This page has not been translated into 한국어. Visit the 한국어 page for resources in that language.
Wampee Park Seawall
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1547-DR-SC, South Carolina Public Service Authority (Applicant), Wampee Park Seawall, Project Worksheet (PW) 96
Cross-reference: Reasonable Cost; Hazard Mitigation
Summary: FEMA prepared PW 96 for $295,927 to replace riprap and restore the bulkhead of the Wampee Park Seawall, which was damaged by flooding from
August 28, 2004, through August 30, 2004. The approved estimate included $28,726 for a hazard mitigation project. The Applicant did not begin the work until October 2005, due to delays imposed by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) and high water levels of the adjacent lake. Upon project closeout, the Applicant submitted an invoice for $777,492, a cost increase of 162 percent. FEMA approved costs for bulkhead repair and replacement and obligated $200,400. FEMA denied additional costs for the replacement of riprap and the mitigation project because the costs were determined to be excessive.
In its first appeal, submitted June 5, 2007, the Applicant claimed that the cost increased because of delays and increased market prices. The Regional Administrator determined that the change in costs exceeded reasonable cost increases for the period of time in question and denied the appeal on
November 14, 2007.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on January 18, 2008, and provided documentation that demonstrates that the increased cost is a result of a necessary change in scope due to actual physical conditions that were not considered when the estimate was developed for the PW.
Issues: Are the project costs reasonable?
Findings: Yes.
Rationale: 44 CFR Part 13; Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1547-DR |
| Applicant | South Carolina Public Service Authority |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 000-UOIMD-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 96 |
| Date Signed | 2009-01-05T05:00:00 |
August 28, 2004, through August 30, 2004. The approved estimate included $28,726 for a hazard mitigation project. The Applicant did not begin the work until October 2005, due to delays imposed by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) and high water levels of the adjacent lake. Upon project closeout, the Applicant submitted an invoice for $777,492, a cost increase of 162 percent. FEMA approved costs for bulkhead repair and replacement and obligated $200,400. FEMA denied additional costs for the replacement of riprap and the mitigation project because the costs were determined to be excessive.
In its first appeal, submitted June 5, 2007, the Applicant claimed that the cost increased because of delays and increased market prices. The Regional Administrator determined that the change in costs exceeded reasonable cost increases for the period of time in question and denied the appeal on
November 14, 2007.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on January 18, 2008, and provided documentation that demonstrates that the increased cost is a result of a necessary change in scope due to actual physical conditions that were not considered when the estimate was developed for the PW.
Appeal Letter
January 5, 2009
Ronald C. Osborne
Governors Authorized Representative
South Carolina Emergency Management Division
2779 Fish Hatchery Road
West Columbia, South Carolina 29172
Re: Second AppealSouth Carolina Public Service Authority, PA ID 000-UOIMD-00,
Wampee Park Seawall, FEMA-1547-DR-SC, Project Worksheet (PW) 96
Dear Mr. Osborne:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 7, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of $481,565 in additional costs for restoration of the Wampee Park Seawall.
On October 31, 2004, FEMA prepared PW 96 for $295,927, the estimated cost to replace riprap and restore the bulkhead of the Wampee Park Seawall, which was damaged by flooding from August 28, 2004, through August 30, 2004. The approved estimate, which included $28,726 for a hazard mitigation project, was based on the results of an analysis conducted by FEMA and Ashridge Construction. Upon project closeout, the Applicant submitted an invoice for $777,492, a cost increase of 162 percent. On May 10, 2007, FEMA approved the cost of the bulkhead repair and replacement. However, additional costs for the replacement of riprap were denied and FEMA de-obligated the $28,726 mitigation project because the actual project costs were determined to be excessive.
