alert - warning

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

Debris Monitoring Costs

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1604-DR
ApplicantCity of Pascagoula
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#069-55360-00
PW ID#8324
Date Signed2010-07-08T04:00:00

Citation:         FEMA-1604-DR-MS; City of Pascagoula (Applicant)

Cross -            Debris Monitoring and Removal Costs, Engineering Fees
Reference: 

Summary:       Hurricane Katrina produced a storm surge that flooded the City of Pascagoula’s storm drainage system and deposited debris in culverts and drains throughout the city.  Project Worksheet (PW) 8324 was prepared for debris removal, drain cleaning, and engineering fees.  FEMA funded the full debris removal costs and some of the engineering fees.  The engineering fees were more than 15 percent of the total project cost ($748,848) and FEMA determined that only 6.5 percent ($46,006) of the total engineering claim ($111,483) was eligible under Curve B of FEMA’s engineering and design services cost curves.  The Applicant’s first appeal stated that the remaining $65,477 of engineering fees were for debris monitoring in compliance with Category A projects.  The Applicant did not include any documentation of debris monitoring in the first appeal.  In the second appeal, the Applicant is again requesting reimbursement for $65,477 of debris monitoring costs, and included detailed documentation of load tickets and monitoring information for the entire project.  

Issues:           Are monitoring expenses for removal of storm debris from drainage pipelines eligible costs in addition to engineering fees?

Findings:        Yes.  The Applicant provided sufficient evidence of debris monitoring.

Rationale:       FEMA Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322), pp 58-61, dated June 2007.

 

Appeal Letter

July 8, 2010

 

 

 

Thomas M. “Mike” Womack

Executive Director

Mississippi Emergency Management Agency

P.O. Box 5644

Pearl, MS  39208-5644

 

Re:  Second Appeal – City of Pascagoula, Debris Monitoring Costs, FEMA-1604-DR-MS,

Project Worksheet (PW) 8324

 

Dear Mr. Womack:

 

This is in response to your letter dated October 1, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal for the City of Pascagoula (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision to deny its first appeal for debris monitoring costs.  The amount in dispute is $65,477.  

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused a storm surge in the City of Pascagoula that deposited debris in culverts and drains throughout the city.  The Applicant requested assistance from FEMA for debris removal, drain cleaning, and engineering fees.  FEMA approved the initial PW for $3,303,100.  During final inspection and closeout, the Applicant presented invoices totaling $830,324.79, which included $111,483 (15 percent) for engineering and monitoring fees.  FEMA determined that the fees were disproportionately high and allowed only $46,006 (6.5 percent) of the project costs consistent with Curve B of the Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322), Engineering and Design Services Cost Codes.

The Applicant submitted its first appeal March 9, 2009, requesting reimbursement of an additional $65,477 for engineering and monitoring costs associated with the removal of sand, silt, and sediment from the City of Pascagoula’s storm drainage system.  The Regional Administrator denied the request for $65,477 because the engineering fees were categorized as inspection services and the Applicant did not include any documentation of debris monitoring, such as load tickets, with the appeal.

The Applicant submitted a second appeal July 13, 2009, to the state emergency management office and FEMA Region IV received a letter from the State of Mississippi dated October 1, 2009.  The second appeal requests $65,477 for debris monitoring costs originally categorized as engineering fees.  

The Applicant claims that the cost attributed to engineering fees is actually two separate items: engineering costs and debris monitoring costs.  The Applicant states that only 2.5 percent ($17,970) of the total project costs ($764,848) was for engineering fees and the balance ($93,513) was for debris monitoring.  The Applicant provided substantial debris monitoring documentation in the second appeal, which included “Pipe Cleaning Monitoring Reports.”  These reports were completed in the field listing the site location, debris type, and amount removed from the storm drainage system.

I have reviewed the documentation submitted with the second appeal and have determined that the debris monitoring reports support the costs claimed by the Applicant.  The 2.5 percent for engineering costs claimed in the second appeal is consistent with Curve B of the Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322), Engineering and Design Services Cost Codes.  The costs for monitoring the removal of debris from the city’s drainage system are eligible for funding.  Accordingly, I am approving this appeal for $65,477.  By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this decision.  

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Recovery Directorate

cc:     Major P. May

Regional Administrator

FEMA Region IV