This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Time & Material Contract
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1539-FL, City of Fort Myers, Project Worksheet 6333
Cross-reference: Time & Material Contracting
Summary: Hurricane Charley deposited significant amounts of vegetative and construction and demolition debris in the right-of-ways (ROW) on other public property in the City of Fort Myers (Applicant). FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 6333 for $367,299 for debris removal. Crowder Gulf, a contractor to the Applicant, removed the debris under a time-and-material (T&M) contract. At final inspection, FEMA de-obligated $168,596 because the Applicant used a T&M contract beyond the allowable 70-hour limit. FEMA could not determine the reasonableness of the costs incurred beyond the 70-hour limit.
The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Grantee did not submit the appeal to FEMA within the regulatory timeframe specified in 44 CFR §206.206(c).
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 17, 2008. The Applicant maintains that (1) the debris removal work performed in parks and on golf courses necessitated the use of a T&M contract, and that the cubic yard/truckload ticket approach [was] not practical; (2) FEMA policies allow exceptions to the 70-hour time limitation for work in which a clear scope of work cannot be developed; (3) the cost for the services in relationship to the need for those services were [sic] fair. The State forwarded the appeal to FEMA on June 19, 2008 and supports the Applicants request.
Issues: Are costs incurred under the T&M contract after the initial 70-hour period eligible for reimbursement?
Findings: No.
Rationale: Debris Management Guide, FEMA 325, April 1999, page 28; Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, October 1999, page 40; Public Assistance Debris Operations Job Aid, FEMA 9580.1 pages 34-38.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1539-DR |
| Applicant | City of Fort Myers |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 071-24125-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 6333 |
| Date Signed | 2009-01-06T05:00:00 |
The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Grantee did not submit the appeal to FEMA within the regulatory timeframe specified in 44 CFR §206.206(c).
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 17, 2008. The Applicant maintains that (1) the debris removal work performed in parks and on golf courses necessitated the use of a T&M contract, and that the cubic yard/truckload ticket approach [was] not practical; (2) FEMA policies allow exceptions to the 70-hour time limitation for work in which a clear scope of work cannot be developed; (3) the cost for the services in relationship to the need for those services were [sic] fair. The State forwarded the appeal to FEMA on June 19, 2008 and supports the Applicants request.
Appeal Letter
January 6, 2009
W. Craig Fugate
Director
State of Florida
Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Re: Second AppealCity of Fort Meyers, PA ID 071-24125-00, Time & Material Contract,
FEMA-1539-DR-FL, Project Worksheet (PW) 6333
Dear Mr. Fugate:
This letter is in response to your letter dated June 19, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Fort Meyers (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) de-obligation of $168,596 for work completed under a time-and-material (T&M) contract beyond the allowable 70-hour work period.
FEMA prepared PW 6333 for $367,299 for debris removal from the Applicants rights-of-way (ROWs) and other public property. The Applicant used a T&M contract to remove the debris for over one and one-half months. At final inspection, FEMA de-obligated $168,596 because the time period of the work performed under the T&M contract was in excess of the allowable 70-hour time limit. In addition, FEMA could not determine the reasonableness of the costs the Applicant incurred beyond the 70-hour limit.
The State submitted the Applicants first appeal to FEMA eight months after regulatory deadline. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the State did not submit the appeal within the regulatory timeframe specified in 44 CFR §206.206(c). Therefore, the Regional Administrator did not evaluate the merits of the appeal.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 17, 2008. The Applicant maintains that (1) the debris removal work performed in parks and on golf courses necessitated the use of a T&M contract, and that the cubic yard/truckload ticket approach [was] not practical; (2) FEMA policy allows exceptions to the 70-hour time limitation for work in which a clear scope of work cannot be developed; and (3) the cost for the services in relationship to the need for those services were [sic] fair. The State forwarded the appeal on June 19, 2008 and supports the Applicants request.
The Debris Management Guide, FEMA 325, April 1999 states:
Time-and-Material contracts should be limited to a maximum of 70 hours of actual emergency debris clearance work and should be used only after all available local, tribal and State government equipment has been committed. Time-and-Material contracts for debris clearing, hauling, and/or disposal should be terminated once the designated not-to-exceed number of hours is reached. On occasion, Time-and-Material contracts may be extended for a short period when absolutely necessary, for example, until appropriate Unit Price contracts have been prepared and executed.
T&M contracts may be appropriate beyond the initial 70-hour, provided that Applicant appropriately monitors the work. The Applicant did not provide any documentation to show that it appropriately monitored the contractor, or any other information that would allow FEMA to evaluate the reasonableness of the costs incurred after the initial 70-hour time period.
Based on these facts and the information submitted with the appeal, I have determined that the Applicant has not shown that the costs it incurred under the T&M contract were reasonable. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major Phil May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV
W. Craig Fugate
Director
State of Florida
Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Re: Second AppealCity of Fort Meyers, PA ID 071-24125-00, Time & Material Contract,
FEMA-1539-DR-FL, Project Worksheet (PW) 6333
Dear Mr. Fugate:
This letter is in response to your letter dated June 19, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Fort Meyers (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) de-obligation of $168,596 for work completed under a time-and-material (T&M) contract beyond the allowable 70-hour work period.
FEMA prepared PW 6333 for $367,299 for debris removal from the Applicants rights-of-way (ROWs) and other public property. The Applicant used a T&M contract to remove the debris for over one and one-half months. At final inspection, FEMA de-obligated $168,596 because the time period of the work performed under the T&M contract was in excess of the allowable 70-hour time limit. In addition, FEMA could not determine the reasonableness of the costs the Applicant incurred beyond the 70-hour limit.
The State submitted the Applicants first appeal to FEMA eight months after regulatory deadline. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the State did not submit the appeal within the regulatory timeframe specified in 44 CFR §206.206(c). Therefore, the Regional Administrator did not evaluate the merits of the appeal.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 17, 2008. The Applicant maintains that (1) the debris removal work performed in parks and on golf courses necessitated the use of a T&M contract, and that the cubic yard/truckload ticket approach [was] not practical; (2) FEMA policy allows exceptions to the 70-hour time limitation for work in which a clear scope of work cannot be developed; and (3) the cost for the services in relationship to the need for those services were [sic] fair. The State forwarded the appeal on June 19, 2008 and supports the Applicants request.
The Debris Management Guide, FEMA 325, April 1999 states:
Time-and-Material contracts should be limited to a maximum of 70 hours of actual emergency debris clearance work and should be used only after all available local, tribal and State government equipment has been committed. Time-and-Material contracts for debris clearing, hauling, and/or disposal should be terminated once the designated not-to-exceed number of hours is reached. On occasion, Time-and-Material contracts may be extended for a short period when absolutely necessary, for example, until appropriate Unit Price contracts have been prepared and executed.
T&M contracts may be appropriate beyond the initial 70-hour, provided that Applicant appropriately monitors the work. The Applicant did not provide any documentation to show that it appropriately monitored the contractor, or any other information that would allow FEMA to evaluate the reasonableness of the costs incurred after the initial 70-hour time period.
Based on these facts and the information submitted with the appeal, I have determined that the Applicant has not shown that the costs it incurred under the T&M contract were reasonable. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major Phil May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV