Debris Removal

March 5, 2010

Albert Ashwood

Governor’s Authorized Representative

State of Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management

P.O. Box 53365

Oklahoma City, OK  73152-3365

Re:  Second Appeal–City of Chandler, PA ID 081-71000-00, Debris Removal,

       FEMA-1735-DR-OK, Project Worksheet (PW) 859

Dear Mr. Ashwood:

This letter is in response to your letter dated July 31, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Chandler (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of an additional $223,917 for a time and materials contract for emergency tree trimming and debris removal under PW 859.

Background

An ice storm from December 8, 2007, to January 3, 2008, deposited large quantities of vegetative debris, including hanging limbs and leaning trees, in the Applicant’s maintained and owned properties.  The Applicant contracted with Integrated Pro Services (IPS) to perform emergency tree trimming and debris clearance from roadways under a time and materials contract.  IPS performed the emergency debris clearance from December 17 to

December 22, 2007.  The Applicant submitted an invoice to FEMA from IPS for $437,205, and then submitted a revised and final invoice on March 18, 2008, for $321,271.  FEMA prepared PW 859 on March 28, 2008, for $39,294.  The Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to support the request for the full $321,271.  FEMA based the $39,294 on a comparison of the 70 hour debris removal contract costs of other applicants in the vicinity.  On April 23, 2008, the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management (ODEM) reviewed the Applicant’s documentation as part of the closeout process for the project.  The ODEM auditors concluded the Applicant’s documentation supported a total of $263,210 in costs.  The auditors noted that the contractor claimed more equipment hours (1,406) than operator hours (1,164) and stated that presumably the contractor would submit timesheets for the additional operator hours to match the equipment hours.  FEMA denied the Applicant’s request for an additional $223,917 in funding.

The Applicant submitted its first appeal in a letter dated May 22, 2008.  In a letter dated April 3, 2009, the Acting Regional Administrator denied the appeal because only 70 percent of the time sheets had been submitted to the Applicant and equipment hours and operator hours did not balance.  In addition, the Acting Regional Administrator indicated that the invoice for the emergency work had been revised several times from $437,205 to $267,973 without explanation.  The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 24, 2009.  ODEM forwarded the second appeal to FEMA on July 30, 2009, requesting $227,380 in additional funding, based on an ODEM audit recommendation of a total of $266,673.

Discussion

FEMA will reimburse the Applicant reasonable costs for the emergency clearance of debris from roadways immediately following the ice storm.  The ODEM auditors concluded that the documentation the Applicant submitted supported 1,406 equipment hours and 1,164 labor hours.  It is unreasonable to reimburse the Applicant for more equipment hours than there were workers to operate the equipment.  The cost of equipment that is not used in the debris removal operation is not eligible.  The contractor used bucket trucks and skidders during the debris clearance operation.  These types of equipment usually require at least two people to operate properly.  Therefore, the documented 1,164 labor hours support 582 equipment hours.  FEMA concludes that eligible equipment is 41 percent of the requested equipment hours (582/1,406).   Therefore, the reasonable cost for the emergency debris clearance is $109,335 (.41 x $266,673).

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the second appeal and determined that the contractor cleared eligible debris.  A reasonable cost for performing the emergency debris clearance is $109,335.  Accordingly, I am partially approving the second appeal for $70,041 in additional costs.  By copy of this letter, I request that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this determination.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Recovery Directorate

cc:   Tony Russell

       Regional Administrator

       FEMA Region VI