From the President's Desk

From the Editor: The following is another selection of letters that President Riccobono has recently written to government officials regarding policies that affect blind Americans. These two letters address protecting the Randolph-Sheppard priority at military installations and Rehabilitation Act regulations that help blind people obtain employment with federal contractors. Here are the letters:

August 20, 2025

The Honorable Pete Hegseth
Secretary
United States Department of Defense 
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301 

Re: Randolph-Sheppard Program 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

It has come to the attention of the National Federation of the Blind, the nation’s premier membership and advocacy organization of blind Americans, that you recently sent a request to the Department of Education (DOE) seeking a waiver to the Randolph-Sheppard priority on all Department of Defense (DOD) properties. Your request is predicated on the assertion that vending facilities operated by blind vendors adversely affect the interests of the United States.
On behalf of the more than 1,300 blind entrepreneurs who operate vending facilities across the country, including approximately 115 on DOD properties, we respectfully disagree. We hope to enter into much-needed dialogue with DOD on how Randolph-Sheppard vendors can better meet the needs of the men and women in our military.

We recognize that the current process leads to some inefficiencies and, working with the Department of Education and your office, we believe we can drastically streamline and improve operations. As the Secretary of Defense, you are uniquely positioned to make that happen. 

In that regard, I want to note that part of the problem is that the Program operates under an outdated model that has not changed in the last fifty years. Our organization has ideas on how to modernize the program to improve efficiencies. This may be the perfect opportunity for DOE, DOD, and the Randolph-Sheppard stakeholders to work collaboratively toward such modernization.

Your letter addresses two different issues. The first relates to military troop dining contracts and the other to traditional vending facilities such as automated vending machines, micromarkets, and snack bars. We want to keep the issues separate and wish to start with concerns about the dining contracts. 

Blind entrepreneurs currently operate dining contracts on only fifty-five bases, so we are a fairly small piece of the pie. Still, the Randolph-Sheppard community is very proud of the quality of dining services it provides. In 2025, two of our blind entrepreneurs were presented with the Captain Edward F. Ney Memorial Food Service Award that recognizes best mess halls in the Navy.

Eddie Turner, who manages the contract at the Meridian Naval Air Station in Mississippi, was presented the award in May for having the best Navy food service in the East and Jerry Gann at the San Diego Naval Base was presented the award for the best in the West. Another of our blind entrepreneurs, Virgil Stinnett at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii, was presented the same award in 2024. Over the years, multiple blind entrepreneurs have won the Air Force’s John L. Hennessey Trophy and the Phillip A. Connelly Award for Excellence in Army Food Services.

These numerous accolades speak to the high quality that blind entrepreneurs deliver to their customers. If there is a perceived lack of quality, it should be stressed that our blind entrepreneurs can only contribute so much since they are typically required to use food and recipes provided by the military. In some instances, we don’t even cook the food and provide only dining facility attendant services.

As for the expense of Randolph-Sheppard contracts, the contracting officers have statutory authority to directly negotiate contracts with state licensing agencies that ensure a fair and reasonable price. Increasingly more contracting officers are taking advantage of this flexibility, which increases contracting efficiencies and saves the DOD millions in costs associated with lengthy and expensive solicitations.

Through Randolph-Sheppard, contracts can be awarded faster and with much less administrative overhead. We cannot overemphasize that the price is negotiated and that the contracting officers determine and ensure a fair price to the United States government. Direct negotiation is a tool granted by Congress that offers the opportunity for everyone to win, and we are seeing it in practice right now. 

It is worth noting that if the Secretary of Education grants your request, we do not believe you will get the outcome you desire. First, Secretary McMahon’s determination would be challenged in court, which would mean a significant expense of time and taxpayer dollars. Even if she were to prevail, other set-aside programs would step in to fill the void.

The AbilityOne program currently operates more dining contracts than Randolph-Sheppard, and that program would then expand to more bases. However, AbilityOne contracts can cost more than Randolph-Sheppard contracts, so troop dining costs could increase rather than decrease. Other set-aside programs such as 8a would be in line to assume some of the slack as well.

Admittedly, the arbitration process can be burdensome, and if state licensing agencies believe the contracting officer inappropriately applied the priority, they often request the Secretary of Education to convene an arbitration panel. These can be frustrating, costly, and time-consuming. We understand that. Just a few short years ago there were multiple arbitrations at any given time. Today, there is not a single active arbitration. That speaks to the progress that has been made. 

