BCD-09: Contingency Training
Mechanisms exist to adequately train contingency personnel and applicable stakeholders in their contingency roles and responsibilities.
Renumbered: Formerly BCD-03 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, BCD-09 was Alternate Processing Site. That control is now BCD-13.
Control Question: Does the organization adequately train contingency personnel and applicable stakeholders in their contingency roles and responsibilities?
General (20)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| COBIT 2019 | DSS04.06 |
| GovRAMP | CP-03 |
| GovRAMP Low | CP-03 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | CP-03 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | CP-03 |
| GovRAMP High | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | CP-3 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | CP-03 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | CP-3 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | CP-3 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Flow Down | CP-3 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | CP-3 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | CP-3 |
US (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | CP-3 CP-3.a CP-3.b CP-3.c |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | CP-3 |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.21 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | CP-03 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | CP-03 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | CP-03 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | CP-03 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | CP-3 |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.16(c) |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | CP-03 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | CP-03 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | CP-03 |
EMEA (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 | IV.E-93 IV.E-96 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | BCM-03.01B.2 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 25.2(e) |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.7.4-89.c |
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.
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 adequately train contingency personnel and applicable stakeholders in their contingency roles and responsibilities.
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-09_A01 the time period within which to provide contingency training after assuming a contingency role or responsibility is defined.
- BCD-09_A02 the frequency at which to provide training to system users with a contingency role or responsibility is defined.
- BCD-09_A03 the frequency at which to review / update contingency training content is defined.
- BCD-09_A04 events necessitating review / update of contingency training are defined.
- BCD-09_A05 contingency training is provided to system users consistent with assigned roles and responsibilities within an organization-defined time period of assuming a contingency role or responsibility.
- BCD-09_A06 contingency training is provided to system users consistent with assigned roles and responsibilities when required by system changes.
- BCD-09_A07 contingency training is provided to system users consistent with assigned roles and responsibilities and frequency thereafter.
- BCD-09_A08 the contingency plan training content is reviewed / updated frequently.
- BCD-09_A09 the contingency plan training content is reviewed / updated following events.
Evidence Requirements
- E-BCD-07 COOP Training
-
Documented evidence of a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)-related training activity.
Business Continuity
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- NIST NICE Framework
- Tabletop exercises
Small
- NIST NICE Framework
- Tabletop exercises
Medium
- NIST NICE Framework
- Tabletop exercises
Large
- NIST NICE Framework
- Tabletop exercises
- Simulated events
Enterprise
- NIST NICE Framework
- Tabletop exercises
- Simulated events