Bridges - Direct Result of Disaster - Scope of Work

Appeal Brief

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From August 24 to September 7, 2014, the South Napa earthquake and its aftershocks impacted areas in Napa County, California (Applicant), damaging a stone and concrete bridge (Facility).  The Facility sits on Partrick Road, a dead-end road providing the only vehicular access to approximately 30 private residences and businesses.[1]

The Applicant inspected the Facility on August 27, 2014, recording earthquake damage to the stone features[2] and posting a 12-ton load limit for vehicular traffic crossing the Facility.  Representatives from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) inspected the Facility a second time on August 29, 2014.  At Caltrans’ recommendation, the Applicant lowered the vehicular load limit further, to 10 tons.  A Professional Engineer from BKF/Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA), a third-party firm retained by the Applicant, inspected the Facility a third time on September 23, 2014.

The Applicant submitted a request for Public Assistance (PA) on September 29, 2014.  On November 3, 2014, FEMA inspected the Facility, recording disaster-related damage consisting of: (1) displacement of the stone wing walls in three of four corners of the Facility; (2) dislodged wing wall stones; (3) separation cracks between the concrete and stone features of both bridge abutments; (4) loss of road fill; and (5) damage to a steel guard rail.[3]  However, FEMA found the Facility was in poor overall condition due to environmental deterioration and lack of maintenance, which predated the disaster.  In a summary report of the inspection, the FEMA Project Specialist (a Professional Engineer) acknowledged the Applicant had assessed that the post-disaster Facility presented a safety risk to the public, required replacement, and planned to install a pre-fabricated bridge (Bailey bridge) as a temporary safety measure.  Nevertheless, the Project Specialist assessed that the Facility presented no immediate risk and could be repaired to its predisaster condition, while noting that the discovery of additional information might support the Applicant’s position.[4]

FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 66 to document eligible work to repair the Facility.  The description of eligible damage included displacement of the wing walls, dislodged stones, separation cracks between the concrete and stone features, loss of road fill in one location, and the damaged guard rail.  Associated items of work to repair the Facility included the repositioning and mortaring of the wing wall stones, the addition of epoxy cement to the separation cracks, replacement of road fill, and replacement of the guard rail.  FEMA estimated $14,922.86 in costs to permanently repair the Facility.

The Applicant completed temporary repair work to buttress the displaced wing walls and install the Bailey bridge on November 24, 2014.  On December 17, 2014, BCA conducted a second inspection of the Facility; following the inspection, BCA prepared a “Damage Assessment and Recommendations” report (DAR report), assessing disaster-related structural damage to the Facility, and outlining options for repair or replacement.[5]  Separately, BCA prepared scopes of work (SOWs) with cost estimates of $3,702,209.93 to replace and $4,509,240.04 to repair the Facility.  Both proposals included estimated costs totaling $246,728.68 for temporary repairs, including the Bailey bridge, temporary buttressing, and other items.[6]  The Applicant submitted a “Project Eligibility Checklist” to FEMA, asserting the Facility was eligible for replacement per FEMA’s 50 percent rule.[7]

In response, FEMA determined some of the damage observed during its November 3, 2014 inspection was the result of deferred maintenance, and stated that without a predisaster inspection report, the extent of disaster-related damage could not be assessed.[8]  FEMA denied the Applicant’s request to replace the Facility, maintained the previously drafted SOW and estimated repair cost of $14,922.86, and awarded funding on July 23, 2015.  In a letter dated August 24, 2015, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Grantee) notified the Applicant of the award.[9]  The letter advised the Applicant of its right to appeal within 60 days of receipt of the notification and included appeal procedural requirements.

First Appeal

In a letter dated October 21, 2015, the Applicant submitted its first appeal, asserting: (1) disaster-related structural damage had rendered the Facility unsafe for continued use; (2) the approved SOW was “not supported by sound engineering data”[10] and would not successfully repair the Facility to its predisaster design and function; (3) engineering analyses, including the DAR report, supported replacement of the Facility, which was the least expensive restoration option; and (4) FEMA had not considered such analyses when preparing the approved SOW.  Moreover, the Applicant noted that the approved SOW did not include emergency repairs, including the Bailey bridge, and asserted prior discussions with FEMA led it to believe such work had been approved.  The Applicant requested a revised SOW that included actual costs of $185,336.31 for emergency repairs plus estimated costs of $3,011,203.80[11] to replace the Facility.  The Grantee transmitted the appeal on December 21, 2015, recommending FEMA fund a study to determine the structural integrity of the Facility.

