Codes and Standards, Scope of Work, Improved Project, Support Documentation

Scope of Work

HEADNOTES

CONCLUSION

: When restoring the West Fork Lane Bridge (Facility), Webster County (Applicant) exceeded the eligible scope of work (SOW) by constructing a new bridge that did not conform to the predisaster design of the destroyed bridge. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the improvements were required by an eligible standard nor did it receive authorization for the changes prior to beginning work as required. Consequently, FEMA appropriately deobligated all funding.

AUTHORITIES

Stafford Act § 406. 44 C.F.R. §§ 13.30(d)(1), 13.43(a)(2), 206.201(k), 206.203(d)(1), 206.206(a), 206.226. PA Guide, at 33-35, 79, 96, 101, 111, 139-140. DAP 9527.4, at 2, 6. Pulaski Cty., FEMA 4144-DR-MO, at 6; Dep’t of Transp., FEMA-4068-DR-FL, at 4-5; Essex Cty., FEMA-4020-DR-NY, at 4-5, Roseau Cty. Hwy. Dep’t, FEMA-1288-DR-MN, at 7. Headnotes

44 C.F.R. §§ 13.30(d)(1), 13.43(a)(2), 206.201(k), 206.203(d)(1), 206.206(a), 206.226
Codes and Standards, Scope of Work, Improved Project, Support Documentation