In closing out our discussion for the time being on defining “services” vs. “applications,” we’ll take you back to a real-world accounting of an instance in which the lack of definition of “service” caused a lot of confusion and a massive legal mess.
The micro view on the need for standardized definitions
In the years leading up to 1990, the U.S. government issued a massive RFP for a network to be known as FTS-2000. All federal agencies were to be covered by the agreement, with pretty-much mandatory use for any telecommunications services. (Oops! See “Services” already creeping in?) All of the major carriers put together bids for the network, and it was ultimately awarded to AT&T for the majority of the network and Sprint for the remainder. Other carriers, such as MCI and WorldCom, were left out.
In the agreement, the word “service” was used extensively in varying contexts without precise definition in each case. For instance, there were “Dedicated Transmission Services” – which included all types of point-to-point lines up to T-1 (at least), and then there were specific services such as 56kbps, T-1, and packet switched “services.”
The point of contention came when it was time for contract modifications and upgrades. Under the federal rules, a contract could be modified to enhance a “service.” But what was a “service”?
In particular, the modification in which Steve became involved was a modification that GSA and AT&T made to add T-3 services. (T-3 was not included in the original RFP because so few carriers were able to provide T-3 immediately.)
AT&T and GSA took a broad view of the word “service” and contended that this was an enhancement to “Dedicated Transmission Services.” MCI and WorldCom begged to differ, and took a narrow view that only specific services could be enhanced. In particular they argues that T1 service, for instance, could be enhanced, but that T-3 was fundamentally different from T-1, and so it was beyond the scope of the contract to “enhance” T-1 services by adding T-3.
It goes without saying that it would have been really nice to have the word “service” defined, and we were headed to protests over every contract modification because of this.
After an extensive hearing and ruling, and a year-long appeal, the appeals court ruled that neither side was right. In the view of the appeals court, the contract itself was the “service,” and it could be enhanced in any way that the parties desired.
Hmmm… A little definition can go a long way.
We hope that you have enjoyed this discussion, and we invite you to continue it with us at the Webtorials Public Forum.
