This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Santa Clara River Drop Structure Repair
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation:
Summary: As a result of heavy rainfall during the January 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared PW #3128 in September 2005 for $913,309 to fund repairs to a damaged drop structure on the Santa Clara River, located in Los Angeles County. The PW scope of work calls for excavation of unclassified material, removal and reconstruction of a damaged 230-foot long revetment wall using soldier pile and timber construction, backfill placement behind the revetment wall, removal and reconstruction of a 110-foot long damaged section of the reinforced concrete drop structure, and reconstruction of 340 feet of damaged chain link fence. The Applicant is requesting that the PW scope of work be revised to allow for the removal and reconstruction of a 150-foot long section of the reinforced concrete drop structure to facilitate placement and compaction of soil eroded from beneath the longer section of the structure, as well as several eligible components of work that were omitted from the PW. In addition, the Applicant is requesting items of work, which FEMA agreed is eligible in the response to the first appeal. The total project cost requested by the Applicant is $1,085,236.
Issues: (1) Are the additional items of work to repair the drop structure eligible for reimbursement?
(2) Is the revised project cost estimate reasonable?
Findings: (1) Yes.
(2) No, the total project cost will be increased to $996, 323 instead of $1,085,236 as requested by the Applicant.
(3)
Rationale: Stafford Act Section 406(e); 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1)
As a result of heavy rainfall during the January 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) #3128 in September 2005 for $913,309 to fund repairs to a drop structure on the Santa Clara River, located in the Santa Clarita area of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County (Applicant) disagreed with FEMAs scope of work and funding determinations in the PW.
The PW funds the repair of a 300-foot long reinforced concrete drop structure (also referred to as a stabilizer) that spans the river at the downstream end of Private Drain (PD) 1300. The failure of a 15-foot high, 230-foot long rail and timber revetment wall on the right (east) bank, adjacent to the drop structure, led to erosion, undermining, and failure of a section of the drop structure. Failure of the revetment wall also resulted in damage to 340 feet of a 5-foot high chain link fence. The PW scope of work calls for excavation of unclassified material, removal and reconstruction of the 230-foot long revetment wall using soldier pile and timber construction, backfill placement behind the revetment wall, removal and reconstruction of a 110-foot long section of the reinforced concrete drop structure, and reconstruction of the 340-foot long chain link fence. Included as part of the backup for the PW is a copy of a set of construction plans (reduced in size) prepared by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW) for Santa Clara River South Fork Stabilizer And Levee Repair at PD No. 1300, signed and sealed by a professional engineer in the state of California and dated May 2, 2005.
While the PW scope of work called for the removal of the damaged section of the drop structure, there was no line item in the cost estimate for this item of work. Also, there was no provision in the scope of work for placement and compaction of soil lost due to erosion and undermining, which led to the actual failure of the drop structure.
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted a first appeal to the California Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) on March 21, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on May 19, 2006. The Applicant requested a change in the scope of work to allow for an increase to the total length of the drop structure identified as damaged in the PW, as well as items of work that were not included in the PW. The Applicant contended that 150 feet of the drop structure wall needed to be removed and replaced to allow for placement and compaction of soil eroded from beneath a portion of the structure beyond the area that failed. The Applicant requested that demolition and removal of the damaged drop structure be added to the scope of work, as well as placement and compaction of fill material to replace the soil eroded from beneath the drop structure. In addition, the Applicant requested the following: implementation of a water diversion plan; shoring for open excavations, materials and labor for construction of weep holes that are called for in the construction plans; hazardous materials testing of the old timber from the damaged revetment wall prior to disposal; materials testing; permitting fees; and environmental and biological services for the project.
As part of the appeal, the Applicant provided a bid summary and estimated cost for the project (unidentified preparer and agency) dated March 14, 2006, and a tabulated total labor summary (date, preparer, and agency all unidentified) under the heading Verification Request Letters And Pre-Construction Surveys for the Santa Clara River South Fork Stabilizer Repairs (Project PDD-B108). The construction cost for the project is given as $921,668, to which the Applicant added ... the FEMA-placeholder funding of seven percent for design and three percent for project management. (p. 3) bringing the total estimate for the project to $1,013,835.
