B-199948 L/M, SEP 3, 1980
Highlights
WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE BY THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION. IS THAT (1) AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HIS FIRM DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF A TVA CONTRACT AND (2) OTHER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS IN THE AREA DO NOT EMPLOY MINORITIES. THIS MATTER WAS REFERRED TO OUR OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. YOU WERE SO ADVISED. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S ADVICE TO YOU IS INCORRECT. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER OUR BID PROTEST JURISDICTION WE WILL INVESTIGATE CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION. THIS IS TRUE ONLY IF IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE DISCRIMINATION WAS THE BASIS FOR THE REJECTION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S BID ON A FEDERAL CONTRACT.
B-199948 L/M, SEP 3, 1980
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
ROBIN BEARD, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
WE REFER TO THE MATTER OF MR. LACY ROSE OF JACKSON, TENNESSEE, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE BY THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.
MR. ROSE'S COMPLAINT, ESSENTIALLY, IS THAT (1) AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HIS FIRM DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF A TVA CONTRACT AND (2) OTHER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS IN THE AREA DO NOT EMPLOY MINORITIES.
THIS MATTER WAS REFERRED TO OUR OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, AND YOU WERE SO ADVISED. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S ADVICE TO YOU IS INCORRECT.
WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER OUR BID PROTEST JURISDICTION WE WILL INVESTIGATE CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION, THIS IS TRUE ONLY IF IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE DISCRIMINATION WAS THE BASIS FOR THE REJECTION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S BID ON A FEDERAL CONTRACT. SEE JOSEPH LEGAT ARCHITECTS, B-187160, DECEMBER 13, 1977, 77-2 CPD 458. WE DO NOT CONSIDER ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION OCCURRING, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, DURING PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT. SEE ARSCO, INC., B-132740, JANUARY 26, 1976, 76-1 CPD 54, AND MUSTANG INDUSTRIAL CLEANERS, B-172531, MARCH 5, 1976, 76-1 CPD 158. ANY EVENT, WE DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER TVA CONTRACT AWARDS. CAM INDUSTRIES, INC., B-194019, MARCH 7, 1979, 79-1 CPD 166.
REGARDING THE ALLEGATION THAT OTHER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS IN THE AREA DO NOT EMPLOY MINORITIES, EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246, SEPTEMBER 24, 1965, REQUIRES NONDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT BY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS. HOWEVER, GAO HAS NO SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY UNDER THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER AND BECOMES INVOLVED ONLY IF A PROTEST IS FILED WITH US AGAINST THE AWARD OR PROPOSED AWARD OF A CONTRACT. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE ARE UNABLE TO BE OF ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER.