Debris Removal Costs

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1401-DR
ApplicantKay County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#071-99071-00
PW ID#N/A
Date Signed2004-02-03T05:00:00
N/A

Appeal Letter

February 3, 2004

Mr. Albert Ashwood
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management
P.O. Box 53365
Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3365

RE: Kay County, OK; PA ID 071-99071-00, Debris Removal Costs,
FEMA-1401-DR-OK

Dear Mr. Ashwood:

This letter is in response to your letter dated October 20, 2003, to Gary Jones, the Acting Regional Director of the Region VI Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requesting the exact Federal procurement procedures that Kay County (County) violated during its contracting process for debris removal. FEMA partially approved the County’s second appeal for funds for debris removal activities on September 12, 2003. I apologize for the delayed response.

FEMA performed a thorough analysis of the second appeal package and determined that the County’s procurement was not in conformance with 44 CFR §13.36. The County’s Request for Proposal (RFP), selection process, and its contract with Ashbritt, Inc. (Ashbritt) showed multiple deficiencies and did not conform to applicable Federal regulations. The most significant violation of the regulation related to the restricted competition with the elimination of prospective contractors through the use of unreasonable requirements and standards not identified as evaluation criteria. In particular, the County’s procurement was not in conformance with 44 CFR §13.36 in that:

1. Per 44 CFR §13.36(c)(1)(i), the County did not provide for full and open competition in that the RFP and source selection process created unreasonable requirements of firms, which precluded potential bidders from qualifying during the solicitation period.
2.
3. Per 44 CFR §13.36(c)(3)(i), the RFP did not incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the services to be procured.
4.
5. Per 44 CFR §13.36(d)(3)(i), the County did not accept, to the maximum extent practical, many of the responses to its RFP.
6.
The County used provisions from the RFP articles not identified as evaluation criteria to disqualify several prospective contractors from competition. The provisions in question were: Utilizing Local Resources, Insurance, and Invoicing. The County’s rationale for finding several bidders non-responsive was their alleged failure to satisfactorily meet or address these provisions. The County provided little or no documentation as to what constituted a “pass” or “fail” in its evaluation.

Despite using requirements in the RFP to disqualify prospective contractors, the County’s contract with Ashbritt was less restrictive than the RFP under the requirements for Mobilization, Utilizing Local Resources, Insurance and Right-of-Entry debris removal.

Due to the improper elimination of responsive and lower-priced offers, the County entered into a contract at a price that was not reasonable. In addition, all responses were based on the more restrictive requirements of the RFP, and it is reasonable to assume that a reduction in price would have resulted had the RFP reflected the requirements of the less restrictive contract with Ashbritt.

I hope this information is helpful in ensuring that in future events the applicants adhere to all local, State, and Federal regulations pertaining to the procurement of contractor’s services. We are pleased to have helped the residents of Kay County to recover from the devastating effects of the storm.

Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response

cc: Gary Jones
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region VI
Last updated