Immediate Threat, Allowable and Reasonable Costs

Appeal Brief

Summary Paragraph

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for Florida on March 25, 2020, with an incident period from January 20, 2020, through May 11, 2023. The City of Tallahassee (Applicant) requested reimbursement for costs that included: communication and information technology (IT) equipment (for remote work); construction supplies; temporary facilities and rentals (such as portable toilets), security services, consumables and sanitization supplies, and industrial personal protective equipment (PPE) for governmental operations as emergency measures. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 681510 to document the claimed costs. FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum, denying $566,046.43 for the items and supplies related to this appeal. The Applicant appealed, requesting reimbursement of the denied costs, claiming they were related to emergency measures for social distancing and sanitization. The FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the appeal, finding that the Applicant did not demonstrate that the communication and IT equipment, construction supplies, and other claimed costs were necessary in response to COVID-19. Lastly, FEMA determined that the costs for PPE were unreasonable. The Applicant filed a second appeal, reiterating previously raised arguments. The Applicant filed a second appeal, reiterating previously raised arguments.

Authorities

• Stafford Act § 403(a)(3).
• 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.403, 200.404; 44 C.F.R §§ 206.206(a), 206.223(a)(1), 206.225(a)(1), (3).
• PAPPG, at 19, 21, 22, 57, 133, 163.
• O&O Policy, at 5; Work Eligible for Pub. Asst. Policy, at 3; Fact Sheet, Eligible Protective Emergency Measures, at 1-2.

• City of Tallahassee, FEMA-4486-DR-FL, at 3; City of Long Beach, FEMA-4482-DR-CA, 

  at 3;Sumner Cnty., FEMA-4514-DR-TN, at 3-4.

Headnotes

• In response to COVID-19, eligible emergency protective measures may include certain specific, limited measures implemented to facilitate the safe opening and operation of an eligible facility.
  • The Applicant requests funding for a range of supplies and services. However, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the costs related to specific emergency health and safety tasks under FEMA’s COVID-19 policies.
• A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time of the decision.
• The Applicant’s PPE is typically intended for industrial tasks and the Applicant did not provide justification to support the necessity or cost reasonableness.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that its claimed costs are eligible in response to COVID-19. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for the state of Florida on March 25, 2020, with an incident period from January 20, 2020, to May 11, 2023. The City of Tallahassee (Applicant) requested $679,913.74 for procured and rented equipment, materials and supplies, and contract services incurred from April 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. The costs included: communication and information technology (IT) equipment (for remote work, including conference rooms setup, cellphones, internet services, televisions, software, wireless services); temporary facilities and equipment rentals (such as portable restroom and handwashing stations provided in outdoor areas); consumable supplies (such as paper towels, cups, and toilet paper); sanitization supplies; industrial personal protective equipment (PPE) for governmental operations and emergency measures; construction supplies (used to build a satellite office as a social distancing measure); and security services (at city parks, to enforce social distancing and reduce vandalism risks). FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 681510 to document the claimed costs.

On January 12, 2023, FEMA sent a request for information to the Applicant seeking clarification about the costs of various items. On January 25, 2023, the Applicant explained that demand for certain items caused price variations during the pandemic. It stated that purchasing essential items was necessary to maintain safe workplaces and comply with government guidelines. The Applicant noted that the PPE was intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among employees.

On July 5, 2023, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying $566,046.43.[1] FEMA found that the costs of communication and IT equipment, construction materials, temporary facilities and rentals, and security services were ineligible increased operating costs unrelated to COVID-19. Additionally, FEMA determined that the procurement of industrial PPE intended for activities such as painting, welding, and polishing, was ineligible, as it was unreasonable and beyond what was necessary to respond to COVID-19. 

