Follow FEMA:
Deobligation of Funding
Main Content
Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Summary
FEMA-1008-DR
PA ID# 037-90316; Barlow Respiratory Hospital
DSR ID# 46229 and 60576; Deobligation of Funding
04/04/2008
PA ID# 037-90316; Barlow Respiratory Hospital
DSR ID# 46229 and 60576; Deobligation of Funding
04/04/2008
Citation:
FEMA-1008-DR-CA, Barlow Respiratory Hospital, Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 46229 and 60576, Deobligation of FundingCross-reference:
De-obligation of Funds, Time Limitations, Grant Acceleration ProgramSummary:
In January 1994, the Northridge Earthquake damaged facilities at the Barlow Respiratory Hospital (Applicant). As part of its Seismic Hazard Mitigation Program for Hospitals (SHMPH), FEMA approved a total of $7,814,301 in 1999 to repair and seismically upgrade five existing hospital buildings. As part of FEMA’s Grant Acceleration Program (GAP), an additional $470,080 was obligated to repair a storage facility at the hospital. In a letter dated September 21, 2006, FEMA notified the Applicant that $8,284,381, the funding for both the SHMPH and GAP projects, had been deobligated due to lack of progress toward repairing the earthquake damages. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on December 5, 2007, stating that it would construct a new building or purchase and retrofit another building. It stated that it was moving forward in its plans, and that its actions were fiscally prudent. FEMA denied the first appeal on July 30, 2007, because no significant progress had been made toward repairing the earthquake damage or replacing the buildings. Furthermore, the Applicant had in effect requested an indefinite time extension to complete the work, and did not have a master plan, a construction schedule, or the financial resources to complete the project. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on November 30, 2007, stating that since the submission of the first appeal it had made significant progress on the project, including hiring a project manager, and developing a construction schedule. Because the Applicant’s projects were not completed prior to the last approved completion date and it has not provided information warranting a time extension, the appeal is denied.Issues:
1. Has the Applicant provided justification for delays in project performance that warrant a time extension?Findings:
1. No.Rationale:
44 CFR §206.204(d)(2)
