26592 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

contractor’s full understanding of the

requirement for maintaining the SIMS

computer system for the food service

operation, in particular with regard to

the contractor’s role in providing

contractor personnel identifications and

passwords. (2) The proposed SIMS

Administrator did not have the level of

experience required by the solicitation.

(3) The alternate SIMS Administrators

did not have the experience required by

the solicitation.

In October 1996, the Air Force issued

four clarification/deficiency letters to

the SLA requesting that the SLA

respond to its concerns. In a letter dated

November 20, 1996, the Air Force

advised the SLA of its exclusion from

the competitive range of the RFP. The

letter referred to the three previously

stated reasons as the basis for the Air

Force’s decision.

The SLA received the November 20th

letter from the Air Force on November

22 and on November 27 filed a protest

against the Air Force with the U.S.

General Accounting Office (GAO). The

SLA then learned that the Air Force had

awarded a contract to a private

concessionaire on November 22, 1996.

On November 29, the SLA filed a

supplemental protest with GAO alleging

that the Air Force had violated the

Federal Acquisition Regulation, which

requires contracting officers to notify in

writing an unsuccessful offeror at the

earliest practicable time that its

proposal is no longer in the competitive

range.

On December 2, 1996, the Air Force

filed a request for summary dismissal of

the SLA’s protest with GAO. On

December 12, the SLA received

notification that its protest had been

dismissed. The SLA filed a request for

arbitration with the Secretary of

Education concerning this dispute. A

Federal arbitration hearing on this

matter was held on June 16, 1998.

Arbitration Panel Decision

The central issues before the

arbitration panel were: (1) Did the Air

Force reasonably and properly evaluate

the proposal submitted by the SLA? (2)

Did the Air Force comply with the legal

requirements to conduct meaningful

discussions with the SLA pursuant to

the Act and implementing regulations?

(3) Did the Air Force comply with the

legal requirement to treat all offerors

equally?

The majority of the panel ruled that

the record demonstrated that the Air

Force technical evaluation team

evaluated the SLA’s proposal reasonably

and in accordance with the terms of the

solicitation. The solicitation required

that the proposed SIMS Administrator

have 3 years experience performing

complete system back-ups including

daily back-ups, as well as 3 years

experience in trouble-shooting the

system. The offeror was required to

provide resumes and other evidence

that substantiated that its proposed

SIMS Administrator satisfied this

requirement. The record reflects that the

SLA failed to do so.

The panel further found that, in order

to show that it was improperly excluded

from the competitive range, the burden

of proof was on the SLA to show that

the determinations concerning the

unacceptability of its proposal were

unreasonable. The majority of the panel

concluded that the evidence failed to

meet this burden. Further, the record

showed that the Air Force evaluators

reasonably reached each determination

concerning the technical

unacceptability of the SLA’s proposal

and the Air Force Contracting Officer

reasonably excluded the SLA’s proposal

from the final competitive range.

Accordingly, the panel found that the

Air Force’s evaluation of the SLA’s

proposal and decision to eliminate the

SLA from the competitive range were

reasonable, rational, proper, and in

accordance with the requirements of the

solicitation.

Concerning the second issue,

regarding the alleged failure of the Air

Force to conduct meaningful

discussions with the SLA, the majority

of the panel stated that, when

conducting meaningful discussions, an

agency merely must direct or lead

offerors into areas of their proposals

needing amplification. An agency is not

obligated to give offerors allencompassing negotiations, nor is the

agency required to rewrite an offeror’s

proposal. The panel found that, in this

procurement, the Air Force on several

occasions informed the SLA

representatives of the Air Force’s

concerns with regard to the SLA’s SIMS

experience and its role in maintaining

the system.

Regarding the third issue, concerning

the alleged failure of the Air Force to

treat all offerors fairly, the majority of

the panel found that the record fully

supported the reasonableness of the Air

Force’s evaluation of the SLA’s

proposal. The panel further ruled that

there was no evidence of unequal or

unfair treatment. After fully considering

the record, the majority of the panel

ruled that the Air Force acted

reasonably, properly, and in accordance

with the solicitation in evaluating and

excluding the proposal submitted by the

SLA. Therefore, the complaint was

denied.

One panel member dissented.

The views and opinions expressed by

the panel do not necessarily represent

the views and opinions of the U. S.

Department of Education.

Dated: May 1, 2000.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 00–11345 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP00–221–002]

CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice

of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas

Tariff

May 2, 2000.

Take notice that on April 27, 2000,

CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG)

tendered for filing as part of its FERC

Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No.

