Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26591

Information Technology Access and

Telecommunications Access and the

Disability and Business Technical

Assistance Centers; and

• Collaborate with relevant Federal

agencies responsible for the

administration of public laws that

address access to and usability of

electronic and information technology

for individuals with disabilities

including, but not limited to, the

General Services Administration, the

Access Board, the Federal

Communications Commission, the

Rehabilitation Services Administration,

and other relevant Federal agencies

identified by NIDRR.

Proposed Additional Selection

Criterion

The Assistant Secretary will use the

selection criteria in 34 CFR 350.54 to

evaluate applications under this

program. The maximum score for all the

criteria is 100 points; however, the

Assistant Secretary also proposes to use

the following criterion so that up to an

additional ten points may be earned by

an applicant for a total possible score of

110 points:

Within this absolute priority, we will

give the following competitive

preference to applications that are

otherwise eligible for funding under this

priority:

Up to ten (10) points based on the

extent to which an application includes

effective strategies for employing and

advancing in employment qualified

individuals with disabilities in projects

awarded under this absolute priority. In

determining the effectiveness of those

strategies, we will consider the

applicant’s success, as described in the

application, in employing and

advancing in employment qualified

individuals with disabilities in the

project.

For purposes of this competitive

preference, applicants can be awarded

up to a total of 10 points in addition to

those awarded under the published

selection criteria for this priority. That

is, an applicant meeting this

competitive preference could earn a

maximum total of 110 points.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34

CFR Parts 350 and 353.

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 either of the following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the PDF you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is

available free at either of the preceding

sites. If you have questions about using

the 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 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

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 761a(g) and

762.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 84.133A, Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects)

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 00–11529 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

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.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on

November 16, 1998, an arbitration panel

rendered a decision in the matter of

Alabama Department of Rehabilitation

Services v. U.S. Department of Defense,

Department of the Air Force (Docket No.

R–S/97–4). 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 Alabama Department of

Rehabilitation Services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 alternate

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 either of the following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the PDF you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is

available free at either of the previous

sites. If you have questions about using

the 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 the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20

U.S.C. 107d–2(c)) (the Act), 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

violation by the U.S. Department of

Defense, Department of the Air Force

(Air Force), of the priority provisions of

the Act by the exclusion of the proposal

submitted by the Alabama Department

of Rehabilitation Services, the State

licensing agency (SLA), from the

competitive range for a full food service

contract at Maxwell Air Force Base,

Gunter Annex, Alabama. A summary of

the facts is as follows: On July 2, 1996,

the Air Force issued a request for

proposal (RFP) for full food service at

Maxwell Air Force Base, Gunter Annex,

Alabama. The SLA responded to the

RFP as the State licensing agency

authorized to administer the Act in

Alabama. In the SLA’s proposal, a blind

person was designated as the State’s

licensee, and Food Service, Inc. was

identified as a subcontractor to the SLA.

The RFP specified that the technical

criteria of management, production,

quality control and safety would be

used to evaluate the proposal. Following

the technical evaluation of the proposal

by the Air Force, the SLA was informed

that its proposal was determined to be

unacceptable under the management

criteria. In excluding the SLA, the Air

Force determined that the SLA’s

proposal had three primary deficiencies:

(1) It failed to provide evidence of the

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