Before leaving the issue of cafeteria contracts, I want to directly address the upcoming national contract to provide food services at all Marine Corps bases in the United States. This is a textbook example of how the Randolph-Sheppard priority can be used to the advantage of everyone involved. Sodexo is the incumbent, and by all indications the Marines are happy with the service and would be more than happy for Sodexo to continue. Randolph-Sheppard has proposed a unique approach whereby the states involved would team with Sodexo, and thirteen blind entrepreneurs would help manage that contract at a price the Marine Corps believes is fair.
A burdensome and costly solicitation would be avoided. Randolph-Sheppard has proposed direct negotiations as a means to accomplish this. In this scenario everyone wins. The Marines will be able to ensure the same high-quality service by keeping Sodexo as a partner in the contract. The contracting officers know they will get a fair and reasonable price because they get to negotiate price and only agree if they are satisfied. Thirteen blind entrepreneurs in eight states will have jobs. The state agencies for the blind that administer the programs will be able to fulfill their responsibility to create opportunities for the blind.

It is a win-win-win scenario. Our concern is that if your letter filters down to the Marine Corps contracting officers, they will be hesitant to proceed down a road they have indicated they desire to follow but that may be seen as being in conflict with your position. Under the circumstances, we urge your office to communicate with the Marines and other branches of the military and allow them to continue operating under the status quo until we have an opportunity to work with you to explore other possibilities. 

Finally, I want to briefly address traditional vending facilities, which are more typical of most businesses operated by blind entrepreneurs. By our count, there are 348 military installations in the United States and blind vendors have a presence on only 22 percent of those installations in terms of operating vending machines, snack bars, micromarkets, etc. By law, a blind entrepreneur should be on every installation. Opportunities have been blocked by the exchanges. Congress granted a priority to blind vendors.

The exchanges do not have any such statutory priority other than internal policies and directives. This has created friction. And that friction has only intensified because the Army and Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES) and some members of your staff have refused to have conversations on how AAFES and Randolph-Sheppard can co-exist and complement each other. It is not the goal of Randolph-Sheppard to take over everything and run the exchanges out of business. We understand and appreciate their mission.

But the Randolph-Sheppard Act requires at least one blind vendor on every base if practicable. There are opportunities if those involved could just sit down with the intent of working things out and engage in meaningful dialogue. Our members have tried but have been blocked at every turn. Randolph-Sheppard has much to offer. Some bases are very unhappy with the quality of AAFES vending services on their bases. If a base commander wants better service for his soldiers, isn’t having options other than AAFES a positive for our troops?

What if Randolph-Sheppard could bring national chains to your men and women in uniform? Chick-fil-A may not be inclined to do business with the federal government, but there could be an opportunity to bring its restaurants to military bases through Randolph-Sheppard. We’ve met with them in the past and have at least one Chick-fil-A operating in a state building in Tennessee. Perhaps we need to revisit that.

What if we can offer healthier options that are more in line with the Make America Healthy Again initiative? Aren’t the exchanges by statute restricted to selling to uniformed personnel with some limited exceptions? They serve civilians in multiple locations. Could that be a starting point for discussions? I say all of this to highlight that there are opportunities for collaboration. 
In conclusion, the National Federation of the Blind urges you to work with the Randolph-Sheppard community in a mutually beneficial way. We request that you withdraw your waiver request until such time as we can meet with you, which we request at your earliest convenience. We look forward to ushering in a new era of collaboration. 

Sincerely, 
Mark Riccobono, President 
National Federation of the Blind

Cc: The Honorable Linda McMahon

August 14, 2025

Catherine L. Eschbach, Director
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
United States Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

RE: Modifications to the Regulations Implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Dear Director Eschbach:

The National Federation of the Blind is the nation’s premier membership and advocacy organization of blind Americans, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP) proposed rule. Due to our longstanding advocacy efforts to improve employment opportunities for the blind of America, we must oppose the OFCCP’s proposal to rescind the affirmative action and employment utilization goal of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

Since our founding in 1940, we have worked tirelessly to advance the lives of our tens of thousands of members from our fifty-two affiliates, as well as all blind people in the United States. Naturally, a significant part of our advocacy over the past eighty-five years has been striving to ensure that blind Americans are able to obtain steady, fulfilling, and gainful employment. The OFCCP’s proposed rule is contrary to those efforts.

