The Randolph-Sheppard Act

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

The Randolph-Sheppard Act
Umar Moulta-Ali
Analyst in Disability Policy
January 24, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34609
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

Summary
The Randolph-Sheppard Act (P.L. 74-732), as amended, was enacted to provide individuals who
are blind with remunerative employment and to enhance their economic well-being. Through
Randolph-Sheppard Act (R-SA) programs, individuals who are blind and in need of employment
are given priority in the operation of vending facilities on federal property. Typically, individuals
who are blind and receive R-SA program contracts act as managers of vending facilities,
subcontracting with food service organizations that provide meal and/or vending services on a
day-to-day basis. Run by a state licensing agency through the U.S. Department of Education’s
state vocational rehabilitation program, R-SA programs may also be labeled “business enterprise
programs” or “vending facilities programs.” R-SA programs are not mandatory, though every
state except Wyoming chooses to participate.
Since its inception, the R-SA has extended its reach beyond federal locations to include state,
county, municipal, and private installations. The 1974 amendments to the R-SA added cafeterias
to its list of eligible “vending facilities.” Congress, however, did not specify whether military
mess halls should be treated as “cafeterias” in the context of the R-SA. This issue raised concerns
about conflicts between the programs authorized by R-SA and another program that addresses the
employment of individuals who are blind, AbilityOne. AbilityOne is a statutorily mandated
procurement program developed under the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (JWOD Act) that promotes
employment opportunities for persons who are blind or severely disabled. Two subsequent federal
court of appeals decisions have held that military troop dining facilities are considered
“cafeterias” under the R-SA and that the act controlled over the JWOD Act, which also provides
employment opportunities for individuals with severe disabilities.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, a total of 2,319 individuals who are blind operated 2,505 Randolph-
Sheppard vending facilities, generating $792.6 million in gross income, with average vendor
earnings of $56,168. This report provides a brief history of the R-SA programs and an
explanation of how the programs are structured. Next, detailed financial and operational data are
provided—including the number of program participants, their overall sales, and their earnings.
Finally, the report explores how the R-SA and the JWOD Act intersect or overlap. It concludes
with a discussion of legislation that was introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses to reform or
combine the Randolph Sheppard and AbilityOne programs. No legislation was introduced in the
112th Congress that addressed the R-SA program or its discord with the AbilityOne program.

Congressional Research Service

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Randolph-Sheppard Act Program Description................................................................................. 2
Randolph-Sheppard Act Program Data ............................................................................................ 3
AbilityOne (Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act) Program Description ........................................................ 5
Intersection Between the Randolph-Sheppard Act and AbilityOne Programs................................. 6
Current Issues and Legislative History ............................................................................................ 8
JWOD, R-SA and the U.S. Court of Appeals Decisions on Military Dining Facilities ............. 8
JWOD, R-SA Legislation in the 110th Congress ........................................................................ 8
JWOD, R-SA Legislation in the 111th Congress ........................................................................ 9

Tables
Table 1. Randolph-Sheppard Program Vendors, FY2001-FY2010 ................................................. 4
Table 2. Income and Earnings Data and Funding Sources of the Randolph-Sheppard Act
Programs, FY2001-FY2010 ......................................................................................................... 5
Table 3. Comparison of Randolph-Sheppard and AbilityOne Programs ......................................... 7

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 10
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 10

Congressional Research Service

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

Background
Signed into law in 1936, the Randolph-Sheppard Act1 (R-SA) provides employment opportunities
to qualified individuals who are blind through the operation of vending facilities in federal
buildings. The R-SA was designed to foster independence and self-sufficiency among individuals
with vision impairments. During its early years, however, the programs developed by the R-SA
met with little success.2 Encouraged by the invention of “vending machines,” legislators revisited
the R-SA in 1954 (P.L. 83-565), expanding its applicability to federal properties3 (previously
buildings).
Despite the 1954 expansion, the R-SA vending programs failed to employ large numbers of
individuals who are blind—in part because the law continued to provide agency officials with
broad discretion when implementing R-SA provisions: vendors who are blind or visually
impaired were only to be given preference “so far as is feasible.” This feasibility standard was
replaced in 1974 (P.L. 93-516) when R-SA amendments clearly established a federal-state
relationship and created a process by which priority was given to vendors who are blind and
seeking to operate vending facilities on federal property.4 The 1974 changes also broadened the
reach of the R-SA to include management functions once thought to be beyond the capability of
individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Finally, these amendments added cafeterias to the
R-SA’s list of eligible “vending facilities.”
Vending facilities governed by R-SA regulations are
• “automatic vending machines,
• cafeterias,
• snack bars,
• cart service,
• shelters,
• counters, and
• such auxiliary equipment that may be operated by blind licensees and that is
necessary for the sale of newspapers, periodicals, confections, tobacco products,
foods, beverages, and other articles or services dispensed automatically or
manually and prepared on or off the premises in accordance with all applicable
health laws, and including the vending or exchange of changes for any lottery

