What could go wrong? Here are some sources of potential unwanted delays in FirstNet deployment
What is in this article?
- What could go wrong? Here are some sources of potential unwanted delays in FirstNet deployment
- What could go wrong? Here are some sources of potential unwanted delays in FirstNet deployment
- What could go wrong? Here are some sources of potential unwanted delays in FirstNet deployment
- What could go wrong? Here are some sources of potential unwanted delays in FirstNet deployment
What could go wrong? Here are some sources of potential unwanted delays in FirstNet deployment
To be clear, my hope is that the FirstNet procurement proceeds smoothly, with all processes being followed properly—executing this correctly is far more important than meeting a timeline goal—and that the deployment phases can be implemented as outlined in the RFP. But many people have asked me what could prevent that from happening, so here is a summary of some of the most-discussed sources of potential FirstNet delays:
Procurement protests: For those familiar with public-safety communications, this is not a new concept. Many of the highest-profile procurements in recent years have been protested for a variety of reasons, ranging from perceived procedural snafus and legal/regulatory mistakes to allegations of favoritism to a particular bidder. The idea that a vendor might protest the FirstNet award has been a source of speculation for years; some even have proposed that some bids might be submitted simply to have the standing necessary to file a protest.
Of course, there must be grounds for a protest. To the credit of those involved in the FirstNet RFP evaluation, there have been no information leaks about the process, which is supposed to remain secret. In fact, until pdvWireless submitted its SEC filing two weeks ago acknowledging that its bidding team was no longer being considered, sources were unsure what stage of the evaluation process was being executed.
One longstanding concern associated with the potential for protests is that the FirstNet RFP is an objectives-based procurement document. This has been applauded as a key reason why multiple bidding teams have submitted FirstNet proposals, but this flexibility could make it very difficult to demonstrate why one bid was picked over another, especially if both are fully compliant but propose very different business and implementation models.
I’m not very familiar with federal procurements, but multiple sources have said that such an “apples and oranges” comparison can be the source of protests, whether they are successful or not.
Opt-out decisions/legal actions: Almost from the moment FirstNet’s enabling legislation was approved by Congress, industry observers noted the potential for rollout delays caused by states or territories choosing to pursue the opt-out alternative, which requires a state to deploy its own LTE radio access network (RAN) instead of having FirstNet and its contractor build it.
The simplest course of action would be for the state plans presented by FirstNet and its contractor to be compelling enough that all governors agree to accept them. This would allow the contractor to proceed immediately with deploying the much-anticipated network, as stipulated in the RFP and the contract.
But the opt-out process is an alternative for states and territories, guaranteed by law.
FirstNet officials have indicated that they believe network deployment in an opt-out state will begin about a year later than it would if the state accepts the FirstNet buildout plan, based simply on the logistics of completing the several steps associated with the opt-out alternative. With so many variables involved, it is difficult to determine whether opt-out decisions could create delays beyond that year, but the matter has been a topic of considerable speculation.
For instance, FirstNet has issued legal interpretations surrounding the opt-out process, and the findings are not encouraging to states that want to pursue the opt-out alternative. There are a lot of nuances, but the legal interpretation essentially says that an opt-out state can only keep enough revenue from its system to pay for the cost of the network in the state; surplus revenues would need to be returned to FirstNet, presumably to help pay for network deployments in state or territories that have sparse population densities.