FEMA Hurricane Irma BP Claim Denial Overview

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