PSGP Program Guidance

FY 2009 PSGP Program Guidance.pdf

FEMA Preparedness Grants: Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)

PSGP Program Guidance

OMB: 1660-0114

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1660-0114 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

FISCAL YEAR 2009
PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
GUIDANCE AND APPLICATION KIT

NOVEMBER 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Title of Opportunity: FY 2009 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)
Funding Opportunity Number: DHS-09-GPD-056-1959
Federal Agency Name: FEMA Grant Programs Directorate (GPD)
Announcement Type: Initial
Dates: Completed applications must be submitted no later than 11:59 PM EST,
January 13, 2009.
Additional overview information: The Fiscal Year 2009 (FY 2009) Port Security
Grant Program (PSGP) contains significant improvements based on extensive outreach
to grant participants and stakeholders, including:
Expanded Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Priority (pages 6, 64)
This priority has been expanded to include enhancing Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) and other non-conventional weapons capabilities. Additional guidance on
developing preventive radiation/nuclear detection capabilities and the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO) has been included.
Fiduciary Agent (FA) Requirement (pages 11, 17-19)
Group I and Group II port areas identified in FY 2007 Supplemental PSGP or FY 2008
PSGP that remain in Group I or Group II for FY 2009 are required to continue with the
FA model. Port areas that are new to Group II in FY 2009 have the option of selecting
an FA and beginning the FA process, or opting out of the FA process. If opting out of
the FA process, individual eligible entities will apply directly to FEMA for funding and
comply with all requirements of Group III and All Other Port Areas.
Cost Sharing Requirement (pages 16-17)
The cost sharing requirement can be met by a cash or an in-kind match (excluding
construction activities for which the non-Federal share must be a cash match).
Construction (pages 42-43)
Some types of construction and renovations projects are allowable for funding.
Explosive Detection Canine Team Operational Packages (OPacks) (pages 44-45)
OPacks are now available for funding to eligible Group I and Group II port areas and
ferry systems.

CONTENTS
Contents......................................................................................................................... 1
Part I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION......................................................... 2
Part II. AWARD INFORMATION .................................................................................... 9
Part III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION .......................................................................... 10
A.
Eligible Applicants................................................................................. 10
B.
Cost Sharing .......................................................................................... 16
C.
Restrictions ............................................................................................ 17
D.
Other ....................................................................................................... 17
Part IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION ...................................... 20
A.
Address to Request Application Package ........................................... 20
B.
Content and Form of Application ......................................................... 20
C.
Submission Dates and Times ............................................................... 35
D.
Intergovernmental Review .................................................................... 35
E.
Funding Restrictions ............................................................................. 35
Part V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION ........................................................ 47
A.
Review Criteria....................................................................................... 47
B.
Review and Selection Process ............................................................. 48
C.
Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates .................................... 49
Part VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION ................................................. 50
A.
Notice of Award ..................................................................................... 50
B.
Administrative and National Policy Requirements ............................. 50
C.
Reporting Requirements ....................................................................... 57
Part VII. FEMA CONTACTS......................................................................................... 60
Part VIII. OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................... 64

PART I.

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) is one of six grant programs that constitute
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 focus on
transportation infrastructure security activities. The PSGP is one tool in the
comprehensive set of measures authorized by Congress and implemented by the
Administration to strengthen the Nation’s critical infrastructure against risks associated
with potential terrorist attacks. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as
amended (46 U.S.C. §70107), established the PSGP 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.
The vast bulk of U.S. critical infrastructure is owned and/or operated by State, local and
private sector partners. PSGP funds support increased port-wide risk management;
enhanced domain awareness; training and exercises; and further capabilities to prevent,
detect, respond to and recover from attacks involving improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) and other non-conventional weapons.
The purpose of this package is to provide: (1) an outline of the PSGP; and (2) the formal
grant guidance and the application materials needed to apply for funding under the
program. The package also outlines the DHS management requirements for
implementing a successful application.
Applying for significant Federal funds under programs such as this may be quite
complex. DHS understands its responsibility to provide clear guidance and efficient
application tools to assist applicants. Users are entitled to effective assistance during
the application process, and transparent, disciplined management controls to support
grant awards. DHS administrators intend to be good stewards of precious Federal
resources, and commonsense partners with their State and local colleagues.
DHS understands that each port area has specific individual needs and tested
experience about how to best reduce risk within its region. DHS subject matter experts
will come to the task with a sense of urgency to reduce risk, but also with an ability to
listen carefully to local needs and approaches. In short, DHS commits to respect
flexibility and local innovation as it funds national homeland security priorities.

Federal Investment Strategy
The PSGP is an important part of the Administration’s larger, coordinated effort to
strengthen homeland security preparedness, including the security of the country’s
critical infrastructure. The PSGP implements objectives addressed in a series of post9/11 laws, strategy documents, plans, Executive Orders and Homeland Security
Presidential Directives (HSPDs). Of particular significance are the National
Preparedness Guidelines and its associated work products, including the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and its forthcoming sector-specific plans. The
National Preparedness Guidelines provides an all-hazards vision regarding the Nation’s
four core preparedness objectives: prevent, protect, respond to and recover from
terrorist attacks and catastrophic natural disasters.
The Guidelines first define a vision of what to accomplish and then provide a set of tools
to forge a unified national consensus about what to do and how to work together at the
Federal, State, local, and Tribal levels. Private sector participation is integral to the
Guidelines’ success.1 The Guidelines outline 15 scenarios of terrorist attacks or
national disasters that form the basis of much of the Federal exercise and training
regime. In addition, it identifies 37 critical capabilities that will be DHS’s focus for key
investments with State, local and Tribal partners.
DHS expects its critical infrastructure partners – including recipients of PSGP grants –
to be familiar with this national preparedness architecture and to incorporate elements
of this architecture into their planning, operations, and investment to the degree
practicable. DHS funding priorities outlined in this document reflect the National
Preparedness Guidelines priority investments as appropriate. Programmatic
requirements or priority investment categories reflecting the national preparedness
architecture are expressly identified below.

The National Preparedness Guideline and its supporting documents were published in final form and released on
September 13, 2007. The Guidelines are available at: http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/publications

Overarching Funding Priorities
The funding priorities for the FY 2009 PSGP reflect DHS’s overall investment strategy,
in which two priorities have been paramount: risk-based funding and regional security
cooperation.
First, DHS will focus the bulk of its available port security grant dollars on the highestrisk port systems. This determination is based on ongoing intelligence analysis,
extensive security reviews, and consultations with port industry partners and
congressional direction.
At the recommendation of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), some ports are
being considered as a single cluster due to geographic proximity, shared risk and a
common waterway. As with other DHS grant programs, applications from these port
clusters must be locally coordinated and include integrated security proposals to use
PSGP grant dollars.
Eligible port areas, as well as ferry systems, were identified using a comprehensive,
empirically-grounded risk analysis model. Risk methodology for PSGP programs is
consistent across the modes and is linked to the risk methodology used to determine
eligibility for the core DHS State and local grant programs.
Within the PSGP, eligibility for all grant awards is first predicated on a systematic risk
analysis that reviews and rates eligible ports in a given area for comparative risk. All
port areas will be comparably rated. The FY 2009 risk assessment formula was further
strengthened and refined from last year’s risk assessment formula.
The PSGP risk formula is based on a 100 point scale comprising “threat” (20 points)
and “vulnerability/consequences” (80 points). Risk data for eligible port areas is
gathered individually and then aggregated by region. The DHS risk formula
incorporates multiple normalized variables, meaning that for a given variable, all eligible
port areas are empirically ranked on a relative scale from lowest to highest.
DHS’s risk assessment methodology for PSGP considers critical infrastructure system
assets, and characteristics from four areas that might contribute to their risk: intelligence
community assessments of threat; economic consequences of attack; port assets; and
area risk (to people and physical infrastructure immediately surrounding the port). The
relative weighting of variables reflects DHS’s overall risk assessment, as well as the FY
2009 program priorities. Specific variables include multiple data sets regarding military
mission variables; adjacent critical asset inventories; Coast Guard Maritime Security
Risk Analysis Model (MSRAM) data; and international cargo value and measures of
cargo throughput (container, break bulk, international and domestic).

Second, DHS places a very high priority on ensuring that all PSGP applications reflect
robust regional coordination and an investment strategy that institutionalizes regional
security strategy integration. This priority is a core component in the Department’s
statewide grant programs and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants.
The program will build on the successes of previous years by continuing to encourage
port-wide partnerships, regional management of risk, and business continuity. Group I
and Group II port areas are in the process of developing Port-Wide Risk
Management/Mitigation and Business Continuity/Resumption of Trade plans that
address the gaps in authorities, capabilities, capacities, competencies, and partnerships
in these ports and identify their prioritized projects for the next five years. FY 2009
PSGP will continue to fund those projects identified in the plan. Adoption of a deliberate
risk management planning process, consistent with that employed in the UASI and
State programs, is also a key focus of the SAFE Port Act (Public Law 109-347).
During 2009, DHS will continue its effort to encourage and help coordinate port security
planning efforts, such as the Area Maritime Security Plans (AMSP), with complementary
initiatives underway at the State and Urban Area levels. This is part of an important
evolution in the focus of the PSGP – from a program that is primarily focused on the
security of individual facilities within ports, to a port-wide risk
management/mitigation and continuity-of-operations/resumption-of-trade
program that is fully integrated into the broader regional planning construct that
forms the core of the UASI, as well as applicable statewide initiatives.

PSGP Priorities
In addition to these two overarching priorities, the Department has identified the
following four points as its priority selection criteria for FY 2009 PSGP:
1. Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
MDA is the critical enabler that allows leaders at all levels to make effective
decisions and act early against threats to the security of the Nation’s seaports. In
support of the National Strategy for Maritime Security, port areas should seek to
enhance their MDA through projects that address knowledge capabilities within the
maritime domain. This could include access control/standardized credentialing,
command and control, communications, and enhanced intelligence sharing and
analysis.
2. Enhancing Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) prevention, protection, response and recovery capabilities
Port areas should seek to enhance their capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to
and recover from terrorist attacks employing IEDs, WMDs and other nonconventional weapons. Of particular concern in the port environment are attacks
that employ IEDs delivered via small craft (similar to the attack on the USS Cole), by
underwater swimmers (such as underwater mines) or on ferries (both passenger and
vehicle).
3. Training and Exercises
Port areas should first seek to ensure that appropriate capabilities exist among staff
and managers, and then regularly test these capabilities through emergency drills
and exercises. Emergency drills and exercises (such as those in the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) Port Security Exercise Training Program) test
operational protocols that would be implemented in the event of a terrorist attack.
The efforts include live situational exercises involving various threat and disaster
scenarios, table-top exercises, and methods for implementing lessons learned.
4. Efforts supporting implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC)
The TWIC is a congressionally mandated security program through which DHS will
conduct appropriate background investigations and issue biometrically enabled and
secure identification cards for individuals requiring unescorted access to U.S. port
facilities. Regulations outlining the initial phase of this program (card issuance) were
issued by TSA in cooperation with the Coast Guard in 72 Federal Register 3492
(January 25, 2007).

Ferry System Priorities
DHS places a high priority on ensuring that all ferry system applications reflect robust
regional coordination and an investment strategy that institutionalizes regional security
strategy integration. Several port areas have more than one ferry system operating
agency. Close coordination of the PSGP ferry investments in each of these cases will
be a requirement for all successful applications. During the upcoming year, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the USCG, and TSA will work with
successful grantees to strengthen and support the regional consultation processes. In
addition to the two overarching priorities, the Department identifies the following eight
specific priorities as the highest priority selection criteria for the FY 2009 PSGP ferry
systems:
1. Development and enhancement of capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to
and recover from terrorist attacks employing improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) and vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs)
2. Mitigation of other high consequence risks identified through individual ferry
system risk assessments
3. Use of canine teams at the embarkation and exit points of a system, as well as
during passage
4. Innovative utilization of mobile technology for prevention and detection of
explosives or other threats and hazards
5. Development and enhancement of physical and perimeter security capabilities
to deny access around maintenance facilities, dry docks, and piers
6. Development of emergency preparedness and response capabilities in the
event of a ferry being used as a weapon to inflict damage on critical
infrastructure
7. Development and enhancement of training and awareness among ferry
operators and employees
8. Public awareness training

PSGP Program Management: Roles and Responsibilities at DHS
By law, the USCG is responsible for managing DHS’s security oversight and security
programs for the port industry. The USCG, along with TSA and the Department of
Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) and Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), provide port subject matter expertise and determines the primary security
architecture for the PSGP. The subject matter experts have the lead in crafting all
selection criteria associated with the application review process. The USCG’s
Intelligence Coordination Center will coordinate daily with DHS’s Chief Intelligence
Officer to review and craft intelligence assessments for the maritime portion of the
transportation sector. TSA also coordinates regularly with USCG and with other DHS
components regarding intelligence assessments relevant to maritime security.
FEMA has the lead for designing and operating the administrative mechanisms needed
to manage DHS’s core grant programs, including this grant program. Furthermore,
FEMA will take the lead in providing outreach and support to applicants in order to
answer questions about PSGP requirements, and to assist port areas with filing the
strongest possible applications. FEMA is responsible for ensuring compliance with all
relevant Federal grant management requirements and delivering the appropriate grant
management tools, financial controls, audits and program management discipline
needed to support the PSGP.
While both the USCG and FEMA interface directly with port stakeholders, the USCG will
have the lead on matters related to prioritizing specific investments and setting security
priorities associated with the PSGP.
Effective program management involves a partnership within DHS, the boundaries of
which have been defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. To make this
partnership seamless to external partners, upon award of a FY 2009 PSGP grant, each
grantee will be provided with a primary program analyst from FEMA. This individual will
be assigned as the turnkey facilitator for grant recipients. They will meet directly with
grantees as needed, and will routinely coordinate with other agencies to facilitate
support for grantees in a given region. This individual will be the one-stop PSGP
account manager for port industry participants.

PART II.

AWARD INFORMATION
This section summarizes the award period of performance and the total amount of
funding available under the FY 2009 PSGP, describes the basic distribution method
used to determine final grants awards, and identifies all eligible applicants for FY 2009
funding.
Award Period of Performance
The period of performance of this grant is 36 months. Extensions to the period of
performance will be considered only through formal requests to FEMA with specific and
compelling justifications why an extension is required.
Available Funding
In FY 2009, the total amount of funds distributed under the PSGP will be $388,600,000.
The allocation of funds is summarized in the table below.