1A, Substitute Second Revised Sheet

No. 14 with an effective date of April 1,

2000.

CNG states that the purpose of the

filing is to comply with the

Commission’s April 18, 2000 letter

order in this proceeding correcting the

classification of Line H–156 to

transmission as required by the

Commission’s order issued in Docket

No. CP97–549–000.

CNG states that copies of this letter of

transmittal and enclosures are being

served upon parties listed on the official

service list.

Any person desiring to protest this

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Section

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such protests must be

filed as provided in Section 154.210 of

the Commission’s Regulations. Protests

will be considered by the Commission

in determining the appropriate action to

be taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceedings.

Copies of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room. This filing may be viewed on the

web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11359 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26593

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. ER000–1770–000]

Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc.; Notice of

Issuance of Order

May 2, 2000.

On March 1, 2000, Conectiv, on behalf

of its affiliates, Conectiv Delmarva

Generation, LLC (CDG) and Conective

Atlantic Generation, LLC (CAG) filed

under section 205 of the Federal Power

Act proposed market-based rates tariffs.

In its filing, Conectiv also requested

certain waivers and authorizations for

CDG and CAG. In particular, Conectiv

requested that the Commission grant

blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34

of all future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liabilities by CDG and

CAG. On April 25, 2000, the

Commission issued an Order Accepting

For Filing Proposed Service Agreements

And Market-Based Rates (Order), in the

above-docketed proceeding.

The Commission’s April 25, 2000

Order granted the request for blanket

approval under Part 34, subject to the

conditions found in Ordering

Paragraphs (C), (D), and (F):

(C) Within 30 days of the date of this

order, any person desiring to be heard

or to protest the Commission’s blanket

approval of issuances of securities or

assumptions of liabilities by CDG or

CAG should file a motion to intervene

or protest with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.

(D) Absent a request to be heard

within the period set forth in Ordering

Paragraph (C) above, CDG and CAG are

hereby authorized to issue securities

and assume obligations and liabilities as

guarantor, indorser, surety or otherwise

in respect of any security of another

person; provided that such issue or

assumption is for some lawful object

within the corporate purposes of CDG

and CAG compatible with the public

interest, and reasonably necessary or

appropriate for such purposes.

(F) The Commission reserves the right

to modify this order to require a further

showing that neither public nor private

interests will be adversely affected by

continued Commission approval of

CDG’s and CAG’s issuances of securities

or assumptions of liabilities.

Notice is hereby given that the

deadline for filing motions to intervene

or protests, as set forth above, is May 25,

2000.

Copies of the full text of the Order are

available from the Commission’s Public

Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may

also be viewed on the Internet at http:/

/www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call

202–208–2222 for assistance).

David P. Borgers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11351 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. GT00–28–000]

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited

Partnership; Notice of Proposed

Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 2, 2000.

Take notice that on April 28, 2000,

Great Lake Gas Transmission Limited

Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for

filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,

Second Revised Volume No. 1, the

following tariff sheets, proposed to

become effective January 1, 2000:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 3

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 3A Fourth

Revised Sheet No. 3B Fourth

Revised Sheet No. 3C

Great Lakes states that the tariff sheets

listed above are being filed to revise the

system and zone maps included in Great

Lakes’ tariff pursuant to 154.106(c) of

the Commission’s regulations. The

revisions to the maps reflect the

addition of the China meter station to

Great Lakes’ system, horsepower

changes for two compressor stations,

and other minor corrections.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Sections

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s

Rules and Regulations. All such motions

or protests must be filed in accordance

with Section 154.210 of the

Commission’s Regulations. Protests will

be considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceedings.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room. This filing may be viewed on the

web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11353 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EC00–78–000]

Merchant Energy Group of the

Americas, Inc.; Notice of Filing

May 2, 2000.

Take notice that on April 27, 2000,

Merchant Energy Group of the

Americas, Inc., Gener S.A., and

TransAlta USA Inc. (Applicants)

tendered for filing Exhibit H, the Stock

Purchase Agreement (SPA), to

accompany the joint application under

Section 203 of the Federal Power Act

filed by the Applicants on April 13,

2000. Pursuant to 18 CFR 388.112,

Applicants request confidential

treatment of the SPA.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest such filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214). All such motions and protests

should be filed on or before May 15,

2000. Protests will be considered by the

Commission to determine the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make protestants parties to

the proceedings. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a motion to

intervene. Copies of this filing are on

file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection. This

filing may also be viewed on the

Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/

online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11366 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M