Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No.

89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26591

Information Technology Access and To use the PDF you must have the Electronic Access to This Document
Telecommunications Access and the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is You may view this document, as well
Disability and Business Technical available free at either of the preceding as all other Department of Education
Assistance Centers; and sites. If you have questions about using documents published in the Federal
• Collaborate with relevant Federal the PDF, call the U.S. Government Register, in text or Adobe Portable
agencies responsible for the Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
administration of public laws that 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, at either of the following sites:
address access to and usability of DC., area at (202) 512–1530.
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
electronic and information technology Note: The official version of document is http://www.ed.gov/news.html
for individuals with disabilities the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official To use the PDF you must have the
including, but not limited to, the
edition of the Federal Register and the Code Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
General Services Administration, the
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO available free at either of the previous
Access Board, the Federal
Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ sites. If you have questions about using
Communications Commission, the
index.html the PDF, call the U.S. Government
Rehabilitation Services Administration,
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
and other relevant Federal agencies Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 761a(g) and
762. 888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
identified by NIDRR.
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Proposed Additional Selection (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Note: The official version of this document
Number 84.133A, Disability and
Criterion is the document published in the Federal
Rehabilitation Research Projects)
Register. Free Internet access to the official
The Assistant Secretary will use the Dated: May 3, 2000. edition of the Federal Register and the Code
selection criteria in 34 CFR 350.54 to Judith E. Heumann, of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
evaluate applications under this Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/
program. The maximum score for all the Rehabilitative Services. index.html
criteria is 100 points; however, the [FR Doc. 00–11529 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
Assistant Secretary also proposes to use BILLING CODE 4000–01–U to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20
the following criterion so that up to an U.S.C. 107d–2(c)) (the Act), the
additional ten points may be earned by Secretary publishes in the Federal
an applicant for a total possible score of DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Register a synopsis of each arbitration
110 points: panel decision affecting the
Within this absolute priority, we will Arbitration Panel Decision Under the administration of vending facilities on
give the following competitive Randolph-Sheppard Act Federal and other property.
preference to applications that are
otherwise eligible for funding under this AGENCY: Department of Education. Background
priority: ACTION: Notice of arbitration panel This dispute concerns the alleged
Up to ten (10) points based on the decision under the Randolph-Sheppard violation by the U.S. Department of
extent to which an application includes Act. Defense, Department of the Air Force
effective strategies for employing and (Air Force), of the priority provisions of
advancing in employment qualified SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on the Act by the exclusion of the proposal
individuals with disabilities in projects November 16, 1998, an arbitration panel submitted by the Alabama Department
awarded under this absolute priority. In rendered a decision in the matter of of Rehabilitation Services, the State
determining the effectiveness of those Alabama Department of Rehabilitation licensing agency (SLA), from the
strategies, we will consider the Services v. U.S. Department of Defense, competitive range for a full food service
applicant’s success, as described in the Department of the Air Force (Docket No. contract at Maxwell Air Force Base,
application, in employing and R–S/97–4). This panel was convened by Gunter Annex, Alabama. A summary of
advancing in employment qualified the U.S. Department of Education the facts is as follows: On July 2, 1996,
individuals with disabilities in the pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d–1(b) upon the Air Force issued a request for
project. receipt of a complaint filed by proposal (RFP) for full food service at
For purposes of this competitive petitioner, the Alabama Department of Maxwell Air Force Base, Gunter Annex,
preference, applicants can be awarded Rehabilitation Services. Alabama. The SLA responded to the
up to a total of 10 points in addition to RFP as the State licensing agency
those awarded under the published FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A authorized to administer the Act in
selection criteria for this priority. That copy of the full text of the arbitration Alabama. In the SLA’s proposal, a blind
is, an applicant meeting this panel decision may be obtained from person was designated as the State’s
competitive preference could earn a George F. Arsnow, U.S. Department of licensee, and Food Service, Inc. was
maximum total of 110 points. Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., identified as a subcontractor to the SLA.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 room 3230, Mary E. Switzer Building, The RFP specified that the technical
CFR Parts 350 and 353. Washington DC 20202–2738. criteria of management, production,
Telephone: (202) 205–9317. If you use a quality control and safety would be
Electronic Access to This Document telecommunications device for the deaf used to evaluate the proposal. Following
You may view this document, as well (TDD), you may call the TDD number at the technical evaluation of the proposal
as all other Department of Education (202) 205–8298. by the Air Force, the SLA was informed
documents published in the Federal Individuals with disabilities may that its proposal was determined to be
Register, in text or Adobe Portable obtain this document in an alternate unacceptable under the management
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet format (e.g., Braille, large print, criteria. In excluding the SLA, the Air
at either of the following sites: audiotape, or computer diskette) on Force determined that the SLA’s
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm request to the contact person listed in proposal had three primary deficiencies:
http://www.ed.gov/news.html the preceding paragraph. (1) It failed to provide evidence of the