Table 1.
PSGP FY 2009 Available Funding
Group

FY 2009 Funding

Group I
Group II
Group III
All Other Port Areas
Ferry Systems

$210,649,989
$140,014,000
$17,592,011
$15,344,000
$5,000,000

TOTAL

$388,600,000

PART III.

ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
A. Eligible Applicants
46 U.S.C. §70107 states that all entities covered by an AMSP may submit an
application for consideration of funding. A facility that is not expressly identified in an
AMSP will be considered covered under an AMSP if the facility in question has had a
risk analysis completed by the USCG utilizing the MSRAM tool. Congress has
specifically directed DHS to apply these funds to the highest risk ports. In support of
this, the PSGP includes a total of 147 specifically identified critical ports, representing
approximately 95 percent of the foreign waterborne commerce of the United States.
Based upon USCG recommendations, these ports are aggregated into 91 discreet port
funding areas. As described below, “All Other Port Areas” covered by an AMSP are
eligible to apply for grant funds from a PSGP funding pool created for that purpose.
Within the PSGP, the following entities are specifically encouraged to apply:
• Owners or operators of federally regulated terminals, facilities, U.S. inspected
passenger vessels or ferries as defined in the Maritime Transportation Security
Act (MTSA) and Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 101,
104, 105, and 106
• Port authorities or other State and local agencies that are required to provide
security services to eligible Ferry System applicants (MTSA regulated facilities)
pursuant to an AMSP or a Facility or Vessel Security Plan
• Consortia composed of local river organizations, ports and terminal associations,
and other local stakeholder groups representing federally regulated ports,
terminals, U.S. inspected passenger vessels or ferries that are required to
provide security services to federally regulated facilities in accordance with an
AMSP or a Facility or Vessel Security Plan
• Group I and II Fiduciary Agents (including newly identified Group II port areas
who choose to begin the FA process)
• Ferry Systems identified in Table 3
As a condition of eligibility, all PSGP applicants are required to be fully compliant
with relevant Maritime Security Regulations (33 CFR Parts 101-106). Any open or
outstanding Notice of Violation (NOV), as of the grant application submission
deadline date, which has been issued to an applicant, and the applicant has (1)
failed to pay within 45 days of receipt; (2) failed to decline the NOV within 45 days
of receipt (in which case a finding of default will be entered by the Coast Guard in
accordance with 33 CFR § 1.07-11(f)(2)); or (3) the applicant has appealed the
NOV as provided for in 33 CFR § 1.07-70 and is in receipt of a final appeal
decision from Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, as described in 33 CFR § 1.07-75,
and has failed to come into compliance with the final adjudication within the
timelines noted therein, will not be allowed to make application for a Port Security
Grant.

Tables 2 and 3 list the specific port areas and ferry systems, by Group, that are eligible
for funding through the FY 2009 PSGP.
Group I and Group II
Seven port areas have been selected as Group I (highest risk) and forty-eight port areas
have been selected as Group II. Each Group I and Group II port area has been
designated a specific amount of money based upon the FY 2009 risk analysis.
Group I and Group II port areas identified in FY 2007 Supplemental PSGP or FY 2008
PSGP that remain in Group I or Group II for FY 2009 are required to continue with the
Fiduciary Agent (FA) process and have the option of retaining their current FA or
selecting a new FA to deal specifically with the FY 2009 PSGP award. Those port areas
which, as a result of the FY 2009 PSGP risk methodology are new to Group II
(highlighted in yellow in Table 2) have the option of selecting an FA and beginning the
FA process, or opting out of the FA process. If opting out of the FA process, individual
eligible entities will apply directly to FEMA for funding, and applicants must comply with
all requirements of Group III and All Other Port Areas, with the identified port’s
allocation of money incorporated within the Group III funding pool.
For Group I and Group II port areas continuing in the FA process or beginning the
FA process, the FY 2009 PSGP will only accept applications from the FA for that
port area. All individual entities (including ferry systems) within one of these port
areas will apply for PSGP funds through their port area’s designated FA.
Group III and All Other Port Areas
Ports not identified in Group I or II are eligible to apply as a Group III or “All Other Port
Areas” applicant. Group III and “All Other Port Areas” will compete for the funding
identified in their corresponding Group. “All Other Port Areas” included within Group I, II
or III’s Area Maritime Security Plans (AMSP) are allowed to receive grant funds from
their geographically proximate higher Group if the project has regional impact across
the entire port area, but not from both funding groups for the same project.
Ferry Systems
Under a fifth group, eligible ferry systems may also apply for funding. Not all eligible
ferry systems are guaranteed to receive an award. Eligible ferry systems identified in
the FY 2009 Transportation Security Grant Program Guidance that elect to participate
and receive funds under the FY 2009 TSGP cannot participate in the FY 2009 PSGP,
and will not be considered for funding under the FY 2009 PSGP.

Presence on this list does not guarantee grant funding
Table 2
FY 2009 PSGP Port Area Groupings
Group

State

DE/NJ/PA

I
LA

NY/NJ
TX

Port Area
Los Angeles-Long Beach
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Bay Area
Carquinez Strait
Martinez
Oakland
Richmond
San Francisco
Stockton
Delaware Bay
Camden-Gloucester, NJ
Chester, PA
Marcus Hook, PA
New Castle, DE
Paulsboro, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Trenton, NJ
Wilmington, DE
New Orleans
Baton Rouge
Gramercy
New Orleans
Port of Plaquemines
Port of South Louisiana
St. Rose
New York-New Jersey
Houston-Galveston
Galveston
Houston
Texas City
Puget Sound
Anacortes
Bellingham
Everett
Olympia
Port Angeles
Seattle
Tacoma

FY 2009 Allocation
$

36,390,481

$ 25,533,655

$ 19,114,279

$ 29,417,915

$ 43,397,694
$ 30,794,672

$ 26,001,293

Group

State
AK
AL
CA
CT

GA
GU
HI

IL/IN
KY
II

LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MN/WI
MO
MS
NC
NY
OH

OR/WA
PA
PR
SC
TN

Port Area
Anchorage
Mobile
Port Hueneme
San Diego
Long Island Sound
Bridgeport
New Haven
New London
Jacksonville
Miami
Panama City
Pensacola
Port Canaveral
Port Everglades
Tampa Bay
Port Manatee
Tampa
Savannah
Apra Harbor
Honolulu
Barbers Point, Oahu
Honolulu
Southern Tip of Lake Michigan
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Chicago, IL
Gary, IN
Indiana Harbor, IN
Louisville
Lake Charles
Morgan City
Port Fourchon/LOOP
Boston
Baltimore
Portland
Detroit
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Duluth-Superior
Kansas City
St. Louis
Pascagoula
Morehead City
Wilmington
Albany
Buffalo
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Toledo
Columbia-Snake River System
Portland
Vancouver
Pittsburgh
Ponce
San Juan
Charleston
Memphis
Nashville

FY 2009 Allocation
$
571,000
$ 2,803,000
$
613,000
$ 2,897,000
$

4,311,000

$
$
$
$
$
$

5,747,000
2,885,000
1,594,000
1,609,000
2,907,000
4,214,000

2,305,000

$
$

5,032,000
545,000

4,525,000

6,243,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,513,000
3,941,000
423,000
2,902,000
4,518,000
6,235,000
1,066,000
1,520,000

2,019,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,905,000
1,550,000
2,494,000
346,000
1,682,000
5,395,000
1,947,000
1,421,000
1,705,000
1,412,000
936,000

3,108,000

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,307,000
1,974,000
4,300,000
5,227,000
2,406,000
1,469,000

Indicates port area that moved from Group III/All Other to Group II

Group

III

All Other
Port
Areas
Ferry
Systems

State

Port Area
Corpus Christi
Freeport
TX
Sabine Neches
Beaumont
Port Arthur
Hampton Roads
VA
Newport News
Norfolk Harbor
Huntington
WV
Valdez
AK
Guntersville
AL
Helena
AR
El Segundo
CA
Sacramento
Fort Pierce
FL
West Palm Beach
Brunswick
GA
Mount Vernon
IN
Fall River
MA
Marine City
Muskegon
MI
Monroe
Port Huron
Sault Ste Marie
Two Harbors
MN
Greenville
MS
Gulfport
Vicksburg
Portsmouth
NH
Perth Amboy
NJ
Lorain
OH
Tulsa, Port of Catoosa
OK
Coos Bay
OR
Erie
PA
Guayanilla
PR
Humancao
Jobos
Newport
RI
Providence
Chattanooga
TN
Brownsville
Matagorda
Matagorda Port
TX
Port Lavaca
Victoria
Port O’Connor
Richmond
VA
Green Bay
WI
Milwaukee
Eligible entities not located within one of the port areas
identified above, but operating under an AMSP, are eligible
to compete for funding within “All Other Port Areas” Group
Nineteen (19) high capacity ferry systems in thirteen (13) port
areas are eligible to receive funds through the FY 2009 PSGP
Total FY 2009 PSGP Allocation

FY 2009 Allocation
$ 6,628,000
$ 3,279,000
$

6,597,000

6,736,000

2,252,000

$ 17,592,011

$ 15,344,000
$ 5,000,000
$388,600,000

Indicates port area that moved from All Other to Group III

Presence on this list does not guarantee grant funding
Table 3
FY 2009 PSGP Eligible Ferry Systems
State
AK

Port Area
Valdez

San Francisco Bay Area

Los Angeles/Long Beach
CT/NY

Long Island Sound

DE/NJ

Delaware Bay

New Orleans
Boston

MA/RI
Providence, RI

NY/NJ

NC
TX
VA
WA

New York /New Jersey

Morehead City
Houston-Galveston
Hampton Roads
Puget Sound

Eligible System
Alaska Marine Highway System
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway
and Transportation District
City of Alameda Ferry Services
(Blue and Gold Lines Fleet)
City of Vallejo Transportation
Program
Catalina Express
The Bridgeport & Port Jefferson
Steamboat Company
Cross Sound Ferry
Cape May Ferry System
Crescent City Connection
Division – Louisiana Department
of Transportation
Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA)
Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard
and Nantucket Steamship
Authority
New York City Department of
Transportation
New York Waterways
Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey (PANYNJ)
SeaStreak
North Carolina Ferry System
Texas DOT (Bolivar Roads Ferry)
Jamestown Ferry
Washington State Ferries

FY 2009 Allocation

$5,000,000

B. Cost Sharing
Cash and in-kind matches must consist of eligible costs (i.e. purchase price of allowable
contracts, equipment). A cash match includes cash spent for project-related costs while
an in-kind match includes the valuation of in-kind services. In-kind matches may not be
used to meet matching requirements for any other Federal grant program (e.g. FY 2009
funds are used to purchase a mobile command center from a vendor, the vendor
contributes or donates communications equipment associated with the mobile
command center, the value of the donated equipment may be considered as an in-kind
match for the PSGP award only). Please see 44 CFR §13.24 for further details
regarding the cost share requirement (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=183d717ad04a78067db6a831421874ea;idno=44;re
gion=DIV1;q1=13;rgn=div5;view=text;node=44%3A1.0.1.1.14).
The following match requirements apply for the FY 2009 PSGP (including ferry systems):
• Public Sector. Public sector applicants must provide a non-Federal match (cash
or in-kind) supporting at least 25 percent of the total project cost for each
proposed project.
• Private Sector. Private sector applicants must provide a non-Federal match
(cash or in-kind) supporting at least 50 percent of the total project cost for
each proposed project.
• Consortia Projects. Applications for consortia projects submitted by public entities
(where the consortia include both public and private entities), or under a
requirement to utilize a FA, must provide a non-Federal match (cash or in-kind)
supporting at least 25 percent of the total project cost for each proposed project.
• Exceptions. There is no matching requirement for grant awards where the total
award is $25,000 or less (with the exception of national and/or regional
corporations submitting eleven (11) or more projects throughout their system(s)).
If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that a proposed project merits
support and cannot be undertaken without a higher rate of Federal support, the
Secretary may approve grants with a matching requirement other than that
specified above in accordance with 46 U.S.C.c§70107(c)(2)(B).
Cost share requirements must be included in applicant’s Detailed Budgets. Public and
private entities are encouraged to work together to meet the cost share requirements.
While applications must demonstrate the cost share, applicants are reminded that the
cost share does not have to be provided up-front and that they have up to the full 36
month award period to provide the cost share funding.
The non-Federal share for all construction activities must be a cash-match (hard).
For all other projects submitted through the FA as an Investment Justification request
under the port-wide planning process, the non-Federal match (cash or in-kind) is 25
percent of the total project cost. Because the FA represents and serves on behalf of the
AMSC, a public sector entity, the public cost share requirement of 25 percent is
applicable.

Cost share waivers may be granted only if the Secretary of DHS determines that (1) a
proposed project merits support in light of the overall grant purpose and mission goals;
and (2) the Secretary of DHS determines that the meritorious project cannot be
undertaken without a higher rate of Federal support. Applicants are advised that waivers
from the match requirement are not typically granted.

C. Restrictions
Please see Section IV., E. for Management & Administration limits and
allowable/unallowable costs guidance.

D. Other
Fiduciary Agent Requirement
For the past two rounds of funding, each Group I and Group II port area was required to
select a single entity to act as the Fiduciary Agent (FA) for that port area. Those port
areas remaining in Group I and Group II have been designated a specific amount of
money for which eligible entities within that port area may apply through the FA.
The FA will serve as the principal point of contact with FEMA for application,
management and administration of the FY 2009 PSGP award. The FA is responsible
for ensuring that all sub-recipients are compliant with the terms and conditions of the
award, including the organizational audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audits of
States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations and Federal Acquisition
Regulation. The FA, however, is not the sole decision maker as to the use of these
funds. The awards are conditioned so that a regional consensus, in conjunction with
the Captain of the Port (COTP) and AMSC, must be reached on how the funding is to
be used.
Fiduciary Agent Selection
1. Group I and Group II Port Areas
For FY 2009, Group I and II port areas will have the option of continuing with their
current FA or selecting a new FA. If a port area elects to change their FA, the
designated COTP must certify in writing to the FEMA Program Office via USCG
Headquarters (CG-5142) as to their new selection. Certifications to FEMA and
USCG Headquarters (CG-5142) must be submitted 30 days prior to the application
due date. For those port areas where the FEMA programmatic office has not
received a certification from the COTP within 30 days prior to the application due
date about a FA change will result in the continued use in FY 2009 of the same FA
which was responsible for those port areas in FY 2008. The FA, whether current or
new, must submit an application for the FY 2009 PSGP. Those ports selecting a
new FA are to ensure that their new selectee is capable of professionally performing
the duties of an FA as outlined above.

