alert - warning

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

Debris Removal

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1545/15
ApplicantCity of Prt St. Lucie
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#111-58715-00
PW ID#Project Worksheets 2428, 1436, and 1456
Date Signed2008-06-11T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1545/1561-DR-FL, City of Port St. Lucie, PWs 2428, 1436 and 1456

Cross-reference: Debris Removal, Reasonable Cost

Summary: The Applicant “piggybacked” on the City of Boca Raton’s debris contract with AshBritt Environmental following the 2004 hurricanes. FEMA reduced the amount the Applicant requested by $519,597 because it determined that the costs were not reasonable. The Regional Director sustained this determination on first appeal. FEMA performed a cost analysis and found that AshBritt’s prices were about two to four times the average price of contractors performing similar work in the area. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on August 1, 2007, requesting that FEMA reimburse it an additional $545,425 for debris removal (stumps, root balls, leaners, and hangers). The Applicant stated that “piggyback” contracts are legal in Florida; therefore, the cost incurred to perform eligible work should be eligible under the Public Assistance Program.
Issues: Were the costs the Applicant requests reimbursement for reasonable?

Findings: No.

Rationale: OMB CircularA-87, Attachment A, Section C, Part 2; 44 CFR §13.36.

Second Appeal−City of Port St. Lucie, FEMA-1545/1561-DR-FL,
Project Worksheets (PWs) 2428, 1436, and 1456

Appeal Letter

June 11, 2008

W. Craig Fugate
Director
State of Florida Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Re: Second Appeal–City of Port St. Lucie, PA ID 111-58715-00, Debris Removal,
FEMA-1545/1561-DR-FL, Project Worksheets (PW) 2428, 1436, and 1456

Dear Mr. Fugate:

This is in response to your letter dated September 5, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Port St. Lucie (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) partial denial of assistance for debris removal costs.

Following Hurricane Frances and Jeanne in 2004, the Applicant “piggybacked” on the City of Boca Raton’s contract with AshBritt Environmental Inc. to remove debris throughout the city. FEMA determined that the amount the Applicant requested for debris removal activities was not reasonable. Therefore, FEMA reduced the amount of assistance provided to the Applicant. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on March 2, 2006. In that appeal, the Applicant maintained that it performed debris removal as a safety measure on behalf of its citizens to restore the community to its pre-disaster condition as quickly as possible. The Applicant also claims that due to the exigent circumstances, it decided to “piggyback” on the City of Boca Raton’s contract with AshBritt Environmental Inc. to remove the debris. The Applicant asserts that “piggybacking” on another municipality’s properly procured contract is legal. Although FEMA initially denied $519,597, the Applicant only requested that FEMA reconsider funding an additional $163,100 for the removal of tree stumps and root balls. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal in a letter dated January 19, 2007, because he determined that the Applicant’s debris removal costs were two to four times higher than costs for similar work in the area.

The Applicant submitted its second appeal in a letter dated August 1, 2007, 60 days beyond the regulatory timeframe for submitting its appeal. In the second appeal, the Applicant requests an additional $545,425 for the removal and disposal of stumps, leaners, and hangers from various locations throughout the City. The Applicant reiterates that it “piggybacked” on the City of Boca Raton’s debris removal contract, which is legal under Florida law.
While “piggybacking” may be legal in Florida, it does not absolve the applicant of the responsibility to secure reasonable costs. Since the Applicant performed eligible work, FEMA conducted a cost analysis.

I have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant’s costs were unreasonable because they were two to four times higher than the costs of similar work in the area. In addition, the Applicant submitted its second appeal over 60 days beyond the regulatory timeframe. For both of these reasons, 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.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV