________________________________________________________ ACCESS TO PROTECTED MATERIAL DENIED: September 28, 1994 _________________________________________________________ GSBCA 12970-P(12809-P) FDC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent, and BELL ATLANTIC NETWORK SERVICES, INC., Intervenor. Lawrence B. Bernard, Philip L. Sbarbaro, and Kevin C. Golden of Bayh, Connaughton, Fensterheim & Malone, Washington, DC; and Marvin S. Haber, General Counsel, FDC Technologies, Inc., Bethesda, MD, counsel for Protester. Lynn W. Flanagan, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Marcia G. Madsen, Brian W. Craver, and David F. Dowd of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC; and Harlan Sherwat of Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc., Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. NEILL, Board Judge. ORDER An attorney of record for protester has submitted to the Board a request for access to confidential material subject to a protective order issued in this case. This attorney is an associate in the firm retained by FDC Technologies, Inc. (FDCT) to represent it in this proceeding. In making his request, the attorney represents that in 1986 he worked as a summer law clerk in the legal department of protester. He also states that his father is currently an employee of protester. In response to the Board's request for additional information, the father of this attorney has submitted an affidavit describing his position with protester's organization. He explains that he holds the position of "Program Manager" at FDCT. In this capacity he assists in the development of technical proposals for the company's New Business Group. This is said to involve evaluating products for compliance with Government specifications, recommending product solutions to the program marketing representative, writing proposal responses for specific Section C dot points, and writing responses for subsequent requests for clarifications and deficiencies. This employee of FDCT also states that he has been associated with the proposal which is the subject of this protest. In particular, he admits to having researched for product specifications associated with parts of Section C and to having written responses for requests for clarifications and deficiencies associated with this same section. Affidavit of Terence P. Golden (September 23, 1994). Counsel for respondent objects to the request for access on the ground that the close familial relationship of the attorney to an individual involved in the company's competitive decision- making gives rise to an unacceptable risk of disclosure of protected material. Respondent also contends that the attorney's prior business relationship with the protester gives rise to the same unacceptable risk. Counsel for the intervenor, Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc., also objects contending that the risk of inadvertent disclosure is "quite substantial" given that a member of protester's proposal team is the father of the attorney seeking access. The Board does not consider that the attorney's brief, prior employment by protester poses any significant risk of inadvertent disclosure. The same cannot be said, however, of his close familial relationship to a member of protester's proposal team. We realize that his father may not be the ultimate competitive decision-maker, but undoubtedly he does contribute in a very real way to protester's competitive decision-making process. In the past, the Board has concluded that a close familial relationship between an employee of a party to a protest, other than the Government, and the individual seeking access to protected material poses an unacceptable risk of inadvertent disclosure. International Data Products, Corp. v. Department of Health and Human Services, GSBCA 12269-P, 93-2 BCA 25,806, 1993 BPD 41. This is particularly true when the employee in question is involved in the party's competitive decision-making. In the absence of any showing that there are unique or extenuating circumstances, the Board will conclude that this constitutes an unacceptable risk of inadvertent disclosure of protected material. Federal Computer Corp. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 12754-P, 94-2 BCA 26,876, at 133,764-65, 1994 BPD 80, at 4. In view of these precedents and the facts presented to us in this case, the attorney's request for access is denied. In denying this request for access, the Board does not intend to preclude this attorney from access to protected material which is subject to the protective order because it contains information deemed by FDCT to be proprietary or otherwise confidential. As counsel of record for protester, this attorney is obviously entitled to view and work with these materials. We also will expect opposing counsel to provide this attorney with reasonably redacted versions of any pleadings they have filed or may file in the future which are subject to the Board's protective order. Finally, the Board notes that access has already been granted to another member of the applicant's firm. We, therefore, expect counsel in that firm to take all necessary precautions including specific procedures to insure that there is no inadvertent disclosure of protected information to the attorney to whom the Board has denied access. _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge