[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37660-37661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-18072]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 37661]]

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on December 26, 2000, an 
arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of California 
Department of Rehabilitation v. General Services Administration (Docket 
No. R-S/99-1). This panel was convened by the U.S. Department of 
Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b) upon receipt of a complaint 
filed by petitioner, the California Department of Rehabilitation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: A copy of the full text of the arbitration 
panel decision may be obtained from George F. Arsnow, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3230, Mary E. Switzer 
Building, Washington, DC 20202-2738. Telephone: (202) 205-9317. If you 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the 
TDD number at (202) 205-8298.
    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.

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: 
www.ed.gov/legislation/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: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 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 administration of vending facilities on Federal and other 
property.

Background

    This dispute concerns the alleged improper termination by the 
General Services Administration (GSA) of a vending permit held by the 
California Department of Rehabilitation, the State licensing agency 
(SLA), at the Roybal Building in Los Angeles, California, pursuant to 
the provisions of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.) and the implementing 
regulations in 34 CFR part 395.
    A summary of the facts is as follows: On August 3, 1993, the SLA 
and GSA entered into a permit agreement to establish a vending 
facility, including vending machines, at the Roybal Building, 255 East 
Temple Street, Los Angeles, California. The SLA assigned a permanent 
vendor to this location with the participation and approval of GSA.
    Initially the services provided at the Roybal building consisted 
primarily of vending machines, but in 1996 GSA remodeled its lobby area 
to construct a larger facility that provided customers with coffee and 
various other food items. After completing the remodeling of the 
vending facility, GSA cancelled the 1993 permit and issued a new permit 
to the SLA to operate the remodeled facility in the lobby. It was the 
position of GSA that the newer remodeled facility constituted a new 
facility that warranted the SLA to conduct a selection process for a 
vendor to manage the remodeled facility.
    Conversely, the SLA took the position that GSA had no right to 
cancel the 1993 vending permit and that the remodeled facility was not 
a new facility within the meaning of State rules and regulations that 
would provide for a new vendor selection process.
    The SLA alleged that the real issue focused on GSA's complaint that 
the vendor, who had been providing service prior to the remodeling of 
the vending facility, was considered by GSA to be unqualified and 
unacceptable to manage the remodeled vending facility. The SLA further 
alleged that GSA demanded that the SLA initiate a selection process for 
a new vendor to manage the remodeled vending facility only after the 
facility had been remodeled.
    Following the cancellation of the 1993 permit and the SLA's refusal 
to place another vendor at the facility, GSA awarded a contract to a 
private concessionaire to operate the Roybal vending facility.

Arbitration Panel Decision

    The panel, after considering all of the evidence, ruled that GSA 
violated the Act and implementing regulations. GSA had no authority to 
unilaterally cancel the vending permit agreement signed in 1993 between 
itself and the SLA, since there was no evidence of noncompliance by the 
SLA with its terms. GSA's issuance of a new permit in 1996 was simply 
an updated version of the original permit agreement between GSA and the 
SLA in 1993.
    The panel further stated that the new 1996 permit, which 
essentially upgraded the 1993 permit, obligated GSA to provide a 
vending facility at the Roybal Building to the SLA so that it could 
place a qualified blind vendor pursuant to the Act. Additionally, the 
SLA's original blind vendor had the right to continue to operate the 
relocated vending facility.
    The violations of the Act and the regulations by GSA caused both 
the SLA and the blind vendor to suffer damages. The damages to the SLA 
include loss of revenue generated from the blind vendor, which amounts 
to 6 percent of the net proceeds of the blind vendor. The SLA is also 
entitled to a fair market rental for its equipment during the time it 
was being used by GSA.
    Finally, the panel instructed GSA that it had 30 days from the date 
of the panel's decision to provide the SLA with evidence of the blind 
vendor's lack of qualifications to operate the Roybal Building vending 
facility; otherwise, GSA would be liable for damages to the blind 
vendor. The panel ruled that the damages would be the difference 
between what he had been able to earn and what the private 
concessionaire earned during the transition period when the SLA was not 
managing the Roybal Building vending facility, plus interest.
    The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily 
represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.

    Dated: July 16, 2001.
Francis V. Corrigan,
Deputy Director, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation 
Research.
[FR Doc. 01-18072 Filed 7-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U