FEMA issued a Request for Information (RFI) on March 11, 2016, informing the Applicant that the available documentation did not demonstrate additional disaster-related damage, and requesting any documentation that would enable a comparison of the pre- and post-disaster condition of the Facility.  In a response dated April 12, 2016, the Applicant submitted pre- and post-disaster inspection records, among other items.[12] 

In April and May 2016, representatives from FEMA Region IX met with the Applicant and the Grantee several times to discuss the project, conduct a site visit, and to review proposals for the restoration of the Facility.  The Applicant continued to submit documentation via email throughout May 2016, forwarding, among other items: (1) a work order log recording maintenance activity on Partrick Road between 2009 and 2014, including two predisaster bridge inspections;[13] (2) documentation describing the Applicant’s process for the inspection and maintenance of its roads and bridges;[14] and (3) updates to the DAR report, including an evaluation of the effects of seismic activity on the wing walls, abutments, and deck, illustrated with drawings and photographs.[15]  The Applicant revised its SOW proposals, lowering estimated costs to $1,970,163.00 for the repair option and $1,826,211.48 for the replacement option, but raising the request for emergency repairs, including the Bailey bridge, back to the previous estimate of $246,728.68.[16]

FEMA issued a Final RFI on July 20, 2016, acknowledging the additional documentation submitted by the Applicant and describing the meetings and site visit.  FEMA attached an administrative record index and stated the purpose of the Final RFI was to ensure the Applicant understood the record would close upon issuance of the first appeal determination.  In response, the Applicant asserted documents related to its formal bridge monitoring and inspection program were missing from the administrative record.[17]  The Applicant attached the documentation to its response letter.  In a subsequent email to the Grantee, FEMA acknowledged receiving such documentation previously, and stated that although it was not listed on the PW 66 administrative record index, it would be considered in the analysis of the appeal.[18]

The FEMA Region IX Regional Administrator (RA) denied the appeal on January 18, 2018.[19]  The RA found the Applicant had not established the predisaster condition of the Facility and failed to demonstrate any additional damage that was a direct result of the disaster.  Specifically, the RA determined that most of the Applicant’s maintenance records were unrelated to the Facility, and the predisaster inspections noted in the record did not demonstrate a routine predisaster inspection program.  Furthermore, the RA found the Facility had extensive pre-existing deterioration, was in overall poor condition prior to the incident period, and thus the post-disaster condition of the Facility was “essentially unchanged” from its description in the Applicant’s predisaster bridge inspection record.[20]  Finally, the RA stated that BCA’s structural analysis in the DAR report was “theoretical” and did not contain “empirical evidence” demonstrating the claimed damage was a result of the disaster.[21]

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted its second appeal via letter dated April 5, 2018, requesting FEMA obligate an additional $2,058,670.00 in PA funding to replace the Facility and provide for the temporary repairs, including the installation of the Bailey bridge and other items.[22]  The Applicant argues that its supporting documentation demonstrates a dedicated predisaster bridge inspection and maintenance program, and establishes the predisaster condition of the Facility.  With this in mind, the Applicant asserts FEMA failed to record several items of eligible damage in PW 66, and that additional damage to the Facility’s concrete deck is likely, but is covered by the asphalt roadway and cannot be observed.  The Applicant points to BCA’s assessment in the DAR report that the Facility sustained severe structural damage during the disaster, which rendered it unsafe for continued use, and reiterates its position that the approved SOW is inadequate.  Further, the Applicant again states that the complete replacement of the Facility is the most cost-effective option in accordance with current codes and standards.[23]  Finally, the Applicant requests hazard mitigation funding under section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) of 1988.  In a letter dated June 4, 2018, the Grantee expresses support for the appeal, and again recommends FEMA fund a study to determine the structural integrity of the Facility.

Discussion

Direct Result of Disaster

FEMA provides PA funding to eligible applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of facilities damaged or destroyed by major disasters.[24]  To be eligible for PA funding, an item of work must be required as a result of the disaster.[25]  Damage that results from a cause other than the designated event, such as work to correct inadequacies that existed prior to the disaster, is not eligible.[26]  It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the damage is disaster-related, and where pre-existing damage exists, to distinguish that damage from disaster-related damage.[27]  In some cases, it may be possible to review predisaster bridge inspection reports to determine if damage to the bridge was present before the disaster.[28]

