Documentation

Second Appeal Brief

FEMA-1909-DR
PA ID# 037-52004-00; Nashville-Davidson County
PW ID# 5523; Documentation
08/31/2015

Summary Paragraph

Between April 30, 2010 and May 18, 2010, severe rainstorms, tornadoes, and straight-line winds impacted Nashville-Davidson County (Applicant).  The rainstorms caused the Cumberland River to overflow and subsequently floodwaters damaged electrical and mechanical components in the generator building located at Applicant’s K.R. Harrington Water Treatment Plant.  FEMA subsequently prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 5523 documenting necessary repairs to these electrical and mechanical components.  The PW did not document resident engineering costs and disallowed direct administrative costs (DAC).  In a June 1, 2011 letter, the Applicant submitted its first appeal requesting $25,920.38 and arguing that FEMA made numerous scope and cost estimate errors.  More specifically, the Applicant argued that FEMA made errors in estimating the following costs: DAC, resident engineering costs, construction management costs, and costs to replace metal doors.  In a letter dated June 1, 2012, the FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator (RA) partially approved the appeal, granting the construction management costs and the costs to replace the metal doors but denying the request for DAC and resident engineering costs.  The RA based the denial of resident engineering costs on a lack of adequate documentation.  On August 10, 2012, the Applicant submitted its second appeal, requesting only resident engineering costs totaling $13,691.00.  Upon FEMA’s subsequent request for additional information, the Applicant provided additional documents describing resident engineer’s services. 

Authorities and Second Appeals

• Stafford Act § 406 (a)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 5172.

• 44 C.F.R. § 13.22.

• OMB Circular A-87 Attachment A (C)(1)(a),(j), 2 C.F.R. § 225 Appendix A (C)(1)(a),(j)

• PA Digest, at 48.

• PA Guide, at 40, 59.

Headnotes

• OMB Circular A-87 provides that allowable costs must meet the cost principles of being necessary; allocable to Federal awards; and adequately documented.

  • The Applicant provided documentation to demonstrate that the resident engineering costs are necessary, allocable, and adequately documented for PW 5523.

• PA Digest, at 48, provides that “[s]pecial services[,] which are not required on every restoration project, include engineering surveys, soil investigations, services of a resident engineer, and feasibility studies. These services must be specifically described and must be shown to be necessary for completing the eligible scope of work.”

  • This project is part of 19 separate PWs associated with flood recovery efforts of a complex nature, and could require the use of resident engineering services.