Skip Navigation

CASE | DECISION | JUDGE

Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Appellate Division
IN THE CASE OF  


SUBJECT: Peoples Involvement Corporation

DATE: April 29, 2005
           

 

Request for Reconsideration of Decision No. 1967 

 

Docket No. A-05-72
Ruling No. 2005-2
DECISION
...TO TOP

RULING ON REQUEST
FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

Peoples Involvement Corporation (PIC) appealed disallowances totaling $845,000 by the Office of Community Services (OCS), a component of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), disallowing. On March 25, 2005, the Board issued a final decision upholding $317,901.58 of the disallowed amount. Peoples Involvement Corporation, DAB No. 1967. As to the remaining amount of the disallowance, the Board allowed PIC an opportunity to account for its disposition of project assets. Absent such an accounting, the disallowance would stand. The Board stated that, if PIC submitted a timely accounting, then "OCS shall have a brief opportunity to notify PIC that, for reasons consistent with this decision, the accounting does not support the allowability of some or all of the remaining $527,098.42 disallowance at issue here." DAB No. 1967, at 1.

On April 27, 2005, PIC submitted a motion for partial reconsideration of the Board's decision in DAB No. 1967. PIC requested reconsideration of two items included in the $317,901.58 portion of the disallowance which was upheld. The specific costs were $11,839.98 in insurance policy payments and $59,655.35 in legal fees, both in relation to the Peoples Daycare Center project.

The Board's regulations provide for reconsideration of a Board decision "where a party promptly alleges a clear error of fact or law . . . ." 45 C.F.R. § 16.13.

PIC did not allege any error committed by the Board in its decision based on the record that was before the Board. Instead, as to the insurance payments, PIC proffered additional documentation purporting to show the nature of the insurance coverage and period of coverage, and offered to provide the insurance binders. PIC Ex. 29. As to the legal fees, PIC proffered time records in an effort to show that the services were related to the project development, and indicated that it was still trying to obtain additional records for this purpose from another firm. PIC Ex. 30.

PIC had ample opportunity both in its dealings with OCS and during the pendency of its appeal before the Board to submit relevant documentation to establish the allowability of these costs. We do not agree with PIC that it lacked notice of the need to do so earlier because it did not clearly understand that OCS was challenging the allowability of these costs "except in the vaguest of terms." PIC Motion at 2. While OCS's explanations of the bases for disallowing some of the costs were not detailed, as we noted in the Board decision, it was clear that PIC was on notice as to these two items that it had to document the link between the amounts claimed and the construction-related activities on the project. PIC made no claim that this documentation was not available to it earlier in this process. A motion for reconsideration is far too belated a context in which to undertake to present such documentation (and to offer to obtain still more documentation).

To the extent that the documentation is relevant to the allowability of these costs, our decision here does not preclude PIC from presenting it to OCS, which has discretion to reduce the disallowance if appropriate. In this case, PIC may do so in the context of providing its accounting to OCS for disposition of project assets. PIC, however, has exhausted any appeal rights which it had in relation to the disallowance of these two categories of costs. We will not entertain any submission of documentation or argument at this stage.

Conclusion

The request for reconsideration is denied.

JUDGE
...TO TOP

Judith A. Ballard

Donald F. Garrett

Daniel Aibel
Presiding Board Member

CASE | DECISION | JUDGE