Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 37928-37930 [E6-10397]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37928
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 127 / Monday, July 3, 2006 / Notices
least 30 percent must meet the
definition of ‘‘high academic risk for
failure.’’ Grantees selected to participate
in the evaluation would be required to
refrain from admitting new students
into their Upward Bound projects for
project year 2007–2008 until the
evaluator has completed its data
collection and random assignment for
those students. Eligible new students
will be assigned randomly by the
evaluator either to participate in
Upward Bound or to serve as part of a
control group (not in Upward Bound).
We will announce the final priority in
a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priority after
considering responses to this notice and
other information available to the
Department. This notice does not
preclude us from proposing or funding
additional priorities, subject to meeting
applicable requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use this proposed priority, we will invite
applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Priority
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Proposed Absolute Priority: Upward
Bound Program Participant Selection
This priority supports Upward Bound
Program projects that select first-time
participants from otherwise eligible
students who have completed the 8th
grade but not the 9th grade in secondary
school, and that select not less than 30
percent of all first-time participants
from students who have ‘‘high academic
risk for failure.’’
Otherwise eligible students deemed to
have ‘‘high academic risk for failure’’
are those who—
1. Have not achieved at the proficient
level on State assessments in reading/
language arts for grade eight;
2. Have not achieved at the proficient
level on State assessments in math for
grade eight; or
3. Have a grade point average of 2.5
or less (on a 4.0 scale) for the most
recent school year for which grade point
averages are available.
To meet this priority, an applicant
also must agree to conduct its Upward
Bound project in a manner consistent
with the evaluation that the Department
plans to conduct for the Upward Bound
Program. An applicant also must agree,
if selected to participate in the
evaluation, to—
1. Recruit at least twice as many
eligible new students in project year
2007–2008 as the grantee plans to serve
in its project. Of that larger pool of
eligible new students at least 30 percent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:12 Jun 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
must meet the definition of ‘‘high
academic risk for failure;’’
2. Refrain from admitting new
students into its Upward Bound project
for project year 2007–2008 until the
evaluator has completed its data
collection and random assignment for
those students; and
3. Agree that eligible new students
will be assigned randomly by the
evaluator either to participate in
Upward Bound or to serve as part of a
control group (not in Upward Bound).
This proposed absolute priority does
not apply to the Veterans Upward
Bound projects and Upward Bound
Math/Science projects.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priority has
been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms
of the order, we have assessed the
potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with
the notice of proposed priority are those
resulting from statutory requirements
and those we have determined are
necessary for administering this
program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and
benefits—both quantitative and
qualitative—of this notice of proposed
priority, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed priority justify
the costs.
We have also determined that this
action does not unduly interfere with
State, local, and tribal governments in
the exercise of their governmental
functions.
Intergovernmental Review
This Program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR part 645.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as all other documents of this
Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/
news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
at this site. If you have questions about
using 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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number 84.047A Upward Bound Program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13.
Dated: June 28, 2006.
James F. Manning,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary
Education.
[FR Doc. E6–10398 Filed 6–30–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Arbitration Panel Decision Under the
Randolph-Sheppard Act
Department of Education.
Notice of arbitration panel
decision under the Randolph-Sheppard
Act.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department gives notice
that on November 1, 2005, an arbitration
panel rendered a decision in the matter
of Billie Ruth Schlank v. District of
Columbia Department of Human
Services, Rehabilitation Services
Administration (Docket No. R–S/04–6).
This panel was convened by the U.S.
Department of Education, under 20
U.S.C. 107d–1(a), after the Department
received a complaint filed by the
complainant, Billie Ruth Schlank.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You
may obtain a copy of the full text of the
arbitration panel decision from Suzette
E. Haynes, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Room 5022, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202–2800.
Telephone: (202) 245–7374. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), you may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may
obtain this document in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the contact person listed in
the preceding paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard
Act (the Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d–2(c), the
Secretary publishes in the Federal
Register a synopsis of each arbitration
panel decision affecting the
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 127 / Monday, July 3, 2006 / Notices
administration of vending facilities on
Federal and other property.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Background
This dispute concerned alleged
violations of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et
seq.), the implementing regulations in
34 CFR part 395, and State rules and
regulations by the District of Columbia
Department of Human Services,
Rehabilitation Services Administration,
the State licensing agency (SLA),
regarding complainant’s bid to operate a
cafeteria at the National Imagery
Mapping Agency (NIMA) located at the
District of Columbia Navy Yard.
A summary of the facts is as follows:
Complainant is a licensed vendor in the
District of Columbia Department of
Human Services, Rehabilitation Services
Administration (DCRSA) RandolphSheppard vending facility program. In
February 2003, DCRSA entered into a
subcontracting agreement with the
Department of Defense, Department of
the Navy (Navy) and the State of
Maryland Business Enterprise Program
to operate three cafeterias, including a
new cafeteria at NIMA, which was to
take effect in March 2003. Subsequently,
DCRSA, in accordance with its transfer
and promotion policies, solicited bids
from interested blind vendors to manage
the NIMA cafeteria. The SLA’s
Promotion and Transfer Committee
(Committee) makes decisions about a
vendor’s eligibility to transfer to another
facility. Vendors receive points based on
their seniority and performance, and the
vendor with the highest number of
points is given the first opportunity to
transfer to a new facility.
In early 2003, the Committee
determined that complainant was the
second-ranked vendor who had
submitted a bid to manage the NIMA
cafeteria. However, soon thereafter, the
Committee ruled that the highest-ranked
vendor was ineligible and that
complainant should be selected for the
position.
Subsequently, complainant alleged
that, although she was the next eligible
vendor, the SLA refused to allow her to
read the terms of the NIMA cafeteria
contract or to visit the facility, both of
which are standard procedures when a
vendor is bidding on a new facility. On
May 14, 2003, complainant requested an
administrative review from DCRSA
concerning her dissatisfaction with not
being allowed to transfer to the NIMA
cafeteria as the next eligible vendor. The
SLA did not act on complainant’s
administrative review request. On May
16, 2003, complainant requested from
DCRSA a State fair hearing on this
matter.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:12 Jun 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
37929
Complainant alleged that DCRSA also
did not act on her request for a State fair
hearing. Consequently, in July 2003
complainant filed a request for a Federal
arbitration with the Secretary of
Education alleging DCRSA’s failure to
provide a State fair hearing to her
concerning her bid on the NIMA
cafeteria.
In the meantime, the Department of
Education, Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) corresponded
with the SLA requesting that
complainant be given a State fair
hearing. By letter dated September 10,
2003, the SLA informed RSA that a prehearing was scheduled for September
15, 2003, and a State fair hearing was
scheduled for September 18, 2003.
On October 28, 2003, a pre-hearing
was held by the SLA on complainant’s
request for a State fair hearing.
However, on December 15, 2003, the
SLA filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint with the District of
Columbia’s Office of Fair Hearings. The
hearing officer granted the SLA’s
Motion to Dismiss, thus canceling the
State fair hearing that was scheduled for
January 23, 2004. The SLA adopted the
hearing officer’s decision as final agency
action.
By letter dated March 22, 2004,
complainant informed the
Commissioner of RSA that the hearing
officer had dismissed her complaint and
that DCRSA had adopted the hearing
officer’s decision. Complainant
requested review by a Federal
arbitration panel of that decision. On
April 20, 2004, the Commissioner of
RSA issued a letter to complainant and
the SLA authorizing the convening of a
Federal arbitration panel. A hearing on
this matter was held on April 26 and
May 12, 2005.
decision to withdraw the vendor’s
assignment justified the Committee’s
failure to assign complainant as the next
eligible vendor.
Concerning the second issue
regarding the contractual arrangement
between DCRSA and the State of
Maryland to operate the NIMA cafeteria,
the majority of the panel concluded
that, since March 2003, DCRSA had
acted in a manner that could be
reasonably construed as entering into a
subcontracting partnership among the
State of Maryland’s Business Enterprise
Program, the teaming partner, and
DCRSA.
Specifically, the majority of the panel
found that DCRSA had been receiving
monthly payments of the vendor’s
salary from the teaming partner.
However, the panel found that DCRSA
had not used the money collected from
the NIMA cafeteria contract for any
services pertaining to the SLA’s
Randolph-Sheppard program in
violation of the Act and regulations.
Accordingly, the panel majority ruled
that the complainant was the next
eligible vendor and should have been
transferred to the NIMA cafeteria.
Additionally, the panel majority ruled
that complainant was entitled to back
pay at the rate of $3,750.00 per month
retroactive to March 2003 minus her
monthly set-aside fees. Thus, the
amount that the complainant should
receive is $2,925.00 per month from
March 2003 including interest at the
statutory rate as well as reasonable costs
of attorney fees.
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.
Arbitration Panel Decision
The issues heard by the panel were—
(1) whether DCRSA improperly refused
complainant the right to transfer to the
NIMA cafeteria, in violation of the Act
and implementing regulations, and (2)
whether DCRSA entered into a binding
and enforceable agreement with the
State of Maryland’s Randolph-Sheppard
Business Enterprise Program to
subcontract the NIMA cafeteria using a
teaming partner.
After reviewing all of the records and
hearing testimony of witnesses, the
panel majority ruled that the
complainant was entitled to be assigned
as the new vendor at the NIMA cafeteria
in March 2003. Moreover, the panel
majority found no evidence to support
the SLA’s contention that the highestranked vendor’s protest to the
Committee regarding the Committee’s
Electronic Access to This Document
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 the following site: https://www.ed.gov/
news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using 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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
37930
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 127 / Monday, July 3, 2006 / Notices
Dated: June 27, 2006.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E6–10397 Filed 6–30–06; 8:45 am]
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–10333 Filed 6–30–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–10332 Filed 6–30–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on July 11, 2006.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on July 6, 2006.
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 906–006]
[Docket No. EL06–52–001]
[Docket No. ER05–115–001]
June 26, 2006.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Duke Energy Oakland LLC; Notice of
Filing
New York Power Authority v.
Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc.; Notice of Filing
June 26, 2006.
Take notice that on May 2, 2006, Duke
Energy Oakland LLC filed a refund
report pursuant to the Commission’s
January 23, 2006 Order.
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).
Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. Such notices, motions, or
protests must be filed on or before the
comment date. Anyone filing a motion
to intervene or protest must serve a copy
of that document on the Applicant and
all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the
‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://www.ferc.gov.
Persons unable to file electronically
should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
This filing is accessible on-line at
https://www.ferc.gov, using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please e-mail
FERCOnlineSupport,ferc.gov, or call
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502–8659.
Take notice that on June 20, 2006,
Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc. filed a refund report pursuant
to the Commission’s Order issued on
April 12, 2006.
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).
Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. Such notices, motions, or
protests must be filed on or before the
comment date. Anyone filing a motion
to intervene or protest must serve a copy
of that document on the Applicant and
all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the
‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://www.ferc.gov.
Persons unable to file electronically
should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
This filing is accessible on-line at
https://www.ferc.gov, using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please e-mail
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502–8659.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:12 Jun 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Virginia Electric & Power Co.; Notice of
Application Tendered for Filing With
the Commission, Soliciting Additional
Study Requests, and Establishing
Procedural Schedule for Relicensing
and a Deadline for Submission of Final
Amendments
June 26, 2006.
Take notice that the following
hydroelectric application has been filed
with the Commission and is available
for public inspection.
a. Type of Application: New Major
License.
b. Project No: 906–006.
c. Date Filed: June 12, 2006.
d. Applicant: Virginia Electric and
Power Company, doing business as
Dominion Virginia Power.
e. Name of Project: Cushaw
Hydroelectric Project.
f. Location: On the James River in near
Glasgow, Virginia, in Bedford and
Amherst Counties, Virginia. The
project’s impoundment occupies 4.1
acres of United States Forest Service
lands.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power
Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r).
h. Applicant Contact: James
Thornton, Dominion Virginia Power,
5000 Dominion Boulevard, 1 NE, Glen
Allen, VA 23060 (804) 273–3257.
i. FERC Contact: Kristen Murphy,
(202) 502–6236 or
kristen.murphy@ferc.gov.
j. Cooperating Agencies: We are
asking Federal, state, local, and tribal
agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to cooperate with
us in the preparation of the
environmental document. Agencies who
would like to request cooperating status
should follow the instructions for filing
such requests described in item l below.
Cooperating agencies should note the
Commission’s policy that agencies that
cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document cannot also
intervene. See, 94 FERC 61,076 (2001).
k. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18
CFR of the Commission’s regulations, if
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 127 (Monday, July 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37928-37930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10397]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: The Department gives notice that on November 1, 2005, an
arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of Billie Ruth
Schlank v. District of Columbia Department of Human Services,
Rehabilitation Services Administration (Docket No. R-S/04-6). This
panel was convened by the U.S. Department of Education, under 20 U.S.C.
107d-1(a), after the Department received a complaint filed by the
complainant, Billie Ruth Schlank.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the full text
of the arbitration panel decision from Suzette E. Haynes, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5022, Potomac
Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7374. If
you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard
Act (the Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the
Federal Register a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision
affecting the
[[Page 37929]]
administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.
Background
This dispute concerned alleged violations of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107
et seq.), the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and State
rules and regulations by the District of Columbia Department of Human
Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration, the State licensing
agency (SLA), regarding complainant's bid to operate a cafeteria at the
National Imagery Mapping Agency (NIMA) located at the District of
Columbia Navy Yard.
