Hall of Records, Time Extensions

April 26, 2004


Mr. Dallas Jones
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Office of the Director
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419047
Rancho Cordova, California, 91741-9047

RE: Second Appeal, Los Angeles County, Internal Services Department,
PA ID 037-91036, Hall of Records, Time Extensions,
FEMA-1008-DR-CA, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 98105

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to letters dated July 1st and July 18, 2003, concerning the second appeal referenced above. In its letter dated May 6, 2003, the Los Angeles County Internal Services Department (Applicant) appealed the Regional Director’s denial of a two-year time extension to identify a recipient project for a Grant Acceleration Program (GAP) underrun on the Hall of Records project. In its letter dated May 20, 2003, the Applicant appealed the Regional Director’s denial of an eight-month time extension to complete the eligible scope of work on DSR 98105. Both of these issues are addressed in this letter.


The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved $1,558,835 (DSR 98105) for the Hall of Records project under GAP on September 23, 1999. The funding consisted of $288,682 for repair work, $272,653 for a Section 406 hazard mitigation project, and $997,500 for temporary relocation costs. On February 11, 2000, the Applicant requested and FEMA approved a 30-month time extension, to May 3, 2002, to complete the project

On June 12, 2002, the Applicant requested a two-year time extension, until May 3, 2004, to identify an eligible recipient project for GAP underrun funds from the Hall of Records project. On June 26, 2002, the Applicant identified an underrun of $1,176,671 on the Hall of Records project and further noted that the project had not been completed. Also on June 26, 2002 the Applicant submitted a P4, Project Completion and Certification Report, claiming eligible costs of $488,778. The Regional Director denied the Applicant’s request for a time extension to identify an underrun recipient because the Hall of Records project was not yet complete.


On August 19, 2002, the Applicant appealed the Regional Director’s denial of a time extension request arguing that an underrun extension had nothing to do with the actual performance of the scope of work. On February 26, 2003, the Regional Director denied the Applicant’s first appeal because an underrun can only be determined when the approved scope of work on a project has been completed. Since the Hall of Records project was not complete, there was no GAP underrun upon which to base a time extension request. On May 6, 2003, the Applicant filed a second appeal claiming it was in compliance with approved deadlines based on its belief that the “last approved completion date, which triggers the submission of the P4, may not necessarily be the date of completion of the scope of repairs.”

The Applicant’s request for a two-year time extension to identify a GAP underrun is moot because a GAP underrun cannot be determined prior to completion of the approved scope of work. However, based on procedures recently adopted as a result of the Office of Inspector General Audit of GAP (Audit), the Applicant is granted 120 days from receipt of this appeal determination to identify an eligible use for any funding underruns resulting from the completion of the Hall of Records project. If the Applicant submits a viable hazard mitigation project as a potential recipient project for these and future underruns prior to the expiration of the 120 days, additional time for the use of these underruns may be granted. The additional time will be determined using RS Means construction data to develop a reasonable estimate of the time needed to design a project, similar in type and value, to the recipient project. These new procedures only apply to those projects where the use of a project’s underrun has been impacted by the Audit.

On July 10, 2002, the Applicant requested an additional eight-month time extension, until
December 31, 2002, to complete the project based on extenuating circumstances and unusual project requirements beyond its control. On August 9, 2002, the Regional Director denied the Applicant’s time extension request because the need for the extension was due to a 21-month period of inactivity on this project by the Applicant. On October 18, 2002, the Applicant filed a first appeal of the Regional Director’s denial of the time extension request based on the following:

· That FEMA’s claim of inactivity was only reasonable if it was assumed that the Hall of Records was the only project the Applicant had, and that FEMA should take into consideration the size and complexity of Los Angeles County’s entire GAP program;
· That an eight-month extension would not have a material impact on the timeliness of completion of the total disaster program.

On February 26, 2003, the Regional Director denied the first appeal because the Applicant had failed to address FEMA’s basis for the initial determination – inactivity on the Hall of Records project. On May 20, 2003, the Applicant filed a second appeal in this matter.

When the Applicant prepared its February 2000, request for a 30-month time extension, it was aware of the scope and magnitude of its other project construction demands. The Applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the delay in completing the project. Therefore, I have no basis for reversing the Regional Director’s decision on this matter. Therefore, the Applicant’s request for a time extension is denied.


Please inform the Applicant of my determination. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response

cc: Jeff Griffin
Regional Director
Region IX