alert - warning

This page has not been translated into العربية. Visit the العربية page for resources in that language.

Net Small Project Overrun

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1044-DR
ApplicantUniversity of California, Los Angeles
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-92040
PW ID#19405
Date Signed2000-03-10T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA, University of California, Los Angeles

Cross-reference: Net Small Project Cost Overrun, Time Limitations

Summary: As a result of the severe winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1044 winter storm event, water infiltration damaged the floor and ceiling of the University of California, Los Angeles's (UCLA) Venice Dental Clinic. FEMA prepared Damage Survey Report (DSR) 19405 for $2,914, to remove 1540 square feet of floor tile, paint 771 square feet of the interior, repair the roof drains and replace 100 square feet of suspended ceiling tiles. The applicant completed the project on December 31, 1998, and submitted a Project Completion and Certification Report to FEMA on February 25, 1999. On the report, UCLA claimed $122,103 in actual costs, which included costs for roof replacement and waterproofing/sealing the entire concrete floor. In a letter dated March 26, 1999, the applicant stated that damages that were previously hidden were discovered in the course of repair. Upon appeal, UCLA recalculated the total expenditure for the project to be $127,190.49 and requested supplemental funding of $124,276.49. In a letter dated May 27, 1999, the Disaster Recovery Manager determined that the subgrantee had exceeded the approved scope of work addressed under DSR 19405 by performing work above and beyond what was eligible. OES forwarded the appeal with a letter stating that they are "unable to support the additional costs requested by the University."

Issues: Is the cost of replacing the roof and sealing/waterproofing of the floor eligible for reimbursement?

Findings: No, the subgrantee failed to notify either OES or FEMA of hidden damages to the facility and failed to request a change in the approved scope of work. Funding for this project is limited to the repairs defined by the approved scope of work on DSR 19405.

Rationale: 44 CFR 206.202 (d), 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), 44 CFR 206.204(e).

Appeal Letter

March 10, 2000

Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3673

Re: Second Appeal - University of California, Los Angeles, Net Small Project Overrun (DSR 19405), FEMA-1044-DR-CA; P.A. ID: 000-92040

Dear Mr. Christian:

This is in response to the referenced second appeal submitted by your office on September 17, 1999 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on behalf of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In the letter forwarding the second appeal, you state that California's Office of Emergency Services (OES) is "unable to support the additional costs requested by the University" for a net small project overrun.

Damage Survey Report (DSR) 19405 was prepared for $2,914, to remove 1540 square feet of floor tile, replace 100 square feet of ceiling tiles, roof repair and interior painting. Upon close-out of the subgrantee's application, UCLA requested $124,276.49 in supplemental funding for waterproofing and sealing the floor slab and roof removal and replacement. As explained in the enclosed analysis, because the subgrantee failed to notify the State or FEMA of the additional damages and any change in scope of work, as set forth in 44 CFR 206.202(d), I have concluded that the expanded scope of work completed by the subgrantee constitutes an improved project. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), Federal disaster assistance is limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate on DSR 19405. Therefore, FEMA cannot provide any additional funding for this project.

Accordingly, the subgrantee's appeal is denied. Please inform the applicant of this determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

Background

As a result of the severe winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1044-DR-CA winter storm event, water infiltration damaged the floor and ceiling of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Venice Dental Clinic. On May 4, 1995, a FEMA, State and local representative surveyed the damages. FEMA prepared Damage Survey Report (DSR) 19405 for $2,914 to remove 1540 square feet of floor tile, paint 771 square feet of the interior, repair the roof drains and replace 100 square feet of suspended ceiling tiles. Subsequently, the applicant was granted a time extension of 30 additional months to complete the permanent work project. The project was completed on December 31, 1998, and the applicant submitted a Project Completion and Certification Report to FEMA on February 25, 1999.

In the report, UCLA claimed $122,103 in actual costs, which included costs for roof replacement and waterproofing/sealing the entire concrete floor. In a letter dated May 27, 1999, the Disaster Recovery Manager determined that the subgrantee had exceeded the approved scope of work addressed under DSR 19405 by performing work above and beyond what was eligible.

Second Appeal
UCLA submitted its second appeal to California's Office of Emergency Services (OES) in four separate letters dated July 6, 1999, July 13, 1999, July 13, 1999, and August 2, 1999. In the letters the applicant claimed that they discovered additional damages during the course of repairs, had recalculated total project cost to be $127,190.29, and requested $124,276.49 in supplemental funds. According to UCLA, the inspection team documented only areas with obvious water damage where ceiling tiles had fallen and where floor tiles were discolored from the water. The team had excluded damage to the roof and slab because the roof was never inspected and water damage under the floor tiles was not visible at the time of the inspection. UCLA stated that they were able to assess the full extent of building damages after repairs had begun.

The applicant contends that significant amounts of water seeping through the roof, running down walls, and under the flooring, necessitated replacement of the majority of floor tiles, painting of walls, and waterproofing/sealing the underlying slab. Moreover, UCLA stated that the extraordinarily heavy rainfall overwhelmed the roof and drainage system causing large amounts of standing water to accumulate. As a result, the roof sagged and leaked in several places. UCLA determined that the damaged roof created a life threatening and dangerous situation requiring the evacuation of the clinic for two weeks to avoid potential injury to staff and patients. Consequently, UCLA replaced the entire roof. To support its claim, UCLA provided an analysis by Floor Seal Technology that discussed the water damage to the floor. UCLA also included a worksheet prepared by its Facilities Manager, Greg Elmore, that the applicant claims was drafted after an inspection of the building by an OES Applicant Service Representative, as well as a map prepared by Mr. Elmore outlining areas affected by the torrential rains and resulting standing water.

Discussion

OES forwarded the subgrantee's second appeal to FEMA on September 7, 1999, with a letter stating that it was unable to support the applicant's appeal. The Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR) noted that the Facilities Manager's worksheet, dated January 1995, was developed prior to the May 4, 1995, preparation of DSR 19405 and only recommends the replacement of 1540 square feet of floor tile and the replacement of 100 square feet of "old ceiling tiles." Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.202 (d) the authorized local representative is responsible for representing the applicant and ensuring that all eligible work and costs are identified at the time of inspection.

Additionally, the applicant is required to immediately notify the grantee or FEMA of any change in scope of work throughout the progress of its project to allow for a reinspection of the facility to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements. According to 44 CFR 206.204 (e) Cost Overruns -
During the execution of approved work a subgrantee may find that actual project costs are exceeding the approved DSR estimates.The subgrantee shall evaluate each cost overrun and, when justified, submit a request for additional funding through the grantee to the [Regional Director] RD for a final determination. All requests for the RD's approval shall contain sufficient documentation to support the eligibility of all claimed work and costs.However, in the instant case, the subgrantee did not appeal the approved scope of work of DSR 19405 nor did it submit a request for supplement. Although the subgrantee states that it discovered additional damage once repairs had begun, the subgrantee did not notify the State or FEMA when the additional damage was discovered. While the subgrantee has provided documentation to support the costs claimed for this project, the worksheet, map, and calcium chloride analysis do not sufficiently demonstrate that (1) the hidden damages were the result of the disaster, or (2) that the additional costs were necessary to return the facility to its pre-disaster condition. Therefore FEMA can not consider these costs eligible for federal disaster assistance.

Conclusion

OES notified UCLA of the approval of DSR 19405 in a letter dated September 6, 1996. UCLA did not dispute the scope of work or amount funded, or submit an appeal within the 60 days allowed to appeal FEMA's final eligibility determination. Our records indicate that UCLA did not provide any written notification of hidden damages until March 26, 1999, three months after repairs were completed. The subgrantee did not request additional funding until closeout of its disaster application was initiated. Therefore, this appeal is denied.