Request for funding an NSPO
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; County of Mono; NSPO
Cross Reference: 44 CFR 206.204(e) - Cost Overruns
Summary: The winter storms of 1995 (FEMA-1046-DR-CA) caused damage to roadways within Mono County. Various DSRs were prepared to fund debris removal, emergency work, and permanent work. Mono County (subgrantee) completed all of its small projects by August 1, 1996, and incurred a net small project overrun (NSPO). The subgrantee transmitted its Project Completion and Certification Report (P.4) indicating an NSPO to the state on February 10, 1997. FEMA Region IX received the subgrantee's P.4 from the state on September 17, 1997. FEMA did not approve additional funding for the NSPO because the request was received after the established deadline for all NSPOs. The Disaster Recovery Manager (DRM) for all open Region IX post-Stafford Act disasters established a deadline of July 31, 1997, for NSPO submittals from subgrantees who had completed all small projects on or before April 30, 1997. This deadline was extended until August 31, 1997. The subgrantee's request was received by FEMA 17 days after the deadline had passed. The subgrantee's first appeal was denied because there was no justification for the late NSPO submittal. In its second appeal, the subgrantee requests reconsideration because its request for additional funding for an NSPO was submitted to OES well in advance of the August 31, 1997 deadline.
Issues: Was the subgrantee's request for additional funding for its NSPO received by FEMA prior to the established deadline?
Findings: No. However, the request was submitted to the Grantee before the deadline.
Rationale: The request was submitted to the Grantee well before the deadline. Therefore, it should be considered.
Due to the severe winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1046 winter storm event, various roadways within Mono County were damaged. Mono County (subgrantee) requested disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the repair of these facilities. FEMA inspection teams, consisting of representatives of FEMA, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the subgrantee, visited the affected roadways to document damages and prepare Damage Survey Reports (DSRs).
The subgrantee completed its last project on August 1, 1996, and transmitted its Project Completion and Certification Report (P.4 Alternate), claiming a net small project overrun (NSPO) of $41,315, to OES on February 10, 1997. FEMA received the subgrantee's P.4 Alternate on September 17, 1997. The subgrantee's request for additional funding for an NSPO was denied because it was received after the August 31, 1997, deadline.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted a first appeal letter regarding FEMA's determination that no additional funding would be provided for an NSPO. In its appeal, the subgrantee stated its request for additional funding should be eligible for consideration because its P.4 Alternate was submitted to OES prior to the August 31, 1997, deadline. However, FEMA did not receive the subgrantee's P.4 Alternate until September 17, 1997, after the deadline. As such, the subgrantee's first appeal was denied.
Second Appeal
The subgrantee's second appeal letter reiterates its first appeal position that its request for additional funding for an NSPO should be eligible for consideration because it was submitted to OES well in advance of the August 31, 1997, deadline.
DISCUSSION
On March 25, 1997, the Disaster Recovery Manager (DRM) for all open Region IX post-Stafford Act disasters established a deadline of July 31, 1997, for NSPO submittals from subgrantees that had completed all small projects on or before April 30, 1997. This deadline was subsequently extended to August 31, 1997. The subgrantee's P.4 Alternate had been submitted to OES on February 10, 1997. As the P.4 Alternate was submitted by the applicant well before the deadline, the subgrantee's request for additional funding for an NSPO is eligible for consideration.
Accordingly, the documentation supporting the subgrantee's request for additional funding for an NSPO has been reviewed for eligibility. In support of its claim for an NSPO, the subgrantee has provided "Labor and Equipment Audit Trails" for all small project DSRs. However, in reviewing these reports, it was determined that ineligible labor costs, overhead costs, and equipment costs were included in the subgrantee's claim.
During the inspection process, the subgrantee certified that hourly rates for its employees include a productive hourly rate of 16.5%. Eligible labor costs will be reduced accordingly. In addition, fringe benefit rates of 37% for regular time wages and 2.75% for overtime wages, as presented by the subgrantee, will be added to eligible labor costs.
Although they were included in the "Labor and Equipment Audit Trails," overhead costs are not eligible, as previously determined during preparation of the subgrantee's DSRs. Also as previously determined, FEMA equipment rates will be used instead of the subgrantee's rates to determine eligible costs for force account equipment.
All project costs have been adjusted accordingly, and total approved funding for the subgrantee's NSPO request has been determined to be $25,466.
CONCLUSION
The subgrantee's request for additional funding for an NSPO has been reviewed for eligibility, and funding determinations and limits have been addressed. The Disaster Recovery Manager will prepare a supplemental DSR, in the amount of $25,466, to fund the NSPO as described above. The subgrantee's appeal is partially granted.
Appeal Brief
Disaster | FEMA-1046-DR |
Applicant | Mono County |
Appeal Type | Second |
PA ID# | 051-00000 |
PW ID# | N/A |
Date Signed | 1999-08-31T04:00:00 |
Cross Reference: 44 CFR 206.204(e) - Cost Overruns
Summary: The winter storms of 1995 (FEMA-1046-DR-CA) caused damage to roadways within Mono County. Various DSRs were prepared to fund debris removal, emergency work, and permanent work. Mono County (subgrantee) completed all of its small projects by August 1, 1996, and incurred a net small project overrun (NSPO). The subgrantee transmitted its Project Completion and Certification Report (P.4) indicating an NSPO to the state on February 10, 1997. FEMA Region IX received the subgrantee's P.4 from the state on September 17, 1997. FEMA did not approve additional funding for the NSPO because the request was received after the established deadline for all NSPOs. The Disaster Recovery Manager (DRM) for all open Region IX post-Stafford Act disasters established a deadline of July 31, 1997, for NSPO submittals from subgrantees who had completed all small projects on or before April 30, 1997. This deadline was extended until August 31, 1997. The subgrantee's request was received by FEMA 17 days after the deadline had passed. The subgrantee's first appeal was denied because there was no justification for the late NSPO submittal. In its second appeal, the subgrantee requests reconsideration because its request for additional funding for an NSPO was submitted to OES well in advance of the August 31, 1997 deadline.
Issues: Was the subgrantee's request for additional funding for its NSPO received by FEMA prior to the established deadline?
Findings: No. However, the request was submitted to the Grantee before the deadline.
Rationale: The request was submitted to the Grantee well before the deadline. Therefore, it should be considered.
Appeal Letter
August 31, 1999
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Disaster Field Office-Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue
West Annex, 2nd Floor
Pasadena, CA 91103-3678
Re: Second Appeal - Mono County - Net Small Project Overrun - FEMA-1046-CA-DR - All Small Project DSRs
Dear Mr. Najera:
This is in response to your January 15, 1999, submittal of Mono County's second appeal of our denial of its request for additional funding for a net small project overrun (NSPO). The request was denied because it was submitted to FEMA after the established deadline for all NSPO submittals.
The subgrantee's request for $41,315 of additional funding for an NSPO was submitted by the applicant and was received by FEMA on September 17, 1997, 17 days after the August 31, 1997, deadline. The subgrantee's request has been determined to be eligible for consideration. Based on documentation supplied by the subgrantee, total additional approved eligible costs have been determined to be $25,466. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Disaster Recovery Manager prepare a supplemental DSR to fund an NSPO as described in the enclosed analysis. Accordingly, the subgrantee's appeal is partially granted.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Richard A. Buck
Disaster Recovery Manager
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Disaster Field Office-Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue
West Annex, 2nd Floor
Pasadena, CA 91103-3678
Re: Second Appeal - Mono County - Net Small Project Overrun - FEMA-1046-CA-DR - All Small Project DSRs
Dear Mr. Najera:
This is in response to your January 15, 1999, submittal of Mono County's second appeal of our denial of its request for additional funding for a net small project overrun (NSPO). The request was denied because it was submitted to FEMA after the established deadline for all NSPO submittals.
The subgrantee's request for $41,315 of additional funding for an NSPO was submitted by the applicant and was received by FEMA on September 17, 1997, 17 days after the August 31, 1997, deadline. The subgrantee's request has been determined to be eligible for consideration. Based on documentation supplied by the subgrantee, total additional approved eligible costs have been determined to be $25,466. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Disaster Recovery Manager prepare a supplemental DSR to fund an NSPO as described in the enclosed analysis. Accordingly, the subgrantee's appeal is partially granted.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Richard A. Buck
Disaster Recovery Manager
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDDue to the severe winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1046 winter storm event, various roadways within Mono County were damaged. Mono County (subgrantee) requested disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the repair of these facilities. FEMA inspection teams, consisting of representatives of FEMA, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the subgrantee, visited the affected roadways to document damages and prepare Damage Survey Reports (DSRs).
The subgrantee completed its last project on August 1, 1996, and transmitted its Project Completion and Certification Report (P.4 Alternate), claiming a net small project overrun (NSPO) of $41,315, to OES on February 10, 1997. FEMA received the subgrantee's P.4 Alternate on September 17, 1997. The subgrantee's request for additional funding for an NSPO was denied because it was received after the August 31, 1997, deadline.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted a first appeal letter regarding FEMA's determination that no additional funding would be provided for an NSPO. In its appeal, the subgrantee stated its request for additional funding should be eligible for consideration because its P.4 Alternate was submitted to OES prior to the August 31, 1997, deadline. However, FEMA did not receive the subgrantee's P.4 Alternate until September 17, 1997, after the deadline. As such, the subgrantee's first appeal was denied.
Second Appeal
The subgrantee's second appeal letter reiterates its first appeal position that its request for additional funding for an NSPO should be eligible for consideration because it was submitted to OES well in advance of the August 31, 1997, deadline.
DISCUSSION
On March 25, 1997, the Disaster Recovery Manager (DRM) for all open Region IX post-Stafford Act disasters established a deadline of July 31, 1997, for NSPO submittals from subgrantees that had completed all small projects on or before April 30, 1997. This deadline was subsequently extended to August 31, 1997. The subgrantee's P.4 Alternate had been submitted to OES on February 10, 1997. As the P.4 Alternate was submitted by the applicant well before the deadline, the subgrantee's request for additional funding for an NSPO is eligible for consideration.
Accordingly, the documentation supporting the subgrantee's request for additional funding for an NSPO has been reviewed for eligibility. In support of its claim for an NSPO, the subgrantee has provided "Labor and Equipment Audit Trails" for all small project DSRs. However, in reviewing these reports, it was determined that ineligible labor costs, overhead costs, and equipment costs were included in the subgrantee's claim.
During the inspection process, the subgrantee certified that hourly rates for its employees include a productive hourly rate of 16.5%. Eligible labor costs will be reduced accordingly. In addition, fringe benefit rates of 37% for regular time wages and 2.75% for overtime wages, as presented by the subgrantee, will be added to eligible labor costs.
Although they were included in the "Labor and Equipment Audit Trails," overhead costs are not eligible, as previously determined during preparation of the subgrantee's DSRs. Also as previously determined, FEMA equipment rates will be used instead of the subgrantee's rates to determine eligible costs for force account equipment.
All project costs have been adjusted accordingly, and total approved funding for the subgrantee's NSPO request has been determined to be $25,466.
CONCLUSION
The subgrantee's request for additional funding for an NSPO has been reviewed for eligibility, and funding determinations and limits have been addressed. The Disaster Recovery Manager will prepare a supplemental DSR, in the amount of $25,466, to fund the NSPO as described above. The subgrantee's appeal is partially granted.
Last updated