VerDate 27<APR>2000 18:15 May 05, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 08MYN1
26592 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

contractor’s full understanding of the have 3 years experience performing The views and opinions expressed by
requirement for maintaining the SIMS complete system back-ups including the panel do not necessarily represent
computer system for the food service daily back-ups, as well as 3 years the views and opinions of the U. S.
operation, in particular with regard to experience in trouble-shooting the Department of Education.
the contractor’s role in providing system. The offeror was required to Dated: May 1, 2000.
contractor personnel identifications and provide resumes and other evidence
Judith E. Heumann,
passwords. (2) The proposed SIMS that substantiated that its proposed
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Administrator did not have the level of SIMS Administrator satisfied this
Rehabilitative Services.
experience required by the solicitation. requirement. The record reflects that the
[FR Doc. 00–11345 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]
(3) The alternate SIMS Administrators SLA failed to do so.
did not have the experience required by The panel further found that, in order BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

the solicitation. to show that it was improperly excluded


In October 1996, the Air Force issued from the competitive range, the burden
four clarification/deficiency letters to of proof was on the SLA to show that DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
the SLA requesting that the SLA the determinations concerning the
respond to its concerns. In a letter dated unacceptability of its proposal were Federal Energy Regulatory
November 20, 1996, the Air Force unreasonable. The majority of the panel Commission
advised the SLA of its exclusion from concluded that the evidence failed to
the competitive range of the RFP. The meet this burden. Further, the record [Docket No. RP00–221–002]
letter referred to the three previously showed that the Air Force evaluators
stated reasons as the basis for the Air reasonably reached each determination CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice
Force’s decision. concerning the technical of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
The SLA received the November 20th unacceptability of the SLA’s proposal Tariff
letter from the Air Force on November and the Air Force Contracting Officer
22 and on November 27 filed a protest reasonably excluded the SLA’s proposal May 2, 2000.
against the Air Force with the U.S. from the final competitive range. Take notice that on April 27, 2000,
General Accounting Office (GAO). The Accordingly, the panel found that the CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG)
SLA then learned that the Air Force had Air Force’s evaluation of the SLA’s tendered for filing as part of its FERC
awarded a contract to a private proposal and decision to eliminate the Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No.
concessionaire on November 22, 1996. SLA from the competitive range were 1A, Substitute Second Revised Sheet
On November 29, the SLA filed a reasonable, rational, proper, and in No. 14 with an effective date of April 1,
supplemental protest with GAO alleging accordance with the requirements of the 2000.
that the Air Force had violated the solicitation. CNG states that the purpose of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation, which Concerning the second issue, filing is to comply with the
requires contracting officers to notify in regarding the alleged failure of the Air Commission’s April 18, 2000 letter
writing an unsuccessful offeror at the Force to conduct meaningful order in this proceeding correcting the
earliest practicable time that its discussions with the SLA, the majority classification of Line H–156 to
proposal is no longer in the competitive of the panel stated that, when transmission as required by the
range. conducting meaningful discussions, an Commission’s order issued in Docket
On December 2, 1996, the Air Force agency merely must direct or lead No. CP97–549–000.
filed a request for summary dismissal of offerors into areas of their proposals CNG states that copies of this letter of
the SLA’s protest with GAO. On needing amplification. An agency is not transmittal and enclosures are being
December 12, the SLA received obligated to give offerors all- served upon parties listed on the official
notification that its protest had been encompassing negotiations, nor is the service list.
dismissed. The SLA filed a request for agency required to rewrite an offeror’s Any person desiring to protest this
arbitration with the Secretary of proposal. The panel found that, in this filing should file a protest with the
Education concerning this dispute. A procurement, the Air Force on several Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Federal arbitration hearing on this occasions informed the SLA 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC
matter was held on June 16, 1998. representatives of the Air Force’s 20426, in accordance with Section
concerns with regard to the SLA’s SIMS 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and
Arbitration Panel Decision experience and its role in maintaining Regulations. All such protests must be
The central issues before the the system. filed as provided in Section 154.210 of
arbitration panel were: (1) Did the Air Regarding the third issue, concerning the Commission’s Regulations. Protests
Force reasonably and properly evaluate the alleged failure of the Air Force to will be considered by the Commission
the proposal submitted by the SLA? (2) treat all offerors fairly, the majority of in determining the appropriate action to
Did the Air Force comply with the legal the panel found that the record fully be taken, but will not serve to make
requirements to conduct meaningful supported the reasonableness of the Air protestants parties to the proceedings.
discussions with the SLA pursuant to Force’s evaluation of the SLA’s Copies of this filing are on file with the
the Act and implementing regulations? proposal. The panel further ruled that Commission and are available for public
(3) Did the Air Force comply with the there was no evidence of unequal or inspection in the Public Reference
legal requirement to treat all offerors unfair treatment. After fully considering Room. This filing may be viewed on the
equally? the record, the majority of the panel web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/
The majority of the panel ruled that ruled that the Air Force acted rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for
the record demonstrated that the Air reasonably, properly, and in accordance assistance).
Force technical evaluation team with the solicitation in evaluating and
evaluated the SLA’s proposal reasonably excluding the proposal submitted by the David P. Boergers,
and in accordance with the terms of the SLA. Therefore, the complaint was Secretary.
solicitation. The solicitation required denied. [FR Doc. 00–11359 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]
that the proposed SIMS Administrator One panel member dissented. BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

VerDate 27<APR>2000 18:15 May 05, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 08MYN1

Оценить