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

Transcription

1 PROPOSER: Keolis DATE: 9/10/2013 CONSENSUS RATING: Acceptable Selection Committee #1, #12 and #25 NARRATIVE SUMMARY: The proposer has submitted an acceptable proposal for Security, Emergency Preparedness and Emergency Response. The plan will be directed by a strong Director of Safety and Security and a former Deputy Chief of Transit Police in Boston. The Proposer's Operator System Security Compliance Plan will integrate with the System Security Plan and will include vulnerability assessments, hazard mitigation, training and emergency drills. Proposer has also included plans for preparing for and reacting to emergencies such as pre-identifying assets and resources, interagency cooperation agreements and service restoration. These plans will be implemented for weather and natural disasters as well. 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. 1

2 Instructions: Evaluators must rate each requirement outlined in the table below as one of the following: (i) Exceptional; (ii) Good; (iii) Acceptable; (iv) Potential to Become Acceptable; or (v) Unacceptable. Please note the following explanations when rating each requirement: 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 Acceptable 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 Acceptable 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. 2

3 Ratings for each requirement must be recorded in the associated Rating column, and a detailed explanation of why a particular rating was given to a requirement must be recorded in the associated Comments/Justification for Rating column. The column identifies relevant sections of (Operations and Management Proposal Instructions) to the Instructions to Proposers. 3

4 1. 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; 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 Rating Acceptable Comments/Justification for Rating The OSSCP will have the following goals endorsed by the General Manager: -To manage security and preparedness activities by using an all hazards approach requiring collaboration, documentation and cooperation among all parties. -To establish the specific security and preparedness roles for all involved entities and personnel. -To emphasize the importance of every employee in the overall safety and security of the system. -To provide an overview of system threat an vulnerability identification, assessment and resolution techniques. Proposer will look to Transit Police to play an important role in helping prepare employees for this repsonsiblity. -Setting security preparedness goals and objectives. This is an area led by Tom McCarthy. Proposer will work closely during mobilization to draft the OSSCP so it specifically addresses the threats and vulnerabilities in the Commuter Rail System. This section of the draft OSSCP will contain the specific controls that proposer will put in place to protect customers on trains and the operating employees and will be developed jointly with the Transit Police. Proposers will also develop relationships with community leaders and first responders throughout the service area.

5 internal security reviews to evaluate compliance and measure the effectiveness of the OSSCP; and 5) The process for review and approval of the OSSCP, and any accompanying procedures, by the and other oversight agencies. Rating Comments/Justification for Rating The proposer will conduct internal safety reviews by establishing a joint -KCS Peer Review Committee to conduct reviews of all security programs, practices, procedures, significant events, threats and vulnerabilities. This team will also be led by Tom McCarthy. Any changes will require review and approval. 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 3.5 (Safety and Security) to the Operating Agreement. Proposer has submitted a draft Emergency Preparedness Plan that focuses on: -Communication and Notification -Employee Training and Qualification -Joint Operations- Pan Am, Amtrak and CSX -Liasing with Emergency Responders -On board emergency equipment -Special Circumstances -Passenger Safety Information -Operational tests and inspections -Passenger Education and Awareness Proposer has offered case studies of multiple drills and simulations successfully conducted throughout Europe that appear to demonstrate a proficiency in this area.

6 Rating Comments/Justification for Rating In formulating an EPP for, proposer will reference APTA developed Recommended Practices and Standards. The Director of Safety and Security will also serve as a representative on the APTA Safety Committee and Railway Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). Draft language has reference to HSEEP model for drills and acceptable training courses. Also cites COOP plan following relevant APTA guidelines. Absent was language referencing the required two drills per year as well as the process for providing updates.

7 3. B4.2(C) 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. Rating Acceptable Comments/Justification for Rating Proposer has submitted an acceptable draft emergency response plan in accordance with 49 CFR Part 239. This plan will be coordinated with the proposer's Environmental Services contractor. Plan will focus on: -Means of reporting fires or other emergencies -Evacuation procedures and emergency escape route assignments -Procedures to account for all employees after an emergency evacuation has been completed Plan will focus on Incident Management Training built on NIMS in accordance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 requiring all federal entities to be NIMS certified. Proposal also references MEMA and FEMA coordination.

8 4. B4.2(D) The Proposer shall: (i) identify those portions of the information that it provided in response to B4.2(A) through B4.2(C) of 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. Rating Acceptable Comments/Justification for Rating Proposer has offered ideas that are considered to be innovative and or best practice such as: -Hiring former Transit Police Deputy Chief as Security Liason -Ensuring managers receive NIMS training -Developing appropriate plans in accordance with CFR part 239 -KPIs developed to track progress. Selection Committee #1, #12, and #25 {JMw Pfhj v _\