|
|
1.1
PLANNING
- Plans
Development
|
|
|
|
1.1.1
|
Has your State identified the
most likely catastrophic disaster scenario and impacts?
|
|
|
|
Src:
NPG Sep 07 pg 2, 21;
NIMS December 2008 pg 35; NRF Jan 08 pg 42; TCL Sep 07 pg 51
|
|
|
|
1 - State
has not identified catastrophic disaster scenario
|
|
|
2 - State
has identified most likely catastrophic disaster scenario
|
|
|
3 - State
has included inputs from State agencies for catastrophic
scenario and impacts
|
|
|
4 - State
has included local, tribal inputs as well as private vendor
partners and other government and non-governmental agencies
|
|
|
5 - State
has coordinated catastrophic disaster scenario and impacts
with FEMA Region to ensure coordinated effort to address
scenario and impacts through proper planning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.2
|
Does your State have a
formalized and up-to-date logistics plan?
|
|
|
|
1 - State
has never developed a logistics plan
|
|
|
2 - State
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) has a logistics component,
but logistics section has not been updated within the past
24 months
|
|
|
3 - State
has a dedicated, comprehensive logistics plan that has been
adopted throughout the state emergency management agency and
has been updated within the last 24 months
|
|
|
4 - State
has a dedicated, comprehensive logistics plan that has been
adopted throughout the State and coordinated with local,
state, federal and private partners. The plan has been
reviewed and updated within the last 24 months
|
|
|
5 - State
has a dedicated, comprehensive logistics plan that has been
adopted throughout the State and coordinated with local,
state, federal and private partners. It has been reviewed,
updated, and exercised within the last 12 months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.3
|
How does State use modeling to
determine logistics support requirements?
|
|
|
|
Src:
CPG 101 dated March
2009, pg 3-11; IPS 2.3
|
|
|
|
1 - State
does not utilize modeling to support development of
logistics support requirements
|
|
|
2 - State
has engaged modeling sources to develop logistics support
requirements
|
|
|
3 - State
uses modeling to determine logistics support requirements
and identify and prioritize critical commodities, and has
coordinated results within State emergency management agency
|
|
|
4 - State
logistics support requirement factors, and the
identification and prioritization of critical commodities,
are based on modeling and collaboration with external
partners including local and tribal entities, as well as
private partners and non-governmental agencies
|
|
|
5 - State
uses modeling such as HAZUS or US Army Corps or Engineers
(USACE) to determine logistics support requirements and
planning factors (such as identification and prioritization
of critical commodities) and to coordinate results and
planning factors with FEMA Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.4
|
Does your State's logistics
support plan support the eight key scenario sets outlined in
NRF (Explosive attack, Nuclear attack, Radiological attack,
Biological attack, Chemical attack, Natural Disaster, Cyber
attack and Pandemic Influenza)?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From NRF dated January
2008, pg 74-75; National Preparedness Guidelines, Sep 07,
Annex B, item 2; and CPG 101, March 2009
|
|
|
|
1 - State
does not consider the eight scenario sets when developing
plans
|
|
|
2 - State
logistics plan addresses some of the eight key scenarios
|
|
|
3 -
Logistics plans address or can
support all eight key scenario sets
|
|
|
4 - State
support plan identifies other plan holders with similar
plans with focus on integrating with those plans
|
|
|
5 - State
support plan includes regular collaboration with other
regional plan holders at the State and Federal level with
focus on integrating with those plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.5
|
How are your State's logistics
plans reviewed?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From TCL Sep 2007, pg
23 and ComA 3.2, pg 24
|
|
|
|
1 - Plans
are not reviewed for logistics support feasibility or
updates
|
|
|
2 - Plans
are reviewed periodically
|
|
|
3 - State
logistics managers have established recurring timelines for
plan review
|
|
|
4 - State
logistics managers include input from local, tribal, private
vendor partners, and other governmental and non-governmental
agencies during logistics plans reviews
|
|
|
5 - State
logistics plans are reviewed for compliance with
governmental regulations and policies at least every 12
months or more often as required by state protocol and
evaluated through exercises, training, real-world events
and/or after action reports and coordinated with FEMA
Regional office
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.6
|
Does your State exercise your
logistics support plans?
|
|
|
|
Src:
CPG 101 dated March
2009, pg 5-12; C-4; NPG Sep 07 pg 5, 6; TCL Sep 07 pg 239,
265, 339
|
|
|
|
1 -
Logistics concept of support
plans are not exercised
|
|
|
2 -
Logistics concept of support
plans are exercised periodically
|
|
|
3 -
Logistics concept of support
plans are exercised at the state level via tabletop or some
other form
|
|
|
4 -
Logistics plans exercised with
local/county and tribal emergency management authorities,
private vendors and other outside partner participation
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics plans are exercised
on a recurring and documented schedule and include FEMA
Regional participation. After action reports and lessons
learned are produced and used to update and improve plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.7
|
How are your State's logistics
plans incorporated into the overall Emergency Operations
Plan and are plans balanced and feasible?
|
|
|
|
Src:
CPG 101 dated March
2009, pg 6-5, C-11; EMAP Standard, pg 9-10, Sept 2007
|
|
|
|
1 -
Logistics considerations not
incorporated into operations planning
|
|
|
2 -
Operations aware of logistics
considerations including shortfalls, gaps, and/or
workarounds
|
|
|
3 -
Operations considers logistics
planning factors from the onset and develops response plans
taking into account logistics capabilities, shortfalls or
workarounds, and have exercised plans to ensure feasibility
|
|
|
4 -
Emergency Operations Plan
considers logistics factors from local, tribal, private
vendor partners as well as government and non-governmental
support partners. Emergency Operations Plan also reevaluates
these factors during routine plans reviews
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics aspects of the
Emergency Operations Plan are exercised in conjunction with
the overall operations plan and include external partner
involvement as well as FEMA Regional participation. Exercise
results are captured and used as basis to update Emergency
Operations Plan. State also adheres to resource management
and logistics standards 4.8.2 and 4.8.3 of the Emergency
Management Accreditation Program, which call for logistics
plans to be incorporated into overall Emergency Operations
Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.8
|
Does your State's Emergency
Operations Plan (EOP) meet requirements outlined in
Comprehensive Planning Guidance (CPG) 101?
|
|
|
|
Src:
CPG 101 dated March
2009, pg 5-1 through 5-14, pg 6-1 through 6-11
|
|
|
|
1 - Not
aware of the CPG 101
|
|
|
2 - Are
aware of CPG 101 and have an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)
developed
|
|
|
3 - State
has set up operations response functions which fit its
CONOPS, governmental functions, policies and resource base
|
|
|
4 - State
EOP includes organizational taskings and instructions for
accomplishing the actions agreed upon in the State/Region
memorandum of understanding
|
|
|
5 - State
EOP contains explanations about logistical support for
planned operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.9
|
Has your State captured
logistics response requirements for a catastrophic disaster?
|
|
|
|
Src:
NPG Sep 07 pg 21
|
|
|
|
1 - State
logistics is unaware of requirements for catastrophic
scenario response
|
|
|
2 - State
logistics has identified some catastrophic event response
requirements
|
|
|
3 - State
logistics has received input from operational areas (or
ESFs) on required logistics support (e.g.
equipment/commodity, need date/time, location, etc) in
support of catastrophic planning scenario
|
|
|
4 - State
logistics has received input from operational areas on
required logistics support (e.g. equipment/commodity, need
date/time, location, etc) in support of catastrophic
planning scenario and coordinated support plan with external
source providers including private vendor partners,
government and non-governmental agencies including FEMA
Region
|
|
|
5 - State
logistics has developed a support plan (e.g. time phased
force deployment data listing) and exercised this support
plan with FEMA Region and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.10
|
If your State has considered
catastrophic disaster scenario(s) and impact, have you
developed a catastrophic scenario response plan?
|
|
|
|
Src:
TCL Sep 07 pg 51
|
|
|
|
1 - State
has not defined a catastrophic event
|
|
|
2 -
Catastrophic scenario
developed but no response plan constructed
|
|
|
3 -
Catastrophic scenario response
plan developed and coordinated within State emergency
management agency
|
|
|
4 -
Catastrophic scenario response
plan developed with collaboration among local and tribal
agencies as well as private vendor partners and other
government and non-governmental organizations
|
|
|
5 -
Catastrophic scenario response
plan coordinated with FEMA Region and exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.11
|
Is your State prepared to
provide commodities in all-hazard situations?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From TCL Sep 07, pg
55, 56
|
|
|
|
1 - State
has not assessed commodity needs
|
|
|
2 - State
has identified commodity needs for an all-hazard planning
approach
|
|
|
3 - State
has an internal resource management/sourcing group to
identify commodity sources and requisition needs
|
|
|
4 - State
has identified vendors/suppliers for needed commodities for
all-hazard situations and has the procurement capability to
engage purchases
|
|
|
5 - State
is fully prepared to provide necessary commodities for
all-hazard scenarios, has identified sources for
commodities, has established the procedures and is staffed
to engage in commodity procurement, and has coordinated any
remaining commodity shortfalls with FEMA Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.12
|
Has State determined the
quantity and type of critical commodities it would need to
support its population during the first 72 hours of a
likely/catastrophic scenario?
