Dist. Ct. did not err in vacating arbitration panel’s decision that reversed plaintiff’s award of contract to operate vending facilities at certain govt. facilities to third-party under Randolph-Sheppard Act, which provides blind persons with employment opportunities. In July of 2011, plaintiff awarded bid to third-party at two sites based on scores generated during interviews with all applicants. Defendant-applicant appealed plaintiff’s decision to arbitration panel. However, during said appeal, plaintiff invited applicants to re-interview for contract for both sites and eventually awarded contract to said sites in 2013 to same third-party, under circumstances where defendant-applicant did not participate in said process. Dist. Ct. could properly vacate panel’s decision, where: (1) panel used wrong standard of review, i.e., substantial evidence, instead of preponderance of evidence to reverse plaintiff‘s decision, where defendant-applicant had burden of proof to show that plaintiff’s bid award to third-party violated law; (2) panel’s findings of fact that plaintiff’s use of 2013 profitability data in bid awarding process, as well as plaintiff’s failure to consider defendant-applicant’s six-sentence letter of recommendation were prejudicial to defendant-applicant were not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) panel’s award of contract to defendant-applicant was arbitrary and capricious, especially where defendant-applicant had not participated in 2013 re-interviewing process.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Randolph-Sheppard Act