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.

Mobile Trailer Units

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-0845-DR
ApplicantUniversity of California, Santa Cruz
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-92040
PW ID#Multiple
Date Signed1998-10-06T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-0845-DR-CA; University of California, Santa Cruz; Mobile Trailer Units

Cross Reference: Disaster Related Damages, Codes and Standards

Summary: Numerous mobile trailer units used for classrooms at the University of California, Santa Cruz, suffered minor damage as a result of the Loma Prieta earthquake (FEMA-0845-DR-CA). The damage generally consisted of relative movement between the trailers and their foundation systems. DSRs (33) were prepared to relevel the trailers and tighten the tiedown straps, for a total cost of $9,814. No specific damage to the ground anchoring units was reported. The subgrantee requested that the anchoring system be reconstructed in accordance with current code requirements, estimated at a cost of $44,750. DSR 33880 was prepared to fund these efforts as hazard mitigation. The DSR narrative indicated that the subgrantee chose the hazard mitigation approach to avoid the eligibility of code upgrade work for the units that were not installed in compliance with the prevailing code at the time. Later review found that the hazard mitigation work was not cost-effective, and therefore not eligible. However, based on the subgrantee's representation that the work was in fact required by a current code, DSR 39068 was prepared to fund the anchoring reconstruction as permanent work ($109,787). Based on continued involvement with the project, and further review of the existing unit designs, FEMA determined that the Title 25 was a standard for new construction and did not require the existing foundation systems to be upgraded. This determination was upheld in first appeal. The subgrantee's second appeal again asserts that Title 25 does apply to this project, and suggests that the anchoring system itself was damaged during the disaster, thus requiring the upgrade per Title 25.

Issues:
  1. Was the ground anchoring system damaged during the disaster?
  2. Does Title 25 require an upgrade of the anchoring system?
Findings:
  1. No. Although the subgrantee suggests in the second appeal that the foundation units were damaged during the disaster, no previous reference regarding damages had been made. No specific data has been provided to support damages.
  2. No. The requirements of Title 25 applies to new construction, and does not mandate upgrading of foundation units relative to the scope of the eligible repair work (releveling of trailers and tightening of tiedown straps).
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.223 General Work Eligibility, 44 CFR 206.226(b) Standards

Appeal Letter

October 6, 1998

Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023

Dear Mr. Christian:

This is in response to your April 8, 1998, submittal of the University of California, Santa Cruz's second appeal of various DSRs which pertain to the repair of numerous mobile trailer units damaged during the FEMA-0845 disaster. The subgrantee had requested funding for the reconstruction of the foundation systems in accordance with the provisions of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. However, FEMA determined that Title 25 does not apply to the disaster-related damages.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, a review of the available documentation has again concluded that the completed foundation upgrade work was not necessitated by the disaster-related damages, nor do the requirements of Title 25 mandate such work relative to the scope of the eligible repair work. Accordingly, the eligible scope of work is appropriately limited to that provided for in DSR 39105 ($9,814), consisting of releveling the trailers and tightening the tiedown straps. The subgrantee's appeal is denied.

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
FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
The University of California, Santa Cruz, had 72 mobile trailer units used for classroom and office purposes throughout the campus at the time of the Loma Prieta earthquake (October 1989). Following the earthquake, 33 DSRs were written in January 1990 for 33 mobile trailers that sustained minor "damage" from the earthquake. The "damage" generally consisted of relative movement between the trailers and their foundation system, and some minor content damage. The scope of work listed in the DSRs consisted of releveling the trailers and tightening the tiedown straps, which connect the trailers to ground anchors. The ground anchors themselves were not reported as having incurred any damage. The repair cost per trailer typically ranged from $250 to $300, totaling approximately $9,814 for all DSRs, including the damaged contents in one trailer ($164).

According to a memorandum dated August 17, 1995, the subgrantee attempted to obtain quotes from three contractors to perform the leveling and tightening work. Reportedly, the contractors informed the subgrantee that the trailer foundation systems did not appear to be to code, and that it would not be appropriate to perform the limited repairs listed in the DSRs without upgrading the foundation systems to code. The subgrantee indicated that Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 25) was the code in place at the time of the earthquake.

Additional funding was then requested by the subgrantee to bring the trailer foundation units into compliance with Title 25. DSR 38800 was prepared in September 1994 to provide funding for the requested work as hazard mitigation, identifying a total of 39 trailers which required upgrading of the foundation anchor system. The total cost of the hazard mitigation work was estimated at $44,750 (averaging $1,147 per trailer). The previously obligated funding for tightening and releveling from the original 33 DSRs was deducted from the total cost of hazard mitigation, resulting in a total eligible cost for DSR 38800 of $35,100. It is noted that the DSR narrative stated that the hazard mitigation approach was chosen by the subgrantee to avoid issue of the eligibility of code upgrade work for units that were not installed in compliance with prevailing code at the time. In a letter dated August 5, 1994, the subgrantee indicated that they were not in complete concurrence with the approved scope in DSR 33880 because it did not include contract documents, project management, construction inspection, and 19 other trailers regarded by the subgrantee as damaged by the earthquake.