|
|
|
|
Label:
Resource Requirements
Identification
|
|
|
|
1 - State
has not determined commodity requirements to support its
population in a likely scenario
|
|
|
2 - State
has calculated commodity requirements based on the impacted
population of a likely scenario
|
|
|
3 - State
has calculated commodity requirements to support population
in likely scenario and has been validated throughout entire
State
|
|
|
4 - State
has calculated commodity requirements with the aid of a
recognized tool (e.g. FEMA Gap Analysis Program, USACE
modeling, etc) to support population based on
likely/catastrophic modeling and has shared with private
vendors and other involved State agencies
|
|
|
5 - State
has calculated commodity requirements to support population
with the aid of a recognized tool (e.g. FEMA Gap Program,
USACE modeling, etc) based on likely scenario/catastrophic
modeling, has shared with private sector and other involved
State agencies, and has synchronized the plan with the
respective FEMA Region
|
|
Groups:
|
|
|
|
SHSGP Critical Emergency
Supplies Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.13
|
Do your State's logistics
plans address management of donated goods?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 March
2009 pg C-20; EMAP Standard, pg 9-10, Sept 2007
|
|
|
|
1 -
Logistics plans do not address
unsolicited donations
|
|
|
2 - Plans
identify some means of dealing with unsolicited donations
|
|
|
3 - Plans
include minimum steps to manage donations at the State level
|
|
|
4 - Plans
for handing donated goods include coordination with local
and tribal managers as well as private vendors and
non-governmental partners
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics plans describe the
detailed process used to manage unsolicited donations at all
levels and include the use of the National AidMatrix system;
State adheres to resource management and logistics standard
4.8.6 of the Emergency Management Accreditation Program
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.14
|
Do your State's logistics
plans address the use of volunteers?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 dated
March 2009 C-20
|
|
|
|
1 -
Logistics plans do not include
volunteer identification or management
|
|
|
2 -
Logistics plans include
identification of volunteers
|
|
|
3 -
Logistics plans describe how
to identify and utilize volunteers and the concept for their
support
|
|
|
4 - State
has worked with external volunteer organizations to plan the
use of volunteers
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics plans include
description of the process used to identify, deploy,
utilize, support, and demobilize affiliated and spontaneous
unaffiliated volunteers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.15
|
Have safety equipment and
provisions been accounted for in logistics plans and
operational activities?
|
|
|
|
1 -
Safety provisions have not
been accounted for in-state plans and operational activities
|
|
|
2 - State
has informal methods of assuring appropriate safety
provisions are available
|
|
|
3 - State
has formalized plans and methods of distributing safety
provisions to distribution sites
|
|
|
4 - State
conducts training for distribution site personnel and
exercises with local and tribal organizations to assure
safety equipment and provisions are available and accounted
for at distribution sites
|
|
|
5 - State
conducts regular training for distribution site personnel on
safety requirements and conducts regular reviews of safety
provisions available to distribution sites
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.16
|
Has the State made necessary
provisions to secure distribution points?
|
|
|
|
1 - State
plays no role in assuring distribution points are secure
|
|
|
2 - State
has informal review process for assuring necessary personnel
is available to secure distribution sites
|
|
|
3 - State
police are on hand in the event they are needed to secure
distribution points
|
|
|
4 - State
police, contracted security officers and other security
personnel have been identified and vetted with the local and
tribal organizations, as well as the FEMA Region and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
5 - State
conducts regular training and exercises to ensure state
police, contracted security officers, and other security
personnel understand their role in distribution site
security. These personnel have been vetted with the local
and tribal organizations, as well as the FEMA Region and
FEMA HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.17
|
Has your State identified
logistics evacuation requirements for evacuation of its own
citizens and/or reception of evacuees from other states?
|
|
|
|
Src:
TCL Sep 07 pg 231,
377-383
|
|
|
|
1 - No
evacuation logistics requirements identified for evacuating
citizens or receiving evacuees from other states
|
|
|
2 -
Logistics requirements
identified for evacuating citizens and receiving evacuees
from other states are identified but not sourced
|
|
|
3 -
Logistics requirements for
evacuating citizens and receiving evacuees from other states
are outlined in evacuation plans
|
|
|
4 -
Logistics requirements for
evacuating citizens and receiving evacuees from other states
are identified, outlined in evacuation plans, and sources or
support are identified
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics requirements for
evacuation identified, contracts in place, and plan has been
exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
PLANNING
- Contingency
Planning
|
|
|
|
1.2.1
|
Has your State considered
risks in logistics plans?
