Questions Raised As To Why Connected Nation Selected In Florida Despite Costing More Than Double

from the doesn't-look-good... dept

Fri, Aug 28th 2009 5:18pm — Mike Masnick

We've already discussed how Washington DC darling Connected Nation appears more and more like a telco sponsored boondoggle to control gov't mapping mandates and collect gov't money, without having to give up real data on broadband access. But, for some reason, politicians just seem to love Connected Nation (CN). Last time I was in DC, it was all anyone was talking about concerning broadband policy. However, there are more and more questions being raised now. Apparently, Connected Nation got a big win in Florida recently, despite the fact that its bid for mapping was more than double the next runner up, ISC. Connect Florida -- a brand new "affiliate" of Connected Nation, bid $7.1 million. ISC, which is actually based in Florida and has worked with Florida gov't agencies in the past, bid $2.8 million. ISC used references for its actual work on the ground in Florida, including "the Florida Department of Health, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Agriculture and two local businesses, including an Economic Development Council. The ISC application also listed 11 contracts the company has with Florida state agencies." Connect Florida, on the other hand, named out-of-state references who were involved in other Connected Nation projects, raising questions about Connect Florida's understanding of the Florida market. So how did Connect Florida win?

According to sources, one of the five judges gave ISC the win, with an eight-point differential over CN. Two other judges gave CN a two-point win. One other judge gave CN a 15-point win over ISC. Yet in another curiosity, one judge gave CN a 51-point win. That judge was Bill Price, currently the broadband stimulus program manager for the state of Florida, a position he has held for the past three months. According to his profile on the Linked-In social networking site, Price was vice president for business development for BellSouth Business.

Remember how Connected Nation is really closely connected to the telcos? And a former telco exec who only recently got the state gov't job suddenly happens to rate it up massively over the second place competitor? Doesn't that at least raise some ethics questions? Perhaps there's more to it, and perhaps there are good reasons why Connect Florida is better than ISC. But it sure does seem like Florida owes the public an explanation of what those good reasons might be.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: connected nation, florida
Companies: connect florida, connected nation, isc

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 5:40pm

Okay, so let's go with the cheaper bid, and then they can come back a month later with 8 million in "unexpected overruns".

You can find a conspiracy under every rock if you look hard enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re:
  I suppose you can assume that the government is perfectly benevolent and never does anything wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 5:55pm
  
  Re:
  The fact is that most of the time the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right. If it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - kirillian (profile), 29 Aug 2009 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Also, if it floats like a duck...then it must be a witch!!
    
    Seriously, though...legitimate questions have been raised in this case about the honesty, transparency, and apparent conflicts of interest in this case. I'd say that a LOT of explanation is needed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2009 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    "it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck ..." But wait, if it's a duck, aren't we supposed to sue the shit out of it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 6:08pm
  
  Re:
  I think the point Mike is trying to make is that, as a rule, we shouldn't allow people with such likely conflicts of interest in subject matters involving law and government funding to have so much influence over such subject matters. You wouldn't want a doctor giving you recommendations and writing prescriptions if he has a conflict of interest with pharmaceutical corporations and if he gets paid more money for favoring certain drugs over others. The government should be accountable to the people and the people should not tolerate such a strong potential for conflicts of interest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 30 Aug 2009 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Also simply that if there is an obvious potential conflict of interest, as there is here, that the public needs added transparency in the decision making process if they are ever going to trust the decision.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ..., 28 Aug 2009 @ 6:27pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, well - there it is - perfect rational for going with the highest bidder
  
  Excellent!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Captain Obvious, 29 Aug 2009 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  And you can put a rock over every conspiracy if you try hard enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Captain Obvious, 29 Aug 2009 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  And you can put a rock over every conspiracy if you try hard enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Captain Obvious, 29 Aug 2009 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  And you can put a rock over every conspiracy if you try hard enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy, 31 Aug 2009 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  So, original AC, you're saying CN, will only cost $7.1M and there's NO way that they'll go over budget?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 31 Aug 2009 @ 5:38pm
  
  Re:
  You're right about cost over-runs being common, but government RFP rules generally state that they must go with the cheaper bid. So why, in this case, did they go with one twice as high?
  
  When I compared a Honda Pilot against an Acura MDX priced much higher, I needed to quantify the advantages of spending more. In the absence of advantages, I would certainly choose the cheaper option. The people who are paying the bill deserve to know why the higher option was chosen. Common sense like that should also apply to the state of Florida.
  
  A corollary to your conclusion is: You can fail to find every conspiracy if you don't ask the obvious questions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rjk (profile), 28 Aug 2009 @ 5:54pm

You can find a conspiracy under every rock if you look hard enough.

Turns out in this case Mike didn't have to look to hard.

How hard will it be to find out if you are as corrupt as Bill Price?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 6:27pm

Probably because the alternative, ISC, wouldn't include block-by-block uber-cool room 641As

They say this Bill Price worked for BellSouth Business. But remember, it's is now a part of the nation's most friendly telecoms company, Whittacre Communications, a wholly owned unit of General Motors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 6:35pm

"According to sources, one of the five judges gave ISC the win, with an eight-point differential over CN. Two other judges gave CN a two-point win. One other judge gave CN a 15-point win over ISC. Yet in another curiosity, one judge gave CN a 51-point win."

Now, let's to the math. After Judge 1, CN -8. After judges 2 + 3, CN-4, after judge 3, CN +11. So no matter what, even if Judge 5 gave only 1 point higher, the choice was already made.

What would be more interesting would be to see why such a wide swing (excluding the wild +51) from -8 to +15. I would appear that perhaps 3 of the judges were on the take or similar, no?

If you are going to go all Tin Foil Hat on this, do it right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 7:27pm
  
  Re:
  What?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 8:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I said you are ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 10:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      lol
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2009 @ 6:59pm

Deep Magic Begins Here...
So if the FCC or Government agency would have created the maps, they would have be works of the Government. But because they are created in a black box, no one can figure out how they are generated, what statistics go in and such.

Sounds like the way I'd do it, if say, I really just wanted to get rebuild divested parts of my network due to large mergers and such, and get taxpayers to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Captain Obvious, 29 Aug 2009 @ 7:13am

Sorry, didn't mean to triple post. Page was loading wonky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2009 @ 4:09pm

Who are the other 4 judges? Why aren't they named? The voting was wide enough in both directions to wonder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 29 Aug 2009 @ 7:20pm

not a surprise
bribery and connections always get the upper hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 31 Aug 2009 @ 7:42am

We have the best government
that money can buy.
This excludes none of the three branches here in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
art (profile), 31 Aug 2009 @ 7:56am

the entire picture
First, the problem was that the "winning" bid was twice as high as the second-place bid, and that the "winning" bid had no local references or experience. That should have raised a flag.

Second, the judges spread frankly raised questions. One judge gave CN a 15 point win (82-67). Two judges gave CN a 2-point win (82-80 and 92-96). One judge have ISC an 8-point win (75-83). And then Mr. Price gave CN a 51-point win (93-42). That's an outlier, no matter how you look at it, and it should be looked at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]