Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 291-19432-00; City of Dayton
PW ID# 00194 and 00317; Debris Removal
Citation: FEMA-1791-DR-TX; City of Dayton PWs 00194 and 00317
Reference: Debris Removal
Summary: After Hurricane Ike, the City of Dayton (Applicant) entered into a debris removal contract to haul and remove vegetative debris. The Applicant was recording 100% full loads without providing documentation to substantiate eligible debris pick up, debris locations, or accurate truck measurements and capacities. The Applicant indicated that the debris piles at the debris management site (DMS) represented all the debris that was removed by the contractor. A team consisting of FEMA, the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Applicant measured debris piles at the DMS in order to verify eligible debris volumes. In consideration of the DMS topography, wet site conditions, and to allow for any compaction and settlement of the piles, the team added one foot to the height of each pile in the calculation of the eligible debris volume. FEMA prepared PW 00194 and PW 00317 to reimburse the Applicant for a total of $509,329 to reimburse the Applicant for the removal and disposal of the measured eligible debris volume (20,373 CY) at the contract prices.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on January 23, 2009, stating that FEMA had refused to accept load tickets, that FEMA’s method of debris pile measurement was factually incorrect, and that FEMA entered into the matter predisposed to be combative with the Applicant. In a letter dated
October 9, 2009, FEMA denied the appeal because the load tickets could not be validated as accurate since there was no truck measurements recorded and that all loads that were denoted as 100 percent full without being able to inspect inside the truck beds.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on December 5, 2009, reiterating its claim from the first appeal. The Applicant did not provide any additional documentation to support its claim. The State supports the Applicant’s appeal.
Issue: Did the Applicant provide the necessary documentation to substantiate the invoiced amount of debris?
Rationale: 44 CFR Part 13; 44 CFR §206.224; Public Assistance Debris Management Guide, FEMA 325, dated July 2007; Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, dated June 2007