Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 18127-18128 [2017-07731]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 2017 / Notices
the difference between the percentage of
AI/AN students in grades three through
eight at or above the proficient level in
reading and mathematics on State
assessments and the percentage of all
students scoring at those levels; (5) the
percentage of AI/AN students who
graduate from high school as measured
by the four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate; and (6) the percentage
of funds used by grantees prior to award
close-out.
5. Integrity and Performance System:
If you receive an award under this grant
program that over the course of the
project period may exceed the
simplified acquisition threshold
(currently $150,000), under 2 CFR
200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment
about your integrity, business ethics,
and record of performance under
Federal awards—that is, the risk posed
by you as an applicant—before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider
any information about you that is in the
integrity and performance system
(currently referred to as the Federal
Awardee Performance and Integrity
Information System (FAPIIS)),
accessible through SAM. You may
review and comment on any
information about yourself that a
Federal agency previously entered and
that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of
your currently active grants, cooperative
agreements, and procurement contracts
from the Federal Government exceeds
$10,000,000, the reporting requirements
in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII,
require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually.
Please review the requirements in 2 CFR
part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant
plus all the other Federal funds you
receive exceed $10,000,000.
VI. Agency Contacts
For
questions about the Formula Grants
program, contact Bernard Garcia, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 3W115,
Washington, DC 20202–6335.
Telephone: (202) 260–1454 or by email:
Bernard.Garcia@ed.gov. For questions
about the EASIE application and
uploading documentation, contact the
EDFacts PSC, telephone: 877–457–3336
(877–HLP–EDEN) or by email at: eden_
OIE@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf or a text telephone,
call the EDFacts PSC, toll free, at 1–888–
403–3336 (888–403–EDEN).
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Apr 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
and a copy of the application package in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) by
contacting the EDFacts PSC listed under
Agency Contacts in section VI of this
notice.
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 other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register in text
or 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 12, 2017.
Monique M. Chism,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2017–07732 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 June
11, 2015, an arbitration panel (the
Panel) rendered a decision in the matter
of Maryland Department of Education v.
General Services Administration (Case
no. R–S/13–06).
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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18127
The Panel
was convened by the Department under
the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20
U.S.C. 107d–1(b), after receiving a
complaint from the Maryland State
Department of Education (MSDE), the
State Licensing Agency (SLA)
designated to administer the RandolphSheppard program in Maryland. Under
20 U.S.C. 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The complainant, MSDE, filed a
grievance against the respondent, the
General Services Administration (GSA),
challenging the award of a contract for
cafeteria service. The Panel decided the
case on motions for summary judgment.
The chair and one member sustained
the grievance, and one member
dissented.
The issue before the Panel was
whether GSA violated the Act when it
awarded the contract for operation of
cafeteria services to a bidder other than
the SLA and, if so, what was the
appropriate remedy.
MSDE argued that GSA violated the
Act by awarding a contract for cafeteria
service at the Social Security
Administration’s cafeteria in Baltimore,
Maryland, to a private entity without
establishing a competitive range to carry
out the Act’s requirement that priority
be given to blind vendors. The SLA had
submitted a proposal in partnership
with a blind vendor.
GSA took the position that it was not
required to establish a competitive range
and that the SLA had confused the
requirements of the solicitation, the
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR),
and the Act. Specifically, GSA argued
that, while the FAR requires a
competitive range only if discussions
are held, the solicitation provided that
GSA could make an award without
discussion. GSA further argued that
when there is a single offer that clearly
exceeds all others and merits direct
award, it can make an award to that
offeror without creating a competitive
range.
Synopsis of the Panel Decision
At the MSDE’s request, the Panel was
convened on June 11, 2015. The Panel
concluded that GSA violated the Act by
failing to establish a competitive range.
The Panel recognized that Congress
established the Act’s priority
requirement to enhance economic
opportunity for the blind. When a
Federal agency solicits services, it is
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
18128
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 2017 / Notices
required to invite the SLA to bid on the
contract. If the SLA’s proposal falls
within the competitive range and has
been ranked among those with a
reasonable chance of being selected, a
Federal agency must give priority to the
SLA’s proposal.
GSA acknowledged that a competitive
range was not established and that it
awarded the contract based on its
determination that the private
company’s proposal merited a direct
award, but the failure to create a
competitive range constituted a
violation of the Act. (Southfork Sys. v.
United States, 141 F. 3d 1124 (Fed. Cir.
1998); Kentucky v. United States, 2014
WL 7375566 (W.D. Ky. Dec.29, 2014).
Having found that GSA violated the
Act, the Panel next considered the issue
of remedy. The Panel recognized that,
while it had no authority to impose a
specific remedy, the Act requires the
head of the agency, subject to appeal, to
take such action as may be necessary to
carry out the Panel’s decision.
The Panel recommended that GSA
give (1) notice of the Panel’s decision to
the current contractor and (2) notice that
the contract would terminate within a
specified period. The Panel also
recommended that GSA enter into direct
negotiations with the SLA. If the GSA
declined to enter into such negotiations,
the Panel recommended that GSA issue
a new solicitation, with a competitive
range.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Apr 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
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. 2017–07731 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
March 17, 2011, an arbitration panel
(the Panel) rendered a decision in
Bernard Werwie, Jr. v. Pennsylvania
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation
(Case no. R–S/07–16).
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 the complainant,
Bernard Werwie, Jr., a licensed blind
operator of a vending facility in Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania. 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.
SUMMARY:
Background
The complainant, Bernard Werwie,
Jr., was a licensed blind operator of a
vending facility in Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania. His dispute with the
respondent, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania’s Office of Vocational
Rehabilitation (PA OVR), arose out of
the termination of his participation in
the Business Enterprises Program by the
PA OVR effective December 31, 2006.
Pursuant to the Act, Mr. Werwie
sought a hearing of his claims against
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the PA OVR. On July 7, 2008, a hearing
officer dismissed his appeal and denied
his request for damages and attorney’s
fees. The PA OVR adopted the hearing
officer’s decision as its final agency
action.
Mr. Werwie then requested the
convening of the Panel. The Panel chair
moved to schedule a hearing for that
summer. There were no acceptable
hearing dates available in the summer,
so the Panel chair circulated a list of
proposed dates in late 2009.
The hearing was not held in 2009
because, in July, Mr. Werwie discharged
the attorneys he had engaged to handle
the case. The Panel granted him until
January 2010 to find new counsel.
Despite being granted an extension to
name a new representative by January of
2010, Mr. Werwie did not respond until
February 25. In his response, he
indicated that he was still looking for
new counsel and asked that the case be
held in abeyance until September 2010
or until further notice. The PA OVR
objected to this request for delay, and,
on March 29, 2010, the Panel gave Mr.
Werwie until May 3, 2010, to find new
counsel.
Mr. Werwie never responded with the
name of a new representative as
requested by that deadline. Accordingly,
the Panel chair informed him that, if he
intended to proceed with his case
against the PA OVR, he had to respond
by June 10, 2010.
On July 1, 2010, the PA OVR filed a
motion to dismiss Mr. Werwie’s claims
for failure to prosecute. Counsel for the
PA OVR served Mr. Werwie a copy of
this motion and supporting brief by
sending them by First Class Mail to his
Fredericksburg, Virginia, address.
On July 18, 2010, the RSA informed
the Panel chair of an email received
from Mr. Werwie asking about the status
of his case. In it, he alleged that he had
heard nothing about the case since early
March. This message was from email
and postal mail addresses different from
those he had used in his prior
correspondence. The New Cumberland,
Pennsylvania, address that he listed in
his July 18 communication was
identified as his father’s address.
The Panel responded to Mr. Werwie
on August 9, 2010. It asked him for
confirmation that he was ready to
proceed with the case and instructed
him to inform it of the name and contact
information of his new counsel on or
before August 29, 2010. The Panel
indicated that, if it could not schedule
a hearing, it would then proceed with
the PA OVR’s motion to dismiss the
complaint.
On August 18, Mr. Werwie notified
the Panel that his representatives were
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 72 (Monday, April 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18127-18128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07731]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
June 11, 2015, an arbitration panel (the Panel) rendered a decision in
the matter of Maryland Department of Education v. General Services
Administration (Case no. R-S/13-06).
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(b), after
receiving a complaint from the Maryland State Department of Education
(MSDE), the State Licensing Agency (SLA) designated to administer the
Randolph-Sheppard program in Maryland. Under 20 U.S.C. 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, MSDE, filed a grievance against the respondent,
the General Services Administration (GSA), challenging the award of a
contract for cafeteria service. The Panel decided the case on motions
for summary judgment. The chair and one member sustained the grievance,
and one member dissented.
The issue before the Panel was whether GSA violated the Act when it
awarded the contract for operation of cafeteria services to a bidder
other than the SLA and, if so, what was the appropriate remedy.
MSDE argued that GSA violated the Act by awarding a contract for
cafeteria service at the Social Security Administration's cafeteria in
Baltimore, Maryland, to a private entity without establishing a
competitive range to carry out the Act's requirement that priority be
given to blind vendors. The SLA had submitted a proposal in partnership
with a blind vendor.
GSA took the position that it was not required to establish a
competitive range and that the SLA had confused the requirements of the
solicitation, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and the Act.
Specifically, GSA argued that, while the FAR requires a competitive
range only if discussions are held, the solicitation provided that GSA
could make an award without discussion. GSA further argued that when
there is a single offer that clearly exceeds all others and merits
direct award, it can make an award to that offeror without creating a
competitive range.
Synopsis of the Panel Decision
At the MSDE's request, the Panel was convened on June 11, 2015. The
Panel concluded that GSA violated the Act by failing to establish a
competitive range. The Panel recognized that Congress established the
Act's priority requirement to enhance economic opportunity for the
blind. When a Federal agency solicits services, it is
[[Page 18128]]
required to invite the SLA to bid on the contract. If the SLA's
proposal falls within the competitive range and has been ranked among
those with a reasonable chance of being selected, a Federal agency must
give priority to the SLA's proposal.
GSA acknowledged that a competitive range was not established and
that it awarded the contract based on its determination that the
private company's proposal merited a direct award, but the failure to
create a competitive range constituted a violation of the Act.
(Southfork Sys. v. United States, 141 F. 3d 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
Kentucky v. United States, 2014 WL 7375566 (W.D. Ky. Dec.29, 2014).
Having found that GSA violated the Act, the Panel next considered
the issue of remedy. The Panel recognized that, while it had no
authority to impose a specific remedy, the Act requires the head of the
agency, subject to appeal, to take such action as may be necessary to
carry out the Panel's decision.
The Panel recommended that GSA give (1) notice of the Panel's
decision to the current contractor and (2) notice that the contract
would terminate within a specified period. The Panel also recommended
that GSA enter into direct negotiations with the SLA. If the GSA
declined to enter into such negotiations, the Panel recommended that
GSA issue a new solicitation, with a competitive range.
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. 2017-07731 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
