[11388] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Sprint says NSF gave Sprints proprietary docs to MCI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Thu Mar 31 02:20:07 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 13:52:49 PST
To: com-priv@psi.com
Cc: cook@pandora.sf.ca.us
The following is a side bar from the April COOK Report. I sent this to com-priv
24 hours ago, but it apparently vanished into the either <sigh>. This is from
the Sprint March 15 filing with GAO. It contains some serious accusations. Is
NSF being amazingly sloppy here or is it being arrogant? And how did sprint
find out? A mole at NSF, or at MCI??
SPRINT: NSF HAS NO REGARD FOR RULES AND REGULATIONS
SAYS AGENCY VIOLATED GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER IN GIVING PORTIONS OF SPRINT PROPOSAL
TO MCI
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
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)
