Opinion ID: 2002136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the commission's rulings

Text: Although Jordan requested an evidentiary hearing on his complaint, the Commission did not hold one. Instead, on August 24, 1990, the Commission issued Order No. 9540, in which it held that PEPCO was covered by the Small Business Act, but that no violation of the Act had occurred and that no remedial action was appropriate. The determination that the Act had not been violated was based on the Commission's belief that there was a good faith [5] legal dispute as to whether PEPCO was covered by the Act, although [the Commission] notes that from 1975 to the present is a long time to refuse to acknowledge coverage and take no action to resolve the issue. The Commission also concluded that the question [whether there had been a violation] is moot given the execution of an areawide contract with GSA. In Order No. 9646, the Commission further elaborated on its rationale as follows: The Commission's conclusion that no violation of the Act has occurred was based upon the uncontrovertible [sic] fact that the issue under consideration was compliance by PEPCO with a Federal Act. Despite the protestations of MBELDEF and Kingwood, GSA, the agency charged with enforcing the Act, is satisfied with PEPCO's compliance. Now it appears the MBELDEF and Kingwood seek an expansion of this Commission's review. The question of the adequacy of the compliance and the diligence of the agency charged with enforcing the Act are questions best directed elsewhere. [6]