Emergency Management Contingency Consulting Services · 2018-03-23 · Administrator for the State...

© Copyright 2018 David M. Shapiro Disaster Planning and Recovery Consultants, Inc.

March 13, 2018

Broward CountyEmergency Management Contingency Consulting Services, RFP No. A2113624P1


Minimizing Complexity. Maximizing Recovery.


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – WE ARE DIFFERENT!

21 Years of Proven Experience in Disaster Planning & Recovery Management

We know Broward County, as professionals and as residents, with Former FEMA Leaders in the State of Florida

Highly Experienced Team with more than 125 Years of Combined Disaster and Insurance Experience

Exclusive Focus on Disaster Planning and Recovery – That’s Why We Are the Experts!

Headquartered in South Florida with additional offices in NY and LA, and with staff located nationwide, we are able to mobilize quickly

Unparalleled Experience working with Large Applicants with Multiple Departments, including 7 disasters and 70 State Agencies in Louisiana

Ranked Highest in Financial Health by Broward County on this RFP


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – WE ARE DIFFERENT!

Long-term relationships with Multiple Clients including 12 years with the State of Louisiana and Jefferson Parish Public Schools

Currently assisting our clients with over 10,000 Projects valued at more than $9 Billion

Sophisticated Approach that includes expertise in Hazard Mitigation, Insurance Proceed Allocation, Obtain and Maintain and Risk Management

Selected by National Broker for our state-of-the-art Disaster Recovery Tracking System

Rigid Compliance resulting in Excellent Audit Commendations

Certified Floodplain Manager, Risk Manager, Insurance Counselor, Flood Insurance Program Adjuster

Great working relationships with State of Florida Department of Emergency Management and FEMA


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – KEY STAFF HIGHLIGHTS

▪ Former FEMA Emergency Management Leaders for the State of Florida

▪ Former State Emergency Management Leaders, including Florida, North Carolina and Louisiana

▪ Former State Risk Administrator

▪ Current CDBG and HUD Trained Staff

▪ Current ICS, NRCS, NIMS Trained Staff

▪ Certified Floodplain Manager

▪ Certified National Flood Insurance Program Adjuster

▪ Certified Risk Manager

▪ Certified Insurance Counselor

▪ Combined Disaster and Insurance Experience – more than 125 years


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – EXPERIENCED TEAM

David M. Shapiro, President and Founder of DMS, has more than 24 years of disaster recovery experience, having personally worked on more than 10,000 projects. Prior to DMS, he served as FEMA’s Disaster Recovery Team Leader for three projects in the State of Florida and later the Region IV Appeals Team Leader.

Joeann Jenkins, MA, DMS Executive Vice President, served as the Public Assistance Section Manager of North Carolina’s Emergency Management Office. She is currently advising the State of Louisiana on more than 13,000 projects in the amount of $4.8 billion in obligated project worksheets for nine Federally-declared disasters.

Doug White, P.E., DMS Executive Vice President, is a former FEMA Mitigation Engineer. Mr. White served as the Lead Policy and Technical Advisor and Hazard Mitigation Officer for the State of Louisiana after Hurricanes Katrina., Rita, Gustav and Ike as well as for all other declared events from 2005 to 2013.


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – EXPERIENCED TEAM

Marty Altman, PMP, DMS Senior Vice President, served as the Infrastructure Branch Director for FEMA’s Florida Long Term Recovery Office for the storms that devastated Florida in 2004 and 2005. He led PA efforts in closeout of nine storm declarations for the State of Florida and currently manages $1 billion project involving power distribution in New York, which includes $747 million of Alternative Procedure 428 Capped Grant for Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Program.

Susan West, MBA, CRM, CIC, DMS Vice President of Risk Management, served as the State Risk Administrator for the State of Louisiana’s Office of Risk Management, where she managed the disaster recovery post Hurricane Katrina and the procurement of insurance for all state agencies. Ms. West is an insurance professional, who is a Certified Risk Manager and Certified Insurance Counselor. She is instrumental in ensuring that our clients remain in compliance with FEMA insurance policies and regulations.

