PA ID# 000-92040; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
DSR ID# 02412; 625 Landfair Student Housing
Citation: 625 Landfair Student Housing, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), FEMA-1203-DR-CA, P.A.I.D. #000-92040, DSR 02412.
Reference: Subject: Water intrusion, El Ni?o Storms, emergency work, permanent work, contract cost and price, required cost analysis; FEMA Record: DSR #02412.
Summary: This case involves repairs that were made simultaneously to two adjacent buildings under the same contracts for construction and change orders to those contracts, but the appeal references only one of the two buildings, #625 Landfair. The subgrantee objects to the deletion of funding from the original draft DSR before it was approved because of a FEMA determination that some of the costs for a new pump, fan, retaining wall, etc. included in the total submitted for FEMA funding were actually for improvements that went beyond the repairs. The subgrantee has appealed this FEMA determination by claiming that the improvements were a necessary part of the repairs, and cheaper than temporary work to accomplish the same result. In addition, the subgrantee has claimed that the 10 times cost growth in change orders over the base contract was appropriate for emergency work. However, the DSRs for the building under appeal and the adjacent building are for Category E permanent work, and the DSRs have a very explicit limited scope of approved work, for which the $100,000 already approved funding seems reasonable. The subgrantee has provided little in the way of cost breakdowns or line item pre-construction estimates to document their claim.
Issues: (1) What is a reasonable cost for the work approved in the DSR? (2) Are the permanent changes repairs or improvements? (3) What is the subgrantee's responsibility to arrange for FEMA inspection and approval of additional damages and repair scope when such scope is vastly greater than that described in the DSR? (4) What is the subgrantee's responsibility to separate and clearly document the costs when work goes beyond repairs to pre-disaster condition?
Findings: FEMA has determined (1) that the scope of work as described in the DSR was a reasonable repair scope for which FEMA did approve adequate funding, and (2) that the costs requested by the subgrantee did cover ineligible improvements. (3) The subgrantee failed to request a re-inspection when the scope and costs expanded beyond that which was approved. In addition, the subgrantee has repeatedly failed to provide sufficient documentation or cost analyses as per 44 CFR