Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 085-90112; BIG REDWOOD PARK WATER AND IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
DSR ID# 04919, 06186, 83762, 06121, 83696; Montevina Pipeline Connection
Citation: FEMA-845-DR-CA, PA 087-90114, Big Redwood Park Water and Improvement Association, DSRs 04919, 06186, 83762, 06121, 83696, Montevina Pipeline Connection
Cross-reference: Project Delay Costs, Price Increases, Interest Charges, Improved Project
Summary: The Loma Prieta earthquake damaged the water supply of the residents served by the Big Redwood Park Water and Improvement Association (applicant). After determining that repairing the wells and surface water supply was not feasible, the applicant decided to connect to the existing Montevina Pipeline. FEMA approved DSR 06186 for $1,152,745 for this purpose. In 1993, the applicant requested supplemental funding and FEMA approved DSR 06121 for $319,385 to fund some of the requested additional costs. According to the applicant, the completion of the pipeline project was delayed for years for various reasons. In March of 1995, the applicant requested additional funding for construction delays and telemetry and pump station modifications. FEMA did not approve funding for the construction delays or telemetry upgrades, and prepared DSR 83696 for $5,200 to fund only the costs for a geotechnical study and a permit. The applicant appealed FEMA's decision in July 1997. FEMA addressed this appeal and the Project Completion and Certification Report in a letter dated September 30, 1999. FEMA approved eligible costs of $442,152 associated with telemetry and pump upgrades and project management, but it did not fund costs related to project delays. In its second appeal, the applicant requests additional funding for $127,352 for delay costs, interest charges, price increases, and other damages. The applicant is also requesting a small project overrun.
Issues: 1) Are costs associated with project delays eligible?
2) Should FEMA consider the small project overrun?
Findings: 1) No. Costs must be directly related to the performance of eligible work. The reasons for the delays are not acceptable for considering additional eligible costs.
2) No. The request for an overrun has exceeded the time limit for submitting an appeal.
Rationale: 44 CFR