alert - warning

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

Time Extension and Scope of Work

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1577-DR
ApplicantLos Angeles Department of Water and Power
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#037-44000-00
PW ID#3028
Date Signed2010-03-29T04:00:00

Citation:               FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Project Worksheet (PW) 3028

Cross -

Reference:            General Eligibility, Time Limitations, Time Extensions

Summary:             During the winter storms from December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005, excessive rains caused a 60-foot long crack in Transmission Tower 205 II concrete pad structure slab. FEMA prepared PW 3028 in the amount of $2,000 to repair the concrete pad supporting Transmission Tower 205 II.  The Applicant requested a time extension through June 30, 2011 and requested an additional $2,714,100 in damage to Towers 236-4 and 237-6.    The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Applicant waited well over three years to inform FEMA that there was additional damage to the Tower.   In its second appeal, the Applicant argued that miscommunication between the administrative and operations staff due to lack of retention of employees, and the work load of other disaster work resulted in the need for a time extension.  In its second appeal transmittal letter, OES noted that they did not support FEMA granting the time extension nor did the Applicant identify the additional damages within the 60-day deadline.  Over three years had passed since the initial site inspection until the Applicant identified the additional damages in its geotechnical studies.  The Applicant has 60 days following its first substantive meeting with FEMA to identify and report damage as required by 44 CFR, Section 206.206.

Issue:                1. Did the Applicant demonstrate extenuating circumstances to warrant a time extension?

                           2. Did the Applicant identify the additional damages within the specified time limitations? 

Finding:              1. No.

                            2. No.

Rationale:         44 Code of Federal Regulations §206.202 (4)(d)(ii), 44 Code of Federal Regulations §206.206 Appeal

Appeal Letter

 

 

March 29, 2010

 

 

Francis McCarton

Governor’s Authorized Representative

California Emergency Management Agency

3650 Schriever Avenue

Mather, CA 95665

 

RE:  Second Appeal–Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, PA ID 037-44000-00,

        Time Extension and Scope of Work, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 3028

Dear Mr. McCarton:

This letter is in response to your letter dated September 28, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision to deny $2,714,100 in additional funding for damages to the foundations of the Applicant’s power transmission towers and a time extension to complete the projects.

Background

During the winter storms from December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005, excessive rains caused a 60-foot long crack in the concrete slab supporting Transmission Tower 205 II.  On August 11, 2005, FEMA approved PW 3028 for $2,000 to repair the concrete pad supporting Transmission Tower 205 II.  On February 1, 2008, the Applicant requested a time extension to December 1, 2009 to complete the project.  On June 16, 2008, FEMA denied the time extension, stating that the Applicant did not submit sufficient information to show significant progress on the project or action to justify the need for a time extension. However, on September 16, 2008, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) granted a time extension for PW 3028 to February 4, 2009, under its authority as the Grantee. 

On November 14, 2008, the Applicant submitted its first appeal to OES appealing FEMA’s denial of a time extension.  In addition, the Applicant requested that FEMA amend the scope of work to correct “errors and omissions” in the approved PW 3028 and increase funding in the amount of $2,714,100.   Specifically, the Applicant requested $1,031,000 to replace Tower 236-4 and $1,653,000 to stabilize the slope that supports Tower 237-6.  The Acting Regional Administrator denied the first appeal in a letter dated May 18, 2009, stating that the Applicant waited over three years to inform FEMA that there was additional damage to the Applicant’s towers.  On July 31, 2009, the Applicant submitted its second appeal.  The Applicant requested that FEMA amend the scope of work to include replacing Tower 236-4 and stabilizing the slope at Tower 237-6, increase funding by $2,714,100 and approve a time extension for the project to June 20, 2011.  The Applicant stated that staff shortages and the work load of other disasters resulted in the need for a time extension.  The Applicant also provided further information on the damage to other towers and work that was not included in the approved PW 3028.   

Discussion

Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.202, Application procedures, applicants must identify and report disaster damage to FEMA within 60 days of the first substantive meeting with FEMA.  FEMA conducted the first substantive meeting with the Applicant in 2005.  The Applicant informed FEMA to damage to Towers 236-4 and 237-6 on November 14, 2008.  Therefore, the Applicant did not comply with 44 CFR § 206.202.   FEMA prepared PW 3028 on June 20, 2005, based on a site inspection performed earlier in 2005.   Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206, Appeals, the Applicant had 60 days after receiving notification of FEMA approval of the PW to submit an appeal of the scope of work and cost of the project.  The Applicant submitted its appeal more than three years after FEMA approved PW 3082.

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant did not submit any extenuating circumstances beyond its control to justify identifying disaster damage and submitting an appeal over three years after the regulatory deadline.  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

Recovery Directorate

cc:     Nancy Ward

         Regional Administrator

         Region IX