FY2026 UASI Application Scoring Survey

Name(Required)

First Last

Jurisdiction/Organization(Required)

Email(Required)

Phone(Required)

Committee(Required)

Select the project you are scoring(Required)

Section I: Threshold Compliance Review

The Threshold Compliance Review ensures that applications meet structural and published guidance requirements prior to merit-based scoring.

Terrorism Nexus Requirement (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)(Required)

Problem Statement: This is a terrorism grant and as such, SMEs must answer the following questions related to this section. Any application that does not clearly articulate the terrorism nexus should be removed from consideration.

Did the applicant provide relevant terrorism threats, hazards, and risks?

Did the applicant clearly describe the existing terrorism problem that this project will address?

Did the applicant explain how the current terrorism landscape directly impacts their jurisdiction/the region to demonstrate the need for their request?

Not Applicable

Universal Compliance Requirements (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)(Required)

Confirm the application meets the criteria that follow.

Summarized the overall detail to include what was being requested and why it was being requested

Cites a specific SPR gap with sufficient detail

Correctly identifies applicable UASI goal and objective

Confirm that all narrative sections are substantively responsive

Includes at least one measurable output or outcome

Includes a minimum of three milestones

Project-Type Guidance Compliance (If Applicable) (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)(Required)

If a project falls under one of the categories below, reviewers verify that the applicable FY2026 guidance requirements have been addressed.

Cybersecurity (CIKR)

Ballistic Protection

Video Systems

sUAS (Drone)

Interoperable Communications

Grant-Funded Personnel (GFP)

FEMA-Typed Special Team

Not applicable

Section II: Merit-Based Technical Scoring

Each section uses four performance tiers. Reviewers select the tier that best reflects the application’s response.

Project Summary(Required)

Evaluates the clarity and specificity of the project summary.

Clearly and comprehensively addresses who, what and why.

Most elements are included but lacks full detail or clarity.

Response is vague or incomplete.

Response fails to address the question, lacks clarity, or does not include required elements (who, what, why, and budget overview).

Existing Capabilities(Required)

Select the description that best matches the quality and specificity of the application’s explanation of current capabilities.

Specific and detailed description of existing capabilities, to include regional capabilities; clearly identifies operational strengths and limitations.

Adequate description with moderate specificity; some operational detail provided.

Generalized description with limited operational detail.

Not meaningfully addressed.

Capability Gap(Required)

Select the description that best matches the quality and specificity of the application’s explanation of why existing capabilities do not adequately address the identified threat or risk.

Clearly defines operational shortfalls tied directly to the identified threat; articulates measurable or functional gap.

Adequately explains why capabilities are insufficient but lacks some operational precision.

General or loosely described gap; limited analytical depth; relies on broad statements.

Gap unclear or non-responsive.

Impact Statement(Required)

Select the description that best matches the quality and specificity of the application’s explanation of how the proposed project will reduce risk and improve capability.

Provides clear and compelling explanation of how the project measurably reduces risk and improves capability.

Describes general risk reduction and capability improvement with moderate analytical depth.

Suggests potential benefit without clearly demonstrating gap closure.

Fails to explain how the project reduces risk.

Target Group(Required)

Select the description that best matches the clarity and specificity with which the application identifies the jurisdictions, responder groups, or populations that will directly benefit from the project.

Clearly identifies specific beneficiaries and explains direct operational impact.

Moderately specific; identifies target groups with general explanation of benefit.

Broad or generalized beneficiaries (e.g., “entire region” or “all citizens”) without substantiation.

Target group not clearly identified.

Long-Term Sustainment(Required)

Select the description that best matches the quality and credibility of the application’s explanation of how the capability will be sustained beyond the grant period.

Clear, credible sustainment strategy with identified funding or policy commitments. No ties to future grant requests.

General sustainment approach described but lacks full specificity.

Vague sustainment plan or reliance on future grants without defined path.

No meaningful sustainment strategy.

Strategy Alignment(Required)

Select the description that best matches how clearly the application explains alignment to the identified UASI goals and objectives.

Response clearly demonstrates direct advancement of regional goals and strategic priorities, with well-defined and measurable outcomes.

Response aligns with regional goals and shows indirect support of regional objectives but lacks clearly defined outcomes or string justification.

Response is unclear, lacks sufficient detail, or provides weak justification for how the project helps the region attain the goal and objective(s).

Response does not demonstrate alignment with or support for regional goals and/or objectives.

Measures and Milestones(Required)

Select the description that best matches the clarity and measurability of the proposed outputs, outcomes, and project implementation timeline.

Clear, measurable outputs/outcomes and realistic, logically sequenced milestones.

Adequate measures and timeline with minor clarity gaps.

Weak, generic, or difficult-to-measure outputs; milestones lack specificity.

Not meaningfully addressed.

Section III: Strategic Value

This section evaluates the broader regional significance, policy alignment, and cost-effectiveness of the proposed investment after technical merit has been considered. It is intended to capture committee judgment regarding the overall value of funding the project within the context of regional priorities and limited UASI resources.

Regional Strategic Value(Required)

Select the description that best matches the overall regional importance and cost-effectiveness of the proposed project. Reviewers should consider the scale of regional benefit, the significance of the capability gap addressed, and whether the requested funding is proportionate to the anticipated operational impact.

High regional impact addressing a significant capability gap. The requested funding is clearly justified, proportionate to the operational benefit, and demonstrates strong cost-effectiveness.

Moderate regional value with reasonable justification. The requested funding appears generally appropriate relative to anticipated impact.

Limited regional impact or weaker strategic justification. Budget proportionality may be unclear or only partially justified.

Minimal regional impact and/or requested funding is not reasonably aligned with anticipated operational benefit.

Section IV: Narrative Responsiveness Adjustment

This section provides a final adjustment to ensure applications are substantively responsive, analytically developed, and directly address required prompts. This adjustment is applied after all technical merit and strategic value scoring has been completed. Its purpose is to discourage generic, recycled, or minimally developed narratives that do not demonstrate meaningful project justification.

Narrative Responsiveness Adjustment(Required)

After completing all other scoring sections, select the description that best reflects the overall level of responsiveness and analytical rigor demonstrated throughout the application narrative. This adjustment should reflect the application as a whole rather than isolated strengths or weaknesses in individual sections.

Application is substantively responsive and analytically developed.

Clear, direct responses to each prompt
Specific operational detail rather than general statements
Logical connection between problem, gap, and proposed solution
Minimal reliance on generic or recycled language

Application demonstrates noticeable limitations in clarity or analytical depth.

Partial responses to prompts
Generalized language with limited operational specificity
Repetition of broad preparedness concepts without project-level detail
Incomplete articulation of how the project addresses the identified gap

Application demonstrates substantial lack of responsiveness or analytical rigor.

Generic or recycled language with minimal project-specific detail
AI-style filler lacking operational substance
Failure to directly answer required prompts
Surface-level discussion of capability gaps or impacts

Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)

Coordination webiste for all Houston Urban Area Security Initiative groups.

FY2026 UASI Application Scoring Survey

Section I: Threshold Compliance Review

Section II: Merit-Based Technical Scoring

Section III: Strategic Value

Section IV: Narrative Responsiveness Adjustment