Demolition and Replacement of Portable Classrooms

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1008-DR
Applicant	William S. Hart Union High School District
Appeal Type	Third
PA ID#	037-91183
PW ID#	21722,21725,21726,21727,21728
Date Signed	1999-06-01T04:00:00

PURPOSE: Respond to third appeal of the William S. Hart Union High School District for removal and replacement of portable classrooms.

DISCUSSION: The school's gymnasium was declared unsafe for occupancy after the Northridge earthquake. Three portable classrooms were located close to the gymnasium, but did not incur any documented damages. The subgrantee requested that FEMA fund the demolition and replacement of the portables elsewhere on campus to make room for the new expanded gymnasium. DSRs 21722 and 21725 through 21728 were prepared for $119,875 for this purpose. With the approval of DSR 50012 for in-kind facility replacement, those DSRs were ruled ineligible. The first appeal claimed that it was more cost-effective to remove the portables than to work around them. FEMA determined that the least expensive alternative would be to fund temporary classrooms during construction, and keep the portables in place. DSR 78314 was prepared for $38,530 to fund the temporary classrooms. The second appeal stated that keeping the three portables next to the new gymnasium would violate the UBC clearance requirements for fire lanes. The subgrantee contended that the most cost-effective way of meeting the code was to demolish the portables. FEMA stated that the portables were too close to the gymnasium before the disaster so correcting this condition is not eligible. The third appeal repeats the second appeal's arguments, and disputes the reason for the denial of the second appeal. The subgrantee claims that pre-disaster conditions are irrelevant to current code compliance. A subsequent letter from the subgrantee revised the claimed amount to $113,991 of actual costs. This analysis has concluded that the removal of the portable classrooms was necessary to comply with code requirements related to the construction of the new gymnasium. A DSR should be prepared for $113,991 to fund the eligible scope of work as described in the enclosed analysis.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign the letter granting this appeal.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
The main gymnasium and the girls' shower and locker room of William S. Hart Union High School sustained structural damage from the Northridge earthquake on January 17, 1994, and were declared unsafe for occupancy. A FEMA/OES inspection team visited the site and prepared DSR 37335 to replace and expand the gymnasium for $4.624 million, increasing the gymnasium area from the existing 19,297 sq. ft. to 29,079 sq. ft. to meet expanded enrollment. The subgrantee (the William S. Hart Union High School District) was advised that this project would be considered an improved project in accordance with 44 CFR Section 206.203 (d) (1), should they proceed with their plans to expand the gymnasium. The subgrantee canceled the expansion plan and elected to rebuild in kind. FEMA voided DSR 37335, and approved DSR 50012 for the replacement of the original gymnasium for $2.609 million.

Portable classrooms T-1, T-2A, and T-2B were located in close proximity to the original gymnasium, but did not incur any documented damages from the earthquake. The subgrantee originally requested that FEMA fund the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms away from their current location in order to make room for the new expanded gymnasium. DSR 21722 was prepared in the amount of $6,480 to cover the demolition of the three classrooms. However, their demolition was ineligible for funding because the earthquake did not damage the portable classrooms, and the DSR was denied.

Simultaneously, DSRs 21725, 21726 and 21727 were each prepared for $33,115 to fund the replacement of buildings T-1, T-2A, T-2B, respectively. DSR 21728 was prepared for the electrical and utility hookup of these classrooms in the amount of $14,530. These DSRs were suspended pending a final decision of funding for the gymnasium. With the approval of DSR 50012 for in-kind facility replacement, those DSRs were ruled ineligible and were not funded.

The old gymnasium and the three portable classrooms were demolished in the summer of 1994. The new gymnasium was constructed in 1996.

First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted the first appeal to this determination of ineligibility on May 4, 1995, stating that it was more cost-effective to demolish and replace the portables to allow space for the demolition and reconstruction of the gymnasium than to work around them. The subgrantee did not document any earthquake-related damages, nor substantiate the cost savings achieved through demolishing and then replacing the portable classrooms at a different location.

After reviewing this information, FEMA determined that the least expensive alternative would be to fund temporary classrooms throughout the reconstruction period and keep the portable classrooms in place. Accordingly, DSR 78314 was prepared in the amount of $38,530 to fund the temporary classrooms.

Second Appeal
The subgrantee submitted the second appeal on June 22, 1997, stating that leaving the three portable classrooms next to the reconstructed gymnasium, would not have been in conformance with the 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The subgrantee asserts the UBC requires a minimum of 20 feet between the portable classrooms and the reconstructed gymnasium, whereas the space at present is only 17 feet. In reconstructing the gymnasium to meet the current building codes, the subgrantee contends that FEMA should fund the most cost-effective way of meeting the codes: demolish the portable classrooms and replace them with new ones at another location on the campus. The subgrantee stated that providing temporary facilities is unacceptable because this would have resulted in leaving the portable classrooms in their current location, which would be a violation of the UBC.

In its response to the second appeal, FEMA observed that the portable classrooms were too close to the gymnasium before the disaster. This condition was not related to the disaster. Therefore, correcting this condition to provide the clearance required by the 1991 UBC is not eligible for funding.

Third Appeal
The subgrantee submitted their third appeal on June 22, 1998. Once again, the primary contention is that the clearance of 17 feet between the portable classrooms and the gymnasium was not in compliance with the 1991 UBC. They claim that the most cost-effective way to achieve compliance was to demolish the portable classrooms and replace them with new ones elsewhere on campus. The subgrantee disputes the reason for the denial of their second appeal. They point out that this is a replacement project (versus a repair project) and as such the gymnasium must conform to all of the requirements for the construction of a new facility. These requirements include the 20-foot clearance between buildings. They claim that the lack of a 20-foot clearance between the portable classrooms and the gymnasium before the disaster is irrelevant to current code compliance. Therefore, the subgrantee requested the full amount of the subject DSRs, $119,875.