Robert Seibert, DMS Senior Public Assistance Advisor, served as the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) Lead Deputy Public Assistance Officer from which he retired prior to joining DMS in January 2017. Mr. Seibert was responsible for the delivery of Florida Public Assistance programs to municipalities throughout Florida from 2005 until 2016.


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – DISASTER RECOVERY EXPERTISE

PlanningProgrammatic and

Policy Expertise Project

FormulationProject Tracking

(disasTRAX)

• Emergency Operation Plan

• Review of Obtain and Maintain

• Review of Pre-positioned Contracts

• Continuity of Operations Plans

• Local Mitigation Strategy

• Disaster Recovery Management Plan

• Debris Management Plan

• Debris Monitoring Plan

• Interdepartmental Coordinating Procedures

• Standard Operating Procedures

• Procedural Checklists

• Federal Regulations

• Eligibility Issues

• Dispute Resolution

• Appeals

• Arbitration

• Identify Damage Scope

• Identify Need for Temporary Facilities

• Identify Hazard Mitigation Opportunities

• Identify Alternate and Improved Project Opportunities

• Identify and Implement Codes and Standards in Scope Development

• Project Formulation

• Project Monitoring

• Project Closeout


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – LARGE COMPLEX CLIENTS ARE OUR BUSINESS

▪ Multiple municipalities, counties, cities, towns each with multiple departments

▪ State of Louisiana – DMS client since 2005 with 70 agencies and 7 declared disasters

▪ DMS is currently overseeing 10,000 projects with an estimated funding of $9 Billion


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – SOPHISTICATED APPROACH TO DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS

DMS CLIENT ORIGINAL ESTIMATE DMS ASSISTED RECOVERY

Jefferson Parish Public Schools $40 million $190 million

Charlotte County Public Schools $40 million $200 million

South Nassau Communities Hospital $17 million $176.9 million

Charity Hospital (State of Louisiana, Office of Risk Management)

$23 million $475 million

▪ DMS’ protocols, including pre-disaster planning, insurance allocation and risk management, have assisted numerous clients recover well beyond original estimates


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – LONGTERM RELATIONSHIPS

▪ DMS has served the State of Louisiana for 12 years.

▪ From Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to severe flooding in 2016, DMS continues to assist Louisiana in its recovery efforts of 70 state agencies.

▪ DMS has assisted the State’s Risk Management Office (ORM) in the obligation of federal dollars in excess of $4.8 billion.

▪ DMS tracks all FEMA Project Worksheets, including Federal and Insurance funding.

▪ DMS provides real-time reports to the ORM management on the progress.

▪ DMS assisted the ORM in the development of processes and procedures, including the development of a remediation guide for State agencies to utilize.

DMS’ understanding of FEMA regulations, recovery processes, mitigation and insurance has provided assistance to ORM and multiple state agencies with proven success. I highly recommend DMS for any disaster related services.

Mr. Bud Thompson, Jr.Former State Risk Director, State of LA

“


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – LONGTERM RELATIONSHIPS

▪ DMS has served Jefferson Parish Public Schools since Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

▪ DMS is assisting in 5 additional federally declared disasters post Hurricane Katrina.

“The David M. Shapiro Group (DMS) an been working on our system’s recovery efforts since October, 2005, immediately after Hurricane Katrina damaged the majority of our 90 campuses. Since that time, 5 additional named storms damaged our school system and we have included them in the DMS contract for services. In total, 463 projects have been written, 359 for Hurricane Katrina. To date, $123,536,432** is obligated by FEMA for reimbursement. Their expertise and professional manner in which they have lead our recovery efforts with the LA Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness and FEMA directly affected the amount of obligated projects with the correct scope of work. In addition, reconciling the procurement and payment of $123 million of thousands of invoices and payments was a huge undertaking.

James M. Hufft, Director of Emergency Management/Risk Management, Jefferson Parish Public School System**(as of letter dated 9/26/14)

“


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – WE KNOW BROWARD COUNTY

▪ David Shapiro – DMS President was a 10-year resident of Broward County

▪ Marty Altman – DMS Senior Vice President formally served as the Florida Public Assistance Infrastructure Branch Manager and Deputy Branch Manager from 2004 – 2008.

