alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

Project Management & Fill Replacement

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1046-DR
ApplicantSanta Clara County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#085-00000
PW ID#61683&74626
Date Signed1999-02-08T05:00:00
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Santa Clara County; FEMA-1046-DR-CA;PA #085-00000

Cross Reference: DSRs 61683 and 74626; Fill Replacement; Project Management; Permanent Repairs; Category C

Summary: The winter storms and heavy rains in March of 1995 caused a slip-out of an earthen slope and damages to Metcalf Road, in Santa Clara County (County). FEMA prepared Damage Survey Report (DSR) 74626 for $225,470 to repair 54 linear feet (ft) of damaged roadway pavement and shoulder, a drainage culvert and a 45 ft by 70 ft hillside slip-out, utilizing a concrete crib wall. During a geotechnical review, FEMA determined that the slip-out was within an area of historical landslides and, based on FEMA's Landslide Policy, stabilization of the failed slope was the responsibility of the County. The DSR was reduced to $16,473 and included only repairs of the roadway, shoulder and culvert. In a supplemental request, the County contended that the slip-out was within an embankment constucted as part of the construction of Metcalf Road. The request (considered a first appeal) was for $303,183 for the actual costs of construction, including stabilizaton of the landslide. The Regional Director determined that 65% of the slip-out was within an eligible facility and approved the first appeal for $168,133, including $131,650 for road, shoulder, culvert, and embankement repair expenses and $26,656 and $26,300 for force account and contract engineering expenses, repsectively. The Regional Director also determined that the other requested items of work (larger culvert, underdrains, and a rock buttress) were improvements to the pre-disaster condition, were repairs of a natural feature and were not eligible for funding. In the second appeal, the County requested $20,250 for fill required to repair the embankment void and $19,730 for additional contract engineering for project management.

Issues:
  1. Is the fill expense necessary for disaster-related damages?
  2. Are the requested project management costs eligible for FEMA funding?
Findings:
  1. Yes. The fill costs were not included in DSR 61683.
  2. No. Reasonable project management costs were provided in the engineering costs previously funded.
Rationale: Engineering and Design Curves in the FEMA Public Assistance Guide.

Appeal Letter

February 8, 1999

Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741

Dear Mr. Christian:

This is in response to your letter dated July 15, 1998, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 74626 and 61683 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA, on behalf of Santa Clara County (County). The County is requesting a total of $39,980 for additional fill and project engineering costs associated with a hillside slip-out and Metcalf Road repairs.

Following the heavy rains of March 1995, a slip-out occurred along Metcalf Road, in Santa Clara, California. FEMA prepared DSR 74626 for $16,473 for repairs for the roadway, shoulder and culvert. A supplemental request was approved for $168,133 for additional construction and engineering expenses. In the second appeal, the County is requesting $20,250 for fill to repair the embankment void and $19,730 for additional contract engineering for project management. As explained in the enclosed appeal analysis, review of the documentation indicates $20,250 for fill was necessary to complete the repairs. With this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director prepare a DSR to provide this funding. However, the requested project management costs are in excess of eligible funding. Therefore, the appeal is partially approved.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.

Sincerely,

/S/

Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc: Richard A. Buck
Disaster Recovery Manager
Region IX, Disaster Closeout Center

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe winter storms and heavy rains in March of 1995 saturated the soils of an earthen slope adjacent to Metcalf Road in Santa Clara County (County), California. Subsequently, a 45 ft by 70 ft wide area within the slope failed and 54 ft of roadway and road shoulder were damaged. A 15-inch corrugated metal pipe and culvert were also damaged.

FEMA prepared a Damage Survey Report (DSR) to repair the roadway, slope and drainage culvert damages. DSR 74626 (Category "C") was prepared for $225,470 to repair the roadway and for a concrete crib wall to repair the hillside slip-out. The County submitted a letter of non-concurrence and requested that a rock buttress, in lieu of the crib wall, be constructed for repair of the slope. During geotechnical review, FEMA determined that the slip-out was within an area of historical landslides and, based on the Landslide Policy, stabilization of the failed slope was the responsibility of the County. The geotechnical reviewer indicated that because the stabilization was the responsibility of the County, the review did not address the rock buttress repair issue. Based on the geotechnical review, the DSR was reduced and approved for $16,473 and included only the repairs for the roadway, shoulder and culvert. The County completed all the repair work, including the slope stabilization with a rock buttress, for a total expenditure of $319,656.

