Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 037-99037-00; County of Los Angeles
PW ID# PW 3119; Camp Louis Routh Waterline
June 4, 2009
Governors Authorized Representative
California Emergency Management Agency
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second AppealCounty of Los Angeles, PA ID 037-99037-00, Camp Louis Routh Waterline
, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 3119
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This is in response to a letter from your office, dated November 22, 2006, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the County of Los Angeles (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of additional funding for permanent repairs to its Camp Louis Routh waterline.
Heavy water flows caused by the January 2005 winter storms washed out approximately 500 feet of Big Tujunga Canyon Road, including a four-inch waterline embedded below the surface. On August 31, 2005, FEMA prepared PW 3119 for $18,813 to replace the waterline.
The Applicant contested the approved scope of work in its first appeal, submitted March 1, 2006. According to the Applicant, FEMA neglected to include the cost of a temporary waterline to provide potable water, design costs, permitting fees levied by the City of Los Angeles, and the chlorination and testing of the waterline after it was installed. The Applicant estimated that the project would cost $75,508 to complete. The Acting Regional Director determined that the additional costs cited by the Applicant are eligible and may be included in an appeal for a net cost overrun of all of the Applicants small projects. The Applicant also contended that 600 feet of waterline was necessary to permanently repair the damaged waterline rather than the approved 500 feet. However, the Acting Regional Director denied the Applicants appeal on
August 14, 2006, because the Applicant did not report any additional damages within the regulatory timeframe and failed to provide supporting documentation to substantiate the increase in the cost estimate.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on September 22, 2006. The Applicant stated that the additional 100 feet of waterline does not represent additional damage. The additional footage is necessary to securely connect the 500-foot replacement section to the rest of the waterline and
follow the path of the roadway. The Applicant provided photographs, a global positioning system survey, and waterline plans and a permit application approved by the City of Los Angeles to support its claim. The Applicant also stated that the project estimate it submitted in its first appeal was not itemized because it used a lump sum contract. The Applicant noted that FEMA accepts lump sum contracts and provided documentation that the contract was competitively procured. The Applicant maintained that PW 3119 should be amended to reflect the additional factors and costs referenced in its first appeal and processed as a large project.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal. The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that 600 feet is necessary to replace the waterline and does not represent an additional 100 feet of damage. I have determined that the additional project costs specified in the appeal are eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance program. Due to the changes in the approved scope of work, I have also determined that this PW is a large project and should be processed accordingly. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement my decision.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.
James A. Walke
Acting Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Nancy Ward
FEMA Region IX