[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)] [Notices] [Pages 23430-23432] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 97-11135] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Addition AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Addition to the Procurement List. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List a service to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1997. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 7, 1997, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (62 F.R. 10519) of proposed addition to the Procurement List. Comments were received from two Government agencies, three minority business associations, one small business owner, a labor union, two political organizations, 133 employees of the Government facility where the service will be performed, two contractors at that facility, an employee of the current janitorial contractor, and one other individual. All commenters opposed the addition of this service to the Procurement List. This service is currently being performed by a small disadvantaged business which is graduating from the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Program. The two commenting Government agencies claimed that removal of the service from the 8(a) Program would cause severe adverse impact on the Program's ability to provide business development opportunities for small disadvantaged businesses, both nationally and at the Government agency where the service is being performed. Another commenter claimed that the 8(a) Program cannot [[Page 23431]] meet its goals if the Committee's Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Program continues to remove services from the 8(a) Program, and that the Committee's practice of adding these services when a specific 8(a) contractor graduates from the 8(a) Program ignores the legislative intent of the Small Business Act and the responsibility of Government agencies to support the 8(a) Program. Other commenters declared that Congress did not intend for the JWOD and 8(a) Programs to compete, and that 8(a) contracts should remain in that Program. The 8(a) Program's share of Government contracting dollars is approximately ten times the size of the JWOD Program's share. Consequently, the Committee does not believe that adding this service to the Procurement List, will have a severe adverse impact on the 8(a) Program, even if the limited number of other 8(a) services which have been added to the Procurement List are taken into account. Similarly, the Government agency where the service is being performed has an extremely successful 8(a) Program of which the contract for this service represents a minute portion. As a result, the Committee does not believe that adding this service to the JWOD Program will have a substantial negative impact on the agency's overall 8(a) Program. The Committee's priority over small business setaside programs has long been established, and the Committee believes its policy of only adding 8(a) services to the Procurement List when a contractor graduates from the 8(a) Program shows that the Committee attempts to minimize its impact on small disadvantaged businesses who have performed the services and still remain in the 8(a) Program. Because JWOD nonprofit agencies are normally in the same size range as small disadvantaged businesses and can perform the same types of work, it is inevitable that there will be some overlap between them. The Committee does not know of any legislative intent that they not compete or that the JWOD Program be limited in carrying out its statutory mission to services which have not previously been performed by 8(a) contractors. One commenter, a trade association representing 8(a) companies, stated that all Government contracts should be available to competition and that the JWOD Act should be amended to limit Government awards to JWOD nonprofit agencies to amounts below a specific dollar ceiling. These proposals, which would necessitate changes to the 8(a) Program as well, would require legislative action and are thus outside the scope of the Committee's decision on this addition to the Procurement List. The same commenter suggested that 8(a) contractors should be permitted to subcontract with JWOD nonprofit agencies so that both 8(a) and JWOD entities would benefit from the same Government contracts. The Committee explored this approach with representatives of the Government contracting activity, which raised the issue too late for the proposal to be given the thorough consideration the Committee deemed necessary. The Committee does intend to consider in the coming months whether the proposed approach warrants in-depth examination for possible future use. Many commenters noted that a large number of janitorial employees at the Government facility would be displaced by the Committee's action, despite, in some cases, long years of excellent service. One commenter claimed that if any current employees were hired by the JWOD nonprofit agency, they would take a substantial pay cut. Two commenters asked whether the Committee would provide for the displaced workers. Another commenter suggested that people with disabilities be hired by the current 8(a) contractor as vacancies occur rather than displacing the current workers. The Committee is sensitive to the issue of displacing longstanding workers at janitorial projects, and permits nonprofit agencies performing JWOD contracts to accommodate such workers on a transitional basis as much as possible consistent with its statutory requirement that the majority of workers on JWOD contracts be people with severe disabilities. JWOD nonprofit agencies, like all Government service contractors, are required to maintain the union wage for the first year after they succeed a union contractor, as they are doing in this case. If the new workforce does not elect to be unionized, after the first year, the JWOD nonprofit agency must pay a Department of Labor- determined wage rate, which normally tracks prevailing union wages. In this case, the new rate, while lower than the current union rate, significantly exceeds the minimum wage. Since the current contractor is graduating from the 8(a) Program and is not eligible to perform the contract in the future, the suggestion that it continue employing the existing workforce and hire people with severe disabilities as vacancies occur is not possible. In addition, people with severe disabilities have an unemployment rate exceeding 65 percent, well above any other group. Accordingly, the Committee believes that the guarantee of jobs for a large number of people with severe disabilities outweighs the possible harm to the displaced workers, who will be more likely to find other employment. In addition, NISH has agreed to try and help interested displaced workers find janitorial jobs by referring them to other nonprofit agencies in the area that participate in the JWOD Program. Many commenters urged that the displaced workers be relocated to other jobs at the same Government facility or other Government facilities. This approach, while laudatory, is outside the Committee's jurisdiction. The union representing the current workers, and other commenters, urged the Committee to work with the union to avoid pitting union and disabled workers against each other. Other commenters expressed fears that the Committee's action will break the union, and stated that it would be better to keep the contract unionized to maintain current wage levels. Many commenters claimed that the JWOD nonprofit agency's workers would be taken advantage of in the areas of wages and benefits because they will not be union members. The Committee has no objection to nonprofit agencies with JWOD contracts being unionized, and some of them are union shops when the workers have elected to be represented by unions. As indicated in a previous paragraph, wages and benefit levels under the JWOD contract will--if the workforce is not unionized after the first year--be lower than those that have existed in the union shop, but consistent with prevailing wages for comparable jobs in the area. Two commenters claimed that the quality of service will decrease once the JWOD nonprofit agency becomes the contractor. Another commenter claimed that people with severe disabilities will injure themselves or harm critical flight hardware at the facility as they clean. The nonprofit agency is already successfully performing janitorial work at several other Government agencies, and the contracting activity has advised the Committee that it believes the nonprofit agency is capable of performing the work involved. As a consequence, the Committee has no reason to doubt that the nonprofit agency will be able to perform the services in question successfully and without injury to personnel or equipment. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide [[Page 23432]] the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the Government. 2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the service. 3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government. 4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46- 48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Accordingly, the following service is hereby added to the Procurement List: Janitorial/Custodial, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts. Beverly L. Milkman, Executive Director. [FR Doc. 97-11135 Filed 4-29-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P