[11984] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
complete text of john conyers letter to NSF director Lane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Thu Apr 28 20:05:13 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 22:17:44 GMT
To: com-priv@psi.com
A second article from the May 1994 COOK Report.
US CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE HANDLING OF NSF 93 -52
SOLICITATION?
CONYERS' COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS WRITES
ANGRY LETTER TO NSF DIRECTOR LANE
In our September 1992 issue (page 1) we warned the National
Science Foundation that, with its plans for the new solicitation, it was
setting out to repeat its past mistakes. We had hoped that Congress
would become alert to what - at the very least - is the use of NREN
activities to pick winners in the commercial market place. We are
pleased that finally, under Congressman John Conyers, the Committee
on Government Operations has become involved. Although Conyers'
language in the letter to NSF Director Lane (that we reprint in full
below) is scathing, we are told that the Committee is engaged in
gathering information and fact finding. The NSF will very likely
receive a second request for information in response to follow up
questions. Based on the committee staff's evaluation of this data, a
decision will be made as to whether or not to procede to a full
fledged investigation. All this could take betwen two and eight more
weeks.
We think that Conyers' questions are good ones. We note that in
scope and occasionally in phrasing, they are very similar to Sprint's
line of attack before GAO. Sprint, however, denies being among those
making allegations of problems to Conyers. We note that Conyers
emphasizes *numerous* allegations, that he suggests that a
cooperative agreement was used by NSF improperly and that the
result was a "sham" competition and that he gives NSF until April 27
to reply.
Conyers Letter to Neal Lane
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Committee on Government
Operations
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6143
April 12, 1994
Honorable Neal F. Lane
Director National Science Foundation
4200 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230
Dear Mr. Lane:
The Committee on Government Operations has received numerous
allegations questioning the propriety of National Science Foundation
(NSF) efforts to acquire telecommunication services. These allegations
suggest that the NSF has entered into a $50 million cooperative
agreement for high-speed data communication services in a manner
that, by design, ignored the tenets of fair and open competition set
forth in Federal procurement policy and law. This NSF procurement,
known as very high-speed Backbone Network Services (vBNS), is
intended to provide services in support of the electronic networks,
NSFNET and Internet.
I am particularly troubled by allegations that the NSF procured these
services through a cooperative agreement rather than a contract, in
an apparent effort to circumvent federal acquisition regulations. As
you may know, the Committee has long been concerned about the
misuse of grants and cooperative agreements. In fact, the Committee
led efforts to curb the abuse of these instruments through passage in
1977 of the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act.
The committee has received even more troubling reports that, having
chosen this route, the NSF allegedly awarded its cooperative
agreement to the incumbent vendor after a sham "competition". This
competition was allegedly marred by unfair contacts with the
incumbent vendor and preferential consideration of that vendor's
proposal. Painting an even darker picture are allegations that this
procurement was further tainted by the relationship between an NSF
official and the winning vendor team. Specifically, the Committee is
told that a senior NSF official failed to recuse himself from
involvement in this procurement despite an apparent conflict of
interest caused by his affiliation with the winning vendor's partially-
owned subsidiary and corporate partner in this procurement.
These allegations raise serious questions about whether the vBNS
procurement was fair and in the best interest of the taxpayers. They
also raise serious policy questions about the manner in which the
future NSF network is being developed. As a matter of policy it
seems that the NSF has a responsibility to conduct its affairs in a
manner that is beyond reproach; making it clear that these services
were obtained on the basis of technical proficiency and lowest
possible cost, not familiarity or favoritism.
The very high-speed network services which NSF intends to procure
will undoubtedly play a key role in the effort to reinvent the way
the Federal Government does business. A high stakes effort of this
importance and complexity must be open to competition from all U.S.
telecommunication companies. To do otherwise is to court disaster; to
risk building a network that is unnecessarily costly, limited in
functionality, difficult to modify, and, in the end, unacceptable to its
users.
As you may know, the Committee on Government Operations has
explicit legislative jurisdiction over matters involving Federal
procurement, contracting and information technology management.
We also have a clear responsibility to investigate allegations that
Federal expenditures are wasteful or improper. For these reasons, we
request that you provide the Committee with a written response to
the attached information request regarding the vBNS procurement.
Please provide your response no later than the close of business,
Wednesday, April 27, 1994.
In closing, I want to assure you that the Committee is interested in
the success of all Federal information technology initiatives, including
the many state-of-the art systems developed and operated under the
auspices of the National Science Foundation. In this regard, I hope to
work with you as the Committee proceeds with its deliberations on
this matter.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
JOHN CONYERS, JR
Chairman
INFORMATION REQUEST REGARDING NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION vBNS Procurement
(1) Why has the NSF chosen to acquire these services through a
cooperative agreement rather than a competitively awarded
contract?
(2) What evaluation decision structure was used to select the
winning vendor?
(3) Was the proposal submitted by the winning vendor in this
procurement determined to be technically superior to the proposals
submitted by competing vendors? If so, on what basis?
(4) Does the winning vendor currently offer in the commercial
marketplace the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) services which
NSF is purchasing in this procurement?
(5) If the winning vendor is unable to meet the delivery goal, or
exceeds the original funding amount, what recourse will the NSF
have?
(6) Did any NSF officials involved in this procurement hold
discussions with the winning vendor at any time during the
evaluation process which preceded this award? If so, which other
vendors were given the same opportunity?
(7) Was the proposal submitted by the winning vendor priced lower
than the proposals submitted by competing vendors?
(8) Are any members of the National Science Board also on the Board
of Directors for the winning vendor, its subsidiaries, or
subcontractors? Are any National Science Foundation officials
involved in this procurement affiliated with the winning vendor, its
subsidiaries, or subcontractors?
(9) What legal arrangement (i.e., grant, cooperative agreement, or
contract) was used, or is expected to be used, to acquire the related
services of a Network Access Point Manager and a Routing Arbiter
organization?
_____________________________________________________________
_________
Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher: COOK Report on Internet -> NREN
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618
cook@path.net (609) 882-2572
Subscriptions: $500 corporate site license; $175 educational & non
prof., $85 individ.
_____________________________________________________________
_________
