alert - warning

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

Repair Communication Systems

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1933-DR
ApplicantMilwaukee County Department of Administrative Services Information Manageme
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#079-02BF2-00
PW ID#280
Date Signed2012-05-07T04:00:00

Citation:     FEMA-1933-DR-WI, Milwaukee County Department of Administrative Services Information Management Services Division, Repair Communication Systems, Project Worksheet (PW) 280

Cross-

Reference:Pre-Disaster Condition, General Eligibility

Summary:  Between July 20 and July 24, 2010, flooding damaged four of the fourteen analog repeaters (channels) at the Applicant’s Channel 58 public safety radio tower.  The radio system is a nine-site, analog, simulcast system with fourteen channels located at each site.  When equipment at one site needs replacement, it must be replaced with the same model as the other sites in order for the entire channel to operate properly.  If that model is no longer available, the channel must be replaced at each of the nine sites in order to provide full functionality.  Because the model damaged in the flood was obsolete, emergency repairs were made following the event to restore functionality, and PW 280 was prepared for management and administrative costs associated with the Applicant’s maintenance contract and direct administrative costs.  FEMA adjusted the eligible cost by a mandatory National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) reduction, and obligated PW 280 for $2,725 on January 5, 2011.  In the first appeal, the Applicant stated that the system was only operational during the FEMA inspection because parts were borrowed from temporarily disabled radio towers.  The Applicant argued that, in order to return full capacity, the Applicant must permanently replace the four damaged channels, which included replacing equipment at all nine sites at a total cost of $453,677.  On July 12, 2011, FEMA denied this appeal on the basis that emergency repairs returned the damaged tower to its pre-disaster design, function and capacity.  In a January 20, 2012 second appeal, the Applicant reduced their request to $118,043 for replacement of equipment at seven towers for the one channel that eventually failed at the flooded site. Repairs performed by the Applicant immediately following the disaster returned the tower to pre-disaster functionality.  There was no indication of failure in any of the repaired equipment until the Applicant filed the second appeal almost 16 months after the damage occurred, and past the regulatory timeframe established for filing a second appeal.  Further, there is no indication of when the equipment failed in any of the documentation submitted by the Applicant, and no proof that the failure of equipment was a direct result of the disaster.

Issue:          Is the replacement of radio repeaters eligible for funding when repairs to the system restored pre-disaster condition and functionality?

Finding:      No.

Rationale:  Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.206 Appeals; 44 CFR §206.223 General work eligibility

Appeal Letter

May 7, 2012

Brian M. Satula

Administrator

State of Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs

Division of Emergency Management

2400 Wright Street, P.O. Box 7865

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7865

Re:       Second Appeal – Milwaukee County Department of Administrative Services Information Management Services Division, PA ID 079-02BF2-00, Repair Communication Systems, FEMA-1933-DR-WI, Project Worksheet (PW) 280

Dear Mr. Satula,

This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated March 6, 2012, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Milwaukee County Department of Administrative Services Information Management Services Division (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of replacement of communication equipment and is requesting reimbursement of $118,043.

Background

From July 20 through July 24, 2010, severe weather and flooding damaged four of the fourteen analog repeaters (channels) at the Applicant’s Channel 58 public safety radio tower.  The radio system is a nine site, analog, simulcast system with fourteen channels located at each site.  If the equipment supporting a channel at any one of the nine sites needs to be replaced, it must be replaced with the same model of repeater in order for the channel to operate properly.  If that model is no longer available, the channel must be replaced at each of the nine sites in order to provide adequate coverage.  The model of repeaters used at the nine sites is obsolete and has not been supported by the manufacturer for parts repair or replacement since December 31, 2007.

Emergency repairs were made following the event to restore functionality.  Under the Applicant’s maintenance contract with Motorola, damaged components were washed, dried, and placed into a spare repeater to determine if they would function.  Following these repairs, functionality was restored to the whole system.  On October 13, 2010, FEMA prepared PW 280 for management and administrative costs associated with the Applicant’s maintenance contract and direct administrative costs incurred by the Applicant.  FEMA adjusted these costs by a mandatory National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) reduction, for a final obligation of $2,725 on January 5, 2011.  The PW notes that in 2004, the Applicant received funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program for Phase 1 of conversion of the analog system to a digital system, and is expected to receive funding for the final three phases to complete the system conversion before 2013.

First Appeal

The Applicant filed its first appeal on March 2, 2011.  While the initial PW documented repairs to the damaged components, in the first appeal letter the Applicant claimed that the system was operational because water damaged oscillator boards were temporarily replaced with compatible parts that were available from the Applicant’s other towers. At the time, these sites were offline and temporarily disabled for radio rebranding, as required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  The Applicant explained that the FCC project had been completed, and these components must be returned to the original sites.  The Applicant argued that, in order to return full capacity, the four damaged channels must be permanently replaced, which included replacing equipment at all nine sites for the damaged channels, at a total cost of $453,677.  On July 12, 2011, FEMA denied the first appeal.  The Regional Administrator noted that the process for conducting emergency repairs detailed in the Applicant’s first appeal (using borrowed equipment to restore the channels) differed from the process noted in the PW (using repaired equipment to restore the channels).  Further, FEMA noted that a July 29, 2010, letter from Motorola stated that the washed and dried equipment appeared to be operating normally.  Thus, the Regional Administrator determined that emergency repairs returned the damaged tower to its pre-disaster design, function and capacity.

Second Appeal

On January 20, 2012, the Applicant submitted its second appeal, which was sent directly to FEMA.  The letter was formally transmitted to FEMA by the State of Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management (Grantee) on March 6, 2012.  In this letter, the Applicant clarifies that the damaged component on one unit permanently failed which, rendered the whole channel non-functional.  In late 2011, the Applicant was notified by Motorola that parts that would be used to replace the channel would no longer be made, and no guarantee could be made of the availability of these parts.  As a result, the Applicant made the decision to repurpose funds to purchase equipment to facilitate send and receive functionality on the disabled channel.  The Applicant amended the total amount appealed to match the purchase of equipment for seven of the nine tower sites at a total cost of $118,043.

Discussion

The Applicant was able to repair equipment damaged by flooding, and return the channels to pre-disaster function.  When FEMA visited the Applicant’s site in October 2010, all channels were functional.  In the first appeal filed by the Applicant, there is no indication that any of the channels had failed.  It is not until the second appeal submitted by the Applicant, almost 16 months after the damage occurred, that the failure of any equipment is noted.  The documentation submitted by the Applicant does not indicate when the equipment failed.  However, the equipment replacement estimate provided by Motorola is dated December 1, 2011, almost 15 months after the equipment was repaired.  There is no direct evidence supporting the claim that the failure of the channel is directly attributable to the disaster and therefore eligible for assistance under Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.223 General work eligibility.  Ultimately, emergency repairs to the damaged repeaters returned the damaged tower to its pre-disaster design, function and capacity.  Any failure of these repairs to restore functionality was not made known to FEMA until the second appeal, which was filed to FEMA well after the regulatory timeframe established in 44 CFR §206.206 Appeals.

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the 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 is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206 Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah Ingram

Assistant Administrator

Recovery Directorate

cc:        Andrew Velasquez III

            Regional Administrator

            FEMA Region V