|
|
|
|
Src:
CPG 101 dated March
2009, pg 3-1, 3-11; NPG dated September 2007 pg 6
|
|
|
|
1 - No
risks associated with logistics planning factors identified
|
|
|
2 - Some
risks associated with logistics planning factors have been
identified
|
|
|
3 - All
foreseeable logistics planning factor risks at the State
response level have been identified and workarounds have
been devised
|
|
|
4 -
Logistics planning risks for
local, tribal, private vendor, government and
non-governmental partners have been identified and
workarounds have been devised and exercised
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics planning has taken
an all-hazards approach to identifying risks and has
identified contingency workarounds with all local and State
partners and FEMA Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2.2
|
Has your State reviewed
logistics contingency response shortfalls?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From FEMA's 'Local
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Guidance', pg 3-5, dated 1 Jul 08;
HMGP Brochure, FEMA Pub L-169; EMAP Standard, pg 9-10, dated
September 2007
|
|
|
|
1 - State
has not identified logistics shortfalls
|
|
|
2 - State
has identified some logistics shortfalls
|
|
|
3 - State
has identified equipment and commodity shortfalls (water,
meals, ice, tarps, generators, etc)
|
|
|
4 - State
has coordinated with local and tribal agencies as well as
private vendors and government and non-governmental agencies
to identify shortfalls and address filling shortfalls or
developing workarounds
|
|
|
5 - State
has worked with FEMA Region to fully identify all
foreseeable contingency response logistics shortfalls and
has developed an action plan to meet shortfall needs. State
also utilizes the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program as a
funding avenue for mitigation planning and adheres to
resource management and logistics standards 4.8.2 and 4.8.3
of the Emergency Management Accreditation Program
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
PLANNING
- Distribution
Planning
|
|
|
|
1.3.1
|
Does your State Logistics team
have access to information on post-disaster damage to
transportation infrastructure?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 dated
March 2009 pg 5-12, 4-8 and 4-9, B-2, C-11; TCL Sep 07 pg
551, 559
|
|
|
|
1 - State
logistics has no visibility on post-event
reconnaissance/assessment of transportation/distribution
infrastructure
|
|
|
2 - State
logistics has a point of contact or knows where to access
post-event transportation/distribution infrastructure
information
|
|
|
3 - State
logistics can capture information on main artery
availability (e.g. interstates, U.S. highways, etc)
|
|
|
4 - Post
event assessment of transportation infrastructure is fully
captured for all transportation/distribution avenues/methods
and methods for workaround and/or re-routing have been
developed
|
|
|
5 - Post
event assessment capabilities have been validated through
exercises demonstrating road hazards overlaid on GIS
technology and data coordinated with disaster logistics
operations and distribution management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.2
|
Have your State's staging
areas been captured in plans?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 dated
March 2009 pg C-20; TCL Sep 07 pg 224, 226
|
|
|
|
1 - State
staging Areas have not been identified in plans
|
|
|
2 - State
staging areas have been informally identified
|
|
|
3 - State
staging areas identified and captured in plans capable of
supporting entire State
|
|
|
4 - State
staging area locations identified and management
responsibility assigned and coordinated with all affected
agencies including personnel, equipment and communication
processes
|
|
|
5 - State
staging areas have been identified, throughput needs and
site layout and operations verified and exercised including
FEMA participation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.3
|
Are your state staging areas
located based upon operational requirements?
|
|
|
|
1 - State
staging area locations are chosen arbitrarily
|
|
|
2 - State
staging area locations are selected based on geographical
considerations
|
|
|
3 - State
staging area locations are selected based on operational
requirements and capability to project to any affected area.
Locations have been socialized with local and tribal
organizations
|
|
|
4 - State
staging area locations are selected based on operational
requirements, and historical records for infrastructure and
transportation route damage. Pre-identified locations have
been validated with local, tribal, FEMA Region and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
5 - State
staging area locations are selected based on operational
requirements, and historical records for infrastructure and
transportation route damage. Pre-identified locations have
been validated with local, tribal, FEMA Region and FEMA HQ
and have been exercised to validate the feasibility of the
site
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.4
|
Has your State identified
staff and material requirements for state staging area
operations?
|
|
|
|
1 -
Staffing/material requirements
not pre-identified
|
|
|
2 - Some
staffing/material requirements and sourcing pre-identified
|
|
|
3 -
Expected requirements for
supplies and material have been identified and sourced
|
|
|
4 - If
staffing is done through state partners (e.g. National
Guard), that organization has provided specific units and
equipment it will assign to execute the state staging area
mission
|
|
|
5 -
Staffing/material requirements
sourced and identified in advance to individual state
staging area level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.5
|
Has your State disaster
logistics organization established minimum buffer (safety)
stock levels and restocking protocols for commodities at
State and county staging areas?
|
|
|
|
Src:
Refer to NIMS Dec 08
p. 32
|
|
|
|
1 - No
predetermined minimum levels of supply/commodity inventory
have been established
|
|
|
2 -
Predetermined minimum levels
have been set based on forecasted demand on resources at
level of staging areas
|
|
|
3 -
Predetermined minimum levels
of resources and restocking protocols for staging areas have
been established but not exercised or implemented
|
|
|
4 -
Predetermined minimum levels
of resources and restocking protocols for staging areas have
been established and implemented per FEMA NIMS guidelines
|
|
|
5 -
Minimum buffer stock levels
and restocking protocols have been established and validated
through modeling victim populations and burn rates from
historical disasters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.6
|
Have PODs been addressed in
your State's logistics plans?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 dated
March 2009 pg C-20; US Army Corps of Engineers modeling
|
|
|
|
1 -
Points of Distribution (PODs)
have not been identified in plans
|
|
|
2 - PODs
have been identified in localities under the highest
probable threat and captured in plans
|
|
|
3 - PODs
have been typed/classified (Type I, II, III) for localities
under the highest threat probability
|
|
|
4 - PODs
have been identified and typed throughout the entire State
|
|
|
5 - PODs
identified and typed throughout State, coordinated with
external agencies including FEMA Region, and exercised
and/or demonstrated to verify formation, layout,
organization and manning responsibility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.7
|
Does State have methodology in
place to identify POD locations?
