Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 000-URBG1-00; M & A Electric Power Cooperative
PW ID# 619; Additional Re-conductoring Costs
Citation: FEMA-1822-DR-MO, M & A Electric Power Cooperative, Additional Re-conductoring Costs, Project Worksheet (PW) 619
Reference: Scope of Work; Time Limitations
Summary: The Applicant serves four distribution cooperatives in 18 counties in southeast Missouri. During the period of January 26 through January 28, 2009, a severe winter storm with high winds and ice damaged the Applicant’s electrical transmission system. FEMA prepared SA 619 to document approximately 133 miles of damaged conductor line and obligated the project on October 19, 2009, for $19,924,907. On July 6, 2010, the Applicant requested a change in the Scope of Work (SOW) to include an additional 14.22 miles of transmission line at an estimated additional cost of $1.9 million. The Applicant stated that the line damage was caused by extreme ice loading during the January 2009 disaster. The Applicant indicated that on
July 6, 2009, an outage occurred when the conductor broke in mid-span, and that a sample of the damaged conductor was sent to a test laboratory and failed a series of tests. On September 14, 2010, FEMA denied the request because the Applicant did not meet the deadline for identifying additional damage and because that segment of line section was not selected for re-conductoring as it was not out of compliance during project formulation.
In its first appeal dated November 2, 2010, the Applicant stated that the first outage in the line section occurred on July 6, 2009, and a second outage occurred on
June 17, 2010. On May 3, 2011, the Regional Administrator reaffirmed FEMA’s initial determination that the Applicant did not meet the deadline to identify additional damage, and that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the section line damage was caused by the January 2009 ice storm.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on July 7, 2011, which the State transmitted to FEMA on July 21, 2011. The Applicant reiterates the same position it claimed in the first appeal that the damage to the Kennett to Bucoda transmission line was disaster-related.
Issue: Did the Applicant submit its request for a change in the SOW within the regulatory time limits?
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.202(d)(1)(ii), Application procedures, Project Worksheets; Public Assistance Guide, June 2007, pages 139-140, Changes in Scope of Work and Costs; 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1), General work eligibility, General