1 P.L. 74-732, 49 Stat. 1559. The Randolph-Sheppard Act is named for its two sponsors: Representative Jennings
Randolph (WV) and Senator Morris Sheppard (TX).
2 Erik L. Christiansen, “The Applicability of the Randolph-Sheppard Act to Military Mess Halls,” The Army Lawyer,
Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-371, April 1, 2004, pp. 1-13.
3 Federal property is any building, land, or other real property owned, leased, or occupied by any agency or department
of the United States (20 USC §107e (3)).
4 The federal-state relationship allows each state to develop its program; therefore, this report uses the plural term
“programs” to encompass all of the states that have R-SA programs.
Congressional Research Service
1

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

authorized by State law and conducted by an agency of a State within such
State.”5
Two federal court of appeals decisions, NISH v. Cohen6 and NISH v. Rumsfeld,7 held that military
troop dining facilities are “cafeterias” under the R-SA and that the act controlled over the Javits-
Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act,8 which provides employment opportunities for individuals who are
blind and individuals who are severely disabled.9 The R-SA program has also expanded from
federal facilities to include some state, county, and private facilities.10 However, private vending
facilities are not subject to R-SA regulations.
Randolph-Sheppard Act Program Description
To implement an R-SA program within a state, a state licensing agency (SLA) is responsible for
recruiting, training, and licensing individuals who are blind11 or visually impaired to manage
vending facilities.12 SLAs, by definition, are entities that provide vocational rehabilitation
services to persons who are blind, such as job counseling or training, information and referral,
and job search assistance. Entrepreneurs who are blind and who receive funds from an SLA to
manage vending facilities usually subcontract with a food service company to help with
operations or provide expertise. SLAs administer Randolph-Sheppard programs at the state level,
where these programs are most commonly referred to as “business enterprise programs.” In
contrast, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) refers to them as “vending facility programs”
for individuals who are blind.13 The R-SA requires that each participating state empower an
elected committee to help inform and direct the work of its SLA. As a result, policies for
Randolph-Sheppard programs may vary from state to state.
Randolph-Sheppard programs are funded by several sources. These include federal funds
allocated through the vocational rehabilitation state grant program under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended;14 a portion of net proceeds from vending machines on federal property;15 a set-

5 34 CFR §395.1.
6 247 F.3d. 197 (4th Cir. 2001).
7 348 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2003).
8 The 1971 Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (P.L. 92-28) amended the Wagner-O’Day Act (ch. 697, 52 Stat. 1196 (41 §§ 46
to 48)), which was originally passed in 1938.
9 For an overview of the judicial decisions regarding the Randolph-Sheppard Act’s provision of services, see CRS
Report RS22968, The Randolph-Sheppard Act: Major Judicial Decisions, by Emily C. Barbour.
10 Under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (P.L. 97-424), as amended, blind vendors are given priority when
state governments award contracts for the operation of vending facilities in rest areas along interstate highways.
11 Legal blindness is defined as visual acuity (vision) of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the best correction
possible. This means that a legally blind individual would have to stand 20 feet (6.1 m) from an object to see it—with
vision correction—with the same degree of clarity as a normally sighted person could from 200 feet (61 m).
Approximately 10% of those people deemed legally blind have no vision. The rest have some vision, from light
perception alone to relatively good acuity.
12 To be eligible for operating a Randolph-Sheppard vending facility, an individual must be a U.S. citizen as well as be
legally blind.
13 For an overview of U.S. Department of Education information about Randolph-Sheppard Act programs, see
http://www.ed.gov/programs/rsarsp/index.html.
14 For further information, see CRS Report R42148, Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States: Program Overview, by
Benjamin Collins.
Congressional Research Service
2

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

aside levied by states on vendors;16 and state appropriations. R-SA programs are administered by
the Rehabilitation Services Administration, part of the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the DOE.
Randolph-Sheppard Act Program Data
Table 1 shows the number of contractors who are blind and who received contracts to manage
vending operations through the Randolph-Sheppard programs from FY2001 to FY2010, the latest
year for which data are publicly available. It also details the number of federal and non-federal
facilities that these vendors have served and the average annual earnings of each vendor.17 Based
on figures provided by the DOE, there were 2,319 vendors who oversaw 2,505 vending facilities
in FY2010.18 There were 873 vending facilities (34.8%) located on federal property, whereas
1,635 were located on non-federal property (65.2%). As noted in Table 1, average annual
earnings for vendors were $56,168, an 8.7% increase over the prior fiscal year.19

(...continued)
15 The law allows in certain cases a portion of net proceeds from vending machines on federal property to be set aside
for program support.
16 Not all states levy a set-aside on vendors. However, a reasonable amount of funds could be set aside from the net
proceeds generated by the operation of vending facilities for such purposes as maintenance and replacement of
equipment, purchase of new equipment, management services, and health insurance contributions, among other things
(see 34 CFR 395.9).
17 U.S. Department of Education, OSERS, RSA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010, December 2012. Average annual
earnings were calculated by dividing total vendor earnings by vendor person-years. Person years are calculated as the
number of vendors in the program by the number of years that the vendor has been in the program.
18 In addition to these licensed operators who are blind, the Randolph-Sheppard programs employed an additional 500
individuals with disabilities in FY2007.
19 U.S. Department of Education Form RSA-15: Report of Vending Facility Program Reporting Instructions. Average
annual earnings were calculated by dividing the vendors’ total earning by the number of vendor person-years. A
person-year is one whole year, or fraction thereof, worked by a vendor. It is expressed as a quotient of the time units
worked during the year (hours, weeks, or months) divided by the like total time units in a year. For instance, a vendor
who worked for 4 months would have worked 0.25 person-years.
Congressional Research Service
3

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

Table 1. Randolph-Sheppard Program Vendors, FY2001-FY2010
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Number of Vendors
Federal
locations 900 912 905 911
895
894
888
846 822 818
Non-
federal
locations 1,811 1,768 1,726 1,618
1,669
1,681
1,657
1,554 1,536 1,501
Total
2,711 2,680 2,631 2,529
2,564
2,575
2,545
2,400 2,358 2,319
Number of Vending Facilities
Federal
locations 1,111 1,097 1,096 1,110
1,115
1,069
1,070
906 885 873
Non-
federal
locations 2,083 2,030 2,023 1,994
1,965
1,971
1,961
1,670 1,657 1,635
Total
3,194 3,127 3,119 3,104
3,080
3,040
3,031
2,576 2,542 2,505
Average Annual Earningsa of Vendors
Total
$34,921 $37,246 $38,147 $40,503
$43,584
$46,963
$46,753
$50,543 $51,664 $56,168
Source: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
FY2010 and is the latest publicly available data. For further information, see U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010: Report on Federal Activities Under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, As Amended, 2012, http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/rsa/2010/index.html.
a. Average annual earnings were calculated by dividing the vendors’ total earnings by the number of
vendor person-years. A person-year is one whole year, or fraction thereof, worked by a vendor. It is
expressed as a quotient of the time units worked during the year (hours, weeks, or months) divided
by the like total time units in a year. For instance, a vendor who worked for 4 months would have
worked 0.25 person-years.
Table 2 details gross income and net earnings for Randolph-Sheppard vendors for each year from
FY2001 to FY2010. In FY2010, RS-A programs generated $792.6 million in gross income
(overall sales and vending machine income combined), with $122.4 million in net earnings going
to vendors. Table 2 also shows data on funding sources.
Congressional Research Service
4

