[9182] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: esnet vs nsfnet: contracts vs coop agreements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brock N. Meeks)
Mon Dec 20 16:01:53 1993
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 12:59:44 -0800
From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.sf.ca.us>
To: brock@well.sf.ca.us, com-priv@psi.com, cook@path.net,
Well, Dennis, I have to disagree with you. I don't think DoE pulled
a bait and switch on AT&T. I followed the protest very carefully
and thought the GAO made a bad decision.
DoE (actually, Lawrence Livermore Lab) clearly clarified the RFP to
allow ATM. AT&T just didn't bid ATM at first, then claimed it would
have if it had only known.
That's the short version. There much angst on the part of AT&T over
the availablity of the TRW ATM switch, which was the centerpiece for
Sprint's bid.
History has proven Sprint right and AT&T wrong.
That said, you're right, of course, when pointing out that AT&T did
what one would expect, protest the bid in order to buy more time.
(Actually,
that's a loose interpretation of what you said.) Anyway, the folks I've
spoken to at the Lab agreed with you. AT&T was doing what one would
expect any losing bidder to do: try and get a more favorable ruling.
Brock Meeks
reporter
Communications Daily
