Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 000-UZH9V-00; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks
PW ID# 2352; Lake Thomson Recreation Area
Citation: FEMA-1984-DR-SD, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Project Worksheet (PW) 2352
Cross-Reference: Documentation, Work Eligibility
Summary: Lake Thompson Recreation Area in Kingsbury County sustained damage as a result of rapid snowmelt in March 2011. After FEMA and one of the Applicant’s park managers inspected six damage sites with the recreation area on October 25, 2011, FEMA prepared PW 2352 in the amount of $11,493 to repair 1,532 feet of erosion to a walking path, replacement of sand at a volleyball court, repair of a 230 foot retaining wall, and restoration of embankment loss at three lake access sites. The Applicant requested a scope of work change to repair additional damage that the Applicant claimed the PW 2352 failed to capture. FEMA denied the Applicant’s request to increase the eligible amount to $226,691.
The Applicant submitted an appeal stating that PW 2352 did not account for all disaster-related damage. The appeal claimed additional costs at three of six sites, and documented and identified a seventh site. The Applicant submitted bids from various contractors for the installation of rip-rap in 2001, but did not include any design specifications. The Regional Administrator partially approved the appeal, noting that $8,432 for 2,720 feet of plank edging was omitted from the eligible work in the PW. The Regional Administrator denied the remainder of the Applicant’s request because the Applicant did not submit documentation demonstrating the design or condition of the facilities prior to the event, justifying the proposed scope of work, nor supporting the eligibility of the requested additional costs.
In the second appeal, the Applicant increased the requested amount to $228,921. The Applicant submitted photographs and a map of the Lake Thompson Recreation Area and to demonstrate damage to the facilities and locations of the permanent work. Also included were designs for the post-disaster rebuilding of the embankments and a cost tabulation for the revised scope based on unit costs. The Applicant also submitted a change order for the 2001 contract. The appeal did not contain specifications or as-built designs for the construction of the facilities, such as the trail or rip-rap slope protection.
Issue: Has the Applicant submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the additional costs requested are eligible for reimbursement?
Rationale: Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.204(e)(2), Project Performance, Cost Overruns