Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 085-00000; Santa Clara County
DSR ID# 17803,58670; Site 4-Black Road
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Santa Clara County, Site 4-Black Road, DSRs 17803, 58670
Cross Reference: Eligible Scope of Work, Reasonable Costs
Summary: As a result of the 1995 late winter storms, high flood flows caused an embankment along Black Road to slip out. The FEMA inspector prepared DSR17803 in the amount of $8,486 to clean and reshape a drainage ditch, install a catch basin, and to restore the downslope embankment by excavation and replacement with structural backfill. During eligibility review, the FEMA reviewer noted that the DSR did not identify a damaged catch basin, such that its replacement would not be eligible. Additionally, it was concluded that the line item for excavation was not necessary to restore the slope, and that unclassified fill would be sufficient in lieu of structural fill. Eligible funding was limited to $1,233. In a letter dated April 21, 1997, the subgrantee requested that the ineligible items be funded, and that funding be increased to reflect its actual force account costs to complete the work ($45,805). FEMA denied this request on the basis that the documentation provided identified work items in excess of the approved scope of work, such that the work was considered an improved project. The subgrantee's first appeal again requested funding of the additional scope items and funding to the amount of its actual costs. In review of the first appeal, FEMA prepared DSR 58670 to fund the replacement of the catch basin and the excavation efforts ($974). Other work, including asphalt placement and use of structural fill, was found to be an improvement or not necessary. The subgrantee's second appeal again requests funding of the ineligible items for the total actual costs for the project. The subgrantee provided a drawing of the project repair to support its appeal.
- Are the additional scope items eligible for disaster assistance?
- Should funding be provided based on the subgrantee's reported actual costs?
- The eligible scope of work should be expanded to include additional quantities and scope items as described in the analysis. The asphalt berm is found to be a cost-effective hazard mitigation measure, and is, therefore, eligible for funding.
- Costs for this work reported by the subgrantee are excessive for the scope of work completed, and, therefore, not eligible as a basis for funding. FEMA cost codes will be used to estimate the eligible project costs.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1) General Work Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.226(b) Restoration of Damaged Facilities