Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 051-99051-00; Jefferson Parish
DSR ID# Project Worksheets 13858, 14032, 15071, 15090, 15109, 15112, and 15310; Mold Remediation and Stabilization
FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Jefferson Parish, Mold Remediation and Stablization,
Project Worksheets (PWs) 13858, 14032, 15071, 15090, 15109, 15112, 15310Cross-reference:
Documentation, Reasonable CostsSummary:
Following Hurricane Katrina, the Applicant entered into verbal sole-source,
non-competitive, time and materials contracts for mold remediation and stabilization of seven (7) facilities impacted by water damage. The Applicant completed the stabilization work prior to FEMAs inspection of the sites and requested $15,691,794.
During inspection of the damaged facilities, FEMA requested that the Applicant provide a detailed scope of work and cost estimate of the projects. The Applicant provided a log for labor hours, equipment use, and materials, but no documents to support the extent of the work beyond hours logged. The scope of work documents submitted by the contractors did not clearly identify the damage. FEMA developed the eligible scope of work and reasonable costs ($6,984,555) because the Applicant did not submit sufficient documentation. FEMA derived reasonable costs using R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means Environmental Remediation Estimating Methods, Second Edition
, local historical cost data, local home builders association cost data, and local retail merchants prices. FEMA subsequently obligated $1,133,737 for the seven buildings, which reflected $5,529,617 in anticipated insurance proceeds.
In seven letters dated March 6, 2007, the Applicant submitted its first appeals. The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal on July 13, 2007, because the Applicant did not provide documentation containing an adequate scope of work to justify the large quantity of work hours used to perform eligible work and because the Applicant did not submit documents to support its claim that the contractors costs and fees were reasonable. The Applicant submitted its second appeals in seven letters dated
October 10, 2007, and reiterated its original claim stated in its first appeal. The second appeal does not include additional documentation to support the Applicants claims that the contractors costs are reasonable. Issues:
Did the Applicant provide sufficient documentation to support its claim for reimbursement of actual costs incurred? Findings:
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87; 44 CFR §13.36(b)(9);
44 CFR §13.22;