Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 001-UXAHV-00,; County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation
PW ID# 693; Net Small Project Overrun
Citation: FEMA-1664-DR-HI, County of Hawaii, Department of Parks and Recreation, Net Small Project Overrun (NSPO)
Cross-Reference: Net Small Project Overrun; General Eligibility
Summary: The earthquake on October 15, 2006, damaged the County of Hawaii, Department of Parks and Recreation’s (Applicant) facilities island-wide. FEMA prepared twenty-eight small Project Worksheets (PW) totaling $140,977 for the repair of disaster-related damage. The Applicant submitted a first appeal for a Net Small Project Overrun (NSPO) of $506,541. The Applicant attributed the overrun to an increase in material and labor costs between when FEMA prepared the PWs and when the Applicant completed the work, which was over three and a half years for most projects. The FEMA Deputy Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeal, because the Applicant combined all work under one lump sum contract that also included non-disaster related restoration work and did not accurately track the actual costs associated with each PW. Further, the Applicant apportioned lump sum costs for engineering and design services to all projects, including those that do not typically require those types of services. In its second appeal, the Applicant concedes that it incorrectly included the costs for engineering and design services performed under a lump sum contract in its initial NSPO claim and has revised its NSPO claim to $367,043. In its appeal, the Applicant states that, at the time FEMA prepared the PWs and cost estimates, it expressed its concern that the cost estimates were low considering the wage rates and division of work by license classification mandated by Hawaii law and the geographic isolation and access issues at some of the sites. The Applicant followed all applicable procurement requirements, competitively bid the contract, and awarded the contract to the lowest bidder. The Applicant acknowledges that at some sites the scope of completed work included non-disaster related repair, but asserts that based on the site specific Schedules of Values (SOV), the costs associated with non-disaster related work can be identified.
Issues: 1. Does the documentation submitted by the Applicant allow for isolation of the eligible costs for disaster related repairs from costs associated with ineligible non-disaster related work?
2. Are all costs claimed by the Applicant associated with disaster related repairs?
Findings: 1. Yes
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223 General Work Eligibility; OMB Circular A-87