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.

Camp Louis Routh-Repair of Retaining Walls

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1577-DR
ApplicantLos Angeles County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#037-99037-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 3126
Date Signed2008-09-10T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1577-DR-CA; Los Angeles County – Department of Public Works

Cross-reference: Pre-disaster conditions; Eligible work; Improved Project; Retaining Walls

Summary: The Winter Storms of 2005 damaged two retaining walls at Camp Louis Routh. FEMA prepared PW 3126 for $80,353 to repair the damages. The Applicant requested that FEMA increase the scope of work for the repairs at Site 2 to include shoring for an adjacent building and damage to another wall and increase the cost to $235,737. The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal because the Applicant did not submit sufficient information to support its claim. Specifically, it did not show that damage to the west-facing wall was caused by the disaster or that a modular unit needed to be shored up during repair of the wall. The Applicant submitted additional information with its second appeal.

Issues: Has the Applicant provided documentation to support its request for a change in scope of work and increase in project cost?

Findings: No.

Rationale: Stafford Act Section 406(e); 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1); 44 CFR §206.203(d)(1)

Appeal Letter

September 10, 2008

Mr. Paul Jacks
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655

Re: Second Appeal – Los Angeles County, PA ID# 037-99037-00, Camp Louis Routh - Repair of Retaining Walls, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, PW #3126

Dear Mr. Jacks:

This is in response to your letter dated January 5, 2007, 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, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared Project Worksheet (PW) #3126 in September 2005 for $80,353 to fund the repair of damage to two retaining walls on the grounds of Camp Louis Routh, which is a youth detention facility located in Los Angeles County. The Applicant is appealing the scope of work and funding for the project, requesting, that FEMA increase the project cost to $235,737.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, we have determined that the information the Applicant has submitted does not support its request to revise the scope of work and increase the project cost. Therefore, I am denying this appeal.

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

Second Appeal – Los Angeles (County), FIPS#037-99037-00, PW# 3126

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

As a result of heavy rainfall during the January 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared PW #3126 in September 2005 for $80,353 to fund the repair of two retaining walls on the grounds of Camp Louis Routh, which is a youth detention facility located in Los Angeles County. The PW calls for the reconstruction of a 34-foot long retaining wall at Site 1 and a 65-foot long retaining wall at Site 2. Both retaining walls are constructed of rounded cobbles (stones) secured in place with mortar with a pre-cast concrete cap placed along the top of the walls. The walls were constructed with provisions for drainage of water from behind the structures through pipes exiting the face of the walls. However, a geotechnical report indicates that the pipes appear to have become clogged with soil that gradually entered the pipes over the years. Storm water did not drain properly during the declared incident which resulted in the build-up of water pressure behind the walls. This in turn caused displacements along with the development of cracks in the walls. The walls identified as Site 1 and Site 2 are described below.

Site 1 is adjacent to the educational center. The wall is 34 feet long and 4.5 feet high. The PW states that there was a horizontal crack and 2 vertical cracks in the wall. A 10-foot long, 5-foot high CMU (concrete masonry unit) wall is located on the ground immediately behind the wall. There was no observed damage to the CMU wall. The PW scope of work calls for removal of the damaged 34-foot stone and mortar wall and replacement with a concrete wall on a 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep continuous concrete footing. The scope of work also includes soil excavation 2 feet behind and 2 feet below the wall to facilitate construction and includes 34 feet of drain behind the new wall. Due to the proximity of the CMU wall to the damaged wall, the CMU must be removed and reconstructed to allow for construction of the new wall section.
The wall at Site 2 is adjacent to the firemen’s classroom. It supports an asphalt paved parking area behind the wall, as well as a modular classroom building. The wall consists of several sections that vary in height and length. The PW refers to a 65-foot long section that experienced a maximum displacement of 1 inch and sustained 4 vertical cracks up the entire height of the wall. The PW considers an average height of 7.5 feet for the damaged section. A section of asphalt pavement, 15 feet long and 5 feet wide, behind the front section of the wall experienced 2 to 3 inches of settlement, which resulted in extensive cracking over an area 45 feet long and 15 feet wide. A 5-foot high chain link safety fence is located along the top of the wall. The PW scope of work calls for removal of the damaged 65-foot stone and mortar wall and replacement with a concrete wall on a 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep continuous concrete footing. The scope of work also includes soil excavation 3 feet behind and 2 feet below the wall to facilitate construction, installation of 65 feet of drain behind the new wall, removal and replacement of the 5-foot high chain link fence at the top of the wall, and removal and replacement of the damaged asphalt pavement.

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted a first appeal to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) on March 28, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on May 25, 2006. The Applicant took exception to the total project costs associated with both walls and contended that the scope of work needed to be revised for the wall at Site 2. The Applicant stated (p. 2 of its appeal) that it agrees with the scope of work defined in the PW for Site 1. For Site 2, however, the Applicant contended that FEMA did not account for all of the damage to the wall or recognize damage to the west-facing wall. The Applicant requested the removal of 4 trees and stumps to provide access for wall repairs. Lastly, the Applicant requested shoring for the classroom building during repair of the wall.
The Applicant provided three photographs of the wall at Site 2 (date stamped March 27, 2006) and a cost estimate for the wall repairs identified as Job Order Contract Contractor’s Cost Proposal Detail prepared by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW), dated March 27, 2006 (pages missing for the Site 2 estimate). The construction cost for the project is given as $204,307, to which the Applicant added the cost for the geotechnical study and “... the FEMA-placeholder funding of seven percent for design and three percent for project management.” (p. 2) bringing the total estimate for the project to $235,737.

In response to the appeal, the Acting Regional Director stated that the Applicant did not report the additional damage to FEMA within the time frame for reporting damage established under Federal regulations. In addition, the Applicant did not submit any documentation regarding how or when the additional damage occurred or when it was initially observed. The Acting Regional Director also stated that removal of trees and vegetation is considered incidental to the completion of the scope of work. Accordingly, she denied the appeal.

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted a second appeal to OES on November 8, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on January 5, 2007. Because the Applicant did not agree with the Acting Regional Director’s decision on the first appeal, additional documents were submitted to support the claim that FEMA did not account for all of the wall damage at Site 2. In addition to copies of the PW and first appeal response, the Applicant included the following: e-mail communications from Robert Lawson (OES) to Valarie Williams-Iron (apparently affiliated with the State or County, not FEMA), dated September 1, 2005, and September 24, 2005; a draft PW prepared by Robert Lawson in the amount of $138,167, dated August 31, 2005, with 3 photographs of the west-facing wall at Site 2; the cover page of a draft PW prepared by Robert Lawson in the amount of $155,383, dated December 28, 2006; and a completed copy of the cost estimate for wall repairs prepared by LADPW, dated March 27, 2006. The total project cost requested in the second appeal remained at $235,737, which includes the cost of the geotechnical study and construction, along with seven percent for design and three percent for project management.

DISCUSSION

Central to the appeal is the Applicant’s allegation that FEMA failed to document damage to the wall at Site 2 that both the County and OES had reportedly brought to FEMA’s attention. In response to the Acting Regional Director’s statement that the Applicant did not report the damage to FEMA within the required time frame, the Applicant states (p. 3) that, “Well within any statutory deadline, the County identified the damage to the entire lengths of the walls at Camp Routh in the List of Projects presented to FEMA.” However, a copy of this list was not included with the appeal in support of the Applicant’s claim.
As part of the supporting documentation for the PW are two e-mail communications between Eileen Hayes (FEMA) and Carol Kindler (County of Los Angeles). In the initial e-mail from Eileen Hayes to Carol Kindler, dated September 21, 2005, the message reads, “Attached is a revised PW for the retaining walls at Camp Louis Roth for your review and comment.” This indicates that the Applicant was not in agreement with the original draft PW for the project, and FEMA prepared a revision to the PW. A copy of the transmitted PW was not included, and it is not clear what the basis for the revision was and what was changed from the original PW. The draft PW prepared by Robert Lawson (OES) dated August 31, 2005, may have been the basis, but there are no indications that Valarie Williams-Iron te t is less than the Robert Lawson draft.

The response from Carol Kindler to Eileen Hayes, dated September 26, 2005, reads, “We do not agree. Thank you for the established review process.” No information was provided on the reason or reasons for the County’s disagreement with the revised PW. These communications make the following points apparent: FEMA reconsidered the scope of work in the original PW, which resulted in a revision; but that revision was still not in agreement with the scope of work proposed by the Applicant.

In the second appeal the Applicant states (p. 4), “Based on the photographic information included in this appeal, and previously provided to FEMA, …As the County continued to disagree with PW 3126 prepared by FEMA for the reasons of inadequate damage description and funding, it cannot be truthfully stated by FEMA that the County never identified this damage in a timely manner to FEMA. Both OES and the County have documentation to prove otherwise.” Despite the Applicant’s claim of documentation to support the County’s position, documentation was not provided with either appeal to indicate that information was provided to FEMA. Copies of any such documents reportedly transmitting photographs or other relevant pieces of information to FEMA would have been helpful in the assessment of the Applicant’s appeal. The Applicants first appeal response specifically identified the importance of such documentation for a second appeal, however, nothing was provided.

Another fact that is relevant pertains to the geotechnical report prepared by Kleinfelder for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, dated April 13, 2005, which was included as part of the supporting information for PW #3126. According to the report, Kleinfelder was retained by the County to evaluate soil conditions and causes of distress observed in the walls, as well as provide recommendations for remediation or reconstruction. The information in the Kleinfelder report does not differ significantly from what is documented in the PW, and the photographs in this report appear to be basically the same as those taken by the FEMA inspector. The Kleinfelder report does not support the Applicant’s allegation of undocumented damage. The Kleinfelder report also makes no mention of the need for temporary shoring of any buildings in proximity to the walls at either Site 1 or Site 2. This fact seriously calls into question the need for shoring or bracing of the modular building as part of the scope of work for Site 2, as requested by the Applicant in the appeal.

As stated in the first appeal and reiterated in OES’s transmittal of the second appeal, the County agreed with the scope of work for Site 1 but did not agree with the funding. The Applicant did not reiterate this in the second appeal, but is requesting a substantial increase in project funding. It should be noted that in the draft PW prepared by Robert Lawson, dated August 31, 2005, the cost to repair the damage at Site 1 was estimated at $13,387, excluding the cost for the geotechnical study. In FEMA’s revision to PW #3126 the cost to repair the damage at Site 1 was estimated at $16,598. Consequently, it would appear that the County did not have any objection to the repair costs for Site 1 at the time the PW was written and obligated. It would appear that the County’s objection is based on information obtained subsequently, as presented in the Job Order Contract Contractor’s Cost Proposal Detail, dated March 27, 2006, in which the estimate for the wall repair is $21,168. Since Site 1 is part of a large project PW, the costs will be paid on the basis of actuals, provided there is no deviation from the scope of work in the PW and that the County can demonstrate that the actual costs meet the Federal government’s criteria for cost reasonableness.
CONCLUSION

The Applicant’s request for increased funding of Site 1 and a revised scope of work and increased funding for the wall repair at Site 2 is denied.