The third appeal analyst contacted the subgrantee by telephone on January 4, 1999, to determine what actually happened to the portable classrooms. The subgrantee responded in a letter dated January 25, 1999. The subgrantee rented three new portable classrooms from the State in the summer of 1998, and located them north of the Boys' Locker Room. The actual cost (unaudited) for the installation of the portable classrooms claimed by the subgrantee is $108,441. The cost of renting the classrooms is not being claimed. This does not include the low bid cost of $6,000 for demolishing the old portable classrooms.

DISCUSSION
The primary issues in this appeal are the claimed necessity of removing the portable classrooms, the most cost-effective alternate for replacing the portable classrooms, and the eligibility of the claimed actual costs. These issues are discussed below.

Removal of Portable Classrooms
The subgrantee asserts that the portable classrooms had to be removed to provide required fire lane clearance and to allow the construction of required utilities. The funding of temporary classrooms via DSR 78314 while leaving the portable classrooms in place did not resolve these issues.

The gymnasium was eligible for replacement and therefore it was required to comply with the UBC. Additionally, the applicability of the 1991 UBC is well explained in the subgrantee's second appeal with respect to the five tests of a standard (44 CFR 206.226). The pertinent sections of the UBC regarding fire lane clearance are sections 504(a) and 504(c). In their third appeal, the subgrantee makes a convincing argument regarding the pertinence of the code requirement of a 20-foot clearance between buildings. The subgrantee states that moving the gymnasium away from the portable classrooms was not an option because of space restrictions, and that the only way to achieve the 20-foot clearance was to remove the portable classrooms. Photographs contained in the architect's report on the replacement of the gymnasium show that not only were the portable classrooms close to the gymnasium, the handicap access ramps took up most of the space in between.

The construction of the new gymnasium involved the installation of a new sanitary sewer lateral from the building to a manhole located on west side of the portable classroom T-2. Access between the manhole and the gymnasium could only be provided by removing the classroom. A concrete-lined drainage swale was located parallel with and adjacent to the west side of portable classroom T-1. This swale posed two types of violations: restriction of wheelchair access (ADA code violation), and restriction of fire engine access (Section 10, Uniform Fire Code violation). These access restrictions were corronoval of the classroom.

Classroom Replacement Alternatives
The subgrantee claims that the most cost-effective way to remove the portable classrooms and replace their function was to demolish the existing classrooms and replace them with new ones elsewhere on campus. The basis for this claim is provided in a letter dated October 25, 1995, from the subgrantee to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services that examined three alternatives.

Alternative No. 1 was to leave the portable classrooms in place. This alternative was not viable for the reasons described above. Alternative No. 2 was to repair, upgrade, and relocate the existing portable classrooms. The cost for this option was estimated at $170,911. For the purposes of this discussion, this cost estimate has been adjusted to $119,911 by removing $66,000 of unsubstantiated costs and by adding $15,000 for concrete foundations. In its January 25, 1999, letter, the subgrantee has demonstrated that moving the old portable classrooms to a new location would have triggered code upgrades. Alternative No. 3 was to demolish the existing portable classrooms, and to replace them with new ones elsewhere on campus. The cost for this option is the sum of the subject DSRs, $119,875. The subgrantee concluded that Alternative No. 3 was the most cost-effective alternative.

A fourth alternative, the implemented scheme, was presented in the subgrantee's January 25, 1999, letter: demolish the existing portable classrooms, and replace them with new rented ones located on the north side of the Boys' Locker Room. The cost for this alternative, including demolition of the old portable classrooms but not including rental costs, is $114,441. It appears that the implemented alternative is the most cost-effective in terms of claimed costs.

Eligibility of Claimed Actual Costs
The subgrantee's January 25, 1999, letter presents a list of the claimed actual cost items (Attachment A). The appeal analyst called the subgrantee on February 4, 1999 to discuss the cost items of $60,000 for a new concrete pad and $3,438 for a telephone system. The other cost items appeared to be reasonable for the work performed. The subgrantee stated that the $60,000 item includes not only the concrete slab, but also the compacted fill and culvert necessary to create a useable site out of a drainage swale. This site was chosen for the new portable classrooms because there was no other location on campus that could be developed without deleting an existing function. A large concrete slab was used instead of three smaller slabs, grass, and sidewalks because the cost savings would have been minor and the maintenance costs would have been high in this intense pedestrian traffic area.

The subgrantee confirmed that the cost of the telephone system was $3,438. However, three new telephones were purchased for a cost of $450. The subgrantee is not claiming the cost of these new telephones, so the revised claim for the telephone system is $2,988.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The code requirement for a 20-foot clearance between buildings is applicable. Also, the presence of the portable classrooms interfered with the construction of required utilities. Therefore, the portable classrooms had to be removed.
   
2. The implemented alternative to replace the old portable classrooms, placing rented portable classrooms on a constructed site, was cost-effective.
   
3. The actual costs being claimed by the subgrantee are reasonable for the work performed. These costs are $108,441 as documented in the January 25, 1999 letter, minus $450 for three new telephones, plus the low bid cost of $6,000 for demolishing the old portable classrooms.
   
4. The appeal is granted, and a DSR will be prepared for $113,991.

ATTACHMENT A

COSTS FOR NEW DSR

Type of Work	Actual Cost
Demolish old portable classrooms	$6,000
Design new location	$4,200
DSA permit fees	$940
Provide new concrete pad for portables	$60,000
Provide site electrical including transformer	$22,750
Provide fence	$162
Remove fence	$640
Provide handicap ramp and rails	$2,350
Provide fire alarm system	$10,879
Provide telephone system	$2,988
Construction management	$4,022
Total	$113,991