Item:  1
Date:  October 31, 2000

Docket: UT-991627 – Telephone Number Conservation

Staff:  David Dittemore, Telecommunications Engineer
  Betty Erdahl, Policy Research Specialist
  Glenn Blackmon, Assistant Director-Telecommunications

Recommendation:

Designate Telcordia Technologies as the interim number pooling administrator 
for Washington and direct the secretary to issue a letter requesting that North 
American Pooling Portability Management, LLC, enter into a contract with 
Telcordia Technologies consistent with its proposal.

Background

On July 20, 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted to the 
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission the authority to implement 
number conservation measures, including thousand-block number pooling.  
Thousand-block number pooling involves the allocation of blocks of one thousand 
sequential telephone numbers within the same NXX code to different service 
providers.

The authority delegated to the WUTC is interim and expires when the FCC 
implements a national number pooling program.

The FCC requires that state commissions receiving delegated number pooling 
authority select a neutral entity to administer the number pooling trial.  The 
number pooling administrator will assist the telecommunications industry in 
developing an implementation schedule (consistent with a final implementation 
date established by the WUTC) and collecting the information necessary to 
establish number pools in each rate area.  Once number pooling is implemented, 
the administrator fills requests from individual carriers for thousand-number 
blocks and maintains an adequate supply of numbering resources for each rate 
area.

WUTC Process for Selecting Administrator

Consistent with this authority, the WUTC on October 3, 2000, issued a request 
for proposals (RFP) to serve as interim number pooling administrator for 
Washington.  Bidders were to base their proposals on the Generic Pooling Plan 
for Washington developed by the Washington Exchange Carrier Association 
pursuant to an earlier order in this docket.  The request for proposals 
included detailed information on the scope of work to be performed and the way 
in which technical, management, and cost criteria would be evaluated.


Once selected, the interim number pooling administrator will be paid, 
consistent with its proposal, by telecommunications companies using numbering 
resources within the state of Washington.  The pooling administrator contract 
will be negotiated through the North American Portability Management, LLC 
(NAPM).

Evaluation of Proposals

Two firms, Telcordia Technologies and NeuStar, Inc., submitted proposals.  On 
October 24, 2000, WUTC staff interviewed each firm. Staff met with each firm 
for about three hours to hear their oral presentations and to ask questions.  
Based on the written proposals and the interviews, Staff evaluated each of the 
proposals according to the criteria set out in the WUTC’s request for 
proposals.  The evaluations in each category are set out below:

Category	Possible Points	Telcordia Technologies	NeuStar, Inc.
Technical Proposal	60	60	52
Management Proposal	50	44	47
Cost Proposal	90	90	0
Total	200	194	99

Staff found both firms to be highly qualified to perform the work of number 
pooling administration.  The major difference in the two proposals was cost.  
Both firms included one-time costs for establishing number pools in each area 
code and costs for each request for numbers made by a service provider.  In 
each category of cost, Telcordia Technologies proposed significantly lower 
costs.  Based on the evaluation criteria, the difference in cost was such that 
NeuStar received zero points in this category.

A more detailed evaluation of the proposals is attached.

Summary

Selection of a number pooling administrator is an important step in 
establishing a more efficient use of telephone numbers in Washington and 
delaying the need for additional area codes.  With this action, Washington will 
be on track to have number pooling implemented before the 564 overlay area code 
is introduced in October 2001.  Staff recommends that the WUTC select Telcordia 
Technologies and request NAPM to negotiate a contract for number pooling 
administration.

      WUTC Staff Evaluation
Of Number Pooling Administration Proposals
October 25, 2000

1. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL  (60 POINTS OF TOTAL)

A. Project Approach/Methodology (10 POINTS POSSIBLE) – Include a complete 
description of the Consultant’s proposed approach and methodology for the 
project.   This section should convey Consultant’s understanding of the 
proposed project.

Although Neustar has been providing the service to this point, it was troubling 
to the staff that their organization depended on “Spreadsheet” technology.   
Telcordia’s presentation demonstrated that they would maintain a database, a 
level of technology above the “spreadsheet” technology.   It explained why 
Telcordia could operate more efficiently, and have current data always 
available to staff and users.   Telcordia made a very good demonstration of 
their complete system, including the views that the administrators of the 
system would be using, to explain their operation.   They have used the 
resources of their large organization to develop a superior system.

Score= Telcordia - 10; Neustar - 7


B. Work Plan (30 POINTS POSSIBLE) - Include all project requirements and the 
proposed tasks, services, activities, etc. necessary to accomplish the scope of 
the project defined in this RFP.  This section of the technical proposal must 
contain sufficient detail to convey to members of the evaluation team the 
Consultant’s knowledge of the subjects and skills necessary to successfully 
complete the project.  Include any required involvement of AGENCY or NAPM 
staff.  The Consultant may also present any creative approaches that might be 
appropriate and may provide any pertinent supporting documentation.

Here again, staff thought that Telcordia’s data base technology, implemented 
with Web access for data input and viewing of current reports, would provide 
better operation of our Pooling Trial.   We did credit Neustar for proposing a 
combined Implementation meeting for all western Washington area codes.

Score= Telcordia - 30; Neustar - 25


C. Project Schedule (10 POINTS POSSIBLE) - Include a project schedule 
indicating when the elements of the work will be completed and when 
deliverables, if any, will be provided.

We thought both firms showed an understanding of the requested schedule.  Both 
firms showed a willingness to modify the schedule, including the order in which 
area codes or metropolitan areas are implemented, as circumstances change.
Score= Telcordia - 10, Neustar - 10



D. Deliverables (10 POINTS POSSIBLE) – Fully describe deliverables to be 
submitted under the proposed contract.

We also saw that both parties had a good understanding of all steps required to 
implement our project.   
Score= Telcordia - 10; Neustar - 10



2. MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL

A. Project Management (50 POINTS OF TOTAL)

1. Project Team Structure/Internal Controls (10 POINTS POSSIBLE) - Provide a 
description of the proposed project team structure and internal controls to be 
used during the course of the project, including any subcontractors. Provide an 
organizational chart of your firm indicating lines of authority for personnel 
involved in performance of this potential contract and relationships of this 
staff to other programs or functions of the firm.  This chart must also show 
lines of authority to the next senior level of management.  Include who within 
the firm will have prime responsibility and final authority for the work.

Staff felt that Telcordia’s depth of resources and personnel was superior to 
Neustar’s.  

Score= Telcordia - 10, Neustar - 9


2. Staff Qualifications/Experience  (10 POINTS POSSIBLE)- Identify staff, 
including subcontractors, who will be assigned to the potential contract, 
indicating the responsibilities and qualifications of such personnel, and 
include the amount of time each will be assigned to the project.  Provide 
resumes' for the named staff, which include information on the individual’s 
particular skills related to this project, education, experience, significant 
accomplishments and any other pertinent information. The Consultant must commit 
that staff identified in its proposal will actually perform the assigned work.  
Any staff substitution must have the prior approval of the AGENCY.

Neustar has had more actual experience in Pooling.  They have an experienced 
staff that have worked in all facets of this area.  Telcordia’s experience, 
while not specifically with number pooling, is similar.  Telcordia provided 
more information in a non-confidential form, which demonstrated an 
understanding of the need for public process and open records.

Score= Telcordia - 8; Neustar - 10






B. Experience of the Consultant (30 POINTS POSSIBLE)  

1.  Indicate the experience the Consultant and any subcontractors have in the 
following areas:  Providing number or database administrative services within a 
competitive, multi-firm industry.  

As indicated above, Telcordia has more database administration experience.  In 
addition, staff noted that Telcordia had its software quality control certified 
by an outside organization.

Score= Telcordia - 10; Neustar - 8

2.  Indicate other relevant experience that indicates the qualifications of the 
Consultant, and any subcontractors, for the performance of the potential 
contract.

Neustar’s operation of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator is 
closely related to the Pooling function.   

Score= Telcordia - 8; Neustar - 10

3. Include a list of contracts the Consultant has had during the last five 
years that relate to the Consultant’s ability to perform the services needed 
under this RFP.  List contract reference numbers, contract period of 
performance, contact persons, telephone numbers, and fax numbers/e-mail 
addresses.

Neustar has administered Pooling Trials in several states to this point.  
However, Telcordia has only recently re-entered this field and performed 
similar work as national number plan administrator.   Telcordia has been 
selected as Pooling Administrator recently in Tennessee.

Score= Telcordia - 8, Neustar - 10


C. References (10 POINTS OF TOTAL)

List names, addresses, telephone numbers, and fax numbers/e-mail addresses of 
three business references for whom work has been accomplished and briefly 
describe the type of service provided.  The Consultant must grant permission to 
the AGENCY to contact the references.  Do not include current AGENCY staff as 
references.  References will be contacted for the top-scoring proposal(s) 
only.  

Both vendors submitted adequate references.

Score= Telcordia - 10; Neustar - 10






3. COST PROPOSAL (90 POINTS POSSIBLE)

Telcordia’s costs were significantly below Neustar’s.  This included both the 
charge for establishing pools in each rate center of an area code and the 
charge for requesting a block of numbers once the pools are running.  Under the 
evaluation criteria, the higher-cost bidder would get zero points if its cost 
proposal were more than twice the lower-cost bidder’s proposal.

Score= Telcordia - 90; Neustar - 0