3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: H19001-0002 

Claimant: T&T Marine Salvage, Inc. 

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $92,212.83

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $64,526.81 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 23, 2018, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam established Port Heavy Weather 

Condition (PHWC) Yankee in advance of Typhoon Yutu within the ports of Guam and 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) which required all vessels greater than 

or equal to 200 GT to depart port or to have obtained written authorization from the Captain of 

the Port (COTP) prior to the establishment of PHWC Yankee to remain in port. In addition, the 

order established that upon setting PHWC Zulu, all ports and marinas would be closed and all 

cargo/bunkering operations within the port must stop.1

 The motor yacht GRAND MARIANA2

which was subject to, and aware of the Order, failed to depart port at the direction of the COTP 

and failed to request a waiver to remain in port.3 

On October 26, 2018, the GRAND MARIANA grounded and posed a substantial threat to 

discharge oil into Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, a navigable waterway of the United States.4 Sector 

Guam notified the National Response Center (NRC) of the incident.5

 Pride Keen Limited, (Pride 

Keen) the owner and operator of the GRAND MARIANA, arrived on-scene and hired Oil Spill 

Response Operations Company (OSROCO) and T&T Marine Salvage, Inc. (T&T) to assess the 

damage to the GRAND MARIANA and to remove fuel which posed a substantial threat of 

discharge into Tanapag Harbor.

6

 Sector Guam responded and issued an Administrative Order 

(Admin Order) to Pride Keen to remove the fuel from the GRAND MARIANA by October 27, 

2018,7 and provided additional time after Pride Keen failed to remove the fuel within the 

deadline.8 

 

1 CG Sector Guam PHWC Yankee order issued October 23, 2018. PHWC Yankee order was distributed to the 

CNMI port community. 2 The GRAND MARIANA I, VIN 1008437, is a 123.7-foot, 444 GT passenger yacht with a fiberglass hull. It was 

built on September 1, 2003 and is Cayman Islands flagged. See, CG Vessel Critical Profile for the GRAND 

MARIANA I, VIN 1008437. Note, the proper name of the vessel is the GRAND MARIANA. See CG Sector 

Guam response to the NPFC dated September 15, 2020, response to question 5 3 CG Sector Guam response to the NPFC dated July 28, 2020, response to question 1.

4 CG POLREP 1 DTG R310705Z Oct 18. 

5 National Response Center Report #1228564 reported on October 25, 2018 at 0700 EST. 6 CG POLREP 1 DTG R310705Z Oct 18.

7 CG Sector Guam Admin Order issued to Pride Keen Limited dated October 26, 2018. The Admin Order required 

Pride Keen to remove the fuel from all tanks, engines, fuel lines and all other sources onboard that contained oil. In 

addition, the Admin Order required Pride Keen to conduct a full environmental impact assessment and provide a 

proposed salvage plan in writing to the cognizant CG on-scene coordinator and territory on-scene coordinator. 8 CG POLREP 2 DTG R020809Z Nov 18.
4

On November 1, 2018, Sector Guam issued a Notice of Federal Assumption to Pride Keen9

and assumed control of the pollution removal activities as Pride Keen had failed to abate or 

remove the threat of pollution from the GRAND MARIANA.10 On November 18, 2018, Captain 

Chase, U.S. Coast, Sector Guam, sent the NPFC a letter in regards to “Support of Claim for 

Substantial Threat to the Environment, on October 22, 2018 during M/V GRAND MARIANA I 

response efforts.”11 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner of the M/V GRAND 

MARIANA I (Hull ID No. 1008437) was identified as the Responsible Party (RP) for the 

incident.12 Pride Keen Limited is the registered owner.

