Time Limitations
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1355-DR-OK; Muskogee County, Time Limitations
Cross-reference: Time Limitations
Summary: Severe winter ice storms occurred during the incident period of December 25, 2000, to January 10, 2001, resulting in major disaster declaration FEMA-1355-DR-OK. Muskogee County District 1 claims there are three Project Worksheets (PWs) for $104,160 that were never paid and has provided three field copies of PWs dated July 7, 2001, for debris cleanup using force account labor and equipment. However, neither FEMA nor the State has any record of these PWs, as they are not entered into NEMIS. The PWs provide a generic description of damage and debris blocking roads but do not contain any specific information of road locations or quantities.
In a letter dated September 29, 2003, Muskogee County submitted a first appeal of FEMAs determination to deny the three referenced PWs. The appeal was transmitted by the State on November 6, 2003. The appeal was denied because the submittal was received well after completion deadlines for project performance and the 60-day appeal time limit, Muskogee County failed to identify eligible work and report additional damage per 44 CFR § 206.202(d), and Muskogee County had already been paid for its debris removal costs. The State transmitted Muskogee Countys second appeal on June 16, 2004, supporting the Countys appeal, although no substantive information was submitted.
Review of all Muskogee County PWs for FEMA-1355-DR-OK shows that 51 PWs were written to reimburse the County a total of $2,216,757 for debris removal. Six of those PWs, totaling $115,874, were specifically for Muskogee County District #1 force account labor and equipment.
Issues: Should FEMA add the three additional PWs claimed by the Applicant?
Findings: No. The appeal was not submitted within the 60-day regulatory timeframe. In addition, Muskogee County did not submit any information, which distinguishes these three PWs in question from the locations and quantities already paid under previous PWs.
During the period December 25, 2000, to January 10, 2001, ice storms struck Muskogee County. Debris was spread countywide over roads and properties. A Federal disaster declaration for the County was issued January 5, 2001. As part of its cleanup effort, Muskogee County hired Ceres Environmental Contractors on March 21, 2001, to collect debris from County roads and right-of-ways. The County became dissatisfied with the Contractors performance and work stopped on June 21, 2001.
Muskogee County District 1 provided copies of three Category A Project Worksheets (PWs) dated July 7, 2001, to the State on January 29, 2002, for $104,160 for debris cleanup using force account labor and equipment. However, neither FEMA nor the State has any record of these PWs, as they are not entered into NEMIS. The PWs provide a generic description of damage and debris blocking roads but do not contain any specific information of road locations or quantities.
Although it is not included in the package, the State references a letter dated June 22, 2001, from Muskogee County requesting a time extension for debris cleanup. In its letter dated July 6, 2001, the State granted the County a 60-day time extension to complete debris cleanup operations and set a new completion deadline of September 6, 2001. In correspondence among the State, the County, and FEMA Region VI, it appears that the Countys cleanup efforts continued well beyond the extended deadline through May 2002.
In a letter dated July 24, 2003, to the State, FEMA confirmed an earlier decision to deny the States request for debris removal reimbursement associated with the three PWs. The State communicated FEMAs decision not to fund any debris activities associated with the field copies of the PWs in question to the County by letter dated August 1, 2003. In this letter, the State advised the County of their right to appeal within 60 days. The County was further advised to provide justification supporting their position.
First Appeal
The County appealed FEMAs determination to deny the three referenced PWs in its letter of September 29, 2003. The County indicated that the debris removal work was completed with the understanding that FEMA would reimburse them. They did not provide any supporting documentation such as road locations, quantities or any labor or equipment records that would indicate when the work was done. The State transmitted Muskogee Countys first appeal on November 6, 2003, supporting the
Countys appeal. The State claims to have had no knowledge of the three PWs and therefore, no impact on any determinations made regarding them. During the closeout process, the State claims the scope of the work had been completed and the estimated costs on the three PWs were not included in any other PWs, but provided no additional documentation of inspection or actual costs incurred by the County. It is unclear how the State could verify the scope of work given the lack specific information on the PWs.
FEMA denied the appeal on February 13, 2004, for the following reasons:
Muskogee Countys appeal is dated September 29, 2003, and the grantees evaluation submittal was received by the Region VI, Acting Regional Director on November 18, 2003, well after the completion deadlines established for project performance, 44 CFR§ 206.204 (c), and the 60-day appeal time limit,
44 CFR§ 206.206 (c).
Muskogee County failed to ensure all eligible work was identified, report any additional damage and submit all costs for funding as stated in 44
CFR§ 206.202 (d).
Muskogee County was reimbursed for its debris removal costs in accordance with the policy and procedures applicable during the performance of eligible work, 44 CFR§ 206.204 and 206.202 (e).
The Regional Director stated that all Muskogee Countys project worksheets were obligated by July 23, 2001.
