This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.
Force Account Equipment Rates
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Madera Irrigation District; FEMA-1046-DR-CA; PA # 039-91010
Cross -Reference: DSRs 16697, 27114, 27121 and 27122; Force Account Equipment Rates
Summary: The late winter storms of March 1995 caused damage to several of the water control facilities under the control of the Madera Irrigation District (District). The damage generally consisted of washed out irrigation canals, which were restored by the District utilizing their own equipment, including two different sized Gradalls. In September 1995, FEMA prepared the above DSRs for varying amounts to fund restoration of the canal banks with placement of unclassified fill. Upon review, FEMA reduced the funding of each DSR to reflect FEMA's applicable equipment rates. The State submitted the first appeal on July 12, 1996. The basis of the appeal is a disagreement with the substitution of FEMA equipment rates for the equipment rates of the District. The appeal was supported by historical acceptance of the District's equipment rates by another Federal agency, the Bureau of Reclamation. The Regional Director denied the first appeal on December 19, 1996, because a basis of equipment rates of the District was not established under state or local guidelines, and contained more than just operating costs, as required by 44 CFR 206.228 (a)(1). The State submitted a second appeal on April 1, 1997. The basis of the second appeal is the establishment of the equipment rates by approval of the rates by the District's Board of Directors, as well as independent auditors. In the second appeal, the subgrantee has provided a historical basis of the use of the equipment rates, but has not provided a basis for the establishment of equipment rates.
Issues: Has the subgrantee provided sufficient documentation to establish the justification of the use of local, hourly equipment rates in lieu of the FEMA equipment rates?
Findings: No. Details and documentation submitted were not sufficient to justify the use of the District's local equipment rate. The additional information submitted documented the use of the local rates, not the basis of the local rates.
Rationale: In accordance with 44 CFR Section 206.228 (a)(1)(ii), " If an applicant wishes to claim an equipment rate which exceeds the FEMA Schedule, it must document the basis for the rate and obtain FEMA approval of an alternate rate." No documentation was submitted to clarify the basis of the hourly operation rate.
Appeal Brief
| Desastre | FEMA-1046-DR |
| Applicant | Madera Irrigation District |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 039-91010 |
| PW ID# | Multiple |
| Date Signed | 1997-10-02T04:00:00 |
Cross -Reference: DSRs 16697, 27114, 27121 and 27122; Force Account Equipment Rates
Summary: The late winter storms of March 1995 caused damage to several of the water control facilities under the control of the Madera Irrigation District (District). The damage generally consisted of washed out irrigation canals, which were restored by the District utilizing their own equipment, including two different sized Gradalls. In September 1995, FEMA prepared the above DSRs for varying amounts to fund restoration of the canal banks with placement of unclassified fill. Upon review, FEMA reduced the funding of each DSR to reflect FEMA's applicable equipment rates. The State submitted the first appeal on July 12, 1996. The basis of the appeal is a disagreement with the substitution of FEMA equipment rates for the equipment rates of the District. The appeal was supported by historical acceptance of the District's equipment rates by another Federal agency, the Bureau of Reclamation. The Regional Director denied the first appeal on December 19, 1996, because a basis of equipment rates of the District was not established under state or local guidelines, and contained more than just operating costs, as required by 44 CFR 206.228 (a)(1). The State submitted a second appeal on April 1, 1997. The basis of the second appeal is the establishment of the equipment rates by approval of the rates by the District's Board of Directors, as well as independent auditors. In the second appeal, the subgrantee has provided a historical basis of the use of the equipment rates, but has not provided a basis for the establishment of equipment rates.
Issues: Has the subgrantee provided sufficient documentation to establish the justification of the use of local, hourly equipment rates in lieu of the FEMA equipment rates?
Findings: No. Details and documentation submitted were not sufficient to justify the use of the District's local equipment rate. The additional information submitted documented the use of the local rates, not the basis of the local rates.
Rationale: In accordance with 44 CFR Section 206.228 (a)(1)(ii), " If an applicant wishes to claim an equipment rate which exceeds the FEMA Schedule, it must document the basis for the rate and obtain FEMA approval of an alternate rate." No documentation was submitted to clarify the basis of the hourly operation rate.
Appeal Letter
October 2, 1997
Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823
Dear Ms. Ward:
This letter is in response to your letter April 1, 1997, transmittal of the Madera Irrigation District's (District) second appeal of damage survey reports (DSRs) 16697, 27114, 27121 and 27122 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The District is requesting reimbursement of costs associated with equipment use.
The winter storms of March 1995 caused damage to several of the District's irrigation canals. In September 1995, FEMA prepared the above DSRs to fund restoration of the canal banks with the placement of unclassified fill. Upon review, FEMA reduced the funding of each DSR to reflect FEMA's schedule of equipment costs in lieu of the equipment rates used by the District. The State submitted the first appeal on July 12, 1996. The basis of the appeal was the disagreement with the substitution of FEMA equipment rates for the local equipment rates. The Regional Director denied the first appeal because the District's equipment rates were not established under state guidelines, and may have included more than operating costs (for example, overhead and profit).
The issue of the second appeal is whether the basis of local equipment rates has been justified or established under state or local guidelines. As explained by the Regional Director in response to the first appeal, to claim an equipment rate which exceeds the FEMA Schedule the applicant must provide FEMA with an explanation of how the rates were computed. Although the District has shown a historical use of the use of equipment rates, the District has not provided either justification of the equipment rates or guidelines by which the rates were established. Based on a review of the second appeal, I agree that the Regional Director's decision is consistent with program statute and regulations. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. This appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823
Dear Ms. Ward:
This letter is in response to your letter April 1, 1997, transmittal of the Madera Irrigation District's (District) second appeal of damage survey reports (DSRs) 16697, 27114, 27121 and 27122 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The District is requesting reimbursement of costs associated with equipment use.
The winter storms of March 1995 caused damage to several of the District's irrigation canals. In September 1995, FEMA prepared the above DSRs to fund restoration of the canal banks with the placement of unclassified fill. Upon review, FEMA reduced the funding of each DSR to reflect FEMA's schedule of equipment costs in lieu of the equipment rates used by the District. The State submitted the first appeal on July 12, 1996. The basis of the appeal was the disagreement with the substitution of FEMA equipment rates for the local equipment rates. The Regional Director denied the first appeal because the District's equipment rates were not established under state guidelines, and may have included more than operating costs (for example, overhead and profit).
The issue of the second appeal is whether the basis of local equipment rates has been justified or established under state or local guidelines. As explained by the Regional Director in response to the first appeal, to claim an equipment rate which exceeds the FEMA Schedule the applicant must provide FEMA with an explanation of how the rates were computed. Although the District has shown a historical use of the use of equipment rates, the District has not provided either justification of the equipment rates or guidelines by which the rates were established. Based on a review of the second appeal, I agree that the Regional Director's decision is consistent with program statute and regulations. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. This appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate