/
Municipality of Anchorage Municipality of Anchorage

Municipality of Anchorage - PowerPoint Presentation

doggcandy
doggcandy . @doggcandy
Follow
345 views
Uploaded On 2020-08-04

Municipality of Anchorage - PPT Presentation

Lessons Learned from the 2018 Earthquake Alden Thern Municipal Projects Director Municipality of Anchorage Overview Municipality of Anchorage Overview Pt McKenzie Earthquake Federal Assistance Overview ID: 797974

cost mitigation lessons applicants mitigation cost applicants lessons contract fema work contracts state federal 200 procurement contractors disaster costs

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download The PPT/PDF document "Municipality of Anchorage" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Municipality of Anchorage

Lessons Learned from the 2018 Earthquake

Alden Thern, Municipal Projects Director

Slide2

Municipality of Anchorage Overview

Slide3

Municipality of Anchorage Overview

Slide4

Pt. McKenzie Earthquake

Slide5

Federal Assistance Overview

Individuals

Municipality

Slide6

FEMA Public Assistance (PA)

Slide7

PA Lessons: Procurement

Frequent

Sources

of Non-Compliance Issues

1.

Time & Materials Contracts

.

T&M contracts can be used for a reasonable amount of time when no other contract type is suitable; and the contract includes a ceiling that the contractor exceeds at its own risk. Non-federal entities must also maintain a high degree of oversight (§ 200.318(j)).

2.

Cost-Plus-Percentage-of-Cost Contracts.

These

are

contracts

where

the

contractor’s

profit is

based on a percentage of the

underlying project costs actually incurred. Such contracts are

explicitly prohibited by the Federal

procurement standards and

ineligible

for

FEMA

grant funding

200.323(d)).

Piggybacking.

Adopting a pre-existing

contract

solicited

and

awarded

by

another

entity

is

referred

to

as

“piggybacking.” Non-state applicants considering piggybacking should closely examine whether use of another jurisdiction’s contract would violate the federal procurement standards, as often these contracts do not contain required assignability clauses, are improper in scope, or were not procured in compliance with the federal procurement standards (§ 200.319).

Geographic Preferences. Non-state applicants must conduct procurements in a manner that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed state, local, or tribal geographical preferences inthe evaluation of bids or proposals (§ 200.323(b)).Awarding to Contractors that Drafted Solicitation Documents. Non-state applicants must prohibit contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations for bid or requests for proposal from competing forand being awarded the subsequent contract for that work (§ 200.323(a)). Failure to reach out to small, minority-owned, women’s business enterprises.Suspended or Debarred Contractors.Non-state applicants may not award a contract to a suspended or debarred contractor, nor may any prime contractor award to a suspended or debarred subcontractor. Check the databaseat www.sam.gov prior to awarding the contract (§§ 200.213, 200.318(h)).

Procurement

Under Public Assistance AwardsSeptember 2017

FEMA

Slide8

PA Lessons: Procurement

Changed internal municipal practices as a result of our FEMA PA experience:

For any contract that might be turned to in a disaster, we have

eliminated subcontractor and materials markup as a percentage of costIncreased emphasis on soliciting small minority owned businesses (email notices to all potential sources we can find)Minimize Time and Material contracts when possibleIncreased emphasis on getting written documents from contractors in a timely manner

Slide9

PA Lessons: Insurance

FEMA requires that applicants obtain and maintain insurance for reimbursable damages.

In Anchorage, earthquake insurance is cost-prohibitive

The municipality is still seeking resolution to this issue

Slide10

PA Lessons: Management Structure

Rather than applying as one applicant, the MOA divided into 10 applicants:

The Port, Solid Waste Services, AWWU, ML&P, Parks and Rec, Police, Maintenance & Operations (buildings), Public Works (roads), OECD (facilities with complex lease agreements), and one catch-all applicant for everyone else.

This approach has pros and cons:Pros

Cons

Division of Labor

Less bottle-necking

Keeps work in the most knowledgeable areas

More diffuse responsibility

More challenging to capture central management costs

Communication is difficult when applicants are at different stages

Training more people on Portal usage

Slide11

PA Lessons: Reimbursement for PA Admin (Cat Z)

Reimbursement for management costs are available, and capped at 5% of total project reimbursement

Can be used for municipal employees or contractors

The MOA applicants with the most projects (SWS, AWWU) hired contractors for consulting and admin work

Slide12

PA Lessons: Backup documentation

Documenting Force Account labor costs is burdensome, and it helps to get started early (FEMA and State may have different requirements)

Benefits Worksheets

Redacted paystubsThe MOA immediately created a cost center to collect all earthquake related costs (Some charged expenditures ultimately may not be reimbursable)

Slide13

PA Lessons: Opportunities within the PA Program

Mitigation

ADA compliance

Code ComplianceHazard Mitigation Funding Under Public Assistance, Section 406Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5172, and Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations §206.226 provides FEMA with the authority to fund cost-effective mitigation measures under the Public Assistance (PA) program for repairs, restoration, and replacement of eligible damaged facilities. This grant funding is commonly referred as "406 Mitigation" or PA Mitigation.

406 Mitigation work must be cost effective, applied on the parts of the facility that were actually damaged by the disaster, and reduce future damages to the facility. Only FEMA has the discretion to determine eligibility and approve proposed 406 hazard mitigation projects prior to funding.

The following is a guide to determine cost effectiveness:

Mitigation measures may amount to up to 15% of the total eligible cost of the eligible repair work on a particular project.

The mitigation measure does not exceed 100% of the eligible cost of the eligible repair work on the project.

For measures that exceed the above costs, must demonstrate through an acceptable benefit/cost analysis methodology that the measure is cost effective.

Duplication of hazard mitigation funding is not allowed. 406 funding cannot be used to meet the non-federal cost share of the other grant.

406 Mitigation is disaster specific and only applies to disaster applicants for PA. However, there is a separate state administered program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program - Section 404, that applies to structural and non-structural measures and is not disaster specific.

Slide14

Questions?