La Purisima Mission

November 4, 2013

Mark S. Ghilarducci
Secretary
California Emergency Management Agency
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655

Re:  Second Appeal–California Department of Parks and Recreation, PA ID 000-U8RA6-00, La Purisima Mission, FEMA-1505-DR-CA, Project Worksheets (PWs) 219 and 223                                  

Dear Mr. Ghilarducci:

This is in response to a letter from your office dated January 25, 2013, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of California Department of Parks and Recreation (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $43,957 and $146,842 in funding for cost overruns for PW 219 and PW 223, respectively. 

Background

On December 22, 2003, the 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 building and cemetery. 

The Applicant requested additional funding at close-out for 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. 

First Appeal

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 in PWs 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.

Second Appeal

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 California Emergency Management Agency representative inspected and acknowledged all additional damage. 

Discussion

According to Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.204(e), Project performance, Cost overruns, all requests for additional funding for cost overruns must contain sufficient documentation to support the eligibility of all claimed work and costs. (See also, 44 CFR 13.30, changes.) The Applicant has submitted documentation summarizing its costs claimed; however, it has not provided documentation showing or quantifying the hidden damage.  The Applicant submitted a conceptual cost estimate that includes a summary of each item of work necessary to complete the repair of damage quantified based on field observations.  The notes provided with the estimate state that “actual repair quantities may increase based on the nature of restoration work” and “change orders will be provided for all work exceeding the following estimated scope quantities.”  The Applicant has not submitted change orders that document the increased scope quantities required to repair the hidden damage.  Without sufficient supporting documentation, evaluation of claimed costs in relation to general eligibility criteria is not possible.

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrator’s decisions in the first appeal are consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.  Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.

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

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah Ingram
Assistant Administrator
Recovery Directorate

cc:  Nancy Ward
      Regional Administrator
      FEMA Region IX