alert - warning

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

Project Management Costs

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-0881-DR
ApplicantFlorence County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#041-00000
PW ID#N/A
Date Signed1998-02-25T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-0881-DR-SC; Florence County, Project Management Costs (PMCs)

Cross Reference: Project Management Costs, Precedence

Summary: The October 1990 flood disaster caused extensive damage to Florence County, South Carolina. Damage survey reports (DSRs) were prepared following the disaster, and funding for disaster-related expenses were provided accordingly. After an audit by the Office of Inspector General and subsequent meetings, the Town of Mount Pleasant was reimbursed for expenses previously denied. The State Public Assistance Program then issued Guidance No. 13-94 dated October 26, 1994. This guidance was prepared to notify applicant agents that their entities may be entitled to additional funding, including various project management expenses, due to the precedent set by the Mount Pleasant decision. Florence County submitted a request for additional FEMA funding for costs considered to be associated with project management activities. Although the request was submitted well beyond the allowable deadline for reporting damages, the Region accepted the request for consideration of eligibility. The costs were denied based on various program issues. The State forwarded the applicant's first appeal with a letter of transmittal dated January 21, 1997. The applicant requested $91,621 for PMCs. A review of the applicant's files showed that the total amount obligated was $68,210. The Regional Director upheld this determination of ineligibility on first appeal for the following reasons: 1) Many PMCs being appealed are related to DSRs that are less than the small project threshold and, therefore, will not be supplemented without performing a small project netting; 2) many costs were not associated with a project under specific DSRs and are, therefore, considered indirect costs. The State forwarded the applicant's second appeal with a letter dated November 20, 1997. The primary issue of the second appeal is that these costs were not reviewed by FEMA using the same criteria as previous claims for PMCs for other applicants. The applicant contends that the costs are eligible for FEMA funding.

Issues:
  1. Are the requested PMCs eligible for FEMA funding?
  2. Does FEMA use different criteria to evaluate requests for assistance?
Findings:
  1. No. The determinations of ineligibility for the requested funds are consistent with FEMA regulation and policy.
  2. No. All claims are evaluated based on the Stafford Act and the regulations in place at the time of the disaster.
Rationale: The PMCs submitted do not satisfy eligibility criteria for FEMA funding as defined in the Stafford Act and 44 CFR 206.

Appeal Letter

February 25, 1998
Mr. Ron Claypool
Governor's Authorized Representative
Office of the Governor
Box #11509
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. Claypool:

This is in response to the second appeal submitted by the State on behalf of Florence County (PA ID #041-00000, FEMA-881-DR-SC). The applicant is requesting reimbursement of Project Management Costs (PMCs) reportedly resulting from disaster-related work following the October 1990, flood disaster. The primary issue in the appeal is that the various claims were not reviewed by FEMA using the same criteria as previous claims for PMCs for other applicants.

In August 1994, four years after the disaster event, representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State Public Assistance Program (SPAP) met with officials from the Town of Mount Pleasant to discuss the Town's appeal of the Inspector Generals' Audit Report E-11-94. One of the many issues discussed in this meeting was the question of eligibility of administrative costs not originally funded by FEMA. Upon review of pertinent information, FEMA determined that the expenses in question were PMCs and not administrative costs as originally identified. The Town of Mount Pleasant was appropriately reimbursed.

Following this decision, SPAP issued Guidance No. 13-94 dated October 26, 1994, which notified applicant agents that their entities may be entitled to additional funding due to "1. policy reversals; 2. inconsistent application of the federal code of regulations and thus inconsistent treatment of Subgrantees; and 3. improper eligibility decisions." The four areas of potential additional funding SPAP cited were PMCs previously classified as administrative costs, supplies previously classified as equipment, landfill replacement costs due to lost landfill capacity, and damage survey reports (DSRs) considered ineligible because of an estimate below $250.

In response to the SPAP Guidance, the applicant submitted a request through SPAP for additional FEMA funding for costs considered to be associated with project management activities. Although the request was submitted well beyond the allowable deadline for reporting damages, the regional staff accepted the request for consideration of eligibility. The costs were denied based on various program issues.

The applicant filed a first appeal requesting FEMA reconsider the determination of ineligible costs. The State transmitted the applicant's first appeal with a letter dated January 21, 1997. The applicant requested funding of $91,621 for PMCs. A review of the applicant's files showed that the total amount obligated for disaster-related work was $68,210. The Regional Director denied this appeal for two reasons. First, the Regional Director noted that many of the DSRs were less than the small project threshold. Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 206.204(e)(3) small projects will not be supplemented without performing a small project netting. Second, many of the costs being claimed are also covered under the administrative allowance as outlined in 44 CFR 206.228(b)(2).

The applicant appealed this determination in a letter dated November 13, 1997. The State forwarded this appeal with a transmittal letter dated November 20, 1997. The applicant did not provide additional documentation to substantiate their claims for PMCs. Although the appeal letter addresses specific determinations of ineligibility for individual costs, the primary issue of the appeal is that the claims were not reviewed using the same criteria used for previous claims for other applicants. It is important to recognize that all requests are evaluated for eligibility based on their own merit.

Further, it is noted that the Mount Pleasant case does not represent a policy reversal as asserted by SPAP. Funding granted to Mount Pleasant was provided based on the eligibility of PMCs. This determination was consistent with policy and regulations in place at the time of the disaster, and does not signify new policy.

Based on a review of all documentation submitted with the appeal, we have concluded that the determination of ineligibility made by the Regional Director is consistent with FEMA regulations and policy. The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to alter the regional staff's initial determination. Additionally, the assertion by SPAP and the applicant that FEMA has funded similar costs to other applicants, thus setting a precedence for funding these costs, is unfounded. Accordingly, I am denying the appeal.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Cc: John B. Copenhaver
Regional Director
FEMA Region IV