Debris Monitoring Costs
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1402-DR-KS; City of Shawnee, Debris Monitoring Costs,
PW 684
Cross-reference: Debris Monitoring Costs
Summary: A severe winter storm deposited heavy snow, sleet, and freezing rain as it moved through the State of Kansas from January 29-31, 2002. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared FEMA-1402-DR-KS on February 6, 2002. FEMA approved $15,864 for monitoring costs in PW 684 and an additional $19,160 in Version #1 of PW 684 for a total of $35,024. The City submitted a first appeal on June 24, 2002, requesting reimbursement for its total cost for contract monitoring services of $50,211, a difference of $15,187. The Regional Director denied the first appeal because the costs were above the maximum allowable amount the Kansas Division of Emergency Management (KDEM) determined to be reasonable for this type of work during the time of the disaster event. The Regional Directors determination supported KDEMs recommendation that the appeal be denied. Although the Citys second appeal letter was dated September 25, 2002, it was not received by KDEM until November 29, 2002, after being postmarked on November 27, 2002. This was two weeks after the deadline of November 12, 2002, for submitting its second appeal. KDEM does not support the Citys appeal for $15,187.
Issues: 1.) Was the appeal received in a timely manner?
2.) Is the increase in contract monitoring costs allowable for reimbursement?
Findings: 1.) No. The appeal was not received within the required 60 days.
2.) No. The increased costs are not fair and equitable for this type of work as determined by the average costs for similar work in the area.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.206, PA Guide, pages 33-35, OMB Circulars A-87, and
A-102
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1402-DR |
| Applicant | City of Shawnee |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 091-64500-00 |
| PW ID# | 684 |
| Date Signed | 2003-06-19T04:00:00 |
PW 684
2.) Is the increase in contract monitoring costs allowable for reimbursement?
2.) No. The increased costs are not fair and equitable for this type of work as determined by the average costs for similar work in the area.
A-102
Appeal Letter
June 19, 2003
Mr. Lloyd E. Krase
Deputy Director
Division of Emergency Management
2800 SW Topeka Boulevard
Topeka, Kansas 66611-1287
Re: Second Appeal: City of Shawnee, PA ID 091-64500-00, Debris Monitoring Costs, FEMA-1402-DR-KS, Project Worksheet (PW) 684
Dear Mr. Krase:
This is in response to your letter dated January 21, 2003, which transmitted the reference second appeal on behalf of the City of Shawnee (City). The City requested an additional $15,187 for contract debris monitoring costs. We apologize for the delay of our response.
A severe winter storm deposited heavy snow, sleet, and freezing rain as it moved through the State of Kansas from January 29-31, 2002, resulting in a major disaster declaration. The City contracted with an engineering consulting firm to monitor the debris removal operations for straight time rates of $40.18 to $61.50 per hour. The engineering firm used its professional construction inspectors for the monitoring efforts when debris monitoring does not require that level of expertise. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Kansas Division of Emergency Management (KDEM) determined that the maximum reasonable rate for debris monitoring was $40.00 per hour based on the rates paid by other applicants in the area. FEMA approved $35,024 for monitoring costs in PW 684.
The City submitted a first appeal to the KDEM on June 24, 2002. In its appeal, the City requested the difference between the amount it was invoiced for contract monitoring and the amount approved in PW 684 ($15,187). The Regional Director for FEMA Region VII denied the appeal on September 4, 2002, because the debris monitoring costs were excessive for the type of work being performed and, therefore, were not reasonable.
The City submitted a second appeal on November 27, 2002. Although the Citys letter was dated September 25, 2002, it was not mailed until November 27, 2002. The November 27, 2002, date is being used as the submission date of the appeal which is two weeks after the 60-day deadline of November 12, 2002, for submitting its appeal. Title 44 CFR §206.206 states, Appellants must file appeals within 60 days after receipt of a notice of the action that is being appealed. The City did not meet this requirement. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
If the appeal had been reviewed on it merits, the conclusion would have been the same. The City stated that based upon the circumstances it encountered, the monitoring costs were reasonable and the total invoiced amount should be eligible. A reasonable cost is a cost that is both fair and equitable for the type of work being performed and can be based on the average costs for similar work in the area. This was the procedure FEMA and KDEM followed in determining a maximum allowable rate of $40 per hour. The cost the City is claiming is excessive and, therefore not reasonable.
Please inform the City of my determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Laurence W. Zensinger
Acting Director, Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
cc: Richard Hainje
Regional Director
Region VII
Mr. Lloyd E. Krase
Deputy Director
Division of Emergency Management
2800 SW Topeka Boulevard
Topeka, Kansas 66611-1287
Re: Second Appeal: City of Shawnee, PA ID 091-64500-00, Debris Monitoring Costs, FEMA-1402-DR-KS, Project Worksheet (PW) 684
Dear Mr. Krase:
This is in response to your letter dated January 21, 2003, which transmitted the reference second appeal on behalf of the City of Shawnee (City). The City requested an additional $15,187 for contract debris monitoring costs. We apologize for the delay of our response.
A severe winter storm deposited heavy snow, sleet, and freezing rain as it moved through the State of Kansas from January 29-31, 2002, resulting in a major disaster declaration. The City contracted with an engineering consulting firm to monitor the debris removal operations for straight time rates of $40.18 to $61.50 per hour. The engineering firm used its professional construction inspectors for the monitoring efforts when debris monitoring does not require that level of expertise. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Kansas Division of Emergency Management (KDEM) determined that the maximum reasonable rate for debris monitoring was $40.00 per hour based on the rates paid by other applicants in the area. FEMA approved $35,024 for monitoring costs in PW 684.
The City submitted a first appeal to the KDEM on June 24, 2002. In its appeal, the City requested the difference between the amount it was invoiced for contract monitoring and the amount approved in PW 684 ($15,187). The Regional Director for FEMA Region VII denied the appeal on September 4, 2002, because the debris monitoring costs were excessive for the type of work being performed and, therefore, were not reasonable.
The City submitted a second appeal on November 27, 2002. Although the Citys letter was dated September 25, 2002, it was not mailed until November 27, 2002. The November 27, 2002, date is being used as the submission date of the appeal which is two weeks after the 60-day deadline of November 12, 2002, for submitting its appeal. Title 44 CFR §206.206 states, Appellants must file appeals within 60 days after receipt of a notice of the action that is being appealed. The City did not meet this requirement. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
If the appeal had been reviewed on it merits, the conclusion would have been the same. The City stated that based upon the circumstances it encountered, the monitoring costs were reasonable and the total invoiced amount should be eligible. A reasonable cost is a cost that is both fair and equitable for the type of work being performed and can be based on the average costs for similar work in the area. This was the procedure FEMA and KDEM followed in determining a maximum allowable rate of $40 per hour. The cost the City is claiming is excessive and, therefore not reasonable.
Please inform the City of my determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Laurence W. Zensinger
Acting Director, Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
cc: Richard Hainje
Regional Director
Region VII
Last updated