1. Port Security Grant Program Field Input, Review, and Scoring Tool
(PSG-FIRST)
2017
Provide insight
How the CG conducts a field review
How the CG creates a prioritized list of projects for FEMA.
Hopefully you will walk away with some insight into submission of a successful project.
First off Disclaimer – Grants are owned by FEMA, the CG provides input to the process but does not make final determination to the final allocation.
So how does it work?
FEMA receives all projects and conducts preliminary administrative review
FEMA submits packages to COTPs for review and comment in coordination with MARAD.
Formal/ad hoc AMSC Grant Subcommittees
MARAD Comments
Recusal/conflict of interest rules
Field visits
In person to discuss/populate tool
CG delivers those comments and prioritized lists to the FEMA NRP who makes final recommendations to S1
Congressional briefings
Announcement
Chris Weiller
Port Security Specialist
Seventh Coast Guard District (dpi)

2. Background 46 U.S. Code § 70107 - Grants
(a) In General.— The Secretary shall establish a grant program for the allocation of funds based on risk to implement Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans and facility security plans among port authorities, facility operators, and State and local government agencies required to provide port security services and to train law enforcement personnel under section of this title. Before awarding a grant under the program, the Secretary shall provide for review and comment by the appropriate Federal Maritime Security Coordinators and the Maritime Administrator. In administering the grant program, the Secretary shall take into account national economic, energy, and strategic defense concerns based upon the most current risk assessments available.
The CG mandate for review and comment is found here.
New thing for the CG so we had some growing pains.
During early rounds:
Very subjective judgments in areas the CG had no expertise.
Are costs reasonable?
Was risk reduction effective relative to estimated costs? (ROI)
Making funding level recommendations in dollars vs. capabilities.
There was no criteria to measure projects against and therefore non defensible.
So we got a small group of CG colleagues together and created a tool for the CG to manage the process.
Intuitive, repeatable, defensible

3. Background
The National Preparedness System is the instrument the Nation employs to build, sustain, and deliver core capabilities in order to achieve the Goal of a secure and resilient Nation.
PSGP Priorities are ranked and weighted based on alignment with Core Capabilities (CC) across the five mission areas of the Goal.
You might recognize this verbiage from the NOFO.
We turned to the National Preparedness Goal to ensure that all projects addressed the core capabilities of the goal.
Simply put, our tool evaluates the degree to which your submission addresses the core capabilities of the NPG.
IJs must demonstrate how proposed projects address gaps and deficiencies in one or more of the core capabilities outlined in the Goal.

4. Background
So here they are across the 5 mission areas. And here is how the tool provides linkage between the NPG, the PSGP Specific priorities, and therefore the COTP rankings.
We matched the CC to each of the PSGP NP and noted that some of the NP addressed more CC then others.
We gave those NP more weight – more later.

5. PSG-FIRST Tool
So without a budget and using in-house talent, we created the Field Input, Review and Scoring tool, or PSG-FIRST tool.
MS Access tool designed to memorialize evaluation judgments of the evaluators and create a prioritized list of IJ for each COTP Zone.

6. Score/Review IJ The FIRST tool is a calculator.
User inputs result in a composite score for each IJ which creates the COTP Prioritized Ranking.
Simply put, the higher the composite score the higher the COTP ranking.
So how is the composite score calculated? Let’s take a look at the Scoring interface of the tool.
NP - Each IJ is first evaluated on how it addresses the 6 priorities of the PSGP.
LP – it is then evaluated on how it addresses the local priorities which are the TSI listed in each AMSP.
It is a product of the National, Local and F&E scores.
60/40 weights

7. Score/Review IJ 6 9 5 3 5 3 3 1 2 1 1
So here’s a rendering of what it looks like when you peel back the skin.
I mentioned earlier that some of the NP address more of the CC then others. Here are their “weights”.
Additionally, we assigned a numerical value to the judgments of “none, minimal, moderate, significant”
Why this way? Because we wanted a statistical spread where the projects that really nailed it were compensated and really stood out. 3 3 2 3 1 1

8. Feasibility and Eligibility
The final user judgments are the F & E scores.
Feasibility
Eligibility
These are project “kill switches” as they have numerical values of 0 or 1

9. Reports COTP Rankings Here’s an example of the COTP Ranking report.
Default is by composite score – COTP can manually manipulate ranking due to extraordinary circumstance (emerging threat? Marine Event of National Security)
IN SUMMARY
You now know why some projects receive higher favor from the COTP than others.