January 26, 2021

Via ECFS Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 45 L Street, NE Washington, DC 20554

Re: Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, CC Dkt. 92-237; Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Dkt. 99-200; Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Dkt. 17-59

Dear Ms. Dortch: One of the stated objectives of the Commission’s decision to consolidate the Administrator roles for the North American Numbering Plan (NANPA) and number pooling (PA) was the expectation that such a move would result in cost reductions that would be passed on to the companies that pay to support these functions and, ultimately, on to American consumers.1 Unfortunately, the Commission’s recently completed solicitation and award not only resulted in an increase over the amount previously assessed the industry for these roles, but actually rejected ’s superior bid on the grounds that, in effect, it was too much lower than what had been historically charged by the incumbent providers.2 Based on information provided by the Commission as part of the post-award debrief, iconectiv’s bid for the consolidated NANPA/PA portion of the solicitation was more than 50% less than the winning bid. 3 And for the total solicitation, which includes the Reassigned Numbers Database, iconectiv’s bid was more than 40% less than the winning bid. These tens of

1 In the Matter of Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Dkt. 99-200, Order, FCC 18-88, at para. 6 (rel. July 9, 2018) (“NANPA/PA Consolidation Order”) (“Consolidating these contracts and combining the functions of the NANPA and the PA will simplify and increase the operational efficiency of numbering resources administration for both service providers and regulators”) (ref. Ltr. From Laura Dalton et al., Co-Chairs, Numbering Oversight Working Group, to Betty Ann Kane, Chair, North American Numbering Council, at 1, 3 (Nov. 28, 2012)). 2 See, FCC Release dated Dec. 1, 2020, FCC Select SOMOSGOV as Next Telephone Number Administrator and Reassigned Numbers Database Administrator (available at DOC-368493A1.pdf (fcc.gov). 3 Letter from Kadian Ferguson, Contracting Officer, to David Wilson, iconectiv LLC, Reference: 273FCC20R0007, North American Numbering Plan Administrator, Pooling Administrator and Reassigned Numbers Database Administrator (NANPA/PA/RNDA) – Post Award debriefing pursuant to FAR 15.506 (December 17, 2020) (“Post Award Debriefing Letter”).

100 Somerset Corporate Blvd, Bridgewater, NJ 08807

millions of dollars in additional costs will now need to be recovered from the users of these services, most notably companies and their customers. As detailed in the Post Award Debriefing Letter, we were informed that the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) determined that iconectiv’s estimate of effort/labor hours used in its bid was deemed unacceptable because it was significantly lower than those in the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) developed for purposes of this procurement. It was further explained that the IGCE was based largely upon historical data provided by the long-term incumbent that operated the databases for nearly twenty years, as well as from the awardee who took over these functions on a bridge basis.4 In sum, iconectiv’s bid seems to have been disqualified on the basis that the TET rejected our experienced determination that significant efficiencies could be realized in the operation of the NANPA/PA contract compared to the operations of prior incumbents without impacting service quality. As iconectiv demonstrated in its bid, as well as in analogous contexts, benchmarking required effort to perform these contracts based upon the longstanding incumbent’s historical data would be a clear error. That provider, , served as both the NANPA and PA virtually from the inception of those services with little or no competitive pressure to incent increased efficiency. iconectiv’s determination that these contracts could be performed more efficiently and at lower cost than this historical benchmark was not speculative or uninformed. To the contrary, it was based upon our experience with these systems and other similar ones, and our demonstrated history of successfully providing savings to the industry on analogous contracts. In particular, our bid was informed by iconectiv (formerly known as Telcordia) having served as the NANPA prior to the introduction of pooling and the expertise of iconectiv staff who formerly co-chaired the NANC oversight working group for NANPA and PA. As the Commission is well aware, iconectiv currently serves as the Administrator (LNPA). Similar to the NANPA/PA, Neustar had served as the incumbent LNPA for two decades until iconectiv won the contract after petitioning the Commission to hold a competitive bidding process. And as with the NANPA/PA, iconectiv identified efficiencies that allowed it to lower the cost of providing the LNPA service by over 60% from what the incumbent had been charging the industry.5 Moreover, iconectiv was able to achieve these efficiencies while managing an extremely complex transition and receiving very high customer satisfaction ratings throughout the two and a half years it has served as LNPA. iconectiv also acts as contractor to the FCC to provide -based Telecommunications Relay Services for which the FCC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) overseeing that

4 Id. 5 See, e.g., Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Petition to Reform Amendment 57 and to Order a Competitive Bidding Process for Number Portability Administration, WC Dkt 07-149, Order, FCC 15-34 (rel. Mar. 27, 2015) (Statement of Commissioner Pai).

100 Somerset Corporate Blvd, Bridgewater, NJ 08807

contract submitted an evaluation rating iconectiv’s performance as “exceptional” for each of the evaluated criteria, including cost control and customer satisfaction. iconectiv made each of these points in its bid, but those considerations were apparently rejected by the TET in favor of the historical benchmarks. This decision is particularly difficult to understand given that the NANPA/PA/RNDB procurement is a fixed-price contract and therefor iconectiv would have borne the additional costs from any error in its estimations of work effort while still being obligated to meet all requirements in the contract, including service level standards. Finally, as noted above, one of the key drivers for the decision to consolidate the NANPA and PA was the expectation stated by both the Commission and its expert advisory committee, the North American Numbering Council (NANC), that efficiencies from consolidation would result in cost reductions.6 Instead, the new contract is actually 4% more than the bridge contract for the NANPA/PA services which, notably, was 20% more than the prior pre- consolidation long term contract. In short, we believe the Commission has lost an opportunity to reduce by many millions of dollars the annual assessment on the industry and consumers of telecommunications services. This letter is being filed electronically in the dockets identified above. Please feel free to contact Glenn Reynolds at 202-579-4205 if staff has questions about this filing or wishes to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,

Tara O’Neill Diaz EVP & General Counsel iconectiv, LLC

6 NANPA/PA Consolidation Order at paras. 6-7. Indeed, iconectiv staff served on the NANC working group that developed the recommendation to consolidate the NANPA and PA, further informing our understanding of the effort involved in those services and the efficiencies available from consolidation.

100 Somerset Corporate Blvd, Bridgewater, NJ 08807