1. Verification of Predisaster Conditions

Documentation provided with the first appeal demonstrates the Applicant’s predisaster process for the maintenance of its roads and bridges, and includes several historical examples wherein this process resulted in the identification, assessment, and repair of damage.[29]  Additionally, the Applicant’s predisaster maintenance records document two inspections of the Facility in the one-year period preceding the disaster.[30]  The first inspection was conducted on August 5, 2013 in response to concerns the Facility had been undermined.  The inspector found no such damage, but noted potholes in the asphalt near the approaches to the bridge, which were repaired prior to the disaster.[31]  The second inspection, on May 8, 2014, recorded minor displacement (“some bulging”), cracking, and loss of mortar in the stone wing walls, and other non-structural items.[32]  On appeal, the Applicant asserted the damage noted during the inspection was minor.[33]

The second inspection occurred just three months prior to the disaster.  Considering the Applicant’s established maintenance process, the inspection records provide a reasonable demonstration of the Facility’s predisaster condition.[34]  Thus, the available documentation enables FEMA to assess that the Facility had pre-existing damage to the original stone wing walls, but no additional structural damage (e.g., cracks in the concrete abutments, t-beams, or deck) and was functional prior to the disaster.

1. Additional Disaster-Related Damage

In PW 66, FEMA determined eligible damage was limited to: (1) displaced stone wing walls; (2) dislodged stones; (3) separation cracks between the stone and concrete features; (4) the loss of road fill behind the wing wall in the southeast corner of the Facility; and (5) a damaged guard rail.  Thus, while acknowledging eligible damage to the Facility’s stone features, FEMA did not find any disaster-related damage to its concrete features.  However, the Applicant recorded large horizontal cracks in the concrete bridge abutments, which it stated, were the result of the earthquake.  In support, BCA’s civil engineers provided a thorough evaluation of the Facility’s structural behavior during the disaster, including the effects of seismic activity on the concrete abutments, deck, and the stone wing walls.  BCA concluded that the Facility developed the horizontal stress cracks in the concrete abutments, at connection points with the deck, due to “seismic induced moments” (i.e., the motion of the structure around a fixed point due to the earthquake).[35]

In contrast, at the November 3, 2014 inspection, FEMA’s Project Specialist recorded “long horizontal cracks” in the abutments, which were attributed to “long term structure settlement.”[36]  The Project Specialist did not provide a more precise location of the horizontal cracks, did not indicate whether they were resident in the stone or concrete portions of the abutments, and did not provide a basis for associating them with the age of the Facility.  Nevertheless, it is possible the Project Specialist was referring to the same horizontal abutment cracks observed by the Applicant and BCA.[37]  If that is indeed the case, FEMA finds the BCA civil engineer’s assessment to be the more compelling explanation, given the type of disaster, the Facility’s predisaster condition, and the abutment cracks’ relation to other eligible disaster-related damage.

Post-disaster photographs[38] enable FEMA to verify the presence of large horizontal cracks in both the north and south concrete abutments, near the areas where the abutments meet the bridge’s deck, and in close proximity to acknowledged eligible damage (displaced wing walls, dislodged stones, and one of the separation cracks).  As above, there was no damage to the concrete abutments noted in the predisaster inspection records.  Considering these facts, paired with the DAR report analysis, FEMA finds the Applicant has distinguished the abutment cracks from pre-existing damage.  The abutment cracks were a direct result of the disaster, and FEMA thus affirms the Applicant’s general claim that items of eligible damage were not included in the PW 66 damage description.[39]

Sufficiency of the Approved SOW

A PW must identify an eligible SOW and must include a quantitative estimate for the eligible work.[40]  The scope of eligible work necessary to repair the damage must be completely described and correspond directly to the cause of the damage.[41]  Any information that is pertinent to the SOW should be documented in the PW, including eligible codes and standards, especially if proposed repairs or replacements exceed the predisaster design.[42]

In the approved SOW, FEMA included items of work to reposition and mortar the wing wall stones, add epoxy cement to the separation cracks, add road fill behind the southeast wing wall, and replace the guard rail.  FEMA based the list of eligible damages, and the approved SOW, on the Project Specialist’s observations at the November 3, 2014 inspection of the Facility.[43]  In the summary report of the inspection, the Project Specialist disputed the Applicant’s assessment that the Facility posed a safety risk, but acknowledged an ongoing “discovery process,” and stated information regarding the Facility’s condition could come to light that would validate the Applicant’s claim.[44]

It is this “discovery process” of continued inspections and evaluation, articulated in the DAR report, that the Applicant states validates its second appeal claim regarding the post-disaster condition of the Facility and the inadequacy of the approved SOW.[45]  BCA conducted a second inspection of the Facility on December 17, 2014, recording “buckling failure” of the stone wing walls and cracks in the asphalt surface of the roadway overlaying the bridge, in addition to the horizontal abutment cracks.[46]  In the DAR report analysis, BCA pointed to the displacement of the wing walls, vertical settlement of the roadway, and the cracks in the asphalt as evidence the walls had failed, were no longer supporting the approach roadways, and “presented a continued risk of collapse … and an immediate public safety issue.”[47]

In addition to the abutment cracks described above, post-disaster photographs indicate significant structural damage to the Facility, including: (1) lateral cracks in the asphalt covering the deck at either end of the bridge (including cracks in predisaster repair patches); (2) cracks between stones in the wing walls and abutment foundations; (3) dislodged stones and concrete debris in the creek bed; (4) large vertical cracks between the stone wing walls and concrete abutments; and (5) a large fissure between the asphalt roadway and the bridge embankment in the southeast corner of the Facility.  Noting such visible damage, and considering the Applicant’s claim, FEMA closely scrutinized the PW 66 damage description and SOW, the Project Specialist’s summary report of the November 3, 2014 inspection, and the predisaster inspection records, and determined the following:

First, as with the abutment cracks, the lateral cracks in the roadway asphalt were not recorded in the predisaster records.  They are therefore distinguishable from pre-existing damage and items of work to repair them are eligible for PA funding.

Second, despite the pre-existing damage noted in the Applicant’s inspection records, all parties acknowledged displacement of the wing walls in all four corners of the Facility was a direct result of the disaster.[48]  The loss of roadway fill in the Facility’s southeast corner was similarly acknowledged, as was the resulting three feet deep “void” behind the wing wall.[49]

Third, all parties acknowledge the separation cracks between the stone wing walls and the concrete abutments were a direct result of the disaster and are eligible.  Photographs of the separation cracks clearly demonstrate that the concrete superstructure, including the bridge’s deck, has become separated from its stone foundation.[50]  BCA assessed that the separation of the stone and concrete structures contributed to the failure of the wing walls and the settlement of the roadway.[51]  Similarly, at the November 3, 2014 inspection, FEMA’s Project Specialist attributed one of the eligible separation cracks to settlement.[52]  Though the reference is admittedly brief, it nevertheless represents FEMA’s acknowledgement that the disaster produced some degree of wing wall settlement.  However, PW 66 did not include settlement of the wing walls as eligible damage.

Thus, much of the damage at issue was previously found eligible, can be verified in post-disaster photographs, and/or was acknowledged in some manner by all of the parties involved in the project.  Furthermore, considering the evident damage in the aggregate, FEMA agrees with the Applicant that the Facility sustained significant structural damage during the disaster.  Moreover, FEMA again finds the BCA analysis compelling, and agrees that the eligible damage indicates a significant issue with the stability of both the wing walls and the concrete bridge deck; as a result, it is likely that the load-bearing capacity of the Facility has been adversely impacted by the disaster.  Therefore, the approved SOW does not contain items of work accounting for all eligible damage and does not address significant structural damage that was a direct result of the disaster.

The Applicant requests approval of its proposed SOW to completely replace the Facility.  However, both of the Applicant’s SOW proposals (i.e., the repair and replace options), though detailed, are inconsistent and require further scrutiny.[53]  FEMA Region IX must assist the Applicant with developing an eligible SOW, which should include consideration of section 406 hazard mitigation measures[54] as well as any mandated codes/standards upgrades.

Eligibility of the Bailey Bridge and Temporary Repairs

Like permanent restoration work, emergency protective measures must be required as a direct result of the declared major disaster or emergency.[55]  As above, FEMA agrees with the Applicant’s assessment that the post-disaster condition of the Facility presented an immediate safety risk to the public.  Therefore, pending a determination that the Applicant complied with all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws, statutes, and policies in completing the work, the temporary repairs and installation of the Bailey bridge are eligible emergency protective measures.  However, the Applicant provided different costs for these (completed) items of work, without providing an explanation of the discrepancy.[56]  Additionally, the Applicant notes that it purchased the Bailey bridge (versus borrowing or renting it).[57]  The Bailey bridge is thus an asset the Applicant now owns, which it can reuse in other areas or for other projects.  FEMA must determine actual and reasonable costs for the Applicant’s emergency protective measures, before obligating PA funding for them.

Conclusion

The PW 66 damage description does not capture all eligible damage, and the approved SOW will not restore the Facility to its predisaster condition.  This appeal is partially granted; FEMA Region IX will work with the Applicant to revise PW 66 in accordance with the determinations above,[58] and to determine the actual and reasonable costs for items of work related to eligible emergency protective measures.