Neustar Criticizes ‘Neither Fair Nor Transparent’ Number Portability RFP Extension

April 5 was the original deadline to submit RFPs to be the next Local Number Portability Administrator (LNPA). Neustar -- the LNPA through 2015 -- met the deadline, which it said wasn’t particularly demanding given the size and complexity of the project. Nearly two weeks later, on April 17, NAPM extended the deadline to April 22. “All firms, including those that have not previously filed, are free to submit, resubmit, or make any adjustments to any portion of their proposals” already filed, NAPM said (http://bit.ly/11Hw8b4). It did not provide an explanation.

"NAPM and the Commission have consistently emphasized the importance of establishing fair and transparent procedures for the submission of bids,” Neustar wrote (http://bit.ly/11HxhiO). “The decision to extend the deadline, however, was neither fair nor transparent. To the contrary, the decision gives rise to concerns about the ability of one or more bidders to obtain favorable action based on undisclosed communications with the NAPM or with regulators.” Telcordia, the other company that has actively expressed interest to the FCC in competing for the number administrator position, did not comment.

NAPM co-Chair Timothy Decker of Verizon referred our inquiries to NAPM’s outside counsel, Dan Sciullo of Berenbaum Weinshienk. Sciullo declined to explain why the deadline was extended, or whether the extension will affect the rest of the schedule going forward. “The North American Portability Management LLC adheres to a policy of not responding to requests for public comment,” he said by email. A timeline on the NAPM website lists Aug. 5 as the date that the Future of Number Portability Administration Center [NPAC] subcommittee will submit its recommendations to the FCC. The Wireline Bureau is still scheduled to approve vendor selection for all regions by Sept. 20.

It’s not clear why the deadline was extended, a Neustar spokeswoman told us. No one contacted Neustar about the impending extension, she said; the company didn’t find out until after it was extended. The extension is “inexplicable in light of the more-than-ample notice that all parties had concerning the RFP requirements and the proposal-submission process to be followed,” Neustar wrote. Neustar is also unclear on whether the FCC had anything to do with the decision to extend the deadline, the spokeswoman said. If the commission did ask NAPM to extend the deadline, that action would raise the Administrative Procedure Act and due process concerns, Neustar said. An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

The extension also raises “significant concern” that Neustar’s bid -- sealed under a nondisclosure agreement -- might be disclosed, the company said. Although the RFP process is confidential, by giving potential bidders 17 additional days to prepare their proposals, that “greatly increases the risk that competitors may have become aware of sensitive aspects of Neustar’s bid, including as a result of inadvertent disclosures, prior to the submission of proposals at the extended deadline,” Neustar said. “NAPM and the Commission should provide assurances that information concerning submitted proposals has not been compromised."

More fundamentally, if any company actually needed more than 60 days to respond to the RFP, that doesn’t bode well for their potential as a number portability administrator, Neustar said. “Given the critical role that NPAC administration plays in our telecommunications infrastructure and in promoting competition among communications service providers -- and the level of technical expertise that NPAC administration demands -- NAPM and the FCC should not entrust NPAC administration to any company unable even to meet the deadline for submission of a proposal.”