Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 081-71000-00; City of Stroud
PW ID# 690; Debris Removal
Citation: FEMA-1735-DR-OK, City of Stroud, PW 690
Reference: Debris Removal
Summary: An ice storm from December 8, 2007, through January 3, 2008, deposited large quantities of vegetative debris in the Applicant’s maintained and owned properties. FEMA prepared PW 690 for the debris monitoring service. The state of Oklahoma Department Emergency Management (DOEM) audit suggested that FEMA increase the eligible funding amount to $75,000. However, the additional funding was denied because of what appeared to be a “piggyback” contract the amount of the claim exceeded the maximum amount stated in the contract; and the monitors not meeting contract requirements in the field writing load tickets at loading sites. In addition, FEMA file memos and photos, demonstrate that the contractor loads were “fluffed” to exaggerate actual volume; ineligible debris was removed from private property and undeveloped areas; and monitors did not write load tickets at point of origins thereby allowing ineligible debris to be invoiced.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal dated May 29, 2009. The Applicant provided a copy of a February 6, 2008, addendum to the monitoring contract, increasing the cost ceiling from $42,364 to $75,000. FEMA 322 Public Assistance Guide and FEMA 325 Public Assistance Debris Management Guide, both clearly state that if FEMA receives a request for reimbursement of costs derived from a piggyback contract, FEMA will review eligible work performed and determine reasonable costs on a case-by-case basis. In this instance the Applicant failed to provide documentation that the increased monitoring cost are reasonable for the eligible volume of debris.
Issue: Is the additional monitoring cost reasonable?
Rationale: 44 Code of Federal Regulations §206.224 Debris removal