Second Appeal
Muskogee County submitted its appeal by letter dated April 28, 2004. The State transmitted Muskogee Countys second appeal on June 16, 2004, supporting the Countys appeal. The State contends that applicant complied with 44 CFR§ 206.206 by filing their appeal within the required 60-day limit. The State also supports the three field copies of PWs dated July 7, 2001, stating they represented valid work and should have been entered in NEMIS. They also believe that the 6-month time frame to complete the work should have begun on the date the PWs were written.
FEMA Region VI transmitted the States second appeal to Headquarters on July 15, 2004 stating that the applicant was reimbursed for all known debris removal costs. The Region stated that there was no new substantive information in Muskogee Countys second appeal to change the first appeal decision.
DISCUSSION
The first issue of discussion is to determine the validity of the three PWs in question. The disaster was declared on January 5, 2001. The County hired a contractor for debris cleanup two months after the declaration date with work scheduled to begin two weeks later. The County was dissatisfied with the contractor and stopped work on June 21, 2001, and decided to complete any remaining debris cleanup work with force account labor and equipment.
Thorough review of all Muskogee County PWs for FEMA-1355-DR-OK shows that 51 Category A PWs were written to reimburse the County a total of $2,216,757 for debris removal. Most of these indicated countywide as the location and did not define a specific street or area. Six of those PWs, totaling $115,874, were specifically for Muskogee County District #1 force account labor and equipment.
The next discussion issue is the timely response of the applicant. The County did not comply with the regulations set forth in 44 CFR§ 206.204, which defines project performance deadlines and exceptions. This section states that time extensions be based on extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements, neither of which were claimed or documented in this case. Any extension beyond the Grantees authority requires detailed justification for the delay and a projected completion date. In their request for extension and their appeal, neither the State nor the County provided any such justification. The County was equally slow in their administrative response, failing to file their first or second appeals within the 60-day time limit per 44 CFR 206.206. Their appeals did not contain any new substantive information or documentation that would provide a basis for reevaluation of their claim.
CONCLUSION
The County was paid for debris removed by contract and force account. The County has not provided adequate justification to support their claim for additional debris removal costs. Accordingly, there is no basis for granting the appeal. The appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1355-DR |
| Applicant | Muskogee County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 101-99101-00 |
| PW ID# | N/A |
| Date Signed | 2004-11-26T05:00:00 |
In a letter dated September 29, 2003, Muskogee County submitted a first appeal of FEMAs determination to deny the three referenced PWs. The appeal was transmitted by the State on November 6, 2003. The appeal was denied because the submittal was received well after completion deadlines for project performance and the 60-day appeal time limit, Muskogee County failed to identify eligible work and report additional damage per 44 CFR § 206.202(d), and Muskogee County had already been paid for its debris removal costs. The State transmitted Muskogee Countys second appeal on June 16, 2004, supporting the Countys appeal, although no substantive information was submitted.
Review of all Muskogee County PWs for FEMA-1355-DR-OK shows that 51 PWs were written to reimburse the County a total of $2,216,757 for debris removal. Six of those PWs, totaling $115,874, were specifically for Muskogee County District #1 force account labor and equipment.
Appeal Letter
November 26, 2004
Mr. Albert Ashwood
Governors Authorized Representative
State of Oklahoma, Department of Emergency Management P.O. Box 53365Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Re: Second Appeal Muskogee County, PA ID# 101-99101-00, Time Limitations, FEMA-1355-DR-OK
Dear Mr. Ashwood:
This is in response to your letter dated June 16, 2004, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Muskogee County (County). The County is requesting payment of $104,160 for three Project Worksheets (PWs) for debris removal that are not in NEMIS.
As described in the enclosed appeal analysis, this appeal is denied because the submittal was received well after completion deadlines for project performance and the 60-day appeal time limit. In addition, Muskogee County did not submit any information, which distinguishes these three PWs in question from the locations and quantities already paid under previous PWs.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR § 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Enclosure
cc: Ron Castleman
Regional Director
FEMA, Region VI
Mr. Albert Ashwood
Governors Authorized Representative
State of Oklahoma, Department of Emergency Management P.O. Box 53365Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Re: Second Appeal Muskogee County, PA ID# 101-99101-00, Time Limitations, FEMA-1355-DR-OK
Dear Mr. Ashwood:
This is in response to your letter dated June 16, 2004, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Muskogee County (County). The County is requesting payment of $104,160 for three Project Worksheets (PWs) for debris removal that are not in NEMIS.
As described in the enclosed appeal analysis, this appeal is denied because the submittal was received well after completion deadlines for project performance and the 60-day appeal time limit. In addition, Muskogee County did not submit any information, which distinguishes these three PWs in question from the locations and quantities already paid under previous PWs.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR § 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Enclosure
cc: Ron Castleman
Regional Director
FEMA, Region VI
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDDuring the period December 25, 2000, to January 10, 2001, ice storms struck Muskogee County. Debris was spread countywide over roads and properties. A Federal disaster declaration for the County was issued January 5, 2001. As part of its cleanup effort, Muskogee County hired Ceres Environmental Contractors on March 21, 2001, to collect debris from County roads and right-of-ways. The County became dissatisfied with the Contractors performance and work stopped on June 21, 2001.
