Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 18130-18131 [2017-07730]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
18130
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 2017 / Notices
its claim that the 5 percent competitive
range on its face violated the Act
because the CO DHS failed to protest the
competitive range at the time the Air
Force issued the solicitation. The Air
Force had the discretion to set a
competitive range at this level.
The Panel also held that the CO DHS
waived its claim that the 5 percent
limitation was a limitation on the
operation of a vending facility because
it failed to raise it at the time the Air
Force issued the solicitation.
The Panel further held that the Joint
Report was not effective because
regulations implementing that report
had never been promulgated and the 5
percent competitive range set by the Air
Force was not based on the Joint Report.
The Panel held that, instead, the
competitive range was the product of
the Air Force’s need to keep down its
costs and emphasize the importance of
price to bidders.
In addition, the Panel held that the
Air Force was not required to conduct
discussions with the CO DHS because
the Act permits, but does not require,
such discussions. In addition, the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
does not require discussions with
bidders. The Panel held that, even if the
FAR did require discussions, a violation
of the FAR cannot be the subject of
arbitration under the Act.
The Panel held that such a claim did
not involve an alleged violation of the
Act and, therefore, could not be brought
in arbitration. The Panel also
determined that the claim that the Air
Force misled the CO DHS into thinking
it had the lowest bid did not involve an
alleged violation of the Act and,
therefore, could not be brought in
arbitration. Under the facts of this case,
the Panel determined that the CO DHS
could not reasonably claim prejudice
because of an allegedly misleading
statement by the Air Force.
The Panel concluded, with one
member dissenting, that the Air Force
violated the Act’s regulations when it
failed to consult with the Secretary of
Education during this solicitation. Even
though the Air Force determined that
the CO DHS’s bid was not within the 5
percent competitive range, the Panel
held that 34 CFR 395.33(a) required the
Air Force to consult with the Secretary
of Education in order to determine
whether the blind vendor was entitled
to a priority in the solicitation pursuant
to that regulatory provision. The Panel
directed that, if the Secretary of
Education determines after consultation
with the Air Force that the CO DHS
should be afforded a priority pursuant
to 34 CFR 395.33(a), the Air Force will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Apr 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
be required to initiate a new acquisition
in compliance with 34 CFR 395.33.
Electronic Access to This Document:
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 via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: April 11, 2017.
Ruth E. Ryder,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education
Programs, delegated the duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2017–07728 Filed 4–14–17; 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 decision.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Education
(Department) gives notice that, on
October 7, 2012, an arbitration panel
(the Panel) rendered a decision in
Rutherford Beard v. the Michigan
Commission for the Blind (Case no. R–
S/09–01).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You
may obtain a copy of the full text of the
Panel decision from Donald Brinson,
U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5045,
Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC
20202–2800. Telephone: (202) 245–
7310. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf or a text telephone,
call the Federal Relay Service, toll-free,
at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible
format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request
to the contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel
was convened by the Department under
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20
U.S.C. 107d–1(a), after receiving a
complaint from Rutherford Beard, a
licensed blind operator of a vending
facility at the Joint Forces Training
Center. Under section 107d–2(c) of the
Act, the Secretary publishes in the
Federal Register a synopsis of each
Panel decision affecting the
administration of vending facilities on
Federal and other property.
Background
The complainant, Rutherford Beard, is
a food vendor in the respondent’s, the
Michigan Commission for the Blind’s
(Commission), business enterprise
program (BEP). On May 1, 2008, Mr.
Beard signed a vending facility
agreement to operate a cafeteria at the
Joint Forces Training Center. He was
provided with initial inventory and
equipment, and the cafeteria began to
sell food. This facility was projected to
generate $150,000 in annual sales with
an 11 percent profit. The facility did not
generate the expected sales and
ultimately Mr. Beard had to lay off two
employees. As a result, his staff was
reduced to himself and a part-time
employee.
Because the facility was not
generating any profit, Mr. Beard asked
for a profit percentage exception after
six months. He explained that, if a
vendor does not meet the expected
profit margin and does not get an
exception, he is not eligible to bid on a
different facility. Mr. Beard testified that
he ‘‘tried everything,’’ including
opening on some weekends and opening
for breakfast, but he did not generate a
profit. After Mr. Beard attempted to
transfer to another location, the
Commission informed him that he had
to remain for at least a year according
to the BEP rules. The cafeteria was then
closed.
In his appeal, Mr. Beard claimed that
he did not get sufficient help from the
BEP and was not allowed to transfer out
after six months. He also asserted that
there were vending machines in
different buildings on the same grounds
that could have been awarded to him to
lessen the adverse financial effect of the
lack of business. That solution was also
denied. Mr. Beard also contended that
because the initial projection for sales at
this cafeteria was miscalculated, and
because he was not allowed to transfer
after six months, the Commission
should reimburse him for his losses.
In response, the Commission asserted
that, under its rules, there is no
guarantee that a vendor will make a
profit. It also pointed out that Mr. Beard
did not exercise the procedural rights
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 2017 / Notices
granted by the Act and the
Commission’s rules.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Summary of Panel Decision
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
At Mr. Beard’s request, the Panel was
convened on October 7, 2012. The Panel
concluded that the Commission did not
have the authority to grant Mr. Beard’s
requested relief. One Panel member
asserted that section 107b(3) of the Act
authorizes the Commission to provide
licensed vendors with a fair minimum
return when circumstances warrant it.
Another Panel member indicated that
this section is not mandatory language
and that the Commission’s rules do not
provide for remuneration. The Panel
chair stated that the Commission ought
to adopt a rule to provide some
remuneration for situations like this.
However, absent any rule in place, the
Panel decided that there was
insufficient justification for any
remuneration and, therefore,
remuneration was not appropriate in
this case.
The views and opinions expressed by
the Panel do not necessarily represent
the views and opinions of the
Department.
Electronic Access to This Document:
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 via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: April 11, 2017.
Ruth E. Ryder,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education
Programs, delegated the duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2017–07730 Filed 4–14–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
II. Program Authority and Eligibility
Information
Application Deadline for Fiscal Year
2017; Small, Rural School
Achievement Program
Under what statutory authority will FY
2017 SRSA grant awards be made?
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Under the Small, Rural
School Achievement (SRSA) program,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) number 84.358A, the U.S.
Department of Education (Department)
awards grants on a formula basis to
eligible local educational agencies
(LEAs) to address the unique needs of
rural school districts. In this notice, we
establish the deadline and describe the
submission procedures for fiscal year
(FY) 2017 SRSA grant applications.
All LEAs eligible for FY 2017 SRSA
funds must submit an application
electronically via Grants.gov by the
deadline in this notice.
DATES:
Applications Available: May 1, 2017.
Application Deadline: June 30, 2017
by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Eric Schulz, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 3E–210, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 260–7349 or by email:
reap@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf or a text telephone,
call the Federal Relay Service, toll free,
at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Award Information
Type of Award: Formula grant.
Estimated Available Funds: The
Further Continuing and Security
Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017,
would provide, on an annualized basis,
$87,752,864 for this program. The actual
level of funding, if any, depends on
final congressional action. However, we
are inviting applications to allow
enough time to complete the grant
process if Congress appropriates funds
for this program.
Estimated Range of Awards: $0–
$60,000.
Note: Depending on the number of eligible
LEAs identified in a given year and the
amount appropriated by Congress for the
program, some eligible LEAs may receive an
SRSA allocation of $0 under the statutory
funding formula.
Estimated Number of Awards: 4,300.
Note: The Department is not bound by any
estimates in this notice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Apr 14, 2017
18131
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The FY 2017 SRSA grant awards will
be made under the statutory authority in
title V, part B, subpart 1 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
(Pub. Law 114–95).
Which LEAs are eligible for an award
under the SRSA program?
For FY 2017, an LEA (including a
public charter school that is considered
an LEA under State law) is eligible for
an award under the SRSA program if it
meets one of the following criteria:
(a)(1) The total number of students in
average daily attendance at all of the
schools served by the LEA is fewer than
600; or each county in which a school
served by the LEA is located has a total
population density of fewer than 10
persons per square mile; and
(2) All of the schools served by the
LEA are designated with a school locale
code of 41, 42, or 43 by the
Department’s National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES); or the
Secretary has determined, based on a
demonstration by the LEA and
concurrence of the State educational
agency, that the LEA is located in an
area defined as rural by a governmental
agency of the State.
(b) The LEA is a member of an
educational service agency (ESA) that
does not receive SRSA funds, and the
LEA meets the eligibility requirements
described in (a)(1) and (2) above.
(c) The LEA meets the requirements
for a hold harmless award as described
in section 5212(b)(4) of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA. These are LEAs
that are no longer eligible for the SRSA
program because of amendments made
under the ESSA to the locale code
designations referenced in section
5211(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA. However, these
LEAs may receive a FY 2017 award at
a reduced rate as described in section
5212(b)(4) of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA.
Note: A new ‘‘Choice of Participation’’
provision under section 5225 of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, gives LEAs eligible
for both SRSA and the Rural and LowIncome School (RLIS) program authorized
under title V, part B, subpart 2 of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA, the option to
participate in either the SRSA program or the
RLIS program. LEAs eligible for both SRSA
and RLIS are referred to as ‘‘dual-eligible
LEAs’’.
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 72 (Monday, April 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18130-18131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07730]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of arbitration decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that, on
October 7, 2012, an arbitration panel (the Panel) rendered a decision
in Rutherford Beard v. the Michigan Commission for the Blind (Case no.
R-S/09-01).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the full text
of the Panel decision from Donald Brinson, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5045, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7310. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the
Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact
disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel was convened by the Department
under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(a), after
receiving a complaint from Rutherford Beard, a licensed blind operator
of a vending facility at the Joint Forces Training Center. Under
section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal
Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration
of vending facilities on Federal and other property.
Background
The complainant, Rutherford Beard, is a food vendor in the
respondent's, the Michigan Commission for the Blind's (Commission),
business enterprise program (BEP). On May 1, 2008, Mr. Beard signed a
vending facility agreement to operate a cafeteria at the Joint Forces
Training Center. He was provided with initial inventory and equipment,
and the cafeteria began to sell food. This facility was projected to
generate $150,000 in annual sales with an 11 percent profit. The
facility did not generate the expected sales and ultimately Mr. Beard
had to lay off two employees. As a result, his staff was reduced to
himself and a part-time employee.
Because the facility was not generating any profit, Mr. Beard asked
for a profit percentage exception after six months. He explained that,
if a vendor does not meet the expected profit margin and does not get
an exception, he is not eligible to bid on a different facility. Mr.
Beard testified that he ``tried everything,'' including opening on some
weekends and opening for breakfast, but he did not generate a profit.
After Mr. Beard attempted to transfer to another location, the
Commission informed him that he had to remain for at least a year
according to the BEP rules. The cafeteria was then closed.
In his appeal, Mr. Beard claimed that he did not get sufficient
help from the BEP and was not allowed to transfer out after six months.
He also asserted that there were vending machines in different
buildings on the same grounds that could have been awarded to him to
lessen the adverse financial effect of the lack of business. That
solution was also denied. Mr. Beard also contended that because the
initial projection for sales at this cafeteria was miscalculated, and
because he was not allowed to transfer after six months, the Commission
should reimburse him for his losses.
In response, the Commission asserted that, under its rules, there
is no guarantee that a vendor will make a profit. It also pointed out
that Mr. Beard did not exercise the procedural rights
[[Page 18131]]
granted by the Act and the Commission's rules.
Summary of Panel Decision
At Mr. Beard's request, the Panel was convened on October 7, 2012.
The Panel concluded that the Commission did not have the authority to
grant Mr. Beard's requested relief. One Panel member asserted that
section 107b(3) of the Act authorizes the Commission to provide
licensed vendors with a fair minimum return when circumstances warrant
it. Another Panel member indicated that this section is not mandatory
language and that the Commission's rules do not provide for
remuneration. The Panel chair stated that the Commission ought to adopt
a rule to provide some remuneration for situations like this. However,
absent any rule in place, the Panel decided that there was insufficient
justification for any remuneration and, therefore, remuneration was not
appropriate in this case.
The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily
represent the views and opinions of the Department.
Electronic Access to This Document: 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 via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you
must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: April 11, 2017.
Ruth E. Ryder,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the
duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2017-07730 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P