13 Pride Keen responded and hired 

OSROCO and T&T Marine to assess the damage sustained by the GRAND MARIANA and to 

remove the 15,500 gallons of fuel which posed a substantial threat of discharge into Tanapag 

Harbor. A survey of the vessel confirmed that the vessel was hard aground and identified three 

cracks in the hull with free communication with the sea.14 T & T presented its invoices to the 

RP.15 The RP did not respond to the claimant. The claimant then presented its uncompensated 

removal costs claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $92,212.83.16 The 

NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the 

applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration, has determined that $64,526.81 

of the requested $92,212.83 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final 

compensation of this claim. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

Sector Guam's area of responsibility (AOR) in the Western Pacific includes the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and is subject to frequent heavy 

weather, including the potential for organized, tropical cyclones classified by maximum 

sustained wind speeds. In the Eastern Hemisphere, these cyclones are called typhoons, and they 

can form and intensify rapidly. Based upon the meteorological conditions in the Sector Guam 

AOR, the typhoon season for the Sector Guam AOR extends from January 1 through December 

31. Therefore, the Sector Guam AOR remains in Port Heavy Weather Condition (PHWC) 

WHISKEY (winds of 39 mph and above possible within 72 hours) as a default condition.17

Changes to PHWCs are communicated throughout the port community though a variety of 

means. Within the CNMI, changes to PHWC are distributed via email to port community 

members from an email distribution list maintained by the CG Marine Safety Detachment 

(MSD) Saipan. That email distribution list is updated upon request from a member of the port 

community or at the discretion of MSD Saipan. Additionally, changes to PHWC are announced 

at briefings in the CNMI emergency operational center. Lastly, MSD Saipan personnel conduct 

 

9 CG Sector Guam Notice of Federal Assumption issued to Pride Keen Limited dated November 1, 2018. 10 CG POLREP 2 DTG R020809Z Nov 18. 11 Letter to the NPFC from the FOSC of Sector Guam dated November 18, 2018. 12 CG POLREP 1 DTG R310705Z Oct 18, Section 1(d). 13 Id. 14 CG POLREP 1 DTG R310705Z Oct 18. 15 T & T Marine OSLTF Claim Form, question 5 dated May 14, 2021. 16 33 CFR 136.103(c). 17 CG Sector Guam Heavy Plan dated April 22, 2015. 
5

port assessments after each PHWC change. Vessels identified in port during this assessment are 

contacted and reminded to make appropriate preparations for heavy weather or to prepare to 

leave port. The vessel owners failing to comply with the direction provided by MSD Saipan are 

subject to COTP orders mandating their compliance.18

Additionally, Apra Harbor/Port of Guam, Tanapag Harbor/Port of Saipan, Port of Rota, and 

the Port of Tinian are not considered safe havens during a typhoon due to their low topography. 

Specifically, these ports do not provide adequate windbreak or barriers against tidal surges; 

therefore, there is no harbor of refuge within the Sector Guam Captain of the Port (COTP) 

AOR.19 As a result, Sector Guam has determined that the risk of damage to the ports during 

heavy weather is minimized when the number of commercial vessels in port is decreased and 

requires all ocean-going commercial vessels and ocean-going tug/barge combinations over 200 

gross tons (GT) generally be required to depart the port by order of the COTP when heavy 

weather approaches. However, if any vessels 200 GT or over are unable to depart the port, that 

vessel must request a waiver from the COTP to remain in port by submitting a Remaining in Port 

Checklist which identifies the vessel’s need to remain in port and provides important information 

such as the vessel’s location, amount of fuel on-board and operational status of the vessel’s 

machinery (main engines, generators, bilge pumps, firefighting pumps, etc.).20

On October 22, 2018, Sector Guam established PHWC X-Ray in advance of Typhoon Yutu 

within the ports of Guam and CNMI which informed all vessel masters to prepare for PHWC 

Yankee which they estimated would be issued on October 23, 2018. Specifically, the order 

established that upon setting PHWC Yankee, all vessels 200GT and over were required to depart 

port or request a waiver from the COTP to remain in port by submitting a Remaining in Port 

Checklist.21 During their port assessment, MSD Saipan personnel discovered the GRAND 

MARIANA in port and unable depart port in advance of Typhoon Yutu. As a result, MSD 

Saipan issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to Pride Keen advising them of the GRAND 

MARIANA’s substantial threat to discharge oil into Saipan Harbor and of Pride Keen’s 

responsibilities and financial liability in the event of an oil spill from their vessel.22

On October 23, 2018, Sector Guam established PHWC Yankee in advance of Typhoon Yutu 

within the ports of Guam and CNMI which required all vessels greater than or equal to 200 GT 

to depart port or to have obtained written authorization from the COTP prior to the establishment 

 

18 Email from Sector Guam to the NPFC dated October 22, 2020 for claim H19001-0001. 19 The CG Captain of the Port enforces regulations for the protection and security of coastal and inland operational 

areas, including vessels, harbors, and waterfront facilities; anchorages; bridges; safety and security zones; and ports 

and waterways.

20 CG Sector Guam Heavy Plan dated April 22, 2015. Sector Guam’s authority to implement and enforce the Port 

Heavy Weather Conditions identified within their Heavy Weather Plan resides in part within the Ports and 

Waterways Safety Act which provides the CG Captain of the Port broader regulatory authority over regulated and 

non-regulated areas such as improvements in the supervision and control of all types of vessels operating in U.S. 

navigable waters.

21 CG Sector Guam PHWC X-Ray order issued October 22, 2018. PHWC X-Ray order was distributed to the CNMI 

port community via email by MSD personnel. There were four individuals representing the GRAND MARIANA on 

the email distribution to include and . Additionally, Mr. , 

was also notified of the PHWC X-RAY order via email. See, email from MSD Saipan to Mr. 22 MSD Saipan Notice of Federal Interest issued to Pride Keen Limited dated October 22, 2018. In addition, on the 

same day, MSD Saipan issued a Notice of Federal Interest to Pride Keen for the substantial threat of oil discharge 

posed by the GRAND MARIANA II as this vessel had also failed to depart port in advance of Typhoon Yutu. See

email from Sector Guam to the NPFC dated October 8, 2020 for claim H19001-0001. 
6

of PHWC Yankee to remain in port. In addition, the order established that upon setting PHWC 

Zulu, all ports and marinas would be closed and all cargo/bunkering operations within the port 

must stop.23 The GRAND MARIANA24 failed to depart port at the direction of the COTP and 

failed to request a waiver to remain in port.25 

As a result, Sector Guam issued an Admin Order to Pride Keen which required the removal 

of all fuel from the GRAND MARIANA’s fuel tanks, engines, fuel lines, and any other potential 

sources onboard that may have oil products in them in advance of the impending typhoon and 

prior to shifting to the designated mooring.26 Pride Keen failed to comply with the Admin Order 

as their efforts to remove fuel from the GRAND MARIANA were unsuccessful.27 

Later that day, Sector Guam established PHWC Zulu within the port of Guam and CNMI 

which closed all ports and marinas and stopped all cargo/bunkering operations within the port.28 

On October 24, 2018, the GRAND MARIANA was moved to a mooring within Tanapag 

Harbor, but due to deteriorating weather, it was deemed unsafe for divers to properly moor the 

vessel as desired. As a result, the vessel was anchored within the lagoon with two anchors set 

out to secure her position.29

During the passage of Typhoon Yutu, the GRAND MARIANA broke her moorings within 

Tanapag Harbor and grounded approximately 150 meters off of Micro Beach in Tanapag Harbor, 

Saipan. At the time of the grounding, the GRAND MARIANA contained approximately 15,500 

gallons of fuel.30

On October 27, 2018, Sector Guam returned to PHWC Whiskey within the CNMI following 

the passage of Typhoon Yutu.31

Responsible Party

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Pride Keen Limited is the owner of the 

M/V GRAND MARIANA (Hull ID No. 1008437) and is identified as the Responsible Party 

(RP) for the incident.32 On May 25, 2021, the NPFC issued a Responsible Party Notification 

 

23 CG Sector Guam PHWC Yankee order issued October 23, 2018. PHWC Yankee order was distributed to the 

CNMI port community via email by MSD Saipan. There were five individuals representing the GRAND 

MARIANA on that email distribution to include and . . 24 The GRAND MARIANA, VIN 1008437, is a 123.7-foot, 444 GT passenger yacht with a fiberglass hull. It was 

built on September 1, 2003 and is Cayman Islands flagged. See, CG Vessel Critical Profile for the GRAND 

MARIANA I, VIN 1008437. Note, the proper name of the vessel is the GRAND MARIANA. See CG Sector 

Guam response to the NPFC dated September 15, 2020, response to question 5.

25 CG Sector Guam response to the NPFC dated July 28, 2020, response to question 1 on claim H19001-0001. 26 CG Sector Guam Administration Order issued to Pride Keen Limited dated October 23, 2018. 27 CG Sector Guam response to the NPFC dated July 28, 2020, response to question 2 on claim H19001-0001. 28 CG Sector Guam PHWC Zulu order issued October 23, 2018. PHWC Zulu order was distributed to the CNMI 

port community via email by MSD personnel. There were five individuals representing the GRAND MARIANA on 

the email distribution to include and . See email with 

PHWC Zulu order attached dated October 23, 2018.

29 Claimant’s letter to the NPFC dated July 10, 2020, response to question 7 on claim H19001-0001. 30 Claim submission dated May 14, 2020 on claim H19001-0001. 31 CNMI-FEMA Joint Information Center release dated October 27, 2018. 32 CG POLREP 1 DTG R310705Z Oct 18.

8

vessel remained secured at Charlie Dock and preparation for salvage and lightering 

the vessel were to begin once all personnel were onshore; 

6. On October 28, 2018, On-site inspection of the GRAND MARIANA commenced. 

Salvage Master, worked with USCG LT in requesting the onsite inspection report of the GRAND MARIANA. T & T personnel continued to 

maintain the boom around the GRAND MARIANA and reset the boom anchors as 

winds shifted. Discussions continued for security to ensure payment for the project. 

Engineers in Houston, Texas and Singapore worked on plans and communications 

with SERT wee ongoing; 

7. On October 29, 2018, T & T proposed all recovery plans submitted to the vessel 

owner’s representative. T & T personnel continued to standby with the pneumatic 

pump and pollution equipment while maintaining the boom around GRAND 

MARIANA. Discussions for security to ensure payment for the project were still in 

progress and engineers in Houston and Singapore were still working on plans as 

communication with SERT was still ongoing;

8. On October 30, 2018, T & T drafted correspondence with USCG LCDR 

which explained the situation with the salvage plan and the security request from the 

RP regarding payment. T & T personnel continued to standby with the pneumatic 

pump and pollution equipment while maintaining the boom that was placed around 

the GRAND MARIANA. Discussions for security to ensure payment of the project 

were ongoing and engineers in Houston, Texas and Singapore were working on the 

plans. Communication with SERT continued; and 

9. On October 31, 2018, T & T personnel stood by with the pneumatic pump and 

pollution equipment. They also continued to maintain the boom around the GRAND 

MARIANA. Discussions for security to ensure payment for the project were 

ongoing. Engineers in Houston, Texas and Singapore continued to work on the plans 

as communication with SERT continued.35

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA)36 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the 

responsible party before seeking compensation from the NPFC.37 When an RP denies a claim or 

has not settled a claim after 90 days of receipt, a claimant may elect to present its claim to the 

NPFC.38 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

When an RP has not settled a claim after ninety days of receipt, a claimant may elect to 

present its claim to the NPFC.39 On May 20, 2021, the NPFC received a claim for 

uncompensated removal costs from T & T Marine Salvage, Inc. The claim included an OSLTF 

 

35 Claimant’s attachment 3 to AI Received and identified as T&T Daily Description of Duties. This attachment 

covers the entire Recovery Operations section of this Claim Determination. 36 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 37 33 CFR 136.103. 38 Id. 39 33 CFR 136.103.
9

Claim Form, receipts for travel and miscellaneous items, as well as the T & T Marine Salvage, 

Inc. invoice dated December 18, 2018 in the amount of $92,212.83 40 

This claim is for the response actions that were performed prior to the U.S. Coast Guard 

issuing a Notice of Federal Assumption (NOFA) to Pride Keen under the Federal Project 

Number (FPN) H19001 on November 1, 2018 and in accordance with the FOSC Memo to the 

NPFC dated November 18, 2018 regarding the FOSC’s determination that the substantial threat 

was effective on October 22, 2018.41 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).42 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this 

role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and 

evidence obtained independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining 

the facts of the claim.43 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.44 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the 

NPFC makes a determination as to what evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, 

and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence.

V. DISCUSSION: 

An RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil discharge or a 

substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.45 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.46 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the 

existing federal and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required 

large taxpayer subsidies for costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to 

victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly 

favoring those responsible for the spills.”47 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

 

40 T & T claim submission received on May 20, 2021. 41 Letter to the NPFC from the FOSC of Sector Guam dated November 18, 2018. 42 33 CFR Part 136. 43 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 44 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them). 45 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 46 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 47 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722).
10

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where 

the responsible party has failed to do so. Removal costs are defined as “the costs of removal that 

are incurred after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any case in which there is a substantial 

threat of a discharge of oil, the costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from an 

incident.”48 The term “remove” or “removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from 

water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate 

damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”49 

The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).50 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.51 The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

documentation deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and 

properly process the claim.52

Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the 

incident;

(b) That the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions;

(c) That the actions taken were directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan. 

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.53

Upon review and adjudication of the claim submission, the NPFC made an initial request for 

additional information to T & T in support of its claim54 which is summarized and broken down 

as follows:

1. T & T Marine claimed costs specific to the vessel, MT CHAMORRO in the amount of 

$22,600.00 for services provided on October 23, 2018. The NPFC requested that the 

claimant provide:

a. The invoice generated for the costs claimed on 10/23/18 in the amount of 

$22,600.00; 

b. The pricing sheet that supports the amount charged on 10/23/18 for the MT 

CHAMORRO;

c. An explanation of the work performed by the MT CHAMORRO on 10/23/18; 

and 

 

48 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 49 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 50 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 51 33 CFR Part 136. 52 33 CFR 136.105. 53 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 54 Email to T & T requesting a variety of additional information dated June 9, 2021.

12

claim.61 The NPFC used the USCG BOA contract62 only when a billed line item was not found 

within the T & T rate schedule identified as Attachment 4 of the June 24, 2021 email response 

from T & T. Items approved, denied or approved in part are identified by line item in the 

NPFC’s Summary of Costs spreadsheet with comments identifying the source of the information 

used to support the NPFC’s decision to pay, deny or pay in part for a given line item.63 

In support of the claimed costs and the response activities performed between October 23, 

2018 and October 31, 2018, the NPFC relied upon a letter dated November 18, 2018 from 

Captain Chase, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Guam to the NPFC re: “Support of Claim for 

Substantial Threat to the Environment on October 22, 2018 during M/V GRAND MARIANA I 

response efforts.”64 The letter substantiates that pollution mitigation actions were required 

beyond pollution removal in situ. Captain Chase was the FOSC and in that capacity he 

determined that it was critical and justified to relocate the M/V GRAND MARIANA I to 

mitigate the threat of significant harm to the marine environment and to ensure safe navigation 

without port disruption The Captain further stated in his letter that the actions taken to date were 

consistent with policies noted in reference (b) of the letter, regarding response to substantial 

threats to public health or welfare of the United States and the use of the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (OSLTF)..65 This letter serves as FOSC coordination of the response actions that were 

performed by T&T from October 23, 2018 through October 31, 2018. 

T & T was able to provide the majority of the requested additional information to the NPFC. 

T&T did not provide the requested documentation regarding charges for the MT CHAMORRO

on October 23, 2018. The NPFC requested proof of payment from T & T for the charges 

associated with the MT CHAMORRO.66 

In its reply to the NPFC’s request for additional information, T & T indicated that the MT 

CHAMORRO was “Paid and settled through OSROCO.”67 Based on T & T’s response to the 

request for proof of payment for the MT CHAMORRO, T & T must demonstrate that the costs 

are both uncompensated and that they possess the subrogable rights to request compensation for 

those costs. As such, the NPFC made a second request for additional information on July 6, 

2021. The NPFC requested that T&T provide the proof of payment for the MT CHAMORRO 

costs claimed, as well as provide any settlement documents that were associated with the 

payment for the MT CHAMORRO costs.