In response to the first appeal, the Acting Regional Director stated that, FEMA concurs that it may have been necessary to replace 150 feet of stabilizer in order to perform an effective repair. However, the Applicant has not provided any documentation supporting its assertion that an additional 40 feet of stabilizer had to be replaced. Therefore, the Acting Regional Director denied the appeal because the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to support its request to repair the additional 40 feet of the drop structure, construction of weep holes and placement of additional unclassified fill. In addition, the Acting Regional Director determined that the other items of work requested were considered as incidental to the completion of the scope of work, such that the associated costs would be reconciled during the grant close-out process.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted a second appeal to OES on October 12, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on December 14, 2006. The Applicant protested the Acting Regional Directors appeal determination, objected to the suggestion that the costs associated with work items considered as incidental be deferred until the close-out process, and presented some documents not included with the first appeal in support of its requested change to the scope of work. In addition to copies of the PW and first appeal response, the Applicant included the following: three (3) photographs of the damaged drop structure; a copy of one (1) sheet (reduced in size) from an original set of construction plans by the County of Los Angeles for the structure at the South Fork of the Santa Clara River, at PD No. 1300, showing the location of weep holes in the concrete structure; and a 33-page accounting summary of LADPW labor, equipment, materials, and construction services credited against the project. The estimated total project cost requested in the second appeal is $1,085,236, which was referred to in the appeal (p. 6) as preliminary since the Applicant had not processed all charges for the project. The estimate included engineering design, permits, fees, and construction.
DISCUSSION
A review of the PW reveals that several of the eligible work items that the Applicant requested were omitted from the PW cost estimate. These include the following:
1. The Damage Dimensions and Description (Item 3) states that water scoured around and below the stabilizer structure causing the right half to buckle and sink into the scoured area. However, no provision was made in the PW to backfill and compact the soil lost from around and beneath the structure. Failure of water control structures during periods of high flow, such as that which occurred during the declared incident, frequently results in progressive erosion of soil upstream of the structure as well. Also, no provision was made in the PW for soil excavation to expose the damaged structure during the repair process, and subsequent placement and compaction after the repair, as shown in photographs contained in the PW. Therefore, this item of work is eligible.
2. The PW scope of work includes Remove and Replace 272 CY of Damaged Stabilizer. While the cost estimate provides for reconstruction of the stabilizer, there is no provision for removal (demolition and disposal) of the damaged section of the reinforced concrete drop structure, which constitutes an eligible component of work. This item of work will be added to the PW.
3. An additional item of work - weep holes - requested by the Applicant, while less apparent during an inspection of the damaged facility, is equally appropriate as a component of the restoration of the drop structure. It is quite common for weep holes to be installed to control uplift pressures in concrete water control structures, such as the drop structure in question. Consequently, materials and labor for construction of the weep holes is considered eligible, as th tvisit and included with the PW showed the river channel as being dry at the time of the site inspection, a provision still needs to be made for care and handling of water in the river channel as a result of rainfall events that may take place while repairs to the facility are in progress. Such provisions are common practice in the construction of water resource projects as failure to do so will expose the facility to additional damage from such an event. Consequently, provisions for storm water control and/or diversion is considered eligible, as it is a necessary component of the project.
The first appeal response stated that, FEMA concurs that it may have been necessary to replace 150 feet of stabilizer in order to perform an effective repair. However, the Applicant has not provided any documentation supporting its assertion that an additional 40 feet of stabilizer had to be replaced. The Applicant has provided a photograph and explanation in the second appeal of the need for the additional length of repair. It was stated (p. 3) that, This picture alone identifies another 20 feet of scour-related damage beyond the end of the Stabilizers visible structural damage, i.e., the 110 feet measured by FEMA. At a minimum, the soil under the stabilizer was scoured to the extent of visible scour and the length of damage should have been extended to 130 feet based on this alone. It was further stated (p. 3) that, Since the Stabilizer had no upstream cutoff wall, it was necessary to deal with additional voids that would occur under the massive stabilizer by the storm-fed water flow. These voids were not visible while the Stabilizer was in place and an extra length of repair was necessary to assure the Stabilizer was supported by competent material. The presence of these additional voids revealed during construction led to the Applicants decision to undertake repairs to 150 feet of the structure, since the soil beneath the structure could not be replaced and compacted without removing the additional section of wall. In light of this argument, FEMA accepts the need to repair 150 feet of reinforced concrete drop structure wall.
The Applicant provided a 33-page summary of LADPW labor, equipment, materials, and construction services credited against the project in support of the estimated total project cost of $1,085,236. The Applicant stated that this estimate was preliminary since it had not processed all charges. However, the estimate did include costs for engineering design, permits, fees, and construction. The Applicant did not provide an explanation as to how or why this amount differed from the estimated total project cost of $1,013,835 requested in the first appeal. Therefore, the scope of work and basis for the cost estimate for the PW version will be taken from the line item estimate in the Bid Summary and Estimated Costs for the Santa Clara Stabilizer, dated March 14, 2006, which was included with the first appeal as Exhibit 2, with one exception.
In presenting the basis for the total project cost requested in the first appeal (p. 3), the Applicant added ... the FEMA-placeholder funding of seven percent for design and three percent for project management. The value of seven percent added by the Applicant reflects an apparent misunderstanding regarding the costs estimated for engineering and design services. Referring to the FEMA Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322), pp 75-79, Figure 4 Cost Curve B (project of average complexity), a project in the amount of $921,668 would have an estimate of approximately 5.1 percent for engineering and design services performed using the Applicants own employees. Construction inspection is included in that percentage. Therefore, the cost for the line item for Design/Construction Administration will be changed from $64,517 to $47,005, which reduces the total estimate from $1,013,835 to $996,323.
CONCLUSION
The PW will be revised to include the following items of eligible work: (1) Construct 150 feet of stabilizer; (2) backfill and compact soil lost beneath and around the structure; (3) remove damaged stabilizer; (4) construction of weep holes and (5) water control/diversion in the channel during repairs. The Applicants requested project cost of $1,013,835 will be reduced to $996,323 to reflect the correct estimate for engineering and design services. Therefore, the appeal is partially approved.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1577-DR |
| Applicant | Los Angeles County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-99037-00 |
| PW ID# | 3128 |
| Date Signed | 2007-05-05T04:00:00 |
Summary:
(2) Is the revised project cost estimate reasonable?
(2) No, the total project cost will be increased to $996, 323 instead of $1,085,236 as requested by the Applicant.
(3)
Appeal Letter
October 5, 2007
Mr. Paul Jacks
Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Second Appeal Los Angeles County, PA ID# 037-99037-00, Santa Clara River Drop Structure Repair, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, PW #3128
Dear Mr. Jacks:
This is in response to your letter dated December 14, 2006, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Los Angeles County (Applicant). As a result of heavy rainfall during the January 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared PW #3128 in September 2005 for $913,309 to fund repairs to damage sustained by a drop structure on the Santa Clara River, located in Los Angeles County. The Applicant is requesting that the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revise the scope of work and increase funding for this project.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, we have determined that additional items of work for the project are eligible for funding and the cost estimate is increased to $996,323. Therefore, I am granting the Applicants request for a change to the scope of work. I am also partially granting the appeal to increase the cost estimate. The Regional Administrator will prepare a PW to implement this determination.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Paul Jacks
Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Second Appeal Los Angeles County, PA ID# 037-99037-00, Santa Clara River Drop Structure Repair, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, PW #3128
Dear Mr. Jacks:
This is in response to your letter dated December 14, 2006, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Los Angeles County (Applicant). As a result of heavy rainfall during the January 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared PW #3128 in September 2005 for $913,309 to fund repairs to damage sustained by a drop structure on the Santa Clara River, located in Los Angeles County. The Applicant is requesting that the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revise the scope of work and increase funding for this project.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, we have determined that additional items of work for the project are eligible for funding and the cost estimate is increased to $996,323. Therefore, I am granting the Applicants request for a change to the scope of work. I am also partially granting the appeal to increase the cost estimate. The Regional Administrator will prepare a PW to implement this determination.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDAs a result of heavy rainfall during the January 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) #3128 in September 2005 for $913,309 to fund repairs to a drop structure on the Santa Clara River, located in the Santa Clarita area of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County (Applicant) disagreed with FEMAs scope of work and funding determinations in the PW.