Muskogee County District 1 provided copies of three Category A Project Worksheets (PWs) dated July 7, 2001, to the State on January 29, 2002, for $104,160 for debris cleanup using force account labor and equipment. However, neither FEMA nor the State has any record of these PWs, as they are not entered into NEMIS. The PWs provide a generic description of damage and debris blocking roads but do not contain any specific information of road locations or quantities.
Although it is not included in the package, the State references a letter dated June 22, 2001, from Muskogee County requesting a time extension for debris cleanup. In its letter dated July 6, 2001, the State granted the County a 60-day time extension to complete debris cleanup operations and set a new completion deadline of September 6, 2001. In correspondence among the State, the County, and FEMA Region VI, it appears that the Countys cleanup efforts continued well beyond the extended deadline through May 2002.
In a letter dated July 24, 2003, to the State, FEMA confirmed an earlier decision to deny the States request for debris removal reimbursement associated with the three PWs. The State communicated FEMAs decision not to fund any debris activities associated with the field copies of the PWs in question to the County by letter dated August 1, 2003. In this letter, the State advised the County of their right to appeal within 60 days. The County was further advised to provide justification supporting their position.
First Appeal
The County appealed FEMAs determination to deny the three referenced PWs in its letter of September 29, 2003. The County indicated that the debris removal work was completed with the understanding that FEMA would reimburse them. They did not provide any supporting documentation such as road locations, quantities or any labor or equipment records that would indicate when the work was done. The State transmitted Muskogee Countys first appeal on November 6, 2003, supporting the
Countys appeal. The State claims to have had no knowledge of the three PWs and therefore, no impact on any determinations made regarding them. During the closeout process, the State claims the scope of the work had been completed and the estimated costs on the three PWs were not included in any other PWs, but provided no additional documentation of inspection or actual costs incurred by the County. It is unclear how the State could verify the scope of work given the lack specific information on the PWs.
FEMA denied the appeal on February 13, 2004, for the following reasons:
Muskogee Countys appeal is dated September 29, 2003, and the grantees evaluation submittal was received by the Region VI, Acting Regional Director on November 18, 2003, well after the completion deadlines established for project performance, 44 CFR§ 206.204 (c), and the 60-day appeal time limit,
44 CFR§ 206.206 (c).
Muskogee County failed to ensure all eligible work was identified, report any additional damage and submit all costs for funding as stated in 44
CFR§ 206.202 (d).
Muskogee County was reimbursed for its debris removal costs in accordance with the policy and procedures applicable during the performance of eligible work, 44 CFR§ 206.204 and 206.202 (e).
The Regional Director stated that all Muskogee Countys project worksheets were obligated by July 23, 2001.
Second Appeal
Muskogee County submitted its appeal by letter dated April 28, 2004. The State transmitted Muskogee Countys second appeal on June 16, 2004, supporting the Countys appeal. The State contends that applicant complied with 44 CFR§ 206.206 by filing their appeal within the required 60-day limit. The State also supports the three field copies of PWs dated July 7, 2001, stating they represented valid work and should have been entered in NEMIS. They also believe that the 6-month time frame to complete the work should have begun on the date the PWs were written.
FEMA Region VI transmitted the States second appeal to Headquarters on July 15, 2004 stating that the applicant was reimbursed for all known debris removal costs. The Region stated that there was no new substantive information in Muskogee Countys second appeal to change the first appeal decision.
DISCUSSION
The first issue of discussion is to determine the validity of the three PWs in question. The disaster was declared on January 5, 2001. The County hired a contractor for debris cleanup two months after the declaration date with work scheduled to begin two weeks later. The County was dissatisfied with the contractor and stopped work on June 21, 2001, and decided to complete any remaining debris cleanup work with force account labor and equipment.
Thorough review of all Muskogee County PWs for FEMA-1355-DR-OK shows that 51 Category A PWs were written to reimburse the County a total of $2,216,757 for debris removal. Most of these indicated countywide as the location and did not define a specific street or area. Six of those PWs, totaling $115,874, were specifically for Muskogee County District #1 force account labor and equipment.
The next discussion issue is the timely response of the applicant. The County did not comply with the regulations set forth in 44 CFR§ 206.204, which defines project performance deadlines and exceptions. This section states that time extensions be based on extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements, neither of which were claimed or documented in this case. Any extension beyond the Grantees authority requires detailed justification for the delay and a projected completion date. In their request for extension and their appeal, neither the State nor the County provided any such justification. The County was equally slow in their administrative response, failing to file their first or second appeals within the 60-day time limit per 44 CFR 206.206. Their appeals did not contain any new substantive information or documentation that would provide a basis for reevaluation of their claim.
CONCLUSION
The County was paid for debris removed by contract and force account. The County has not provided adequate justification to support their claim for additional debris removal costs. Accordingly, there is no basis for granting the appeal. The appeal is denied.
Last updated