alert - warning

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

Scope of Work

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1684-DR
ApplicantCity of Wilkes-Barre
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#079-85152-00
PW ID#119
Date Signed2010-01-11T05:00:00

Citation:       FEMA-1684-DR-PA, City of Wilkes-Barre, Scope of Work, PW 119
Cross-
Reference:
   Work Eligibility, Time Limitation, Net Small Project  Overrun
Summary:    As a result of the November 2006 flooding in the city of Wilkes-Barre (Applicant), FEMA prepared PW 119 to remove debris from Laurel Run and Mill Creek.  The eligible disaster-related debris totaled 473 cubic yards (CY).  PW 119 specifically identified locations where eligible debris was to be removed.  The intent was not to remove all of the debris that was present, but to remove sufficient disaster-related debris to eliminate an immediate threat.  The small project was obligated for $20,550.
In the first appeal submitted on October 17, 2008, the Applicant requested to change the Scope of Work (SOW).  The Applicant provided information that additional disaster related debris costing $322,528 for 10,308 cubic yards (CY) of debris was removed.  FEMA denied the appeal, concluding that PW 119 provided a reasonable allowance for disaster related debris removal that could constitute an immediate threat.  It should be noted that PW 119 was approved on March 24, 2007.  Regulations governing the submittal of appeals specifically allow up to 60 days from the grant award was approved.  In this case, the Applicant is well over the timeframe for regulatory deadline.
As part of the second appeal, the Applicant provided the following:  invoices and load sheets, maps referencing location, and a summary of cost for the additional debris removal.  The Applicant did not provide adequate information to justify that the additional debris removal was necessary to eliminate an immediate threat. 
Issues:         1. Did the Applicant establish that the additional debris removed was necessary to eliminate an immediate threat?  
                    2. Did the Applicant submit its appeal within the regulatory timeline?
Findings:       1. No.  The Applicant did not provide adequate documentation to prove that the additional work was necessary to eliminate an immediate threat. 
                    2. No.  The appeal was submitted over one year beyond the regulatory deadline.
Rationale:     Stafford Act, Section 403 (a) (3) (A) (I), 44 CFR § 206.204 (e) (2) Project Performance, Cost Overrun, 44 CFR § 206.206 (c) Appeals, Time Limits, 44 CFR § 206.224 (a) (1) Debris Removal, August, 1999 FEMA Policy 9524.3, Rehabilitation Assistance for Levees and Other Flood Control Works

 

Appeal Letter

January 11, 2010

 

 

John Forr

Alternate Governor’s Authorized Representative

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency

2605 Interstate Drive

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-9364

 

Re:  Second Appeal–City of Wilkes-Barre, PA ID 079-85152-00, Scope of Work,

        FEMA-1684-DR-PA, Project Worksheet (PW) 119

 

Dear Mr. Forr:

This is in response to your letter dated January 27, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeals on behalf of the City of Wilkes-Barre (Applicant).  The Applicant appealed the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of the change in the scope of work for debris removal from Laurel Run and Mill Creek.

On February 23, 2007, the President declared a major disaster for severe storms and flooding that occurred in Pennsylvania on November 16-17, 2006.  FEMA prepared PW 119 for the removal of disaster related debris from Laurel Run and Mill Creek.  The scope of work specifically designated areas for debris to be removed to eliminate an immediate threat.  FEMA funded $20,550 to remove 473 cubic yards (CY) of debris.  The Applicant submitted documentation indicating that 10,308 CY of debris were removed for a total cost of $322,528.

The Applicant submitted its first appeal in a letter dated October 17, 2008, requesting a change in the scope of work, from a small project to a large project.  Specifically, the Applicant claimed that all of the debris was disaster-related.  The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal; because the Applicant did not provide documentation to support that the additional debris removal work was required as a result of the disaster.  Further, the Applicant did not demonstrate that the additional debris removal was necessary for the channel to convey a five-year flood event, or that a five-year flood would cause any damage if the debris was not removed.  Additionally, the Regional Administrator pointed out that the appeal was submitted more than one year beyond the regulatory deadline.

In a letter dated February 13, 2009, the Applicant submitted its second appeal.  The Applicant argued that the debris was a result of the declared disaster and that its appeal was submitted within the 60-day regulatory period.

After a declared major disaster, FEMA may provide reimbursement to eligible applicants for costs incurred to remove debris when it is necessary to eliminate immediate threats to life, public health, and safety; or to eliminate immediate threats of significant damage to improved public or private property (44 CFR §206.224, Debris removal).  An immediate threat, as defined by 44 CFR § 206.221(c), Immediate threat, means the threat of additional damage or destruction from an event that can reasonably be expected to occur within five years or, in this case, a storm event that has a 20% chance of occurring annually.  The Applicant has not provided information to substantiate that the additional debris removal was necessary to eliminate an immediate threat.  Therefore, the removal of the additional debris is not eligible and expansion of the scope of work to include all debris removal from the Laurel Run and Mill Creek is not warranted. 

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

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

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc:  Patricia Arcuri

      Acting Regional Administrator

      FEMA Region III