68 Since T & T has not replied to the NPFC’s second 

request for additional information pertaining to the MT CHAMORRO costs, the costs in the 

amount of $22,600.00 and its associated 15% administrative markup claimed in the amount of 

$3,390.00 are denied as not properly supported by the record. The total amount denied for the 

MT CHAMORRO costs and associated markup costs total $25,990.00. 

 

61 Oil Spill Response Operations Company LLC and T & T Marine Salvage, Inc. Sector Guam and CNMI, OSRO 

Designation and Emergency Response Services Agreement, Exhibit 4, Page 13 – 21 of 31. 62 USCG BOA Number: HSCG84-17-A-N00059 dated February 7, 2017. 63 See, NPFC’s Summary of Costs spreadsheet, Column AI entitled “Source Document Identification and Location”. 64Id. 65 Letter to the NPFC from the FOSC of Sector Guam dated November 18, 2018. 66 Id. 67 See email sent to T & T dated June 9, 2021 whereby Mr. answered NPFC’s questions in blue 

font.

68 Email to T & T dated July 6, 2021.
13

The remaining costs that have been denied by the NPFC total $1,696.02 and are itemized in 

the NPFC’s Summary of Costs spreadsheet. The denied costs are identified and categorized as 

follows: 

1. Supervisor OT rate was adjusted from $98.00 per hr. that was claimed and reduced to 

$97.50 per hour in accordance with Attachment 4 rate sheet pricing. The NPFC 

denied $13.50 for this category;

2. Operator ST and OT rates were charged at $55.00 per hr. for ST and $83.00 per hr. for 

OT. The NPFC reduced all ST and OT rates to $52.00 per hr. for ST and $78.00 per 

hour for OT in accordance with Attachment 4 rate sheet pricing. The NPFC denied a 

total of $124.00 for excessive hourly rates charged for Operator; 

3. The NPFC denied the request for fuel for pumps on 10/23/18 in the amount of $113.48 

as no receipt was provided; 

4. PVC gloves were charged randomly at the incorrect rate according to Attachment 4 

and also there were instances where the quantity was flawed. The NPFC adjusted all 

instances of gloves according to the proper rate and quantity based on the number of 

personnel working each day. The total amount denied associated with PVC Gloves is 

$88.00; 

5. Standby rates charged for a workboat at a rate of $155.00 is denied for all instances as 

Attachment 4 pricing has no terms and conditions for justifying standby rates and 

when the NPFC referred to the USCG BOA, that contract states standby is prohibited 

therefore the NPFC is denying all standby rates charged. The total standby rates 

denied total $930.00; 

6. Tyveks were charged randomly at the incorrect rate according to Attachment 4 and 

also there were instances where the quantity was flawed. The NPFC adjusted all 

instances of Tyveks according to the proper rate and quantity based on the number of 

personnel working each day. The total amount denied associated with Tyveks is

$48.00; 

7. Per Diem rates were adjusted according to the GSA allowable Government rate of 

$87.00 per instance at the time and location of the incident. The NPFC has denied all 

amounts of per diem in excess of the GSA Government per diem rate of $87.00. The 

total amount denied is $196.00; 

8. On 10/25/18 – there were two amounts claimed for taxi service in the amounts of 

$10.22 and $9.25, respectively. The receipt associated with the charge for $10.22 has 

no amount indicating the charge so it is denied as unsupported by the record and the 

charge of $9.25 is on an expense report with no supporting receipt and therefore also 

denied as not supported by the record. Both items are denied in the amount of $19.47; 

9. On 10/28/18 – there were two instances of sim card purchases in the amounts of 

$20.00 and $40.00, respectively. There is no evidence to indicate who they were 

purchased for and why so the costs are denied in the total amount of $60.00; 

10. On 10/29/18 – the Project Manager was charged on the daily as 8 ST hours however 

the math did not balance to the hours claimed on the daily invoiced pricing. The math 

worked out to indicate 9.1882 hrs. of ST so the NPFC allowed the 8 hrs. of ST for this 

date and the difference is denied as a math error in the amount of $101.00; and 

11. On 10/31/18 – there is a rental car charge claimed as $169.17 however the supporting 

documentation only supports $166.60 therefore $2.57 is denied.