The Applicability of the Randolph-Sheppard Act to Military Mess Halls

Summary

---

The application of the amended Randolph-Sheppard Act for the Blind (RSA) to military mess hall contracts has sparked significant controversy because the blind vendor preference directly conflicts with other procurement preference programs. Here, Christiansen discusses the history of the Act and addresses three areas of litigation concerning military mess hall contracts arising from the 1974 amendments.

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

The Applicability of the Randolph-Sheppard Act to Military Mess Halls

I can see clearly now the [competition's] gone. I can see all obstacles in my way.1

Introduction

The Randolph-Sheppard Act for the Blind (RSA),2 enacted in 1936, provides blind vendors with a preference for certain federal contracts. Since 1936, Congress has amended the Act several times to strengthen consideration for blind vendors, most importantly in 1974.3 Recent decisions at the federal district and appellate levels interpreting the RSA in light of the 1974 amendments have further expanded the Act's reach.4 One such expansion, the application of the Act to military mess hall contracts, has sparked significant controversy, in part, because the blind vendor preference directly conflicts with other procurement preference programs.5

This article surveys the current controversy over military mess halls under the RSA. It begins with a brief history of the Act, to include the 1974 amendments that expanded the RSA to include "cafeterias" on "federal property."6 Next, the article addresses three areas of litigation concerning military mess hall contracts arising from the 1974 amendments. The first area involves whether the RSA applies to military mess halls at all. It discusses agency interpretations and implementation of the 1974 RSA amendments, which read "mess halls" into the RSA's definition of "cafeteria," and the resultant federal cases, NISH v. Cohen7 and NISH v. Rumsfeld.1 The second area of litigation concerns the relationship of the blind vendor priority to other procurement preference programs, including the Javits Wagner O'Day Act,9 the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Act,10 and small business set-asides, as exemplified by In re Intermark11 and Automated Communications Systems, Inc. v. United States}2 The third area of litigation explores the scope of the blind vendor preference. It discusses aspects of...

See the full content of this document

---