Debris Removal
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1577-DR-CA, County of Santa Barbara, PW 334
Cross-reference: Debris Removal
Summary: Flooding from December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005, deposited debris into the San Pasqual debris basin and its adjoining channel, which impeded
95 percent of the basins capacity. FEMA prepared PW 334 for eligible costs associated with the removal of an estimated 14,485 cubic yards (CYs) of debris. Debris removal began on January 26, 2005, and was halted following heavy rains in February 2005, with only 70 percent of the work complete. The Applicant paid its debris contractor $216,706, equivalent to 70 percent of the contracted lump sum amount of $309,581. The Applicant later resumed its debris removal operations with a new contractor. On July 10, 2006, the Applicant requested an additional $179,007 for cost overruns. FEMA denied the Applicants request on December 21, 2006, because the work had been accepted as complete and additional debris removal was ineligible.
In its first appeal, the Applicant stated that the approved scope of work included the removal of 14,485 CY of debris from the basin and the increased costs were for the removal of the remaining debris deposited by the disaster. However, the Applicant did not document the amount of debris removed by the second contractor. On September 19, 2007, the appeal was partially granted for $92,874, the difference between the originally contracted lump sum amount of $309,581 and the $216,706 already paid to the first contractor by the Applicant.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on November 8, 2007. The Applicant stated that it should be paid for the actual cost of the debris removal. However, the Applicant did not provide documentation for the second phase of the debris removal, failed to provide a copy of the contract with its new contractor, and did not document the amount of additional debris that was removed to ensure that the debris removal did not exceed the scope of work for PW 334.
Issues: Did the Applicant provide sufficient documentation?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.204 (e)(2)
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1577-DR |
| Applicant | County of Santa Barbara |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 083-99083-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 334 |
| Date Signed | 2008-07-14T04:00:00 |
95 percent of the basins capacity. FEMA prepared PW 334 for eligible costs associated with the removal of an estimated 14,485 cubic yards (CYs) of debris. Debris removal began on January 26, 2005, and was halted following heavy rains in February 2005, with only 70 percent of the work complete. The Applicant paid its debris contractor $216,706, equivalent to 70 percent of the contracted lump sum amount of $309,581. The Applicant later resumed its debris removal operations with a new contractor. On July 10, 2006, the Applicant requested an additional $179,007 for cost overruns. FEMA denied the Applicants request on December 21, 2006, because the work had been accepted as complete and additional debris removal was ineligible.
In its first appeal, the Applicant stated that the approved scope of work included the removal of 14,485 CY of debris from the basin and the increased costs were for the removal of the remaining debris deposited by the disaster. However, the Applicant did not document the amount of debris removed by the second contractor. On September 19, 2007, the appeal was partially granted for $92,874, the difference between the originally contracted lump sum amount of $309,581 and the $216,706 already paid to the first contractor by the Applicant.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on November 8, 2007. The Applicant stated that it should be paid for the actual cost of the debris removal. However, the Applicant did not provide documentation for the second phase of the debris removal, failed to provide a copy of the contract with its new contractor, and did not document the amount of additional debris that was removed to ensure that the debris removal did not exceed the scope of work for PW 334.
Appeal Letter
July 14, 2008
Frank McCarton
Acting Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second AppealCounty of Santa Barbara, PA ID 083-99083-00, Debris Removal,
FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 334
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This is in response to a letter from your office dated December 27, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the County of Santa Barbara (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) partial denial for increased funding to complete the scope of work detailed in PW 334.
Heavy rains and flooding from December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005, deposited rock, sediment, and other debris into the San Pasqual debris basin and its adjoining Rodeo Channel, impeding 95 percent of the basins 15,250 cubic yard (CY) capacity. FEMA originally prepared PW 334 to reimburse the Applicant for eligible costs associated with the removal of an estimated 14,485 CY of debris. The Applicant contracted with Granite Construction Company (Granite), and debris removal began on January 26, 2005. Following heavy rains in February 2005, the Applicant halted the work when it was only 70 percent complete. The Applicant terminated its contract with Granite on March 11, 2005, and subsequently paid Granite $216,706, equivalent to 70 percent of the contracted lump sum amount of $309,581, for the work that was actually completed. FEMA prepared another version of PW 334 to reimburse the Applicant $267,368 in actual costs for contracted work and eligible force account labor. The Applicant later resumed its debris removal operations with a new contractor. On July 10, 2006, the Applicant requested additional funding for cost overruns of $152,705 related to PW 334. FEMA denied the Applicants request on December 21, 2006, because the work had been accepted as complete at 70 percent and additional debris removal was ineligible.
The Applicant appealed this decision on January 19, 2007, and argued that FEMA misinterpreted the intent of the notice that it sent to Granite to terminate its contract. The Applicant stated that the approved scope of work for PW 334 included the removal of 14,485 CY of debris from the basin to restore it to its pre-disaster condition. The Applicant maintained that the increased costs were for the removal of the remaining debris deposited by the disaster. The Deputy
Regional Administrator agreed that the work had not been completed by March 11, 2005, and the cost to remove all 14,485 CY of the disaster-related debris is eligible. However, the Applicant did not provide documentation for the second phase of the debris removal. The Applicant did not provide a copy of the contract that it let with its new contractor. Moreover, the Applicant did not document the amount of additional debris that was removed to ensure that the debris removal did not exceed the scope of work for PW 334. Consequently, FEMA could not determine whether the requested $152,705 represents the actual additional cost of completing the scope of work for PW 334, or whether it includes additional cost to remove debris that may have been deposited after the declared disaster. In the absence of documentation to verify the volume of debris removed in the second phase of work, FEMA estimated the cost required to complete the debris removal, based on the original lump sum contract of $309,581. Therefore, on
September 19, 2007, the appeal was partially granted for $92,874, the difference between the contracted lump sum amount of $309,581 and the $216,706 already paid to Granite by the Applicant. The Deputy Regional Administrator explained that the lack of documentation served as the basis for this decision, in the response to the Applicants first appeal.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on November 8, 2007. The Applicant maintained that all of the debris removed is the direct result of the declared disaster. The Applicant claimed that subsequent storms did not deposit new debris into the channel. In order to support its claim, the Applicant submitted daily rainfall records from September 2004 through August 2005. The Applicants flood control maintenance superintendent stated that new debris did not enter the basin as a result of storms following the incident period. The Applicant also submitted a statement from Granite, which affirms that it removed 10,600 CY of debris by March 11, 2005. However, the Applicant did not provide any documentation that addressed the points, pertaining to the second phase of debris removal, identified in the first appeal decision.
I have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, the Applicants second appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Frank McCarton
Acting Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second AppealCounty of Santa Barbara, PA ID 083-99083-00, Debris Removal,
FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 334
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This is in response to a letter from your office dated December 27, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the County of Santa Barbara (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) partial denial for increased funding to complete the scope of work detailed in PW 334.
Heavy rains and flooding from December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005, deposited rock, sediment, and other debris into the San Pasqual debris basin and its adjoining Rodeo Channel, impeding 95 percent of the basins 15,250 cubic yard (CY) capacity. FEMA originally prepared PW 334 to reimburse the Applicant for eligible costs associated with the removal of an estimated 14,485 CY of debris. The Applicant contracted with Granite Construction Company (Granite), and debris removal began on January 26, 2005. Following heavy rains in February 2005, the Applicant halted the work when it was only 70 percent complete. The Applicant terminated its contract with Granite on March 11, 2005, and subsequently paid Granite $216,706, equivalent to 70 percent of the contracted lump sum amount of $309,581, for the work that was actually completed. FEMA prepared another version of PW 334 to reimburse the Applicant $267,368 in actual costs for contracted work and eligible force account labor. The Applicant later resumed its debris removal operations with a new contractor. On July 10, 2006, the Applicant requested additional funding for cost overruns of $152,705 related to PW 334. FEMA denied the Applicants request on December 21, 2006, because the work had been accepted as complete at 70 percent and additional debris removal was ineligible.
The Applicant appealed this decision on January 19, 2007, and argued that FEMA misinterpreted the intent of the notice that it sent to Granite to terminate its contract. The Applicant stated that the approved scope of work for PW 334 included the removal of 14,485 CY of debris from the basin to restore it to its pre-disaster condition. The Applicant maintained that the increased costs were for the removal of the remaining debris deposited by the disaster. The Deputy
Regional Administrator agreed that the work had not been completed by March 11, 2005, and the cost to remove all 14,485 CY of the disaster-related debris is eligible. However, the Applicant did not provide documentation for the second phase of the debris removal. The Applicant did not provide a copy of the contract that it let with its new contractor. Moreover, the Applicant did not document the amount of additional debris that was removed to ensure that the debris removal did not exceed the scope of work for PW 334. Consequently, FEMA could not determine whether the requested $152,705 represents the actual additional cost of completing the scope of work for PW 334, or whether it includes additional cost to remove debris that may have been deposited after the declared disaster. In the absence of documentation to verify the volume of debris removed in the second phase of work, FEMA estimated the cost required to complete the debris removal, based on the original lump sum contract of $309,581. Therefore, on
September 19, 2007, the appeal was partially granted for $92,874, the difference between the contracted lump sum amount of $309,581 and the $216,706 already paid to Granite by the Applicant. The Deputy Regional Administrator explained that the lack of documentation served as the basis for this decision, in the response to the Applicants first appeal.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on November 8, 2007. The Applicant maintained that all of the debris removed is the direct result of the declared disaster. The Applicant claimed that subsequent storms did not deposit new debris into the channel. In order to support its claim, the Applicant submitted daily rainfall records from September 2004 through August 2005. The Applicants flood control maintenance superintendent stated that new debris did not enter the basin as a result of storms following the incident period. The Applicant also submitted a statement from Granite, which affirms that it removed 10,600 CY of debris by March 11, 2005. However, the Applicant did not provide any documentation that addressed the points, pertaining to the second phase of debris removal, identified in the first appeal decision.
I have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, the Applicants second appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Last updated