FCW Insider

Blog archive

Why you don't have Networx answers

We don't often talk about what we have to do to go about getting a story. I generally believe that you don't care -- nor should you. You care about the story itself. But the Networx-Treasury TCE case is interesting because there are real questions about the impending Networx contract, and yet we -- you -- don't have answers.

Some background: Literally just before the holiday, Treasury announced that it was going to dump TCE and go with Networx. Treasury was getting all sorts of pressure to go with a governmentwide telecom contract rather than the agency-only route.

Yet from the time Treasury made its announcement that it was killing TCE, GSA officials have deferred all questions -- and there are real questions -- that the agreement with Treasury has raised.

Yet GSA has essentially outsourced discussions about Networx to Treasury -- an agency that doesn't really care about the viability of Networx, when it comes right down to it.

I understand that GSA and Treasury have essentially agreed that Treasury will address questions about TCE. I'm perplexed by such an agreement -- why would one agree not to talk about something that is so vital to the agency.

But more to the point, when it comes down to it,TCE is really a sidebar. The real story is what this means for Networx. Government agencies and potential Networx vendors are interested and concerned about Networx and what the Treasury deal means for Networx. The bottom line is that people have questions about Networx, not TCE, and I don't understand why GSA would not want to be a part of that discussion.

I actually reached out to GSA and urged them to talk about Networx -- to get them to address the questions swirlling around.

They asked me to send them some questions and here is what I sent:

The general questions are about the viability of Networx given the concessions that have been made to Treasury. Is Nexworx still viable for GSA?

Will this essentially set the management fee for this contract? Does this agreement cause any shifting in how the agency proceeds with Networx?

GSA's response:

Networx is indeed still viable regardless of our MOA with Treasury and we don't anticipate this agreement affecting anything in our transition process as we work with our federal customers to transition from FTS2001 to Networx. Let me research the management fee question and get back to you.

As I mentioned previously, we have FOIAed the GSA-Treasury agreement. Needless to say, we don't yet have it. It must be tasty if they won't release it, right?

Doan speaks out in Vegas today, so we'll see if she says something.

Posted by Christopher Dorobek on Jan 11, 2007 at 12:16 PM


  • Contracting
    8 prototypes of the border walls as tweeted by CBP San Diego

    DHS contractors face protests – on the streets

    Tech companies are facing protests internally from workers and externally from activists about doing for government amid controversial policies like "zero tolerance" for illegal immigration.

  • Workforce
    By Mark Van Scyoc Royalty-free stock photo ID: 285175268

    At OPM, Weichert pushes direct hire, pay agent changes

    Margaret Weichert, now acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, is clearing agencies to make direct hires in IT, cyber and other tech fields and is changing pay for specialized occupations.

  • Cloud
    Shutterstock ID ID: 222190471 By wk1003mike

    IBM protests JEDI cloud deal

    As the deadline to submit bids on the Pentagon's $10 billion, 10-year warfighter cloud deal draws near, IBM announced a legal protest.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.