Ogden Road and Embankment Repair
Appeal Brief
Disaster | FEMA-1671-DR |
Applicant | Cowlitz County |
Appeal Type | Second |
PA ID# | 015-99015-00 |
PW ID# | 688 |
Date Signed | 2010-01-04T05:00:00 |
Citation: FEMA-1671-DR-WA, Cowlitz County, Ogden Road and Embankment Repair, Project Worksheet (PW) 688
Cross-
Reference: Work Eligibility; Landslides
Summary: Heavy rains from November 2, 2006, through November 11, 2006, caused the embankment supporting a section of Ogden Road to fail and damage a 25-foot-long by 4-foot-wide section of the road shoulder. The Applicant’s consultant recommended reconstructing the embankment using quarry spalls, repairing the damaged shoulder, and extending a well head located at the base of the slope. In order to reconstruct a stable slope, the well head would have to be buried. FEMA determined that the scope of work recommended by the Applicant’s consultant is above and beyond what is necessary to restore the damaged facility, and recommended a review of the project by a geotechnical specialist. Based on the geotechnical specialist’s conclusions, FEMA obligated PW 688 on May 21, 2008, for $24,788 for the restoration of the embankment. The approved scope of work does not include extending a well casing at the toe of the slope.
The Applicant submitted a first appeal requesting that FEMA approve the scope of work recommended by its consultant. The Applicant asserted that FEMA’s approved scope of work is not feasible due to access and slope stability issues. FEMA denied the Applicant’s first appeal stating that FEMA’s approved scope of work is feasible, and that the Applicant’s proposed repair is not a cost-effective alternative for slope restoration.
The Applicant submitted a second appeal, reiterating its position.
Issues: 1. Is the Applicant’s proposed repair method the most cost-effective alternative for stabilizing the slope?
2. Is the approved scope of work sufficient to repair disaster-related damages?
Findings: 1. No.
2. No. The extension of the well casing is justified as part of the repair.
Rationale: Response and Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslides and Slope Failures
Appeal Letter
January 4, 2010
Gerard Urbas
Deputy State Coordinating Officer
State of Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
MS: TA-20, Building 20
Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122
Re: Second Appeal–Cowlitz County, PA ID 015-99015-00, Road and Embankment Repair, FEMA-1671-DR-WA, Project Worksheet 688
Dear Mr. Urbas:
This letter is in response to your letter dated March 10, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Cowlitz County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of an additional $52,606 to repair a section of Ogden Road.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, FEMA has determined that the Applicant is eligible for an additional $10,410 for the repair of Ogden Road. Accordingly, I am partially granting the second appeal. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to 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
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Dennis A. Hunsinger, PhD
Acting Regional Administrator
FEMA Region X
Appeal Analysis
Background
Heavy rains from November 2, 2006, through November 11, 2006, caused the embankment supporting a section of Ogden Road to fail and damage a 25-foot-long by 4-foot-wide section of the road shoulder. The Applicant’s consultant recommended reconstructing the embankment using quarry spalls and repairing the damaged shoulder. The consultant also recommended extending a well head located at the base of the slope, because to reconstruct a stable slope, the well head would have to be buried.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initially prepared PW 688 for the consultant’s proposed repair alternative and recommended approving $77,394 based on the Applicant’s cost estimate. During the review process, FEMA determined the scope of work that the Applicant’s consultant recommended was above and beyond what was necessary to restore the damaged facility, and recommended a review of the project by a geotechnical specialist.
The geotechnical specialist concluded that the quantity of the quarry spalls included in Applicant’s estimate, 150 tons, is too high and that only 108 tons of rock would be required for a slope of 1.25 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.25:1) that the Applicant’s consultant recommended. In addition, FEMA’s geotechnical specialist stated that while the damaged area is approximately
25 feet long by 3 feet wide, the Applicant’s estimate includes costs for excavating a
45-foot-long by 6-foot-wide by 3-foot-deep section of roadway. The Applicant’s consultant recommended backfilling the section with 3 feet of structural fill before placing base course and asphalt. FEMA’s geotechnical specialist concluded that the over excavation and backfilling with structural fill are not necessary and that the dimensions of the repair should be limited to
25 feet long by 5 feet wide.
Based on the geotechnical specialist’s conclusions, FEMA obligated PW 688 on May 21, 2008, for $24,788 for the restoration of the embankment using quarry spalls and repair of a
25-foot-long by 5-foot-wide section of roadway. The approved scope of work did not include extending the well casing at the toe of the slope, because the geotechnical specialist determined that would not be necessary if the slope were reconstructed at a 1.25:1 slope.
First Appeal
On June 24, 2008, the Applicant submitted an appeal for $52,606 requesting that FEMA approve the scope of work that its consultant recommended and total funding that the FEMA project specialist recommended. In its appeal, the Applicant stated that the over excavation of the roadway is necessary to construct a bench that will allow an excavator to reach the bottom of the excavation area. The existing distance from the top of the roadway to the bottom of the slope exceeds the working range of the Applicant-owned excavators. The Applicant also took issue with the reduction of the unit costs of some of the line items included in the Applicant’s initial cost estimate. The Applicant stated that relatively higher unit costs are reasonable for this small scale project. The Applicant disagreed with the density of 1.4 tons per cubic yard used by FEMA’s geotechnical specialist for the quarry spalls. The Applicant’s consultant recommended a minimum density of 1.75 tons per cubic yard and the Applicant used a density of 1.89 tons in developing the cost estimate. Lastly, the Applicant states that restoring the embankment to a 1.25:1 slope would bury the existing well at the toe of the failed embankment; therefore, extension of the well casing should be included in the scope of work.
