Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 103-032027-00; University of Iowa
PW ID# 199 ; Immediate Threat, Direct Result of Disaster, Reasonable Costs
Conclusion: The University of Iowa (Applicant) did not provide adequate documentation to demonstrate that the work stoppage, and moving and securing equipment are eligible for public assistance funding. Additionally, the overtime work is ineligible because it is not an emergency protective measure, is not the direct result of the 2008 flooding, and is not reasonable and necessary. As such, the appeal is denied.
In June 2014, the Iowa River threatened to flood the University of Iowa’s (Applicant) campus. At that time the Mayflower Residence Hall (MRH) and Iowa Memorial Union (IMU) were under construction to repair damage resulting from 2008 flooding (FEMA-1763-DR-IA). The Applicant directed contractors to stop work and it secured both facilities. Work resumed several weeks later. The contractors worked overtime to open the facilities for the fall semester. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 199 to capture the work stoppage and overtime expenses as emergency protective measures. FEMA later determined the work was ineligible, because the disaster did not directly cause it. The Applicant appealed, arguing that the disaster did cause it, or alternatively, that FEMA add the expense to the PWs from FEMA-1763-DR-IA. FEMA denied the appeal, determining that overtime was not an emergency protective measure, not a direct result of either disaster, and the costs were not reasonable and necessary. The Applicant appeals and claims that the work is an emergency protective measure or that the work be added to PWs from FEMA-1763-DR-IA. FEMA finds that the overtime work for the Facilities are not emergency protective measures, as the overtime did not reduce or eliminate threats to life and property, it was not a direct result of the 2008 flooding and the costs for overtime were not reasonable and necessary. Finally, the Applicant did not provide adequate documentation to demonstrate that the work stoppage and securing of equipment at IMU was a direct result of either disaster, reasonable and necessary, or the legal responsibility of the Applicant. Thus, the costs are ineligible for public assistance funding.
Authorities and Second Appeals
Stafford Act §§ 403 and 406.
44 C.F.R. §§ 206.201(b), 206.223(a)(1) and 206.225(a).
PA Guide, at 29, 40, and 71 (June 2007).
OMB Circular A-87
Pursuant to the Stafford Act § 403, and 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.201(b) and 206.225(a), emergency work that reduces or eliminates immediate threats to life or to protect improved property is eligible for funding.
The Stafford Act §
§ 206.223(a)(1) require work must be required as a direct result of the disaster.
The prior disaster damaged the facilities, but the overtime work is not a direct result of that disaster, it is instead due to the Applicant’s need to open the facilities before the fall semester. Likewise, the Applicant did not provide adequate documentation showing the stoppage and securing equipment was a direct result of the disaster.
The Stafford Act §
When a facility is under construction at the time of the disaster, pursuant to § OMB Circular A-87, the costs eligible for PA funding are only those that are delineated in the contract as the Applicant’s responsibility
The contract does not specify that the Applicant is responsible for the costs associated with the work stoppage or moving and securing equipment.