Result of Declared Incident – Repair vs. Replacement
Appeal Brief
Disaster | 4362 |
Applicant | Jacksonville State University |
Appeal Type | Second |
PA ID# | 015-00035-00 |
PW ID# | PW 100 |
Date Signed | 2022-07-11T16:00:00 |
Summary Paragraph
A tornado impacted Wallace Hall (Facility) on March 19, 2018. EDT Forensic Engineering and Consulting (EDT) and LBYD Engineers (LBYD) inspected the Facility and identified roof and minor exterior damages. Jacksonville State University (Applicant) demolished the Facility’s interior finishes for both disaster cleanup and asbestos abatement. FEMA inspected the Facility after interior demolition and could not observe damages firsthand. The Applicant did not provide photographs taken prior to demolition. Turner Construction Company (Turner) provided its first repair/replacement estimate, and FEMA expressed concerns about ineligible work in this estimate. LBYD and EDT reassessed damages after interior demolition exposed more of the structure. LBYD observed damages to the second-floor concrete slab, anchors attaching the façade to support beams, and concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, and recommended further investigation to determine repair needs. EDT determined the disaster did not damage the concrete slab, steel columns, or façade and its anchor points; humidifiers would address moisture concerns; and CMU walls did not require repair other than the vertical cracks that could be from the disaster. Turner provided a second estimate, removing structural repairs and concrete slab replacement costs. The Applicant requested Public Assistance for replacement under FEMA’s 50 Percent Rule, providing a third estimate from Turner which exceeded its prior estimates. FEMA drafted Project Worksheet 100 using the Applicant’s representations of damages and cost estimates for replacement of the Facility ($13,188,865.00) along with mitigation upgrades ($4,923,546.00). FEMA conducted a line-item validation and identified ineligible costs. FEMA’s validation calculated $2,693,249.16 for repair and $8,376,915.00 for replacement, yielding a 50 Percent Rule ratio of 32.2 percent. Accordingly, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum partially approving the project for eligible repair costs. Because the Facility would no longer be replaced, FEMA reduced mitigation costs to $431,421.00 based on the updated eligible repairs. The Applicant appealed for full replacement and mitigation costs, asserting: (1) the disaster caused the damages; (2) FEMA did not immediately contest its estimates; (3) Alabama codes applied; and (4) its repair estimates exceed 50 percent of FEMA’s replacement cost. FEMA denied the appeal, finding the Applicant did not demonstrate all claimed damages resulted from the disaster and required repair, and the cost to repair the Facility did not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost. The Applicant submits its second appeal, restating first appeal arguments and contesting EDT’s report.
Authorities and Second Appeals
- Stafford Act § 406(a)(1)(A).
- 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1), 206.226(f).
- PAPPG, at 19, 100-101, 133.
- Conway Hosp., FEMA-4394-DR-SC, at 3.
Headnotes
- The Stafford Act authorizes FEMA to provide PA funding for facilities damaged or destroyed by disasters. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that damage was caused directly by the declared incident, and where preexisting damage exists, to distinguish that damage from disaster-related damage.
- The Applicant has not demonstrated additional repairs are required as a result of the disaster.
- A facility is considered repairable when disaster damages do not exceed 50 percent of the cost of replacing the facility to its predisaster condition.
- Using estimates which only include eligible work, the cost to repair the Facility does not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost.
Conclusion
The Applicant has not demonstrated the additional repair work, mitigation work, or replacement of the Facility are eligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is denied.
Appeal Letter
Jeff Smitherman
Director
Alabama Emergency Management Agency
5898 County Road 41
Clanton, Alabama 35046-2160
Re: Second Appeal – Jacksonville State University, PA ID: 015-00035-00, FEMA-4362-DR-AL, Project Worksheet 100, Result of Declared Incident – Repair vs. Replacement
Dear Mr. Hastings:
This is in response to a letter from your office dated January 10, 2022, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Jacksonville State University (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $7,511,792.00 in addition to mitigation costs for the replacement of Wallace Hall (Facility).
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined the Applicant has not provided documentation demonstrating additional disaster-related damages to the Facility. Based on estimates which only include eligible work, the cost to repair the Facility does not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost. Accordingly, the Facility is eligible for repair. The Applicant has not shown additional mitigation efforts associated with repair of the Facility are eligible. Therefore, this appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals.
Sincerely,
/S/
Ana Montero
Division Director
Public Assistance Division
Enclosure
cc: Gracia Szczech
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV
Appeal Analysis
Background
From March 19-20, 2018, severe storms and tornadoes damaged Jacksonville State University’s (Applicant) Wallace Hall (Facility), a two-story structure that houses the Applicant’s nursing school.[1] The Facility is a concrete block structure, built in 1973, and has a metal sloped roof with steel trusses installed over the original flat roof in 1983.[2] Immediately following the disaster, the Applicant coordinated with EDT Forensic Engineering and Consulting (EDT) and LBYD Engineers (LBYD) to inspect the Facility for damages. EDT identified damages to a portion of the roof and made repair recommendations,[3] and LBYD observed “minor exterior damage to [the] façade and signs of roof damage.”[4]
The Applicant demolished the Facility’s interior finishes, including the abatement of all asbestos containing materials (ACM),[5] prior to FEMA’s inspection on June 8, 2018. Because the Facility had been gutted, the site inspector could not observe damages firsthand and relied on the Applicant’s recounted description of damages. The Applicant did not provide photographs of interior damage taken prior to demolition and ACM abatement.
Turner Construction Company (Turner) provided the Applicant with its first estimate with both repair and replacement costs for the Facility on August 3, 2018.[6] FEMA informed the Applicant of concerns regarding the inclusion of ineligible repairs for damages beyond those caused by the disaster in Turner’s first estimate.[7] Turner then informed the Applicant that its first repair cost estimate included the stabilization of the interior columns and exterior structure, which would need to be evaluated to ensure the components were not compromised by the storm, and removal and replacement of the second floor concrete slab to remediate biological growth.[8] At the request of the Applicant, after ACM testing, abatement, and demolition exposed more of the Facility’s interior structure, LBYD and EDT performed second site visits to reassess damages.[9] Based on its second site visit, LBYD recommended further investigation of the concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls to determine adequacy and/or upgrades necessary to bring the structural system up to code and an environmental investigation to determine the impact of water intrusion into the second-floor concrete slab.[10]
Representatives from Custard Insurance Adjuster, Inc., LBYD, and FEMA accompanied EDT during EDT’s second inspection of the Facility.[11] FEMA and LBYD pointed out potential damages noted in prior inspection reports, which EDT discussed and analyzed in its report.[12] EDT determined: (1) the interior steel columns remained plumb and were not damaged by the disaster; (2) the Facility did not sustain substantial structural damage;[13] (3) the CMU infill walls were not load bearing walls and, therefore, did not require a seismic retrofit; (4) the CMU infill walls did not pose a danger, except where portions of the walls were cut out to install ductwork and were unsupported; (5) vertical cracks in portions of the CMU indicated a sudden occurrence of damage, such as cracking from the disaster, and should be repaired; (6) the bent bottom plate at the façade/steel frame connection, separation between the façade and concrete floor, and bowing of the façade panels were construction defects, and not the result of a storm; (7) water exposure to the concrete slab did not pose a danger to its condition and dehumidifiers should be used to help facilitate the interior drying process and prevent other issues, such as biological growth; and (8) the observed concrete slab cracks were either shrinkage cracks, plastic shrinkage cracks, or crazing (small surface cracks resulting from poor curing), had little to no effect on the durability of the slab, and were not the result of the tornado.[14]
After reviewing the recommendations and clarifications provided in EDT’s second inspection report, Turner provided a second repair estimate, which eliminated costs for the removal and replacement of the second floor and for structural repairs. [15]
On November 8, 2018, the Applicant requested that FEMA consider the Facility eligible for replacement under FEMA’s 50 Percent Rule (applicable when eligible repair costs exceed 50 percent of replacement costs).[16] To support its claim, the Applicant provided a third estimate from Turner.[17] Turner’s third estimate reinstated costs for structural repairs and removal and replacement of the second floor concrete slab and increased quantities beyond those included in the first and second estimates.[18]
FEMA initially drafted Project Worksheet (PW) 100 to document work and costs related to the Facility.[19] Based on the Applicant’s representations of damage descriptions and cost estimates, FEMA prepared a cost estimate for the replacement of the Facility in December 2018.[20] In addition to the replacement cost, the project included mitigation measures to prevent future damages from a similar event and create a 9,300 square foot (SF) safe room.[21] A FEMA cost specialist engineer conducted a line-item validation of the repair and replacement estimates provided by the Applicant and identified costs for the demolition of undamaged elements and repair and replacement of items not damaged by the disaster in the Applicant’s proposed repair estimate. [22] FEMA’s validation calculated costs of $2,693,249.16 for repair and $8,376,915.00 for replacement, yielding a 50 Percent Rule ratio of 32.2 percent.[23] FEMA informed the Applicant that it was revising PW 100 and offered to explain the edits that had been made to date.[24] FEMA spoke with the Applicant and advised that a Determination Memorandum in development would fully explain the basis for denial and the Applicant’s appeal rights.[25]
FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum on January 25, 2021, partially approving $4,538,530.00 for eligible repairs.[26] Because the Facility’s repair costs did not exceed 50 percent of the replacement costs, FEMA limited eligibility to repairs. FEMA updated mitigation costs based on the updated eligible repairs to the Facility. Because the Facility would no longer be replaced, FEMA concluded that increasing the building area by 9,300 SF to build a proposed safe room would no longer be feasible as part of the repair project.[27]
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted a first appeal letter to the Alabama Emergency Management Agency (Grantee) on March 17, 2021, requesting approval of $12,050,322.00 for replacement of the Facility and $4,923,546.00 for mitigation costs. To support its claim, the Applicant asserted: (1) water intrusion from rainfall after the tornado caused many of the claimed damages; (2) FEMA, the Applicant, and the Grantee coordinated to create the December 2018 cost estimate for replacement of the Facility before sending the project back for rework 10 months later; (3) engineering reports indicated the disaster damaged the electrical, mechanical, and roof systems;[28] (4) LBYD identified concrete slab cracks and water intrusion in its storm damage plan and noted that the slab may require removal and replacement; (5) Alabama building codes require new buildings of public universities and colleges to include safe rooms; (6) scanned drawings identify disaster and ACM abatement damages; and (7) Turner’s second estimate, with soft costs removed,[29] and the total insurance proceeds received for the Facility[30] each exceed 50 percent of FEMA’s validated replacement estimate.[31] The Grantee forwarded the Applicant’s appeal to FEMA, requesting that FEMA review the documentation provided by the Applicant to provide a determination.
The FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator denied the appeal, finding Facility replacement and additional mitigation costs to be ineligible. FEMA found all costs associated with work to restore the Facility’s interior to be ineligible, and therefore not included in the 50 Percent Rule calculation, because the Applicant: (1) did not distinguish demolition and replacement of eligible damages from demolition and replacement exclusively associated with the ineligible abatement of ACM; and (2) provided no evidence of interior damage upon which FEMA could determine eligibility of the work. FEMA noted that documents submitted in support of interior removal/replacement costs were prepared after the building’s interior demolition based on scaled dimensions from the original building plans and were not based on observed damage. Additionally, EDT’s damage assessment demonstrated that steel beams, steel framing, and the second-floor concrete slab were not damaged as a result of the disaster. FEMA also concluded that, while water entered the Facility where approximately 5 percent of the built-up roof was torn off and where door and window seals were penetrated, the Applicant did not demonstrate damages to the Facility’s electrical or mechanical systems or that water intrusion occurred throughout the entire Facility. Considering only estimates which included eligible work and excluded soft costs, FEMA determined the cost to repair the Facility did not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost. Therefore, the Facility would only be eligible for repair. Accordingly, the retrofit of 9,300 SF for a proposed safe room would not be feasible as hazard mitigation and the Applicant did not identify any codes or standards requiring the addition of a safe room.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submits its second appeal by letter dated December 13, 2021, restating its first appeal arguments and contending EDT’s report included errors and, because EDT was hired by the Applicant’s insurance carrier, was influenced by the insurance carrier’s the goal of paying out as little as possible per claim. The Applicant also submits that the Facility was undamaged prior to the disaster.[32] The Applicant requests $7,511,792.00 for replacement of the Facility in addition to costs for mitigation and upgrades required by Alabama codes. The Grantee forwarded the Applicant’s appeal to FEMA in a letter dated January 10, 2022, requesting that FEMA review the documentation provided by the Applicant to provide a determination.
Discussion
Result of Declared Incident
FEMA may provide Public Assistance (PA) funding to eligible applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of eligible facilities damaged or destroyed by major disasters.[33] To be eligible, work must be required as a result of the declared major disaster or emergency.[34] The applicant is responsible for providing documentation to support its claim as eligible and show that work is required to address damage caused by the disaster, and where preexisting damage exists, to distinguish that damage from the disaster-related damage.[35]
FEMA could not observe damages to the Facility’s interior finishes after the demolition and the Applicant did not provide photographs of interior damage taken prior to demolition. The Applicant has not established the existence or extent of eligible interior damages to the Facility that are a direct result of the disaster. Additionally, the Applicant neither provides documentation to distinguish ACM abatement damages from disaster-related damage nor argues that ACM abatement is necessary due to disaster-caused damage.
Relying upon the professional inspection and assessment of its Professional Engineer, EDT concluded water exposure to the concrete slab did not pose a structural danger and the cracking, unrelated to the disaster, had little to no effect on the durability of the slab. Furthermore, the steel columns in the structure remained plumb and were not damaged by the disaster. The Applicant provides its recounted description of the Facility’s condition prior to the disaster; however, as demonstrated by post-disaster engineering inspections by EDT and LBYD, shrinkage cracking in the concrete slab could not be visually observed until after demolition of the Facility’s interior. The Applicant’s description of the Facility’s predisaster condition does not distinguish preexisting concrete damage from disaster-related damage. The Applicant has not provided documentation demonstrating repairs to the Facility’s steel frame and concrete slab are required as a result of the disaster.[36]
Based on the available documentation, FEMA validated repair costs for limited allowances of electrical and mechanical system recommissioning, testing, identification of damaged components, and miscellaneous replacement of components damaged by water intrusion. The Applicant provides engineering reports explaining the susceptibility of its electrical and mechanical systems to water damage,[37] but does not establish additional disaster-related damages. The Applicant has not demonstrated that water intrusion occurred throughout the entire Facility or that damages to its electrical and mechanical systems extend beyond the allowances documented in FEMA’s repair estimate.
Repair vs. Replacement
A facility is considered repairable when disaster damages do not exceed 50 percent of the cost of replacing the facility to its predisaster condition.[38] The comparison of repair costs with replacement costs results in a fraction that expresses repair as a percentage of replacement.[39] Costs associated with soft costs and contents are not included in this calculation.[40] The numerator of the fraction is the cost of repairing disaster-related damage only and includes costs associated with codes or standards upgrades that apply to the repair of the damaged elements only.[41] The denominator of the fraction is the cost of replacing the facility on the basis of its predisaster design and function in accordance with applicable codes or standards.[42] This calculation is referred to as the “50 Percent Rule.”[43]
Using estimates which only include eligible work, the cost to repair the Facility does not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost. The repair estimates provided by the Applicant include costs and quantities related to repair or replacement of items beyond damages shown to have been caused as a direct result of the disaster.[44] Additionally, the Applicant’s proposed calculation based on insurance proceeds includes costs, such as soft costs, which FEMA does not include in the 50 Percent Rule calculation. After removing soft costs and costs for the demolition of undamaged elements and repair and replacement of items not damaged by the disaster, FEMA validated costs of $2,693,249.16 for repair and $8,376,915.00 for replacement. Based on these validated costs, the 50 Percent Rule yields a ratio of 32.2 percent. Accordingly, the Facility is not eligible for replacement. Furthermore, the Alabama regulatory language cited by the Applicant does not demonstrate the existence of eligible upgrade or mitigation costs associated with repair (rather than replacement) of the Facility beyond those awarded in accordance with FEMA’s Determination Memorandum.[45]
Conclusion
The Applicant has not demonstrated the additional repair work, mitigation work, or replacement of the Facility are eligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is denied.
[1] The President issued a disaster declaration, DR-4362-AL, on April 26, 2018.
[2] The Facility includes an elevated, framed concrete slab that serves as the base of the second story structure.
[3] Storm Damage Evaluation Report from Prof’l Eng’r, EDT Forensic Eng’g & Consulting, at 174-75 (Apr. 11, 2018).