|
|
|
|
1 - POD
locations are chosen arbitrarily
|
|
|
2 - POD
locations are selected based on modeling of population
density
|
|
|
3 - POD
locations are selected based on modeling of population
density and have addressed historical records for
infrastructure damage. Locations have been socialized with
local and tribal organizations
|
|
|
4 - POD
locations are selected based on modeling of population
density and have addressed historical records for
infrastructure and transportation route damage.
Pre-identified locations have been passed to local, tribal,
State
|
|
|
5 - POD
locations are selected based on modeling of population
density and have addressed historical records for
infrastructure and transportation route damage.
Pre-identified locations have been coordinated with local,
tribal, State, and shared with FEMA Region and FEMA HQ.
Locations have been exercised to validate the feasibility of
the site
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.8
|
Has your State captured POD
concept of support in plans?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 dated
March 2009 pg C-20
|
|
|
|
1 - POD
support (management, communication, commodity flow) has not
been established
|
|
|
2 - POD
support concepts captured in plans for local/tribal areas
under highest probably threat
|
|
|
3 - POD
Support concepts captured in plans for all local/tribal
areas throughout the State
|
|
|
4 - POD
Support concepts coordinated with local and tribal
organizations and responsibility for management and
operations of each POD included in logistics plans
|
|
|
5 - POD
support captured throughout the State, coordinated with FEMA
Region, and operational concepts validated through exercises
or other processes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.9
|
Has your State identified
staff and material requirements for POD operations?
|
|
|
|
Src:
TCL Sep 07 Res.B1d 4.2
|
|
|
|
1 -
Staffing/material requirements
not pre-identified
|
|
|
2 - Some
staffing/material requirements pre-identified
|
|
|
3 - All
staffing/material requirements and sourcing pre-identified
|
|
|
4 - If
staffing is done through State partners (e.g. National
Guard) has that organization provided specific units and
equipment it will assign to execute the POD mission
|
|
|
5 -
Staffing/materials
requirements sourced and identified in advance to individual
POD level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.10
|
Has the State worked with its
jurisdictions (county, local, tribal, etc) to identify or
determine capabilities of other agencies or the private
sector (eg. USDA) to support food distribution?
|
|
|
|
1 - The
State has not considered other agency partners or the
private sector in its food distribution plans
|
|
|
2 - The
State has informal agreements in place with agencies, such
as the USDA Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) program or
other partner programs, to support food distribution, but
has not coordinated those plans with local, county, and/or
tribal jurisdictions
|
|
|
3 - The
State has informal agreements in place with agencies (e.g.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service program), to support food
distribution and has coordinated those plans with local,
county, and/or tribal jurisdictions
|
|
|
4 - The
State has formalized MOUs in place with other agencies (such
as USDA FNS Program or other partner programs), volunteer
groups, and/or contractors in support of food distribution
efforts and has coordinated those plans with local, county,
and/or tribal jurisdictions
|
|
|
5 - The
State has formalized MOUs in place with other agencies (such
as the USDA FNS program or other partner programs),
volunteer groups, and/or contractors to provide complete
food distribution support coverage and has coordinated those
plans with local, county, and/or tribal jurisdictions, as
well as the FEMA Region and Headquarters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.11
|
How extensive is
transportation planning for commodities and assets during an
event?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 dated
March 2009 pg C-20
|
|
|
|
1 - State
does not have a transportation plan for asset distribution
|
|
|
2 -
Transportation plan is
notionally developed
|
|
|
3 - State
has developed a written asset transportation plan
|
|
|
4 - State
transportation plan includes sources for asset movement,
movement command and control, tracking and receipt
verification and has been coordinated with participating
agencies
|
|
|
5 -
Transportation plan has been
coordinated with FEMA Region and validated through exercise
or another method
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.12
|
How is transportation of
materials through restricted areas addressed in your State's
plans?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 dated
March 2009 C-20; TCL Sep 07, pg 227
|
|
|
|
1 -
Logistics plans do not address
transportation of materials through restricted areas or
checkpoints
|
|
|
2 -
Concepts for transportation of
materials through restricted areas have been addressed but
are not included in plans
|
|
|
3 -
Logistics plans include
processes for material transportation through restricted
areas
|
|
|
4 -
Transportation plans for
materials through restricted areas have been coordinated
with affected agencies and processes to communicate these
requirements to transportation providers have been developed
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics plans describe
strategies for transporting materials through restricted
areas, quarantine lines, law enforcement checkpoints, etc
have been agreed upon by all affected parties and exercised
to some degree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4
PLANNING
- Training
and Compliance
|
|
|
|
1.4.1
|
Does your State participate in
the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)?
|
|
|
|
Src:
EMAP Standard pg.
