Time Limitations
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-3192-EM-CT; Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT)
Cross-reference: Time Limitations, Identifying and Reporting Damage
Summary: Six counties in Connecticut were designated for snow removal assistance following the record snowfall which occurred on December 5-6, 2003. An Applicants Briefing (the first substantive meeting) was conducted by officials for the State of Connecticut and attended by FEMA Region I and CT DOTs authorized local representatives on January 29, 2004. All applicants at the briefings were provided a package of 54 pages containing forms, sample submittals, storm-specific data and program requirements for claim preparation. Applicants were advised that the Applicants Briefing would serve as the Kickoff Meeting for all applicants in the County who wished to submit a claim for reimbursement of snow removal costs. The regulatory deadline for identifying damages and submitting costs associated with damages was therefore March 29, 2004. Upon receipt of the basic CT DOT claim on March 26, 2004, FEMA determined that the claim contained significant flaws requiring correction before it could be processed. Project Officers assigned to CT DOT maintained regular contact with CT DOT staff to attempt to secure the necessary information (copy of contract) and documentation to process the claim. CT DOT was given an extension to April 23, 2004, to locate and submit the requested materials. On April 23, 2004, the Alternate Governors Authorized Representative (Alternate GAR) submitted a letter to the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) requesting a further extension for CT DOT. The request was denied, citing the fact that the claim was already 30 days past the 60-day window. The FCOs response to the Alternate GAR did, however, allow that FEMA would process the claim based on any and all materials received by April 27, 2004, the date by which CT DOT staff had assured the Project Officer that all materials would be at the Disaster Field Office.
Issues: Did CT DOTs appeal present justification to support further time extension?
Findings: No. CT DOTs appeal does not provide sufficient justification or rationale for its inability to meet deadlines due to extenuating circumstances beyond its control.
A snowstorm on December 5-6, 2003, affected four New England states, including Connecticut. The Governor requested assistance for six counties which received record snowfalls by letter dated December 12, 2003. On January 15, 2004, an Emergency Declaration was made by the President to provide snow removal assistance to six counties in accordance with FEMA Recovery Policy 9523.1, Snow Removal Assistance.
The State conducted Applicants Briefings in the declared counties from January 26 to January 29, 2004. The briefing scheduled for State agencies was conducted on January 29, 2004, and was attended by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT) authorized agent, Mr. James Mona, and two other CT DOT staff. The Request for Public Assistance was submitted at that time. All applicants at the briefings were provided a package of 54 pages containing forms, sample submittals, storm-specific data and program requirements for claim preparation. Applicants were advised that the Applicants Briefing would serve as the Kickoff Meeting for all applicants in the County who wished to submit a claim for reimbursement of snow removal costs including the requirement to submit copies of the contracts for FEMA review. Additionally, the Fact Sheet, provided to all applicants by the State, indicated that all information was due by February 18, 2004. The applicants were advised verbally that claims were to be submitted within 30 days of the date of the briefing in each county.
In February 2004, CT DOT advised the State Public Assistance Officer that software issues within the department made it unlikely that the CT DOT could assemble its claim before the 30-day deadline. FEMA and the State agreed to allow CT DOT the full 60 days for submission of its claim in accordance with 44 CFR § 206.202(d)(ii), thereby extending the due date until March 29, 2004.
Upon receipt of the basic CT DOT claim on March 26, 2004, FEMA determined that the claim contained significant flaws requiring correction before it could be processed. Project Officers assigned to CT DOT maintained regular contact with Mr. Mona and Mr. Lugli of CT DOT to attempt to secure the necessary information and documentation (including a copy of the snow removal contract) to process the claim. The CT DOT was given an extension to April 23, 2004, to locate and submit the requested materials.
On April 23, 2004, the Alternate Governors Authorized Representative (Alternate GAR) submitted a letter to the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) requesting a further extension for the applicant. The FCO denied the request, citing the fact that the claim was already 30 days past the 60-day deadline. The FCOs response to the Alternate GAR did, however, allow that FEMA would process the claim based on any and all materials received by April 27, 2004, the date by which Mr. Mona had assured the Project Officer that all materials would be at the Disaster Field Office (DFO).
As of May 4, 2004, no copies of the CT DOT contract were received and claims were processed accordingly. CT DOT was notified of the adjustments to its claim by letter dated May 4, 2004.
First Appeal
CT DOT submitted a first appeal on June 15, 2004, stating that it was not notified of the requirement to submit contract copies and that such copies could have been provided easily if requested. FEMA denied the appeal in a letter dated September 9, 2004, because FEMA provided CT DOT ample notice of both the submission deadlines and of the requirement to submit copies of the contracts for FEMA review. FEMA also noted that when the first appeal was submitted to FEMA, it was supported by a copy of a snow removal contract that had expired nineteen months prior to the date of the storm, a condition corrected by CT DOT on June 28, 2004.
Second Appeal
The applicant submitted a second appeal by letter dated November 2, 2004, claiming the denial of its first appeal was in error. The significant reasons cited are:
A difference in interpretation of the type of contract.