[4] Site Visit Report from Prof’l Eng’r, LBYD Eng’rs, at 2 (Mar. 20, 2018). LBYD also recommended restricting access to multiple structures on the Applicant’s campus based on structural stability concerns but made no such recommendation for the Facility.
[5] See Report of Limited Asbestos Survey from Bhate Geosciences Corp., at 3-7 (May 9, 2018) (confirming the presence of asbestos in drywall joint compound, tile flooring, mastic, and mechanical pipe insulation). BHATE collected samples on March 26 and April 30, 2018.
[6] Wallace Hall Repair and Replacement Estimates from Project Eng’r, Turner Constr. Co., to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Aug. 3, 2018) (projecting costs of $9,075,768.00 for repair and $12,940,064.00 for replacement of the Facility).
[7] Email from Program Delivery Manager Task Force Lead, FEMA, to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Aug. 15, 2018, 1210 EST).
[8] Wallace Hall Repair Estimate Clarification from Project Eng’r, Turner Constr. Co., to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Aug. 23, 2018) (clarifying its estimate from August 3, 2018, which included replacement of the concrete slab in its repair estimate).
[9] See Site Visit Report from Prof’l Eng’r, LBYD Eng’rs (Aug. 20, 2018) [hereinafter LBYD Second Site Visit Report]; Supplemental Storm Damage Evaluation Report from Prof’l Eng’r, EDT Forensic Eng’g & Consulting (Sept. 21, 2018) [hereinafter EDT Supplemental Evaluation Report]. LBYD conducted its second inspection on August 17, 2018, and EDT conducted its second inspection on September 4, 2018.
[10] LBYD Second Site Visit Report, at 1 (noting that it observed: (1) cracks throughout the second floor in the elevated concrete slab, appearing to originate from the steel columns and corners of the building, which it opined may have been caused by deformations of the structure during the storm; (2) water intrusion into the second floor elevated concrete slab; (3) bending in anchors attaching the exterior veneer to the supporting horizontal channels around the perimeter of the building; and (4) no reinforcement in the existing concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls).
[11] EDT Supplemental Evaluation Report, at 1-2.
[12] See id. at 2-3.
[13] As defined by the 2009 International Existing Building Code.
[14] EDT Supplemental Evaluation Report, at 4, 6-10.
[15] Wallace Hall Repair Estimate Clarification from Project Eng’r, Turner Constr. Co., to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Sept. 27, 2018) (updating its estimate from August 3, 2018, Turner reduced the repair estimate to $7,208,722.00, which included increased dehumidification measures to address moisture concerns. Turner took exception to not removing the concrete slab, expressing concern about moisture entrapment potentially leading to future growth of contaminants and indoor environmental concerns).
[16] Email from Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ., to FEMA (Nov. 8, 2018, 1042 CST); See also, Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, FP 104-009-2, at 100 (Apr. 2018) [hereinafter PAPPG] (discussing the 50 Percent Rule).
[17] Wallace Hall Repair and Replacement Estimates from Project Eng’r, Turner Constr. Co., to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Nov. 5, 2018) (projecting costs of $11,972,128.00 for repair and $12,050,322.00 for replacement of the Facility).
[18] Id. at 7-11.
[19] Grants Manager Project 45518.
[20] FEMA Cost Estimating Format, SP 45518 (Dec. 10, 2018) (calculating a 50 Percent Rule ratio of 57% based on an estimated repair cost of $5,284,522.45 and estimated replacement cost of $9,145,791.00). The total replacement cost of $13,188,865.00 included certain costs subject to all other eligibility requirements (e.g., soft costs) that are not included in the 50 Percent rule calculation.
[21] Initial mitigation costs totaled $4,923,546.00.
[22] FEMA Validation of Repair and Replacement Costs, SP 45518 (Dec. 19, 2019) [hereinafter FEMA Validation of Costs].
[23] Id.
[24] Email from Ala. Integration Team, FEMA, to Disaster Resilience and Recovery Manager, IEM (Jan. 21, 2020, 1145 CST) (noting that a project’s damage description and dimensions, scope of work, and cost are not final until approved by FEMA leadership at the Final FEMA Review stage).
[25] Email from Ala. Integration Team, FEMA, to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Feb. 3, 2020, 1423 CST); Email from Ala. Integration Team, FEMA, to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Feb. 26, 2020, 1245 CST).