The PW funds the repair of a 300-foot long reinforced concrete drop structure (also referred to as a stabilizer) that spans the river at the downstream end of Private Drain (PD) 1300. The failure of a 15-foot high, 230-foot long rail and timber revetment wall on the right (east) bank, adjacent to the drop structure, led to erosion, undermining, and failure of a section of the drop structure. Failure of the revetment wall also resulted in damage to 340 feet of a 5-foot high chain link fence. The PW scope of work calls for excavation of unclassified material, removal and reconstruction of the 230-foot long revetment wall using soldier pile and timber construction, backfill placement behind the revetment wall, removal and reconstruction of a 110-foot long section of the reinforced concrete drop structure, and reconstruction of the 340-foot long chain link fence. Included as part of the backup for the PW is a copy of a set of construction plans (reduced in size) prepared by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW) for Santa Clara River South Fork Stabilizer And Levee Repair at PD No. 1300, signed and sealed by a professional engineer in the state of California and dated May 2, 2005.
While the PW scope of work called for the removal of the damaged section of the drop structure, there was no line item in the cost estimate for this item of work. Also, there was no provision in the scope of work for placement and compaction of soil lost due to erosion and undermining, which led to the actual failure of the drop structure.
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted a first appeal to the California Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) on March 21, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on May 19, 2006. The Applicant requested a change in the scope of work to allow for an increase to the total length of the drop structure identified as damaged in the PW, as well as items of work that were not included in the PW. The Applicant contended that 150 feet of the drop structure wall needed to be removed and replaced to allow for placement and compaction of soil eroded from beneath a portion of the structure beyond the area that failed. The Applicant requested that demolition and removal of the damaged drop structure be added to the scope of work, as well as placement and compaction of fill material to replace the soil eroded from beneath the drop structure. In addition, the Applicant requested the following: implementation of a water diversion plan; shoring for open excavations, materials and labor for construction of weep holes that are called for in the construction plans; hazardous materials testing of the old timber from the damaged revetment wall prior to disposal; materials testing; permitting fees; and environmental and biological services for the project.
As part of the appeal, the Applicant provided a bid summary and estimated cost for the project (unidentified preparer and agency) dated March 14, 2006, and a tabulated total labor summary (date, preparer, and agency all unidentified) under the heading Verification Request Letters And Pre-Construction Surveys for the Santa Clara River South Fork Stabilizer Repairs (Project PDD-B108). The construction cost for the project is given as $921,668, to which the Applicant added ... the FEMA-placeholder funding of seven percent for design and three percent for project management. (p. 3) bringing the total estimate for the project to $1,013,835.
In response to the first appeal, the Acting Regional Director stated that, FEMA concurs that it may have been necessary to replace 150 feet of stabilizer in order to perform an effective repair. However, the Applicant has not provided any documentation supporting its assertion that an additional 40 feet of stabilizer had to be replaced. Therefore, the Acting Regional Director denied the appeal because the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to support its request to repair the additional 40 feet of the drop structure, construction of weep holes and placement of additional unclassified fill. In addition, the Acting Regional Director determined that the other items of work requested were considered as incidental to the completion of the scope of work, such that the associated costs would be reconciled during the grant close-out process.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted a second appeal to OES on October 12, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on December 14, 2006. The Applicant protested the Acting Regional Directors appeal determination, objected to the suggestion that the costs associated with work items considered as incidental be deferred until the close-out process, and presented some documents not included with the first appeal in support of its requested change to the scope of work. In addition to copies of the PW and first appeal response, the Applicant included the following: three (3) photographs of the damaged drop structure; a copy of one (1) sheet (reduced in size) from an original set of construction plans by the County of Los Angeles for the structure at the South Fork of the Santa Clara River, at PD No. 1300, showing the location of weep holes in the concrete structure; and a 33-page accounting summary of LADPW labor, equipment, materials, and construction services credited against the project. The estimated total project cost requested in the second appeal is $1,085,236, which was referred to in the appeal (p. 6) as preliminary since the Applicant had not processed all charges for the project. The estimate included engineering design, permits, fees, and construction.
DISCUSSION
A review of the PW reveals that several of the eligible work items that the Applicant requested were omitted from the PW cost estimate. These include the following:
1. The Damage Dimensions and Description (Item 3) states that water scoured around and below the stabilizer structure causing the right half to buckle and sink into the scoured area. However, no provision was made in the PW to backfill and compact the soil lost from around and beneath the structure. Failure of water control structures during periods of high flow, such as that which occurred during the declared incident, frequently results in progressive erosion of soil upstream of the structure as well. Also, no provision was made in the PW for soil excavation to expose the damaged structure during the repair process, and subsequent placement and compaction after the repair, as shown in photographs contained in the PW. Therefore, this item of work is eligible.
