[11348] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
NSF Give parts of Sprint VBNS Prop to MCI??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Wed Mar 30 02:29:52 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 18:37:07 PST
To: com-priv@psi.com
Cc: cook@pandora.sf.ca.us
The following is from Sprint's March 15 filing with GAO in the vBNS protest. If
you assume that Sprint had better be prepared to back up these statements, what
it seems to me that we have is an amazing display of either arogance or
stupidity on the part of the National Science Foundation. How Sprint found out
is an intriguing question. Perhaps a mole within NSF or within MCI?
This comes from a *long cover* story article on the HPCC backbone disputes in
the April COOK Report on Internet -> NREN that I hope to publish later tonight.
"By exceeding the scope of its authorization, the NSF has violated the terms
under which it was entitled to award a cooperative agreement. Therefore, the GAO
may hear the protest.4
______________
Footnote 4 Sprint is troubled by the National Science Foundation's lack of
regard for rules and regulations. The problem appears to be systemic of the
organization. For example, AT&T has advised Sprint that despite the fact it
offered a proposal for the vBNS portion of the Solicitation, it has yet to be
advised by the NSF of Sprint's protest as required in 4. CFR 21.3(a). Similarly,
the agency ignored the terms of the Protective Order and of the proprietary
legend on Sprint's vBNS proposal in sending its request for Summary Dismissal
including several pages from Sprint's proprietary proposal to MCI, a direct
competitor of Sprint and a non-party to the litigation at the time of
disclosure. The document was not marked with any proprietary legend, let alone
the appropriate legend as required by the GAO's Protective Order. Nonetheless,
of greatest concern to Sprint is NSF's expressed lack of concern about breaching
its responsibilities to Sprint in this manner. (page 7)
