Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 037-91033; Los Angeles County, USC Medical Center
DSR ID# 13484; Old Administration Building, Time Extension
April 19, 2004
Mr. Paul Jacks
Governors Authorized Representative
California Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
Re: Second Appeal, Los Angeles County, USC Medical Center,
PA ID# 037-910033, Old Administration Building, Time Extension,
FEMA-1008-DR-CA, Disaster Survey Report (DSR) 13484.
Dear Mr. Jacks:
This is in response to your letter dated July 25, 2003, concerning the referenced second appeal of DSR 13484. In a letter dated May 29, 2003, Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center (the Applicant) appealed the Regional Directors denial of first appeal of a six-and-a-half-month time extension request to complete the Old Administration Building project (DSR 13484).
On January 7, 1998, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved $3,918,218 (DSR 13484) of project funding under the Grant Acceleration Program (GAP). The Applicants request for a time extension was based on unanticipated and lengthy efforts required to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. In particular, the project was delayed by unforeseen difficulties with the restoration of historic elements including interior floor tiles, wall scones, decorative concrete lintels and sills, and a 1200-pound cartouche.
On August 27, 2002, FEMA denied the time extension request on the grounds that the items of work were not part of the approved scope of work on DSR 13484. On October 3, 2002, the Applicant filed a first appeal claiming that the cartouche, lintels and sills were part of the approved scope of work; therefore, the delays associated with those elements were eligible for consideration in a time extension request.
The Regional Director denied the first appeal on February 26, 2003, because the Applicant had not provided information sufficient for FEMA to determine that completion of the approved scope of work was impacted by a delay that justified a time extension. The letter acknowledged, however, that the cartouche was an approved item of work, but noted that the Applicant had not shown how the installation of the cartouche had delayed the project.
On May 29, 2003, the Applicant filed a second appeal arguing that the lintels and sills were also included in the approved scope of work. In support, the Applicant enclosed a letter from its consulting A&E firm dated May 12, 2003, noting the location in its 1995 report where the lintels and sills had been identified as damaged by the earthquake and included as items of work.
Our review of the Itemized Scope and Work confirms that the cartouche, lentils and sills were approved items of work, but that the historic floor tiles and historic wall sconces were not part of the approved scope of work or the approved improvements.
I am persuaded by the information provided by the Applicant and its consulting engineers that the effort to repair or replace the highly detailed and interpretative design elements on the Old Administration Building caused unforeseen delays in completing the work. Since the major structural repairs preceded work on the final finishes, it is understandable that the Applicant encountered some unique project requirements in the final stages of restoring this historic building. For this reason, I have determined that the Applicants request for a six-and-a-half-month time extension, to December 31, 2002, meets the requirements of 44 CFR §206.204(c)(2)(ii). Therefore, I am granting this appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My decision is the final determination of this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Daniel A. Craig
Emergency Preparedness and Response
cc: Jeff Griffin