Follow FEMA:
Net Small Project Overrun
Main Content
Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Summary: Ground saturation caused embankment slippage and washout damage to the road surface and aggregate base course of a paved access road leading to a water storage tank. FEMA approved PW 149 for $19,605 to repair the road, including removal and disposal of slide loose material and damaged asphalt concrete, placement of riprap slope protection in place of the removed material, and restoration of 65 feet of road surface. Brooktrails Township Community Services District (Applicant), upon the advice of an engineering firm, moved the road alignment closer to the cut bank, which required the replacement of a longer section of roadway (140 feet) than originally approved. In addition, the Applicant installed a drainage inlet and 46 linear feet of 18-inch storm drain. The total cost of the project was $31,966, a difference of $12,361 from the original repair estimate. The Applicant did not inform the Grantee or FEMA of the proposed change in scope or cost until the time of final inspection when all work was complete and the costs were claimed as part of their Net Small Project Cost Overrun. The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal stating that no documentation was submitted to justify the change in the original scope of work and that the actual work performed was an improvement to the pre-disaster design. Based upon a letter provided by the Applicants engineering firm and a review of FEMAs original scope of work, the original PW should have included additional items to repair the damages in accordance with sound engineering practices. The revised estimate for road repair is $25,744, a difference of $6,139 from the original estimate.
Issues: 1. Was the work performed by the Applicant an Improved Project?
2. Was the work performed by the Applicant a less expensive alternative to FEMAs approved scope of work?
Findings: 1. Yes.
2. No. However, additional items for the road repair are eligible in accordance with standard engineering practices.
Rationale: Section 406 (e)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; 44 CFR §206.203, Federal Grant Assistance; 44 CFR §206.226,
Second Appeal Brief
FEMA-1628-DR
PA ID# 045-0C5D4-00; Brooktrails Township Community Services District
PW ID# Project Worksheet 149; Net Small Project Overrun
04/27/2009
Citation:FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Brooktrails Township Community Services District, Net Small Project Cost Overrun, PW 149PA ID# 045-0C5D4-00; Brooktrails Township Community Services District
PW ID# Project Worksheet 149; Net Small Project Overrun
04/27/2009
Summary: Ground saturation caused embankment slippage and washout damage to the road surface and aggregate base course of a paved access road leading to a water storage tank. FEMA approved PW 149 for $19,605 to repair the road, including removal and disposal of slide loose material and damaged asphalt concrete, placement of riprap slope protection in place of the removed material, and restoration of 65 feet of road surface. Brooktrails Township Community Services District (Applicant), upon the advice of an engineering firm, moved the road alignment closer to the cut bank, which required the replacement of a longer section of roadway (140 feet) than originally approved. In addition, the Applicant installed a drainage inlet and 46 linear feet of 18-inch storm drain. The total cost of the project was $31,966, a difference of $12,361 from the original repair estimate. The Applicant did not inform the Grantee or FEMA of the proposed change in scope or cost until the time of final inspection when all work was complete and the costs were claimed as part of their Net Small Project Cost Overrun. The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal stating that no documentation was submitted to justify the change in the original scope of work and that the actual work performed was an improvement to the pre-disaster design. Based upon a letter provided by the Applicants engineering firm and a review of FEMAs original scope of work, the original PW should have included additional items to repair the damages in accordance with sound engineering practices. The revised estimate for road repair is $25,744, a difference of $6,139 from the original estimate.
Issues: 1. Was the work performed by the Applicant an Improved Project?
2. Was the work performed by the Applicant a less expensive alternative to FEMAs approved scope of work?
Findings: 1. Yes.
2. No. However, additional items for the road repair are eligible in accordance with standard engineering practices.
Rationale: Section 406 (e)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; 44 CFR §206.203, Federal Grant Assistance; 44 CFR §206.226,