Neustar, Telcordia Battle Over LNPA Bidding Process
Neustar and Telcordia want the FCC to step in to clarify the timeline for the local number portability administrator bidding process. In dueling ex parte filings, the companies traded accusations about the other’s commitment to a fair and impartial process. Neustar wants the FCC to ensure there will be multiple rounds of bidding; Telcordia wants the FCC to make the bidding schedule clear and grant it access to some of Neustar’s redacted filings.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Both companies urged the FCC to “restore transparency” and fairness to the bidding process for the administrator job, currently held by Neustar until next year. But they differ on what has caused the unfairness. To Neustar, it’s the lack of a multiple-round bidding process. To Telcordia, doing business as iconectiv, it’s the possibility that Neustar might have obtained confidential information about where it stands relative to the other bidders. That’s the only plausible reason Neustar could want the chance to submit another proposal, Telcordia has said in ex parte filings this week.
"The timing of Neustar’s sudden request for a second round of [Best and Final Offers] -- and its inability to provide any rational explanation for that request -- strongly suggest that Neustar has obtained confidential, non-public information about its competitive standing and price relative to the other bidders,” Telcordia said in an ex parte filing Thursday (http://bit.ly/1fXUG7S). “Allowing Neustar to submit a new BAFO with the benefit of such information would be highly prejudicial to Telcordia and any other bidders participating in the competition. The solution is easy: The Commission can simply make award based on existing proposals. Under these circumstances, that is the only way to ensure the integrity of the competitive process."
Telcordia’s accusation is incorrect, a Neustar spokesman said, denying it has obtained confidential information. The way Neustar sees it, there have always been multiple rounds in past re-negotiations on the contract, he said. It’s true that in the draft request for proposals, published in August 2012, there was an explicit statement that there would be one round, the spokesman said. But “when the RFP was published in January of 2013, that sentence was taken out,” he said: That was a “signal” to Neustar that there would be multiple rounds.
Neustar submitted an unsolicited revised bid proposal in October, based in part on the “newfound emphasis emerging on the IP transition,” as well as the example set by the Healthcare.gov debacle, which made “very clear that the ultimate decision on which vendor should be selected should have, as a part of that decision, a validation of the qualifications of the vendor to be able to do this important task,” the spokesman said. If Telcordia is opposed to an additional round of bids, the spokesman said, that would suggest several things: Telcordia doesn’t want the industry to “make the best technical selection at the most advantageous value”; it doesn’t want a “thorough analysis of hidden costs”; and it doesn’t want an “apples to apples comparison of what services are provided.” Neustar has asked the commission to resolve the question of whether there should be an additional round of offers (CD Feb 5 p14).
"Of course Neustar now denies that it received inside information, but it has yet to provide any credible alternative explanation,” said Telcordia attorney John Nakahata of Wiltshire Grannis. “Telcordia supports the FCC making the best choice for consumers, with input from the industry and the state regulators on the [North American Numbering Council], through a fair competitive bidding process. But a process in which one party may have received inside information and then seeks to change its bids cannot be fair. And, since each bidder responded to the same RFP, the comparison of solutions and costs is apples-to-apples by definition, for evaluation against the RFP’s stated criteria."
Telcordia asked the commission to publish an anticipated schedule for award so prospective vendors can adequately plan and prepare for implementation and performance. “Delay in doing so -- and delay in making an award -- prejudice all non-incumbents, who must incur costs to be ready to implement and perform, without being able to support those costs from an ongoing NPAC contract,” Telcordia said.
Telcordia has also accused Neustar of discussing the terms of its revised bid in a call with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. That’s based on review of a redacted letter Neustar filed with the agency, said Telcordia in a Wednesday ex parte filing (http://bit.ly/1fXVw4s). “To the extent Neustar did so, it would have further prejudiced Telcordia and other bidders.” Telcordia asked for access to the unredacted version of that letter “to permit counsel for Telcordia adequately to represent it and to evaluate the extent of prejudice from Neustar’s unilateral actions.” The Neustar spokesman declined to comment on the allegations in that filing. “There will be a response likely filed, and I don’t want to presuppose what will be in that communication,” the spokesman said.