THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN REDACTED FORM ON MARCH 16, 1995 _____________________________________________________ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS GRANTED IN PART: March 3, 1995 _____________________________________________________ GSBCA 13028-P, 13068-P COMMUNICATION NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC., Protester, and SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent, and GONZALES CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., Intervenor. Alan M. Grayson and Hugh J. Hurwitz of Law Offices of Alan M. Grayson, McLean, VA, counsel for Protester. Frank D. Pulis, Colorado Springs, CO, counsel for Intervenor System Technology Associates, Inc. Jerry A. Walz, F. Jefferson Hughes, and Lisa Obayashi, Office of General Counsel, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Pamela J. Mazza, Andrew P. Hallowell, and Antonio R. Franco of Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Gonzales Consulting Services, Inc. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. This matter comes before the Board on protester Communication Network Systems, Inc.'s (CNS') and intervenor Gonzales Consulting Services, Inc.'s (GCS') request for sanctions against System Technology Associates, Inc. (STA) and its counsel due to an alleged violation of the protective order. We dismissed in part and denied in part the consolidated protests in which this alleged violation of the protective order occurred, but did not address this issue in our decision. Communication Network Systems, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, GSBCA 13028-P et al. (Jan. 23, 1995). For the reasons stated below, we grant the motion for sanctions in part. Findings of Fact The facts surrounding this motion are not in dispute. STA's counsel, without first contacting any other parties, himself redacted and released discovery responses to the president of his client. In addition, STA's counsel released to his client his own redacted version of the record submissions without first notifying other counsel. CNS and GCS claim that confidential, proprietary information was released to STA and have asked the Board to impose sanctions. Respondent agrees that protected material was disclosed to STA, but withdrew its request for sanctions in light of the lack of harm to the Government. Letter to the Board from F. Jefferson Hughes, Esq., dated Feb. 24, 1995. From the Government's perspective, counsel improperly disclosed the identity of two companies which followed the labor rates from the statement of work, the grouping of all the technical scores for all procurements within a specific point range, and a statement by the source selection official about the specific weaknesses in CNS' proposals that she found significant. Letter to the Board from F. Jefferson Hughes, Esq., dated Jan. 12, 1995. The Government requests that the information revealed to STA be released to all other parties in anticipation of the eventual recompetition of these procurements. Id. GCS claimed that the following proprietary information was improperly disclosed to STA: Letter to the Board from Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., dated Jan. 15, 1995. CNS complained of the following disclosures to STA: Letter to the Board from Alan M. Grayson, Esq., dated Feb. 16, 1995. Counsel for STA stated that immediately upon becoming aware of other counsel's concerns, he retrieved all of the redacted copies from STA and made sure no further dissemination had occurred. Letters to the Board from Frank D. Pulis, Esq., dated Jan. 12, 1995, and Jan. 13, 1995. Two individuals at STA, Mr. Ben and Mr. Huffman, had received copies. STA's counsel also apologized to the Board in the event that he inadvertently and unintentionally violated the Board's protective order. Discussion Counsel for GCS requests that the identical information that was disclosed to STA be disclosed to GCS. Letter to the Board from Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., dated Feb. 15, 1995. CNS argues that the disclosure cited above informs STA of the means by which CNS formulated the prices offered for each labor category. CNS requests that STA be precluded from participating in the anticipated reprocurement for the contract awarded under RFP 52RANR400004. Letter to the Board from Alan M. Grayson, Esq., dated Feb. 16, 1995. Counsel for CNS also requests that identical material disclosed to STA be disclosed to the other offerors. Id. STA's counsel does not oppose the request that the identical information be disclosed to all offerors. Letter to the Board from Frank D. Pulis, Esq., dated Feb. 17, 1995. Counsel for STA proposed that CNS and other offerors be furnished identical material concerning STA's wage rates and proposed the following language: Id. Counsel for STA, however, objects to CNS' request that STA be excluded from the reprocurement. Counsel for STA violated the protective order by taking it upon himself to redact other parties' submissions and release them to his client without first obtaining the approval of the other parties and the Board. Executone Information Systems, Inc. v. Department of Health and Human Services, GSBCA 12402-P, 94-1 BCA 26,274, 1994 BPD 45. In the instant case, some of the information disclosed to counsel's client was proprietary or procurement-sensitive. While the disclosure did not adversely impact the instant procurements given that the Board denied the protests and no additional evaluation or competition will occur, the information could give STA a competitive advantage in future procurements. Therefore, the request of the parties that the identical information disclosed to STA as well as a description of the development of STA's labor rates be disclosed to their clients is GRANTED. Specifically, the following information may be disclosed to all parties of record in these protests: The Board accepts counsel for STA's representation that he requested his client to return all such protected material to him upon receipt of the other parties' request for sanctions. Given the circumstances, the Board now authorizes counsel for STA to release this same information to his client. Further, counsel for STA is admonished for failing to abide by the Board's protective order, and he is cautioned that in the future he is not to disclose any protected information of another party to his client without first obtaining such other party's consent or the approval of the Board. Decision CNS' and GCS' requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART as described above. CNS' request that STA be excluded from a related Department of Commerce procurement under RFP number 52RANR400004 is DENIED. _____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge