Debris Removal

March 8, 2010

Kathleen Shingledecker

Deputy State Coordinating Officer

Department of Emergency Management

2401 N. Lincoln

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Re:  Second Appeal–City of Stroud, PA ID 081-71000-00, Debris Removal,

       FEMA-1735-DR-OK, Project Worksheet (PW) 690

Dear Ms. Shingledecker:

This letter is in response to your letter dated July 31, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Stroud (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of an additional $32,636 for debris monitoring services under PW 690.

Background

An ice storm from December 8, 2007, to January 3, 2008, deposited large quantities of vegetative debris, including hanging limbs and leaning trees, in the Applicant’s maintained and owned properties.  On January 6, 2008, FEMA met with representatives of the Applicant and the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management (ODEM) to discuss the debris removal eligibility, including monitoring.  The Applicant signed a Local Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Chandler on January 10, 2008, wherein the Applicant agreed to use Chandler’s procurement process and contractor for debris removal and debris monitoring.  On January 14, 2008, the Applicant selected Danos Disaster Response and Recovery (Danos), the City of Chandler’s contractor, to monitor debris removal operations in the city.  The contract was a time and materials contract with a ceiling of $42,364.  FEMA approved PW 690 for $42,364 for debris monitoring services.  The Applicant amended the contract with Danos to increase the contract ceiling to $75,000 on February 6, 2008.  On May 13, 2008, ODEM reviewed the Applicant’s document during closeout of PW 690 and observed that the Applicant was invoiced for $79,010 on the contract.  ODEM requested that FEMA prepare a PW to obligate an additional $32,636 for a total project cost of $75,000.  FEMA denied the request for an additional $32,636 for debris monitoring services. 

The Applicant submitted a first appeal dated May 23, 2008, requesting the additional $32,636.  In a letter dated April 3, 2009, the Acting Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because he determined that the Applicant improperly procured the monitoring contract, the claimed amount exceeded the contract ceiling, and the contractor did not meet the contract requirements. 

The Acting Regional Administrator also stated that FEMA staff had file memos and photos that indicated that Danos credited loads with larger volume of debris than FEMA validated and that the debris removal contractor removed ineligible debris from private property and undeveloped areas.  Danos allowed the debris removed from private property and from undeveloped lots as eligible debris.  Further, the Acting Regional Administrator noted that the debris monitors that the Applicant hired to document debris removal operations and ensure that the debris removal contractor  performed eligible work did not write load tickets at points of origin, thereby allowing ineligible debris to be invoiced.  Because of these irregularities, FEMA determined that the cost approved in PW 690 was reasonable.  The Applicant submitted its second appeal in a letter dated May 29, 2009. 

Discussion

The ODEM auditors reviewed the Applicant’s documentation and identified $79,010 in contractor fees.  OEM did not submit any information to demonstrate that it evaluated the work that the contractor performed for eligibility under the Public Assistance Program.  The Applicant’s contract with Danos states in part, “Field monitors will perform roving on-site, street-level work area inspections of debris cleanup and collection.  Field Monitors will also inspect and control debris collection utilizing manifest load tickets.  Field monitor responsibilities include:

·         Field monitor personnel at designated areas to check and verify information on debris removal

·         Monitor collection activity of trucks

·         Issue manifest load tickets at loading site for each load (emphasis added)

·         Properly monitor and record performance and productivity of debris removal crew…

·         Ensure only eligible debris is collected for loading and hauling

·         Ensure only eligible debris from approved public areas is loaded and removed….”

The Applicant requested reimbursement for the removal of 51,593 cubic yards of disaster-related debris.  Based on irregularities that FEMA staff observed in the field and shared with the Applicant and ODEM, FEMA determined that only 30,580 CY were eligible disaster-related debris.  Some of the irregularities included:

·         On January 17, 2008, FEMA staff measured a debris pile at a dumpsite to be approximately 10,817 CY.  The debris monitor stated that the load tickets issued for that debris totaled 29,032 CY.

On January 21, 2008, FEMA staff observed that the operator of truck #6814 with a capacity of 58 cubic yards pulling trailer #6815 with a capacity of 52 cubic yards pick up approximately 22 cubic yards of debris from roadside located near Cedar Street and Second Street and loaded it in the truck and trailer.  At the dumpsite, the monitor wrote ticket # 1672 and #1673 recording 52 cubic yards of debris for the truck and 50 yards of debris for the trailer

·         On January 28, 2008, FEMA observed truck #6832 rated at 44 CY capacity receive load ticket #2364 at the tower for 39 CY of debris.  The FEMA monitor measured the dumped load as 16 CY.

·         Monitors routinely wrote load tickets at the dump site instead of at the collection points.

These above irregularities indicate that Danos did not perform its debris monitoring responsibilities in accordance with the contract.  Danos certified that the debris contractor removed 51,593 CY of eligible disaster-related debris, while FEMA determined that only 30,580 CY were eligible, approximately 40 percent less.  Federal regulations and Public Assistance Program policy require eligible costs to be reasonable.   FEMA has determined that the original estimate for monitoring services ($42,364) is reasonable for the volume of eligible debris removed.

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the second appeal and determined that the Acting Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.  Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc:   Tony Russell

       Regional Administrator

       FEMA Region VI