Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 109-99109-00; Pearl River County Board of Supervisors
PW ID# 8131, 8733, 8761, 8771 & 9471; Project Management Costs
Citation: FEMA-1604-DR-MS; Pearl River County Board of Supervisors (Applicant)
Reference: Project Management Costs; Administrative Allowance
Summary: Hurricane Katrina’s heavy rain and flooding coupled with the increased traffic of heavy equipment and vehicles performing debris removal activities caused damage to multiple roadways in Pearl River County. FEMA prepared five PWs to capture the work and costs necessary to restore the roadways to pre-disaster condition. The Applicant used force account labor, equipment and materials to repair the roads and culverts.
At final inspection, the Applicant submitted documentation of incurred expenses in the amount of $10,950 for what the Applicant claimed was project management performed by an independent contractor for the road projects. FEMA denied the Applicant’s cost and determined that the project management costs were not included in the approved scopes of work of the five PWs. Additionally, FEMA determined that the Applicant did not provide adequate documentation from the contractor specifying the daily hours worked and type of work performed.
In its first appeal dated July 8, 2010, the Applicant argued that FEMA and the State recommended that the Applicant hire someone to help with the paperwork associated with the PWs. In addition, the cost is less than what was paid for similar services on other projects. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal on March 11, 2011, stating that the project management activities claimed were actually grant administration activities which are funded by the administrative allowance on each PW. Furthermore, the Applicant had not provided documentation demonstrating that the contractor was performing tasks related to management of road construction projects.
In its second appeal dated September 3, 2010, the Applicant claims that the contractor monitored the work performed by the construction crews, verifying the workers and the equipment used to perform the work and then prepared the paperwork to submit to the State for reimbursement.
Issues: 1. Did the Applicant provide documentation demonstrating that the contractor performed eligible project management activities?
2. Did the Applicant relate the cost claimed to the eligible scope of work on the five PWs?
Findings: 1. No. The Applicant provided insufficient documentation to justify project management costs.
2. No. The Applicant did not submit any work logs or specific job details for the work the contractor performed for the five PWs.
Rationale: FEMA Response and Recovery Policy 9525.6 Project Supervision and Management Costs of Subgrantees, dated April 22, 2001, FEMA 322 Public Assistance Guide, Project Supervision and Grant Management Costs.