Debris Removal Costs
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1606-DR-TX, City of Jasper, PW 1010, Debris Removal Costs
Cross Appeal Format and Content, Reasonable Cost
Reference:
Summary: Debris generated by Hurricane Rita (FEMA-1606-DR-TX) was deposited throughout the City of Jasper (Applicant) and caused an immediate threat to public health and safety. The Applicant entered into a Time and Materials contract on September 26, 2005, for cleanup of the debris. The total invoiced amount from the contractor was $896,781.20 for the collection, hauling and disposal of 24,341.3 cubic yards of debris. FEMA determined the total costs to be unreasonable and obligated Project Worksheet Number 1010 on January 30, 2006, in the amount of $449,273.99 based on rates used by the Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT), including an additional 25 percent for overhead and profit. This reduced the eligible claimed amount by $322,149.50. FEMA also reduced the eligible amount by $125,357.70 for duplicated costs submitted by the contractor. On March 31, 2006, the Applicant submitted a first appeal stating that it provided additional cost information to substantiate the reasonableness and necessity of the debris removal costs. On May 17, 2006, FEMA denied the first appeal, stating that the Applicant did not include justification for reconsideration, and that the TDOT rates used in the reasonable cost comparison appeared to be appropriate. Therefore, additional costs for debris removal were not eligible. The Applicant filed a second appeal with FEMA on July 12, 2006, requesting reconsideration of the determination.
Issues: (1) Has the Applicant provided sufficient documentation to justify the additional costs of debris removal under the Time and Materials contract in lieu of TDOT rates?
Findings: (1) No. The Applicant provided no justification or supporting documentation regarding the reasonableness of costs.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.206
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1606-DR |
| Applicant | City of Jasper |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 241-37420-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 1010 |
| Date Signed | 2007-08-02T04:00:00 |
Cross Appeal Format and Content, Reasonable Cost
Reference:
Appeal Letter
August 2, 2007
Mr. Richard Patterson
Deputy State Coordinating Officer
Governors Division of Emergency Management
5425 Polk Suite O
Houston, TX 77023
Re: Second Appeal City of Jasper, PA ID 241-37420-00 Debris Removal Costs,
FEMA-1606-DR-TX, PW 1010
Dear Mr. Patterson:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal submitted by the City of Jasper (Applicant) to your office on July 12, 2006, transmitted by your letter dated August 25, 2006. The Applicant is appealing the determination by the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to deny the additional costs associated with debris collected by the Applicants contractor.
Hurricane Rita made landfall on September 23, 2005, and generated debris throughout the city, causing an immediate threat to public health and safety. The Applicant entered into a Time and Materials contract on September 26, 2005, for debris removal services.
The total invoiced amount from the contractor and claimed by the Applicant was $896,781.20 for the collection, hauling and disposal of 24,341.3 cubic yards of debris. FEMA determined the total costs to be unreasonable and obligated Project Worksheet Number 1010 on January 30, 2006, in the amount of $449,274 based on rates used by the Texas Department of Transportation, including an additional 25 percent for overhead and profit. This reduced the eligible claimed amount by $322,150. FEMA also reduced the eligible amount by $125,358 for duplicated costs submitted by the contractor.
With its first appeal submitted to your office on March 31, 2006, and transmitted to FEMA on April 11, 2006, the Applicant submitted documentation in support of the costs claimed, but provided no justification for FEMA to reconsider its determination. On May 17, 2006, FEMA denied the Applicants first appeal stating that the reduction of eligible costs associated with the Time and Materials contract was appropriate and within guidelines established by the Public Assistance program; therefore, the additional costs were not eligible for funding.
The Applicants second appeal dated July 12, 2006, states that it is requesting further consideration for the denied funding. However, the Applicant provided no justification for FEMA to reconsider its determination.
In accordance with Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.206, an appeal shall contain documented justification supporting the Applicants position, specifying the monetary figure in dispute and the provisions in Federal law, regulation or policy with which the Applicant believes the initial action was inconsistent. While the Applicant has forwarded a letter from its contractor demanding payment of the invoices, the Applicant has not supplied justification, nor has it provided an argument as to why the total amount invoiced for the debris removal is reasonable and eligible under the Public Assistance program. The methodology that FEMA previously used to develop a reasonable cost for the work performed is appropriate. Therefore, I am denying this appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision of this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: William Peterson
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region VI
Mr. Richard Patterson
Deputy State Coordinating Officer
Governors Division of Emergency Management
5425 Polk Suite O
Houston, TX 77023
Re: Second Appeal City of Jasper, PA ID 241-37420-00 Debris Removal Costs,
FEMA-1606-DR-TX, PW 1010
Dear Mr. Patterson:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal submitted by the City of Jasper (Applicant) to your office on July 12, 2006, transmitted by your letter dated August 25, 2006. The Applicant is appealing the determination by the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to deny the additional costs associated with debris collected by the Applicants contractor.
Hurricane Rita made landfall on September 23, 2005, and generated debris throughout the city, causing an immediate threat to public health and safety. The Applicant entered into a Time and Materials contract on September 26, 2005, for debris removal services.
The total invoiced amount from the contractor and claimed by the Applicant was $896,781.20 for the collection, hauling and disposal of 24,341.3 cubic yards of debris. FEMA determined the total costs to be unreasonable and obligated Project Worksheet Number 1010 on January 30, 2006, in the amount of $449,274 based on rates used by the Texas Department of Transportation, including an additional 25 percent for overhead and profit. This reduced the eligible claimed amount by $322,150. FEMA also reduced the eligible amount by $125,358 for duplicated costs submitted by the contractor.
With its first appeal submitted to your office on March 31, 2006, and transmitted to FEMA on April 11, 2006, the Applicant submitted documentation in support of the costs claimed, but provided no justification for FEMA to reconsider its determination. On May 17, 2006, FEMA denied the Applicants first appeal stating that the reduction of eligible costs associated with the Time and Materials contract was appropriate and within guidelines established by the Public Assistance program; therefore, the additional costs were not eligible for funding.
The Applicants second appeal dated July 12, 2006, states that it is requesting further consideration for the denied funding. However, the Applicant provided no justification for FEMA to reconsider its determination.
In accordance with Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.206, an appeal shall contain documented justification supporting the Applicants position, specifying the monetary figure in dispute and the provisions in Federal law, regulation or policy with which the Applicant believes the initial action was inconsistent. While the Applicant has forwarded a letter from its contractor demanding payment of the invoices, the Applicant has not supplied justification, nor has it provided an argument as to why the total amount invoiced for the debris removal is reasonable and eligible under the Public Assistance program. The methodology that FEMA previously used to develop a reasonable cost for the work performed is appropriate. Therefore, I am denying this appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision of this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: William Peterson
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region VI
Last updated