PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET (CONSENSUS) EVALUATION FACTOR: SECURITY, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (RATED)

Transcription

1 PROPOSER: Keolis DATE: 09/05/13 CONSENSUS RATING: _AcceptabLe NARRATIVE SUMMARY: The proposal covered the required topics and factors as outlined by the specifications. Objective: The following are the objectives for the Security, Emergency Preparedness and Emergency Response evaluation factor: 1) To ensure that Proposers have clearly defined roles for security and emergency preparedness and emergency response and have plans demonstrating accountability for the security of the system; and 2) To ensure that Proposers have a plan and processes designed to ensure full compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations throughout their performance. Evaluation Criteria: The Proposer has clearly defined roles for security and emergency preparedness and response and has set forth its plan detailing its accountability for the security of the system, in full compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations. Instructions: Evaluators must rate each requirement outlined in the table below as one of the following: (i) Exceptional; (ii) Good; (iii) ; (iv) Potential to Become ; or (v) Unacceptable. Please note the following explanations when rating each requirement: 1

2 1) A rating of Exceptional is appropriate when the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial to the. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality, with very little or no risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no weaknesses. 2) A rating of Good is appropriate when the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated criteria. This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality, with little risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor. Correction of the weaknesses would not be necessary before the Proposal would be considered further. 3) A rating of is appropriate if the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates an acceptable level of quality. The Proposal demonstrates a reasonable probability of success. Weaknesses exist but can be readily corrected through requests for Clarification or Communications. 4) A rating of Potential to Become is appropriate if the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that fails to meet stated criteria as there are weaknesses, but they are susceptible to correction through Discussions. The response is considered marginal in terms of the basic content and/or amount of information provided for evaluation, but overall the Proposer is capable of providing an acceptable or better Proposal. 5) A rating of Unacceptable is appropriate if the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that indicates significant weaknesses and/or unacceptable quality. The Proposal fails to meet the stated criteria and/or lacks essential information and is conflicting and/or unproductive. There is no reasonable likelihood of success; weaknesses are so major and/or extensive that a major revision to the Proposal would be necessary. s for each requirement must be recorded in the associated column, and a detailed explanation of why a particular rating was given to a requirement must be recorded in the associated Comments/Justification for column. The Appendix B column identifies relevant sections of Appendix B (Operations and Management Proposal Instructions) to the Instructions to Proposers. 2

3 1. Appendix B B4.2(A) The Proposer shall prepare a draft Operator System Security Compliance Plan ("OSSCP"), which must be developed in accordance with the 's System Security Plan and Sensitive Security Information guidelines and procedures and applicable federal and other legal requirements, regulations, and standards. The draft OSSCP and the draft Safety Plan must work collaboratively, integrating overlapping safety and security concerns. Additionally, the draft OSSCP must also address the following items: 1) The policies, goals, and objectives for the security program endorsed by the 's General Manager; Comments/Justification for The proposal contains an outline of the items to be included in OSSCP. It also included a sample plan from another agency. Page 3.5 Includes relative language re: GM review of policies, goals and objectives. The proposal outlines Joint /Operator Peer review committee to handle both items #4 & #5. There was no language that covered policies and procedures for security improvements, access control or the issuance of the ID cards. However, the specifications outline the process to be followed. References program at VRE (another agency under contract) 2) The Proposer's process for managing threats and vulnerabilities during operations; 3) Controls in place that address the personal security of customers and operating personnel; 4) The Proposer's process for conducing

4 Appendix B1 internal security reviews to evaluate compliance and measure the effectiveness of the OSSCP; and Comments/Justification for 5) The process for review and approval of the OSSCP, and any accompanying procedures, by the and other oversight agencies. 2. B4.2(B) The OSSCP must address the requirements set forth in 3 (System Security Plan) of Schedule 3.5 (Safety and Security) to the Operating Agreement. The Proposer shall develop a draft Emergency Preparedness Plan ("EPP"), which shall comply with FRA and Homeland Security Exercise Education Program requirements. The draft EPP shall set forth the Proposer's emergency preparedness policies, procedures, and programs, including full scale Emergency Drills, and must comply with the requirements set forth in 4 (Emergency Preparedness Plan) of Schedule i 3.5 (Safety and Security) to the Operating Agreement. Proposal states plan will be developed in conjunction 1 with SSEPP and approved by There was no indication of annual updates There was no language that 2 drills and exercises would be held nor to the specifics of 4.4. or 4.7 However draft language contains reference to Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Training courses of personnel were outlined in the proposal. Operator also included Continuity of Operations (COOP) as a contingency plan and the relevant APTA guidelines.

5 3. 4. Appendix B B4.2(C) B4.2(D) The Proposer shall submit a draft Emergency Response Plan ("ERP"), in accordance with 5 (Emergency Response Plan) of Schedule 3.5 (Safety and Security) to the Operating Agreement. The draft ERP shall address major storms and other natural occurrences that could disrupt Commuter Rail Services, as well as any other incidents or events that would require services of emergency response agencies. The Proposer shall: (i) identify those portions of the information that it provided in response to B4.2(A) through B4.2(C) of Appendix B that it considers to be innovative, best practice, beneficial to Customers and/or cost efficient, and (ii) submit information supporting or otherwise validating its position that said portions are innovative, best practice, beneficial to Customers and/or cost efficient. Comments/Justification for ERP outline highlights relevant topics. Especially focuses on major storms, fires and evacuation procedures. It also referenced FEMA and MEMA coordination. Gives good outline of its best practices and commitment to coordination with security liaison to ensure compliance. #253685TLvl y)y//c-/p?ma' J & [^ u '5 a /fo-iv [ v w-wtc