By James Mitchell, FirstNet Director of Program Management

Last week at the International Wireless Communications Expo (IWCE), I was fortunate enough to speak at and participate in some of the many FirstNet panels. It was a great opportunity to provide an update on the status of FirstNet’s Request for Proposals (RFP) and to answer questions from public and private sector stakeholders similar to the 400+ questions we answered over the last month and the 650+ questions we answered last year regarding the draft RFP documents.  While I have spent much time over the past few weeks in crowded rooms talking about different aspects of the RFP, one topic that has repeatedly cropped up is the dreaded “R” word:  requirements.

Despite our best efforts, some still think we’ve hidden a series of requirements in the RFP to gear the solution to one corner of industry or that we have a specific outcome in mind that can only be achieved by meeting these imaginary requirements. The simple fact is we have an objectives-based RFP, including 16 objectives, for Offerors to address in their proposals. We even ask for a Performance Work Statement in Section L (Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents) of the RFP so that Offerors have the freedom and flexibility to produce truly innovative solutions and approaches for the network.

Take the Initial Operational Capability (IOC)/Final Operational Capability (FOC) milestones, for instance (see Section J, Attachment J-8, IOC/FOC Target Timeline).  We’ve laid out a target, notional schedule for deployment over the first five years of the contract with benchmarks for coverage and service identified at the nationwide level.  We’ve also provided an embedded schedule that details state Radio Access Network (RAN) deployment.  Once again, these are notional timelines for the Offeror to propose against, and not a firm schedule.  Again, this approach affords Offerors the flexibility and opportunity to innovate around a schedule for deploying the nationwide solution.

If we had written a requirements-based RFP, we would have broken the IOC/FOC into a complex series of nationwide delivery requirements by milestone, and then again by each of the 56 states and territories.  FirstNet essentially would have been telling industry experts that: 1) we expect Offerors to meet the demands of the Government by adhering to the schedule, 2) we won’t pay Offerors until they deliver on the milestones we have established, 3) we don’t want any more than what we have asked for in the RFP, and 4) even if Offerors have a different model, it doesn’t matter, this is how we require them to do business.

In contrast, by developing an objectives-based RFP, we are instead asking industry experts: 1) to propose a schedule that gets FirstNet to each of the outcomes inherent in our objectives, 2) to propose the milestones upon which payment would be delivered, 3) if you can do more, please tell us, and 4) if there exists an approach objectively greater than the one we listed in the RFP, by all means, propose it. 

In fact, that’s been our position since we released the Request for Information (RFI) with the Statement of Objectives (SOO) back in September 2014.  It’s also consistent with the one we released with the draft RFP documents in April 2015.  We actively sought input from industry, public safety, and other stakeholders on these objectives so we could determine the feasibility of our approach.  We believe we established reasonable objectives by using this process, and we believe stakeholders—industry and public safety alike—feel similarly as the objectives have remained largely unchanged since their unveiling in 2014.

With this RFP, there’s an opportunity to deliver something truly great for public safety.  Anything else would just be “business as usual” for the Government, and FirstNet is anything but business as usual.

Thanks
-James