BCD-07: Ongoing Contingency Planning
Mechanisms exist to update contingency plans due to changes affecting: (1) People (e.g., personnel changes); (2) Processes (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned business practices, including third-party services); (3) Technologies (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned technologies); (4) Data (e.g., changes to data flows and/or data repositories); (5) Facilities (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned physical infrastructure); and/or (6) Feedback from contingency plan testing activities.
Renumbered: Formerly BCD-06 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, BCD-07 was Alternative Security Measures. That control is now RSK-18.
Control Question: Does the organization update contingency plans due to changes affecting: (1) People (e.g., personnel changes); (2) Processes (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned business practices, including third-party services) (3) Technologies (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned technologies); (4) Data (e.g., changes to data flows and/or data repositories); (5) Facilities (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned physical infrastructure); and/or (6) Feedback from contingency plan testing activities?
General (24)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC7.5 CC7.5-POF4 CC7.5-POF5 |
| COBIT 2019 | DSS04.05 |
| CR CMM 2026 | CR7.2.13 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | BCR-04 BCR-09 |
| GovRAMP | CP-02 |
| GovRAMP Low | CP-02 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | CP-02 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | CP-02 |
| GovRAMP High | CP-02 |
| ISO 22301 2019 | 6.3 6.3(a) 6.3(b) 8.6 8.6(a) 8.6(b) 8.6(c) 8.6(d) 8.6(e) 10.2 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | CP-2 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | CP-02 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | CP-02 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | CP-02 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | CP-02 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | CP-02 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | CP-02 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | CP-02 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | CP-02 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | CP-2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | CP-2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | CP-2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | CP-2 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | ID.IM-04 |
US (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | CP-2 CP-2.e |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | RESPONSE-4p |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | CP-2 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | CP-02 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | CP-02 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | CP-02 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | CP-02 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | CP-2 |
| USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 | CIP-009-6 3.1.3 CIP-009-6 3.2.1 |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | CP-02 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | CP-02 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | CP-02 |
EMEA (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 | IV.E-87 IV.E-88 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | BCM-03.01B.3 BCM-03.02B BCM-04.04AC |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 24.1(i) Article 39.2(j) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.7.4.88 3.7.4.90 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.7.3-84.c 3.7.4-88 |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 45 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Production TAASD support business-critical application and services failover. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD. ▪ Data/process owners conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) at least annually, or after any major technology or process change, to identify TAASD that are critical to the business, as well as single points of failure. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners designate alternative decision-makers if primary decision-makers are unavailable. ▪ Within the BC/DR plans, alternate communications channels are defined if primary means of communication are unavailable. ▪ RTOs are used to identify business-critical TAASD, which are given priority of service in alternate processing and storage sites.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to update contingency plans due to changes affecting: (1) People (e.g., personnel changes); (2) Processes (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned business practices, including third-party services) (3) Technologies (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned technologies); (4) Data (e.g., changes to data flows and/or data repositories); (5) Facilities (e.g., new, altered or decommissioned physical infrastructure); and/or (6) Feedback from contingency plan testing activities.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- BCD-07_A01 a contingency plan is developed that identifies essential mission and business functions and associated contingency requirements.
- BCD-07_A02 personnel or roles to review a contingency plan is/are defined.
- BCD-07_A03 the contingency plan is updated to address changes to the organization, system or environment of operation.
- BCD-07_A04 contingency plan changes are communicated to key contingency personnel.
- BCD-07_A05 the contingency plan is updated to address problems encountered during contingency plan implementation, execution or testing.
- BCD-07_A06 personnel or roles to approve a contingency plan is/are defined.
- BCD-07_A07 key contingency personnel (identified by name and/or by role) to whom copies of the contingency plan are distributed are defined.
- BCD-07_A08 key contingency organizational elements to which copies of the contingency plan are distributed are defined.
- BCD-07_A09 the frequency of contingency plan review is defined.
- BCD-07_A10 key contingency personnel (identified by name and/or by role) to communicate changes to are defined.
- BCD-07_A11 key contingency organizational elements to communicate changes to are defined.
- BCD-07_A12 a contingency plan for the system is developed that provides recovery objectives.
- BCD-07_A13 a contingency plan for the system is developed that provides restoration priorities.
- BCD-07_A14 a contingency plan for the system is developed that provides metrics.
- BCD-07_A15 a contingency plan for the system is developed that addresses contingency roles.
- BCD-07_A16 a contingency plan for the system is developed that addresses contingency responsibilities.
- BCD-07_A17 a contingency plan for the system is developed that addresses assigned individuals with contact information.
- BCD-07_A18 a contingency plan for the system is developed that addresses maintaining essential mission and business functions despite a disruption, compromise or failure of a system, application or service.
- BCD-07_A19 a contingency plan for the system is developed that addresses eventual, full-system restoration without deterioration of the controls originally planned and implemented.
- BCD-07_A20 a contingency plan for the system is developed that addresses the sharing of contingency information.
- BCD-07_A21 a contingency plan for the system is developed that is reviewed by personnel or roles.
- BCD-07_A22 a contingency plan for the system is developed that is approved by personnel or roles.
- BCD-07_A23 copies of the contingency plan are distributed to key contingency personnel.
- BCD-07_A24 copies of the contingency plan are distributed to organizational elements.
- BCD-07_A25 contingency planning activities are coordinated with incident handling activities.
- BCD-07_A26 the contingency plan for the system is reviewed frequently.
- BCD-07_A27 contingency plan changes are communicated to organizational elements.
- BCD-07_A28 lessons learned from contingency plan testing or actual contingency activities are incorporated into contingency testing.
- BCD-07_A29 lessons learned from contingency plan training or actual contingency activities are incorporated into contingency testing and training.
- BCD-07_A30 the contingency plan is protected from unauthorized disclosure.
- BCD-07_A31 the contingency plan is protected from unauthorized modification.
Evidence Requirements
- E-BCD-05 COOP Updates
-
Documented evidence of a periodic review process for the organization's Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) to identify necessary updates.
Business Continuity
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Documentation change control
Small
- Documentation change control
Medium
- Documentation change control
Large
- Documentation change control
Enterprise
- Documentation change control