Important Message for All
Taxpayers
I have
reviewed the three FEMA letters and will provide my opinions on the issues to
include exact language from the denial letters and reasoning. I will break down
each letter and claim amount separately. The FEMA issues seems to revolve
mostly around two points, (1) Improper and/or missing documentations for the
"piggyback" Grubbs contract and (2) the improperly procured BC
Peabody contract (debris monitoring).
Basic
denial language overview: [Excerpts- underlines added for emphasis] "FEMA determines that the procurement
contract and documentation for Grubbs and BCPeabody (debris monitoring) for the
Village of Biscayne Park violates Federal law, regulations and policy in
multiple ways. “
A) Regarding
the monitoring contract: “The original
BCPeabody contract was not properly procured, and the contracts omitted
provisions required by Federal standards, the Village did not comply with
Federal regulations for use of existing contracts and the adequate
documentation was not provided."
B) Regarding
the Grubbs "piggyback" contract: "The contract was a contract onto an existing contract between Hernando
County, FL. and Grubbs. In the case of Hernando County, no such documentation
was provided beyond that showing Grubbs as the selectee. A FEMA procurement
checklist for the County debris contractors indicates "no respondents were
rejected" further indicating Grubbs was the only respondent to the
solicitation." Therefore, the County and the Village failed to
substantiate the original contract was competitively procured."
Letter 1 dated 2/13/19:
Amount
@ issue= $55,160.48
Amount
denied= $28,140.75
Partially
approved
Letter 2 dated 2/13/19:
Amount @
issue= $414,958.23
Amount
denied= $180,091.91
Denied (I
think this may be a typo or mistake on FEMA'S end- as this looks to be another
partial approval)
Letter 3 dated 2/22/19:
Amount @
issue= $607,352.83
Amount
denied= $540,335.00
Partially
approved
Total amount @ issue= $1,077,470.70
Total amount denied= $748,567.66
Letter #3)
[Excerpts] "The Village cited (moreover
Tracy Truppman cited, see below) exigent and emergency circumstances as a
justification for failing to conduct a competitive procurement for this
contract." The Village failed to meet the criteria for exercising a
noncompetitive procurement under exigent or emergency conditions-"
In my blog
article from 12/15/17 describing the litany of errors committed by the Village
during Hurricane Irma, this very issue was mentioned- Improper Procedures- FEMA
Debris Monitoring Contract. In short, Tracy Truppman took it upon herself to
enter into a contract on September 12th without consulting the other
Commissioners and before the issuance of an RFP. This appears to be a Charter violation. Due
to the lack of an RFP, we may not be reimbursed the expenses incurred by the
debris monitoring service which now, due to the extended length of time is
approx. $200,000.00.
This
panicked action was improper as there was more than sufficient time to arrange
for an emergency meeting of the Commission to vote on this contract and follow
the required RFP procedure. Debris removal didn’t commence until nearly one
week after the hurricane, so her excuse of acting under some alleged “state of
emergency” is dubious. This looks moreover to be yet another example of her
abuse of power and possibly an expensive mistake for our taxpayers.
So, as
stated in the FEMA denial letter, this indeed IS an issue and resulted in the
denial of $540,335.00.
That said,
we can appeal this FEMA verdict thought it doesn't seem to me to be a guarantee
of payment due to the nature of the defects in our contracts.
I also have
other questions:
•
When
did the clock start on our appeal? The date of the letters (now all over 30
days old) or some other date? We have 60 days to comply with the required
additional paperwork
•
Being
that we hired an outside company to prepare our claim reimbursement paperwork
(H20 Partners, Inc.) who bears the responsibility for this error? Who now pays
for the additional work towards compliance? The Village or H2O Partners?
•
Where
was our oversight on all of this?
There is
certainly more to add as we move through the appeal process and I'll be
updating this article as more information becomes available.
Standing
Watch,
Milton
Hunter
The Biscayne Parker
