Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 000-U8RA6-00; California Department of Parks and Recreation
PW ID# 219 and 223; La Purisima Mission
Citation: FEMA-1505-DR-CA, California Department of Parks and Recreation, La Purisima Mission, Project Worksheets (PWs) 219 and 223
Summary: The December 22, 2003, San Simeon earthquake caused structural damage to various buildings located in the La Purisima Mission State Historic Park. FEMA prepared PW 219 for $214,714 for the repair of damaged adobe walls at the monastery and the girl’s dormitory and PW 223 for $130,057 for replacing damaged roof tiles and painting the damaged adobe walls at the church and cemetery. The Applicant requested additional funding to close-out PWs 219 and 223, $43,957 and $146,842, respectively, for cost overruns for the repair of the disaster damage. FEMA determined the cost overruns were associated with work outside of the scopes of work approved in PWs 219 and 223 and denied the request for funding. Further, the Applicant did not request FEMA to inspect the damage associated with the additional work prior to the completion of the repairs. The Applicant submitted a first appeal on January 23, 2012, stating that all work was identified and consistent with the scope of the work approved PWs in 219 and 223. The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the first appeal on September 10, 2012, stating that the work performed by the Applicant included repair work outside of the approved scopes of work. The Regional Administrator determined that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to identify or differentiate between the additional work performed by the Applicant and the approved scope of work. The Applicant submitted a second appeal on November 27, 2012, reiterating its first appeal position that all work completed was consistent with the approved scopes of work. The Applicant maintains that the cost overruns are related to two factors; (1) FEMA’s cost estimates were based on standard construction and did not account for work associated with historic preservation, and (2) the contractor found hidden damage during the construction. The Applicant states that the complete extent of the earthquake damage could not be ascertained by the initial, visual inspections and the repairs were necessary to preserve the structural integrity of the historic structures. Lastly, the Applicant states that a representative from your office inspected and acknowledged all additional damage.
Issue: Has the Applicant submitted documentation that demonstrates that the scope and cost of the additional work is eligible?
Rationale: Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.204(e), Project performance, Cost overruns