|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 15:33:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com> To: com-priv@psi.com Cc: "Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com> Protest of NSS 93-53 and the GAO decision of 9 May 1993. The more I read about this protest and the decision by the GAO , the more flaws I find. In the final paragraph the GAO stated: "we do not review protests of cooperative agreement awards based on allegations of conflict of interest. The protest is dismissed. Now the following people worked on this for the GAO. Robert P. Murphy Acting General Counsel Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq. James A. Spangenberg, Esq. Its times to say READ MY lips ! " WE DO NOT REVIEW PROTESTS OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AWARDS BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST." Really ? The decision is 5 pages long. It adresses the entire protest as filed by Sprint Communications Company, L.P. If thats not a review I don't know what it is. The 5 page document if Sprint allows it to go un-answered will become another one in a long series of case decisions in the GAO files. The problem with that is any furture protest on this or other contracts can be beat down with the findings of this one. Why Sprint ever filed such a poorly written half baked protest in the first place is beyond me. There legal advise is a joke. Any specialist in procurement law would never make such a drastic mistake. You can tell how serious MCI takes the protest by reading the name of the law firm they are represented by and seeing the players. MCI clearly means business. Now as for the GAO - We have at least three people and probably more. They get the protest, go into the research mode and the best they can manage to do is repeat NSF policy, rules etc. Now thats imagination. These well schooled people with their vast resources produce a DECISION that says they have no authority to review the matter. In fact thats just what the 5 page document does. Its a review of the entire Sprint protest and a number of opinions expressed by the GAO based on established policys. What we have is a DISMISSED PROTEST based on a review of a non-review. Well, I'm confused. It gets better. These people (the GAO) have time, money and information available to the, in order to handle protests and settle them. How can the GAO be involved with a 50 million dollar plus protest and not know the difference between ATM Switching technology and Automated Teller Service ? The 50 million is a small deal in the scope of things but, even with a gross error, the GAO has not amended the decision. Since the GAO has in fact reviewed the protest of the cooperative agreement it has violated its own stated rules/policy. At the very least a re-consideration is in order. The information contained in this non-investigated decision can and would be used by the NSF should anyone want to protest the sol NSS 93-53 in their court. The actions of both Sprint and the GAO have tainted the entire protest process. I just wonder if all these lawyers went to the same school. MCI must be really laughing about this . Joseph Stroup
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |