42 U.S.C. § 5150

Use of local firms and individuals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Contracts or agreements with private entities(1) In general

In the expenditure of Federal funds for debris clearance, distribution of supplies, reconstruction, and other major disaster or emergency assistance activities which may be carried out by contract or agreement with private organizations, firms, or individuals, preference shall be given, to the extent feasible and practicable, to those organizations, firms, and individuals residing or doing business primarily in the area affected by such major disaster or emergency.

(2) Construction

This subsection shall not be considered to restrict the use of Department of Defense resources under this chapter in the provision of assistance in a major disaster.

(3) Specific geographic area

In carrying out this section, a contract or agreement may be set aside for award based on a specific geographic area.

(b) Implementation(1) Contracts not to entities in area

Any expenditure of Federal funds for debris clearance, distribution of supplies, reconstruction, and other major disaster or emergency assistance activities which may be carried out by contract or agreement with private organizations, firms, or individuals, not awarded to an organization, firm, or individual residing or doing business primarily in the area affected by such major disaster shall be justified in writing in the contract file.

(2) Transition

Following the declaration of an emergency or major disaster, an agency performing response, relief, and reconstruction activities shall transition work performed under contracts in effect on the date on which the President declares the emergency or major disaster to organizations, firms, and individuals residing or doing business primarily in any area affected by the major disaster or emergency, unless the head of such agency determines that it is not feasible or practicable to do so.

(3) Formulation of requirements

The head of a Federal agency, as feasible and practicable, shall formulate appropriate requirements to facilitate compliance with this section.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any Federal agency to breach or renegotiate any contract in effect before the occurrence of a major disaster or emergency.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title III, § 307, as added Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, § 694, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1459; amended Pub. L. 109–347, title VI, § 611, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1943.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 93–288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 5150, Pub. L. 93–288, title III, § 307, formerly § 310, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 150; renumbered § 307 and amended Pub. L. 100–707, title I, § 105(e), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4691; Pub. L. 109–218, § 2, Apr. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 333, provided for the use of local firms and individuals for major disaster or emergency assistance activities, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, § 694, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1459.

A prior section 307 of Pub. L. 93–288 was renumbered section 304 by Pub. L. 100–707 and is classified to section 5147 of this title.

Amendments

2006—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 109–347 added par. (3).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 71 (Fed. Cl. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 71 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 3× “Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5150 (a)(1) (“Stafford Act”).”

Alcatec, LLC v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 502 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 2× “Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5150 (2006) (the “Stafford Act”), 3 FEMA transitioned the maintenance and deactivation work of these mobile units to ten local contractors for the units located in the State of Mississippi.”

ICP Nw., LLC v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “At the March 14 hearing, plaintiff withdrew its claim that the use of Agency Cooperators violated the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5150 (a)(1). . Plaintiff also argued that the solicitations provided that COs could modify the Dispatch Priority Lists at will.”

Vermont Agency of Nat. Resources v. Duranleau & Duranleau Constr., Inc., 617 A.2d 143 (Vt. 1992). “Relying on the federal preference for local procurement in carrying out disaster relief activities, 42 U.S.C. § 5150 , defendants claim that the work could be done without an Act 250 permit because it was necessary to accomplish a project administered by FEMA.”

Banks v. City of New Orleans, 628 F. Supp. 2d 686 (E.D. La. 2009). “The Corps, in turn, contracted with private entities for debris removal under 42 U.S.C. § 5150 (a)(1). Plaintiffs owned property located at 2311 Tricou Street in New Orleans, Louisiana.”

Agma Sec. Serv., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 5150 (a)(1). Substantially the same language appears in the FAR, which requires the defendant to apply the Stafford Act preference “when awarding emergency response contracts,” either through a local area set aside or as an evaluation preference.”

Ranger Am. of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “AGMA argued that “FEMA improperly accepted Ranger’s 6 certification as a local firm, and FEMA should have rejected Ranger’s proposal on this basis” as a violation of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5150 , et seq. Protestor AGMA also argued “FEMA improperly reevaluated the Ranger…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.