An assumption that the 6-month deadline for completion of the work also entitles CT DOT to that same period of time to provide supporting documentation.
CT DOT was never informed of the requirement to submit contract documentation.
DISCUSSION
The first issue of discussion is the difference in interpretation of the type of contract. The first appeal denial referred to item 6 in the Guidance for Submitting Snow Removal Assistance Requests which states that, Any request for reimbursement of annual contracts must include a copy of the contract. In the second appeal, CT DOT contends that its contract is neither annual nor based on a set level of compensation, and therefore, is not subject to the requirement to provide a copy of the contract to support its claim for reimbursement.
All requests for reimbursement under the Public Assistance Program must be supported with documentation identifying damages and costs associated with damages. If requests are based on services provided by contracts, applicants must submit copies of the contracts to support their claims.
The next issue is the States assumption that the provision of 44 CFR § 206.204(c) regarding deadlines for the completion of emergency work entitles CT DOT to take the full six months to provide the supporting documentation for its claim. The State is relying on a provision of 44 CFR § 206.202(c) related to performing eligible work, rather than the provision of 44 CFR § 206.202(d)(ii) related to identifying and reporting damage. The FCO established the deadline for all applicants to submit documentation to support their claims. All applicants except CT DOT submitted their documents before the deadline.
The third issue is the assertion that CT DOT was not made aware of the requirement to submit a copy of its contract for snow removal services. 44 CFR § 206.202 (d)(ii) states, The applicant will have 60 days following its first substantive meeting with us to identify and report damages to us. The Applicants Briefing (the first substantive meeting), which was conducted by officials for the State of Connecticut and attended by FEMA Region I and CT DOTs authorized local representatives, occurred on January 29, 2004. The regulatory deadline for identifying damages and submitting costs associated with damages was therefore March 29, 2004.
44 CFR § 206.202(d) provides that, An applicants authorized local representative is responsible for representing the applicant and for ensuring that the applicant has identified all eligible work and submitted all costs for disaster-related damages for funding. The appeal record documents multiple meetings and telephone conversations between FEMA and the CT DOTs authorized local representatives where FEMA requested and was assured that the requested contract would be provided. Furthermore, the document issued by the State at the Applicants Briefing notifies applicants on pages 9 and 54 that copies of contracts for work performed are required when submitting costs.
44 CFR § 206.202(f)(2) allows the FEMA Regional Director to grant time extensions, which must be based on extenuating circumstances beyond the grantees or subgrantees control. When CT DOT was not able to meet the regulatory deadline of March 29, 2004, FEMA approved time extensions to April 23, 2004, and April 27, 2004. On May 4, 2004, FEMA processed the Project Worksheet based on documentation submitted by that date.
CONCLUSION
CT DOT has not presented sufficient justification to support its request for a time.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-3192-EM |
| Applicant | Connecticut Department of Transporation |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 011-57040-00 |
| PW ID# | 204 |
| Date Signed | 2005-05-19T04:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
May 19, 2005
W. David LeVasseur
Alternate Governors Authorized RepresentativeState of Connecticut
450 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1308
Re: Second Appeal, Connecticut Department of Transportation,
PA ID 011-57040-00, Time Limitations, FEMA-3192-EM-CT,
Project Worksheet 204
Dear Mr. LeVasseur:
This is in response to your letter dated November 2, 2004, regarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT) requesting reimbursement for contracted services for snow removal.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the CT DOT has not provided sufficient justification to support its request for a time extension to submit project documentation. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Please inform CT DOT 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: Kenneth L. Horak
Acting Regional Director
FEMA, Region I
W. David LeVasseur
Alternate Governors Authorized RepresentativeState of Connecticut
450 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1308
Re: Second Appeal, Connecticut Department of Transportation,
PA ID 011-57040-00, Time Limitations, FEMA-3192-EM-CT,
Project Worksheet 204
Dear Mr. LeVasseur:
This is in response to your letter dated November 2, 2004, regarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT) requesting reimbursement for contracted services for snow removal.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the CT DOT has not provided sufficient justification to support its request for a time extension to submit project documentation. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Please inform CT DOT 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: Kenneth L. Horak
Acting Regional Director
FEMA, Region I
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDA snowstorm on December 5-6, 2003, affected four New England states, including Connecticut. The Governor requested assistance for six counties which received record snowfalls by letter dated December 12, 2003. On January 15, 2004, an Emergency Declaration was made by the President to provide snow removal assistance to six counties in accordance with FEMA Recovery Policy 9523.1, Snow Removal Assistance.
The State conducted Applicants Briefings in the declared counties from January 26 to January 29, 2004. The briefing scheduled for State agencies was conducted on January 29, 2004, and was attended by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT) authorized agent, Mr. James Mona, and two other CT DOT staff. The Request for Public Assistance was submitted at that time. All applicants at the briefings were provided a package of 54 pages containing forms, sample submittals, storm-specific data and program requirements for claim preparation. Applicants were advised that the Applicants Briefing would serve as the Kickoff Meeting for all applicants in the County who wished to submit a claim for reimbursement of snow removal costs including the requirement to submit copies of the contracts for FEMA review. Additionally, the Fact Sheet, provided to all applicants by the State, indicated that all information was due by February 18, 2004. The applicants were advised verbally that claims were to be submitted within 30 days of the date of the briefing in each county.
In February 2004, CT DOT advised the State Public Assistance Officer that software issues within the department made it unlikely that the CT DOT could assemble its claim before the 30-day deadline. FEMA and the State agreed to allow CT DOT the full 60 days for submission of its claim in accordance with 44 CFR § 206.202(d)(ii), thereby extending the due date until March 29, 2004.
Upon receipt of the basic CT DOT claim on March 26, 2004, FEMA determined that the claim contained significant flaws requiring correction before it could be processed. Project Officers assigned to CT DOT maintained regular contact with Mr. Mona and Mr. Lugli of CT DOT to attempt to secure the necessary information and documentation (including a copy of the snow removal contract) to process the claim. The CT DOT was given an extension to April 23, 2004, to locate and submit the requested materials.
On April 23, 2004, the Alternate Governors Authorized Representative (Alternate GAR) submitted a letter to the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) requesting a further extension for the applicant. The FCO denied the request, citing the fact that the claim was already 30 days past the 60-day deadline. The FCOs response to the Alternate GAR did, however, allow that FEMA would process the claim based on any and all materials received by April 27, 2004, the date by which Mr. Mona had assured the Project Officer that all materials would be at the Disaster Field Office (DFO).
As of May 4, 2004, no copies of the CT DOT contract were received and claims were processed accordingly. CT DOT was notified of the adjustments to its claim by letter dated May 4, 2004.
First Appeal
CT DOT submitted a first appeal on June 15, 2004, stating that it was not notified of the requirement to submit contract copies and that such copies could have been provided easily if requested. FEMA denied the appeal in a letter dated September 9, 2004, because FEMA provided CT DOT ample notice of both the submission deadlines and of the requirement to submit copies of the contracts for FEMA review. FEMA also noted that when the first appeal was submitted to FEMA, it was supported by a copy of a snow removal contract that had expired nineteen months prior to the date of the storm, a condition corrected by CT DOT on June 28, 2004.
Second Appeal
The applicant submitted a second appeal by letter dated November 2, 2004, claiming the denial of its first appeal was in error. The significant reasons cited are:
A difference in interpretation of the type of contract.
An assumption that the 6-month deadline for completion of the work also entitles CT DOT to that same period of time to provide supporting documentation.
CT DOT was never informed of the requirement to submit contract documentation.
DISCUSSION
The first issue of discussion is the difference in interpretation of the type of contract. The first appeal denial referred to item 6 in the Guidance for Submitting Snow Removal Assistance Requests which states that, Any request for reimbursement of annual contracts must include a copy of the contract. In the second appeal, CT DOT contends that its contract is neither annual nor based on a set level of compensation, and therefore, is not subject to the requirement to provide a copy of the contract to support its claim for reimbursement.
All requests for reimbursement under the Public Assistance Program must be supported with documentation identifying damages and costs associated with damages. If requests are based on services provided by contracts, applicants must submit copies of the contracts to support their claims.
The next issue is the States assumption that the provision of 44 CFR § 206.204(c) regarding deadlines for the completion of emergency work entitles CT DOT to take the full six months to provide the supporting documentation for its claim. The State is relying on a provision of 44 CFR § 206.202(c) related to performing eligible work, rather than the provision of 44 CFR § 206.202(d)(ii) related to identifying and reporting damage. The FCO established the deadline for all applicants to submit documentation to support their claims. All applicants except CT DOT submitted their documents before the deadline.
The third issue is the assertion that CT DOT was not made aware of the requirement to submit a copy of its contract for snow removal services. 44 CFR § 206.202 (d)(ii) states, The applicant will have 60 days following its first substantive meeting with us to identify and report damages to us. The Applicants Briefing (the first substantive meeting), which was conducted by officials for the State of Connecticut and attended by FEMA Region I and CT DOTs authorized local representatives, occurred on January 29, 2004. The regulatory deadline for identifying damages and submitting costs associated with damages was therefore March 29, 2004.
44 CFR § 206.202(d) provides that, An applicants authorized local representative is responsible for representing the applicant and for ensuring that the applicant has identified all eligible work and submitted all costs for disaster-related damages for funding. The appeal record documents multiple meetings and telephone conversations between FEMA and the CT DOTs authorized local representatives where FEMA requested and was assured that the requested contract would be provided. Furthermore, the document issued by the State at the Applicants Briefing notifies applicants on pages 9 and 54 that copies of contracts for work performed are required when submitting costs.
44 CFR § 206.202(f)(2) allows the FEMA Regional Director to grant time extensions, which must be based on extenuating circumstances beyond the grantees or subgrantees control. When CT DOT was not able to meet the regulatory deadline of March 29, 2004, FEMA approved time extensions to April 23, 2004, and April 27, 2004. On May 4, 2004, FEMA processed the Project Worksheet based on documentation submitted by that date.
CONCLUSION
CT DOT has not presented sufficient justification to support its request for a time.
Last updated