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal contractors with contracts in excess of 15,000 dollars to engage in “affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities” (29 U.S.C. § 793). By requiring “affirmative action,” Congress thus imposed higher obligations on federal contractors—beyond mere nondiscrimination—than it imposed on noncontractor employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs promulgated regulations clarifying the meaning of “affirmative action” for purposes of Section 503 by specifying that federal contractors should have an affirmative action policy and plan in place, undertake positive outreach and recruitment activities to recruit individuals with disabilities to apply, invite applicants and employees to voluntarily self-identify as people with disabilities for purposes of affirmative action, and use a utilization goal of having 7 percent of their employees be people with disabilities as a guideline for assessing their progress. This regulation went through extensive notice and comment and reflected a compromise lower than the prevalence of people with disabilities in the working-age population (approximately 20 percent).

Importantly, the invitation for applicants and employees to self-identify as people with disabilities under Section 503 is voluntary and the self-identification can only be used for affirmative action purposes. No individual with a disability is required to self-identify, there are no penalties for failing to self-identify, and the self-identification is subject to strict confidentiality protections.

The self-identification cannot be used to discriminate and cannot be compelled. These protections distinguish Section 503 self-identification from the pre-employment medical inquiries prohibited by the ADA Title I regulations, which are mandatory and could be used for the purpose of discrimination.

However, OFCCP, in proposing to rescind the Section 503 self-identification requirement conflates the Section 503 self-identification requirements with the prohibited pre-employment medical inquiry prohibition. Indeed, even the ADA permits post-offer medical examinations before an employee starts working and permits employers to seek voluntary medical information for purposes of employee wellness programs. 

There is no legal basis for OFCCP’s conflation of the Section 503 and ADA provisions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is legally responsible for interpreting Title I of the ADA, has repeatedly made clear that disability affirmative action programs, including voluntary self-identification, do not violate the ADA.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs refers to merely one example of the EEOC’s expression of this conclusion—a 2013 letter from the EEOC Legal Counsel to the OFCCP Director. It ignores the fact that the EEOC’s position has been consistent for three decades and has, indeed, been issued by the Commission itself and not merely its Legal Counsel (See Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations, 1995).
In addition, in the thirty years since that guidance was issued, and in the decade since the Section 503 self-identification regulation was promulgated, no court has found that voluntary affirmative-action-related self-identification violates the ADA. Far from being an “exception” to the ADA prohibition on mandatory pre-employment inquiries, the Section 503 voluntary self-identification requirement is fully consistent with, and furthers the goals of, the ADA.
There is also no basis for eliminating the Section 503 utilization goal. Again, no court has found the goal to be illegal and OFCCP does not provide any basis for finding the goal illegal. The Section 503 regulation specifically provides that quotas are not required, and in fact are prohibited. Thus, there is no basis for OFCCP’s unsupported conclusion that “contractors may, in practice, be induced to using quotas to meet the utilization goal.”

There is no evidence—and OFCCP cites to none—that contractors are instituting disability quotas. The utilization goal requirement merely provides a benchmark for contractors to assess their progress toward a nondiscriminatory workplace. Because the ADA does not protect nondisabled people and the United States Constitution merely protects nondisabled people under the rational basis standard, a nondisabled person would not have standing to challenge the utilization goal, even if it did result in a quota.

Because disability discrimination in employment is so prevalent and because employment rates of people with disabilities have consistently lagged so far behind disability prevalence in the workforce (see US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary (showing working-age disabled people with double the unemployment rate and half the labor force participation rate of nondisabled people)) there are good policy reasons, far beyond a rational basis, to require affirmative action and to provide contractors a tool for assessing their progress in eliminating disability discrimination.
 
It is worth noting that according to the American Community Survey, conducted annually by the United States Census Bureau, the full-time/full-year employment rate for blind, working age (ages 21-64) Americans has increased steadily each year since the implementation of the Section 503 utilization goal regulation in 2014.

In fact, the rate has increased by nearly 12 percent in the decade since the regulation has been in effect. Prior to that, the number was stagnant. We know there have also been advancements in training, education, and technology in that time, but with all of these factors combined the employment rate for the blind of the nation is trending in a positive direction, and we would hate to see any of that progress reversed. 

Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and we are available to answer any further questions you may have. 

Sincerely,
Mark A. Riccobono, President
National Federation of the Blind