alert - warning

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

Documentation

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

Disaster1771-DR-IL
ApplicantCarman Township Road District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#071-U9VAW-00
PW ID#953
Date Signed2012-08-03T00:00:00

Citation:  FEMA-1771-DR-IL, Carman Township Road District, Documentation, Project Worksheet (PW) 953

Cross-
Reference:
  Documentation

Summary:  From June 1, 2008, to July 22, 2008, severe storms and flooding impacted the Applicant.  Flooding and standing floodwater caused damage to Carthage Lake Road.  A 1.07 mile section of the road was heavily traveled by fuel trucks hauling fuel to a damaged levee pump system.  The saturated road base materials and subgrade soils were not able to support the vehicular traffic and portions of the intact road surface and subsurface failed under the heavy loads.  A portion of the road remained underwater through late August 2008 and temporary repairs were also necessary to control the damage while the road was still underwater, because the pump station needed to be repaired and maintained during this time.  FEMA prepared PW 953 for $291,885 for repairs to the roadway.  At closeout, FEMA determined that the Applicant substantiated $228,553 in actual costs, and PW 953 Version 1 deobligated $63,332.

In its first appeal, dated October 26, 2010, the Applicant requested the original funding, and FEMA denied this appeal on January 11, 2011 due to insufficient documentation to support the costs claimed.  The Applicant submitted its second appeal on July 15, 2011, again requesting the original project funding.


Issues:   Has the Applicant provided documentation substantiating the total costs claimed for road repairs completed under PW 953?

Findings:  No.

Rationale:  44 CFR §206.206, Appeals, and 44 CFR §206.205(b), Large Projects.

Appeal Letter

August 3, 2012

Jonathon E. Monken
Director
Illinois Emergency Management Agency
2200 South Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, Illinois 62703

Re:  Second Appeal–Carman Township Road District, PA ID 071-U9VAW-00, Documentation,
FEMA-1771-DR-IL, Project Worksheet (PW) 953

Dear Mr. Monken:

This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated July 20, 2011, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Carman Township Road District (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) deobligation of funding for road repairs completed under PW 953.

Background

From June 1, 2008, to July 22, 2008, severe storms and flooding impacted the Applicant.  Flooding and standing floodwater caused damage to Carthage Lake Road.  A 1.07 mile, or 5,650 linear foot (LF), section of the road was heavily traveled by fuel trucks hauling fuel to a damaged levee pump system.  The saturated road base materials and subgrade soils were not able to support the vehicular traffic and portions of the intact road surface and subsurface failed under the heavy loads.  A portion of the road remained underwater through late August 2008.  Temporary repairs of this section were necessary to control the damage while the road was still underwater, because the pump station needed to be repaired and maintained during this time.  FEMA prepared PW 953 for $291,885 for the scope of work including: temporary road repairs for 1.07 miles of Carthage Lake Road, 1,580 cubic yards (CY) of compacted rock material for .808 miles of damaged substructure due to flooding and subsequent heavy traffic, shoulder stabilization measures to one side for 3,700 LF, and repairs to double chip and seal finish for 22,600 square yards (SY) for the entire 1.07 mile length.  Labor, materials, and equipment are included in the scope of work.  The Applicant proposed to rebuild the sub-base and base of the road for the entire 1.07 miles, but this included an additional 1,414 LF of road that did not have sub-base or shoulder stabilization damages.  The Applicant contracted with Henderson County Highway Department to complete the work.

In a letter dated August 19, 2009, the Applicant stated that work was complete, and requested an increase in square yards from 22,600 SY to 25,109 SY for the double chip and seal finish.  The Applicant stated that this would still result in a cost underrun, and requested the project be closed-out by deobligating $451.23.  At closeout, FEMA determined that the Applicant substantiated $228,553 in actual costs, and prepared PW 953 Version 1 to deobligate $63,332 on June 3, 2010.

First Appeal

In its first appeal, dated October 26, 2010, the Applicant argued that FEMA was in error to deobligate funding.  The Applicant stated that it acted in good faith in paying for the work performed pursuant to the scope of work outlined in PW 953 and requested the original project funding.  In a letter dated October 28, 2010, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency forwarded the first appeal to FEMA, recommending that it be denied based on the information provided.  In the first appeal response, dated January 11, 2011, FEMA stated that it had reviewed all costs related to the eligible scope of work, and found that there was insufficient documentation to support the request for all costs claimed.

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted its second appeal in a letter dated July 15, 2011, reiterating its arguments from the first appeal.  The State forwarded the second appeal in a letter dated July 20, 2011, which FEMA did not receive until October 17, 2011.  The State recommended denying the appeal based on the Applicant providing no additional supporting documentation.

Discussion

Pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206(a), “The appeal shall contain documented justification supporting the appellant’s position…”  Examples of this include invoices, proof of payment, records of employee hours, and other documentation to demonstrate the cost of the eligible work completed.

The original approved project estimate was $291,885.  The Applicant’s closeout correspondence requests that the project be closed by deobligating an underrun of $451; therefore, this correspondence indicates that the Applicant is requesting reimbursement for $291,434.  The Request for Reimbursement (RFR) forms and invoices that the Applicant submitted refer to a total amount of $308,245.  Because no explanation is provided for the discrepancies in the costs claimed, FEMA validated costs based on documentation provided.  The $308,245 amount includes a reference to a “previous payment” that the Applicant made in the amount of $12,116.  At closeout, in determining the $228,553 to be eligible, FEMA in error included this amount without support documentation.  During review of the 2nd Appeal, FEMA determined that the Applicant has not submitted any documentation to support this cost, such as labor or equipment documentation.  However, the Applicant has submitted documentation substantiating $216,498 in the form of three RFRs and/or invoices, dated March 6, April 22, and August 4, 2009, and labor/equipment documentation for the period of April 2 to April 16, 2009.  The following tables illustrate the costs for which documentation has and has not been provided.

Project Worksheet 953

Original PW 953 Estimate

$291,885

Total Costs Associated with Project

(Based on documentation provided; no explanation)

“Previous Payment”

$12,116

$308,245

RFR 1

$101,885

RFR 3

$147,831

Hauling Documentation (Labor/Equip.)

$15,402

RFR 4

$31,011

Applicant Requested Closeout Amount

$291,434

 

Eligible Claimed Costs—Documentation Provided

RFR 1

3/6/09

Labor

$10,971

Equipment

$26,207

RFR 3

4/22/09

Labor

$7,865

Equipment

$19,488

Hauling Documentation

4/2/09-4/16/09

Labor

$4,541

Equipment

$10,861

RFR 4

8/4/09

Labor

$1,661

Equipment

$2,996

Oil

$9,074

Oil

$6,396

Chips stockpiled

$10,884

Material

Rock

$105,554

Total

 

$216,498

 

Additional Costs Claimed by Applicant—No Documentation Provided

“Total Previous Payments”

(cited in RFR 1)

Support Documentation not submitted

$12,116

Additional Costs

Support Documentation not submitted

$62,820

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and determined that the Applicant has substantiated project costs totaling $216,498.  Accordingly, the second appeal request for claimed costs of $291, 434 is denied.  As a result of this finding an additional adjustment to decrease funding in the amount of $12, 116 is required. By this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take the appropriate action to implement my decision by deobligating an additional $12,116.

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
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc:     Andrew Velasquez III
         Regional Administrator
         FEMA Region V