alert - warning

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

Debris Removal

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1735-DR
ApplicantCity of Chandler
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#081-71000-00
PW ID#842
Date Signed2010-03-08T05:00:00

SECOND APPEAL BRIEF
FEMA-1735-DR-OK
City of Chandler, PA ID 081-71000-00
Debris Removal, Project Worksheet 842

Citation:            FEMA-1735-DR-OK, City of Chandler, Debris Removal, Project Worksheet (PW) 842

Cross
Reference:
        Debris Removal, Debris Monitoring, Documentation
 
Summary:          An ice storm in December 2007 deposited vegetative debris onto the City of Chandler’s (Applicant) roads and certain properties maintained by the Applicant.  FEMA prepared PW 842 in the amount of $196,294 for collection and disposal of 28,042 cubic yards (CY) of debris.  In its first appeal, dated May 22, 2008, the Applicant appealed this amount, requesting an additional $346,634 because it claimed the actual debris quantity was between 50,724.95 CY, per the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management close-out audit and the contractor’s invoice.  The Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the Applicant’s contractor improperly prepared load tickets, overstated debris amounts, and allowed ineligible debris to be mixed with eligible debris.  In its second appeal, dated April 24, 2009, the Applicant reiterated its arguments and claims from the first appeal, and provided documentation indicating load amounts of its contractor’s debris removal measures.

Issues:           Did the Applicant provide sufficient documentation to support an additional $346,634 for debris removal costs?

Findings:        No.
 
Rationale:      44 CFR §206.205(b), Large Projects; 44 CFR §206.202(b)(4).

Appeal Letter

 

March 8, 2010

 

  

Mr. Albert Ashwood

Governor’s Authorized Representative

State of Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management

P.O. Box 53365

Oklahoma City, OK  73152-3365

 

Re:  Second Appeal–City of Chandler, PA ID 081-71000-00, Debris Removal,

       FEMA-1735-DR-OK, Project Worksheet (PW) 842

 

Dear Mr. Ashwood:

 

This letter is in response to your letter dated July 31, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Chandler (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of an additional $346,634 for debris removal under PW 842.

Background

An ice storm from December 8, 2007, to January 3, 2008, deposited large quantities of vegetative debris, including hanging limbs and leaning trees, in the Applicant’s maintained and owned properties.  The Applicant awarded a contract to Integrated Pro Services (IPS) for debris removal on January 4, 2008, and IPS completed the work February 27, 2008.  A team of FEMA and Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management (ODEM) employees surveyed the city and estimated the quantity of disaster-related debris to be 21,490 cubic yards (CY).  FEMA prepared PW 842 on March 30, 2008, for 28,042 CY based on an average of cubic yards per mile of road and cubic yards of debris per capita for ten applicants in the same vicinity.  FEMA obligated PW 842 for $196,294 to reimburse the Applicant for the cost of removing and disposing 28,042 CY of debris.    On April 23, 2008, ODEM reviewed the Applicant’s documentation during closeout of PW 842 and observed that the Applicant was invoiced by the contractor for $544,192 in fees to include the removal and disposal of 50,724 CY of debris.  ODEM requested that FEMA prepare a PW to obligate the additional funds.  Upon review, FEMA determined the additional funding was not eligible. 

The Applicant submitted its first appeal in a letter dated May 22, 2008, requesting an additional $346,634 for debris removal costs.  The Applicant argued that $196,294 did not take into consideration the documentation of eligible work and costs that ODEM determined totaled $542,928.  In a letter dated April 3, 2009, the Acting Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the requested increase in debris quantities above the amount originally estimated by the FEMA/ODEM team could not be justified.  The Acting Regional Administrator found that the contractor claimed substantially higher quantities of eligible debris than what was eligible according to FEMA field observations; monitors wrote load tickets at the landfill and not at the point of loading, allowing ineligible debris to be counted with eligible debris; and monitors were not at the loading sites to confirm the eligibility of the debris.  The Applicant submitted its second appeal on May 22, 2009, and ODEM forwarded it to FEMA on July 31, 2009.  The second appeal re-states the request for an additional $346,634 in funding for a total of $542,928 for debris removal.

Discussion

The ODEM auditors reviewed the Applicant’s documentation and identified a total of $544,192 in contractor fees.  (ODEM is supporting the request submitted from the Applicant for a total project cost of $542,928.)  ODEM did not submit any information to demonstrate that it evaluated the work that the contractor performed for eligibility under the Public Assistance Program.  A FEMA/ODEM team surveyed the city on January 7, 2008, and estimated 21,490 CY of eligible debris.  FEMA later revised the estimate upward to 28,042 CY using an average of debris estimates and inspections from ten other applicants in the same vicinity.  The estimate was used by FEMA due to concerns with regard to the debris removal operation.  FEMA field personnel identified discrepancies with the contractor’s reported amounts.  FEMA observed load tickets being written for high volumes of debris that exceeded the estimates of FEMA monitors.  The debris monitors also wrote load tickets at disposal sites rather than load sites, so that eligibility of the debris could not be verified.  FEMA regulations require submittal of sufficient documentation necessary for the award of grant funding (see 44 CFR §206.202(b)(4)).  Examples of such documentation include load tickets specifying debris quantities, types, and pickup locations, and logs confirming hours of operation and equipment used.  The Applicant submitted contractor invoices and a list of load tickets indicating load amounts, however this material did not provide all of the information to establish eligibility for the additional debris removal requested.

Conclusion

FEMA observed irregularities in the debris removal operations, including the monitoring.  In addition, the information submitted to FEMA does not provide sufficient justification for the request for additional debris removal funding that is more than a one hundred percent increase over the original estimate developed by FEMA and ODEM.  I have reviewed the information submitted with the second appeal and have determined that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the additional 22,682 CY for which it requests reimbursement was eligible disaster related debris.  The Acting 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.  This 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:   Tony Russell

       Regional Administrator

       FEMA Region VI