Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 510-01000-00; City of Alexandria
PW ID# 218; Repair of Weirs 2 and 5
Citation: FEMA-1655-DR-VA, City of Alexandria, Repair of Weirs 2 and 5, Project Worksheet (PW) 218
Reference: Reasonable Cost
Summary: Heavy rains and flooding caused severe scouring under weirs 2, 3, and 5 in Cameron Run resulting in damage to concrete and loss of riprap material. FEMA prepared PW 218 in the amount of $36,623 for the replacement of a 25-foot section of the concrete energy dissipator at weirs 2 and 3 and the placement of riprap protection along a 140-foot section of weir 5. On November 12, 2008, the Applicant submitted a letter to the Grantee requesting an increase in funding to accommodate difficult site access and a change in scope of work to include placement of riprap at weir 2 in lieu of repair of the damaged dissipator. The letter also requested removal of repair work on weir 3 from the PW, as work was completed at no cost to the Applicant. The Applicant noted that the work would be accomplished under an existing time and materials contract. While awaiting response, the Applicant proceeded to complete the modified scope of work. FEMA considered the Applicant’s request to be the first appeal because it involved a cost overrun and significant change in scope of work. The Regional Administrator partially approved the first appeal and increased the approved funding to $60,967 to allow for site access, to correct a computation error and to remove weir 3 from the PW. However, the Regional Administrator denied the total requested cost of $195,891 because the scope of completed work exceeded the approved scope of work outlined in PW 218. 44 CFR §13.30 (c)(2) requires prior written approval for any for any budget revision which results in need for additional funds. In addition, due to the lack of adequate documentation pertaining to the work accomplished under the time and materials contract, there was no means to determine if the overall project costs were reasonable, as per the requirements of OMB Circular A-87 and 44 CFR §206.204(e)(2). In its second appeal, the Applicant asserts that by avoiding the additional costs and environmental concerns of rerouting the stream, the claimed costs for the completed work were less than the actual costs would have been if it had repaired the concrete dissipator as approved in the original scope of work.
Issues: 1. Is the Applicant’s requested change in scope of work eligible for funding under FEMA’s Public Assistance program?
2. Are the Applicant’s claimed costs to repair the weirs reasonable?
Findings: 1. Yes.
Rationale: 44 CFR Part 13.30; Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87;
44 CFR §206.204(e)(2) Project Performance. Cost Overruns