[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32030-32031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15063]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of arbitration panel decision under the Randolph-
Sheppard Act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 1998, an arbitration
panel rendered a decision in the matter of Louisiana Department of
Social Services, Rehabilitation Services v. U.S. Department of Defense,
Department of the Air Force (Case No. R-S/97-3. This panel was convened
by the U. S. Department of Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b),
upon receipt of a complaint filed by petitioner, Louisiana Department
of Social Services, Rehabilitation Services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: A copy of the full text of the arbitration
panel decision may be obtained from George F. Arsnow, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3230, Mary E. Switzer
Building, Washington D.C. 20202-2738. Telephone: (202) 205-9317.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may
call the TDD number at (202) 205-8298.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC,
area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20
U.S.C. 107d-2(c)), the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a
synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the
administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.
Background
This dispute concerns the alleged failure of the United States
Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force (Air Force) to renew
an expiring food service contract with the Louisiana Department of
Social Services, Rehabilitation Services, the State licensing agency
(SLA).
The Air Force operates Barksdale Air Force Base (Barksdale) in
Louisiana. On March 29, 1994, the Air Force awarded a food service
attendant services contract to the SLA. The contract was awarded on a
non-competitive basis pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C.
107 et seq.) The contract was for a six-month period with two one-year
options. A blind licensee was chosen to manage the facility.
By memorandum dated July 8, 1996 the Air Force proposed ``to offer
the reprocurement solicitation'' for the food service attendant
services contract to the SLA as a non-competitive acquisition. The
period for this reprocurement was from October 1, 1996 through
September 30, 1997 with four one-year options. However, on August 23,
1996, the Contracting Officer for the Air Force sent the blind licensee
a memorandum stating that the Air Force viewed the priority provisions
of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act) as not being applicable to the
contract. The Air Force further stated that the solicitation for the
contract would be issued as a competitive acquisition set-aside for
small businesses.
Thereafter, the SLA's current contract was extended for an
additional six-month period until March 31, 1997 to allow a
solicitation for the contract to be issued on a competitive basis, with
a set-aside for small businesses. The SLA filed a protest of this
action with the Air Force. The Air Force rejected the protest by
memorandum dated September 24, 1996. The Air Force's objection stated
in part that the contract merely supported the Air Force's operation of
the dining facility. The Air Force concluded that the operation of the
dining hall resided with the Air Force. The Air Force's position was
that the Randolph-
[[Page 32031]]
Sheppard Act did not apply to food service mess attendant services.
Specifically, the Air Force said that individual tasks such as mess
attendant, janitorial services, or grounds maintenance that support the
Air Force's operation of a dining facility are not covered by the
Randolph-Sheppard Act.
On October 4, 1996, the SLA lodged a protest with the General
Accounting Office. The Air Force responded to this protest on October
9, 1996 seeking its dismissal. The General Accounting Office dismissed
the protest on the basis that the appropriate method for resolution of
the SLA's dispute was through the arbitration process pursuant to
section 107d-2 of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and its implementing
regulations in 34 CFR part 395.
Subsequently, the SLA requested that a Federal arbitration panel be
convened to hear this dispute. A hearing of this matter was held on
December 17, 1997.
Arbitration Panel Decision
The issue before the arbitration panel was whether the contract for
the food service attendant services at Barksdale represented a contract
for the operation of a cafeteria pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act
and implementing regulations.
The arbitration panel ruled in a majority opinion that the contract
was not for the operation of a cafeteria. Referencing the language in
the priority section of the Act, and applying a plain meaning approach
to the word ``operation,'' the arbitration panel reasoned that the
issue should be based on a determination of who controls food cost and
food quality. The panel determined that this must be done on a case-by-
case basis. Therefore, after careful and detailed comparison of the
responsibilities of the blind licensee and of the Air Force, the panel
concluded that the Air Force was operator of the cafeteria at Barksdale
and that the priority provisions under the Act did not apply.
One panel member dissented.
The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily
represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.
Dated: June 9, 1999.
Curtis L. Richards,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 99-15063 Filed 6-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
