State Route 4001 Bridge
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1130-DR-PA; Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Cross
Reference: Bridge Repair, 50% Rule
Summary: As a result of July 1996, flooding, damages occurred to the wing walls and an abutment of a 17 foot-wide and 16 foot-long bridge on State Route 4001 at Two Mile Run Creek. DSR 62345 was approved for $36,667 based on estimated quantities and FEMA cost codes. The subgrantee appealed for replacement of the bridge based on the infeasibility of FEMA's bridge repair method. Estimates for the repair and the replacement were provided without supporting documentation. FEMA responded that the proposed repair procedures were not uncommon and that PennDot presented no study to indicate that it was infeasible. FEMA did use the unit costs from the contracted work for actual replacement costs, increasing the eligible repair costs to $65,419. The second appeal was similar to the first.
Issues: 1) Is the bridge repairable? 2) Should the first appeal determination be overturned?
Findings: 1) Yes. The repair methods are commonly used repair and no engineering evaluations were presented to indicate that the repairs could not be implemented. 2) No. The replacement is not eligible because the repair can be performed and the cost of the repair is less than 50% of the cost of replacement ($317,618).
Rationale: 1) The information available does not demonstrate that the repair could not be performed. The subgrantee did not perform engineering evaluations to support their argument. 2) The repair cost to the predisaster design is less than 50% of the cost to replace the bridge to current codes, in accordance with the FEMA policy and guidance on the 50% Rule.
BACKGROUND
On July 19, 1996, flooding damaged the State Route 4001 bridge crossing over Two Mile Run Creek in Venango County. The bridge damage included destruction of both downstream wingwalls, damage to one upstream wingwall, erosion of an 85 foot length of one of the approaches, scouring damages to one of the abutments, and debris removal. Damage survey report (DSR) 62345 was originally prepared on August 24, 1996 for repair of the bridge. Repairs included repairing the abutment and wingwalls, extending one wingwall, reconstructing the approach, placement of riprap, and reconstructing guide rails. DSR 62345 was approved as written for $36,667 using FEMA's cost codes, with the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (State) and the subgrantee non-concurring. A joint FEMA-State-subgrantee reinspection was made on September 23, 1996. However, it was not possible to reassess the damage to the structure because the applicant had begun to replace the structure with a box culvert estimated at 20 feet long by 30 feet wide. As a result, the appeal must be reviewed based on the data contained in the original DSR.
First Appeal
On February 4, 1997, the State transmitted the subgrantee's January 10, 1997, first appeal. The subgrantee argued that the abutment could not be rebuilt as FEMA had proposed and needed replacement, that FEMA used cost codes and not competitive bid costs, and that the cost repair using sound engineering analysis was more than 50% of the replacement cost. Finally, the actual cost of the completed repair was presented as $317,618. This cost is summarized as follows:
Design $22,495
Right of Way 4,631
Inspection 11,769
Contract 278,723 (actual)
Total $317,618
On April 5, 1997, the Regional Director responded to the first appeal, concluding that the bridge was repairable and that the estimated cost of repair was less than the cost of replacement. Therefore, the eligible funding was limited to the repair described in the scope of work and the completed replacement project represented an improved project. The Regional Director did agree that the actual unit costs established through competitive bidding should be used instead of FEMA's unit costs from cost codes. Accordingly, supplemental DSR 78845 was written to increase the total eligible repairs to $65,419.
Second Appeal
By letter dated August 1, 1997, the State transmitted the subgrantee's June 20, 1997, second appeal.
The subgrantee's second appeal was similar to the first appeal, with the following major exceptions: The subgrantee provided an increased estimate for the cost of repairs ($79,282) and an estimate for the cost of replacement ($112,523).
DISCUSSION
Repairability of Bridge
The subgrantee has maintained that the bridge abutment is not repairable because the doweling procedures to affix the concrete to the existing structure would cause structural failure. Further, the
subgrantee stated that it was not feasible to replace the rock in the rock wall abutment and to have the wall "act as a unit as (it) originally did." Finally, the subgrantee claims that the abutment could not be replaced without replacing the existing superstructure.
