32:0250(39)AR - - Health Care Financing Administration and AFGE Local 1923 - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v32 p250
[ v32 p250 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
32 FLRA No. 39
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1923
Case No. 0-AR-1346
(30 FLRA No. 140)
This matter is before the Authority on a request filed by the Union seeking reconsideration of the Authority's decision of January 29, 1988, which set aside an Arbitrator's award.
The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency erred when it contracted out certain functions without having conducted a comparative cost study, as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76. To remedy this error, the Arbitrator ordered the Agency to reconstruct the procurement action and to provide the Union with information necessary to ascertain any harm that the affected employees may have suffered. In our decision, we found that the Arbitrator did not make all of the findings required under Headquarters, 97th Combat Support Group (SAC), Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2840, 22 FLRA 656 (1986) to support his award. We concluded that the Arbitrator did not find that the Agency's failure to comply with the terms of OMB Circular A-76 materially affected its final procurement decision and harmed unit employees. Therefore, we held that the award was deficient and set it aside.
In its request for reconsideration, the Union argues that the Authority incorrectly failed to find that the Arbitrator determined that the Agency's noncompliance with OMB Circular A-76 materially affected the final procurement decision and harmed unit employees. According to the Union, the Arbitrator clearly found in his award that there was harm to unit employees, and he retained jurisdiction so that the total number of employees harmed by loss of grade or pay could be determined.
Also, the Union argues that the Arbitrator found that the Agency's failure to perform a comparative cost study materially affected the final procurement action. The Union points to evidence which, according to the Arbitrator, established that the Agency erred when it converted an existing in-house activity to contract performance without an A-76 comparative cost study. The Union argues that the data relied on by the Arbitrator demonstrated that there were no cost savings from the procurement action. Therefore, the Union contends that the Authority should have concluded that the Arbitrator found that the omission of a cost study materially affected the Agency's procurement decision.
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to move for reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. Here, however, the Union has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17. Rather, the arguments presented by the Union in support of its motion constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision. In our decision, we fully discussed the issues of whether the Arbitrator found that the Agency's noncompliance with OMB Circular A-76 materially affected the final procurement decision and harmed unit employees. We concluded that the Arbitrator did not make these findings. We find that the Union's request for reconsideration is simply an