9-10, dated September 2009
|
|
|
|
1 - Do
not participate in EMAP
|
|
|
2 - State
has begun registration, self-assessment, and application for
EMAP
|
|
|
3 - State
has hosted on-site EMAP assessor team and is working
highlighted issues
|
|
|
4 - State
has successfully completed all six EMAP standards identified
for logistics
|
|
|
5 - State
has received EMAP accreditation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.2
|
Have your State logistics
planners completed mandated NIMS ICS training in-house?
|
|
|
|
Src:
TCL Sep 07, pgs
224-225; CPG 101 dated March 2009 pgs Intro-4 and Intro-5,
1-1 through 1-3, 5-2
|
|
|
|
1 - State
logistics planners have not completed NIMS ICS, or
completion has not been documented
|
|
|
2 -
Logistics planners have
completed Emergency Management Institute (EMI) Independent
Study Program (ISP) courses
|
|
|
3 - State
has developed in-house training plans and requirements and
training objectives are tied to each position
|
|
|
4 - State
Emergency managers have completed NIMS ICS compliant courses
|
|
|
5 -
Emergency managers have
completed the ISP Professional Development Series (PDS)
courses and received a Certificate of Completion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.3
|
Does your State sponsor
staging area and/or POD training?
|
|
|
|
1 - No
state staging area and/ or POD training or guidance programs
|
|
|
2 - State
trains some staff on state staging area and POD operations
|
|
|
3 - State
staging area or POD training is required for all employees
and volunteers manning staging areas or PODs at local and
tribal levels
|
|
|
4 - State
staging area or POD training is required for all employees
and volunteers manning staging areas or PODs at local and
tribal levels. Training program has been socialized with
FEMA Region and FEMA HQ and certificates are provided upon
completion
|
|
|
5 - State
staging area or POD training is required for all employees
and volunteers manning staging areas or PODs at local and
tribal levels. Training program includes the FEMA LMD
National POD Training Video, and full training regimen has
been socialized with FEMA Region and FEMA HQ. Certificates
are provided upon completion of coursework
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.4
|
How does your State plan for
exercises?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From TCL Sep 07, pg
15; CPG 101 dated March 2009, pg 1-1 through 1-3, C-3 and
C-4
|
|
|
|
1 - State
does not conduct logistics exercises
|
|
|
2 - State
periodically conducts exercises, with logistics capabilities
exercised at least yearly
|
|
|
3 - State
exercises logistics capabilities and/or plans at least
semi-annually
|
|
|
4 - State
uses a combination of information from capability
assessments and training exercises to identify shortfalls.
State has developed a strategy to remedy shortfalls through
a multi-year training and exercise plan
|
|
|
5 -
State's written plan maps out
exercises that will be conducted over the next 2-3 years
focusing on testing of plans, capturing lessons learned,
identifying areas for improvement, with follow-on actions
aimed at building the knowledge, skills, and abilities to
perform the critical tasks. State has coordinated this plan
with all affected agencies including FEMA Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
PLANNING
- Provider
Qualification
|
|
|
|
1.5.1
|
Are standard operating
procedures (SOPs) in place for vetting potential commodity
and service providers in your State?
|
|
|
|
Src:
Refer to TCL Sep 07 p.
227; Universal Task List 2.1 ResBld 6.1
|
|
|
|
1 - No
formal procedures in place for identifying and vetting
potential vendors and service providers
|
|
|
2 -
Developed and implemented SOPs
for identifying and vetting all potential vendors and
service providers
|
|
|
3 - SOPs
have been established and socialized across the emergency
management agency
|
|
|
4 - SOPs
have been established and implemented, socialized to all
state EM functions, and incorporated into state logistics
planning and training functions
|
|
|
5 - SOPs
in place, potential commodity and service providers in-state
have been vetted with local chambers of commerce, business
bureaus, trade associations, FEMA Region, and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5.2
|
Do your State's logistics
plans include public-private engagement?
|
|
|
|
Src:
From CPG 101 dated
March 2009, C-11
|
|
|
|
1 -
Logistics plans include no
public-private engagement
|
|
|
2 -
Logistics plans include some
mention of public-private engagement
|
|
|
3 -
Logistics plans describe the
process used to identify private agencies/contractors that
will support resource management issues (e.g., waste
haulers, spill contractors, landfill operators)
|
|
|
4 -
Logistics plans list current
private partners and the support they can/will provide
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics plans include
methods to engage private partners and identify existing
Memorandums of Agreement or Understanding and contingency
contracts with these organizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5.3
|
Has your State identified
potential providers for commodities (including
jurisdictional priorities), trucking, and evacuee transport?
|
|
|
|
Src:
Refer to TCL Sep 07 p.
227; Universal Task List 2.1 ResBld 6.1
|
|
|
|
1 - State
has not identified potential vendors or service providers
|
|
|
2 - State
has identified potential providers for critical resource
acquisition and transportation, and has identified bus
service providers for disaster evacuees
|
|
|
3 - State
has identified vendors for resource needs and evacuee
transport requirements and has coordinated with other
emergency management functions to ensure coverage.
Additionally, State has budgeted yearly to maintain
contracts
|
|
|
4 - State
logistics has identified all required potential providers of
commodities and services, including jurisdictional
priorities, and has deconflicted the vendor list with
neighboring states and FEMA regions, in order to avoid
potential overlaps and conflicts with those vendors. Lists
are updated on a regular basis
|
|
|
5 - State
logistics has identified all required potential providers of
commodities and services, including jurisdictional
priorities; and has deconflicted vendor list with states,
FEMA regions, and FEMA HQ to avoid overlaps and conflicts
with vendors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6
PLANNING
- Procurement
Procedures & Protocols
|
|
|
|
1.6.1
|
Does your State disaster
logistics organization minimize risk of nonperformance by
vendors and service providers?
|
|
|
|
1 - No
contingency plan in place for risk mitigation of
nonperformance by vendors or other external agencies
|
|
|
2 - State
has multiple contracts in place for key resources and
services but has not considered all inherent risks
associated with private sector contract execution
|
|
|
3 - State
has considered the types of risks associated with private
sector contracts and delivery and has observed lessons
learned from historical performance records, in an attempt
to contract with multiple providers with reliable
reputations. Additionally, State has added a nonperformance,
and/or underperformace, clause in contract
|
|
|
4 - State
has considered the types of risks associated with private
sector contracts and delivery and has observed lessons
learned from other states' historical performance records,
in an attempt to contract with multiple providers with
reliable reputations. The State has procedures in place to
address underperformace
|
|
|
5 -
Contingency plan in place that
addresses risk of underperformance by private sector or
other external agencies through lessons learned and best
practice information sharing. And based on that plan, the
State has contracted with multiple best-in-class providers
for each commodity/service. The State keeps a list of
contractor performance and underperformance and shares with
Region and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6.2
|
Are standard operating
procedures (SOPs) in place for purchasing resources and
services?
|
|
|
|
Src:
Refer to TCL Sep 07 p.
227; Universal Task List 2.1 ResBld 6.1
|
|
|
|
1 - No
established plans and procedures to order and acquire
required resources
|
|
|
2 -
Siloed plans, procedures, and
decision channels that vary based on the service or
commodity required
|
|
|
3 -
Standardized protocols and
approval layers communicated across the State emergency
preparedness organization for ordering and acquiring
resources
|
|
|
4 - Does
not apply
|
|
|
5 -
Highly formalized process
protocols and approval layers implemented for ordering and
acquiring resources and inclusive of reconciliation,
accounting, auditing, and inventory processes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6.3
|
Are your State's sourcing
decisions tied to a critical resource management plan?
|
|
|
|
Src:
EMAP Standard, pg
9-10,Sept 2007
|
|
|
|
1 - No
critical resource management plan in place
|
|
|
2 -
Personnel with resource
management responsibilities have considered the urgency of
needs for particular equipment/supplies/commodities and
whether resources can be produced and delivered quickly
enough to meet anticipated need
|
|
|
3 -
Established critical resource
management plan in place and integrated with overall
emergency management organization, with some standing
contracts for service or commodities
|
|
|
4 -
Well-established resource
management plan in place, supported by standing contracts
and emergency purchase mechanisms (e.g. debit/credit cards).
Have been shared with FEMA Region and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
5 -
Resource management plan is
well-established with local, State, FEMA region and FEMA HQ
partners, and includes modeling, historical burn-rates,
delivery lead times, emergency purchasing powers. Critical
resource plans are updated regularly based on lessons
learned and in adherence to resource management and
logistics standard 4.8.5 of the Emergency Management
Accreditation Program
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6.4
|
Are contracts and emergency
purchase procedures linked to State accounting practices and
procedures?
|
|
|
|
1 - No
standard practices in place for approval, ordering, receipt,
and integration with accounting
|
|
|
2 - SOPs
in place and integrated into inventory management and fixed
asset accounting
|
|
|
3 -
Logistics collaborates with
other disaster management departments and ensures proper
invoicing, cost/performance validation, and reimbursement
|
|
|
4 - Does
not apply
|
|
|
5 -
Logistics collaborates with
other disaster management functions and ensures an audit
trail for all commodities issued and left over
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6.5
|
If applicable, does your State
utilize GSA for sourcing and contracts with private sector?