FEMA agrees with the subgrantee in that the reconstructed abutment needs to act as a cohesive unit. A technical assistance contractor was requested to review the information related t he scope of the work on the DSR. As a result of that review, it was determined that the repair could be performed to reconstruct the abutment. Doweling procedures are performed routinely in similar operations, such as jacketing of abutment stems. Further, there is no requirement to replace rocks while the concrete jacketing work is done. In addition, to the doweling, the rough nature of the damaged abutment would have added to the shear transfer. In fact, it is possible that the shear transfer from the rough surface may have been sufficient without doweling. Finally, there is no information provided in DSR 62345 to indicate that the abutment was sufficiently structurally unsound to not be repairable.
The subgrantee stated that additional excavation below the wingwalls was needed and that this excavation would cause the wingwalls to fail. After a reviewing all information provided, we conclude that a repair to the predisaster design would not require this additional excavation. Further, the subgrantee has not provided documentation that supports the need for additional excavation.
Finally, the subgrantee stated that the abutment could not be replaced without replacing the superstructure; however, the subgrantee has not provided engineering evaluations to support that claim. Following our review of the documented damage, we conclude that methods of placing concrete are available and could be adapted to this application.
Therefore, the questions regarding the feasibility of proposed repair procedures may be legitimate; however, those procedures are considered appropriate. The subgrantee has not provided backup engineering evaluations to support the argument that they are not technically feasible. Lacking such information to refute the determinations made during the initial inspection, and by the technical assistance contractor, FEMA considers the bridge to have been repairable.
Repair versus Replacement/50% Rule
The FEMA's 50% Rule provides that replacement is eligible when the cost of repair to the predisaster design is more than 50% of the cost of replacement to current codes and standards. The 50% Rule is described in 44 CFR 206.226(d) and, in more detail, in Response and Recovery Guidance No. 4511.61 E, Eligibility of Facilities for Replacement under 44 CFR 206.226(d)(1), dated June 1, 1995. FEMA uses the unit costs for the work performed to replace the bridge in
combination with the quantities estimated in the scope of work for an estimated repair cost of $65,419. The subgrantee's repair estimate of $79,282 is not suitable as a basis for a cost estimate because it provides no breakdown of quantities (e.g., cubic yards of concrete) nor unit cost of various materials or services (e.g., $/cubic yard of concrete).
The subgrantee has provided a replacement cost of $112,000, however, this estimate is also not supported by a defined scope of work, estimated quantities, or unit costs. For example, it is not clear if this cost represents replacement to the pre-disaster design, or if it includes upgrades to the required codes and standards. The subgrantee has stated that the actual replacement cost of $317,618 is based on work performed to meet hydraulics requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Although the current codes and standards have not been specifically addressed, it appears that the subgrantee performed replacement to meet current codes and standards. Further, the actual costs incurred were the result of work awards following the receipt of six competitive bids: therefore, these costs appear to be those necessary to meet current codes and standards. As such, the $317,618 would be more appropriate to use as the replacement cost for the 50% Rule calculation. The estimated cost of repairs ($65,419) is considerably less than half the estimated cost of replacement ($317,618), and replacement is not eligible.
CONCLUSION
The bridge is repairable as determined, but is not eligible for replacement. The estimated cost of repairs ($65,419) is based on unit costs of the competitively bid replacement cost of $317,618. The first appeal determination remains unchanged and the appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1130-DR |
| Applicant | Pennsylvania Department of Transportation |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 000-92003 |
| PW ID# | 62345 |
| Date Signed | 1998-02-13T05:00:00 |
Citation: FEMA-1130-DR-PA; Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Cross
Reference: Bridge Repair, 50% Rule
Summary: As a result of July 1996, flooding, damages occurred to the wing walls and an abutment of a 17 foot-wide and 16 foot-long bridge on State Route 4001 at Two Mile Run Creek. DSR 62345 was approved for $36,667 based on estimated quantities and FEMA cost codes. The subgrantee appealed for replacement of the bridge based on the infeasibility of FEMA's bridge repair method. Estimates for the repair and the replacement were provided without supporting documentation. FEMA responded that the proposed repair procedures were not uncommon and that PennDot presented no study to indicate that it was infeasible. FEMA did use the unit costs from the contracted work for actual replacement costs, increasing the eligible repair costs to $65,419. The second appeal was similar to the first.
Issues: 1) Is the bridge repairable? 2) Should the first appeal determination be overturned?
Findings: 1) Yes. The repair methods are commonly used repair and no engineering evaluations were presented to indicate that the repairs could not be implemented. 2) No. The replacement is not eligible because the repair can be performed and the cost of the repair is less than 50% of the cost of replacement ($317,618).
Rationale: 1) The information available does not demonstrate that the repair could not be performed. The subgrantee did not perform engineering evaluations to support their argument. 2) The repair cost to the predisaster design is less than 50% of the cost to replace the bridge to current codes, in accordance with the FEMA policy and guidance on the 50% Rule.
Appeal Letter
February 13, 1998
Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Dear Mr. Wynne:
This letter is in response to your August 1, 1997, submittal of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's second appeal for damage survey report (DSR) 62345, which documents the damages to the State Route 4001 bridge over Two Mile Run Creek in Venango County. The subgrantee is appealing FEMA's determination that the bridge could be repaired and that replacement was not eligible.
FEMA has reviewed the submitted documentation and determined that repairs of this type are commonly used and are effective and that replacement is not eligible. Therefore, I am upholding the previous determination for the repair cost of $65,419 and the appeal is denied. Please refer to the enclosed analysis.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Rita A. Calvin
Regional Director
FEMA Region III
Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Dear Mr. Wynne:
This letter is in response to your August 1, 1997, submittal of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's second appeal for damage survey report (DSR) 62345, which documents the damages to the State Route 4001 bridge over Two Mile Run Creek in Venango County. The subgrantee is appealing FEMA's determination that the bridge could be repaired and that replacement was not eligible.
FEMA has reviewed the submitted documentation and determined that repairs of this type are commonly used and are effective and that replacement is not eligible. Therefore, I am upholding the previous determination for the repair cost of $65,419 and the appeal is denied. Please refer to the enclosed analysis.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Rita A. Calvin
Regional Director
FEMA Region III
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUND
On July 19, 1996, flooding damaged the State Route 4001 bridge crossing over Two Mile Run Creek in Venango County. The bridge damage included destruction of both downstream wingwalls, damage to one upstream wingwall, erosion of an 85 foot length of one of the approaches, scouring damages to one of the abutments, and debris removal. Damage survey report (DSR) 62345 was originally prepared on August 24, 1996 for repair of the bridge. Repairs included repairing the abutment and wingwalls, extending one wingwall, reconstructing the approach, placement of riprap, and reconstructing guide rails. DSR 62345 was approved as written for $36,667 using FEMA's cost codes, with the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (State) and the subgrantee non-concurring. A joint FEMA-State-subgrantee reinspection was made on September 23, 1996. However, it was not possible to reassess the damage to the structure because the applicant had begun to replace the structure with a box culvert estimated at 20 feet long by 30 feet wide. As a result, the appeal must be reviewed based on the data contained in the original DSR.
First Appeal
On February 4, 1997, the State transmitted the subgrantee's January 10, 1997, first appeal. The subgrantee argued that the abutment could not be rebuilt as FEMA had proposed and needed replacement, that FEMA used cost codes and not competitive bid costs, and that the cost repair using sound engineering analysis was more than 50% of the replacement cost. Finally, the actual cost of the completed repair was presented as $317,618. This cost is summarized as follows:
Design $22,495
Right of Way 4,631
Inspection 11,769
Contract 278,723 (actual)
Total $317,618
On April 5, 1997, the Regional Director responded to the first appeal, concluding that the bridge was repairable and that the estimated cost of repair was less than the cost of replacement. Therefore, the eligible funding was limited to the repair described in the scope of work and the completed replacement project represented an improved project. The Regional Director did agree that the actual unit costs established through competitive bidding should be used instead of FEMA's unit costs from cost codes. Accordingly, supplemental DSR 78845 was written to increase the total eligible repairs to $65,419.