▪ Robert Seibert – DMS Senior Public Assistance Advisor served as the Florida Lead Public Assistance Officer from 2005 – 2016

▪ DMS is headquartered in neighboring Palm Beach County, with additional offices in LA and NY


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – CUSTOMIZED DISASTER RECOVERY TRACKING

Manage FEMA Requirements based on Federal Regulations

Project Worksheet Managementfrom Start to Finish, Real-Time

Maximize Fundingfrom All Available Sources

Central Repositoryfor All Data and Documentation

Ease of Navigationin Every Step of the Way

Coordinate / Reconciliationwith Third Party Administrators/Claims and FEMA

Reduce User Errorsthrough More Systematic Controls

Data Integrationof Insurance Claims and Federal Projects

Capture Dollarsfrom all Funding Sources

WHY


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – HIGH LEVEL MANAGEMENT REPORTS

▪ Funding reports that include FEMA grant and Claim payments, as well as other funding sources

▪ Insurance / Risk Management reports that include obtain and maintain obligations

▪ Reports can be provided on any data collected

▪ Show your data in a Spreadsheet Style format

▪ Group and total data to analyze large data sets

▪ Visualize your data in charts (pie, bar, line, et al)

▪ Display records on a map with an pinpointed address

▪ Show information in a calendar format to analyze data month by month

▪ Create Gantt chart for records with a start and end date


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – RIGID COMPLIANCE LOUISIANA GOHSEP AUDIT REPORT

▪ Please see Attachment A provided in your handout for the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness’ (GOHSEP) Compliance Audit Report (and client email) which resulted in no findings and no further action based on their review of DMS’ program.

“ “

From: Melissa Harris

Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:34 AM

To: Farrel Hebert; JoAnn Hash; Joseph Powell (DOA)

Cc: Marsha Pemble (DOA)

Subject: RE: GOHSEP Compliance Review - No Finding Letter

Thank you all for your prep work on this audit. The no findings and no further action stated here are what I expected

given your attention to detail in these processes. I am proud of our team. Congratulations!

From: Farrel Hebert

Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:27 AM

To: Marsha Pemble (DOA) <[email protected]>; Melissa Harris <[email protected]>

Cc: JoAnn Hash <[email protected]>; Joseph Powell (DOA) <[email protected]>

Subject: GOHSEP Compliance Review - No Finding Letter

Marsha/Melissa,

Attached is a letter from GOHSEP indicating they had no findings as a result of their compliance review. Regrettably,

this somewhat generic letter contains none of the glowing compliments we were given verbally during their visit.

Farrel Hebert

State Risk Administrator

Office of Risk Management

Phone #: 225-342-8424

Fax#: 225-342-4470

Office hours: 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only

for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,

dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Owner

Highlight


THE DMS DIFFERENCE – RIGID COMPLIANCEPSEG AUDIT REPORT

▪ Please see Attachment B provided in your handout for the PSEG Audit Report (and client email) in which DMS received the highest recommendation for our program.

“

This audit was conducted in conformance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

DRAFT - PSEG Internal Use Only

Audit:

Storm-Hardening (FEMA Compliance)

Issued: January XX, 2018

To:

Distribution:

Senior Vice President – Delivery Projects & Construction (K. Hanemann)

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

President & COO – PSE&G President & COO – PSEG LI

Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

Executive Vice President & General Counsel

Vice President & Controller (S. Black)

Vice President – Finance (S. Jennings) Vice President – Business Services (D. Lyons)

Vice President – Internal Audit Services (C. Neely)

Vice President – Risk Management & Chief Risk Officer (L. Pommier)

Chief Compliance & NERC Officer (A. Fernandez)

General Commercial Counsel (M. Palumbo)

Senior Counsel – PSEG LI (J. Dombrowski) Senior Counsel – PSEG LI (V. Whittaker)

Senior Director – Construction (M. Kayes)

Director – Projects (M. Keane)

Manager – Internal Controls (M. Cherego)

Manager – Project Controls (J. Dunne) Deloitte & Touche LLP

Issued by Internal Audit Services:

________________________ _________________________

Steve Sullivan Approval: Rocky Shankar

Lead Auditor Manager – Internal Audit Services

No. 17-AU-04-LI

Audit: Storm-Hardening (FEMA Compliance)

Page 2 of 4


Opinion

Well Controlled

Controls evaluated are adequate, appropriate, and effective to provide reasonable assurance that risks are being managed and objectives should be

met. No audit observations noted.