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

Table 2. Income and Earnings Data and Funding Sources of the Randolph-Sheppard
Act Programs, FY2001-FY2010
($ in millions)
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Income and Earnings
Gross
incomea $466.3
$453.6
$475.9
$620.4b $661.3 $692.2 $713.2 $723.5 $758.4 $792.6
Vendor
Earningsc
95 96.8 98.7 105.2 111.2 115.7 116.3 123.7 120.5 122.4
Funding Sources
Vending
machine
income 14.5
16.6
15.2
18.7
17.2
20
21.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
Vendor
levied
set-aside
12 11.5 12.5 11.1 12.8 13.1 14.4 n/a n/a n/a
State
appropriat
ion
5.9 6.2 6.7 6.7 9.2 7.1 7 n/a n/a n/a
Federal
fundsd
32.3 31.4 27.8 37.5 37.1 35.2 39.3 n/a n/a n/a
Total
64.7 65.8 62.2 74 76.3 75.4 82.6 n/a n/a n/a
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services, FY2010 and is the latest publicly available data. For further information, see U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010: Report on Federal
Activities Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, As Amended, 2012, http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/rsa/
2010/index.html.
a. Including gross sales, vending machine income, and fair minimum return. Fair minimum return, which
is optional for each state agency, is the amount that may be paid to vendors from set-aside funds in
order to provide a uniform minimum income to all vendors under the programs.
b. The notable increase in gross income after FY2003 is attributable to a change in reporting procedures
related to military dining facility contracts granted to state licensing agencies. Beginning in FY2004,
these agencies were advised to report all information about Department of Defense contracts in their
reports to the Rehabilitation Services Administration.
c. Vendor earnings equal net profit to vendors plus fair minimum return.
d. Funds allocated through the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant program.
AbilityOne (Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act) Program
Description
AbilityOne, formerly the JWOD program,20 is a federal program that provides jobs for individuals
with disabilities, including but not limited to individuals who are blind, through federal contracts.

20 In 2006, JWOD Act programs were re-named the AbilityOne program to “give a stronger, more unified identity to
the program and to show a connection between the program name and the abilities of those who are blind or have other
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938, the Wagner-O’Day Act21 sought to provide
employment opportunities for people who were blind by allowing them to manufacture mops and
brooms to sell to the federal government. In 1971, Congress amended the Wagner-O’Day Act
under the leadership of Senator Jacob Javits.22 The 1971 JWOD Act expanded application of the
law to include people with severe disabilities and to enable the program to sell services—not just
material goods—to the federal government.23 The JWOD program was re-named the AbilityOne
program in 2006.24 Today, through the products and services it offers to federal entities, the
AbilityOne program facilitates employment opportunities for thousands of individuals with
disabilities.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (hereafter, the
Committee) is the federal agency authorized to administer AbilityOne. The committee is
responsible for determining which products and services will be furnished to the government by
people who are blind or severely disabled. It also determines the fair market value for those items.
Two nonprofit agencies, the National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and NISH (formerly the
National Institute for the Severely Handicapped), have been designated to assist AbilityOne with
program implementation and the production of goods and services.
Intersection Between the Randolph-Sheppard Act
and AbilityOne Programs
The 1974 amendments to the R-SA have also raised questions about the scope of the Randolph-
Sheppard preference. Specifically, disability rights advocates and various food service contractors
have contended that the R-SA’s priority for vendors who are blind conflicts with other set-aside
programs, such as AbilityOne. The AbilityOne and the R-SA programs both provide contracting
preferences for individuals who are blind. However, AbilityOne typically offers individuals who
are blind or visually impaired opportunities for employment in “sheltered” work environments,
while R-SA provides a somewhat broader array of opportunities, including management
positions.25

(...continued)
severe disabilities.” For additional information see Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled, “AbilityOne Program”, 71 Federal Register 227, November 27, 2006, at http://www.abilityone.gov/jwod/
Documents/FR_11_27_06.pdf.
21 P.L. 75-739.
22 See Javits-Wagner-O’Day, Creating Jobs and Training for People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, A Brief
History of the AbilityOne Program at http://www.jwod.gov/JWOD/about_us/about_us.html.
23 P.L. 92-28, 85 Stat.77, 41 U.S.C. §§ 46-48c.
24 See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, “AbilityOne Program”, 71 Federal
Register 227, November 27, 2006, at http://www.abilityone.gov/jwod/Documents/FR_11_27_06.pdf.
25 The AbilityOne employees are paid hourly wages according to federal government rules and regulations; however,
R-SA vendors typically receive a percentage of contract profits. The Government Accountability Office estimated that
in 2007 the average wage of an AbilityOne employee was $13.15 per hour, including fringe benefits. For more
information, see General Accounting Office, Defense Contracts: Contracting for Military Services under the
Randolph-Sheppard and Javit-Wagner-O’Day Programs, GAO-08-3, October, 2007 available at http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d083.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

Table 3 outlines the structural differences between AbilityOne and Randolph-Sheppard. Under
the R-SA programs, contracts are typically awarded through direct negotiations or competitive
bidding; by contrast, competition is a non-issue with AbilityOne, because goods produced by the
AbilityOne program or services provided by AbilityOne are purchased by federal agencies off of
a procurement list established by the committee. Despite the fundamental differences between
these two programs, the fact that each provides food services, loosely defined, has led some
observers to argue that Randolph-Sheppard and AbilityOne are de facto competitors in certain
circumstances.
Table 3. Comparison of Randolph-Sheppard and AbilityOne Programs
Randolph-Sheppard
AbilityOne
Statute
P.L. 74-732, 49 Stat. 1559, as amended by
P.L. 92-28, 85 Stat. 77, 41 U.S.C. §§ 46-48c
P.L. 83-565 and P.L. 93-516
20 U.S.C. §§ 107-107f
Date authority
Indefinite Indefinite
expires
Regulations
34 CFR 395, 41 CFR 101-20.2
41 CFR 51
Program participants
Vendor who is blind, usually with the
Local nonprofit agency employing workers
or beneficiaries
assistance of a “teaming partner”
who are blind or severely disabled
Type of services
The R-SA programs provide opportunities
Many products (e.g., office supplies) are
offered
for individuals who are legally blind to
produced or available under the AbilityOne
manage a broad array of food-service
program, as are a wide range of services,
operations, including
including
•
automatic vending machines,
•
administrative, janitorial, and laundry
services,
•
cafeterias, and
•
commissary shelf stocking,
•
snack bars.
•
full food service, and
•
grounds maintenance.
Administration
Department of Education is responsible for
The Committee for Purchase From People
oversight, but programs are operated at the
Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
state level by a state licensing agency under
oversees the program at the federal level. It
the auspices of the state vocational
works with two central nonprofit agencies,
rehabilitation program.
NISH and NIB, to coordinate the provision
of goods and services to the federal
government.
Competitiveness of
The Randolph-Sheppard Act requires that
There are no competitive contracts as the
contracts
federal government agencies give priority for
Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act requires that
the operation of vending facilities on federal
federal government agencies purchase certain
property to persons who are blind and
products and services from a procurement
licensed by a state agency.
list maintained by the committee and updated
in the Federal Register.
Purchasers of services Primarily, the Federal government. Two of
Primarily, the Federal government. Once a
or material goods
the largest purchasers are the Department
product or service is on the AbilityOne
of Defense and the General Services
Procurement List, the Federal government
Administration.
must buy it from a designated nonprofit
agency.
Requirements to
No specific requirement that a manager
The committee requires that at least 75% of
employ individuals
who is blind is required to hire workers
the total number of direct labor hours
with disabilities
who are blind or have a disability.
procured from a participating agency be
completed by persons with disabilities.
Congressional Research Service
7

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

Source: Adapted by Congressional Research Service from GAO-08-3, Contracting for Military Services under the
Randolph-Sheppard and Javits-Wagner-O’Day Programs, October 2007.
Current Issues and Legislative History
JWOD, R-SA and the U.S. Court of Appeals Decisions on Military
Dining Facilities
A 1974 amendment to R-SA (P.L. 93-516) expanded the program’s scope to include state, county,
municipal, and private installations as well as adding cafeterias to R-SA’s list of eligible vending
facilities. However, Congress did not mention whether military dining facilities, specifically,
should be included as “cafeterias” within the context of R-SA.
Some have contended that R-SA’s priority for vendors who are blind to operate military dining
facilities conflicts with the noncompetitive AbilityOne contracting preferences for services from
individuals who are blind or severely disabled. Two federal court of appeals decisions, NISH v.
Cohen26 and NISH v. Rumsfeld,27 held that military troop dining facilities are “cafeterias” under
the R-SA and that the act controlled over the JWOD Act, which authorizes the AbilityOne
program.28
JWOD, R-SA Legislation in the 110th Congress
S. 3112, the Javits-Wagner-O'Day and Randolph-Sheppard Modernization Act of 2008, was
introduced in the 110th Congress by Senator Michael Enzi. The bill would have reauthorized and
amended both the JWOD and R-SA acts.
Most notably, the bill would have addressed the JWOD/R-SA military dining facility conflict by
specifically excluding the operation of full food service military dining facilities from the JWOD
procurement list. This exclusion would have allowed open competition for military food service
contracts, but with priority given to state licensing agencies under the R-SA and other socially
disadvantaged groups. Any dining facilities that were on the procurement list would have
experienced a five-year sunset period at which point they would have been permanently removed
from the JWOD procurement list.
Among other provisions, S. 3112 would have consolidated oversight functions of both JWOD and
R-SA under a newly established committee known as the Committee for the Advancement of
Individuals with Disabilities.