2. New Group II Port Areas
Those port areas, which, as a result of the FY 2009 PSGP risk methodology are new
to Group II, have the option of selecting an FA and beginning the FA process, or
opting out of the FA process. If opting out of the FA process, individual eligible
entities will apply directly to FEMA for funding and applicants must comply with all
requirements of Group III and All Other Port Areas. Working through its AMSC
process, each new Group II port area must certify in writing to the FEMA
programmatic office via USCG Headquarters (CG-5142) which option their
respective port area will pursue for FY 2009. Certifications to FEMA and USCG
Headquarters must be done 30 days prior to the application due date. As the FA
represents the interests of the entire AMSC, it is highly recommended that, if
choosing to follow the FA process, AMSCs select a FA with the capacity to manage
federal grants and be responsible for complying with the full breath and scope of FA
responsibilities. The FA must be able to meet and comply with the administrative,
National policy and reporting requirements outlined in this guidance. In particular,
the FA must be able to comply with requirements set forth in applicable regulations,
and OMB Circulars, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html.
Port Wide Risk Management Planning
In order to receive FY 2009 PSGP funds, Group I and Group II port areas (excluding
new Group II port areas that choose to opt out of the FA process) are required to
develop or have in place an approved Port-Wide Risk Management/Mitigation Plan.
They are also encouraged, but not required, to develop a Business Continuity/
Resumption of Trade Plan. For purposes of their strategic planning, Group I and II port
areas must take into consideration and incorporate all other port areas covered by their
AMSP, in their plans and Investment Justifications.
The Plan(s) will align with and support the port areas’ AMSP and the National
Preparedness Guidelines, considering the entire port system strategically as a whole,
and to identify and execute a series of actions designed to effectively mitigate risks to
the system’s maritime critical infrastructure. Building on the successes of previous
years, during FY 2009 Group I and II ports are to seek PSGP funding which will ensure
alignment with the programs and projects identified within the Plan(s) aimed at the
following priorities:
• Expand the emphasis on port-wide partnerships, regional management of risk,
and business continuity/resumption of trade
• Prioritize port-wide security strategies and actions that address surface,
underwater, and land-based threats
• Target best risk-mitigation strategies achieving sustainable port-wide security
and business continuity/resumption of trade planning
• Provide the basis for aligning specific grant-funded security projects under this
and future year PSGP awards with the broader requirements of the AMSP

Deliverables
In order to provide a strong level of fiscal and programmatic oversight, timelines for the
development of the plans will be imposed upon those ports new to Group II (see Table
2), who do not opt out of Group II, detailing specific deliverables that must be reviewed
and approved at the local and Federal level. The first deliverable will be a Concept of
Operations (CONOPS) for developing the Plan(s). The second deliverable will be a
Draft Plan that will be provided to the local COTP and their AMSC for review and
comment, and then to the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for review and
comment. The port areas will then be given a set amount of time to respond to the
comments, and resubmit the Plan(s) for approval. The Federal partners will provide
comments and feedback on each deliverable. Once the Plan(s) is approved as final,
the port area will submit Investment Justifications based on the final Plan(s). Any
projects eligible for grant funding must be certified by the COTP as having a port wide
benefit. The deadlines for the deliverables are as follows:
Timetable for Developing and Implementing
Group I and Group II Port-Wide Plans
Deliverable
Due Date
Federal Comments
30 calendar days after award Provided within 14
Concept of Operations
date
calendar days
Draft Plan
Final Plan

Investment Justifications
(for remaining funds from first
round in the FA process)
Investment Justifications
(for funds from subsequent
rounds)

180 calendar days after
CONOPS approval
90 calendar days after review
and comments are received
on the Draft Plan
30 calendar days after
approval of Final Plan

Provided within 21
calendar days
Provided within 21
calendar days

90 calendar days after
approval of previous set of
Investment Justifications

Provided within 21
calendar days

No more than twenty percent (20%) of the total award amount may be used in the
development of the Port Wide Risk Management/Mitigation Plan and optional Business
Continuity/Resumption of Trade Plan. Remaining funds will then be used to implement
prioritized projects that provide the greatest risk reduction benefit for the port area as a
whole, and which support the developed plan.
Allocated funding will be awarded through a Cooperative Agreement (CA) to allow a
higher level of Federal involvement in assisting port areas in plan development and
implementation.

PART IV.

APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION
INFORMATION
A. Address to Request Application Package
DHS participates in the Administration’s e-government initiative. As part of that
initiative, all applications must be filed using the Administration’s common electronic
“storefront” -- grants.gov. Eligible entities must apply for funding through this portal,
accessible on the Internet at http://www.grants.gov. To access application forms and
instructions, select “Apply for Grants,” and then select “Download Application Package.”
Enter the CFDA and/or the funding opportunity number located on the cover of this
announcement. Select “Download Application Package,” and then follow the prompts to
download the application package. To download the instructions, go to “Download
Application Package” and select “Instructions.” If you experience difficulties or have any
questions, please call the grants.gov customer support hotline at (800) 518-4726.

B. Content and Form of Application
1. On-line application. The on-line application must be completed and submitted
using grants.gov after Central Contractor Registry (CCR) registration is confirmed.
The on-line application includes the following required forms and submissions:
• Investment Justification
• Any additional Required Attachments
• Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance
• Standard Form 424A, Budget Information
• Standard Form 424B Assurances
• Standard Form 424C, Budget Information – Construction Form (if applicable)
• Standard Form 424D, Assurances – Construction Programs (if applicable)
• Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
The program title listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) is
“Port Security Grant Program.” The CFDA number is 97.056. When completing the
on-line application, applicants should identify their submissions as new, nonconstruction applications.
2. Application via grants.gov. FEMA participates in the Administration’s egovernment initiative. As part of that initiative, all applicants must file their
applications using the Administration’s common electronic “storefront” -- grants.gov.
Eligible entities must apply for funding through this portal, accessible on the Internet
at http://www.grants.gov.
20

3. DUNS number. The applicant must provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal
Numbering System (DUNS) number with their application. This number is a required
field within grants.gov and for CCR Registration. Organizations should verify that
they have a DUNS number, or take the steps necessary to obtain one, as soon as
possible. Applicants can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated
toll-free DUNS Number request line at (866) 705-5711.
4. Valid Central Contractor Registry (CCR) Registration. The application process
also involves an updated and current registration by the applicant. Eligible
applicants must confirm CCR registration at http://www.ccr.gov, as well as apply for
funding through grants.gov.
5. Investment Justification. As part of the FY 2009 PSGP application process,
applicants must develop a formal Investment Justification that addresses each
initiative being proposed for funding. These Investment Justifications must
demonstrate how proposed projects address gaps and deficiencies in current
programs and capabilities. The Investment Justification must demonstrate the ability
to provide enhancements consistent with the purpose of the program and guidance
provided by FEMA. Applicants must ensure that the Investment Justification is
consistent with all applicable requirements outlined in this application kit.
Group I and Group II
Group I and II Investment Justifications will not be required from the FA until the final
Port-Wide Risk Management/Mitigation Plan and optional Business Continuity/
Resumption of Trade Plan have been approved.
Group III, All Other Port Areas and Ferry Systems
Group III (including newly identified Group II ports electing to opt out of Group II), All
Other Port Areas and Ferry System Investment Justifications must be submitted with
the grant application as a file attachment within grants.gov. Applicants may propose
up to three investments within their Investment Justification. The individual
investments comprising a single application must take place within the same port
area. Private companies that operate in more than one eligible port area must
submit separate applications for investments in each port area. Applicants must
provide information in the following categories for each proposed Investment:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Background
Strategic and program priorities
Impact
Funding and Implementation Plan

Applicants must use the following file naming convention when submitting required
documents as part of the FY 2009 PSGP:
COTP Zone Abbreviation_Port Area_Name of Applicant_ IJ Number
(Example: Hous_Galveston_XYZ Oil_IJ#1)

PSGP Investment Justification Template
Investment Heading
Port Area
State
Applicant Organization
Investment Name
Investment Amount

I. Background
Note: This section only needs to be completed once per application, regardless of the number of
Investments proposed. The information in this section provides background and context for the
Investment(s) requested, but does not represent the evaluation criteria used by DHS for rating individual
Investment proposals.
I. Provide an overview of the port system in which this Investment will take place
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions • Area of Operations:
o Identify COTP Zone
o Identify eligible port area
o Identify exact location of project site (i.e. physical address of facility
being enhanced)
o Identify who the infrastructure (project site) is owned or operated by, if
not by your own organization
• Point(s) of contact for organization (include contact information):
o Identify the organization’s Authorizing Official for entering into grant
agreement, including contact information (include sub-grantee entering
agreement within Group 1 and 2 port areas under FA process)
o Identify the organization’s primary point of contact for management of
the project(s)
• Ownership or Operation:
o Identify whether the applicant is: (1) a private entity; (2) a state or local
agency; or (3) a consortium composed of local stakeholder groups (i.e.,
river groups, ports, or terminal associations) representing federally
regulated ports, terminals, US inspected passenger vessels or ferries.
• Role in providing layered protection of regulated entities (applicable to
State or local agencies, consortia and associations only):
o Describe your organization’s specific roles, responsibilities and activities
in delivering layered protection
• Important features:
o Describe any operational issues you deem important to the
consideration of your application (e.g., interrelationship of your
operations with other eligible high-risk ports, etc.)
Response

II.B. Describe how the Investment will address one or more of the PSGP priorities and Area
Maritime Security Plan or COTP Priorities (how it corresponds with PRMP for Group I and II)
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions • Describe how, and the extent to which, the investment addresses:
o Enhancement of Maritime Domain Awareness
o Enhancement of IED and WMD prevention, protection, response and
recovery capabilities
o Training and exercises
o Efforts supporting the implementation of TWIC
• Area Maritime Security Plan and/or Captain of the Port Priorities
Response

III. Impact
III.A. Describe how the project offers the highest risk reduction potential at the least cost.
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed ½ page
Page Limit
Response Instructions • Discuss how the project will reduce risk in a cost effective manner
o Discuss how this investment will reduce risk (e.g., reduce vulnerabilities
or mitigate the consequences of an event) by addressing the needs and
priorities identified in earlier analysis and review. For facility specific
investments, the anticipated risk reduction in MSRAM should be
included
Response
III.B. Describe current capabilities similar to this Investment
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed ½ page
Page Limit
Response Instructions • Describe how many agencies within the port have existing equipment that
are the same or have similar capacity as the proposed project
• Include the number of existing capabilities within the port that are identical
or equivalent to the proposed project
Response

IV. Funding and Implementation Plan
Complete the IV.A. to identify the amount of funding you are requesting for this investment only
Funds should be requested by allowable cost categories as identified below
Applicants must make funding requests that are reasonable and justified by direct linkages to
activities outlined in this particular Investment
Note: Investments will be evaluated on the expected impact on security relative to the amount of the
investment (i.e., cost effectiveness). An itemized Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative must
also be completed for this investment. See following section for a sample format.
The following template illustrates how the applicants should indicate the amount of FY 2009 PSGP
funding required for the investment, how these funds will be allocated across the cost elements, and the
required cash or in-kind match:

IV.A. Investment Funding Plan

FY 2009 PSGP
Request Total

Match
(Cash or In-Kind)

Grand Total

Maritime Domain Awareness
IED and WMD Prevention, Protection,
Response and Recovery Capabilities
Training
Exercises
TWIC Implementation
Operational Packages (OPacks)
M&A
Total
IV.B. Provide a high-level timeline, milestones and dates, for the implementation of this
Investment such as stakeholder engagement, planning, major acquisitions or purchases,
training, exercises, and process/policy updates. Up to 10 milestones may be provided.
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions • Only include major milestones that are critical to the success of the
Investment
• Milestones are for this discrete Investment – those that are covered by the
requested FY 2009 PSGP funds and will be completed over the 36-month
grant period starting from the award date, giving consideration for review
and approval process up to 12 months (estimate 24 month project period)
• Milestones should be kept to high-level, major tasks that will need to occur
(i.e. Design and development, begin procurement process, site
preparations, installation, project completion, etc.)
• List any relevant information that will be critical to the successful
completion of the milestone (such as those examples listed in the question
text above)
Response

Ferry System Investment Justification Template
Investment Heading
Port Area
State
Applicant Organization
Investment Name
Investment Amount

II. Strategic and Program Priorities
II.A. Provide a brief abstract of the Investment
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions Provide a succinct statement summarizing this Investment
Response
II.B. Describe how this Investment specifically addresses one or more of the ferry system
priorities
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions Describe how the Investment addresses one or more of the following:
• Development and enhancement of capabilities to prevent, detect, respond
to, and recover from improvised explosive device (IED) attacks
• Mitigation of other high risk/high consequence assets and systems that
have been identified through ferry system risk assessments;
• Use of visible, unpredictable deterrence, such as K-9 teams

• Utilization of mobile technology for prevention and detection of explosives
or other threats and hazards (i.e. rad/nuke)
• Development and enhancement of physical and perimeter security
capabilities
• Targeted counter-terrorism training for key front-line staff
• Emergency preparedness drills and exercises
• Public awareness and preparedness campaigns
Response
II.C. Describe the relevance of this Investment to the Regional Transit Security Strategy and
applicable State and/or Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy.
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed ½ page
Page Limit
Response Instructions Investments will be evaluated on the extent to which they support applicable
regional and State homeland security planning efforts
Response

III. Impact
III. Discuss how the implementation of this Investment will decrease or mitigate risk
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed ½ page
Page Limit
Response Instructions • Discuss how this Investment will reduce risk (e.g., reduce vulnerabilities or
mitigate the consequences of an event) by addressing the needs and
priorities identified in earlier analysis and review
• Identify the nature of the risk and how the risk and need are related to
show how addressing the need through this Investment will also mitigate
risk (e.g., reduce vulnerabilities or mitigate the consequences of an event)
Response
III.B. Describe current capabilities similar to this Investment
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed ½ page
Page Limit
Response Instructions • Describe how many agencies within the port have existing equipment that
are the same or have similar capacity as the proposed project
• Include the number of existing capabilities within the port that are identical
or equivalent to the proposed project
Response

IV. Funding and Implementation Plan
Complete the IV.A. to identify the amount of funding you are requesting for this investment only
Funds should be requested by allowable cost categories as identified below
Applicants must make funding requests that are reasonable and justified by direct linkages to
activities outlined in this particular Investment
Note: Investments will be evaluated on the expected impact on security relative to the amount of the
investment (i.e., cost effectiveness). An itemized Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative must
also be completed for this investment. See following section for a sample format.
The following template illustrates how the applicants should indicate the amount of FY 2009 PSGP ferry
system funding required for the investment, how these funds will be allocated across the cost elements,
and the required cash or in-kind match:

IV. A. Funding Plan

FY09 PSGP Ferry
System Request Total

Match
(Cash or In-Kind)

Grand Total

Planning
Operational Packages (OPacks)
Equipment Acquisitions
Training
Exercises
Management and Administration
Total
IV.B.

