FEMA 428 and 406

Section 428 Mitigation Opportunities

Amid an increasing trend of massive, destructive superstorms such as Andrew, Katrina, and Sandy,
FEMA realized that the traditional PA program did not allow the flexibility required for subrecipients to
rebuild in a way that served them best. This led to the development of the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA), signed into law by President Obama. This law amends Title IV of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) and specifically
adds Section 428, which authorizes alternative procedures for the PA program under Sections 403(a)(3)
(A), 406, 407, and 502(a)(5) of the Stafford Act.

FEMA implemented the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal
under Section 428 of the SRIA to accomplish four goals:

1. Reduce cost to FEMA in providing public assistance recovery aid

2. Increase grant flexibility
3. Expedite grant funding
4. Complete recovery projects in a timely manner

A few benefits of the Section 428 program include the following:

 Ability to consolidate buildings and services

 Ability to relocate critical facilities and services
 Modernization of facilities
 Ability to use excess funding

ICF’s team of experts currently provide

programmatic and technical support for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which
represents the largest and only mandatory
428 disaster in the history of FEMA PA. Our
team’s extensive knowledge in FEMA PA,
especially involving Section 428, coupled with
multifaceted experience in the construction
industry gives our team a significant
advantage when identifying subrecipients
and projects that could greatly benefit from
428 flexibility. This same experience gives
our team the ability to identify potential
risks inherent to the 428 programs, thus
allowing for a more complete and resilient
recovery for the client name and
subrecipients alike.

What the law does not express is the possibility of inherent risks associated with accepting a 428 capped
grant. Once the subrecipient accepts FEMA’s 428 offer, the grant is then capped at the estimated
amount, and the grant can no longer be amended. One of the most significant risks of accepting a
capped grant is a cost overrun on construction, which can derive from several elements such as
unforeseen damages, omission of soft costs, and increases in the cost of goods or labor over time.

ICF’s staff have assisted disaster recovery efforts for more than 24 years throughout the development
and enactment of the SRIA and the more recent 428 program, which gives our experts a great advantage
when helping minimize these risks. Our teams meticulously and efficiently analyze projects to determine
all potential benefits and risks for each project. Our primary goal is to help communities rebuild better
and stronger while reducing the risks involved. ICF will work with the [client name] and subrecipients to
leverage the flexibility in the Section 428 program to develop innovative ways to rebuild.

The FEMA PA program normally requires the applicant to return a facility to its pre-disaster condition,
function, and capacity as well as current codes and standards. The 428 program allows the applicant to
agree with FEMA on a fixed-cost estimate for the repair and/or replacement of a facility and use the
funding in a manner most advantageous to the applicant. FEMA will consider estimates prepared by
licensed professional engineers, provided the estimates comply with applicable regulation, policy, and
guidance.

In large disasters, the impacts to specific services (e.g., sewer, water, and power) can be detrimental to a
community not only in terms of the damages to a facility but also due to a change in the demographics
of the population using the services. Over time, capital projects can also disjoint services, as funding is
not always readily available to those wishing to improve existing services via the best possible solutions.
When a disaster impacts multiple facilities that provide similar services (e.g., schools, prisons, police
stations), returning those facilities to their pre-disaster design, function, and capacity or to their original
location may not be beneficial. Consolidating the projects for the various structures into one 428
project, thus ensuring more efficient provision of services from one location, or moving those services to
a new location due to demographic changes and programmatic guidelines may prove more cost-
effective. If the cost of the proposed 428 project is less than the fixed-cost estimate to return the
facilities to the pre-disaster design, function, and capacity, the subrecipient can use the excess funds for
mitigation and/or planning activities.

Working with the recipient and subrecipients, ICF will:

 Analyze provided data and documentation to assist the various applicants in determining
whether their projects would benefit from the Section 428 program.
 Perform detailed reviews of past FEMA-developed projects to identify possible candidate
projects for inclusion in the 428 program.
 Gather additional information from specific subrecipients to further develop a possible 428
project based on prior reviews (including but not limited to interviewing the specific
subrecipient, considering the demographics of the affected area, and analyzing a proposed
capital budget proposal to further determine whether a 428 project would benefit the
applicant).
 Make use of FEMA Section 428 alternative procedures capped grants.
 Confirm adherence to programmatic responsibilities via a task-based process that reviews all
work order, design, and construction documents, ensuring compliance with FEMA programmatic
guidelines.
ICF’s 428-program experience helps subrecipients identify significant opportunities and flexibilities

Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDE): Across the island, 1,105 schools were significantly
damaged during Hurricane Maria. Our experts have worked with PRDE to develop a plan that will
consolidate long-needed restructuring due to population changes. PRDE has decided to use 428
funding for the 1,105 damaged schools and redirect it for the repair and/or rebuilding of a reduced
number of modernized schools in strategically identified communities.

Louisiana Livingston Parish School Board: ICF collaborated with school officials to develop a strategy
of consolidating schools into a state-of-the-art immersive learning center that combines multiple
damaged schools into a single footprint with shared communal spaces such as technology centers,
gymnasiums, libraries, and food services facilities, in turn becoming more economical and efficient.

South Nassau Communities Hospital (SNCH): ICF guided SNCH in receiving federal funds to repair a
full-service hospital in Long Beach, NY. However, a full-service hospital was no longer viable and only
required an emergency department and outpatient services. Through the Section 428 program, ICF
experts successfully guided SNCH to redirect funds to their main campus to improve and expand the
emergency department, surgical center, and campus-wide utilities. This enabled SNCH to meet a
growing demand for these services in a more economical and resilient manner.
 Solving problems based on lessons learned from similar projects.
Source: Hurricane Michael—Technical Assistance (Submitted 1/22/2020)
Typical Challenges ICF Solutions
ICF will work with the subrecipients to identify the portions
Portions of some projects will not be
of the project that are eligible and advise the subrecipients
eligible under the FEMA 428 or 406
whether or not they may need to apply for an exception or
mitigation approaches.
extension.
ICF will work with subrecipients to correct any
Applications will be incomplete,
problems/issues with applications and collect needed
incorrect, or missing documentation.
documentation.
ICF will provide TA to subrecipients and help to develop a
Each subrecipient will have different
tailored approach for supporting each subrecipient that may
organizational capabilities and require
range from basic compliance monitoring to turnkey
varying levels of support.
implementation.
Subrecipient staff are likely to be
unfamiliar with FEMA 428 or 406
ICF will provide training, TA, and monitoring to communicate
mitigation requirements, including the
the complex set of requirements to subrecipients, identify
crosscutting federal requirements
issues early, and work with [CLIENT NAME]to implement
(procurement, environmental review,
corrective actions.
etc.) increasing the risk of
noncompliance.
ICF will work with [CLIENT NAME]to establish a change
control board to review and approve all proposed policy
There may be frequent changes to
changes, will document and track the changes in the policies
policies and procedures, requiring
and procedures manual, will inform all personnel of the
implementation throughout the
changes, and will ensure the parties responsible for
lifecycle of program.
complying with the changes are trained on the correct
procedures.
In coordination with the training team, ICF will release just-
Staff or program partners do not in-time periodic training whenever policies and procedures
understand or know about program are updated, as well as develop job aids and an
changes. accompanying FAQ to help staff interpret and accurately
comply with program changes.
ICF will provide succinct program summaries for every
program on the public-facing website; conduct regular public
Subrecipients and public do not
outreach activities; and provide a variety of resources and
understand program rules, policies,
methods to access program information via the public-facing
and procedures.
website, at public libraries and intake centers, and by calling
a toll-free number.

Section 406 Mitigation Opportunities

Develop HMP 406 Opportunities

Source: Monroe County School District, Submitted 6.29.22 (Link)

ICF has extensive experience in FEMA hazard mitigation awarded under the PA program through Section 406 of the
Stafford Act. Hazard mitigation funding can be used to protect the School District from future damages, and, in
combination with the flexibility provided under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures (PAAP) Pilot Program in the
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), federal recovery programs can build a resilient school system. ICF has crafted
several successful HMPs worth millions of dollars. We leverage FEMA Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) experts to craft
arguments for our clients, which results in successful project funding and reduces future damage to infrastructure.
Through our project delivery methods, we seek to include hazard mitigation funding on all technically feasible and cost-
effective projects. This can be done in many ways, depending on the disaster, the School District’s direction, and overall
goals for recovery.

Bolierplate

ICF’s 24 years of experience working with states to develop and implement their 406 mitigation programs ideally situate
us to assist the [client name] with its program. Our strategy includes evaluating each project individually to maximize
406 Hazard Mitigation funding opportunities, ultimately aiming to increase resilience and greater protection for the
State’s infrastructure. Mitigation actions reduce or eliminate the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of
disasters, and [client’s name] weather, geography, and miles of coastline increase its vulnerability to natural disasters.
As part of the FEMA PA program, 406 mitigation measures can be applied to individual projects to further improve the
resiliency of the damaged elements. Our goal to support the [client name] is twofold:

 Maximize 406 Hazard Mitigation funding

 Increase resilience

We engage FEMA benefit-cost analysis (BCA) experts with 406 ICF has developed hundreds of successful
mitigation subject matter experts (SMEs) to develop cost-effective HMPs worth billions of dollars in Kansas,
hazard mitigation proposals (HMPs) for our clients. These HMPs Missouri, Texas, New York, and Puerto Rico.
result in successful project funding and help reduce future damages
to buildings, roads, bridges, parks, coastal regions, and other infrastructures.

In addition, ICF has extensive experience in FEMA hazard mitigation funding through both Sections 404 and 406 of the
Stafford Act. We will leverage the FEMA 406 Hazard Mitigation program in conjunction with [client’s name Hazard Loss
Mitigation Program to build a more resilient future for the [client name] We will prioritize educating all eligible
subrecipients and encouraging participation in the 406 mitigation program so they can make informed decisions on their
projects. We will meet with each subrecipient to review possible 406 mitigation opportunities. Hazard mitigation funding
can help protect the subrecipient’s infrastructure from future damages and build a more resilient [client name].

ICF will follow [client’s name] direction in assisting subrecipients with identifying mitigation opportunities and making
best practices mitigation recommendations that will improve resiliency.

ICF will work closely with [client name] and subrecipients to In Puerto Rico, ICF’s 406 team has met with
identify potential projects, write SOWs, and develop budgets for multiple state agencies, municipal
wind retrofit projects and flood mitigation projects to improve governments, and private nonprofits to
community resiliency for housing authorities and nonprofit review their damaged facilities and identify
organizations. mitigation opportunities. Many of these
facilities are historical structures that require
Our process will be to review each HMP and SOW to ensure they
specific considerations for their mitigation
are cost-effective. We will determine whether the mitigation
measures.
measures are within FEMA’s 100% rule (see Appendix J) or 15% rule as well as whether a BCA is necessary to
demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the selected mitigation measure.

The 100 Percent Rule

FEMA also considers mitigation measures to be cost-effective if:

 The mitigation measure is specifically listed in Appendix J: Cost-Effective Hazard Mitigation Measures of
the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide
 The cost of the mitigation measure does not exceed 100% of the eligible repair cost (prior to any
insurance reductions) of the facility or facilities for which the mitigation measure applies
The items listed in Appendix J were derived from historical mitigation measures FEMA has determined to be cost
effective.

If the project costs more than 15% of the total eligible repair cost or 100% of the damaged element repairs, then
conduct a Benefit-Cost Analysis.

If a BCA is needed, ICF will coordinate with each subrecipient to gather all necessary documentation to complete the
analysis. ICF’s benefit-cost analyst will conduct the analysis of all documentation using FEMA’s latest BCA 6.0 toolkit. The
subrecipient will use all information gathered as supporting documentation for the project and submit that
documentation to FEMA along with the BCA analysis.

ICF will work closely with [client name] and the subrecipient to:

 Provide hazard mitigation technical guidance

 Participate and provide support in meetings
 Attend site visits, as needed
 Address any unresolved FEMA issues
 Conduct BCAs if needed
 Facilitate the compilation of supporting documentation

If other hazard mitigation opportunities are identified during the process that are not eligible for 406 Hazard Mitigation
funding, ICF will coordinate with [client’s name] Hazard Mitigation Bureau for possible 404 mitigation funding or
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) funding opportunities.

Applying industry expertise and oversight of project delivery methods, we seek to identify options for including 406
Hazard Mitigation funding on all technically feasible, eligible, and cost-effective projects. The seasoned hazard mitigation
team of ICF will:

 Develop a quality assurance/control review process for all permanent work Category C–G project worksheets
(PWs) to validate that an HMP has been considered for every project.
 Identify opportunities for mitigation.
 Coordinate with subrecipient architect and engineer (A&E) design teams to confirm that mitigation proposals
are technically feasible.
 Develop BCAs as required by FEMA policy.
 Coordinate with FEMA to determine whether undamaged assets can be protected under system-based Section
406 determinations.
 Establish 406 mitigation metrics and track 406 mitigation progress.
 Coordinate with subrecipients to ensure that eligible 406 mitigation measures are considered part of their PWs.