CONTRACT FOUL

News that the federal government has renewed its contract with WorldCom rightly comes as a disappointment to industry observers of all stripes. One can't help but wonder if simple convenience played a roll in this decision: After all, WorldCom can still provide services, and awarding the contract to a new carrier would be a complicated task — ergo, stick with WorldCom. Such an approach would be acceptable at a business, where the task is, and should be, to make money. But the facts of WorldCom's situation and the reality of who is awarding the contract argue that convenience should be sacrificed for propriety. WorldCom recently announced that its total restatements may top $9 billion, a figure most people — even the ones who actually have that much money — can't really conceive of. It's also a figure that almost certainly results from the actions of more people than the half dozen or so who have left WorldCom because of the scandal. Of course, when discussing the subject of WorldCom, it's a given that the collective desire for punishment comes into play. But the desire for justice, and even charity, should also play a role. It's obvious that every new customer win matters to today's carriers. The money from government contracts should go to a carrier that has a chance to survive without having wiped out its workers' 401(k) plans. The money from the government — which, as more people have realized over the past 14 months, is more than just a collection of agencies and carries a certain amount of prestige and symbolic importance — should go to a carrier that has played by the rules.