In its first appeal, submitted June 5, 2007, the Applicant claimed that the project cost increased due to delays imposed by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) and increased market rates. Due to the delay in SHPO approval, the Applicant did not enter into a contract with Ashridge Construction in 2004. The Applicant received SHPO approval on March 11, 2005. However, the project was further delayed by high water levels in the adjacent lake. Additionally, market rates were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the fall of 2005. The Applicant stated that it re-bid the contract and $777,492 represented the lowest bid received. The Regional Administrator reviewed the Applicants first appeal and determined that the change in costs exceeded reasonable cost increases for the time period in question and denied the appeal on November 14, 2007.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on January 18, 2008 and provided documentation that accounts for the $481,565 difference between the $295,927 approved for PW 96 and the final
project cost of $777,492. In addition to attributing the increased cost to SHPO delays and increased market rates, the Applicant stated that the initial estimate and scope of work did not reflect the actual slope of the lake. FEMA originally prepared PW 96 in order to replace 3,585 cubic yards (CY) of material to extend the revetment of the seawall 22 feet to the lake floor. In September 2005, the Applicant conducted a topography study using soundings that demonstrated that the lake floor was deeper than estimated. The study established that the seawall needed to extend 37 feet in order to reach the lake floor. This required 6,100 CY of material rather than 3,585 CY. The Applicant also stated that the new revetment required the installation of a drain. Finally, the Applicant stated that the estimated project cost for PW 96 was based on the assumption that the project could be completed in 15 days. However, the project took 45 days to complete.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant submitted sufficient information to support its recount for a change in scope and cost of the project. In addition, the cost of the hazard mitigation project is eligible. Therefore I am approving the appeal. By this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement my decision.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV
Ronald C. Osborne
Governors Authorized Representative
South Carolina Emergency Management Division
2779 Fish Hatchery Road
West Columbia, South Carolina 29172
Re: Second AppealSouth Carolina Public Service Authority, PA ID 000-UOIMD-00,
Wampee Park Seawall, FEMA-1547-DR-SC, Project Worksheet (PW) 96
Dear Mr. Osborne:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 7, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of $481,565 in additional costs for restoration of the Wampee Park Seawall.
On October 31, 2004, FEMA prepared PW 96 for $295,927, the estimated cost to replace riprap and restore the bulkhead of the Wampee Park Seawall, which was damaged by flooding from August 28, 2004, through August 30, 2004. The approved estimate, which included $28,726 for a hazard mitigation project, was based on the results of an analysis conducted by FEMA and Ashridge Construction. Upon project closeout, the Applicant submitted an invoice for $777,492, a cost increase of 162 percent. On May 10, 2007, FEMA approved the cost of the bulkhead repair and replacement. However, additional costs for the replacement of riprap were denied and FEMA de-obligated the $28,726 mitigation project because the actual project costs were determined to be excessive.
In its first appeal, submitted June 5, 2007, the Applicant claimed that the project cost increased due to delays imposed by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) and increased market rates. Due to the delay in SHPO approval, the Applicant did not enter into a contract with Ashridge Construction in 2004. The Applicant received SHPO approval on March 11, 2005. However, the project was further delayed by high water levels in the adjacent lake. Additionally, market rates were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the fall of 2005. The Applicant stated that it re-bid the contract and $777,492 represented the lowest bid received. The Regional Administrator reviewed the Applicants first appeal and determined that the change in costs exceeded reasonable cost increases for the time period in question and denied the appeal on November 14, 2007.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on January 18, 2008 and provided documentation that accounts for the $481,565 difference between the $295,927 approved for PW 96 and the final
project cost of $777,492. In addition to attributing the increased cost to SHPO delays and increased market rates, the Applicant stated that the initial estimate and scope of work did not reflect the actual slope of the lake. FEMA originally prepared PW 96 in order to replace 3,585 cubic yards (CY) of material to extend the revetment of the seawall 22 feet to the lake floor. In September 2005, the Applicant conducted a topography study using soundings that demonstrated that the lake floor was deeper than estimated. The study established that the seawall needed to extend 37 feet in order to reach the lake floor. This required 6,100 CY of material rather than 3,585 CY. The Applicant also stated that the new revetment required the installation of a drain. Finally, the Applicant stated that the estimated project cost for PW 96 was based on the assumption that the project could be completed in 15 days. However, the project took 45 days to complete.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant submitted sufficient information to support its recount for a change in scope and cost of the project. In addition, the cost of the hazard mitigation project is eligible. Therefore I am approving the appeal. By this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement my decision.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV