Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back

 

Citation:     FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Plaquemines Parish, Belle Chasse Ferry Road Approaches, Project Worksheet (PW) 2424

Cross-

Reference: Work Eligibility, Scope of Work, Roads

Summary:   Heavy rains and flooding from Hurricane Katrina resulted in erosion of the asphalt road edges and shoulders of the Belle Chasse Ferry road approaches.  FEMA inspected the site approximately 10 weeks after the hurricane and prepared PW 2424 for “Category C” permanent work in the amount of $16,378 based on contractor invoices.  At the time of the inspection, the repairs were already completed.  In February 2010, more than four years after the hurricane, the Applicant requested that FEMA adjust the original scope of work and approve additional funding in the amount of $56,678.  The Applicant submitted invoices for engineering and design work ($14,084) and for road repair work ($42,594) which had been completed in March 2009.  The Applicant had not requested either the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) or FEMA to inspect the site prior to the work being done.  FEMA determined that the work was ineligible and denied the request for additional funding on the basis that there was no evidence the damage was the result of Hurricane Katrina, and neither GOHSEP nor FEMA had the opportunity to inspect claimed damages before repairs were made.  In a first appeal, the Applicant claimed that the work was required to restore the approaches.  In a letter supporting the appeal, GOHSEP stated that FEMA should find the additional work eligible because the scope of work funded under PW 2424 repaired eligible disaster damage and no subsequent events could have caused additional damage to the facility.  FEMA denied the Applicant’s first appeal on the basis that the additional repair work could not be connected to damage from Hurricane Katrina and the work completed exceeded the approved scope of work on PW 2424.  Therefore, the work constituted improvements.  In the second appeal, the Applicant claims that the additional repair work was necessary due to the disaster and did not improve the facility, but restored the roads and shoulders to pre-disaster condition.

Issue:         Does the information submitted by the Applicant support the claim that the additional work done three years after the incident was to repair damage caused by Hurricane Katrina?

Finding:     No.

Rationale: Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.204, Project Performance; 44 CFR §206.223, General Work Eligibility