FY2023 UASI Scoring Survey

Name(Required)

First Last

Jurisdiction(Required)

Email(Required)

Phone(Required)

Committee(Required)

Select the project you are scoring(Required)

Scoring

1. How well does the application convey a CLEAR terrorism nexus?(Required)

Does this project directly build or sustain capabilities to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism? To be considered excellent or good, the answer should provide terrorism threats in the region and tie them to their request. Simply including a global terrorism threat does not provide a clear terrorism nexus.

5 Excellent - Project has a clear, direct nexus to terrorism.

3 Good - Project has a reasonable nexus to terrorism.

1 Poor - Project has a minimal nexus to terrorism.

0 Unacceptable - Project does not have a clear terrorism nexus – STOP SCORING, put 0 for the remaining questions.

2. How well does the application follow the application or committee IB guidance?(Required)

Does this project directly follow the Houston UASI guidance given during the kickoff and workshops? Were applicable, does the application follow committee IB guidance (UAS, Ballistic Protection for fire fighters, CIKR Cyber, Interop, and Video)?

5 Excellent - Project followed the guidance from the kickoff, answering completely all the questions and followed the guidance given by committee (where applicable).

3 Good - Project mostly followed the guidance from the kickoff and mostly addressed the questions.

1 Poor - Project did not follow most of the guidance and the application would need work to move forward.

0 Unacceptable - Project did not follow the committee’s project specific guidance.

3. How significant is the capability gap this project will fill?(Required)

How well did the application identify a gap and how significant is that gap? Funded projects should help to fill a capability gap or sustain a critical capability that a prior grant funded project has initially filled. The appropriate SPR gap must be cited, and the desired end state should clearly articulate how it will fill the gap and reduce risk.

5 Excellent - Project is directly aligned and intended to support the region’s strategy. (great connectivity)

4 Very Good - Project is critical to another project’s effort to reduce risk. (strong indirect connectivity)

3 Good - Project is reasonably well-aligned with the region’s strategy. (adequate connectivity)

2 Fair - Project may somewhat reduce risk. (only some direct connectivity)

1 Poor - Project is only minimally aligned with the regional strategy. (little connectivity)

0 Unacceptable - Project does not align with the regional strategy in any way. (no connectivity)

4. How well does this proposal address (or buy down) risk?(Required)

Assess the impact(s) and the extent to which this project will reduce the selected gap(s) Consider: Will the jurisdiction/region be more capable of preventing an attack? Better protected against attack? More able to respond (and therefore minimize loss of lives or property) if an attack occurs?

5 Excellent - Project will measurably impact risk and buy down significant gap(s).

4 Very Good - Project is moderately impact risk and buy down some gaps.

3 Good - Project adequately addresses risk.

2 Fair - Project may somewhat reduce risk.

1 Poor - Project will only minimally impact risk.

0 None - Project does not address risk in any way.

5. How well does this project align with the region’s homeland security strategy?(Required)

It is a requirement that funded projects support the region’s homeland security strategy. The committees developed the strategy and are well suited to assess the extent to which projects align with the strategy. Was the applicant clearly able to articulate how this project will help the region obtain its goal?

5 Excellent - Project is directly aligned and intended to support the region’s strategy. (great connectivity)

3 Good - Project is reasonably well-aligned with the region’s strategy. (adequate connectivity)

1 Poor - Project is only minimally aligned with the regional strategy. (little connectivity)

0 Unacceptable - Project does not align with the regional strategy in any way. (no connectivity)

6. What is the committee’s overall assessment of the project?(Required)

Provide a big-picture, comprehensive assessment of the project and the extent to which it merits support this year.

5 Excellent - Outstanding project in all respects; deserves highest priority for support.

4 Very Good - High quality project in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible.

3 Good - A quality project, worthy of support this year or the next.

2 Fair - Project is lacking in one or more critical aspects; key issues need to be addressed.

1 Poor - Project has major deficiencies that would have to be addressed before the project is funded.

0 Unacceptable - Project has no merit, is completely unallowable, or otherwise should not be funded.

7. How well does the proposed project benefit the region?(Required)

5 Excellent - This is a regional project submitted on behalf of the region. (e.g., regional planners)

4 Very Good - This is a local project submitted on behalf of the region. (e.g., special teams)

3 Good - This is a local project that the region may benefit from on occasion. (e.g., mobile command units

2 Fair - This is a local project that the region may benefit from, although unlikely. (e.g., translation services)

1 Poor - This is a local project that has no regional benefit. (e.g., COOP software)

8. If you have any notes on the reasonableness of the budget, please capture them here.