Second Appeal
By letter dated August 1, 1997, the State transmitted the subgrantee's June 20, 1997, second appeal.
The subgrantee's second appeal was similar to the first appeal, with the following major exceptions: The subgrantee provided an increased estimate for the cost of repairs ($79,282) and an estimate for the cost of replacement ($112,523).
DISCUSSION
Repairability of Bridge
The subgrantee has maintained that the bridge abutment is not repairable because the doweling procedures to affix the concrete to the existing structure would cause structural failure. Further, the
subgrantee stated that it was not feasible to replace the rock in the rock wall abutment and to have the wall "act as a unit as (it) originally did." Finally, the subgrantee claims that the abutment could not be replaced without replacing the existing superstructure.
FEMA agrees with the subgrantee in that the reconstructed abutment needs to act as a cohesive unit. A technical assistance contractor was requested to review the information related t he scope of the work on the DSR. As a result of that review, it was determined that the repair could be performed to reconstruct the abutment. Doweling procedures are performed routinely in similar operations, such as jacketing of abutment stems. Further, there is no requirement to replace rocks while the concrete jacketing work is done. In addition, to the doweling, the rough nature of the damaged abutment would have added to the shear transfer. In fact, it is possible that the shear transfer from the rough surface may have been sufficient without doweling. Finally, there is no information provided in DSR 62345 to indicate that the abutment was sufficiently structurally unsound to not be repairable.
The subgrantee stated that additional excavation below the wingwalls was needed and that this excavation would cause the wingwalls to fail. After a reviewing all information provided, we conclude that a repair to the predisaster design would not require this additional excavation. Further, the subgrantee has not provided documentation that supports the need for additional excavation.
Finally, the subgrantee stated that the abutment could not be replaced without replacing the superstructure; however, the subgrantee has not provided engineering evaluations to support that claim. Following our review of the documented damage, we conclude that methods of placing concrete are available and could be adapted to this application.
Therefore, the questions regarding the feasibility of proposed repair procedures may be legitimate; however, those procedures are considered appropriate. The subgrantee has not provided backup engineering evaluations to support the argument that they are not technically feasible. Lacking such information to refute the determinations made during the initial inspection, and by the technical assistance contractor, FEMA considers the bridge to have been repairable.
Repair versus Replacement/50% Rule
The FEMA's 50% Rule provides that replacement is eligible when the cost of repair to the predisaster design is more than 50% of the cost of replacement to current codes and standards. The 50% Rule is described in 44 CFR 206.226(d) and, in more detail, in Response and Recovery Guidance No. 4511.61 E, Eligibility of Facilities for Replacement under 44 CFR 206.226(d)(1), dated June 1, 1995. FEMA uses the unit costs for the work performed to replace the bridge in
combination with the quantities estimated in the scope of work for an estimated repair cost of $65,419. The subgrantee's repair estimate of $79,282 is not suitable as a basis for a cost estimate because it provides no breakdown of quantities (e.g., cubic yards of concrete) nor unit cost of various materials or services (e.g., $/cubic yard of concrete).
The subgrantee has provided a replacement cost of $112,000, however, this estimate is also not supported by a defined scope of work, estimated quantities, or unit costs. For example, it is not clear if this cost represents replacement to the pre-disaster design, or if it includes upgrades to the required codes and standards. The subgrantee has stated that the actual replacement cost of $317,618 is based on work performed to meet hydraulics requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Although the current codes and standards have not been specifically addressed, it appears that the subgrantee performed replacement to meet current codes and standards. Further, the actual costs incurred were the result of work awards following the receipt of six competitive bids: therefore, these costs appear to be those necessary to meet current codes and standards. As such, the $317,618 would be more appropriate to use as the replacement cost for the 50% Rule calculation. The estimated cost of repairs ($65,419) is considerably less than half the estimated cost of replacement ($317,618), and replacement is not eligible.
CONCLUSION
The bridge is repairable as determined, but is not eligible for replacement. The estimated cost of repairs ($65,419) is based on unit costs of the competitively bid replacement cost of $317,618. The first appeal determination remains unchanged and the appeal is denied.
Last updated