Big Bear Lake - Shake Shingle Roof Replacement
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Appeal Brief
| Applicant | California Governor's Office of Emergency Services |
| Appeal Type | 2nd |
| Project Number | 10 |
| Date Signed | 2010-11-09T00:00:00 |
1st Appeal
• Issue
o FEMA Region IX approved an application for $1,000,000 to replace the roofs on 150 homes, and later upon request an additional $356,603 because of cost escalation changing the scope of work (SOW). The subgrantee requested a change in the SOW, to include an additional 55 homes at no additional cost, and stated that 26 of the 150 homes had been mitigated with other funds and would not be part of the project.
• Reason for Denial
o FEMA denied this request because the Subgrantee submitted its request after the application period closed, inconsistent with program policy and guidelines.
• Reference(s)
o 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals, 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures, 44 CFR Part 13.30 Changes; FEMA guidance memorandum dated May 21, 2003, from Anthony Lowe, Mitigation Division Director, regarding HMGP grants management terms and addressing the issue of changes to the SOW for subapplications.
2nd Appeal
• Issue
o The subgrantee’s request for a change in SOW was submitted after the application period closed.
• FEMA Findings
o FEMA HQ denied the 2nd appeal, upholding Region IX’s decision to deny the 1st appeal.
o The rationale for the 2nd level appeal decision was that the request to include 29 additional homes in the SOW was not consistent with the May 21, 2003 guidance memorandum, because the request was submitted after the application period closed.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals, 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures, 44 CFR Part 13.30 Changes; FEMA guidance memorandum dated May 21, 2003, from Anthony Lowe, Mitigation Division Director, regarding HMGP grants management terms and addressing the issue of changes to the SOW for subapplications.
• Issue
o FEMA Region IX approved an application for $1,000,000 to replace the roofs on 150 homes, and later upon request an additional $356,603 because of cost escalation changing the scope of work (SOW). The subgrantee requested a change in the SOW, to include an additional 55 homes at no additional cost, and stated that 26 of the 150 homes had been mitigated with other funds and would not be part of the project.
• Reason for Denial
o FEMA denied this request because the Subgrantee submitted its request after the application period closed, inconsistent with program policy and guidelines.
• Reference(s)
o 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals, 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures, 44 CFR Part 13.30 Changes; FEMA guidance memorandum dated May 21, 2003, from Anthony Lowe, Mitigation Division Director, regarding HMGP grants management terms and addressing the issue of changes to the SOW for subapplications.
2nd Appeal
• Issue
o The subgrantee’s request for a change in SOW was submitted after the application period closed.
• FEMA Findings
o FEMA HQ denied the 2nd appeal, upholding Region IX’s decision to deny the 1st appeal.
o The rationale for the 2nd level appeal decision was that the request to include 29 additional homes in the SOW was not consistent with the May 21, 2003 guidance memorandum, because the request was submitted after the application period closed.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals, 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures, 44 CFR Part 13.30 Changes; FEMA guidance memorandum dated May 21, 2003, from Anthony Lowe, Mitigation Division Director, regarding HMGP grants management terms and addressing the issue of changes to the SOW for subapplications.
Appeal Letter
November 9, 2010
Mr. Francis McCarton
Alternate Governor's Authorized Representative
California Emergency Management Agency
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Alternate Governor's Authorized Representative
California Emergency Management Agency
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second Appeal, City ofBig Bear Lake, FIPS # 071-06434, Shake Shingle Roof Replacement, FEMA-DR-1585-CA, HMGP # 010
Dear Mr. McCartan:
This is in response to your letter dated June 14, 2010, that forwarded a second appeal on behalf of the City of Big Bear Lake (Subgrantee) for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) # 1585-15-10. The City of Big Bear Lake is appealing the Deputy Regional Administrator's decision to deny its request to add an additional 55 homes to the project scope of work (SOW) after the application period closed.
