alert - warning

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

Debris Removal

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1539-DR
ApplicantCity of Cape Coral
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#071-10275-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 5192
Date Signed2008-06-30T04:00:00
Citation: City of Cape Coral, FEMA-1539-DR-FL, Debris Removal
Project Worksheet (PW) 5192

Cross-reference: Debris Removal

Summary: In August 2004, Hurricane Charley generated in excess of 400,000 cubic yards of debris throughout the City of Cape Coral. The City of Cape Coral (Applicant) hired an engineering firm to monitor the debris removal effort by “piggy-backing” on an existing contract between Lee County and the engineering firm. FEMA determined the hourly rates for the debris monitors, principal engineer, and clerical staff charged by the engineering firm, were unreasonable. FEMA reduced the hourly rates of $159, $75, and $42 for principal engineer, debris monitor, and clerical staff, respectively, to $138, $47, and $40, and obligated Project Worksheet (PW) 5192 for $179,237.
On December 14, 2005, the Applicant submitted a first appeal for $94,810, the amount disallowed by FEMA. The Applicant claimed that the costs were eligible because it was for work that was a direct result of the disaster, within the designated disaster area, and its legal responsibility. The Regional Director denied the appeal stating that the appeal did not contain documentation justifying the labor rates, and the scope of work of the “piggy-back” contract did not specifically address debris monitoring.
In a letter dated April 10, 2007, the Applicant submitted its second appeal stating that if it had not opted to “piggy-back” the existing contract Lee County had with the engineering firm, it would have taken a minimum of six weeks to request bids in accordance with its procurement procedures. The Applicant did not want to delay the clean-up process because the health, welfare, and safety of its citizens were at risk. Further, the Applicant believed the rates charged by the firm were reasonable because the rates were the same as those charged to Lee County. The firm did not increase the rates due to the disaster. The Applicant submitted a Supplemental Task Authorization to the contract dated August 26, 2004, supporting that debris monitoring was added as a contract scope of work item.

Issues: Are the contract hourly rates eligible for Public Assistance?
Findings: Yes.
Rationale: 44 CFR §13.36; 44 CFR §206.224

Appeal Letter

June 30, 2008

W. Craig Fugate
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Re: Second Appeal—City of Cape Coral, PA ID 071-10275-00
Debris Removal
, FEMA-1539-DR-FL, Project Worksheet (PW) 5192

Dear Mr. Fugate:

This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal forwarded by your office on April 26, 2007. The City of Cape Coral (Applicant) is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of its first appeal. The Applicant requests $94,810 for the monitoring of city-wide debris operations.
In August 2004, Hurricane Charley generated in excess of 400,000 cubic yards of debris throughout the City of Cape Coral. The Applicant hired an engineering firm to monitor the debris removal effort by “piggy-backing” onto an existing contract between Lee County and the engineering firm. The Applicant claimed a total of $274,047 based on invoices paid for labor and travel expenses for the debris monitors. FEMA determined that the hourly rates for the debris monitors, principal engineer, and clerical staff charged by the engineering firm were unreasonable. FEMA reduced the hourly rates of $159, $75, and $42 for principal engineer, debris monitor, and clerical staff, respectively, to $138, $47, and $40, and obligated Project Worksheet (PW) 5192 for $179,237.

In a letter dated December 14, 2005, the Applicant submitted its first appeal for $94,810, the amount disallowed by FEMA. The Applicant claimed that the cost was eligible because it was for work that was a direct result of the disaster, within the designated disaster area, and its legal responsibility. In a letter dated November 8, 2006, the Regional Director denied the appeal stating that the appeal did not contain documentation justifying the labor rates, and the scope of work of the “piggy-back” contract did not specifically address debris monitoring.

In a letter dated April 10, 2007, the Applicant submitted its second appeal. The Applicant stated that if it had not opted to “piggy-back” the existing contract Lee County had with the engineering firm, it would have taken a minimum of six weeks to request bids in accordance with its procurement procedures. The Applicant did not want to delay the clean-up process, because the health, welfare, and safety of its citizens were at risk. Further, the Applicant believed the rates
charged by the firm were reasonable because the rates were the same as those charged to Lee County. The firm did not increase the rates due to the disaster. With its appeal, the Applicant submitted a Supplemental Task Authorization to the contract dated August 26, 2004, to demonstrate that debris monitoring was added as a contract scope of work item prior to the start of the work, which was in early September 2004.

We have reviewed the Applicant’s debris monitoring costs and have determined that they are comparable to costs for similar work in the area. Therefore, the costs are reasonable and eligible. Accordingly, I am granting this appeal for $94,810. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this determination.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV