Lincoln Middle School, Building E

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Desastre	FEMA-1008-DR
Applicant	Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	037-91174
PW ID#	60869
Date Signed	1999-03-22T05:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District; DSR 60869; Lincoln Middle School, Building E

Cross-Reference: Disaster-related damages; Timeframes for reporting damages

Summary: As a result of the 1008-disaster event, Lincoln Middle School, part of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (subgrantee), sustained considerable damage. An initial site inspection was conducted June 21, 1995. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 87516 was prepared to fund repairs to Building E. Building E was undergoing renovations prior to the disaster, and disaster repairs were incorporated into the reconstruction contract. At the time of the inspection, the majority of repairs were completed, making it difficult for the inspection team to identify eligible damages. Therefore, DSR 87516 was voided pending further information from the subgrantee. The building was re-inspected in December 1995, and DSR 85152 was prepared for $2,043,975 based on additional documentation provided by the subgrantee. In a letter dated December 24, 1996, OES forwarded a request for supplemental funding for previously unsubmitted roof repairs to Building E. This request was denied due to insufficient documentation and the submittal of additional damages after the regulatory deadline. The Disaster Recovery Manager upheld this determination upon first appeal. In the second appeal, the subgrantee contends that damages are disaster related, and these damages were submitted in a timely manner.

Issues:

1. Were damages to the Building E roof directly attributable to the disaster event?
2. Were damages submitted within the regulatory deadline?

Findings:

1. The subgrantee has not provided sufficient documentation to establish that damages to the roof of Building E are disaster-related.
   
2. Despite repairs being completed prior to the site inspections, these damages were not documented during either site visit. Furthermore, the subgrantee did not report these damages until well after the sixty-day regulatory deadline for submitting additional damages following the initial site inspection.

Rationale: Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 206.223(a)(1) and 206.202(d).

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

As a result of the January 1994, Northridge Earthquake (FEMA-1008) Lincoln Middle School, part of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (subgrantee), sustained considerable damage. On June 21, 1995, an inspection team consisting of representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the subgrantee inspected Building E to document disaster damages. Building E was undergoing renovations prior to the earthquake, and disaster damages were incorporated into the reconstruction contract. These repairs were virtually completed at the time of the inspection, making identification of disaster damages and eligible costs difficult. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 87516 was prepared to fund repairs to Building E, but was later voided pending further documentation from the subgrantee to substantiate disaster damages and costs.

A re-inspection of Building E was conducted on December 8, 1995, and DSR 85152 was prepared for $2,043,975 based on additional documentation provided by the subgrantee. Because no direct verification of damages was available, this documentation was relied upon as the main source of information to determine the earthquake damage and the scope of repair work. Generally, the review of the documentation concluded that completed repairs were eligible unless the work was included in the renovation contract agreement/drawings and such work had not been completed or accepted by the subgrantee.

On August 14, 1996, more than two and a half years after the disaster event, the subgrantee submitted a request to OES for a supplement to DSR 85152 totaling $44,423, based on actual costs incurred for roofing repairs. This request was forwarded to FEMA by OES in a letter dated December 24, 1996. FEMA denied funding for the roofing repair because the roof replacement was a new request that was not submitted prior to the regulatory deadline. Additionally, based on information provided in this request, FEMA prepared DSR 60869 for <$89,386> to adjust eligible funding due to three change orders included in DSR 85152 that should have been included in other DSRs, as well as the approval of additional costs for stairwell guardrails, exterior painting, and putty removal.

First Appeal

The subgrantee appealed FEMA's determination not to fund roof repairs in a letter dated June 16, 1997. The appeal contended that their Exhibit B stated that "construction work aimed at correcting structural damage to the facilities" would be performed. The subgrantee continued that roof repair work should be included in this description.

FEMA found that the existence of additional disaster-related damages was not supported by physical evidence or sufficient documentation. Also, the subgrantee did not report the damage within the regulatory timeframe. Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), section 206.202(d), any damage that is not shown to the inspection team during its initial visit must be reported to the Regional Director by the Grantee within sixty days (60 days) of the initial visit. The appeal response specifically referenced a May 4, 1995, OES letter informing subgrantees that FEMA and OES had established an extended June 30, 1995, deadline to submit additional damages. This deadline was subsequently extended until June 31, 1995. Because specific damage to the Building E roofing system was not reported prior to the deadline, FEMA denied the appeal.

Second Appeal

The subgrantee submitted a second appeal dated March 19, 1998. The appeal states that the lack of evidence of disaster-related damages is due to the untimely site-inspections conducted by FEMA and OES, after the majority of repairs were completed. Furthermore, the subgrantee contests the application of the July 31, 1995, deadline for submitting new damages because of the lateness of the inspections.

DISCUSSION

The first issue of the second appeal concerns the lack of documentation of disaster-related roof damages. The subgrantee asserts that had the inspections been more timely, physical evidence of disaster damages would have been apparent. The subgrantee continues that they also provided documentation substantiating the fact that OES had information related to roof damages.

Documentation is a fundamental requirement for the allocation and subsequent approval of eligible work and the associated cost. Without the appropriate support documentation the evaluation of the cost, in relation to basic eligibility criteria, is not possible. 44 CFR 206.202(d) establishes the subgrantee's responsibility for ensuring that all eligible work and the cost associated with the disaster-related damage is identified. Eligible work is ultimately determined through the evaluation of disaster-related damage in relation to its cause. The evaluation of damage is accomplished through the physical inspection of damaged sites or the review of available documentation regarding the pre- and post-disaster condition of the site.

In this case, the appeal is based on the subgrantee's contention that the roof repair work should be included in the construction work to correct structural damage to the facilities as indicated in the Exhibit B. However, the available documentation submitted by the subgrantee, including photographs, does not support their contention that there was significant earthquake-related damage to the roofing system to warrant the completed repair work and the subsequent cost. Although the subgrantee cites its Exhibit B in support of roof repairs, this documentation is general in damage description and does not specifically reference damages to the roof. The subgrantee asserts that had the inspections been more timely, physical evidence of disaster-damages would have been apparent. However, when work is completed prior to an inspection, it is the responsibility of the subgrantee to document and identify work which has been completed. When the inspection teams did conduct the site visits, neither team indicated, or were notified of, earthquake-related damage to the roof system. It is unclear as to why, if damages were identified and repairs initiated prior to the inspections, the subgrantee did not notify inspectors of these damages at either of these inspections. The subgrantee states that they informed OES that roof work was not included in DSR 85152 prior to accepting it, however, OES suggested the subgrantee request these costs in a supplemental request. FEMA was not notified of these damages until the subgrantee's supplemental funding request was forwarded by OES on December 24, 1996, nearly three years after the disaster-event.

This is relevant to the second issue of the appeal; timeliness of the submittal of additional damages. The subgrantee contends that the July 31, 1995, deadline established for submitting additional damages should not apply to them because of the late site inspections. The subgrantee states that DSR 85152, prepared to address damages to Building E, lists an inspection date of December 8, 1995, more than four months after the July 31, 1995, deadline.

A June 30, 1995, deadline for reporting additional damage was established in an April 24, 1995, letter from Laurence Zensinger, then Federal Coordinating Officer, to Paul Flores, then Governor's Authorized Representative. The letter discusses the regulatory requirements from 44 CFR 206.202(d)(1) and Section IV C.2.d(2)(a) and (b) of the California State Administrative Plan, which both recognize that any damages which are not shown to the inspection team during the initial site visit, must be reported in writing by the Grantee to FEMA within sixty days following the completion of the initial visit. This letter extended that deadliiahose applicants whose initial inspection was after the April 30 deadline would have sixty days to submit documentation of additional damage not shown to the inspection team. The letter went on to explain that the written submission of additional damage must contain the damage location, a brief damage description, and a reason why the damage was unknown until now. This letter also recognized that damages, which were uncovered during the course of eligible work (hidden damages), were not subject to any reporting deadlines. FEMA later extended the June 30, 1995, deadline to July 31, 1995. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your review.

The subgrantee is correct that the July 31, 1995, deadline for additional damage reporting does not apply to them as their initial site inspection was after April 30, 1995. However, the sixty day regulatory deadline for submitting additional damages following the initial site inspection does still apply as per 44 CFR 206.202(d)(1) and Laurence Zensinger's April 24, 1995, letter. The initial site inspection was conducted June 21, 1995, mandating that additional damages be submitted to FEMA no later than August 21, 1995. The subgrantee did not submit a request for funding of roof repairs to OES until April 10, 1996, more than six months after the regulatory deadline. Because the damage was not shown to either inspection team and was not reported within sixty days of either inspection, the roof damage is not eligible for Federal assistance.

CONCLUSION

The subgrantee has not provided sufficient documentation to support that roof damage and subsequent replacement was disaster-related. Additionally, the subgrantee did not report these damages until well after the regulatory deadline. Accordingly, the second appeal is denied.