First Appeal

On August 9, 2023, the Applicant appealed the previously denied costs, stating the costs supported social distancing and sanitization, which helped prevent the spread of the virus, protect public health, and maintain essential government services. It noted that the costs were associated with work related to the guidelines provided by local and state entities, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and referenced FEMA’s COVID-19 policies, particularly the FEMA Fact Sheet COVID-19 Eligible Emergency Protective Measures and FEMA’s Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: Safe Opening & Operations Work Eligible for Public AssistancePolicy (O&O Policy). For example, the Applicant stated that the Fact Sheet supports the eligibility of its security costs. On October 23, 2023, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) transmitted the Applicant’s first appeal along with a letter expressing its support.

On December 19, 2024, the FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the appeal. FEMA determined that the Applicant did not demonstrate that costs for communication and IT equipment, construction materials, temporary facilities and rentals, security services, consumables and sanitization supplies were related to eligible emergency protective measures in response toCOVID‑19. Lastly, the costs for industrial PPE were deemed unreasonable.

Second Appeal

On February 17, 2025, the Applicant submitted a second appeal, reiterating previous arguments and adding references to additional COVID-19-related social distancing guidelines issued by both Florida and the federal government. The Applicant submitted its 2025 operating budget to demonstrate that expenses for consumables and sanitization supplies were absent from its pre-COVID-19 budget. The Applicant asserts that these costs were exceptional and arose solely due to the COVID-19 emergency and should therefore be recognized as eligible emergency measures. On March 31, 2025, the Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s second appeal with a letter expressing its support.

Discussion

FEMA is authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.[2] For emergency protective measures to be eligible, the applicant is responsible for showing that the work is required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[3] In response to COVID-19, eligible emergency protective measures may include certain specific, limited measures implemented to facilitate the safe opening and operation of an eligible facility.[4] Such assistance is limited to the purchase and distribution of face masks and personal protective equipment (PPE); cleaning and disinfection, including the purchase and provision of necessary supplies and equipment in excess of the Applicant’s regularly budgeted costs; COVID-19 diagnostic testing; screening and temperature scanning; and purchase and installation of temporary physical barriers and signage to support social distancing.[5] FEMA may only provide assistance in response to COVID-19 declared events that is provided in accordance with a COVID-19 specific policy.[6] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work, necessary and reasonable to accomplish the work properly and efficiently, and adequately documented.[7]A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost.[8] It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide documentation to substantiate its claim as eligible and to clearly explain how those records support its appeal.[9]

The Applicant requests reimbursement for costs associated with communication and IT equipment, construction supplies, temporary facilities and rentals, security services, consumables and sanitization supplies. However, the Applicant does not provide documentation that delineates what specific eligible facilities are associated with the use of items purchased or how/where the claimed costs were specifically incurred, and how/why the costs were required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[10] Further, many of these purchases are not eligible emergency protective measures under the O&O Policy, or any other COVID-19 policy. For example, communication and IT equipment purchases, construction of a satellite office for social distancing purposes, portable restroom rentals, security services to enforce social distancing and reduce vandalism risks, and the purchase of consumables such as toilet paper do not constitute eligible emergency protective measures listed in the O&O Policy.[11] Although the Applicant states that its contract security costs are eligible under FEMA’s Fact Sheet for COVID-19 eligible emergency protective measures, FEMA does not extend emergency work eligibility to implement community-wide mitigation efforts to reduce a future event, such as the anticipated or potential transmission of COVID-19.[12] As a result, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the costs at issue were tied to the performance of eligible emergency work, and therefore the costs are not eligible. 

While FEMA’s O&O Policy allows for cleaning and disinfection costs that exceed an applicant’s regularly budgeted costs, the Applicant did not demonstrate that the claimed costs for sanitization supplies exceeded its established budget.[13] On second appeal, the Applicant submitted an operating budget for 2025 to justify the request for consumables and sanitization supplies. However, this documentation does not reflect the Applicant’s budget at the time of the disaster. Additionally, the Applicant purchased PPE that is typically intended for industrial tasks, such as painting or polishing, for which it incurred a significantly higher cost than for other PPE used for infection control, and did not provide justification to support the necessity or cost reasonableness. Accordingly, the costs associated with cleaning and disinfection and PPE are ineligible under FEMA policy.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that its claimed costs are eligible in response to COVID-19. Therefore, this appeal is denied.