Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 085-91006; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
DSR ID# 20267,20268,20276, 16761; NSPO
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA, P.A. 085-91006, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, DSRs 20267, 20268 and 20276/16761, Net Small Project Overrun
Cross-reference: Engineering and design services, improved projects
Summary: Winter storms in 1995 caused embankment and roadway slipouts in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The District submitted a Net Small Project Overrun (NSPO) request for five projects with significant cost overruns on December 17, 1997. The District requested $291,864. On June 15, 1998, FEMA determined that the five DSRs were improved projects; thus, the cost overruns were not eligible. The District submitted its first appeal for three of the five DSRs on August 12, 1998. It asked for $170,799 and claimed that the work performed restored the predisaster function of the facilities, the most cost-effective and feasible methods were used, and local rates increased the cost of projects. On December 15, 1998, FEMA determined that $68,244 in additional costs related to DSRs 20267 and 20268 were eligible. However, only 15 percent of the total costs were granted for engineering services (the District claimed much higher actual costs). For DSRs 20276/16761, FEMA stated that the project went well beyond the approved scope of work. However, an additional $1,641 was granted for previously unaccounted for eligible items. The District submitted its second appeal on February 25, 1999, and provided additional information on May 10, 1999. Nevertheless, it provided no new justification to support its position. It asked for a total of $21,584 in additional funds for DSRs 20267 and 20268, and $5,308 for DSRs 20276/16761.
Issues: 1) Are engineering costs of 55.7 and 29.75 percent of the total project costs reasonable for DSRs 20267 and 20268? 2) May actual costs for the approved portion of DSRs 20276/16761 be granted?
Findings: 1) No. 2) No, the District made repairs that varied significantly from the approved scope of work.
Rationale: 44 CFR 13.22, 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1)