|
|
|
|
1 - State
has not (or cannot) utilize GSA for contract negotiation and
agreements
|
|
|
2 - State
occasionally utilizes GSA for private sector contracts
|
|
|
3 - State
regularly directly contracts with GSA for private sector
service and/or commodity acquisitions
|
|
|
4 - State
regularly directly contracts with GSA for private sector
service and/or commodity acquisitions. State coordinates
sourcing requirements with local vendors prior to engaging
GSA
|
|
|
5 - State
regularly directly contracts with GSA for private sector
service and/or commodity acquisitions. State coordinates
sourcing requirements with local vendors prior to engaging
GSA and coordinates contracts with FEMA Region and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
PLANNING
- Solicitation
|
|
|
|
1.7.1
|
What is your state's process
for issuing tenders for pre-incident contracts?
|
|
|
|
1 - No
formal solicitation process & protocol
|
|
|
2 -
Statements of work developed
and sole source solicitations developed on an ad hoc basis
|
|
|
3 -
Limited Request For Proposal
(RFP) issuance for pre-incident contracts; largely ad hoc
negotiation and contracting
|
|
|
4 -
Standardized Request For
Information (RFI) and RFP process for pre-incident
contracts, including detailed statements of work, bid
evaluaton, and pricing
|
|
|
5 - RFI
and RFP processes for pre-incident contracts are
standardized and (if not proprietary) information is shared
with FEMA Regions and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7.2
|
Does your State have a
balanced portfolio of vendor contracts, to include local,
regional, and national/enterprise-level providers?
|
|
|
|
1 -
Existing contracts do not take
into account a need to balance the vendor list
|
|
|
2 -
Contracts in place with
multiple local or regional vendors, to account for risk of
nonperformance
|
|
|
3 -
Established contracts in place
with local, regional, and national providers but not vetted
for risk of nonperformance
|
|
|
4 -
Established local, regional,
and national contracts in place, and vendor capability to
support has been vetted or proven through a review process
|
|
|
5 - State
emergency management agency is ideally positioned in terms
of sourcing contracts that include national, regional, and
local vendors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
PLANNING
- Existing
Contracts
|
|
|
|
1.8.1
|
Are private sector liaisons
easily accessible to State logistics personnel?
|
|
|
|
1 - No
public-private liaisons available
|
|
|
2 -
Primary vendor liaisons
available for sourcing opportunity identification and
coordination with store openings, available supply, and
relevant PODs in those areas
|
|
|
3 - Does
not apply
|
|
|
4 -
Liaisons available for all
existing contracts for opportunity identification and
coordination with store openings, available supply, and
relevant PODs in those areas
|
|
|
5 -
Liaisons available for all
existing contracts for opportunity identification and
coordination with store openings, available supply, and
relevant PODs in those areas; findings are shared with FEMA
Region and FEMA HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8.2
|
Does your State use
performance based contracting for goods and services?
|
|
|
|
1 -
Existing contracts not
performance-based
|
|
|
2 -
Existing contracts have a few
performance incentives
|
|
|
3 - Some
existing contracts with vendors consider performance and/or
quality
|
|
|
4 -
Existing contracts are
measured for performance and quality, and measurements are
vetted against existing contracts with other states and with
FEMA
|
|
|
5 -
Existing vendors are
continuously quality measured, and contracts are routinely
evaluated for performance and compared with other states and
FEMA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8.3
|
Are existing trucking
contracts linked to a forecasted distribution model and/or
do the contracts have provisions for scalability of demand
throughout your State?
|
|
|
|
1 - Not
linked to distribution model; no provisions for scalability
|
|
|
2 - State
has a distribution model but has not synched with
transportation providers
|
|
|
3 -
Existing contracts are linked
to a high-level distribution model and include provisions
for scalability of demand
|
|
|
4 -
Integrated commodity
distribution models coordinated with trucker capabilities,
and existing contracts in place with provision for
scalability of demand
|
|
|
5 -
Contracts are aligned with
commodity distribution models, coordinated with trucker
capabilities and have been shared with FEMA Region and FEMA
HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8.4
|
Are contracts evaluated in
conjunction with periodic logistics plans reviews?
|
|
|
|
1 -
Current providers have not
been recently risk assessed or tested for capability to meet
performance and quality requirements set forth in contracts
|
|
|
2 -
Limited table-top,
scenario-based capability testing of commodity vendors and
transport providers
|
|
|
3 -
Vendors have proven delivery
capability and have been recently assessed for risk of
inability to perform (i.e. vendor not overextended to other
states in the event of a multi-state hazard)
|
|
|
4 -
Field-tested vendors with
proven track records of satisfactory delivery within the
State and/or within similar scenarios in other states
|
|
|
5 - Full
performance of contractors is shared with FEMA Region and
FEMA HQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
esults
Tab