A summary of the facts is as follows: Complainant is a licensed
vendor in the District of Columbia Department of Human Services,
Rehabilitation Services Administration (DCRSA) Randolph-Sheppard
vending facility program. In February 2003, DCRSA entered into a
subcontracting agreement with the Department of Defense, Department of
the Navy (Navy) and the State of Maryland Business Enterprise Program
to operate three cafeterias, including a new cafeteria at NIMA, which
was to take effect in March 2003. Subsequently, DCRSA, in accordance
with its transfer and promotion policies, solicited bids from
interested blind vendors to manage the NIMA cafeteria. The SLA's
Promotion and Transfer Committee (Committee) makes decisions about a
vendor's eligibility to transfer to another facility. Vendors receive
points based on their seniority and performance, and the vendor with
the highest number of points is given the first opportunity to transfer
to a new facility.
In early 2003, the Committee determined that complainant was the
second-ranked vendor who had submitted a bid to manage the NIMA
cafeteria. However, soon thereafter, the Committee ruled that the
highest-ranked vendor was ineligible and that complainant should be
selected for the position.
Subsequently, complainant alleged that, although she was the next
eligible vendor, the SLA refused to allow her to read the terms of the
NIMA cafeteria contract or to visit the facility, both of which are
standard procedures when a vendor is bidding on a new facility. On May
14, 2003, complainant requested an administrative review from DCRSA
concerning her dissatisfaction with not being allowed to transfer to
the NIMA cafeteria as the next eligible vendor. The SLA did not act on
complainant's administrative review request. On May 16, 2003,
complainant requested from DCRSA a State fair hearing on this matter.
Complainant alleged that DCRSA also did not act on her request for
a State fair hearing. Consequently, in July 2003 complainant filed a
request for a Federal arbitration with the Secretary of Education
alleging DCRSA's failure to provide a State fair hearing to her
concerning her bid on the NIMA cafeteria.
In the meantime, the Department of Education, Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) corresponded with the SLA requesting that
complainant be given a State fair hearing. By letter dated September
10, 2003, the SLA informed RSA that a pre-hearing was scheduled for
September 15, 2003, and a State fair hearing was scheduled for
September 18, 2003.
On October 28, 2003, a pre-hearing was held by the SLA on
complainant's request for a State fair hearing. However, on December
15, 2003, the SLA filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint with the
District of Columbia's Office of Fair Hearings. The hearing officer
granted the SLA's Motion to Dismiss, thus canceling the State fair
hearing that was scheduled for January 23, 2004. The SLA adopted the
hearing officer's decision as final agency action.
By letter dated March 22, 2004, complainant informed the
Commissioner of RSA that the hearing officer had dismissed her
complaint and that DCRSA had adopted the hearing officer's decision.
Complainant requested review by a Federal arbitration panel of that
decision. On April 20, 2004, the Commissioner of RSA issued a letter to
complainant and the SLA authorizing the convening of a Federal
arbitration panel. A hearing on this matter was held on April 26 and
May 12, 2005.
Arbitration Panel Decision
The issues heard by the panel were--(1) whether DCRSA improperly
refused complainant the right to transfer to the NIMA cafeteria, in
violation of the Act and implementing regulations, and (2) whether
DCRSA entered into a binding and enforceable agreement with the State
of Maryland's Randolph-Sheppard Business Enterprise Program to
subcontract the NIMA cafeteria using a teaming partner.
After reviewing all of the records and hearing testimony of
witnesses, the panel majority ruled that the complainant was entitled
to be assigned as the new vendor at the NIMA cafeteria in March 2003.
Moreover, the panel majority found no evidence to support the SLA's
contention that the highest-ranked vendor's protest to the Committee
regarding the Committee's decision to withdraw the vendor's assignment
justified the Committee's failure to assign complainant as the next
eligible vendor.
Concerning the second issue regarding the contractual arrangement
between DCRSA and the State of Maryland to operate the NIMA cafeteria,
the majority of the panel concluded that, since March 2003, DCRSA had
acted in a manner that could be reasonably construed as entering into a
subcontracting partnership among the State of Maryland's Business
Enterprise Program, the teaming partner, and DCRSA.
Specifically, the majority of the panel found that DCRSA had been
receiving monthly payments of the vendor's salary from the teaming
partner. However, the panel found that DCRSA had not used the money
collected from the NIMA cafeteria contract for any services pertaining
to the SLA's Randolph-Sheppard program in violation of the Act and
regulations.
Accordingly, the panel majority ruled that the complainant was the
next eligible vendor and should have been transferred to the NIMA
cafeteria. Additionally, the panel majority ruled that complainant was
entitled to back pay at the rate of $3,750.00 per month retroactive to
March 2003 minus her monthly set-aside fees. Thus, the amount that the
complainant should receive is $2,925.00 per month from March 2003
including interest at the statutory rate as well as reasonable costs of
attorney fees.
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.
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 the following site:
https://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using 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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/.
[[Page 37930]]
Dated: June 27, 2006.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E6-10397 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