2. The PW scope of work includes Remove and Replace 272 CY of Damaged Stabilizer. While the cost estimate provides for reconstruction of the stabilizer, there is no provision for removal (demolition and disposal) of the damaged section of the reinforced concrete drop structure, which constitutes an eligible component of work. This item of work will be added to the PW.
3. An additional item of work - weep holes - requested by the Applicant, while less apparent during an inspection of the damaged facility, is equally appropriate as a component of the restoration of the drop structure. It is quite common for weep holes to be installed to control uplift pressures in concrete water control structures, such as the drop structure in question. Consequently, materials and labor for construction of the weep holes is considered eligible, as th tvisit and included with the PW showed the river channel as being dry at the time of the site inspection, a provision still needs to be made for care and handling of water in the river channel as a result of rainfall events that may take place while repairs to the facility are in progress. Such provisions are common practice in the construction of water resource projects as failure to do so will expose the facility to additional damage from such an event. Consequently, provisions for storm water control and/or diversion is considered eligible, as it is a necessary component of the project.
The first appeal response stated that, FEMA concurs that it may have been necessary to replace 150 feet of stabilizer in order to perform an effective repair. However, the Applicant has not provided any documentation supporting its assertion that an additional 40 feet of stabilizer had to be replaced. The Applicant has provided a photograph and explanation in the second appeal of the need for the additional length of repair. It was stated (p. 3) that, This picture alone identifies another 20 feet of scour-related damage beyond the end of the Stabilizers visible structural damage, i.e., the 110 feet measured by FEMA. At a minimum, the soil under the stabilizer was scoured to the extent of visible scour and the length of damage should have been extended to 130 feet based on this alone. It was further stated (p. 3) that, Since the Stabilizer had no upstream cutoff wall, it was necessary to deal with additional voids that would occur under the massive stabilizer by the storm-fed water flow. These voids were not visible while the Stabilizer was in place and an extra length of repair was necessary to assure the Stabilizer was supported by competent material. The presence of these additional voids revealed during construction led to the Applicants decision to undertake repairs to 150 feet of the structure, since the soil beneath the structure could not be replaced and compacted without removing the additional section of wall. In light of this argument, FEMA accepts the need to repair 150 feet of reinforced concrete drop structure wall.
The Applicant provided a 33-page summary of LADPW labor, equipment, materials, and construction services credited against the project in support of the estimated total project cost of $1,085,236. The Applicant stated that this estimate was preliminary since it had not processed all charges. However, the estimate did include costs for engineering design, permits, fees, and construction. The Applicant did not provide an explanation as to how or why this amount differed from the estimated total project cost of $1,013,835 requested in the first appeal. Therefore, the scope of work and basis for the cost estimate for the PW version will be taken from the line item estimate in the Bid Summary and Estimated Costs for the Santa Clara Stabilizer, dated March 14, 2006, which was included with the first appeal as Exhibit 2, with one exception.
In presenting the basis for the total project cost requested in the first appeal (p. 3), the Applicant added ... the FEMA-placeholder funding of seven percent for design and three percent for project management. The value of seven percent added by the Applicant reflects an apparent misunderstanding regarding the costs estimated for engineering and design services. Referring to the FEMA Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322), pp 75-79, Figure 4 Cost Curve B (project of average complexity), a project in the amount of $921,668 would have an estimate of approximately 5.1 percent for engineering and design services performed using the Applicants own employees. Construction inspection is included in that percentage. Therefore, the cost for the line item for Design/Construction Administration will be changed from $64,517 to $47,005, which reduces the total estimate from $1,013,835 to $996,323.
CONCLUSION
The PW will be revised to include the following items of eligible work: (1) Construct 150 feet of stabilizer; (2) backfill and compact soil lost beneath and around the structure; (3) remove damaged stabilizer; (4) construction of weep holes and (5) water control/diversion in the channel during repairs. The Applicants requested project cost of $1,013,835 will be reduced to $996,323 to reflect the correct estimate for engineering and design services. Therefore, the appeal is partially approved.