Objective:

Evaluate the adequacy and operating effectiveness of processes and controls governing the management

and documentation of changes in circuit design and construction within the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) distribution projects of the storm-hardening program.

Period Audited:

1-1-2017

to 10-31-2017

Areas Covered Inherent Risk Category (Rating)

Residual Risk Rating

(after considering controls and

observation rating)

Management of changes in circuit

design and construction

Financial, Reputational,

Legal/Regulatory, Operations (Moderate)

Low

Adequacy of documentation of

field changes

Financial, Reputational, Legal/Regulatory, Operations

(Moderate)

Low

Scope Exclusions: All other aspects of the storm-hardening program, including the substation and transmission projects.

Observation Summary

(also see details starting on the next page)

Observation

Rating*

No Observations N/A

* See Appendix A for definitions of audit opinion and observation ratings


Page 3 of 4


Background

In October 2012, Superstorm Sandy struck Long Island causing significant damage to the Long Island Power Authority's (LIPA) transmission and distribution infrastructure. Subsequent to the federal

declaration that a major disaster existed in New York State (NYS), including LIPA’s service area, NYS and LIPA requested a public assistance grant from FEMA. By letter dated February 20, 2014, FEMA,

NYS (as grantee) and LIPA (as sub-grantee) agreed to a $729M fixed, capped public assistance grant

(“428 grant”) for storm-hardening/mitigation work (“428 mitigation program”).

As an agent for LIPA, PSEG LI is responsible for the administration of the 428 grant under the program associated with the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (the “Award”). The terms

and conditions of the Award require LIPA to adhere to applicable requirements specified in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act).

The scope of work for PSEG LI’s hazard mitigation efforts include remediation of over 300 circuits

that have been identified by PSEG LI, LIPA and FEMA as the most vulnerable, repetitively damaged

circuits. Most of this storm-hardening program work (e.g., engineering, design and construction) is performed by outside contractors overseen by PSEG LI management and will continue through

completion in 2019.


Page 4 of 4


Appendix A

Definitions

Observation Rating

Definition

High Significant to the overall control environment. Could have material

implications to the organization.

Moderate Impacts specific processes and functions with some significance to the

organization.

Low An inefficiency or administrative matter of lesser significance. Low-rated

issues are communicated to management informally.

Note: IAS does not provide absolute assurance regarding risk ratings and audit opinions. Areas are

often tested on a sample basis. Opinions and ratings are assigned in a particular audit at a point in

time based on judgment and work performed.

Opinion

Definition

Well Controlled Controls evaluated are adequate, appropriate, and effective to provide reasonable assurance that risks are being managed and objectives should be

met. No audit observations noted.

Some

Improvement

Required

Generally, controls evaluated are adequate, appropriate, and effective to provide

reasonable assurance that risks are being managed and objectives should be met. One or more moderate risk observations noted, with no major impact on

the overall system of internal controls.

Major Improvement

Required

A High residual risk exists in a major scope or risk area. The controls evaluated are unlikely to provide reasonable assurance that risks are being managed and

objectives met.

Not Adequately

Controlled

High residual risk exists in two or more major scope or risk areas. Controls evaluated do not provide reasonable assurance that risks are being managed and

objectives met.


David M. Shapiro Disaster Planningand Recovery Consultants, Inc.

Contact Person:David M. Shapiro, President945 Clint Moore RoadBoca Raton, FL 33487FL Office: 561.529.5707Mobile: [email protected]

DMSrecovery.com

Minimizing Complexity. Maximizing Recovery.

Emergency Management Contingency Consulting Services · 2018-03-23 · Administrator for the State...

Documents

Transcript of Emergency Management Contingency Consulting Services · 2018-03-23 · Administrator for the State...