FY2025 UASI Application Scoring Survey – Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)

Name(Required)

First Last

Jurisdiction/Organization(Required)

Email(Required)

Phone(Required)

Committee(Required)

Select the project you are scoring(Required)

Scoring

Evaluate the following statements and select any that are true for the application being scored.

1. The Project Summary section must include enough detail for project reviewers to fully understand the request.(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

Application’s summary is exceptionally clear, concise, and detailed, providing all necessary information to fully understand the request without requiring additional clarification.

Application’s summary provides sufficient detail to understand the request but may lack minor clarifications or additional context that would improve readability.

Application’s summary provides partial detail, leaving some aspects unclear or requiring assumptions to fully understand the request.

Application’s summary does not provide enough detail to understand the request, making it difficult to assess its purpose and justification.

2. The Problem Statement section must describe the existing terrorism problem that this project will address. The section must also include the terrorism threats, hazards, and risks and be tied to the jurisdiction.(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select all that are true for the application being scored.

The Problem Statement describes the terrorism threats, hazards, and risks the project will address.

The Problem Statement clearly demonstrates that the described threats constitute a terrorism risk to their jurisdiction (or region if this is a regional project) rather than a general public safety concern.

The Problem Statement references specific, credible sources or examples (such as past incidents, intelligence reports, or risk assessments) to support the identified terrorism threats.

The Problem Statement is well-organized and free of ambiguity, making it easy for reviewers to understand the terrorism threat being described.

The Problem Statement does not clearly describe the existing terrorism threats, hazards, and risks the project will address.

3. The Existing Capability section must describe existing capabilities of the requesting jurisdiction and/or of the region to address the threats captured in the Problem Statement.(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The response to the Existing Capability section provides a clear, detailed, and well-supported explanation of existing capabilities related to the terrorism threats described in the Problem Statement.

The response to the Existing Capability section provides partial detail, with no direct correlation to the terrorism threats described in the Problem Statement.

The response to the Existing Capability section does not provide enough detail to understand the existing capabilities, making it difficult to assess current jurisdictional/ regional existing capabilities.

4.1 The Existing Capability Gap section must cite SPR gaps that align with this request.(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for both sections for the application being scored.

The gap(s) selected from the 2024 SPR document in response to the Existing Capability Gap section clearly aligns with this request.

The gap(s) selected from the 2024 SPR document in response to the Existing Capability Gap section moderately aligns with this request.

The gap(s) selected from the 2024 SPR document in response to the Existing Capability Gap section does not align with this request.

4.2 The Existing Capability Gap section must describe gaps in the context of this project's problem statement.(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for both sections for the application being scored.

The response to the Existing Gaps section provides a strong, well-supported justification for why the existing capabilities do not fully address the threats, hazards, or risks in the Problem Statement.

The response to the Existing Gaps section provides some reasoning for why existing capabilities are insufficient but lacks depth, clarity, or strong justification.

The response to the Existing Gaps section does not clearly explain why existing capabilities fail to fully address the threats, hazards, or risks in the Problem Statement.

5. The Impact Statement section must explain the impact the project will have on the jurisdiction and/or region, as well as how it will reduce the gaps described in the Existing Capability Gap section.(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The response to the Impact Statement section provides a clear, detailed, and well-supported explanation of how the project will improve jurisdictional and/or regional capabilities and directly reduce the identified capability gaps.

The response to the Impact Statement section provides a general or partially developed explanation of how the project will improve jurisdictional and/or regional capabilities but lacks strong details, justification, or a direct connection to the identified gaps.

The response to the Impact Statement section mentions jurisdictional and/or regional impacts but is vague, lacks detail, and does not clearly explain how gaps will be reduced.

The response to the Impact Statement section does not clearly explain the jurisdictional and/or regional impacts of this project or fails to demonstrate how it will reduce the identified gaps.

6. The Target Group section must identify who will measurably benefit from this project (e.g., jurisdiction, agency, group).(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application clearly identifies the target groups that will benefit from this project and provides a well-supported explanation of how they will measurably benefit.

The application identifies the target groups that will benefit from this project, but the explanation of measurable benefits is weak, unclear, or lacks sufficient justification.

The application incorrectly captured the target groups or does not demonstrate a measurable benefit to the identified groups.

7. The Long-Term Approach section must address how the applicant organization will sustain and maintain the project to ensure continuity of the asset/resource.(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application provides a detailed, well-supported plan for sustaining and maintaining this investment beyond grant funding, identifying specific funding sources, agency commitments, or maintenance strategies.

The application presents a basic sustainability approach that acknowledges the need for long-term sustainment/maintenance but lacks sufficient detail on funding sources, responsible agencies, or concrete actions.

The application does not explain how the sponsoring agency will sustain and maintain this investment beyond grant funding, or it relies on vague statements such as “seeking future funding opportunities” without a clear plan.

8.1 The Priority and Strategy Linkage section must indicate how this project aligns with an objective selected from the Houston Urban Area Homeland Security Strategic Plan (the Strategic Plan).(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application includes an objective from the Strategic Plan that directly aligns with this project.

The application includes an objective from the Strategic Plan that partially aligns with this project.

The applicant included an objective that does not align the Strategic Plan with this project.

8.2 The Priority and Strategy Linkage section must indicate how this project will help the region attain the goal and objective selected from the Houston Urban Area Homeland Security Strategic Plan (the Strategic Plan).(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application includes a compelling explanation for how the project will help the region attain the identified Strategic Plan goal and objective.

The application provided a partial tie of the Strategic Plan objective and the requested project.

The application did not provide an adequate explanation for how the project will help the region attain the identified Strategic Plan goal and objective.

9. The Measures section must describe the end-state of your project in detail.(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The outcomes and outputs for this project are clear, well-defined, and measurable, effectively demonstrating the value of the investment.

The outcomes and outputs for this project are present but lack strong definitions, measurability, or clear alignment with the project’s intended impact.

The outcomes and outputs for this project are vague, incomplete, or do not provide enough detail to capture the value of this investment.

10. The Special Teams section(Required)

If applicable, evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application clearly articulated how this investment will sustain and/or enhance the team type, to include delineation of which items are required for team typing.

The application did not provide enough information to describe how this investment will sustain and/or enhance the team type. Choice

Not applicable.

11.1 The Interoperable Communication section – Consistency with the SCIP and RICP(Required)

If applicable, evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application provided the necessary links and verbiage indicating that this investment is consistent with the SCIP and RICP.

The application did not provide enough information to determine if the investment is consistent with the SCIP and RICP.

Not applicable.

11.2 The Interoperable Communication section – RICP Gap Analysis(Required)

If applicable, evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application provides a clear and compelling explanation of how the project will fill a gap identified in the RICP Gap Analysis.

The application provides a vague or partial explanation of how the project will fill a gap identified in the RICP Gap Analysis.

The application fails to demonstrate how it will fill a gap identified in the RICP Gap Analysis.

Not applicable.

12. The Grant-Funded Personnel section(Required)

If applicable, evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application provided enough detail to fully understand what the GFP will be doing in the upcoming calendar year and their value is known to reviewers.

The application did not provide enough detail to understand the value of continued support for the GFP.

Not applicable.

13. The Milestones section should provide key activities to capture over the period of performance.(Required)

If applicable, evaluate the following statements and select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application provided meaningful milestones and realistic timeframes that clearly outline the key activities of this project.

The application did not provide meaningful milestones and realistic timeframes that clearly outline the key activities of this project.

14. Compliance with Guidance(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select any that are true for the application being scored.

The applicant followed the guidance and instructions provided on the application/budget.

The application aligns with one or more of the EC funding priorities.

The applicant followed the instructions on the committee’s IB, where applicable.

The applicant failed to integrate the guidance into their application.

15. CY2025 Regional Integrated Preparedness Plan (IPP) – This was a bonus question that applicants were not required to address.(Required)

If applicable, please check select the appropriate response for the application being scored.

The application is directly aligned with both an IPP priority and its rationale, as well as one or more of that priority’s activities.

The application is directly aligned with an IPP priority and its rationale but not with an activity.

The applicant either decided to skip this section or the application does not align to either an IPP priority or one of its preparedness activities.

16. Budget(Required)

Evaluate the following statements and select any that are true for the application being scored.

The applicant provided clear, sufficient explanation for each requested budget item, making it easy for reviewers to understand the use of each expense.

The proposed costs are consistent with similarly requested items and align with standard pricing for comparable equipment, services, or projects.

The overall budget is cost-effective, adequately scaled, and reasonable for achieving the project’s objectives.

If the project is a sustainment request, and the budget includes a cost increase of more than 5% or is rescoped significantly, the increase/ change is clearly justified and well explained in the Project Summary (where applicable).