Provide a high-level timeline, milestones and dates, for the implementation of this
Investment such as stakeholder engagement, planning, major acquisitions/purchases,
training, exercises, and process/policy updates. Up to 10 milestones may be provided.
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions • Only include major milestones that are critical to the success of
Investment
• While up to 10 milestones may be provided, grantees should only list as
many milestones as necessary
• Milestones are for this discrete Investment – those that are covered by the
requested FY 2009 ferry systems funds and will be completed over the 36month grant period
• Milestones should be kept to high-level, major tasks that will need to occur
• Identify the planned start date associated with the identified milestone.
The start date should reflect the date at which the earliest action will be
taken to start achieving the milestone
• Identify the planned completion date when all actions related to the
milestone will be completed and overall milestone outcome is met
• List any relevant information that will be critical to the successful
completion of the milestone (such as those examples listed in the question
text above)
Response

6. Detailed Budget. Applicants must also provide detailed budgets for the funds
requested. The budget must be complete, reasonable, and cost-effective in relation
to the proposed project. The budget should provide the basis of computation of all
project-related costs (including M&A) and any appropriate narrative. The budget
must reflect the cost share requirement (see Part III., B).
Group I and Group II
Group I and Group II Detailed Budgets will not be required from the FA until the final
Port-Wide Risk Management/Mitigation Plan and optional Business Continuity/
Resumption of Trade Plan have received final approval. This will correspond with the
submittal of Investment Justifications, as noted on page 22.
Group III, All Other Port Areas and Ferry Systems
Group III (including newly identified Group II ports electing to opt out of Group II), All
Other Port Areas and Ferry System applicants must submit their Detailed Budget
with the grant application as a file name attachment within grants.gov. Applicants
must use the following file naming convention when submitting required documents
as part of the FY 2009 PSGP:
COTP Zone Abbreviation_Port Area_Name of Applicant_IJ Number_Budget
(Example: Hous_Galveston_XYZ Oil_IJ#1_Budget)

Sample Budget Detail Worksheet

A. Budget Detail Worksheet Purpose.
The Budget Detail Worksheet may be used as a guide to assist applicants in the
preparation of the budget and budget narrative. You may submit the budget and budget
narrative using this form or in the format of your choice (plain sheets, your own form, or
a variation of this form). However, all required information (including the budget
narrative) must be provided. Any category of expense not applicable to your budget
may be deleted.
A. Personnel. List each position by title and name of employee, if available. Show the annual
salary rate and the percentage of time to be devoted to the project. Compensation paid for
employees engaged in grant activities must be consistent with that paid for similar work within
the applicant organization.
Name/Position

Computation

Cost

Note: Personnel costs are only allowable for direct management and administration of the
grant award, i.e., preparation of mandatory post-award reports.
TOTAL _________

B. Fringe Benefits. Fringe benefits should be based on actual known costs or an established
formula. Fringe benefits are for the personnel listed in budget category (A) and only for the
percentage of time devoted to the project. Fringe benefits on overtime hours are limited to
FICA, Workman’s Compensation and Unemployment Compensation.
Name/Position

Computation

TOTAL

_________

Total Personnel & Fringe Benefits

_________

Cost

C. Travel. Itemize travel expenses of project personnel by purpose (e.g., staff to training, field
interviews, advisory group meeting, etc.). Show the basis of computation (e.g., six people to 3day training at $X airfare, $X lodging, $X subsistence). In training projects, travel and meals for
trainees should be listed separately. Show the number of trainees and unit costs involved.
Identify the location of travel, if known. Indicate source of Travel Policies applied, Applicant or
Federal Travel Regulations.
Purpose of Travel

Location

Item

TOTAL _________

Computation Cost

D. Equipment. List non-expendable items that are to be purchased. Non-expendable
equipment is tangible property having a useful life of more than two years. (Note:
Organization’s own capitalization policy and threshold amount for classification of equipment
may be used). Expendable items should be included either in the “Supplies” category or in the
“Other” category. Applicants should analyze the cost benefits of purchasing versus leasing
equipment, especially high cost items and those subject to rapid technical advances. Rented or
leased equipment costs should be listed in the “Contractual” category. Explain how the
equipment is necessary for the success of the project. Attach a narrative describing the
procurement method to be used.
Item

Computation

Cost

Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget items
identified.
TOTAL _________

E. Supplies. List items by type (office supplies, postage, training materials, copying paper, and
other expendable items such as books, hand held tape recorders) and show the basis for
computation. (Note: Organization’s own capitalization policy and threshold amount for
classification of supplies may be used). Generally, supplies include any materials that are
expendable or consumed during the course of the project. These costs will contribute to the 3
percent M&A cap.
Supply Items
Computation
Cost
TOTAL _________

F. Consultants/Contracts. Indicate whether applicant’s formal, written Procurement Policy or
the Federal Acquisition Regulations are followed.
Consultant Fees: For each consultant enter the name, if known, service to be provided, hourly
or daily fee (8-hour day), and estimated time on the project.
Name of Consultant

Service Provided

Computation

Cost

Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget items
identified.
Subtotal ___________
Consultant Expenses: List all expenses to be paid from the grant to the individual consultant in
addition to their fees (i.e., travel, meals, lodging, etc.)
Item

Location

Computation

Cost

Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget items
identified.
Subtotal __________

Contracts: Provide a description of the product or services to be procured by contract and an
estimate of the cost. Applicants are encouraged to promote free and open competition in
awarding contracts. A separate justification must be provided for sole source contracts in
excess of $100,000.
Item

Cost

Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget items
identified.
Subtotal ________
TOTAL __________

G. Other Costs. List items (e.g., rent, reproduction, telephone, security services, and
investigative or confidential funds) by major type and the basis of the computation. For
example, provide the square footage and the cost per square foot for rent, and provide a
monthly rental cost and how many months to rent.
Description

Computation

Cost

Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget items
identified.
Important Note: If applicable to the project, construction costs should be included in this
section of the Budget Detail Worksheet.
TOTAL _________

H. Indirect Costs. Indirect costs are allowed only if the applicant has a federally approved
indirect cost rate. A copy of the rate approval, (a fully executed, negotiated agreement), must
be attached. If the applicant does not have an approved rate, one can be requested by
contacting the applicant’s cognizant Federal agency, which will review all documentation and
approve a rate for the applicant organization, or if the applicant’s accounting system permits,
costs may be allocated in the direct costs categories.
Description

Computation

TOTAL _________

Cost

Budget Summary - When you have completed the budget worksheet, transfer the totals for
each category to the spaces below. Compute the total direct costs and the total project costs.
Indicate the amount of Federal funds requested and the amount of non-Federal funds that will
support the project.

Budget Category

Federal Amount

Non-Federal Amount

A. Personnel

__________

B. Fringe Benefits

__________

C. Travel

__________

D. Equipment

__________

E. Supplies

__________

F. Consultants/Contracts

__________

G. Other

__________

Total Direct Costs
H. Indirect Costs
* TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

Federal Request

__________

Non-Federal Amount

__________

7. Memorandum of Understanding/Memorandum of Agreement (MOU/MOA)
Requirement. State and local agencies, as well as consortia or associations that
are required to provide security services to MTSA regulated facilities pursuant to an
AMSP, are eligible applicants. However, the security services provided must be
addressed in the regulated entities’ security plans. A copy of an MOU/MOA with the
identified regulated entities will be required prior to funding, and must include an
acknowledgement of the security services and roles and responsibilities of all
entities involved. This information may be provided using one of the attachment
fields within grants.gov.
Entities that are required to provide security services to eligible Ferry System
applicants (MTSA regulated facilities) pursuant to an AMSP are eligible applicants
for Operational Packages (OPacks) only. In addition, the security services provided
must be addressed in the regulated entities’ security plan. A copy of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between those identified entities will be required prior to funding, and must include
an acknowledgement of the security services and roles and responsibilities of all
entities involved. The MOU/MOA must address the following points:
• The nature of the security that the applicant agrees to supply to the regulated
facility (waterside surveillance, increased screening, etc)
• The roles and responsibilities of the facility and the applicant during different
MARSEC levels.
• An acknowledgement by the facility that the applicant is part of their facility
security plan.
If the applicant is mentioned as a provider of security services under the port’s Area
Maritime Security Plan, in lieu of an MOA/MOU, written acknowledgement from the
Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) members, or a letter from the Federal
Maritime Security Coordinator validating this status, will be acceptable. In addition,
MOA/MOUs submitted in previous PSGP award rounds will be acceptable, provided
the activity covered also addresses the capability being requested through the FY
2009 PSGP.
If applicable, the MOU/MOA for state or local law enforcement agencies and/or
consortia providing layered protection to regulated entities must be submitted with
the grant application as a file attachment within grants.gov.
COTP Zone Abbreviation_Port Area_Name of Applicant_MOU
(Example: Hous_Galveston_Harris County_MOU)

Sample MOU/MOA Template
Memorandum of Understanding / Agreement
Between [provider of layered security] and [recipient of layered security]
Regarding [provider of layered security’s] use of port security grant program funds
1. PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement are the [Provider of Layered Security] and the [Recipient of
security service].
2. AUTHORITY. This Agreement is authorized under the provisions of [applicable Area Maritime Security
Committee authorities and/or other authorities].
3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth terms by which [Provider of security service]
shall expend Port Security Grant Program project funding in providing security service to [Recipient of
security service]. Under requested FY 2009 PSGP grant, the [Provider of security service] must provide
layered security to [Recipient of security service] consistent with the approach described in an approved
grant application.
4. RESPONSIBILITIES: The security roles and responsibilities of each party are understood as follows:
(1).

[Recipient of security service]

Roles and responsibilities in providing its own security at each MARSEC level
(2)

[Provider of security service]

- An acknowledgement by the facility that the applicant is part of their facility security plan.
- The nature of the security that the applicant agrees to supply to the regulated facility (waterside
surveillance, increased screening, etc).
- Roles and responsibilities in providing security to [Recipient of security service] at each MARSEC level.
5. POINTS OF CONTACT. [Identify the POCs for all applicable organizations under the Agreement;
including addresses and phone numbers (fax number, e-mail, or internet addresses can also be
included).]
6. OTHER PROVISIONS. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to conflict with current laws or
regulations of [applicable state] or [applicable local Government]. If a term of this agreement is
inconsistent with such authority, then that term shall be invalid, but the remaining terms and conditions of
this agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE. The terms of this agreement will become effective on (EFFECTIVE DATE).
8. MODIFICATION. This agreement may be modified upon the mutual written consent of the parties.
9. TERMINATION. The terms of this agreement, as modified with the consent of both parties, will remain
in effect until the grant end dates for an approved grant. Either party upon [NUMBER] days written notice
to the other party may terminate this agreement.
APPROVED BY:
_________________________
Organization and Title

___________________________
Signature

(Date)

C. Submission Dates and Times
Completed applications must be submitted electronically through www.grants.gov no
later than 11:59 PM EST, January 13, 2009. Late applications will neither be
considered nor reviewed. Upon successful submission, a confirmation e-mail message
will be sent with a grants.gov tracking number, which is needed to track the status of the
application. In order to avoid rejection of late submissions, due to whatever reason,
submission of your IJs should be made as soon as possible.
D. Intergovernmental Review
Executive Order 12372 requires applicants from State and local units of government or
other organizations providing services within a State to submit a copy of the application
to the State Single Point of Contact (SPOC), if one exists, and if this program has been
selected for review by the State. Applicants must contact their State SPOC to
determine if the program has been selected for State review. Executive Order 12372
can be referenced at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executiveorder/12372.html. The names and addresses of the SPOCs are listed on OMB’s home
page available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html
E. Funding Restrictions
1. Management and Administration Limits
A maximum of three percent (3%) may be retained by the applicant. Any funds
retained are to be used solely for management and administrative purposes
associated with the PSGP award. Sub-recipients receiving pass-through funds from
the FA may use up to 2.5 percent of their sub-award for management and
administration purposes.
2. Allowable Costs
This section provides guidance on allowable costs for FY 2009 PSPG, including
ferry systems.
Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
Funds may be used for the following types of MDA projects:
• Deployment of access control/standardized credentialing systems
• Deployment of detection and surveillance equipment
• Development/enhancement of information sharing systems, including
equipment (and software) required to receive, transmit, handle, and store
classified information
• Creation/enhancement of maritime community watch programs
• Enhancements of command and control facilities
• Enhancement of interoperable communications/asset tracking for sharing
terrorism threat information (including ensuring that mechanisms are
interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies)
Applicants interested in addressing MDA are encouraged to familiarize themselves
with the National Strategy for Maritime Security: National Plan to Achieve Maritime
Domain Awareness that can be found at: http://www.uscg.mil/mda/Docs.htm.

IED and WMD Prevention, Protection, Response, Recovery Capabilities
Funds may be used for the following types of IED and WMD prevention, protection,
response and recovery capabilities for port areas:
Port Facilities, Including Public Cruise Line and Terminals
• Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive agent detection sensors
• Canines
• Intrusion detection
• Small boats for State and local law enforcement marine patrol or security
incident response
• Video surveillance systems
• Access control/standardized credentialing
• Improved lighting
• Secure gates and vehicle barriers
• Floating protective barriers
• Underwater intrusion detection systems
• Communications equipment (including interoperable communications)
Vessels
• Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive agent detection sensors
• Restricted area protection (cipher locks, hardened doors, CCTV for bridges and
engineering spaces)
• Communications equipment (including interoperable communications)
• Canines
• Access control and standardized credentialing
• Floating protective barriers
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
The TWIC is designed to be an open architecture, standards-based system. Port
projects that involve new installations or upgrades to access control and credentialing
systems, should exhibit compliance with TWIC standards and program specifications.
Recipients of grant funding for the implementation of TWIC systems may be requested
by the Federal government to apply these systems in a field test of TWIC readers in
accordance with the SAFE Port Act. Systems implemented with grant funding may be
used by recipients to comply with the TWIC rulemaking requirements. However, the
fees associated with the application for and issuance of the TWIC cards themselves
are ineligible for award consideration.
Allowable cost under this section include those projects that will ensure the safe and
secure transit of foreign seafarers and shore staff/support [who are not eligible for
Transportation Worker Identification Credentials] to and from the vessel while at
MTSA regulated facilities.
Recipients may be expected to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Federal
government with mutually agreed upon conditions to obtain data and lessons
learned from the application of card readers and associated systems. A TWIC
rulemaking that will address card reader requirements applied to MTSA-regulated
facilities and vessels is expected to be published later this fiscal year. Systems
implemented with grant funding may be used by recipients to comply with all TWIC
rulemaking requirements.

