Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 000-U0FD2-00; California Department of Water Resources
PW ID# 824 and 858; San Joaquin Flood-Fighting Activities
Citation: FEMA-1646-DR-CA, California Department of Water Resources, Flood-Fighting Activities, Project Worksheets (PWs) 824 and 858
Summary: In 2006, a severe storm caused flooding, mudslides, and landslides in central California. The California Department of Water Resources (Applicant) performed emergency flood-fighting activities at dozens of levee sites along the San Joaquin River. Some work was performed in a county not included in the major disaster declaration. The Applicant utilized contract and force account labor, materials, and equipment to carry out the work. PW 838 was written to fund $1,035,620 in claimed contract costs. PW 858 was written to fund $935,244 in claimed force account costs. Numerous issues related to contracting, documentation, environmental compliance, and eligible costs prevented the obligation of PWs 824 and 858. Following an October 2007 meeting with representatives of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Grantee), the Applicant, and FEMA, the Applicant agreed to provide documentation that would address key, lacking information, including the exact location of each work site, a detailed description of work completed at each site, and an accounting of actual incurred costs for work completed at each site. The information was necessary for environmental compliance and to enable FEMA to determine what costs, if any, were eligible for reimbursement. The Applicant failed to provide adequate information, and FEMA issued a formal denial of eligibility. The Applicant submitted a first appeal, providing documentation consisting of a listing of work site locations and costs amounts, as well as records related to force account labor and equipment costs. The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the appeal, noting, among other things, that some work was performed in Fresno County, which was not included in the disaster declaration; that some work did not constitute emergency protective measures; and that contracted work was performed under an improperly procured and structured contract. The Applicant submitted a second appeal that briefly addresses each of the eligibility deficiencies highlighted in the first appeal decision and includes documentation in the form of email correspondence addressing the Applicant’s claimed costs, procurement materials, and a listing of work sites.
Issue: Has the Applicant provided documentation of its claimed force account and contract costs for emergency protective measures that is detailed enough to allow FEMA to determine which costs are eligible for reimbursement?
Rationale: 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a); 44 C.F.R. § 206.225(a)(3)