Force Account Equipment Rates

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1046-DR
ApplicantMadera Irrigation District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#039-91010
PW ID#16677,16691,16692,16693,16694
Date Signed1997-11-04T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA, Madera Irrigation District; DSRs 16677, 16691, 16692, 16693 and 16694

Cross-Reference:Water Control Facilities; Force Account Equipment Rates

Summary: The late winter storms of March 1995, caused damage to several of the water control facilities under the control of the Madera Irrigation District (District). The damage generally consisted of washed out irrigation canals, which were restored by the District utilizing their own equipment, including two different sized Gradalls. In September 1995, FEMA prepared several DSRs for varying amounts to fund restoration of the canal banks with placement of unclassified fill. Upon review, FEMA reduced the funding of the DSRs to reflect FEMA's applicable equipment rates. The State submitted the first appeal on July 12, 1996. The basis of the appeal is a disagreement with the substitution of FEMA equipment rates for the equipment rates of the District. The appeal was supported by historical acceptance of the District's equipment rates by another federal agency, the Bureau of Reclamation. The Regional Director denied the first appeal on December 19, 1996, because the rates were not established under state or local guidelines, and contained more than just operating costs, pursuant to 44 CFR Section 206.228 (a)(1). The State submitted the second appeal on April 1, 1997. The basis of the second appeal is the establishment of the equipment rates by approval of the rates by the District's Board of Directors, as well as independent auditors. In the second appeal, the subgrantee has provided a historical basis of the use of the equipment rates, but has not provided a basis for the establishment of equipment rates.

Issues: Has the subgrantee provided sufficient documentation to establish the justification of the use of a local, hourly equipment rate in lieu of FEMA equipment rates?

Findings: No. Details and documentation provided were not sufficient to justify the use of the District's local equipment rate. The additional information submitted documented the use of the local rates, not the basis of the local rates.

Rationale: In accordance with 44 CFR Section 206.228 (a)(1)(ii), " If an applicant wishes to claim an equipment rate which exceeds the FEMA Schedule, it must document the basis for the rate and obtain FEMA approval of an alternate rate." No documentation was submitted as a basis of the rates.

Appeal Letter

November 4, 1997

Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Assistance Branch
P. O. Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823
Dear Ms. Ward:
This letter is in response to your April 1, 1997, transmittal of the Madera Irrigation District's (District) second appeal of damage survey reports (DSRs) 16677, 16691, 16692, 16693 and 16694 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The subgrantee is appealing the required use of FEMA equipment rates in lieu of local rates, as permitted in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 206.228 (a)(1).

The winter storms of March 1995, caused damage to several of the District's irrigation canals. In September 1995, FEMA prepared the above DSRs to fund restoration of the canal banks with placement of unclassified fill. Upon review, funding of the DSRs was reduced to reflect FEMA's schedule of equipment rates in lieu of the local equipment rates of the District. The State submitted the first appeal on July 12, 1996. The basis of the appeal was a disagreement with substitution of FEMA equipment rates for the local equipment rates. The Regional Director denied the first appeal because the equipment rates of the District were not established under state guidelines, and included more than operating costs.

The issue of the second appeal is whether or not the basis of local rates has been justified or established under state guidelines. As explained by the Regional Director in response to the first appeal, to claim an equipment rate, which exceeds the FEMA schedule rate, the basis for the rate must be established and FEMA approval of an alternate rate obtained. Although the subgrantee has shown a historical use of equipment rates, the subgrantee has not provided either justification of the equipment rates or guidelines by which the rates were established. Based on a review of the second appeal, I agree that the Regional Director's decision is consistent with program regulations. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Last updated