Training
Funding used for training will be limited to those courses that have been approved
by MARAD, the USCG or FEMA (including MTSA 109 courses). More information
may be obtained at:
•

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MTSA_Updated_list_of_MTSA_certified_courses_SB.pdf

• http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/mmic_appcourses.asp
• http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/training.htm
Funds may be used for the following training activities:
• Training workshops and conferences. Grant funds may be used to plan
and conduct training workshops or conferences to include costs related to
planning, meeting space and other meeting costs, facilitation costs, materials
and supplies, travel and training plan development.
• Certain full- or part-time staff and contractors or consultants. Full- or
part-time staff may be hired to support training-related activities. The services
of contractors or consultants may also be procured by the State in the design,
development, conduct and evaluation of CBRNE training. The applicant's
formal written procurement policy, which must meet the minimum
requirements of 44 CFR Part 13 or 2 CFR Part 215, or the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR) must be followed.
• Public Sector Overtime and backfill costs. Payment of overtime expenses
will be for work performed by public sector employees of award or sub-award
recipients in excess of the established work week (usually 40 hours). Further,
overtime payments and backfill costs associated with sending personnel to
training are allowable, provided that it is DHS approved training. These costs
are allowed only to the extent the payment for such services is in accordance
with the policies of the State or unit(s) of local government and has the preapproval of the State or the awarding agency, whichever is applicable. In no
case is dual compensation allowable. That is, an employee of a unit of
government may not receive compensation from their unit or agency of
government AND from an award for a single period of time (e.g., 1:00 pm to
5:00 pm), even though such work may benefit both activities. Fringe benefits
on overtime hours are limited to Federal Insurance Contributions Act,
Workers’ Compensation and Unemployment Compensation.
• Travel. Travel costs (e.g., airfare, mileage, per diem, hotel) are allowable as
expenses by employees who are on travel status for official business related
to the planning and conduct of the training project(s) or for attending DHSapproved courses or DHS-sponsored technical assistance programs.
• Supplies. Supplies are items that are expended or consumed during the
course of the planning and conduct of the training project(s) (e.g., copying
paper, gloves, tape, and non-sterile masks). These costs will contribute to the 3
percent M&A cap.

•

Other items. These costs may include the rental of space/locations for
planning and conducting training.

Exercises
Funding used for exercises will only be permitted for those exercises that are in direct
support of a facility or port area’s MTSA required exercises. These exercises must be
coordinated with the COTP and AMSC and adhere to the guidelines outlined in DHS
Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). More information on
HSEEP may be found at: https:hseep.dhs.gov/pages/1001_hseep7.aspx. Funds may
be used for the following exercise activities:
• Exercise planning workshop. Grant funds may be used to plan and conduct
an exercise planning workshop, to include costs related to planning, meeting
space and other meeting costs, facilitation costs, materials and supplies, travel
and exercise plan development.
• Certain full- or part-time staff and contractors or consultants. Full- or parttime staff may be hired to support exercise-related activities. Payment of
salaries and fringe benefits must be in accordance with the policies of the State
or unit(s) of local government and have the pre-approval of the State or the
awarding agency, whichever is applicable. The services of contractors or
consultants may also be procured to support the design, development, conduct
and evaluation of CBRNE exercises. The applicant's formal written
procurement policy, which must meet the minimum requirements of 44 CFR
Part 13 or 2 CFR Part 215, or the FAR must be followed.
• Public Sector Overtime and backfill costs. Overtime and backfill costs
associated with the design, development and conduct of CBRNE exercises are
allowable expenses. Payment of overtime expenses will be for work performed
by public sector employees of award or sub-award recipients in excess of the
established work week (usually 40 hours) related to the planning and conduct
of the exercise project(s). Further, overtime payments and backfill costs
associated with sending personnel to exercises are allowable, provided that the
event being attended is a DHS sponsored exercise. These costs are allowed
only to the extent the payment for such services is in accordance with the
policies of the State or unit(s) of local government and has the pre-approval of
the State or the awarding agency, whichever is applicable. In no case is dual
compensation allowable. That is, an employee of a unit of government may not
receive compensation from their unit or agency of government AND from an
award for a single period of time (e.g., 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm), even though such
work may benefit both activities. Fringe benefits on overtime hours are limited
to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, Workers’ Compensation and
Unemployment Compensation.
• Travel. Travel costs (e.g., airfare, mileage, per diem, hotel) are allowable as
expenses by employees who are on travel status for official business related to
the planning and conduct of the exercise project(s).
• Supplies. Supplies are items that are expended or consumed during the
course of the planning and conduct of the exercise project(s) (e.g., copying
paper, gloves, tape, non-sterile masks, and disposable protective equipment).
These costs will contribute to the 3 percent M&A cap.

•

Other Items. These costs may include the rental of space/locations for
exercise planning and conduct.

Examples of security exercise programs include:
• Area Maritime Security Training and Exercise Program (AMStep): AMStep is
the USCG developed mechanism by which AMSCs and Federal Maritime
Security Coordinators will continuously improve security preparedness in the
port community. It is an integral part and a strategic implementation of the
DHS HSEEP for the maritime sector. Rooted in long-standing USCG
exercise policy and procedures, AMStep aligns to support the National
Preparedness Guidelines and the National Strategy for Maritime Security.
Through a structured approach, AMStep focuses all exercise efforts, both
public and private, on improving the AMSPs and individual vessel and facility
security plans of the nation’s largest seaports.
• Port Security Training and Exercise Program: The Port Security Exercise
Training Program (PortSTEP) was established by TSA to develop port security
exercise and evaluation services and solutions for maritime and surface
industry partners under TSA’s guidance and direction. In association with the
USCG, TSA has assembled a Program Team to provide strategic support,
planning, and analytical and technical services for the delivery of a series of
port security training exercises for the transportation security community.
PortSTEP will provide forty port security training exercises through the
applicable AMSCs between August 2005 and October 2009. These include a
mix of basic tabletop, advanced tabletop and functional exercises. PortSTEP
achieves several performance objectives aimed at improving the intermodal
transportation industry’s ability to prepare for and contend with a transportation
security incident. These objectives are centered on increasing awareness,
improving processes, creating partnerships, and delivering port incident
training. More information on PortSTEP is available at:
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/portstep/editorial_with_table_0061.shtm.
• National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program: The USCG National
Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) focuses on exercise
and evaluation of government area contingency plans and industry spill
response plans (oil and hazardous substance). PREP is a coordinated effort
of the four Federal agencies with responsibility for oversight of private-sector
oil and hazardous substance pollution response preparedness: USCG, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Research and Special Programs Administration, and the
U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service. These
agencies worked with Federal, State, and local governments, the oil and
marine transportation industry, cleanup contractors, and the general public to
develop the program. PREP meets the OPA mandate for exercises and
represents minimum guidelines for ensuring overall preparedness within the
response community. The guidelines, which are reviewed periodically
through a public workshop process, outline an exercise program that satisfies
the exercise requirements of the four Federal regulatory agencies. More
information on PREP is available at:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/nsfweb/download/PREP/MSPREP.PDF

Planning
FY 2009 ferry system funds may be used for the following types of planning activities:
• Public education and outreach (such as reproduction of Transit Watch
materials). Where possible, such activities should be coordinated with local
Citizen Corps Council(s)
• Public Alert and warning systems and security education efforts
• Development and implementation of homeland security support programs and
adoption of ongoing DHS national initiatives (including building or enhancing
preventive radiological and nuclear detection programs)
• Development and enhancement of security plans and protocols
• Development or further strengthening of security assessments, including
multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional partnerships and conferences to facilitate
planning activities
• Hiring of full or part-time staff and contractors or consultants to assist with
planning activities (not for the purpose of hiring public safety personnel)
• Materials required to conduct planning activities
• Travel and per diem related to professional planning activities
• Other project planning activities with prior approval from DHS
Equipment Acquisition
FY 2009 ferry system funds may be used for the following types of equipment:
• Personal protection equipment
• Explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment
• CBRNE, operational search and rescue equipment, logistical support
equipment, reference materials or incident response vehicles, including
response watercraft
• Information technology
• Cyber security enhancement equipment
• Interoperable communications equipment
• Detection equipment
• Decontamination equipment
• Power equipment
• Terrorism incident prevention equipment
• Physical security enhancement equipment
Unless otherwise noted, equipment must be certified that it meets required
regulatory and/or DHS-adopted standards to be eligible for purchase using these
funds; e.g., equipment must comply with the OSHA requirement for certification of
electrical equipment by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL), and
demonstrate compliance with relevant DHS-adopted standards through a supplier’s
declaration of conformity (SDOC) with appropriate supporting data and
documentation per ISO/IEC 17050, parts 1 and 2. In addition, agencies must have
all necessary certifications and licenses for the requested equipment, as
appropriate, prior to the request and so certify within the IJ. A comprehensive listing
of allowable equipment categories and types is on the web-based Authorized
Equipment List on the Responder Knowledge Base at https://www.rkb.us/lists.cfm.

Management and Administration (M&A) Costs
FY 2009 PSGP funds may be approved for the following M&A costs:
• Hiring of full-time or part-time staff, contractors or consultants and M&A
expenses related to meeting compliance with grant reporting or data
collection requirements, including data calls
• Development of operating plans for information collection and processing
necessary to respond to DHS data calls
• Travel expenses
• Meeting-related expenses
Specific Guidance on Lighting
All lighting must meet applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements.
Specific Guidance on Sonar Devices
DHS has determined certain sonar devices that will not damage the environment or
require special permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act are eligible
for funding under the PSGP. The four types of allowable sonar devices are:
imaging sonar, scanning sonar, side scan sonar, and 3-dimensional sonar. These
types of sonar devices are intended to support the detection of underwater
improvised explosive devices and enhance Maritime Domain Awareness. The
eligible types of sonar, and short descriptions of their capabilities, are provided
below:
• Imaging sonar: A high-frequency sonar that produces “video-like” imagery
using a narrow field of view. The sonar system can be pole-mounted over the
side of a craft or hand carried by a diver
• Scanning sonar: Consists of smaller sonar systems that can be mounted on
tripods and lowered to the bottom of the waterway. Scanning sonar produces
a panoramic view of the surrounding area and can cover up to 360 degrees
• Side scan sonar: Placed inside of a shell and towed behind a vessel. Side
scan sonar produces strip-like images from both sides of the device
• 3-dimensional sonar: Produces 3-dimensional imagery of objects using an
array receiver
Specific Guidance on Repair and Replacement Costs
Consistent with Informational Bulletin 293, repair and replacement allowable costs
include repair and/or replacement of parts or equipment that will be used to support
PSGP priorities. Projects including repair and replacement of parts or equipment
must comply with all applicable PSGP requirements, including environmental
regulations and budgetary reviews. All associated repair and replacement costs
must be approved individually by the assigned Grant Programs Directorate PSGP
Program Analyst. Any approval for this activity must be requested in writing by the
grantee and written approval obtained from the program analyst prior to the work
commencing or the purchase of the parts or equipment.

Specific Guidance on Security Operational and Maintenance Costs
Operational and allowable costs include cost of acquisition, operation, and
maintenance of security equipment or facilities to be used for security monitoring
and recording, security gates and fencing, marine barriers for designated security
zones, security-related lighting systems remote surveillance, concealed video
systems, security vessels, and other security-related infrastructure or equipment that
contributes to the overall security of passengers, cargo, or crewmembers. In
addition, routine maintenance costs for security monitoring, such as the cost of tapes
for recording, are allowable. However, business operations and maintenance
costs, such as personnel costs and items generally characterized as indirect
or “overhead” costs, are unallowable. Additionally, consistent with Informational
Bulletin 293 allowable costs associated with maintenance agreements and
warranties shall not precede the award date, nor extend beyond the period of
performance for the grant award. Any prorated costs of maintenance agreements
and warranties that extend beyond the life of the award will continue to be the
responsibility of the grantee. On-going maintenance costs (i.e. routine oil changes,
monthly inspections, cleaning equipment, etc.) other than warranties and
maintenance agreements established during initial purchase of parts and equipment
are the responsibility of the grantee and will not be funded by PSGP awards.
Specific Guidance on Vulnerability Assessment Costs
The cost of conducting vulnerability assessments to evaluate and make
recommendations with respect to security is an eligible cost under the FY 2009
PSGP. However, the development of new risk/vulnerability assessment
models and methodologies is unallowable.
Specific Guidance on Construction and Renovation
The following types of construction and renovation projects are allowable under the
FY 2009 PSGP:
• Maritime Domain Awareness Fusion Centers
• Maritime Security Operations Centers
• Port Security Operations Centers
• Port Security Emergency Communications Centers
• Any other building or physical facility that enhances access control to the port area
The above facilities would allow access only to public safety personnel and others
on an as needed/need to know basis in accordance with the National Response
Framework.
Eligible costs for construction and renovation may not exceed the greater of
$1,000,000 per project or such greater amount as may be approved by the
Secretary, which may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount of the grant, as
stated in the SAFE Port Act (Public Law 109-347).
Grant recipients are not permitted to use FY 2009 PSGP funds for construction
projects that are eligible for funding under other Federal grant programs. PSGP

funds may only be used for construction activities directly related to port security
enhancements.
All proposed construction and renovation activities must undergo an Environmental
and Historic Preservation (EHP) review, including approval of the review from
FEMA, prior to undertaking any action related to the project. These types of projects
have the potential to affect environmental resources and historic properties through
ground disturbance, impact to wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, and other water
resources, alteration of historically-significant properties, and impact to threatened
and endangered species, and migratory birds. While all projects receiving Federal
funding require an EHP review, any applicant that is proposing a construction project
under the FY 2009 PSGP should pay special attention to the EHP requirements
contained in Part VI (B, 4.7) of the Guidance. Failure of a grant recipient to meet
these requirements may jeopardize Federal funding.
Construction activities under PSGP are subject to a cash-match cost share
requirement, which may include cash spent for project-related costs. See pages 1718 of this Guidance for further details on the cost sharing requirements.
Furthermore, FY 2009 PSGP recipients using funds for construction projects must
comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. Grant recipients must ensure that their contractors
or subcontractors for construction projects pay workers employed directly at the
work-site no less than the prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on projects of a
similar character. Additional information, including Department of Labor wage
determinations, is available from the following website:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/programs/dbra/.
Specific Guidance on Canines Not Part of an Operational Package
The USCG has identified canine explosive detection as the most effective solution
for the detection of vehicle borne IEDs. Eligibility for funding of canine explosive
detection programs is restricted to U.S. ferry systems regulated under 33 CFR Parts
101, 104 & 105, specifically U.S. ferry vessels carrying more than 500 passengers
with vehicles, U.S. ferry vessels carrying more than 2,000 passengers, and the
passenger terminals these specific ferries service. Additionally, only owners and
operators of these specific ferries and terminals and port authorities or State, local
authorities that provide layered protection for these operations and are defined in the
vessel’s/terminal’s security plans as doing so are eligible.
• Eligible costs. Eligible costs include: purchase, training and certification of
canines; all medical costs associated with initial procurement of canines;
kennel cages used for transportation of the canines and other incidentals
associated with outfitting and set-up of canines (such as leashes, collars,
initial health costs and shots, etc.). Eligible costs also include initial training
and certification of handlers.
• Ineligible costs. Ineligible costs include but are not limited to: hiring, costs
associated with handler annual salary (unless otherwise specifically
applicable per the OPack requirements outlined on the following pages),

•

travel and lodging associated with training and certification; meals and
incidentals associated with travel for initial certification; vehicles used solely to
transport canines; and maintenance or recurring expenses (such as annual
medical exams, canine food costs, etc).
Certification. Canines used to detect explosives must be certified by an
appropriate, qualified organization. Such canines should receive an initial
basic training course and weekly maintenance training sessions thereafter to
maintain the certification. The basic training averages 10 weeks for the
canine team (handler and canine together) with weekly training and daily
exercising. Comparable training and certification standards, such as those
promulgated by the TSA Explosive detection canine program, the National
Police Canine Association (NPCA), the U.S. Police Canine Association
(USPCA) or the International Explosive Detection Dog Association (IEDDA)
may be used to meet this requirement.2
Submission requirements. Successful applicants will be required to submit
an amendment to their approved Vessel Security Plan as per 33 CFR Part
§104.415 detailing the inclusion of a canine explosive detection program into
their security measures. Applicants are encouraged to thoroughly review the
fiscal obligations of maintaining a long-term canine explosive detection
program. If applicable, successful applicants will be required to submit an
amendment to their approved Vessel Security Plan per 33 CFR Part
§104.415 detailing the inclusion of a canine explosive detection program into
their security measures.
Additional resources available for canine costs. DHS is aware that the
financial obligations of a canine explosive detection Program can be
burdensome. The PSGP, while providing the ability to defray some start up
costs, does not cover any recurring costs associated with such programs.
However, the Transit Security Grant Program and Homeland Security Grant
Program are two additional DHS grant programs that can provide funding for
certain operational costs associated with heightened states of alert within the
port area and nationally. DHS strongly encourages applicants to investigate
their eligibility, and potential exclusions, for these resources when developing
their canine programs.

Explosives Detection Canine Team Operational Packages
Explosives Detection Canine Team Operational Packages (OPacks) are available
for funding only to eligible Group I, Group II (excluding new Group II port areas that
elect to opt out of Group II) and ferry systems, as previously noted. DHS considers
OPacks to be effective tactics for supporting security priorities. When combined with
the existing capability of a port or ferry security/police force, the added value
provided through the addition of a canine team is significant. OPacks are a proven,
reliable resource to detect explosives and are a key component in a balanced
counter-sabotage program. Canine teams also provide the added psychological
2

Training and certification information can be found at: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=32,
http://www.npca.net, http://www.uspcak9.com/html/home.shtml, and http://www.bombdog.org/.

deterrent achieved solely through their presence. Such operational efficiency cannot
be obtained through borrowed use of local police force-operated canine teams, as
the needs of the local jurisdiction will always be their first priority. Therefore, the
PSGP will provide funds to establish dedicated port or ferry system security/police
force canine teams.
DHS encourages port and ferry systems to develop innovative layered approaches
to enhance both human, facility and vessel(s) security. Helping port and ferry
systems increase randomness, unpredictability, and ultimate effectiveness of
monitoring and patrol in their security and terrorism prevention programs is critical to
National port and ferry security. Use of OPacks supports these efforts.
The funding for OPacks will be a one time allowance. The period of performance for
OPacks is 36 months. Applicants may apply for up to $450,000 ($150,000/year for 3
years) to support this endeavor. At the end of the grant period (36 months) grantees
will be responsible for maintaining the heightened level of capability provided by the
OPack.
Funds for these canine teams may not be used to fund drug detection and
apprehension technique training. Only explosives detection training for these canine
teams will be funded. PSGP OPack funds may only be used for new
capabilities/programs and cannot be used to pay for existing capabilities/programs
(e.g. canine teams) already supported by the port area or system. Non-supplanting
restrictions apply.
OPacks must meet the following requirements:
• Each canine team, composed of one dog and one handler, must be certified
by an appropriate, qualified organization
• Canines should receive an initial basic training course and also weekly
maintenance training sessions thereafter to maintain the certification
• The basic training averages 10 weeks for the team, with weekly training and
daily exercising (comparable training and certification standards, such as
those promulgated by the TSA Explosive Detection Canine Program, the
NPCA, the USPCA, or the IEDDA may be used to meet this requirement3).
Certifications should be kept on file with the grantee and made available to
DHS upon request
Allowable expenses for OPacks include:
• Salary and fringe benefits
• Training and certifications (travel costs associated with training for personnel,
handlers, and canines are allowable)
• Equipment costs
• Purchase and Train a Canine (training specific to the detection of common
explosives odors is allowable)
• Canine costs (canine costs include but are not limited to: veterinary, housing,
and feeding costs)
3
Training and certification information can be found at: http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs, http://www.npca.net,
http://www.uspcak9.com, and http://www.bombdog.org.

3. Unallowable Costs
The following projects and costs are considered ineligible for award consideration:
• The development of risk/vulnerability assessment models and methodologies
• Projects in which Federal agencies are the primary beneficiary or that
enhance Federal property
• Projects that study technology development for security of national or
international cargo supply chains (e.g., e-seals, smart containers, container
tracking or container intrusion detection devices)
• Proof-of-concept projects
• Projects involving training and exercises that do not meet MTSA standards
and/or requirements set by MTSA or DHS
• Projects that do not provide a compelling security benefit (e.g., primarily
economic or safety vs. security)
• Projects that duplicate capabilities being provided by the Federal government
(e.g., vessel traffic systems)
• Proposals in which there are real or apparent conflicts of interest
• Personnel costs (except for those specifically identified in this guidance)
• Business operating expenses (certain security-related operational and
maintenance costs are allowable. -- see “Security Operational and
Maintenance Costs” for further guidance)
• TWIC card fees
• Signage, projects for placarding and billboards, or hard fixed structure
signage
• Reimbursement of pre-award security expenses
• Outfitting facilities, vessels or other structures with equipment or items
providing a hospitality benefit rather than a direct security benefit. Examples
of such equipment or items include, but are not limited to: office furniture, CD
players, DVD players, AM/FM radios and the like
• Weapons and associated equipment (i.e. holsters, optical sights and scopes),
including, but not limited to: non-lethal or less than lethal weaponry including
firearms, ammunition, and weapons affixed to facilities, vessels or other
structures
• Expenditures for items such as general-use software (word processing,
spreadsheet, graphics, etc), general-use computers and related equipment
(other than for allowable M&A activities, or otherwise associated
preparedness or response functions), general-use vehicles and licensing fees
• Other items not in accordance with the AEL or previously listed as allowable
costs
• Land acquisitions and right of way purchases

PART V.

APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
A. Review Criteria
The four core PSGP criteria are as follows:
• Criteria #1. Projects that support PSGP funding priorities identified in this
Program Guidance and Application Kit package:
o Enhancement of the port area’s MDA (e.g., access control/standardized
credentialing, command and control, communications, and enhanced
intelligence sharing and analysis)
o Enhancement of the port area’s prevention, protection, response and
recovery capabilities (e.g., capabilities that would help mitigate potential IED,
WMD attacks via small craft, underwater swimmers, or onboard passenger
and vehicle ferries)
o Training and exercises (e.g., training programs approved by USCG and
MARAD to ensure an appropriate level of capability on the part of port staff
and management; exercises that test the ability of the port area to prevent,
detect, respond to and recover from potential terrorist attacks)
o TWIC implementation projects (minus application and card purchase costs)
• Criteria #2. Projects that address priorities outlined in the applicable AMSP, as
mandated under the MTSA
• Criteria #3. Projects that address additional security priorities based on the
COTP’s expertise and experience with the specific port area
• Criteria #4. Projects that offer the highest potential for risk reduction for the least
cost
Ferry System applications will be evaluated and ranked based on:
• Security priorities. The extent to which project(s) address the ferry system
priorities outlined in the FY 2009 PSGP Program Guidelines and Application Kit.
• Cost effectiveness. The expected impact on security relative to the investment.
• Ability to reduce risk of catastrophic events.
• Sustainability without additional Federal funds and leveraging of other
funding. The extent to which project(s) exhibit a likelihood of success, or
continued success, without requiring additional Federal assistance, as well as the
ability of the applicant to meet the relevant cost share requirements.
• Relevance to the AMSP (if applicable). The extent to which project(s)
coordinate with area maritime security planning efforts.
• Timelines. The ability of the applicant to complete the proposed project(s) within
submitted timeframes which may be extended due to requests by FEMA for
further data and/or internal EHP or Financial auditing

B. Review and Selection Process
1. Initial Screening. FEMA will conduct an initial review of all FY 2009 PSGP
applications. Group III (including FY 2008 Group II port areas that moved or elected
to move to Group III in FY 2009), All Other Port Areas and Ferry System applications
passing this review will be grouped by port area and provided to the applicable
COTP for further review.
2. Field Review. Field-level reviews will be managed by the applicable COTP in
coordination with the Director of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime
Administration’s Gateway Office and appropriate personnel from the AMSC and/or
local law enforcement, as identified by the COTP. To support coordination of and
regionalization of security grant application projects with State and Urban Area
homeland security strategies, as well as other State and local security plans, the
COTP will coordinate the results with the applicable State administrative agency or
agencies and State homeland security advisor(s).
The COTP will submit field review evaluations that include the following:
• Group I and Group II field reviews do not occur until post-award, after the final
Port-Wide Risk Management/Mitigation Plan and optional Business
Continuity/ Resumption of Trade Plan have been approved. Group I and II
COTPs will ensure their projects are in compliance with the Plan(s) as
developed with the funding priorities. The applicant must indicate the projects’
prioritized listing from the Plan(s).
• Group III, All Other Port Areas and Ferry System field reviews occur
immediately following the initial screening. Each specific application is scored
for compliance with criteria enumerated in the previous section
• A total score is computed with all proposals received from each port being
ranked from highest to lowest in terms of their contributions to regional risk
reduction and cost effectiveness
• Specific notation if other entities within the port region have similar
capabilities and the need for or lack thereof for redundancy
After completing field reviews, COTPs will submit the field review project scores and
prioritized lists to FEMA to begin coordination of the national review process.

3. National Review. Following the field review, a National Review Panel will be
convened with subject matter experts drawn from DHS and the Department of
Transportation. The purpose of the National Review is to identify a final, prioritized
list of eligible projects for funding. The National Review Panel will conduct an initial
review of the prioritized project listings for each port area submitted by the USCG’s
COTP to ensure that the proposed projects will accomplish intended risk mitigation
goals. The National Review Panel will validate the Field Review COTP Project
Priority List and provide a master list of prioritized projects by port area.4
A risk-based algorithm will then be applied to the National Review Panel’s validated,
prioritized list for each port area in Groups III, All Other Port Areas and ferry
systems. The algorithm considers the following factors to produce a comprehensive
national priority ranking of port security proposals:
• Relationship of the project to one or more of the national port security
priorities
• Relationship of the project to the local port security priorities
• COTP ranking (based on each COTP’s prioritized list of projects)
• Risk level of the port area in which the project would be located (based on a
comprehensive risk analysis performed by DHS)
The National Review Panel will be asked to evaluate and validate the consolidated
and ranked project list resulting from application of the algorithm. Awards will be
made based on the final ranked list of projects identified by the National Review
Panel and available funding.
Historically, the PSGP has provided full funding, rather than partial funding, for
proposed PSPG projects. Typically, several applicants make requests for projects
that are so large that funding is denied because there is not enough grant money
available to cover the total project cost.

C. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
FEMA will evaluate and act on applications within 60 days following close of the
application period, consistent with the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110-329). Awards will be made on or
before September 30, 2009.

The National Review Panel will have the ability to recommend partial funding for individual projects and eliminate others that are
determined to be duplicative or require a sustained Federal commitment to fully realize the intended risk mitigation. The National
Review Panel will also validate proposed project costs. Decisions to reduce requested funding amounts or eliminate requested
items deemed inappropriate under the scope of the FY 2009 PSGP will take into consideration the ability of the revised project to
address the intended national port security priorities and achieve the intended risk mitigation goal. Historically, the PSGP has
placed a high priority on providing full project funding rather than partial funding.

PART VI.

AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. Notice of Award
Upon approval of an application, the grant will be awarded to the grant recipient. The
date that this is done is the “award date.” Notification of award approval is made
through the Grants Management System (GMS). Once an award has been approved, a
notice is sent to the authorized grantee official. Follow the directions in the notification
and log into GMS to access the award documents. The authorized grantee official
should carefully read the award and special condition documents. If you do not receive
a notification, please contact your Program Analyst for your award number. Once you
have the award number, contact the GMS Help Desk at (888) 549-9901, option 3, to
obtain the username and password associated with the new award.
The period of performance is 36 months. Any unobligated funds will be deobligated at
the end of the 90 day close-out period. Extensions to the period of performance will be
considered only through formal requests to FEMA with specific and compelling
justifications why an extension is required.
B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
1. Standard Financial Requirements. The grantee and any subgrantee shall comply
with all applicable laws and regulations. A non-exclusive list of regulations
commonly applicable to DHS grants are listed below:
1.1 – Administrative Requirements.
• 44 CFR Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments
• 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other NonProfit Organizations (OMB Circular A-110)
1.2 – Cost Principles.
• 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal
Governments (OMB Circular A-87)
• 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A-21)
• 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122)
• Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles
and Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations

1.3 – Audit Requirements.
• OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations
1.4 – Duplication of Benefits. There may not be a duplication of any federal
assistance, per A-87, Basic Guidelines Section C.3 (c), which states: Any cost
allocable to a particular Federal award or cost objective under the principles
provided for in this Circular may not be charged to other Federal awards to
overcome fund deficiencies, to avoid restrictions imposed by law or terms of the
Federal awards, or for other reasons. However, this prohibition would not preclude
governmental units from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more awards
in accordance with existing program agreements.
1.5 – Buy American Act. Grant recipients of the FY 2009 PSGP must follow the
standards identified in the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. §§10a-10d. The Buy
American Act requires that all supplies and construction materials purchased be
produced in the United States, unless such materials are not reasonably available,
or such a purchase would not be in the public interest. Grant recipients must follow
the Federal Acquisition Regulations implementing the Buy American Act, 48 CFR
Part 25.
2. Non-supplanting Requirement. Grant funds will be used to supplement existing
funds, and will not replace (supplant) funds that have been appropriated for the
same purpose. Applicants or grantees may be required to supply documentation
certifying that a reduction in non-Federal resources occurred for reasons other than
the receipt or expected receipt of Federal funds.
3. Technology Requirements.
3.1 – National Information Exchange Model (NIEM). FEMA requires all grantees
to use the latest NIEM specifications and guidelines regarding the use of Extensible
Markup Language (XML) for all grant awards. Further information about the
required use of NIEM specifications and guidelines is available at
http://www.niem.gov.
3.2 – Geospatial Guidance. Geospatial technologies capture, store, analyze,
transmit, and/or display location-based information (i.e., information that can be
linked to a latitude and longitude). FEMA encourages grantees to align any
geospatial activities with the guidance available on the FEMA website at
http://www.fema.gov/grants.
3.3 – 28 CFR Part 23 guidance. FEMA requires that any information technology
system funded or supported by these funds comply with 28 CFR Part 23, Criminal
Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, if this regulation is determined to be
applicable.

4. Administrative Requirements.
4.1 – Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FEMA recognizes that much of the
information submitted in the course of applying for funding under this program or
provided in the course of its grant management activities may be considered law
enforcement sensitive or otherwise important to national security interests. While
this information under Federal control is subject to requests made pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, all determinations concerning the
release of information of this nature are made on a case-by-case basis by the FEMA
FOIA Office, and may likely fall within one or more of the available exemptions under
the Act. The applicant is encouraged to consult its own State and local laws and
regulations regarding the release of information, which should be considered when
reporting sensitive matters in the grant application, needs assessment and strategic
planning process. The applicant may also consult FEMA regarding concerns or
questions about the release of information under State and local laws. The grantee
should be familiar with the regulations governing Sensitive Security Information (49
CFR Part 1520), as it may provide additional protection to certain classes of
homeland security information.
4.2 – Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII). The PCII Program,
established pursuant to the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-296) (CII Act), created a new framework, which enables State and local
jurisdictions and members of the private sector to voluntarily submit sensitive
information regarding critical infrastructure to DHS. The Act also provides statutory
protection for voluntarily shared CII from public disclosure and civil litigation. If
validated as PCII, these documents can only be shared with authorized users who
agree to safeguard the information.
PCII accreditation is a formal recognition that the covered government entity has the
capacity and capability to receive and store PCII. DHS encourages all entities to
pursue PCII accreditation to cover their State government and attending local
government agencies. Accreditation activities include signing a memorandum of
agreement (MOA) with DHS, appointing a PCII Officer, and implementing a selfinspection program. For additional information about PCII or the accreditation
process, please contact the DHS PCII Program Office at [email protected].
4.3 – Compliance with Federal civil rights laws and regulations. The grantee is
required to comply with Federal civil rights laws and regulations. Specifically, the
grantee is required to provide assurances as a condition for receipt of Federal funds
that its programs and activities comply with the following:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42. U.S.C. 2000 et. seq.
– no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin will be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination in any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.

•

•
•

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794 –
no qualified individual with a disability in the United States, shall, by reason of
his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination in any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1681
et. seq. – discrimination on the basis of sex is eliminated in any education
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 6101 et. seq. –
no person in the United States shall be, on the basis of age, excluded from
participation in, denied the benefits of or subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Grantees must comply with all regulations, guidelines, and standards adopted under
the above statutes. The grantee is also required to submit information, as required,
to the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties concerning its compliance with
these laws and their implementing regulations.
4.4 – Services to limited English proficient (LEP) persons. Recipients of FEMA
financial assistance are required to comply with several Federal civil rights laws,
including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. These laws prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, natural origin, and sex in the
delivery of services. National origin discrimination includes discrimination on the
basis of limited English proficiency. To ensure compliance with Title VI, recipients
are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful
access to their programs. Meaningful access may entail providing language
assistance services, including oral and written translation, where necessary. The
grantee is encouraged to consider the need for language services for LEP persons
served or encountered both in developing their proposals and budgets and in
conducting their programs and activities. Reasonable costs associated with
providing meaningful access for LEP individuals are considered allowable program
costs. For additional information, see http://www.lep.gov
4.5 – Integrating individuals with disabilities into emergency planning. Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits discrimination against
people with disabilities in all aspects of emergency mitigation, planning, response,
and recovery by entities receiving financial from FEMA. In addition, Executive
Order 13347, Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness signed in July
2004, requires the Federal Government to support safety and security for individuals
with disabilities in situations involving disasters, including earthquakes, tornadoes,
fires, floods, hurricanes, and acts of terrorism. Executive Order 13347 requires the
Federal government to encourage consideration of the needs of individuals with
disabilities served by State, local, and tribal governments in emergency
preparedness planning.

FEMA has several resources available to assist emergency managers in planning
and response efforts related to people with disabilities and to ensure compliance
with Federal civil rights laws:
• Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 301 (CPG-301): Interim Emergency
Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations: CPG-301 is
designed to aid tribal, State, territorial, and local governments in planning for
individuals with special needs. CPG-301 outlines special needs
considerations for: Developing Informed Plans; Assessments and Registries;
Emergency Public Information/Communication; Sheltering and Mass Care;
Evacuation; Transportation; Human Services/Medical Management;
Congregate Settings; Recovery; and Training and Exercises. CPG-301 is
available at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/media/2008/301.pdf.
• Guidelines for Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities in Disaster:
The Guidelines synthesize the array of existing accessibility requirements into
a user friendly tool for use by response and recovery personnel in the field.
The Guidelines are available at http://www.fema.gov/oer/reference/.
• Disability and Emergency Preparedness Resource Center: A web-based
“Resource Center” that includes dozens of technical assistance materials to
assist emergency managers in planning and response efforts related to
people with disabilities. The “Resource Center” is available at
http://www.disabilitypreparedness.gov.
• Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS) resource page on
Emergency Planning for Persons with Disabilities and Special Needs: A
true one-stop resource shop for planners at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector entities, the resource page
provides more than 250 documents, including lessons learned, plans,
procedures, policies, and guidance, on how to include citizens with disabilities
and other special needs in all phases of the emergency management cycle.
LLIS.gov is available to emergency response providers and homeland
security officials from the Federal, State, and local levels. To access the
resource page, log onto http://www.LLIS.gov and click on Emergency
Planning for Persons with Disabilities and Special Needs under Featured
Topics. If you meet the eligibility requirements for accessing Lessons Learned
Information Sharing, you can request membership by registering online.
4.6 – Compliance with the National Energy Conservation Policy and Energy
Policy Acts. In accordance with the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110-329), grant funds must
comply with the following two requirements:
• None of the funds made available shall be used in contravention of the
Federal buildings performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order
13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42
USC 8251 et. Seq.), or subtitle A of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(including the amendments made thereby).

•

None of the funds made available shall be used in contravention of section
303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 USC13212).

4.7 – Environmental and Historic Preservation Compliance. FEMA is required to
consider the potential impacts to the human and natural environment of projects
proposed for FEMA funding. FEMA, through its Environmental and Historic
Preservation (EHP) Program, engages in a review process to ensure that FEMAfunded activities comply with various Federal laws including: National Environmental
Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and
Executive Orders on Floodplains (11988), Wetlands (11990) and Environmental
Justice (12898). The goal of these compliance requirements is to protect our
nation’s water, air, coastal, wildlife, agricultural, historical, and cultural resources, as
well as to minimize potential adverse effects to children and low-income and minority
populations.
The grantee shall provide any information requested by FEMA to ensure compliance
with applicable Federal EHP requirements. Any project with the potential to impact
EHP resources cannot be initiated until FEMA has completed its review. Grantees
may be required to provide detailed information about the project, including the
following: location (street address or map coordinates); description of the project
including any associated ground disturbance work, extent of modification of existing
structures, construction equipment to be used, staging areas, access roads, etc.;
year the existing facility was built; natural, biological, and/or cultural resources
present in the project vicinity; visual documentation such as site and facility
photographs, project plans, maps, etc; and possible project alternatives.
For certain types of projects, FEMA must consult with other Federal and State
agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Historic Preservation
Offices, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as other agencies and
organizations responsible for protecting natural and cultural resources. For projects
with the potential to have significant adverse effects on the environment and/or
historic properties, FEMA’s EHP review and consultation may result in a substantive
agreement between the involved parties outlining how the grantee will avoid the
effects, minimize the effects, or, if necessary, compensate for the effects.
Because of the potential for significant adverse effects to EHP resources or public
controversy, some projects may require an additional assessment or report, such as
an Environmental Assessment, Biological Assessment, archaeological survey,
cultural resources report, wetlands delineation, or other document, as well as a
public comment period. Grantees are responsible for the preparation of such
documents, as well as for the implementation of any treatment or mitigation
measures identified during the EHP review that are necessary to address potential
adverse impacts. Grantees may use these funds toward the costs of preparing such
documents and/or implementing treatment or mitigation measures. Failure of the
grantee to meet Federal, State, and local EHP requirements, obtain applicable

permits, and comply with any conditions that may be placed on the project as the
result of FEMA’s EHP review may jeopardize Federal funding.
Recipient shall not undertake any project having the potential to impact EHP
resources without the prior approval of FEMA, including but not limited to
communications towers, physical security enhancements, new construction, and
modifications to buildings, structures and objects that are 50 years old or
greater. Recipient must comply with all conditions placed on the project as the result
of the EHP review. Any change to the approved project scope of work will require
re-evaluation for compliance with these EHP requirements. If ground disturbing
activities occur during project implementation, the recipient must ensure monitoring
of ground disturbance, and if any potential archeological resources are discovered,
the recipient will immediately cease construction in that area and notify FEMA and
the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. Any construction activities that
have been initiated without the necessary EHP review and approval will result
in a non-compliance finding and will not eligible for FEMA funding.
For more information on FEMA’s EHP requirements, grantees should refer to
FEMA’s Information Bulletin #271, Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
Requirements for Grants, available at http://ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/info271.pdf.
Additional information and resources can also be found at
http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/ehp-applicant-help.shtm.
4.8 – Royalty-free License. Applicants are advised that FEMA reserves a royaltyfree, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use,
and authorize others to use, for Federal government purposes: (a) the copyright in
any work developed under an award or sub-award; and (b) any rights of copyright to
which an award recipient or sub-recipient purchases ownership with Federal
support. Award recipients must agree to consult with FEMA regarding the allocation
of any patent rights that arise from, or are purchased with, this funding.
4.9 – FEMA GPD Publications Statement. Applicants are advised that all
publications created with funding under any grant award shall prominently contain
the following statement: "This document was prepared under a grant from FEMA’s
Grant Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Points of view
or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position or policies of FEMA’s Grant Programs
Directorate or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security."
4.10 – Equipment Marking. Applicants are advised that, when practicable, any
equipment purchased with grant funding shall be prominently marked as follows:
"Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security."
4.11 – Disadvantaged Business Requirement. Applicants are advised that, to the
extent that recipients of a grant use contractors or subcontractors, such recipients
shall use small, minority, women-owned or disadvantaged business concerns and
contractors or subcontractors to the extent practicable.
56

4.12 – National Preparedness Reporting Compliance. The Government
Performance and Results Act (Public Law 103-62) (GPRA) requires that the
Department collect and report performance information on all programs. For grant
programs, the prioritized Investment Justifications and their associated milestones
provide an important tool for assessing grant performance and complying with these
national preparedness reporting requirements. FEMA will work with grantees to
develop tools and processes to support this requirement. FEMA anticipates using
this information to inform future-year grant program funding decisions. Award
recipients must agree to cooperate with any assessments, national evaluation
efforts, or information or data collection requests, including, but not limited to, the
provision of any information required for the assessment or evaluation of any
activities within their grant agreement. This includes any assessments, audits, or
investigations conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the
Inspector General, or the Government Accountability Office.

C. Reporting Requirements
Reporting requirements must be met throughout the life of the grant (refer to the
program guidance and the special conditions found in the award package for a full
explanation of these requirements). Please note that FEMA Payment and Reporting
System (PARS) contains edits that will prevent access to funds if reporting requirements
are not met on a timely basis.
1. Financial Status Report (FSR) – required quarterly. Obligations and
expenditures must be reported on a quarterly basis through the FSR, which is due
within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter (e.g., for the quarter ending
March 31, FSR is due no later than April 30). A report must be submitted for every
quarter of the period of performance, including partial calendar quarters, as well as
for periods where no grant activity occurs. Future awards and fund draw downs may
be withheld if these reports are delinquent. The final FSR is due 90 days after the
end date of the performance period.
FSRs must be filed online through the PARS.
Reporting periods and due dates:
• October 1 – December 31; Due January 30
• January 1 – March 31; Due April 30
• April 1 – June 30; Due July 30
• July 1 – September 30; Due October 30
2. Categorical Assistance Progress Report (CAPR). Following an award, the
awardees will be responsible for submitting CAPRs on a semi-annual basis; CAPRs
should address performance measures and activities as described in the Investment
Justification(s). The applicable entities are responsible for completing and submitting
the CAPR reports.

