management (Total of 5 possible points)

= 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 = 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

= 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

= 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

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?

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?

= No, the applicant did not describe the management team's roles and responsibilities, governance structure, or subject matter expertise required to manage the Investment

= 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 NPG Core Capabilities

= 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 NPG Core Capabilities\

= 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 NPG Core Capabilities

= 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 NPG Core Capabilities

= 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 NPG Core Capabilities

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 NPG Core Capabilities?

= 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

VII. Impact (Total of 4 possible points)

= Yes, the applicant did describe the management team's roles and responsibilities, governance structure, and subject matter expertise required to manage the Investment

Total Score

Total Investment Justification Score:

Based on a possible score of 40, this Investment Justification scored a:

Scoring Worksheet