THIS ORDER WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ITS REDACTED FORM ON APRIL 19, 1994 _________________________________________________ ORDERED: February 23, 1994 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 12754-P FEDERAL COMPUTER CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent, and ViON CORPORATION, Intervenor. Gerard F. Doyle and Alexander T. Bakos of Doyle & Bachman, Washington, DC; and David Kovach of Federal Computer Corporation, Falls Church, VA, counsel for Protester. Donald M. Suica, Duane L. Zezula, James W. Corbitt, Jr., Greg M. Weinman, and Corlyss M. Drinkard, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. David R. Hazelton, Roger S. Goldman, and C. Chad Johnson of Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. NEILL, Board Judge. ORDER House counsel for protester, Federal Computer Corporation (FCC), has requested that the Board grant him access to confidential material subject to a protective order issued in this protest. He represents to the Board that he is not involved in FCC's competitive decision making. This request for access has been challenged by respondent and by ViON Corporation (ViON), an intervenor of right in this case. Counsel for both objecting parties contend that the original request of counsel leaves unanswered many questions regarding counsel's position within the organizational structure of FCC. In addition, respondent has provided a letter recently signed by FCC counsel which confirms FCC's agreement to extend its offer on the protested procurement. This letter, argue respondent and ViON, indicates counsel's involvement in FCC's competitive decision making. On February 17, at a prehearing conference, the status of the request of FCC's counsel for access was discussed. It was agreed that FCC and respondent would submit declarations from individuals with personal knowledge of the circumstances leading to the letter from FCC counsel regarding the extension of FCC's pending offer. Counsel for FCC also agreed to supplement his request and to address in this supplement the concerns of opposing counsel. In this regard, it was suggested that opposing counsel facilitate this task by expressing their principal concerns in writing. On Tuesday, February 22, FCC counsel filed a supplement to his original request. The supplement contains declarations under penalty of perjury from FCC officials indicating that FCC counsel was specifically authorized to extend the Company's offer and that he did not participate in the discussion which led to the decision to extend the offer. Although respondent and ViON continue to find these explanations inadequate, we find them satisfactory. One fact, however, which respondent has brought to light through its written questions to FCC counsel is that the FCC counsel is married to an FCC employee. Material from FCC's proposal shows . An organizational chart contained in the proposal shows his wife to be on a level of management equal to that of FCC's proposal manager. In addition, his wife's resume, also contained in FCC's proposal, indicates that from September 1984 to the present, counsel's wife has served as corporate contracts manager at FCC. This includes being responsible for all tasks associated with government contracts from the date of award until equipment acceptance standards have been met. In addition, the resume states that this individual's responsibilities include organizing acquisition of equipment while acting as the primary contact for customer and OEM inquiries. Finally, the resume represents that this individual assists "in both GSA/ADP schedule and government contract negotiations." Clearly this individual is involved in FCC competitive decision making. In his supplemental submission, FCC counsel assures the Board that there is "no risk" of inadvertent disclosure because he maintains a separate office from that which he has at FCC and it is only to the former that he will take any protected material. In addition, he notes that the protest file itself will be kept at the office of outside counsel. FCC counsel's concept of risk strikes us as exceedingly narrow. The risk of disclosure which is of concern to the Board and, presumably to opposing counsel, extends to much more than confidential documentation. In cases such as this, the confidential information in counsel's head is as much at risk of inadvertent disclosure as the information carried in his briefcase. Any inquiry on the Board's part regarding the risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information cannot stop with a consideration of the physical security of confidential documentation. This brings us to the close relationship which we assume to exist between FCC counsel and his wife. The Board has, in the past, concluded that a close familial relationship between corporate management and individuals seeking access to protected material poses an unacceptable risk of inadvertent disclosure. International Data Products, Corp., GSBCA 12269-P, 93-2 BCA 25,806, 1993 BPD 41. Such a conclusion is not one arrived at automatically. Rather, it involves a balancing of various considerations. In the instant case, we are dealing with one of the more intimate of familial relationships. From all indications, counsel's spouse is clearly involved in FCC competitive decision making and shares with counsel a common interest in the business affairs of FCC. Finally, if counsel's request for access is denied, FCC will still be represented by outside counsel, and house counsel can still assist outside counsel in dealing with matters and documents which are confidential to FCC. On balance, therefore, given the circumstances of this case, it is the Board's conclusion that there is a serious potential risk of inadvertent disclosure of protected information. Accordingly, the request of FCC counsel for access to protected material is denied. _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge