Denial of Additional Funds

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1609-DR
ApplicantFlorida Department of Agricultural & Consumer Services - 2nd
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-U03D9-00
PW ID#6552 & 6655
Date Signed2010-09-16T04:00:00

SECOND APPEAL BRIEF
FEMA-1609-DR-FL
Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services
Denial of Additional Funds, Project Worksheets 6552 and 6655



Citation:            
FEMA-1609-DR-FL; Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (Applicant)

Cross - Reference:
Denial of Additional Funds; Negligence; Cost Overrun   

Summary:
Hurricane Wilma produced wind and rain that damaged buildings in the Florida City Farmers Market complex.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheets (PWs) 6552 and 6655 to repair metal roofing, ceiling tile, insulation, and flashing on Buildings 10 and 12 of the complex for $1,725 and $22,018 respectively.  The Applicant submitted an engineering consultant report claiming $914,101 for building repairs and replacement of entire systems and finishes.  The Applicant’s first appeal stated that the PWs underestimated the cost to repair Buildings 10 and 12.  The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Applicant was requesting funding for additional damage from long-term exposure and deferred maintenance and not from the disaster.  In the second appeal, the Applicant is again requesting $914,101 for repairs to Buildings 10 and 12.  The Applicant included a letter explaining the consultant’s report, but did not include additional information justifying costs for deferred maintenance and upgrades to building utility systems and finishes.  The work requested far exceeds what is necessary to repair the damage described in the PWs. 

Issue:   
Are the funds requested by the Applicant to repair damages from the disaster?

Finding:   
No.  The Applicant is requesting funding to cover damages not caused by the disaster and to upgrade entire building systems. 

Rationale:     
44 CFR §206.223 (a) (e), General work eligibility; FEMA Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322), pp 31-33, dated June 2007.

Appeal Letter

September 16, 2010

 

 

 

Ruben D. Almaguer

Governor’s Authorized Representative

Florida Division of Emergency Management

2555 Shumard Oak Blvd

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

 

Re:    Second Appeal – Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services, Denial of Additional Funds, FEMA-1609-DR-FL, Project Worksheets (PWs) 6552 and 6655

 

Dear Mr. Almaguer:

 

This is in response to your letter dated August 3, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal for the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of additional funding for $914,101.  

 

In 2005, rain and wind from Hurricane Wilma damaged several buildings in the Florida City Farmers Market complex.  The Applicant requested assistance from FEMA to repair several buildings.  FEMA prepared PWs 6552 and 6655 to repair metal roofing, ceiling tile, insulation, and flashing on Buildings 10 and 12 of the complex for $1,725 and $22,018 respectively.  PW 6552 cited roof leakage from rusty flashing that caused damage to 756 square feet of ceiling tile and insulation.  PW 6655 cited damage to two overhead doors, 1,778 square feet of metal roofing, 168 square feet of ceiling tile, and 15.6 square yards of carpet. The Applicant hired ACAI Associates Incorporated to complete an assessment report of the two structures in July 2008, over two years after the disaster.  This report recommended an increase in the scope of work and additional costs for repair to both buildings for a total of $914,101.

 

The Applicant submitted its first appeal September 30, 2008, requesting additional funds for significant repairs to Buildings 10 and 12, claiming that the original PWs grossly underestimated the damage.  The Applicant included the ACAI Associates report detailing the damage and scope of repairs to both structures.  This report cited damage to the buildings from long-term exposure and delayed maintenance following the 2005 storm.  The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the request of $914,101 because the Applicant did not take any steps to prevent further damage to the two structures and was requesting funds to upgrade systems and utilities not damaged by the storm.

 

The Applicant submitted its second appeal June 25, 2009, to the state emergency management office and FEMA Region IV received a letter from the State of Florida dated August 3, 2009.  The Applicant is requesting $914,101 in additional funds for PWs 6552 and 6655 to repair Buildings 10 and 12 appealing the initial damage reports and cost estimates.  As part of the second appeal documentation, the Applicant included a letter from ACAI Associates explaining the engineering report submitted in the first appeal.  This letter detailed water damage and recommended replacing both roof systems for efficiency and cost.  The letter stated that ACAI Associates differentiates between the storm damage and subsequent deterioration, but still suggests repair to all damaged areas.  The Applicant did not provide any additional information documenting disaster-related damage.     

 

Title 44 CFR §206.223 (a), General work eligibility states that to be eligible for financial assistance an item of work must be required as a result of the major disaster event.  The Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that corrective actions outlined in the engineering report were to repair damage caused by the disaster.  The report suggests repairs to Buildings 10 and 12 that include replacing the entire roof for both structures and upgrading all of the building utilities and systems, including areas that did not sustain damages from the storm that are “at the end of their useful life.”  In addition, the report cites neglect and disrepair in both structures and provides documentation of these issues through photographs. 

 

I have reviewed all information the Applicant submitted with the appeal and determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with program regulations and policy.  Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal. 

 

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

 

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Recovery Directorate

 

 cc:    Major P. May

Regional Administrator

FEMA Region IV

 

Last updated