Parking Structure

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1577-DR
ApplicantSt. Jude Medical Center
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#059-0006B-00
PW ID#3080
Date Signed2010-08-12T04:00:00

Citation:         FEMA-1577-DR-CA, St. Jude Medical Center, Project Worksheet (PW) 3080

 

Cross -

Reference:      Eligible costs

 

Summary:       During the winter storms, excessive rains saturated soils in the open foundation of a parking structure at St. Jude Medical Center that was under construction.  FEMA prepared PW 3080 for $32,839 to reimburse the Applicant for soil removal, aeration, engineering, masonry work, and temporary labor overtime.  The Applicant claimed an additional $46,537 that included $40,818 for administrative services and $5,719 for various equipment, materials, and services.  In its first appeal, the Applicant stated that the subject costs were related to the performance of eligible work.  In its second appeal, the Applicant provided additional information including a contract change order that indicated the extra equipment and man hours, letters from the contractor insuring the contractors work was performed on disaster-related work, and a breakdown of the contractor’s hours and duties performed.  The Applicant provided a contract change order for $5,724 to repair the damaged that seems consistent with the scope of work of the repairs to the saturated soil in the open foundation.  In addition, $40,818 for project management cost not reasonable.  Three percent of project cost for project management is reasonable. 

 

Issue:              Did the Applicant relate the additional cost claimed to the eligible scope of work on PW 3080?

 

Finding:          Yes. $6,881 is eligible.

 

Rationale:       44 Code of Federal Regulations §206.223 (a) General Work Eligibility

 

 

Appeal Letter

August 12, 2010

 

 

Frank McCarton

Governor’s Authorized Representative

California Emergency Management Agency

Response and Recovery Division

3650 Schriever Avenue

Mather, CA 95665

 

RE:  Second Appeal–St. Jude Medical Center, PA ID 059-0006B-00,

        Parking Structure, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 3080

 

Dear Mr. McCarton:

 

This letter is in response to your letter dated January 18, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the St. Jude Medical Center (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision to deny $46,537 for additional costs associated with repairs to the saturated soil in the open foundation of the St. Jude Medical Center parking structure.

Background

During the winter storms from December 27, 2004 through January 11, 2005, excessive rains saturated soils in the open foundation of a parking structure at St. Jude Medical Center that was under construction.  FEMA prepared PW 3080 to reimburse the Applicant for soil removal and aeration costs of $29, 242, engineering costs of $640, overtime for masonry work of $1,304 and temporary labor overtime for the replacement of sandbags and piping of storm water of $1,653.  The Applicant claimed an additional $56,969 for materials, equipment, and services related to completion of the scope of work described in PW 3080.  FEMA determined the additional $56,969 was ineligible for funding because the Applicant did not sufficiently document that the additional costs were associated with damage caused by the disaster.  

On October 28, 2005, the Applicant submitted its first appeal to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (now the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA)).  The Applicant revised the amount under appeal to $46,537.  This amount included $40,818 for project management and $5,719 for various equipment and materials.  The Applicant provided documentation that it claimed supported its request.  CalEMA did not support the first appeal.  The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the first appeal in a letter dated September 21, 2006, reiterating that the Applicant did not sufficiently document that the subject costs were associated with damage caused by the disaster. 

On December 5, 2006, the Applicant submitted its second appeal arguing that the subject costs did correlate with the disaster related scope of work.  The Applicant provided additional information, including a contract change order for the extra equipment and man hours, letters from the contractor stating that the additional costs were incurred in the performance of  disaster- related work, and a breakdown of the contractor’s hours and duties performed.  In a letter dated January 18, 2007, CalEMA transmitted the second appeal to FEMA.  CalEMA supported the second appeal.

Discussion

The scope of work for PW 3080 included removing, aerating and replacing saturated soil; resetting survey monuments; performing expedited masonry work; pumping storm water, and placing sandbags.  Based on a review of the information submitted with the appeal, the contractor incurred an additional $5,724 to perform the eligible scope of work.  This amount is eligible for reimbursement.  However, the $40,818 for project management is over 100 percent of the cost to complete the scope of work and is excessive.  FEMA will provide three percent of project costs for project management, or $1,157.

Conclusion

Based on the documentation provided in the second appeal, I have determined that the Applicant incurred an additional $5,724 to perform the eligible scope of work.  In addition, $1,157 for project management costs is eligible.  Therefore, I partially approve the appeal for $6,881.  By copy of this letter, I request the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement this determination. 

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

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Recovery Directorate

cc:     Nancy Ward

         Regional Administrator

         Region IX

Last updated