The subgrantee retained a consultant, prepared engineered plans, prepared a bid package, and solicited bids to install engineered foundation systems complying with Title 25 on 38 trailers. The total of 38 represented the 39 trailers identified in DSR 38800, less one trailer that was determined to have been installed to code. The plans called for new blocking, strapping, and auger-type earth anchors. The plans provided two other (more expensive and higher capacity) earth anchor alternatives in areas where ground conditions made it difficult to install the auger-type anchor. The bid documents requested a lump sum bid with unit prices for additional auger-type anchors and for the two alternative types of earth anchors, if required. The low (and only) bid received for the work was $87,044. In a letter dated June 28, 1995, the subgrantee indicated that the estimated project cost was greater than the funding provided for in DSR 38800, and requested additional funding. The subgrantee estimated the total project cost to be $140,634, including the bid amount of $87,044, an anticipated extra of $16,590 for difficult soil conditions, and management/consultant/inspection costs of $37,000.

In response to the subgrantee's request, FEMA concluded that the hazard mitigation proposal was not cost-effective, and therefore not eligible. Based on the subgrantee's representation that the restoration of the existing trailer foundation systems was required by Title 25, FEMA did consider the work to be required by a current code, and thus eligible as permanent restoration. Two DSRs were prepared in August 1995. DSR 38990 was written to deobligate funding previously approved as discretionary hazard mitigation (<$44,914>), and DSR 39068 was written for the amount of $109,787 to provide funding for the upgrade of 38 trailer foundation systems to comply with Title 25. The approved amount in DSR 39068 included the contract cost and other construction document, management, inspection and testing costs. At the time DSR 39068 was prepared, a future change order amount of $16,590 was not included in the eligible scope of work.

In a letter dated November 7, 1995, that subgrantee indicated that the construction contract was awarded, and the contractor had encountered difficulties in the installation of the soil anchors and in some of the blocking and leveling work. The letter indicated that there was significant difficulty in installing the auger-type soil anchors and noted very little success in over 80 attempts to install that device. The letter also indicated that the contractor was proposing to install the "Earth-Lok" anchor alternative at the unit prices in the contract (with credit for remaining un-installed auger-type anchors) and that the subgrantee's engineering consultant concurred with the substitution. In a subsequent letter dated November, 30, 1995, the subgrantee indicated that the cost of installing the Earth-Lok alternative anchors would result in a total revised contract cost of $140,140, in comparison with the original contract cost of $87,040 plus an anticipated extra of $16,590 due to difficult soil conditions.

Numerous meetings, site inspections, discussions and correspondence took place during the next several months regarding the scope and cost of the work being performed by the contractor. Based on the observations of the actual work being performed by the subgrantee, and further review of the requirement of Title 25, FEMA observed that the referenced code was not uniformly applied to all trailers in a similar manner. Further, that the code had not been enforced either before or after the disaster. FEMA also found that the abandonment and replacement of the existing foundation systems was unnecessary. Title 25 was a standard for new construction and did not require that existing foundation systems be upgraded to Title 25 standards. As a result, FEMA determined that the scope of the repair undertaken by the subgrantee was not eligible under the requirements of 44 CFR 206.226(b) Standards. In response to this determination, FEMA prepared DSR 39105 on March 13, 1996, (obligated on June 21, 1996), to deobligate the previously approved funding of $109,787 under DSR 39068, and reinstate funding of $9,814 for repairs stated in the original 33 DSRs.

First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted a first appeal of FEMA's determination to limit the eligible funding, transmitted by OES in a letter dated April 11, 1997. The primary basis for the subgrantee's appeal was that they had performed the contract work with full knowledge and approval by FEMA, such that it was unreasonable for FEMA to deobligate the associated funding. The subgrantee also stated that FEMA had retroactively applied a changed interpretation regarding eligible repairs to a previously approved project. The subgrantee indicated that the project was complete, and that the total project cost was $229,482, with the construction contract totaling $165,881.

The Regional Director denied the subgrantee's appeal in a letter dated October 10, 1997, asserting that FEMA's position regarding the applicability of Title 25 for this project was neither a reversal on applying code requirements, nor a new interpretation of coder ous approval of DSR 39068 was based on the subgrantee's written and verbal statements and assurances that trailer foundation systems were currently being, and had previously been, installed in accordance with Title 25. Additionally, further observations made by FEMA during the construction process found that trailer foundation systems installed prior to the disaster were not installed in accordance with code requirements. Furthermore, most of the trailer foundation systems installed after the disaster did not meet the applicable code requirements in force at the time of the installation. Finally, the Regional Director indicated that Title 25 is a standard for new construction, and does not require that the repair of the existing facilities trigger a comprehensive upgrade of existing facilities to Title 25 standards. A more detailed review of Title 25, and its applicability to the disaster repair efforts, is provided in the attached first appeal analysis.

Second Appeal
The subgrantee's second appeal, transmitted by OES in a letter dated April 8, 1998, challenge's FEMA's position that the University has not acted uniformly in requiring past installations to comply with code requirements, and that an upgrade of the foundation systems to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 25 was not triggered by the releveling DSR. The subgrantee included several documents to support their position.

DISCUSSION
The primary issue of this appeal is related to the applicability of the requirements of Title 25 relative to the repair of disaster-damages. The repair of the disaster-related damage to the trailers consisted of releveling the trailers and tightening tiedown strapping. No specific damage to the anchoring foundation system had previously been reported by the subgrantee. Therefore, FEMA had concluded that this scope of work alone did not constitute alteration or conversion of the original foundation system, as would be necessary to trigger an upgrade to Title 25 requirements. Accordingly, FEMA's primary basis for denial of funding for the completed work has been based on the position that an upgrade of the foundation systems to comply with Title 25 was not triggered by the releveling work identified in the original DSRs.

The subgrantee does not dispute that the code is applicable only to new construction, but rather now asserts that the existing foundation systems were apparently damaged during the disaster, such that tightening of the tiedown straps was not a sufficient repair. The subgrantee has provided a January 27,1998 letter from the project design engineer, Intermountain Engineering, to support their position that the post-disaster foundation systems were generally not capable of being releveled. This letter states that "it was the judgement of the engineer that the ground anchoring system had experienced cyclic loading with a bias to one side in the Loma Prieta Earthquake." However, no in-place testing of the units was performed to determine their post-disaster adequacy or inadequacy. Accordingly, the engineer's judgement at this point in time does not provide sufficient documentation to support that the foundation upgrade was necessitated due to disaster-related damages.

Additionally, it is noted that the subgrantee had previously indicated that during the bidding process, various contractors had indicated that the foundation systems did not appear to be to code, such that it would not be appropriate to perform the tightening efforts without upgrading the foundation systems. It is noted that no reference had been made by these three contractors to suggest that the existing systems had incurred any specific disaster-related damages, other than loosening of the straps themselves. Prior to this appeal, specific damage to the foundation units had never ever been the subgrantee's basis for requesting the upgrade work. We recognize that it may have been necessary for the subgrantee to perform some upgrading of their foundation units in conjunction with the disaster repair efforts. It must be concluded, however, that the upgrade would have been required due to the components originally not having been designed to code - and not triggered solely due to disaster-related damages. That results in the conclusion that the foundation upgrade was not necessitated by the disaster-related damages, and the requirements of Title 25 do not mandate such work relative to the repair work being performed.

A secondary basis for denial referenced by FEMA regarding the applicability of Title 25 in this repair effort was the statement that they had not acted uniformly in requiring past installations to comply with these code requirements. The subgrantee asserts that they have consistently required trailer foundation installations to comply with code requirements. To support their position, they have provided copies of "typical earthquake" purchase orders for code compliant materials. However, purchase orders indicating that installations after the earthquake were intended to be in compliance with certain code requirements do not sufficiently demonstrate that all pre-disaster installations were performed to this code. In addition to the contractor's comments regarding the existing units not having been installed to code, which the subgrantee had previously supported to demonstrate their need to upgrade the anchors, FEMA has based this determination on observations made during the January 10, 1996, inspection, and from the subgrantee's consultant Summary of Assets report, dated May 5, 1995. (Refer to first appeal analysis for further discussion.)

The subgrantee's appeal further responds to certain design and construction comments made by FEMA. However, these comments have no bearing on the determination of this appeal, as the basis for denial pertains to the ineligibility of the code upgrades. Accordingly, it is not necessary to provide further comment regarding these issues.

CONCLUSION
It is found that the completed foundation upgrade work was not necessitated by the disaster-related damages, nor do the requirements of Title 25 mandate such work relative to the repair work being performed. Accordingly, the eligible scope of work is appropriately limited to that provided for in DSR 39105 ($9,814), consisting of releveling the trailers and tightening the tiedown straps. The subgrantee's appeal is denied.