On October 22, 2008, FEMA denied the Applicant’s first appeal because the Applicant provided no evidence that the scope of work that FEMA approved would not accomplish the repair. Further, the scope of work that the Applicant proposed exceeds what was necessary to repair the disaster-related damage. The additional work was related to extending the footprint of the embankment to allow for slope ratio transition and constructing a bench platform for excavation equipment. FEMA concluded that slope ratio transition can be accomplished using the approved scope of work. Also, FEMA’s approved scope of work restricts the repair within the original road right-of-way and does not impact the well head at the toe of the slope.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted a second appeal on January 12, 2009, requesting FEMA approve a total amount of $72,106 for the scope of work that its consultant recommended based on an updated cost estimate submitted with the appeal. The Applicant reiterates that the over-excavation of the roadway was necessary to construct a bench platform to allow the excavating equipment to reach the lower excavation area and disagrees with FEMA’s conclusion that with a 1.25:1 slope, the repair would not impact the well head. The Applicant also states that FEMA’s first appeal response did not address its concerns about the reduction of some unit costs.
The letter dated March 10, 2009, from the State of Washington Military Department of Emergency Management (State) transmitting the Applicant’s second appeal states that extended reach equipment is not readily available in the County and mobilizing such equipment from other sources would be cost prohibitive. Therefore, the State supports the Applicant’s position that a bench platform must be constructed to complete the repair. The State also asserts that the quantity of quarry spalls used by FEMA in its cost estimate would not allow the restored slope to match the existing ground and that the density for the quarry spalls used in FEMA’s calculations (1.4 tons per cubic yard) is too low. The Applicant’s consultant recommends a minimum density of 1.75 tons per cubic yard. Lastly, the State notes that the Applicant has received permission from the adjacent landowner to access the private property on which the wellhead is located without the purchase of a right-of-way, which reduces the cost estimate to $67,106.
Discussion
Scope of Work
FEMA’s approved scope of work to repair the failed embankment and damaged roadway includes using quarry spalls to restore a 1.25:1 slope within the limits of the road damage, which was documented to be approximately 25 feet long. The Applicant contends that restricting the slope restoration to the limit of the road damage would create an unstable condition along the edges of the repair. The Applicant’s proposed repair method includes extending the restored slope well outside of the limits of the damage to match the existing topography and to create stable 1.25:1 slopes on all sides of the repair. A review of the cross-sections provided in support of the Applicant’s appeal shows that tapering the quarry spalls within the approximate limits of the slope failure would result in a stable restored slope. The Applicant has provided no documentation to support its position that FEMA’s proposed repair is not feasible.
Regarding the need for constructing a bench platform, the Applicant has asserted that it is the most cost-effective means to complete the repair. The State claims that renting extended reach equipment is cost prohibitive. However, neither the Applicant nor the State has provided a cost comparison of alternatives or specific cost data for the rental of extended reach equipment. The costs associated with the over-excavation and backfill with structural fill associated with the construction of a bench platform are significant. The Applicant points out that in FEMA’s denial of the first appeal, FEMA states that the Applicant’s proposed repair is not the most cost-effective means to repair the slide; however, the Applicant has provided no documentation to refute that statement.
The scope of work that FEMA approved is a feasible alternative to restore a stable embankment and to repair the road damage. Extended reach equipment may be required to complete the repair and the cost of such equipment would be eligible for reimbursement. Regarding the well head, however, the review of the cross-sections does support the Applicant’s claim that a restored 1.25:1 slope will impact or come very close to impacting the well head at the toe of the slope. Accordingly, extending the well casing is justified as part of the scope of work of repair.
Cost Estimate
In general, the quantity of materials FEMA used to develop the cost estimate for the approved scope of work is appropriate. However, the minimum density of quarry spalls (1.75 tons per cubic yard) that the Applicant’s consultant recommended is more suitable for the restoration of the slope than that FEMA used (1.4 tons per cubic yard). Applying a density of 1.75 tons per cubic yard to the 77 cubic yards of quarry spalls recommended by FEMA equates to 135 tons of quarry spalls.
The revised estimate that the Applicant submitted with the second appeal includes slightly increased unit prices and lump-sum costs; however, this is to be expected as more than two years have passed since the Applicant developed the initial estimate. The material quantities that FEMA’s geotechnical specialist recommended, with the exception of an increase in the tonnage for the quarry spalls, and the Applicant’s unit prices included in its revised estimate result in a cost estimate of $35,198 (see Table 1 below). This cost estimate includes the extension of the well head in addition to the scope of work previously approved by FEMA.
Table 1
Line item |
Quantity |
Unit |
Unit Price |
Cost Estimate |
COMPLETED WORK |
|
|
|
|
Geotechnical Engineering Services |
1 |
LS |
$1,948.15 |
$1,948.15 |
WORK TO BE COMPLETED |
|
|
|
|
Mobilization |
1 |
LS |
$5,250 |
$5,250.00 |
Flaggers and Spotters |
200 |
HR |
$44.10 |
$8,820.00 |
Clearing and Grubbing |
1 |
LS |
$1,000 |
$1,000.00 |
Excavation |
31 |
CY |
$20 |
$620.00 |
Asphalt Demolition |
14 |
SY |
$7.15 |
$100.10 |
Geotextile |
110 |
SY |
$5.25 |
$577.50 |
HMA Class ½-inch |
2.3 |
TON |
$210 |
$483.00 |
Crushed Surfacing Base |
6.5 |
TON |
$31.50 |
$204.75 |
Quarry Spalls |
135 |
TON |
$52.50 |
$7,087.50 |
Extend Well Casing |
1 |
LS |
$2,100.00 |
$2,100.00 |
SUBTOTAL |
|
|
|
$28,191.00 |
Sales Tax (7.7% of work to be completed) |
|
|
|
$2,020.70 |
Design (16% of work to be completed) |
|
|