Background
On September 27, 2006, California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) forwarded a subapplication from the Subgrantee for "Replacing Organic Material/Shake Shingle Roofs with Class A Roof Covering." On February 29, 2008, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved the subapplication for $1,000,000 to replace the roofs on 150 homes. On August 5, 2008, the Subgrantee requested an additional $356,603 to complete the project scope of work because of cost escalation from the time it submitted it original subapplication. FEMA approved the revised project budget of $1,356,603 on October 28,2008. On Apri123, 2009, the Subgrantee requested to include an additional 55 homes to the scope of work at no additional cost. It subsequently stated that 26 of the 150 homes had been mitigated with other funds and would not be part of this project. FEMA denied this request because the Subgrantee submitted its request after the application period closed which was not consistent with program policy and guidelines. The Deputy Regional Administrator sustained this decision on first appeal in a letter dated February 19, 2010. The Subrantee submitted a second appeal dated June 14, 2010, stating that [Cal EMA] does not belive that the absence of a comprehensive list of structures in the SOW is cause for the denial of the appeal because the structures in question are refernced in the SOW by their proximity to the hazard."
On September 27, 2006, California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) forwarded a subapplication from the Subgrantee for "Replacing Organic Material/Shake Shingle Roofs with Class A Roof Covering." On February 29, 2008, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved the subapplication for $1,000,000 to replace the roofs on 150 homes. On August 5, 2008, the Subgrantee requested an additional $356,603 to complete the project scope of work because of cost escalation from the time it submitted it original subapplication. FEMA approved the revised project budget of $1,356,603 on October 28,2008. On Apri123, 2009, the Subgrantee requested to include an additional 55 homes to the scope of work at no additional cost. It subsequently stated that 26 of the 150 homes had been mitigated with other funds and would not be part of this project. FEMA denied this request because the Subgrantee submitted its request after the application period closed which was not consistent with program policy and guidelines. The Deputy Regional Administrator sustained this decision on first appeal in a letter dated February 19, 2010. The Subrantee submitted a second appeal dated June 14, 2010, stating that [Cal EMA] does not belive that the absence of a comprehensive list of structures in the SOW is cause for the denial of the appeal because the structures in question are refernced in the SOW by their proximity to the hazard."
Analysis
The FEMA memorandum dated May 21, 2002, from Anthony Lowe, Mitigation Division Director, to FEMA Regional Directors, Regions I - X, Subject: Guidance on HMGP grants management terms, addresses the issue of changes to the SOW for subapplications. The memorandum defines a change to the SOW as: Any change to the objective, purpose, and outcome of approved mitigation activity, regardless of budget implications. Scope of work changes cannot occur after the application period expires. Examples of scope of work changes include: Changing the number of houses in a retrofit or acquisition project ...
The approved SOW identified 150 homes. The Subgrantee determined that 26 of the 150 homes were mitigated with other funds; therefore, they were no longer part of the mitigation project. The Subgrantee's request to substitute 26 new homes in the SOW is consistent with the May 21, 2003 guidance memorandum because the total number of homes in the project did not change. However, the request to include 29 additional homes in the SOW is not consistent with the May 21, 2003 guidance memorandum.
Conclusion
After careful review of all information submitted with the appeal, I have determined that 26 new homes are eligible for inclusion in the approved SOW. The additional 26 homes must meet all eligibility requirements. Therefore, the appeal is partially approved.
If you have further questions on this matter, please contact David Kennard, Chief, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Branch, FEMA Region IX, at (510) 627-7269.
Sincerely,
Sandra K. Knight, PhD, PE
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation
Appeal Analysis
The FEMA memorandum dated May 21, 2002, from Anthony Lowe, Mitigation Division Director, to FEMA Regional Directors, Regions I - X, Subject: Guidance on HMGP grants management terms, addresses the issue of changes to the SOW for subapplications. The memorandum defines a change to the SOW as: Any change to the objective, purpose, and outcome of approved mitigation activity, regardless of budget implications. Scope of work changes cannot occur after the application period expires. Examples of scope of work changes include: Changing the number of houses in a retrofit or acquisition project ...
The approved SOW identified 150 homes. The Subgrantee determined that 26 of the 150 homes were mitigated with other funds; therefore, they were no longer part of the mitigation project. The Subgrantee's request to substitute 26 new homes in the SOW is consistent with the May 21, 2003 guidance memorandum because the total number of homes in the project did not change. However, the request to include 29 additional homes in the SOW is not consistent with the May 21, 2003 guidance memorandum.
Last updated