Citation: FEMA-1763-DR-IA, City of Cedar Rapids, Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) Demolition and Debris Removal, Project Worksheets (PW) 10433, 10523, 10524, 10525, and 10445
Cross-Reference: Reasonable Cost, Procurement, Insurance
Summary: In June 2008, severe storms and flooding impacted the Applicant and caused extensive damage to the Sinclair Warehouse Complex (Sinclair). FEMA prepared PWs 10433, 10445, 10523, 10524, and 10525 to document disaster-related damage and eligible work at the facility. The Applicant’s Request for Bids (RFB) specified that the debris was to be disposed of at the Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency Landfill Site Number 1(Site No. 1). The Applicant received sealed bids with unit prices ranging from $65 per ton to $173 per ton for removal and disposal of debris. The Applicant rebid the project on March 5, 2010, and maintained the requirement for disposal at Site No. 1. In response to the second RFB, the Applicant received ten bids, ranging from $117 per ton to $135 per ton. This unit price now included the cost for demolition in addition to debris removal and disposal. The Applicant awarded the lowest bid to D.W. Zinser Company at $117 per ton, which included demolition, removal, and disposal of the RACM debris at Site No. 1.
FEMA determined that the Applicant’s procurement process violated Federal regulations, including that the Applicant’s requirement to dispose of the debris at Site No. 1 constituted a prohibited geographic preference. FEMA limited reimbursement to $65 per ton for removal and disposal of debris, based on the lowest price per ton in the initial bid proposals. FEMA denied the first appeal, citing these non-compliance issues. The Applicant’s second appeal requested reimbursement at the rate of $117 per ton, or alternatively, additional funding for demolition not included in the $65 per ton unit cost and additional monitoring costs that it claimed it would have incurred by utilizing the farther landfill.
Issues: 1. Did the Applicant’s use of Landfill Site No. 1 constitute a prohibited geographic preference?
2. Does the appeal documentation demonstrate eligible project costs?
Findings: 1. No.
2. The appeal documentation demonstrates that the additional $1.3 million for demolition are eligible. It does not demonstrate that the higher rate above the $65 per ton for debris removal approved in the first appeal is reasonable and is therefore not eligible.
Rationale: 44 CFR §13.36(c), Competition; 44 CFR §13.43, Enforcement; and 44 CFR §206.206(b), Levels of Appeal.