The CAPR is due within 30 days after the end of the reporting period (July 30 for the
reporting period of January 1 through June 30; and January 30 for the reporting
period of July 1 though December 31). Future awards and fund drawdowns may be
withheld if these reports are delinquent.
CAPRs must be filed online at https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov. Guidance and
instructions can be found at https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsHelp/index.html.
Required submission: CAPR (due semi-annually).
3. Exercise Evaluation and Improvement. Exercises, implemented with grant funds,
should be threat and performance-based and should evaluate performance of the
targeted capabilities required to respond to the exercise scenario. Guidance related
to the conduct exercise evaluations and the implementation of improvement is
defined in the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)
Manual located at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/administration.shtm.
Grant recipients must report on scheduled exercises and ensure that an After Action
Report (AAR) and Improvement Plan (IP) are prepared for each exercise conducted
with FEMA support (grant funds or direct support) and submitted to the FEMA
secure Portal (https://preparednessportal.dhs.gov/) within 60 days following
completion of the exercise.
The AAR documents the demonstrated performance of targeted capabilities and
identifies recommendations for improvements. The IP outlines an exercising
jurisdiction(s) plan to address the recommendations contained in the AAR. At a
minimum, the IP must identify initial action items and be included in the final AAR.
Guidance for the development of AARs and IPs is provided in the HSEEP manual.
Required submissions: AARs and IPs (as applicable).
4. Financial and Compliance Audit Report. Recipients that expend $500,000 or
more of Federal funds during their fiscal year are required to submit an organizationwide financial and compliance audit report. The audit must be performed in
accordance with the U.S. General Accountability Office, Government Auditing
Standards, located at http://www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, and OMB Circular A133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, located at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html. Audit reports are
currently due to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse no later than nine months after the
end of the recipient’s fiscal year. In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security
and the Comptroller General of the United States shall have access to any books,
documents, and records of recipients of FY 2009 PSGP assistance for audit and
examination purposes, provided that, in the opinion of the Secretary or the
Comptroller, these documents are related to the receipt or use of such assistance.
The grantee will also give the sponsoring agency or the Comptroller, through any
authorized representative, access to, and the right to examine all records, books,
papers or documents related to the grant.

The grantee shall require that sub-grantees comply with the audit requirements set
forth in OMB Circular A-133. Recipients are responsible for ensuring that subrecipient audit reports are received and for resolving any audit findings.
Monitoring
Grant recipients will be monitored periodically by FEMA staff, both programmatically
and financially, to ensure that the project goals, objectives, performance requirements,
timelines, milestone completion, budgets, and other related program criteria are being
met. Programmatic monitoring may also include the Regional Federal Preparedness
Coordinators, when appropriate, to ensure consistency of project investments with
Regional and National goals and policies, as well as to help synchronize similar
investments ongoing at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Monitoring will be accomplished through a combination of office-based reviews and onsite monitoring visits. Monitoring will involve the review and analysis of the financial,
programmatic, performance and administrative issues relative to each program and will
identify areas where technical assistance and other support may be needed.
The recipient is responsible for monitoring award activities, to include sub-awards, to
provide reasonable assurance that the Federal award is administered in compliance
with requirements. Responsibilities include the accounting of receipts and
expenditures, cash management, maintaining of adequate financial records, and
refunding expenditures disallowed by audits.
Grant Close-Out Process
Within 90 days after the end of the period of performance, grantees must submit a final
FSR and final CAPR detailing all accomplishments throughout the project. After these
reports have been reviewed and approved by FEMA, a close-out notice will be completed
to close out the grant. The notice will indicate the project as closed, list any remaining
funds that will be deobligated, and address the requirement of maintaining the grant
records for three years from the date of the final FSR. The grantee is responsible for
returning any funds that have been drawndown but remain as unliquidated on grantee
financial records.
Required submissions: (1) Final SF-269a, due 90 days from end of grant period
(2) Final CAPR, due 90 days from end of grant period

PART VII.

FEMA CONTACTS
This section describes several resources that may help applicants in completing a
FEMA grant application. During the application period DHS will identify multiple
opportunities for a cooperative dialogue between the Department and applicants. This
commitment is intended to ensure a common understanding of the funding priorities and
administrative requirements associated with the FY 2009 PSGP and to help in
submission of projects that will have the highest impact on reducing risks.
1. Centralized Scheduling & Information Desk (CSID) Help Line. CSID is a nonemergency resource for use by emergency responders across the nation. CSID is a
comprehensive coordination, management, information, and scheduling tool
developed by DHS through FEMA for homeland security terrorism preparedness
activities. CSID provides general information on all FEMA grant programs and
information on the characteristics of CBRNE, agro-terrorism, defensive equipment,
mitigation techniques, and available Federal assets and resources.
CSID maintains a comprehensive database containing key personnel contact
information for homeland security terrorism preparedness programs and events.
These contacts include personnel at the Federal, State and local levels. CSID can
be contacted at (800) 368-6498 or [email protected]. CSID hours of operation are
from 8:00 am–6:00 pm (EST), Monday-Friday.
2. Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). FEMA GPD will provide fiscal support,
including pre- and post-award administration and technical assistance, to the grant
programs included in this solicitation. Additional guidance and information can be
obtained by contacting the FEMA Call Center at (866) 927-5646 or via e-mail to
[email protected].
3. GSA’s State and Local Purchasing Programs. The U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA) offers two efficient and effective procurement programs for
State and local governments to purchase products and services to fulfill homeland
security and other technology needs. The GSA Schedules (also referred to as the
Multiple Award Schedules and the Federal Supply Schedules) are long-term,
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, government-wide contracts with commercial
firms of all sizes.
• Cooperative Purchasing Program
Cooperative Purchasing, authorized by statute, allows State and local
governments to purchase a variety of supplies (products) and services under
specific GSA Schedule contracts to save time, money, and meet their
everyday needs and missions.

The Cooperative Purchasing program allows State and local governments to
purchase alarm and signal systems, facility management systems, firefighting
and rescue equipment, law enforcement and security equipment, marine craft
and related equipment, special purpose clothing, and related services off of
Schedule 84 and Information Technology products and professional services
off of Schedule 70 and the Consolidated Schedule (containing IT Special Item
Numbers) only. Cooperative Purchasing for these categories is authorized
under Federal law by the Local Preparedness Acquisition Act (Public Law 110248) and Section 211 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347).

•

Under this program, State and local governments have access to GSA
Schedule contractors who have voluntarily modified their contracts to
participate in the Cooperative Purchasing program. The U.S. General
Services Administration provides a definition of State and local governments
as well as other vital information under the frequently asked questions section
on its website at http://www.gsa.gov/cooperativepurchasing.
Disaster Recovery Purchasing Program
GSA plays a critical role in providing disaster recovery products and services to
Federal agencies. Now State and Local Governments can also benefit from the
speed and savings of the GSA Federal Supply Schedules. Section 833 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) amends 40 U.S.C. §502 to authorize GSA to provide State and
Local governments the use of ALL GSA Federal Supply Schedules for
purchase of products and services to be used to facilitate recovery from a major
disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act or to facilitate recovery from terrorism or
nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack.

GSA provides additional information on the Disaster Recovery Purchasing Program
website at http://www.gsa.gov/disasterrecovery.
State and local governments can find a list of contractors on GSA’s website,
http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov, denoted with a
or
symbol.
Assistance is available from GSA on the Cooperative Purchasing and Disaster
Purchasing Program at the local and national levels. For assistance at the local
level, visit http://www.gsa.gov/csd to find a local customer service director in your
area. For assistance at the national level, contact Tricia Reed at
[email protected], (571) 259-9921. More information is available on all GSA
State and local programs at: www.gsa.gov/stateandlocal.
4. Exercise Direct Support. FEMA provides support to Regions, States, and local
jurisdictions in accordance with State Homeland Security Strategies and the
Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). Support is available
to conduct a Training and Exercise Plan (TEP) workshop, to develop a Multi-year
TEP, and to build or enhance the capacity of a jurisdiction to design, develop,
conduct, and evaluate effective exercises.
61

In FY 2009, support for planning and conduct of exercises has shifted in strategy
from a State-focused approach, organized by National Preparedness Directorate
Headquarters, to a regional (multi-State) approach, organized by the FEMA
Regions, to more effectively integrate national, regional, territorial, tribal, State, and
local preparedness exercises. At this time, the Regional Exercise Support Program
will support discussion-based exercises (i.e., seminar, workshop or tabletop),
operations-based exercises (i.e. drills, functional exercises, full scale exercises), and
TEP workshops within each of the 10 FEMA Regions. The Regional Exercise
Support Program support is not limited to new exercise initiatives and can be applied
to ongoing exercises to maintain continuity of existing planning schedules.
Applicants are encouraged to coordinate requests for exercise support through the
appropriate FEMA Regional Exercise Officer. State requests for support will be
considered, however, priority will be given to exercise initiatives that support
collaboration within a Region.
Additional guidance on the Regional Exercise Support Program to include the
application process and information on the HSEEP is available on the HSEEP
website, https://hseep.dhs.gov.
5. Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program. The
Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program (HSPTAP)
provides direct support assistance on a first-come, first-served basis (and subject to
the availability of funding) to eligible organizations to enhance their capacity and
preparedness to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist and
all hazard threats. In addition to the risk assessment assistance already being
provided, FEMA also offers a variety of other direct support assistance programs.
More information can be found at http://www.fema.gov/about/divisions/pppa_ta.shtm.
6. Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS) System. LLIS is a national, online,
secure website that houses a collection of peer-validated lessons learned, best
practices, AARs from exercises and actual incidents, and other relevant homeland
security documents. LLIS facilitates improved preparedness nationwide by providing
response professionals with access to a wealth of validated front-line expertise on
effective planning, training, equipping, and operational practices for homeland
security.
The LLIS website also includes a national directory of homeland security officials, as
well as an updated list of homeland security exercises, events, and conferences.
Additionally, LLIS includes online collaboration tools, including secure email and
message boards, where users can exchange information. LLIS uses strong
encryption and active site monitoring to protect all information housed on the
system. The LLIS website is https://www.llis.gov.

7. Information Sharing Systems. FEMA encourages all State, regional, local, and
Tribal entities using FY 2009 funding in support of information sharing and
intelligence fusion and analysis centers to leverage available Federal information
sharing systems, including Law Enforcement Online (LEO) and the Homeland
Security Information Network (HSIN). For additional information on LEO, contact the
LEO Program Office at [email protected] or (202) 324-8833. For additional
information on HSIN and available technical assistance, contact the HSIN Help Desk
at (703) 674-3003.

PART VIII.

OTHER INFORMATION
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
The DNDO is the primary agency within the U.S. Government responsible for
developing the global nuclear detection architecture, acquiring and supporting the
deployment of the domestic detection system to detect and reporting attempts to import
or transport a nuclear device or fissile or radiological material, intended for illicit use.
The DNDO is conducting both evolutionary (near-term) and transformational (long-term)
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs to improve the Nation’s
capabilities for detection, identification, and reporting of rad/nuc materials. By
integrating RDT&E programs with operational support responsibilities, DNDO will
ensure technologies are appropriately deployed, with training materials and welldeveloped operational response protocols. Working with Federal, State, local, and tribal
partners, DNDO has piloted initial training programs and developed detection alarm
protocols that can be customized for specific operational missions.
The DNDO believes that a layered defense incorporating a variety of detection
capabilities ensures the greatest probability of detection for radioactive substances
entering and transported within the country. This layered detection strategy should
include detection equipment and facilities that are specifically chosen based on the local
operating environment.
While these technologies are a critical tool to combat terrorism, the nuclear threat is not
one that can be effectively countered by technology alone. Accordingly, DNDO
supports the development of comprehensive preventative rad/nuc detection (PRND)
capabilities across State, local and tribal entities by developing the necessary training,
exercise support, equipment test reports, information sharing capabilities, and program
tools to create a fully integrated operating environment. These resources include:
providing technical reachback support to Federal, State, local and tribal operators;
development of standardized training curricula and response protocols; conducting
comprehensive assessments of existing technologies to inform application and
acquisition; providing program development tools and guidance for immediate
application by policy makers and operators; and the development of a robust national
situational awareness and analysis capability through the Joint Analysis Center. Such
resources can be used by State, local and tribal entities to build or enhance a
comprehensive PRND program, or to develop specific PRND in areas such as
commercial vehicle inspection, special events screening, small maritime craft
monitoring, and fixed infrastructure protection.
More information is available on the DNDO website:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1192453550101.shtm.

Requirements Specific to For-Profit Entities
For-profit organizations are eligible to apply for funding under the PSGP. The following
requirements apply specifically to for-profit entities receiving Federal funding from
FEMA.
1. Recipients of PSGP funds must comply with the contract cost principles as defined
in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles and
Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations
2. For purposes of financial and procedural administration of the PSGP, recipients
must comply with 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other
Nonprofit Organizations (OMB Circular A-110).
3. Recipient of PSGP funds agree that this award may be terminated in accordance
with 2 CFR Part 215.61. If the Federal Government determines that a grant will be
terminated, it will be carried out in accordance with the process specified in Part 49
of the FAR.
4. Recipients of PSGP funds may not make a profit as a result of this award or charge
a management fee for the performance of this award.
5. Recipients of PSGP funds must have a financial audit and compliance audit
performed by qualified individuals who are organizationally, personally, and
externally independent from those who authorize the expenditure of federal funds.
This audit must be performed in accordance with the United States General
Accountability Office Government Auditing Standards. The audit threshold contained
in OMB Circular A-133 applies. This audit must be performed on a program-wide
basis to ascertain the effectiveness of financial management systems and internal
procedures that have been established to meet the terms and conditions of the
award. The management letter must be submitted with the audit report. Recipient
audit reports must be submitted no later than nine (9) months after the close of each
fiscal year during the term of the award. The distribution of audit reports shall be
based on requirements in the current edition of 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher
Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-110).
Note: If your audit disclosed findings or recommendations, you must include with
your audit report a corrective action plan containing the following: (1) The name and
number of the contact person responsible for the corrective action plan; (2) specific
steps taken to comply with the recommendations; (3) a timetable for performance or
implementation dates for each recommendation; and (4) descriptions of monitoring
to be conducted to ensure implementation.

Helpful Hints for Applicants
Are the following components included in the application package?
•

SF424, SF424A, SF424B, SF424C (if applicable), SF424D (if applicable), SFLLL

•

Investment Justifications for projects (excluding Group I and Group II Fiduciary
Agents)

•

Detailed Budgets containing only allowable costs (excluding Group I and Group II
Fiduciary Agents)

•

Memorandum of Understanding/Memorandum of Agreement (if applicable)

Are the following items addressed within the Investment Justification (IJ) narratives and
detailed budgets?
•

Do the IJ and the detailed budget include only allowable costs?

•

Are all of the expenses in the detailed budget addressed in the IJ narrative? (for
example, a camera equipment budget line item should be addressed in narrative
form in the investment justification as it pertains to the overall security program)

•

Does the information in the detailed budget align with the budget summary in the
IJ narrative?

•

Do the IJs clearly explain how the projects address one or more of the funding
priorities?

•

Do the IJs describe current capabilities similar to the proposed investments?

•

Do the IJs detail the value that each investment has in reducing the risk?

•

Is the cost effectiveness of each project clearly explained in the IJs? How do the
projects provide a high security return on investment?

•

Are timelines realistic and detailed?

•

Does the M&A total no more than three percent (3%) of the total project cost?

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	Microsoft Word - FY 2009 PSGP Guidance FINAL.doc
Author	rflores3
File Modified	2008-11-06
File Created	2008-11-06