[Federal Register: July 19, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 139)]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of arbitration panel decision under the Randolph-
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
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:
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://
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
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
[FR Doc. 01-18072 Filed 7-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U