[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23430-23432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11135]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED
Procurement List Addition
AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled.
ACTION: Addition to the Procurement List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List a service to be
furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have
other severe disabilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 7, 1997, the Committee for
Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published
notice (62 F.R. 10519) of proposed addition to the Procurement
List. Comments were received from two Government agencies, three
minority business associations, one small business owner, a labor
union, two political organizations, 133 employees of the Government
facility where the service will be performed, two contractors at
that facility, an employee of the current janitorial contractor,
and one other individual. All commenters opposed the addition of
this service to the Procurement List.
This service is currently being performed by a small disadvantaged
business which is graduating from the Small Business Administration's
8(a) Program. The two commenting Government agencies claimed that
removal of the service from the 8(a) Program would cause severe adverse
impact on the Program's ability to provide business development
opportunities for small disadvantaged businesses, both nationally and
at the Government agency where the service is being performed. Another
commenter claimed that the 8(a) Program cannot
[[Page 23431]]
meet its goals if the Committee's Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Program
continues to remove services from the 8(a) Program, and that the
Committee's practice of adding these services when a specific 8(a)
contractor graduates from the 8(a) Program ignores the legislative
intent of the Small Business Act and the responsibility of Government
agencies to support the 8(a) Program. Other commenters declared that
Congress did not intend for the JWOD and 8(a) Programs to compete, and
that 8(a) contracts should remain in that Program.
The 8(a) Program's share of Government contracting dollars is
approximately ten times the size of the JWOD Program's share.
Consequently, the Committee does not believe that adding this service
to the Procurement List, will have a severe adverse impact on the 8(a)
Program, even if the limited number of other 8(a) services which have
been added to the Procurement List are taken into account. Similarly,
the Government agency where the service is being performed has an
extremely successful 8(a) Program of which the contract for this
service represents a minute portion. As a result, the Committee does
not believe that adding this service to the JWOD Program will have a
substantial negative impact on the agency's overall 8(a) Program.
The Committee's priority over small business setaside programs has
long been established, and the Committee believes its policy of only
adding 8(a) services to the Procurement List when a contractor
graduates from the 8(a) Program shows that the Committee attempts to
minimize its impact on small disadvantaged businesses who have
performed the services and still remain in the 8(a) Program. Because
JWOD nonprofit agencies are normally in the same size range as small
disadvantaged businesses and can perform the same types of work, it is
inevitable that there will be some overlap between them. The Committee
does not know of any legislative intent that they not compete or that
the JWOD Program be limited in carrying out its statutory mission to
services which have not previously been performed by 8(a) contractors.
One commenter, a trade association representing 8(a) companies,
stated that all Government contracts should be available to competition
and that the JWOD Act should be amended to limit Government awards to
JWOD nonprofit agencies to amounts below a specific dollar ceiling.
These proposals, which would necessitate changes to the 8(a)
Program as well, would require legislative action and are thus outside
the scope of the Committee's decision on this addition to the
Procurement List.
The same commenter suggested that 8(a) contractors should be
permitted to subcontract with JWOD nonprofit agencies so that both 8(a)
and JWOD entities would benefit from the same Government contracts. The
Committee explored this approach with representatives of the Government
contracting activity, which raised the issue too late for the proposal
to be given the thorough consideration the Committee deemed necessary.
The Committee does intend to consider in the coming months whether the
proposed approach warrants in-depth examination for possible future
use.
Many commenters noted that a large number of janitorial employees
at the Government facility would be displaced by the Committee's
action, despite, in some cases, long years of excellent service. One
commenter claimed that if any current employees were hired by the JWOD
nonprofit agency, they would take a substantial pay cut. Two commenters
asked whether the Committee would provide for the displaced workers.
Another commenter suggested that people with disabilities be hired by
the current 8(a) contractor as vacancies occur rather than displacing
the current workers.
The Committee is sensitive to the issue of displacing longstanding
workers at janitorial projects, and permits nonprofit agencies
performing JWOD contracts to accommodate such workers on a transitional
basis as much as possible consistent with its statutory requirement
that the majority of workers on JWOD contracts be people with severe
disabilities. JWOD nonprofit agencies, like all Government service
contractors, are required to maintain the union wage for the first year
after they succeed a union contractor, as they are doing in this case.
If the new workforce does not elect to be unionized, after the first
year, the JWOD nonprofit agency must pay a Department of Labor-
determined wage rate, which normally tracks prevailing union wages. In
this case, the new rate, while lower than the current union rate,
significantly exceeds the minimum wage.
Since the current contractor is graduating from the 8(a) Program
and is not eligible to perform the contract in the future, the
suggestion that it continue employing the existing workforce and hire
people with severe disabilities as vacancies occur is not possible. In
addition, people with severe disabilities have an unemployment rate
exceeding 65 percent, well above any other group. Accordingly, the
Committee believes that the guarantee of jobs for a large number of
people with severe disabilities outweighs the possible harm to the
displaced workers, who will be more likely to find other employment. In
addition, NISH has agreed to try and help interested displaced workers
find janitorial jobs by referring them to other nonprofit agencies in
the area that participate in the JWOD Program.
Many commenters urged that the displaced workers be relocated to
other jobs at the same Government facility or other Government
facilities. This approach, while laudatory, is outside the Committee's
jurisdiction.
The union representing the current workers, and other commenters,
urged the Committee to work with the union to avoid pitting union and
disabled workers against each other. Other commenters expressed fears
that the Committee's action will break the union, and stated that it
would be better to keep the contract unionized to maintain current wage
levels. Many commenters claimed that the JWOD nonprofit agency's
workers would be taken advantage of in the areas of wages and benefits
because they will not be union members.
The Committee has no objection to nonprofit agencies with JWOD
contracts being unionized, and some of them are union shops when the
workers have elected to be represented by unions. As indicated in a
previous paragraph, wages and benefit levels under the JWOD contract
will--if the workforce is not unionized after the first year--be lower
than those that have existed in the union shop, but consistent with
prevailing wages for comparable jobs in the area.
Two commenters claimed that the quality of service will decrease
once the JWOD nonprofit agency becomes the contractor. Another
commenter claimed that people with severe disabilities will injure
themselves or harm critical flight hardware at the facility as they
clean. The nonprofit agency is already successfully performing
janitorial work at several other Government agencies, and the
contracting activity has advised the Committee that it believes the
nonprofit agency is capable of performing the work involved. As a
consequence, the Committee has no reason to doubt that the nonprofit
agency will be able to perform the services in question successfully
and without injury to personnel or equipment.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning
capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide
[[Page 23432]]
the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent
contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below
is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C.
46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors
considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other
than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the
Government.
2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current
contractors for the service.
3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish
the service to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the
Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is hereby added to the
Procurement List:
Janitorial/Custodial, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
Maryland.
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the
effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under
those contracts.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-11135 Filed 4-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