Supplemental Request/First Appeal

On April 24, 1997, the County submitted a supplemental request to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) for $303,183 for the actual costs incurred. The basis of the request (considered a first appeal) was that stabilization was required to restore the roadway facility to the pre-disaster condition, not landslide stabilization. The County utilized an engineering consultant for design and project management and contends the repairs were designed to meet current codes and standards. The State supported the County's request for the repair using the rock buttress alternative.

The Regional Director approved a portion of the first appeal. The Regional Director determined that the slip-out was within an eligible facility, a constructed fill built in conjunction with the construction of Metcalf Road. The Regional Director indicated that the eligible portion of the slip-out repair represented 65% of the total construction costs. Eligible expenses included $131,650 for repair of damaged portion of the roadway and shoulder, the 15-inch diameter pipe, the drainage inlet box, the engineered embankment and rock slope protection that existed at the pipe outfall. However, it was also determined that the remaining requested items, including additional road signs, fencing, upslope excavation and backfill, energy dissipater, aggregate baserock, rock buttress slope, sacked concrete protection for the upper slope, a concrete interceptor ditch and underdrains constituted improvements to the project, not mandated by an approved code or standard, were not eligible for funding. The Regional Director indicated that the requested $50,562 for contract engineering represented 59% of the approved construction work and was excessive. The Regional Director also indicated that original contract allowed $26,300 for contract engineering and that this amount was sufficient for the eligible scope of work for this type of project. DSR 68183 was approved for a total of $168,133.

On May 22, 1997, the County submitted a second appeal to OES. Although the County acknowledged and accepted the first appeal response, the County requested $20,250 for fill required to repair the embankment void and $19,730 for additional contract engineering for project management. On July 15, 1998, the State forwarded the second appeal to the Executive Associate Director and indicated its support for the appeal.

DISCUSSION

The issues in the second appeal are whether or not the fill was necessary to repair disaster-related damages and whether or not the additional project management expenses are necessary and reasonable, and eligible for funding.

Additional Fill

Regarding the fill, the County indicates that the fill was necessary to repair the void created by the slip-out. Review of the documentation indicates the slip-out was within an eligible constructed fill facility and DSR 61683 was approved to repair these damages. The original DSR estimated that 450 cu yd of fill was required to fill the void. This estimate is consistent with the dimensions of the void as shown in the DSR sketch (page 13 of the DSR). However, the subsequently approved DSR (DSR 61683) did not include a line item for fill. The DSR clearly demonstrates that the FEMA inspector estimated that repair of the void would require 450 cu yd of fill at $45.00 per cu yd, for a total cost of $20,250. The amount was not provided in DSR 61683 and is eligible for FEMA funding.

Additional Engineering Expenses

Regarding the additional engineering expenses, the County contends that an additional $19,730 for engineering design and management was necessary due to limited County staff. Review of the documentation provided indicates that $26,656 for force account engineering and $26,300 for contract engineering has been provided. FEMA's Public Assistance Guideindicates that engineering and design expenses for a project of average complexity and of this size should be 8% of the construction cost. Including the additional eligible expense from above, approved eligible construction costs are $151,900 ($131,650 plus $20,250). Therefore, $12,152 (8% of $151,900) is eligible for contract engineering. This amount includes funding for preliminary engineering analysis, preliminary design, final design and construction inspection and is less than the funding which the applicant has previously received. DSR 61683 included funding for force account and contract engineering and design, which is greater than normal expenses allowed and required for this size and type of project. Although the excess funding previously approved for engineering will not be de-obligated, the provided documentation does not indicate that the repairs mandated additional engineering or project management expenses.

CONCLUSION

Review of the documentation indicates that $20,250 for fill was necessary for the disaster-related repairs and is eligible for funding. The Regional Director will prepare a DSR to provide $20,250 of additional funding. Funding for engineering expenses which FEMA has provided is sufficient for the identified eligible repairs. This appeal is partially approved.