High School Gymnasium Roof Replacement

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA DR-1044
ApplicantPlacer Union High School District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#061-91021
PW ID#23012
Date Signed1997-09-03T04:00:00
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Placer Union High School District; FEMA-1044-DR-CA; PA# 061-91021

Cross-Reference: DSR 23012; Cost Codes; Warranty

Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, the roof drains of Placer Union High School gymnasium became clogged, resulting in a six-inch pool of standing water on the single-ply roof. Subsequently, the membrane of the roof separated and water flooded the areas beneath the roof (the gymnasium, office area, and dance floor area). DSR 23012 was prepared for $7,108 to replace the roof, based upon a price quotation by a qualified contractor. Upon review, FEMA reduced the DSR to $1,549 to conform to FEMA cost codes. On July 23, 1996, the State submitted the subgrantee's first appeal to reinstate the funding to the original level. The basis of the appeal was that the contractor's estimate for repair of a single ply roof should not have been replaced with estimates from FEMA cost codes for repair of a built up roof. In response to the first appeal, the Regional Director acknowledged that the contractor's estimate could have been used in lieu of FEMA cost codes. However, with a warranty on the roof in place, the first appeal was denied based on Section 312 of the Stafford Act (duplication of benefits). Requesting reinstatement of funding to the original level, the State submitted the second appeal on March 19, 1997. In the appeal the subgrantee explained that the roof was flooded and did not fail. As a result, the warranty was not in effect and would provide no financial assistance. Per the first appeal response, "FEMA was remiss in not using the bid proposal from a qualified installer." With duplication of benefits no longer an issue, it is, therefore, appropriate to approve the second appeal at the original level of funding.

Issues:
  1. Can DSR cost estimates be developed based on contractor estimates in lieu of FEMA cost codes?
  2. Are there duplication of benefits?
Findings:
  1. Yes, DSR estimates can be based on contractor bids in lieu of cost codes.
  2. No, the warranty is not in effect and will provide no financial assistance.
Rationale: According to the Public Assistance Guide, repair work may not fit into one of the categories of unit prices in FEMA's cost codes. Estimates for these items may be developed from contractors in the area. Therefore, full funding of the DSR should be reinstated with the second appeal.

Appeal Letter

September 3, 1997

Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823

Dear Ms. Ward:

This is in response to your letter dated March 19, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 23012 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA on behalf of Placer Union High School District, requesting FEMA to pay the total costs associated with replacement of a single-ply roofing system. The amount requested is $7,108.

During the winter storms of 1995, the roof drains of Placer Union High School gymnasium became clogged, forming a six-inch pool of water on the roof. Subsequently, the single-ply roof separated from the roof membrane, flooding the gymnasium and other areas beneath the roof. Based on cost estimates from a qualified contractor to replace the roof, FEMA prepared DSR 23012 for $7,108. Upon review, FEMA reduced the DSR to $1,549 to reflect FEMA roof repair cost codes. In the first appeal, the Regional Director determined that it was appropriate to use contractor bids in lieu of the FEMA's cost codes. However, the first appeal was denied due to the presence of a warranty on the roof and possible duplication of benefits, pursuant to the Stafford Act, section 312 (c).

The two issues of this appeal are whether or not a duplication of benefits exists and should the original level of funding be reinstated. Upon review of the warranty documentation, it appears the warranty did not cover the type of damage that the roof sustained. Thus, I have concluded that there was no duplication of benefits. Further, pursuant to the Public Assistance Guide, it is appropriate to use contractor bids in lieu of FEMA cost codes when developing DSR cost estimates. Therefore, I am approving the second appeal and reinstating the level of funding to $7,108.

I have asked the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this decision. Please inform the applicant of my determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Last updated