[26] See FEMA Cost Estimating Format, SP 45518 (Dec. 10, 2019). The eligible repair cost of $4,538,530.00 includes certain costs that are not included in the 50 Percent rule calculation (e.g., site work, soft costs, etc.). This total eligible repair cost includes FEMA’s validated repair cost of $2,693,249.16 used in the 50 Percent Rule calculation.
[27] Id. (capturing the reduced mitigation costs based on the updated damage description and dimensions for repair of the Facility, reflecting a total project cost of $5,332,970.00 for eligible repairs and mitigation after including certain costs subject to all other eligibility requirements (e.g., soft costs) that are not included in the 50 Percent rule calculation). After adjusting eligible repair quantities, FEMA identified $431,421.00 in eligible mitigation costs.
[28] See Letter from Prof’l Eng’r, Stewart Eng’g, Inc., to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Oct. 31, 2019) [hereinafter Stewart Report]; Mech. Narrative from Prof’l Eng’r, Whorton Eng’g, Inc., to Project Eng’r, Turner Constr. Co. (Nov. 6, 2018) [hereinafter Whorton Report]; Letter from Senior Consultant Principal, Stephen Ward and Assocs., Inc., to Cap. Planning and Facilities Dir., Jacksonville State Univ. (Oct. 29, 2018).
[29] Turner Constr. Co., Estimate Report for Demolition and Repair, Revised 030421 Update (Revised Sept. 27, 2018) (totaling $5,186,140.00 for repair, excluding demolition, concrete slab replacement, and general conditions).
[30] Insurer payment per the Sworn Statement of Proof of Loss and additional arbitration settlement awarded resulted in total insurance proceeds of $4,805,586.00.
[31] Although the Applicant does not rely upon the estimate for its 50 Percent Rule calculation, the Applicant also provided a Forensic Building Science, Inc. (FBS) estimate based on an April 25, 2019 inspection of the Facility. See Wallace Hall Restoration Estimate from President, Forensic Bldg. Sci., Inc. (July 26, 2019). The FBS repair estimate included ineligible costs and work not tied to damage that is the result of the disaster (e.g., roof framing replacements for slope upgrades and second floor concrete slab replacement for component material upgrades). No 50 Percent Rule calculation relied on this estimate and the Applicant makes no argument that FEMA’s per unit validation estimates are inaccurate.
[32] Letter from Acting Senior Vice President for Fin. and Admin./CFO, Jacksonville State Univ., to Dir., Ala. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, at 4 (Dec. 13, 2021) [hereinafter Applicant’s Second Appeal].
[33] Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance (Stafford) Act § 406(a)(1)(A), Title 42, United States Code (42 U.S.C.) § 5172(a)(1)(A) (2018).
[34] Title 44, Code of Federal Regulations (44 C.F.R.) § 206.223(a)(1) (2017); PAPPG, at 19.
[35] PAPPG, at 19, 133; FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Conway Hosp., FEMA-4394-DR-SC, at 3 (July 7, 2021).
[36] See FEMA Validation of Costs. With respect to concerns shared by EDT, Turner, and LBYD regarding potential future biological growth, EDT recommended dehumidification efforts to help facilitate the drying process. FEMA included dehumidification efforts in its approved repair costs.
[37] See, Stewart Report and Whorton Report.
[38] 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(f).
[39] PAPPG, at 100.
[40] Id. at 100-01. Soft costs are those not considered as direct construction costs, including architectural costs, engineering costs, project management costs, financing, legal fees, and other pre-post-construction expenses.
[41] Id. at 100.
[42] Id. at 101.
[43] Id. at 100.
[44] FEMA has reviewed all estimates provided by the Applicant (including those provided by Turner, FBS, and FEMA) and does not find documentation demonstrating additional costs or quantities for repair costs tied to eligible work or validated cost inaccuracies.
[45] Ala. Code § 16-1-2.2 (2016) only applies to new contracts awarded for the construction of a new building. The Facility is eligible for repair rather than replacement. Renovations or additions to existing buildings are not considered new buildings under this regulation. See Memo from Dir., Ala. Bldg. Comm’n, to Architects and Eng’rs, Pub. Univs. and Cmty. Coll. Sys., at 1 (July 10, 2012).