26 247 F.3d. 197 (4th Cir. 2001).
27 348 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2003).
28 For an expanded analysis of the two cases see CRS Report RS22968, The Randolph-Sheppard Act: Major Judicial
Decisions, by Emily C. Barbour.
Congressional Research Service
8

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

JWOD, R-SA Legislation in the 111th Congress
H.R. 5983, the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act of 2010 introduced in the 111th Congress, would have
updated existing law that governed AbilityOne.29 The Committee for Purchase currently consists
of 15 presidentially appointed members, 11 of whom represent governmental departments or
agencies. The four nongovernmental members are private citizens knowledgeable about the
employment problems of people who are blind or have other severe disabilities, including those
employed by nonprofit agencies affiliated with the AbilityOne Program. H.R. 5983 would have
expanded the size of the Committee for Purchase from 15 to 17 members to include one
representative each from the Departments of Homeland Security and the Interior.
In addition, H.R. 5983 would have revised the name of the committee to include those with
“significant disabilities,” rather than the “severely disabled.” The committee would therefore have
been known as the “Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or People With Other
Significant Disabilities.”
H.R. 5983 would have also allowed products and services to be added to the committee’s
procurement list via an expedited process if the committee determines there is a “compelling
need” to do so.
Under current statute, the Comptroller General of the United States is granted access to all books,
documents, papers, and other records of the Committee for Purchase. H.R. 5983 contained new
oversight and compliance measures, including language to establish an inspector general
specifically to ensure that the Committee for Purchase is in compliance with the JWOD Act.
Rules currently governing the eligibility requirements for participating nonprofit agencies require
the agencies to provide certified documentation of their nonprofit status.30 H.R. 5983 would have
called for participating nonprofits to meet certain new eligibility requirements, including the use
of nondiscriminatory practices, sound fiscal management and open government and reporting
standards.
The bill would have also directed the Committee for Purchase to report on (1) the effect of H.R.
5983 on the small business community, (2) agency compliance with the bill, and (3) the number
and value of contracts awarded under the bill.
In addition, H.R. 5983 would have established all members of the Committee for Purchase as
federal employees for purposes of laws relating to tort claims procedure, ethics, conflicts of
interest, corruption, and any other statute or regulation governing the conduct of federal
employees. The bill would have also established an advisory panel to report to the chairman of
the Committee for Purchase on efforts to increase employment of the blind and disabled.
Finally, H.R. 5983 would have adjusted, under certain circumstances, a requirement that
participating nonprofits employ blind or disabled individuals for at least 75% of the employment
hours needed to produce the applicable products or services. The bill would have lowered the
requirement to 51% of employment hours in the case of an emergency or extraordinary

29 Portions of this section were adapted from the Congressional Quarterly BillAnalysis at http://www.cq.com/doc/
billwatch-3724420.
30 41 C.F.R. §§ 51-4.2.
Congressional Research Service
9

The Randolph-Sheppard Act

circumstance or a significantly complex product or service. The bill would also have lowered the
threshold if the nonprofit could employ a substantial number of people with the most significant
productivity challenges at wages at or above minimum wage.
H.R. 5983 did not address the conflict between the R-SA and AbilityOne programs on the issue of
contract preferences for military dining facilities.
No legislation was introduced in the 112th Congress that addressed the R-SA program or its
discord with the AbilityOne program.

Author Contact Information

Umar Moulta-Ali

Analyst in Disability Policy
umoultaali@crs.loc.gov, 7-9557

Acknowledgments
This CRS report updates a report that was originally written by Andrew R. Sommers, and updated by Scott
Szymendera. Janet L. Valluzzi contributed to earlier versions of this report. Updated figures and additional
research provided by William Morton.

Congressional Research Service
10