EvidenceSheet

CP-2 Contingency Plan

a. Develop a contingency plan for the system that: 1. Identifies essential mission and business functions and associated contingency requirements; 2. Provides recovery objectives, restoration priorities, and metrics; 3. Addresses contingency roles, responsibilities, assigned individuals with contact information; 4. Addresses maintaining essential mission and business functions despite a system disruption, compromise, or failure; 5. Addresses eventual, full system restoration without deterioration of the controls originally planned and implemented; 6. Addresses the sharing of contingency information; and 7. Is reviewed and approved by organization-defined personnel or roles; b. Distribute copies of the contingency plan to organization-defined key contingency personnel (identified by name and/or by role) and organizational elements; c. Coordinate contingency planning activities with incident handling activities; d. Review the contingency plan for the system organization-defined frequency; e. Update the contingency plan to address changes to the organization, system, or environment of operation and problems encountered during contingency plan implementation, execution, or testing; f. Communicate contingency plan changes to organization-defined key contingency personnel (identified by name and/or by role) and organizational elements; g. Incorporate lessons learned from contingency plan testing, training, or actual contingency activities into contingency testing and training; and h. Protect the contingency plan from unauthorized disclosure and modification.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, CP-2. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 in the compliance library.

Base controls and their enhancements. Which apply follows the baseline you are assessed against (for example FedRAMP Moderate or High, or the low, moderate and high baselines of SP 800-53B). Text in square brackets is a parameter your organisation sets.

6
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
at each review
hard
to go live
Policy repository / GRC workspace
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Evidence of contingency plan reviews and updates · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Test of Organizational processes for contingency plan development, review, update, and protection; mechanisms for developing, reviewing, updating, and/or protecting the contingency plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Contingency planning policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Procedures addressing contingency operations for the system · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Contingency plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • System security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

CP-1 Policy and Procedures · CP-2(1) Contingency Plan | Coordinate with Related Plans